Search results

Responding to the continuing separation of participants and researchers in LIS participatory research, a new methodology is proposed: action partnership research design (APRD). It is asserted that APRD can mitigate or remove the hierarchical structures often inherent in the research process, thus allowing for equal contribution from all.

Building on the bonded design (BD) methodology and informed by a scoping literature review conducted by the same authors, APRD is a human-centered research approach with the goal of empowering and valuing community partnerships. APRD originates from research investigating the use of participatory design methods to foster collaboration between two potentially disparate groups, firstly with adult researchers/designers and elementary school children, and secondly with university faculty and IT professionals.

To achieve this goal, in addition to BD techniques, APRD draws inspiration from elements of indigenous and decolonization research methodologies, particularly those with an emphasis on destabilizing power hierarchies and involving research participants as full partners.

APRD, which emerged from findings from previous participatory design studies, especially those of BD, is based on the premise of partnership, recognizing that each member of a design team, whether researcher or participant/user, has unique expertise to contribute. By considering participants/users as full research partners, APRD aims to flatten the hierarchies exhibited in some LIS participatory research methodologies, where participants are treated more like research subjects than partners.

In Denmark, there has been, over decades, an intensified political focus on how humanities research and doctoral education contribute to society. In this vein, the notion of impact has become a central part of the academic language, often associated with terms like use, effects and outputs, stemming from neoliberal ideologies. The purpose of this paper is to explore how humanities academics are living with the impact agenda, as both experienced researchers and as doctoral supervisors educating the next generation of researchers in this post-pandemic era. Specifically, the authors are interested in the supervisor-researcher relationship, that is, the relationship between how the supervisors navigate the impact agenda as researchers and then the way they tell their doctoral students to do likewise.

The authors have studied how the impact agenda is accommodated by humanities academics through a series of qualitative interviews with humanities researchers and humanities PhD supervisors, encompassing questions of how they are living with the expectation of impact and how it is embedded in their university and departmental context.

The study shows that there is no link between how the supervisors navigate the impact agenda in relation to their own research work and then the way they tell their doctoral students to approach it. Within the space of their own research, the supervisors engage in resistance practices towards the impact agenda in terms of minimal compliance, rejection or resignation, whereas in the space of supervision, the impact agenda is re-inscribed to embody other understandings. The supervisors want to protect their students from this agenda, especially in the knowledge that many of them are not going to stay in academia due to limited researcher career possibilities. Furthermore, the paper reveals a new understanding of the impact agenda as having a relational quality, and in two ways. One is through a positional struggle, the reshaping of power relations, between universities (or academics) and society (or the state and the market); the other is as a phenomenon very much lived among academics themselves, including between supervisors and their doctoral students within the institutional context.

This study opens up the impact agenda, showing what it means to be a humanities academic living with the effects of the impact agenda and trying to navigate this. The study is mapping and tracking out the many different meanings and variations of impact in all its volatility for academics concerned about it. In current, post-pandemic times, when manifold expectations are directed towards research and doctoral education, it is important to know more about how these expectations affect and are dealt with by those who are expected to commit to them.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the current research data management practices among researchers in Ghana and their impact on data reuse and collaborative research. The study aims to identify the methods used by researchers to store and preserve their research data, as well as to determine the extent to which researchers share their data with others.

The study uses a mixed-method research strategy to blend qualitative and quantitative data and is conducted at two public and two private universities in Ghana.

The study revealed that researchers in Ghana currently store and preserve their research data using personal devices, such as laptops, CDs and external flash drives, rather than keeping the data in university data repositories. They also do not share their research data with others, which negatively affects collaborative research. The current practice of storing data on personal devices and not sharing data with others hinders collaborative research. The study recommends that universities in Ghana revise their research policy documents to address RDM-related issues such as data storage, data preservation, data sharing and data reuse.

The study was conducted at two public and two private universities in Ghana, but the findings were placed in a wider context through appropriate references.

This study emphasises the need for sound research data management procedures to support research collaboration and data reuse in Ghana. Universities should provide incentives to academics to disclose their data to encourage data sharing and collaboration.

The government and management of universities should consciously invest in the needed technologies and equipment to implement research data management in their universities.

This study looks at how researchers in Ghana manage their research data and how it affects data reuse and collaborative research.

In today's global and competitive corporate environment characterised by rapidly changing information, knowledge and technology (IKT), researchers must be upskilled in all aspects of research data management (RDM). This study investigates a set of capabilities and competencies required by researchers at selected South African public universities, using the community capability model framework (CCMF) in conjunction with the digital curation centre (DCC) lifecycle model.

The post-positivist paradigm was used in the study, which used both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. Case studies, both qualitative and quantitative, were used as research methods. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic rules and regulations, semi-structured interviews with 23 study participants were conducted online via Microsoft Teams to collect qualitative data, and questionnaires were converted into Google Forms and emailed to 30 National Research Foundation (NRF)-rated researchers to collect quantitative data.

Participating institutions are still in the initial stages of providing RDM services. Most researchers are unaware of how long their institutions retain research data, and they store and backup their research data on personal computers, emails and external storage devices. Data management, research methodology, data curation, metadata skills and technical skills are critically important RDM competency requirements for both staff and researchers. Adequate infrastructure, as well as human resources and capital, are in short supply. There are no specific capacity-building programmes or strategies for developing RDM skills at the moment, and a lack of data curation skills is a major challenge in providing RDM.

The findings of the study can be applied widely in research, teaching and learning. Furthermore, the research could help shape RDM strategy and policy in South Africa and elsewhere.

