Search

This qualitative, focused critical ethnographic study explores how young people’s ‘lived SRH citizenship’ and their active roles realising their sexual and reproductive health (SRH) and rights, shape their agency and participation in decision-making in Malawi. Informed by postcolonial feminist and difference-centred citizenship theories, our findings reveal that age-based power differentials, systems of gerontocracy and a culture of adultism impede bona fide youth involvement in SRH policymaking, making young citizens’ participation more of an illusion than reality. Although democratisation and decentralisation aim to promote youth engagement, SRH policy spaces/processes lack institutionalised processes for integrating youth and remain dominated by donors and government. Collective efforts to build young citizens’ capacity and to support their engagement are essential for realising their active and meaningful participation in SRH decision-making. Recognising youth as equal members of society is vital to expose systemic gerontocracy/adultism, and democratise power to youth in Malawi, and beyond.

Background: Autism is not always considered for girls and women until later along their clinical diagnostic pathways. Misdiagnosis or late diagnosis can pose significant disadvantages with respect to accessing timely health and autism-related services and supports. Understanding what contributes to roadblocks and detours along clinical pathways to an autism diagnosis can shed light on missed opportunities for earlier recognition. Objective: Our objective was to examine what contributed to roadblocks, detours, and missed opportunities for earlier recognition and clinical diagnosis of autism for girls and women. Design: We conducted a qualitative secondary analysis using data from a Canadian primary study that examined the health and healthcare experiences of autistic girls and women through interviews and focus groups. Methods: Transcript data of 22 girls and women clinically diagnosed with autism and 15 parents were analysed, drawing on reflexive thematic analysis procedures. Techniques included coding data both inductively based on descriptions of roadblocks and detours and deductively based on conceptualizations of sex and gender. Patterns of ideas were categorized into themes and the ‘story’ of each theme was refined through writing and discussing analytic memos, reflecting on sex and gender assumptions, and creating a visual map of clinical pathways. Results: Contributing factors to roadblocks, detours, and missed opportunities for earlier recognition and diagnosis were categorized as follows: (1) age of pre-diagnosis ‘red flags’ and ‘signals’; (2) ‘non-autism’ mental health diagnoses first; (3) narrow understandings of autism based on male stereotypes; and (4) unavailable and unaffordable diagnostic services. Conclusion: Professionals providing developmental, mental health, educational, and/or employment supports can be more attuned to nuanced autism presentations. Research in collaboration with autistic girls and women and their childhood caregivers can help to identify examples of nuanced autistic features and how context plays a role in how these are experienced and navigated.

Discourses of research impact shape the ways in which critical qualitative research and researchers are evaluated in contemporary academic environments. Mainstream conceptualizations of research impact arise from a positivist perspective that challenges the aims and approaches of critical qualitative research. In this paper, we propose a framework for conceptualizing the impact of critical qualitative research on policy, practice, and science. After critiquing literature that presents mainstream views on research impact, we summarize a recent framework for conceptualizing the impact of critical research specifically. We then add to the Machen framework by highlighting the impacts of critical qualitative research on the institutions and practices of science. We provide examples of ways in which researchers at the Centre for Critical Qualitative Health Research at the University of Toronto have made contributions to the impact of critical qualitative research on science, and conclude by addressing implications of this framework for the ways in which critical qualitative researchers can plan and evidence the impact of their work.

Despite the global prioritization of addressing adolescent girls' and young women's sexual and reproductive health (SRH) and participatory rights, little research has examined their lived experiences in shaping their engagement in SRH decision-making processes in the global South. Further, few studies have explored how structural and societal factors influence their agency and participation. This critical and focused ethnography, informed by postcolonial feminist and difference-centred citizenship theories, conducted in Malawi (2017-2018) elicited perspectives of youth and key informants to help address these knowledge gaps. Our findings show that the effective implementation and uptake of global discourse on participation and gender equity is hindered by inadequate consideration of girls' and young women's local political, cultural and social realities. Many girls and young women demonstrate passion to participate in SRH policymaking as agents of change. However, patriarchal and gerontocratic political and social structures/institutions, and gendered and adultist norms and practices limit their active and meaningful participation in SRH decision-making. In addition, donors' roles in SRH policymaking and their prioritization of the "girl child" highlight an enduring postcolonial power over agenda-setting processes. Understanding young people's experiences of gendered participation and scrutinizing underlying systemic forces are critical steps toward realizing young women's SRH and participatory rights.

Much qualitative research produces little new knowledge. We argue that this is largely due to deficits of analysis. Researchers too seldom venture beyond cataloguing data into pre-existing concepts and scouting for “themes,” and fail to exploit the distinctive powers of insight of qualitative methodology. The paper introduces a “value-adding” approach to qualitative analysis that aims to extend and enrich researchers’ analytic interpretive practices and enhance the worth of the knowledge generated. We outline key features of this form of analysis, including how it is constituted by principles of interpretation, contextualization, criticality, and the “creative presence” of the researcher. Using concrete examples from our own research, we describe some analytic “devices” that can free up and stretch a researcher’s analytic capacities, including putting reflexivity to work, treating everything as data, reading data for what is invisible, anomalous and “gestalt,” engaging in “generative” coding, deploying heuristics for theorizing, and recognizing writing as a key analytic activity. We argue that at its core, value-adding analysis is a scientific craft rather than a scientific formula, a creative assemblage of reality rather than a procedural determination of it. The researcher is the primary generative and synthesizing mechanism for transforming empirically observed data into the key products of qualitative research—concepts, accounts and explanations. The ultimate value of value-adding analysis resides in its ability to generate new knowledge, including not just the “discovery” of things heretofore unknown but also the re-conceptualization of what is already known, and, importantly, the reframing and reconstitution of the research problem.

Although claims to “give voice” to children through qualitative inquiry seem morally just and have been largely framed by good intentions, critical scholarship has called for reflexive reconsiderations of such claims. Re/presentations of voice permeate published accounts of qualitative research with children; similarly, voice is a term invoked frequently in qualitative research with informants of all ages. In this article, we follow Spyrou’s notion of “troubling” to review, critique, and synthesize key works by critical child-focused scholars who have reflexively queried and worked with the epistemological and methodological limits of “giving voice” to children through qualitative inquiry. Building on the reviewed literature, as well as poststructural approaches to framing voice in research more generally, we briefly discuss how we have built on these critiques in our own research. In so doing, we join ongoing dialogues aimed at generating alternative approaches to theorizing and re/presenting children’s perspectives in qualitative inquiry more justly.

Hiring and promotion of qualitative researchers in the health sciences, in Canada and internationally, is impacted by the prestige of quantification as the ultimate measure of scientific quality in current academic and health-care settings. This is further exacerbated by neoliberal notions of productivity, which offer very limited forms of assessment for different ways of producing knowledge or doing science differently . While qualitative researchers share the effects of the politics of productivity and corporate university policies with other academics, we argue that they are disadvantaged by the combination of the latent biomedical conservatism that characterizes the health sciences in Canada with the lack of frameworks to acknowledge and properly assess alternative forms of interdisciplinary scholarship. In our experience, it is challenging for qualitative researchers to advance in Canadian health sciences faculties. In light of this, we propose a framework for evaluating their scholarly work. We have structured this article in three sections: (a) to characterize the academic landscape in which qualitative health scholars find themselves when housed in Canadian faculties of medicine and their schools of health sciences, (b) to report on an organizational scan we undertook in order to understand current practices of evaluating scholarly productivity at these institutions, and (c) to propose a set of criteria that could more appropriately evaluate the contributions made by qualitative researchers working in the health sciences.