Search results

The purpose of this paper is to look beyond the data and findings of a joint practitioner-research project to illustrate how joint practitioner-research can influence practice and stimulate meaningful partnership working from the bottom up within a social care setting. The impact of this integrated approach to practice and learning can enable improved outcomes for people.

The authors outline the research and explore the reflective process underlying the project including the subsequent phase of implementation. This examines what the authors, as practitioner-researchers, understood from the practice, heard from carers and fellow workers, and learnt from each other.

The authors consider the project in the wider context of evidence-based practice. Key enablers and challenges are identified to the production of joint practitioner-research and more broadly to outcomes for carers. The authors also examine the reflective process of joint working between individuals and the impact this can have on facilitating integrated working, at both a practice and service level.

The learning from this project evidences the value of meaningful joint working between practitioners and the impact this can have at different levels of integration. It also looks beyond the practitioner-research project to the stages of implementing findings and planning for ongoing joint working. It is therefore pertinent to many organisations looking to integrate and orientate towards a focus on outcomes for people.

This chapter examines two different research approaches in education, namely “academic research” (rooted in theory) and “practitioner research” (rooted in practices), and some tensions that might arise from this distinction. It is suggested that the relationships between these two types of research are fuzzy, and that hybrid research studies (a mix of both theory and practice-guided research) are possible. The chapter also analyses both kinds of research in relation to etic and emic perspectives. In etic research, the researcher interprets data based on her theoretical frameworks, while in emic research the researcher is closer to the interpretations that social actors give to a particular social reality. It follows that, in higher education research, “academic research” would be likely to reflect an etic perspective (closer to theory) while “practitioner research” would reflect an emic perspective (closer to practice). However, in this chapter, it is proposed that both perspectives in research – etic and emic – constitute a continuum across which researchers need to move in a permanent, systematic, and reflective way. It is also proposed that the exercise of “epistemological vigilance” might help researchers to transit between etic and emic perspectives.

This chapter considers the values and challenges of a highly embedded participant ethnographic methodology that has evolved over the last four years in the course of two formal ethnographic studies in higher education. The method has been developed by a practitioner-researcher in tandem with the learning design of a new programme. As such, the roots of the method lie very much within the paradigms of heuristics and action research but lend themselves equally well to more formal, extended ethnographic work. The nature of this method raises several interesting, messy and difficult issues that are further explored. The first is the nature of practitioner research and the purpose of participant ethnography in this context. What does it mean for the teacher to concurrently and contemporaneously inhabit the role of researcher? This leads neatly into an exploration of the attendant ethical considerations. Issues of power and positionality must be tackled, and the ability of the researcher to engage in fully reflexive practice and research is key to unpacking this. Who or what is being observed, and from what perspective? Whose experience is really being interrogated – that of the teacher or the student? Finally, as this method has evolved from, and shares much in common with, action research, consideration will be given to the nexus of action research, observation and formal ethnography – both in terms of the participation and contributions of the teacher-researcher to the process and the students, who in effect become auto-action researchers, investigating themselves as learners and their experiences with their peers.

The purpose of this paper is to consider why and how a research culture might be established in an academic library and to describe and evaluate efforts to achieve this at the University of Northampton.

Contextualised within current literature on this topic, the paper examines the top-down and bottom-up approaches taken to facilitate practitioner research in one academic library.

The approaches taken have led to a significant increase in practitioner research activity from library staff, resulting in a variety of enhancements to library services; a number of innovative practices being shared with the professional community through conference presentations and publications; and consequent rise in profile and reputation for individuals, the department and the university.

The paper offers a wide range of ideas and practical suggestions for encouraging and facilitating practitioner research in an academic library. These include incorporating research activity into job descriptions and annual performance reviews; facilitating peer support for research; and providing competitive research awards, research training opportunities and funding for staff presenting at external events. Many of these require relatively little resource, yet offer significant benefit to those involved.

It is rare, and maybe unique in the UK, for an academic library to attempt to instil a research culture throughout its staff and to provide ongoing resources, activities and practical support for this. The many positive outcomes from this work demonstrate its success and value. The experiences described in this paper are transferable to other academic and research libraries and, if replicated, have the potential to increase librarians’ engagement in research activity, promote research-informed practice and stimulate interest in library and information research across the sector.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the concept of brokerage as a vehicle for integrating research and practice within the mentor role in the Practitioner Research: Older People Programme.

The main component is a reflective analysis of the experience of mentoring three practitioners working within an NHS acute hospital environment.

Mentors played a key role integrating research into the practitioner ' s work environment as well as supporting achievement of the programme objectives. Personal reflection highlighted four components: being a research advisor; supporting the practitioner; quality assuring the process; and championing practitioner-research. A key element linking each of these components was that of being a knowledge broker, which accorded with the concept of “boundary-spanning”, whereby the practitioners fulfilled a new role of being both practitioners and researchers. Mentors adopted different approaches, which were partly influenced by geographical proximity and their relative position in the partner organisation.

Mentors fulfil a crucial role brokering the worlds of research and practice and need to be able to tailor their support to individual needs.

The notion of brokerage as a way of integrating the practitioner-researcher role is a useful way to conceptualise the mentor role.

The purpose of this paper is to explore, from a practitioner perspective, the tensions in facilitating the “challenging and complex” terrain of co‐delivered work based learning (WBL) – a growing area of practice in the UK, but under‐researched and under‐discussed – and a possible cutting edge resolution which is currently being developed.

The article draws from on‐going practitioner research using a first person action research methodology which uses critical reflection and peer discussion over two years.

Although higher education institutions are required (by regulation) to be responsible for the quality of teaching, learning and assessment of the qualifications granted in their name, this becomes problematic in co‐delivery. Three tensions emerged which contest such ownership and responsibility: a perception (or preference) of co‐delivery trainers to be “trainers delivering training” rather than owning/taking responsibility for teaching, learning and assessment; a perceived “legitimacy dilemma” in relation to the relative importance of the training against the assessment elements; and a “displacement” of the academic by her colleagues from an academic position to being part of the training organisation.

Within a tradition of qualitative practitioner research, this article encourages practitioners to consider these possible tensions in their own practice, and possible resolutions.

This paper raises on‐going issues in a reportedly “challenging and complex” area of practice, and a possible resolution which is currently being developed.

This paper foregrounds the importance of the practitioner perspective in organisational development and change in the co‐delivery of WBL.

The purpose of this paper is to present a cost‐benefit interpretation of academic‐practitioner research by describing and analysing several recent relevant examples of academic‐practitioner research with a focus on doctoral theses carried out at universities and business schools in clusters of research centred in North America, Australia and Europe.

Using case study examples, a value proposition framework for undertaking collaborative research for higher degree level study is developed and presented.

Value proposition benefits from this level of collaborative research can be summarised as enhancing competencies at the individual and organisational level as well as providing participating universities with high‐quality candidates/students and opportunities for industry engagement. The project management (PM) professional bodies can also extend PM knowledge but they need to be prepared to provide active support.

A model for better defining the value proposition of collaborative research from a range of stakeholder perspectives is offered that can be adapted for researchers and industry research sponsors.

Few papers offer a value proposition framework for explaining collaborative research benefits. This paper addresses that need.