The scope, subject matter and application of this study contribute to its originality and novelty.

In ethnographic research, negotiating insider–outsider perspectives is essential in order to get closer to the participants’ lives. By highlighting the importance of empathy and reflexivity, the paper attempts to trace my reflexive navigation as a novice researcher as I enter the field as an outsider. The process of co-creation between the researcher and the participant is mediated by the nuances of the researcher’s identity, thereby shaping the researcher–participant relationship.

The current study elaborates my journey as a Ph.D. scholar in an ethnographic study of persons with spinal cord injury or amputation. The different themes organised around my personal reflections discuss the various challenges I faced and how I navigated through them.

The paper reflects on how different aspects of my identity, such as being non-disabled, a female and differences in socioeconomic status shaped the researcher–participant relationship. Additionally, it highlights how I traverse through the blurred worlds of insider–outsider and explore the role of reflexivity and empathy in creating a horizontal researcher–participant relationship.

This reflexive journey offers potential insights into budding researchers who often face dilemmas whether or not it is necessary for qualitative researchers to be members of the population they are studying. The paper also contributes to an understanding around practising reflexivity while working with a sensitive population. It argues researchers to look beyond the insider–outsider debate and utilise reflexivity as a tool for a nonhierarchical researcher–participant relationship.

In this study, we illuminate how techniques can be incorporated into interview protocols when conducting research with educational leaders who are being asked to discuss their experiences in crises.

We interviewed seven researchers about their role as a researcher in collecting data on a crisis event from participants. Our analysis concentrated on several key components of the interview.

In presenting our findings on how scholars can adopt a caring and just approach to interview studies with leaders regarding crises, we portray how this approach can be melded into research design, interview protocol and interview techniques.

We illuminate that specific interview techniques are required when interviewing participants who have undergone and survived crises in their work, and we recommend the use of this protocol especially when an interview requires researchers to “handle with care.”

The aim of this article is to address some aspects of a cross-cultural interview study conducted in a PhD research project. This is done by reflecting on and discussing the influence of language and culture on the research process, as experienced by the researcher.

The experiences have been taken from an interview study with fifteen American participants in which the researchers were Norwegian. The interviews were conducted in English.

By offering insights into experiences of the research process in a cross-cultural interview study, the article connects the discussion to the concepts of positionality and reflexivity. These concepts are found to be especially relevant when managing differences between the researcher and participants in cross-cultural studies, and for improving the trustworthiness of the research.

The experiences and reflections discussed in the article may be useful to other researchers in similar (cross-cultural) research contexts and situations.

This article has been inspired by the experience of conducting research in a second language and in a different country. By drawing on a researcher’s point of view, this article reflects on these aspects when working as a visiting researcher doing international research.

In this chapter, we present a collaborative autoethnographic study with two main layers: first, we share experiences of two separate educational research projects and explore how different dialogic research practices facilitate both participants and researchers to discover the phenomenon being studied; second, we engage in a dialogic conversation to discover our own research practices. Focussing on projects in two different countries (Norway and Canada), our initial centring question for this chapter is: how do our research practices facilitate insight into participants’ real-life experiences and practices? Then turning the light on our own research practices, we ask: what onto-epistemological assumptions shape our dialogical research practices? The chapter reveals that dialogic research practices allowed collective wisdom to be discovered and ensured that we were able to break through the taken-for-grantedness both of the concept being studied and of our own research practices.

The application of user involvement in the design and implementation of research has progressed through various frameworks and is an increasingly recognized and expected as a key element of ethical research methodologies. The practice of engaging users (the public, patients, service recipients, etc.) beyond the traditional scope of subject, and elevating their role as partner or co-designer of the research process, is theoretically rooted in civil rights and social justice ideologies. The success of these types of models are influenced by various factors including the people involved, their capacities and values; the physical and funding environment in which the research occurs and the approaches used to engage. In theory, user involved research is most successful when the people, approaches and environment are genuinely interested and centralized around inclusive methods that posit that populations researched have the right to contribute to research done and researchers have the ethical responsibility to engage them using measurable strategies. User involved research frameworks have the potential to create a space that both values and uplifts historically marginalized voices, while touting the demonstrated advantage of improved effectiveness in research outcomes and implications. Yet there exists a dissonance between theory and practice in the field, due to a lack of consistent understanding, practices and standards tied to the approach.

Incorporating the voice of older adults into all phases of research has the potential to make findings more relevant and impactful. Beyond the direct benefit, researchers have an ethical obligation to elicit the contributions of older adults into their work. Recently, organizations such as the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute in the United States, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the National Institute of Health Research in the United Kingdom have stepped up to accelerate the incorporation of public and patient voice into research, resulting in innovative engagement strategies for involving stakeholders, including older adults in research. However, those who are physically and mentally capable are more often included in research than those with multiple chronic conditions or living with disabilities. The ability to incorporate older adult voice into research is possible and has provided tangible benefits to researchers. Older adults have expertise based on their lived experiences that can provide invaluable insights on how to conduct research with real-world applications. Programmes such as the Bureau of Sages have worked to implement and disseminate best practices and guidelines for incorporating the voice of older adults into research. Principles for engaging older adults include flexibility, mutual engagement of the older adult and the researcher, time for rapport building and partner development and increased focus on accessibility. By working to understand these principles and overcome challenges to incorporating older adult voice into research, research will be more meaningful and relevant to the public, and will inherently include a focus on translation of research into practice.