Methods

This project used a mixed methodology of First-Person Action Research (First-Person AR) and Storytelling. First-Person AR was chosen for its critical focus inward and its commitment to continuous change. Storytelling enhanced the project by adding a relational, second-person methodology, and by ensuring Indigenous ways of sharing knowledge were built into the framework of the project.

Two methods were used in two complementary cycles: structured journaling in a reflection cycle, and talking-story style dialogues in an engagement cycle.

Reflection Cycle: Structured Journaling

The journaling process took place over the course of six weeks, and was structured in a mixed storytelling and arts-based format, with episodic-style narratives addressing my (Jessica’s) daily experiences. In each of these narratives, I reflected upon my observations, reactions, judgements, and interventions. I tied my observations back to the literature on leadership, Indigenous perspectives, and MAiD. In particular, I identified links to the In Plain Sight report and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Calls to Action. Where words were insufficient, or did not fully capture the idea I was attempting to express, I supplemented with visual addenda, including drawings and collage. As a practice, writing is self-reflective, and this method was chosen for its abilities to reveal significant information about the researcher and the process. 

And the end of each week, I considered my observations, reactions, and judgements, and interventions again, and evaluated what I may have missed or could have done differently. I also conducted a thematic analysis of my journal entries and applied a quantitative lens to my actions by evaluating the number of In Plain Sight recommendations I implemented, and how I felt I listened (following Otto Scharmer as noted in Restorying Indigenous Leadership). At I engaged in a dialogue with Cindy, described below.

Engagement Cycle: Feedback Partner Dialogue (Talking Story Format)

After two weeks of journaling, I analyzed the gathered data and discussed my initial findings with Cindy, in the role of feedback partner. These discussions were structured in an informal “talking story” type format, with a generalized theme but no set time limit or rigidity in organization. This style was chosen for its capacity to support a relational style of knowledge exchange, as well as prioritizing an Indigenous way of engaging. After the initial conversation, which was structured around understanding how I currently support cultural safety in the context of MAiD, I reflected upon Cindy’s recommendations and identified two practices to implement in my leadership role. I then repeated the cycle (journaling daily with weekly reflection, data analysis, consult with Feedback partner) a second and third time for four more weeks. The second dialogue was themed around barriers, and the third around an ideal future state of leadership that supports cultural safety in MAiD.