CQUniversity Unit Profile.

Overview

This assessment requires you to critically evaluate relational ethics and governance structures within cross-cultural public health engagement contexts. You will analyse two different engagement approaches presented in the case study: “Engaging Community, Navigating Systems: A Regional Public Health Initiative”. The focus of this assessment is not on designing solutions, but on examining how:

·       Engagement processes

·       Governance arrangements

·       Power dynamics

·       Professional positioning

shape culturally safe public health practice.

Task Instructions:

The word count for this assessment is 2000 words. Your submission must include two integrated components:

Part A: Critical Analysis of Engagement and Governance Models (approx. 800 words)

Using the case study, analyse the two engagement approaches:

Model 1: Consultation-Based Engagement

Model 2: Relational Co-Design Approach

For each model, you must:

·       Describe the key features of the engagement approach

·       Critically evaluate the governance structures underpinning the model

·       Identify strengths and limitations

·       Analyse implications for culturally safe public health practice

Comparative Governance Analysis

Compare the two models in relation to:

·       Decision-making authority

·       Governance structures

·       Recognition of Indigenous knowledge

·       Power dynamics

·       Relational accountability

Risk Analysis

Examine potential risks, including:

·       Tokenistic consultation

·       Extractive research practices

·       Consultation fatigue

·       Institutional gatekeeping

Apply principles of relational ethics and accountability in your analysis.

Part B: Reflexive Analysis of Professional Positioning (approx. 800 words)

Drawing on tutorial discussions and simulated engagement activities, critically reflect on:

·       How practitioners are positioned within institutional structures

·       How governance hierarchies shape practitioner authority

·       Ethical tensions between institutional expectations and relational accountability

·       How public health practitioners can navigate power dynamics in engagement processes

This section should demonstrate critical reflexivity grounded in structural awareness, not personal narrative alone.

Referencing Requirements

Minimum 12 scholarly sources

Integration of relevant Indigenous scholarship

APA 7th edition referencing.

Level of GenAI use allowed on Assessments 2: Level 2 AI Planning. You may use AI for planning, idea development, and research. Your final submission should show how you have developed and refined these ideas. 

Marking Criteria

Your work will be assessed on:

Analysis of Engagement Approaches 

Governance and Power Analysis

Comparative Analysis and Risk Evaluation

Application of Relational Ethics and Accountability

Reflexive Analysis of Professional Positioning

Use of Literature and Evidence

Academic writing and referencing.

Overview:

This assessment builds on the case scenario introduced in Assessment 1: “Engaging Community, Navigating Systems: A Regional Public Health Initiative”. You will critically analyse the institutional readiness of a state Department of Health (in partnership with a Primary Health Network) to undertake ethical co-design processes in developing a public health initiative aimed at improving chronic disease prevention outcomes for First Nations peoples.

The case scenario highlights a range of institutional conditions including:

·       Governance hierarchies

·       Funding timelines and reporting requirements

·       Evidence frameworks and evaluation expectations

·       Advisory and decision-making structures

·       Data ownership and Indigenous data sovereignty

Ethical Clarification

This assessment does not require you to represent or speak on behalf of specific First Nations communities. Instead, the focus is on analysing institutional systems, structures, and governance conditions, and proposing reforms that would support ethical, culturally safe, and community-led engagement.

Task Instructions:

The word count for this assessment is 2000 words and a required visual artefact. Your submission must draw directly on the case scenario provided in Assessment 1.

Your paper must include:

·       Two written components

·       One visual artefact

Part A: Institutional Readiness Analysis

(approximately 800 words)

Using the case scenario, critically analyse the institutional conditions shaping the department’s ability to undertake ethical co-design.

Your analysis should consider:

·       Governance hierarchies and decision-making authority

·       Funding timelines and reporting requirements

·       Institutional evidence frameworks

·       Evaluation expectations and performance indicators

·       Data ownership and Indigenous data sovereignty

·       Risks of symbolic consultation or limited power redistribution

You are expected to demonstrate:

·       Systems thinking

·       Structural analysis

·       Clear connections between institutional conditions and engagement outcomes

Part B: Ethical Co-Design and Governance Framework

(approximately 800 words)

Drawing on your analysis in Part A, design a conceptual framework outlining how the department could create the conditions for ethical co-design.

Your framework should address:

·       Governance reforms that support Indigenous authority

·       Accountability mechanisms for engagement processes

·       Principles of relational ethics guiding engagement

·       Integration of Indigenous knowledge and evidence frameworks

·       Mechanisms to support Indigenous data governance

Your framework should focus on:

Institutional and structural conditions, NOT on designing specific interventions for communities.

Required Visual Artefact:

You must include a visual representation of your proposed framework, such as:

·       A governance structure diagram

·       A systems reform pathway

·       A co-design process architecture

·       A decision-making and accountability flow map

The visual must:

·       Demonstrate systems thinking

·       Clearly represent relationships between structures, actors, and processes

·       Be explained and integrated within your written discussion

Referencing Requirements:

·       Minimum 15 scholarly sources

·       Integration of Indigenous governance and public health scholarship

·       APA 7th edition referencing. 

Level of GenAI use allowed on Assessments 2: Level 2 AI Planning. You may use AI for planning, idea development, and research. Your final submission should show how you have developed and refined these ideas. 

Marking Criteria

Your work will be assessed on:

·       Institutional Readiness Analysis (grounded in the case scenario) 

·       Application of Systems Thinking and Structural Analysis

·       Ethical Co-Design Framework Design (Part B)

·       Integration of Indigenous Governance, Knowledge and Data Sovereignty

·       Visual Artefact (Framework Representation)

·       Alignment Between Analysis (Part A) and Design (Part B)

·       Use of Literature and Evidence

·       Academic Writing and Referencing (APA 7th).