JCPSLP Vol 18 No 3 2016

115 / 156

JCPSLP Volume 18, Number 3 2016 113
in the research. PRG members sought reassurance from
the primary author that their workplaces would not be
identified in the research, nor would the research require the
participation of clients receiving their services. The criticality
of maintaining the confidentiality of research participants
and of discussing with research participants how their
engagement in the research may impact them was
highlighted here. Further, in international contexts, language
and cultural differences have the potential to impact
understanding of research proposals and outcomes even
when presented in participants’ primary language (Brydon,
2006). A critical role for the PRG was highlighted here as
members guided the primary author through this process
so as to ensure safety in the conduct of the research.
Conclusion
This paper has described three cycles of one phase of a
cross-cultural project in which participatory research
methodology is being used to support international
research in a majority world context. Interviews occurred at
24 months post-graduation to identify the nature of the
graduates’ professional practice, a PRG was established to
guide the future research, and exploration of professional
issues the PRG wished to investigate further was
commenced. The engagement of the SLP graduates and
primary author as co-researchers facilitated mutual
learnings. The vital role of the interpreter as a member of
the research team, the importance of repeated discussion
of concepts to clarify understanding, and the impact of
technology and local context upon communication and
collaboration have been identified. The criticality of
establishing open communication was highlighted in
discussion of ethics and safety in research. Speech-
language pathologists seeking to support service
development in underserved and/or majority world contexts
are encouraged to forge partnerships with international
colleagues that arise from collaboration and support mutual
learnings, for it will be within these contexts that initiatives
may best meet the unique needs of culture and context.
The next cycles in this research are evolving; and, it is
anticipated that further inquiry into the barriers to the
professional practice of SLP in Vietnam and actions to
support this practice will follow. Opportunity will also be
afforded for ongoing exploration of the dynamic of
collaboration between the members of the PRG and
primary author within a cross-cultural context.
Declaration of interest
The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors
alone are responsible for the content and writing of this
paper.
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the contribution of the
Participatory Research Group to this research. The
contribution of Speech Pathology Australia through its 2014
Higher Degree Student Research Grant, and the support of
the United Vietnamese Buddhist Congregation of Victoria,
Quang Minh Temple, are also acknowledged.
1 The terms “minority world” and “majority world” are frequently
used in the literature to replace phrases such as developed/
underdeveloped countries, North/South, First World/Third World
countries, industrialised/ emerging nations.
2 A further 15 students graduated in 2014.
3 In Vietnam, the profession of SLP is known as speech therapy.
PAR has been described as a “messy process”
(Primavera & Brodsky, 2004), requiring participants to not
only conduct the research, but to learn from it and adapt
as it progresses. The face-to-face meetings were a vehicle
through which to address some of this uncertainty, and
aimed to assist PRG members become more comfortable
about this “messiness”. At one of these meetings, the
PRG developed their own representation of this research
process, which they described as “The fish skeleton”
(Figure 4):
So it [the research] is like a fish bone, a fish skeleton.
So there are different problems and different reasons…
they are the fish bones. The first one is overload [in
work], not enough knowledge [referring to fish bone
number two]. There are many problems and many
reasons and we will look at that to prioritise which
ones, and then we come up with solutions. And then
which solution will resolve number one, number two,
number three… (Ms Tran summarising)
So you might come up with a solution for a problem
and try it out to see if it works? (Primary author)
[Discussion between PRG members]
Yes. So they [the PRG] think “participants” defines
it very well what they are doing. Because they are
participating, they are the ones that come up with
these and these and these [referring to the numbered
fish bones], and prioritise these and come up with a
solution. And you are just supporting them. (Ms Tran
summarising)
1 2 3
4 5 6
Figure 4. The fish skeleton
It was within these discussions that the title of the PRG
was raised. The primary author had previously proposed
that the PRG be referred to as the “Advisory Group”.
However the group indicated that this was not a suitable
term. As summarised by Ms Tran:
For research, “advisory group” is not something that
exists in the Vietnamese research. If you do the literal
translation of advisory group, this means that people
are higher than you are, telling you/advising you what
to do, so that’s not right in the Vietnamese context.
They [PRG members] say they are part of the research,
they are participating. So that describes the role very
well.
The term “participants” was agreed to and the term
Participatory Research Group (PRG) adopted.
Another important outcome from this cycle of the
research was discussion pertaining to issues of ethics in
international research (for further detail regarding ethical
considerations in international research, see Australian
Council for International Development, 2016). Several of
the PRG members reported their workplace directors had
requested information about the role of PRG members