Turning Ideas into Research. Barbara Fawcett
2.3
Key players and stakeholders in research
Consider the ‘key players’ in this example and, putting yourself in their shoes, answer the five questions suggested by Alston and Bowles (2012) and D’Cruz and Jones (2014).
Who is/are the researcher/s?
Who are the people being researched?
What organizations are involved?
Who will benefit from the research?
Who will be influenced by the research?
Once completed, consider how do your answers differ for each stakeholder and why?
Establishing meaning and sustainability in research partnerships
Research partnerships exist with all those engaged in the research process, including research participants. In terms of the relationship between the researcher and those being researched, as we discuss throughout this book, there are some clear differences between the two key research orientations of quantitative and qualitative studies. These differences are discussed further in Chapter 4. Generally quantitative orientations aim to address elements of research reliability and rigour. Quantitative studies tend to be designed around a hypothesis, statistically significant sampling, prescribed methodology and statistical data analysis. Relationships between variables are determined by the structure of the research hypothesis.
Qualitative studies generally view those being researched as ‘participants’ rather than ‘subjects’ in the research process. Depending on the type of qualitative approach, there is usually a phenomenon or situation being explored or investigated that aims to increase the researcher’s understanding of particular phenomena and experiences. In some forms of qualitative studies participants are actively engaged in the formulation of what is being studied, and, rather than there being a clear separation of roles, the researcher may become part of the phenomenon itself to further understand it. In these types of studies, research partnerships are inclusive and are based on equal relationships with knowledge and knowledge building. In her PhD research, Clarke (2013) illustrates this approach, stating: ‘in this research project the interview is jointly constructed by the participant and the researcher’. She continues:
Interviews within this approach become conversations between the participant and interviewer, with both being active participants in the interview process, jointly constructing the narrative that unfolds. Interview participants, and indeed interviewers, have multiple subject positions – not just one. This means there is not one identity waiting to be uncovered by the interview, rather subjectivities are contextual and local and multiple. (p. 62)
Drawing from two theoretical frameworks of poststructuralism and postmodern critical feminism and using narrative methodology, these relationships between the researcher, the data and participants inform the entire study, including the analysis and meaning-making of the research. Using another example, that of action research, the researcher becomes a facilitator in the process with others. The research aims to review, change and improve understandings of situations and experiences, and the outcomes of the study are implemented in an ongoing and integrated way. Potential and real power differences between those participating in the study are openly identified and actively addressed in the study design. All roles have equal value and significance in the research undertaking.
In Chapter 4 we go on to discuss the different meanings associated with participatory research, emancipatory research and inclusive research by using the example of researching work with disabled people. These differences are also particularly significant in research work associated with Indigenous populations. For example, in a study aimed at improving antenatal education for Ngaanyatjarra women in central Australia, and being mindful of the failure of previous initiatives, Simmonds et al. (2010) used a participatory research methodology in their study. Key features included the establishment of a senior advisory committee selected by the women to oversee the study; equal contribution to the design of the study and decision-making at bush meetings of older women; and sharing traditional knowledge and practices with younger women and non-aboriginal staff (older women). The lead researcher was a trusted non-Aboriginal nurse and midwife accepted and known in the local community. These approaches challenge notions of researchers as ‘experts’ with associated positional ‘authority’ in the research work and are underpinned by epistemological and theoretical perspectives that will be more fully explored in later chapters.
The meaning and sustainability of research partnerships is underscored by researchers’ relationship with knowledge, the development of new understandings and the potential to use this new knowledge for change. This foundational relationship will be explored in further chapters; however, we turn to it briefly here in terms of its applicability to the practice setting. In the earlier example of the interdisciplinary cancer research partnership, research outputs included the development of a quantitative measurement tool, the CaSPUN (cancer survivors’ partners’ unmet needs measure), that identified the longer-term supportive care needs of the partners of cancer survivors (Hodgkinson et al., 2007b: 805). A further study by this research partnership investigated the longer-term psychosocial outcomes and ongoing supportive care needs of gynaecological cancer survivors using a quantitative study design that included questionnaires and other measures (Hodgkinson et al., 2006). The hypothesis was that there was a correlation between distress levels and supportive care needs: that higher levels of distress experienced by patients would result in higher support needs. The findings in part indicated that ‘comprehensive and extended supportive care services are required to address anxiety and trauma responses and investigate strategies to meet ongoing needs in order to improve long-term psychosocial outcomes’ (p. 381).
These studies locate what is known and hypothesized within an empirical, quantitative frame. The identified needs and levels of distress are described in biological and psychological terms such as anxiety and trauma that indicate a need for psychosocial intervention or treatment.
Qualitative perspectives may use these studies as the basis for further exploration of the experience to gain a different type of understanding. This lens can make a significant contribution to the interpretation of the results and findings in such studies and in the design and carrying out of different types of studies that privilege the voice of the participants. Of further significance is the potential impact for change in wider systems, including government, community, agency and practice. In an article by the social worker on the team, Hobbs (2008) draws on her practice experience to identify two key groups of women who are diagnosed with cervical cancer. These observations form the basis of a different type of social understanding: ‘Anecdotally, and at the risk of over-generalising, women with cervical cancer fall into two main groups’ (p. 89). She goes on to describe the first group as younger women who may have a discovery of the disease in the context of childbearing and regular antenatal and post-natal screening. The second group is those with advanced disease who have not had regular and early access to screening programmes. Hobbs goes on to state:
There are a variety of factors that mitigate against women accessing Pap test screening. These factors include, usually in combination, socioeconomic disadvantage; physical, intellectual or psychiatric disability; history of sexual abuse; family dysfunction; or simply being born in a country where there is no routine screening. For many of these women, the diagnosis of advanced cervical cancer is yet another disaster in a lifetime characterized by catastrophe, impoverishment, neglect and disadvantage; the sense of injustice here related not so much to individuals as to endemic social injustice. (p. 90)
These observations from practice illustrate the significant contribution to understanding the social experience in addition to the biological/clinical one and the possibilities of blended research approaches that inform each other, thus challenging any fixed views about incommensurability or the irreconcilable differences between research orientations and mixed method researching. Blended and inclusive researching can provide significant insights into the realities of situations, phenomena and experience that deepen