2 results
Five - Performing the legacy of animative and iterative approaches to co-producing knowledge
- Edited by Keri Facer, University of Bristol, Kate Pahl, Manchester Metropolitan University
-
- Book:
- Valuing Interdisciplinary Collaborative Research
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 05 April 2022
- Print publication:
- 05 April 2017, pp 107-130
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
Various modes of research such as engaged scholarship (see Van de Ven and Johnson, 2006; Van de Ven, 2007), relational scholarship (Bartunek, 2007) and dialogical research (Beech et al, 2010; Lorino et al 2011; Avenier and Parmentier Cajaiba, 2012; MacIntosh et al, 2012) have been advocated as forms of collaborative research in which academics and practitioners work together to co-produce knowledge about a complex/problematic/sensitive phenomenon. The collaborative work discussed in this chapter shared many of these engaged, relational and dialogical features and involved a variety of people from three countries (academics from diverse disciplines, community partners from local and national level organisations) all with different ideas about how collaboration should work and what change it should achieve. In this chapter we introduce five theoretical perspectives (theatre studies, American Pragmatism, critical theory, actor network theory (ANT) and Deleuzian studies) which we used to make sense of our collaborative efforts. We then provide a short account of the research projects undertaken, their creative methodologies and resulting artistic outputs (two interactive installations, a game and a documentary drama). We examine how our chosen theories have shaped the processes by which we co-defined and co-evaluated the legacies of our research projects. We conclude that any attempt to define legacy of collaborative research involves a strong element of performing it with the community partners.
Making sense of collaboration: five theoretical lenses
Collaborative research and co-creation processes in general (Denis and Lomas, 2003; Shani et al, 2008) are seen as forms of research that facilitate examination of the dynamic relationship between academic and community practice. As outlined below, we made use of five theoretical perspectives to help make sense of our collaborative, co-creative research endeavours and their resulting legacies. Building on Nicolini's (2009) work, we switch theoretical lenses and repositioning in the field so that certain aspects of practice are grounded while others are bracketed. A common thread across our theoretical lenses is that they challenge disciplinary boundaries, emphasise everyday performance, and create safer spaces for thinking about existing challenges and about how to tackle them by making visible the creative possibilities that exist within individuals and communities. By adopting an agonistic pluralist stance (Mouffe, 2007), our approach has been to reflect and embrace rather than suppress difference and to find skillful ways to acknowledge and accept that conflict can be co-generative in collaborative efforts.
Unity or diversity? Recent developments in the organization of out of hours general medical services in Scotland
- Hilary Thomson, Catherine A O'Donnell, David Heaney, Katrina Moffat, Sue Ross, Antony Scott, Neil Drummond
-
- Journal:
- Primary Health Care Research & Development / Volume 4 / Issue 3 / July 2003
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 31 October 2006, pp. 193-205
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
The objective of this paper is to describe variations in the different models of out of hours general medical services and identify explanations for variation and the possible influence on patient satisfaction and service costs. A cross-sectional survey of all models of out of hours care was undertaken, including co-operatives, deputizing services, practice rotas and rural general practitioners doing their own cover. Fifteen sites were chosen representing 10 models of care, for more detailed case study; 65 semistructured interviews with key informants were conducted within the case study sites. A postal patient satisfaction questionnaire and an economic analysis were also carried out. Out of hours organizations have developed in response to a complex mix of the population served, geography, resources available and political expediency, leading to considerable structural heterogeneity, even within co-operatives. There was little evidence of formal integration with other services. Only the largest co-operatives showed any evidence of utilizing guidelines/protocols or of providing formal staff training. There were clear differences in the structure of out of hours care in urban and rural areas. Increasing the use of centralized call handling and triage will not address the needs of rural GPs, who would still be required to be available for work. Neither patient satisfaction nor costs varied bymodel of service provision. The English out of hours reviewhas outlined an integrated model of service provision with consistent standards within an accountability framework. It would appear that only the largest organizations will be in a position to address these standards and that they are likely to be inappropriate to the needs of GPs in rural areas.