Drawing on Action Research (original) (raw)
Related papers
Facilitating collaborative action research: Some
2015
insights from the AMEP This paper explores collaborative action research processes in the AMEP over the last decade. It refers first to some of the major projects under-taken nationally and describes the steps involved in identifying and conducting these projects. Its main purpose, however, is to describe a recent project whose aim was to identify some of the factors that need to be taken into account when AMEP professional development personnel initiate action research projects at the local organisational level. Background Over the last few years action research as a means of developing reflective
How to Work Collaboratively Within the Health System: Workshop Summary and Facilitator Reflection
2019
Effectiveness in health services research requires development of specific knowledge and skills for working in partnership with health system decision-makers. In an initial effort to frame capacity-building activities for researchers, we designed a workshop on working collaboratively within the health system. The workshop, based on recent research exploring health system experience and perspectives on research collaborations, was trialed at the annual Canadian Health Services and Policy Research (CAHSPR) conference in May 2019. Participants reported positive evaluations of the workshop. However, further efforts should target health services researchers that may not be as motivated to develop skills in collaborative research. Additional attention to equipping researchers with the skills needed to work in partnerships is recommended, including approaches and materials that avoid oversimplification of complex challenges.
Healthcare Management Forum, 2016
We discuss action research healthcare as a transformative approach that continuously innovates in healthcare, attending to the “quadruple” aim. This article is shaped around a decade of evidence in Sweden. At the heart of healthcare action research is the endeavour to “learn by doing” with the participation of key stakeholders, including the patient. Experience suggests that an action research approach is particularly relevant when treating patients with chronic diseases and complex care needs. This inclusion is itself a social learning process and is key to realizing the improved outcomes. Insights from objective quantitative studies are balanced with personal and inter-subjective dialogue that aligns different parts of a system in a movement towards improvement. Close-up non-defensive self-inquiry in the company of colleagues, with trust dynamics building over time, may be a key point of leverage for such systemic improvement activities.
Getting With the Act of Action Research
2009
Action research (AR) prides itself on being a field of both theoretical and practical inquiry. Its scholarly identity rests heavily on framing participants as engaged, subjective, and participatory beings who learn and change through research processes. Yet, action research struggles to be considered a rigorous methodological field of inquiry and certainly there have been those who have raised questions about its validity as a research method. Where action research is used, qualifications and justifications abound as people struggle to have their research heard over other disciplines and techniques that claim more validity or appropriateness of methods. As a community development practitioner, I have employed AR approaches in the design and application of projects. As an academic, I have had the opportunity to design and facilitate meetings using participatory action research methods for data collection and to develop ground-up interventions with primary health care professionals. Therefore, I was eager to read about AR theoretical developments and to examine this text for its core purpose: as a "handbook" to guide research and practice. The handbook boasts 32 chapters covering theory, practices, exemplars, and skills which I reviewed with particular attention to where, how, and why I would use the content and whether it offered what a research handbook should-practical assistance in design, application, analysis, and synthesis for AR. Overall, the handbook does provide extensive examples about research projects and process. In future editions though, I would like to see more attention to complementary methods that can be employed in AR and attention to methods for the analysis of data generated via action research approaches.
The Asset-based Collaborative Working model: pragmatic action research in healthcare
British Journal of Healthcare Management, 2019
Embedding researchers in clinical practice may not be an obvious consideration in asset-constrained healthcare settings. However, with increasing calls for best practice and value-for-money, understanding what works, for whom and why, is of paramount importance. This article illustrates how a researcher embedded in a healthcare professional group not only facilitated a service development within existing resources, but also enabled the group to identify relevant theories, and their interrelationships, underpinning the group's actions during the developmental process. This resulted in the construction of a new theoretical model, the Asset-based Collaborative Working model. This research suggests that embedding research in service development is feasible and can result in substantive learning and an understanding of group working which is required in contemporary healthcare provision. While developed in the clinical field of lymphoedema, the Asset-based Collaborative-Working model...
HRB Open Research
Background: Action research (AR) starts with an existing practical situation with which there is a concern or potential for improvement. It seeks transformative change through the simultaneous process of doing research and undertaking actions, both of which are linked together by a critical reflective process. It simultaneously allows one to systematically investigate a given social situation while promoting democratic change and collaborative participation. AR approaches have been used for many years in business management and education. More recently, AR has become an increasingly popular method of inquiry in healthcare, particularly in nursing, to investigate professional practice while simultaneously; introducing innovations; planning and undertaking action; and evaluating new ideas. The overall goal is to augment collaboration whilst improving the patient experience and outcomes. Methods: The Arksey and O'Malley methodology framework will be used to guide this scoping revie...
Action Research as a Network: Collective Production of Roles and Interventions.
This paper explores roles and interventions in IS action research. I draw upon a four-year research project about electronic medical records, conducted in close collaboration with a community partner. Following a self-reflexive stance, I trace the trajectory of the research engagement and the different roles I occupied. To better understand the complex nature of collaboration found within action research projects, I propose conceptualizing action research as a network. The network framework directs our attention to the collective production and the conditions through which roles and interventions come to exist. Thus, interventions and roles can be seen as network effects—they are enacted and supported by the network. Accordingly, roles and interventions are neither simply static and fixed nor fluid and flexible; rather, these are products of past and present attachments. I demonstrate how the different attachments existing in the network at different points in time enable the configuration of particular actors with capacities to enact different roles and interventions in a diversity of contexts and settings. Finally, I illustrate what happens when these attachments are missing and how this influences the researcher’s agency.
Health Research Policy and Systems, 2018
Background: Getting research into policy and practice in healthcare is a recognised, worldwide concern. As an attempt to bridge the gap between research and practice, research funders are requesting more interdisciplinary and collaborative research, while actual experiences of such processes have been less studied. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to gain more knowledge on the interdisciplinary, collaborative and partnership research process by investigating researchers' experiences of and approaches to the process, based on their participation in an inventive national research programme. The programme aimed to boost collaborative and partnership research and build learning structures, while improving ways to lead, manage and develop practices in Swedish health and social services. Methods: Interviews conducted with project leaders and/or lead researchers and documentation from 20 projects were analysed using directed and conventional content analysis. Results: Collaborative approaches were achieved by design, e.g. action research, or by involving practitioners from several levels of the healthcare system in various parts of the research process. The use of dual roles as researcher/ clinician or practitioner/PhD student or the use of education designed especially for practitioners or 'student researchers' were other approaches. The collaborative process constituted the area for the main lessons learned as well as the main problems. Difficulties concerned handling complexity and conflicts between different expectations and demands in the practitioner's and researcher's contexts, and dealing with human resource issues and group interactions when forming collaborative and interdisciplinary research teams. The handling of such challenges required time, resources, knowledge, interactive learning and skilled project management. Conclusions: Collaborative approaches are important in the study of complex phenomena. Results from this study show that allocated time, arenas for interactions and skills in project management and communication are needed during research collaboration to ensure support and build trust and understanding with involved practitioners at several levels in the healthcare system. For researchers, dealing with this complexity takes time and energy from the scientific process. For practitioners, this puts demands on understanding a research process and how it fits with ongoing organisational agendas and activities and allocating time. Some of the identified factors may be overlooked by funders and involved stakeholders when designing, performing and evaluating interdisciplinary, collaborative and partnership research.