4.6 Review

How is Etuaptmumk/Two-Eyed Seeing characterized in Indigenous health research? A scoping review

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 16, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254612

关键词

-

资金

  1. Tier II Canada Research Chair in Indigenous Peoples' Health and Well-Being through the Canada Research Chairs Program [CRC-2016-00076]
  2. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [APP268899]
  3. Canadian Institutes of Health Researcher's Institute of Aboriginal People's Health [CIHR/383832]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This scoping review examines the description of Two-Eyed Seeing in Indigenous health research by comparing original authors with new authors, identifying seven categories of its meaning, discussing inconsistencies between the two groups, important observations, and reflections drawn from the review process. It aims to contribute to a broader dialogue on the understanding of Two-Eyed Seeing in Indigenous health research and promote thoughtful and rich descriptions of this guiding principle.
Our scoping review sought to consider how Etuaptmumk or Two-Eyed Seeing is described in Indigenous health research and to compare descriptions of Two-Eyed Seeing between original authors (Elders Albert and Murdena Marshall, and Dr. Cheryl Bartlett) and new authors. Using the JBI scoping review methodology and qualitative thematic coding, we identified seven categories describing the meaning of Two-Eyed Seeing from 80 articles: guide for life, responsibility for the greater good and future generations, co-learning journey, multiple or diverse perspectives, spirit, decolonization and self-determination, and humans being part of ecosystems. We discuss inconsistencies between the original and new authors, important observations across the thematic categories, and our reflections from the review process. We intend to contribute to a wider dialogue about how Two-Eyed Seeing is understood in Indigenous health research and to encourage thoughtful and rich descriptions of the guiding principle.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据