Thus, the Indigenous pre-conference was less important for identifying Indigenous evaluation methods than it was for cultivating cultural humility among both Native participants and the non-Native workshop faculty and staff in efforts to find common ground between the implementation evidence base and the academic evidence base and build trust. Part of finding this common ground was the tribal participants finding their own value in publishing. While the “publish

or perish” motivation was not applicable to them, the responsibility to share what they’d learned with other tribes for the www.selleckchem.com/products/pifithrin-alpha.html benefit of Native people was applicable and recognizing that responsibility created value in publishing for many of them. The non-Native academic faculty and staff reported that the pre-conference workshop served as an important opportunity for them to learn about the perspectives of the tribal participants and identify the appropriate technical assistance to provide. They had been surprised to discover the extensive, high-quality data that the tribal awardees had collected, as some of the this website tribal participants chose not to discuss their

data until they met the faculty in person and learned more about the publication process. This presented a barrier to pre-workshop technical assistance, all conducted long-distance by phone or email. Several recent studies have highlighted the importance of spending time developing ‘relational accountability’ before engaging in research/work (Ball and Janyst, 2008, Castleden et al., 2012, Pualani Louis, 2007 and Tobias et al., 2013), and this was true for this process. The development of relationships assisted more reticent tribal participants to fully engage in determining what data were useful and could be “publishable” and what story they wanted to share. The high level of implementation expertise that the tribal participants brought to the workshops required a culturally-responsive process of tapping into that MRIP expertise by translating their words, via their development of a community narrative, into the scientific manuscript format.

Thus emerged this translational process, grounded in the principles of cultural humility (Tervalon and Murray-Garcia, 1998) and participatory evaluation (Springett and Wallerstein, 2003), and depicted in Fig. 1. This model, adapted from the National Institutes of Health Centers for Population Health and Health Disparities (CPHHD) program (Holmes et al., 2008), highlights the community narrative as the central component, developed from the translation of the data analysis and writing workshops, and then used to describe the intervention and its findings in the format of a scientific manuscript. Several challenges were identified through the implementation of these trainings, including, most considerably, the high level of technical assistance support the tribal awardees needed for data analysis.