Search results

Proponents of robust research design and methodology (particularly, although not exclusively, in more positivist-leaning epistemology) have often suggested that the role of the researcher should be as invisible, or distanced, as possible in the research process. Many of the case studies presented in this book take a more qualitative, interpretative approach, reflecting the often complex, situated, local and dynamic contexts in which out-of-school learning occurs. This raises particular challenges relating to the researcher role, especially when the researcher's presence materially changes the context and phenomena that are being researched. Some of the case studies describe the tensions and affordances of the researcher as insider/outsider and demonstrate how this role can develop and change as a project progresses and the implications this has for research practice, research quality and research governance.

This chapter discusses the different types of researcher/participant relationship described in the case study chapters, alongside the extent to which the projects were (and could be) pre-defined in terms of structure and expected outcomes. The case studies ranged from secondary data analysis methods with no researcher/participant contact, those with structured one-off interviews, those with more ongoing, but still researcher-led, relationships between researcher and participant, to more ethnographic and participatory research where relationships were negotiated between researcher and participant and, in some cases, led by the participants. This chapter highlights that researcher/participant relationships lie parallel to the structure of the project and the extent to which the outcomes are pre-defined. Despite the range of types of relationship, however, all the case studies highlighted the value of trust in those relationships, for participants to feel happy to share the details of their personal lives beyond that which is usually visible in the formal education setting of school. Edwards' (2017a) concepts of relational agency, relational expertise and common knowledge are used to help explain why these relationships matter in research on out-of-school learning – to understand activities that we do not know about, which take places in spaces that we are unfamiliar with.

The objective of this paper is to further the understanding of netnography as a research method for supply chain academics. Netnography is a method for gathering and gaining insight from industry-specific online communities. We prescribe that viewing netnography through the lens of the supply chain will permit researchers to explore, discover, understand, describe or report concepts or phenomena that have previously been studied via survey research or quantitative modeling.

To introduce netnography to supply chain research, we propose a framework to guide how netnography can be adopted and used. Definitions and directions are provided, highlighting some of the practices within netnographic research.

Netnography provides the researcher with another avenue to pursue answers to research questions, either alone or in conjunction with the dominant methods of survey research and quantitative modeling. It provides another tool in the researchers’ toolbox to engage practitioners in the field.

The development of netnography as a research method is associated with Robert Kozinets. He developed the method to study online communities in consumer behavior. We justify why this method can be applied to supply chain research, how to collect data and provide research examples of its use. This technique has room to grow as a supply chain research method.

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 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 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 this chapter, we propose a blended methodological approach (critical) educational ethnography, to address problems of education. The chapter includes a brief overview of critical and educational ethnography, which inform the methodology, followed by a discussion of the essential elements and pedagogical objectives that undergird and operationalize the methodology. The essential elements include articulating a critical context, defining and understanding culture, establishing relationships and embeddedness, and multiple ways of knowing. Rather than articulate a curriculum and content for teaching (critical) educational ethnography, pedagogical objectives are provided to support the development of novice researchers (i.e., doctoral students, researchers-in-training).

This article focuses on humanities scholars’ information searching. David Ellis’ model of scholars’ information seeking is taking as a starting point for this study. For understanding the information needs and information seeking habits of humanities scholars, it is crucial to know about the nature of research processes within diverse humanities fields. The study at hand, therefore, starts from the premise that the information searching of humanistic researchers needs to be understood within the framework of the research process, and not as a phenomenon outside of it.

Based on 24 in-depth interviews in archaeology, art history, philosophy, and languages and linguistics, the article examines humanities scholars’ research processes. The purpose of this study is to analyse the research processes, their course and different stages, and to classify these into types. The purpose is also to examine the relationships between the types of research processes and the disciplines studied. Seven types of research processes were identified among scholars working in the fields studied. The types were named the Fly, the Sphinx Moth, the Mole, the Mockingbird, and the Spider.

The findings show that the representatives of a specific humanities discipline did not always proceed in their research in similar ways. There were distinct differences according to discipline, but important differences between scholars belonging to the same discipline could also be observed. The findings indicate that information seeking behaviour cannot be explained by factors that lie outside the researcher and the researcher's subject matter. Another important finding is that humanistic research often does not proceed in linear stages. There is more variability within the research and searching processes within humanities and among representatives of specific disciplines than is often presumed.