Search results

Presents the results of a first research survey of consulting firms within the United Kingdom. Examines the usefulness of knowledge typology as a way of categorizing firms and the differences, if any, between the firms. Explores the firms′ sources of knowledge, knowledge networks, transfer of knowledge or expertise, and consultant knowledge and skills. Discusses the implications of the survey and presents an agenda for action which comprises of future research into the usefulness of the typologies. Concludes by saying that a more precise instrument is needed to classify parts of organizations as well as the whole and there is a need to examine the particular problems of managing a consultancy firm.

When I began to think about this chapter, and to consider the impact of negotiating boundaries in my recent PhD research, there were a number of pertinent issues which could be understood in terms of ‘boundaries’. This chapter therefore considers the negotiation of multiple boundaries, in both the research process and the outcomes of development research. Using the case study example of research with a group of grassroots women health promoters, I explore the ways that adopting a qualitative feminist methodological approach served to unsettle boundaries within development research and development practice. As a feminist researcher, one of my key preoccupations has been negotiating and making visible issues of power and positionality in the research process, conceptualised here in terms of a series of boundaries. As this is something with which feminist researchers have struggled for over 20 years (see, e.g., Oakley, 1981; Acker, Barry, & Esseveld, 1983), I do not claim to offer any solutions to these issues, but rather this chapter will provide a discussion of how these dynamics and dilemmas were played out in the context of my own fieldwork. England (1994) highlights the importance of reflecting on the position of the researcher, and her role in the research process, as an integral part of producing qualitative research, and Rose (1997) suggests that this reflexivity should lookboth ‘inward’ to the identity of the researcher, and ‘outward’ in her relation to her research and what is described as ‘the wider world’. (Rose, 1997, p. 309)

Miscarriage is the most common adverse pregnancy outcome, with an estimated one in four pregnancies ending in loss. Despite its prevalence, and significant effects, early pregnancy loss is commonly unacknowledged by organizations, and the intersect of miscarriage experiences while navigating work remains sparsely researched. Available literature, and preliminary research from my Ph.D., reveal stark findings, notably that women commonly conceal miscarriage at work, and when they do disclose, they often experience inconsistent support, or none at all. Minimization, and even discriminatory practice, are commonly witnessed (including inappropriate absence reporting, formal warnings, jeopardization of promotional opportunities, and redundancy). Effective support is often due to empathetic line managers, who sometimes have first-hand experience. Partners are commonly assigned to the “supporter role”, resulting in insufficient leave and support. The absence of formal initiatives, including policy and training, exacerbate the issue. Workplaces that fail to address miscarriage likely face reduced engagement and productivity, and increased absenteeism, presenteeism, and staff turnover. Key recommendations are presented, emphasizing the need for organizations to (i) implement a pregnancy loss policy; (ii) train managers, HR, and colleagues; (iii) provide specialist support; and (iv) tackle pro-natal cultures. Avenues for future research are explored, notably the need to adopt an intersectional lens, and to obtain management/HR and partner perspectives.

The purpose of this paper is to describe a recent experiment in research coproduction in an evaluation of service planning at a London Mental Health NHS Trust. The paper aims to consider whether members of the research team who have themselves been users of mental health services are able to contribute to the research process as “experts by experience”, or if their experiential knowledge is “colonized” within the academic research team.

A qualitative, comparative case study approach was adopted, using structured observations and semi‐structured interviews. Researchers' reflective accounts and a reflective focus group were employed to explore the process of coproduction.

The paper concludes that, far from “colonising” expertise by experience, the experiment builds local capacity in research coproduction and usefully informs a service planning process that reflects the priorities and concerns of a range of stakeholders.

The paper describes a small, local experiment in research coproduction and so findings are limited in their scope. However, the study demonstrates an effective methodological approach to evaluating, empirically, the impact of coproduction on the health services research (HSR) process.

The paper demonstrates the potential for repeated exercises in coproduction to build capacity in collaborative approaches to both HSR and service planning.

The involvement of experts by experience is increasingly a policy requirement in the domains of both health service planning and HSR in the UK. There are very few empirical studies that evaluate the impact of that coproduction.