Search results

In this chapter, we consider collaborative models of engaged research in comparison to models of team science that include persons with lived experience of the topic area as team members. ‘Co-led’, ‘co-design’ and ‘co-research’ are all terms used in the literature with distinct, but not precise, definitions and approaches. These collaborative models tend to describe methods that allow those with lived experience to be treated differently than other academic members of the research team. Power imbalances between those with lived experiences and researchers persist in such models, in spite of researcher efforts. For example, persons with lived experience are often described as being compensated with gift cards which may be welcomed but can be perceived as diminishing their role and contribution. In contrast, participatory team science involves persons with lived experience as full members of the research team. In the model that we propose, power is balanced through mutual planning and consensus-based decision-making. We contend that using participatory team science advances research through egalitarian consideration of team members' perspectives of the research problem and the designs necessary to knowledge development.

The purpose of this paper is to expand the use of ethnography to advance research on team science by revealing the barriers to teamwork as manifesting at institutional, cultural, and interpersonal contextual scales. The analysis suggests strategies to enhance team science's collaborative potential.

This paper considers some of the practical and analytical challenges of team science through the use of ethnographic methods. The authors formed a three-person subteam within a larger multisited, federally-funded, interdisciplinary scientific team. The authors conducted six months of participant observation, semi-structured interviews, and a focus group, using iterative deductive and inductive analyses to investigate the larger team's roles, relationships, dynamics, and tensions.

Integrating ethnography into the study of team science can uncover and mitigate barriers faced by teams at three primary levels: (1) academic culture, (2) institutional structures, and (3) interpersonal dynamics. The authors found that these three contextual factors are often taken for granted and hidden in the team science process as well as that they are interactive and influence teams at multiple scales of analysis. These outcomes are closely related to how team science is funded and implemented in academic and institutional settings.

As US federal funding initiatives continue to require scientific collaboration via inter-, multi-, and transdisciplinary research, there is little work done on how teams grapple with the practical tensions of scientific teamwork. This paper identifies and addresses many practical tensions and contextual factors across institutional and organizational structures that affect and challenge the conduct of collaborative scientific teamwork. The authors also argue that ethnography can be a method to challenge myths, understand contextual factors, and improve the goals of team science.

Students pursuing doctoral degrees are expected to become leaders in their disciplines. Given that, leadership development should be an important part of any curriculum that prepares doctoral students for professional careers after graduation. However, there are questions regarding the effectiveness and prevalence of formal leadership development structures in graduate school. With this gap in formal professional preparation, faculty mentors are expected to provide the necessary socialization, support, and guidance for doctoral students to develop as leaders in their disciplines. This mixed-methods study of graduate students was conducted using online questionnaires and personal interviews to determine the impact of faculty mentoring behaviors on the development of doctoral student leadership self-efficacy. Findings suggest that students in doctoral programs experience significant negative emotional arousal in the form of uncertainty, anxiety, and self-doubt. Faculty mentors that are accessible, trustworthy, and provide constructive feedback can mitigate these negative feelings and encourage the development of leadership self-efficacy through verbal support and mastery experiences. In addition, the data suggests that active student cohorts and effective departmental leadership are also important to the development of doctoral student leadership self-efficacy.

The purpose of this paper is to understand the impact of procedural justice on team members’ commitment and the role of task routineness and participatory safety in this relationship.

Survey method was used to collect data from 177 respondents from 33 software development teams. Participatory Safety Scale from Anderson and West’s Team Climate Inventory, Colquitt’s Procedural Justice Scale, a modified version of Mowday et al.’s Organizational Commitment Scale and Daft and Macintosh’s Task Routineness Scale were used to measure the variables studied. Regression analysis was used to test the main, mediating and moderating effects.

Results showed a significant positive impact of procedural justice perception on participatory safety dimensions and team commitment. Task routineness did not show any significant moderation effect. Perception of participatory safety had a partial mediation effect.

A relatively smaller sample size, purposive sampling technique and absence of relevant control variables are the key limitations of this study.

The findings will provide managers insights on designing the team tasks and procedures to nurture participatory safety and commitment in teams.

The study is unique in terms of selection of variables, design (moderation and mediating effects) and the context (software development teams). The study provides a holistic picture of team dynamics by studying variables related to procedures, task and psychological states of the individual.

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.

Public organizations have interacted with citizens through increasingly sophisticated internet-enabled technology. Participatory platforms emerged from Web 2.0 technologies in the mid-2000s as a governance mechanism to engage citizens in the process of effecting social change. Although the potential of platforms is recognized, its successful implementation has faced challenges. To begin to get a handle on how to best design and manage participatory platforms, we conducted an exploratory participatory action research study grounded in two events – The Policy Challenge and NSF Workshop on Participatory Platforms with a Public Intent. Both events communed practitioners, scholars, and citizen participants with diverse experience and expertise conducting and researching platforms. The insights expressed through the events and follow-up interviews and online survey informed our development of a participatory platform lifecycle and design framework to assist designing successful participatory platforms.

This paper aims to explore a case of customer and user participation in an agile software development project, which produced a tailor‐made information system for workplace support as a step towards a theory of participatory design in agile software development.

Based on an integrated framework for user participation derived from the participatory design literature the research was performed as a case study and semi‐structured, open‐ended interviews were conducted with about a third of the development team and with a representative sample of key players and future users in the customer organization. The interview data were supplemented with company and project documents.

The paper found genuine customer and user participation carried out by onsite customers and by other operational staff in the form of direct and indirect participation and with functional and democratic empowerment. The onsite customers played informative, consultative and participative roles. The analysis revealed that planning games, user stories and story cards, working software and acceptance tests structured the customer and user participation. This form of user participation supported a balance between flexibility and project progress and resulted in a project and a product which were considered a success by the customer and the development organization. The analysis showed that the integrative framework for user participation can also fruitfully be used in a new context to understand what participatory design is and how, when and where it can be performed as an instance of a design process in agile development. As such the paper contributes to an analytical and a design theory of participatory design in agile development. Furthermore the paper explicates why participatory design contributes to the successful completion of the investigated project. By drawing on innovation theory it was found that participatory design in agile development bears the characteristics of a successful organizational innovation. Grounding further explanations in complex adaptive systems theory the paper provides an additional argument why participatory design despite some identified challenges fosters project staff to successfully carry out the agile development project.

The paper presents an exploratory, empirical study of an understudied phenomenon and contributes to theory building.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between participatory HRM and firm performance through a series of mediators.

Primary data were collected from 569 respondents belonging to 207 organizations operating in India. Structural equation modeling and bootstrapping via PROCESS were used to analyze the hypothesized relationships between participatory HRM and firm performance.

The study has highlighted that participatory HRM in the form of self-managed teams, flexible work arrangements and empowerment results in better organizational climate, heightened affective commitment, reduced intention to leave and enhanced firm performance. Furthermore, it has been established that organizational climate, affective commitment and intention to leave serially mediate the relationship between participatory HRM and firm performance.

The study gives strong indications that adopting bundle of participatory HRM practices is beneficial for generating positive organizational climate, enhanced employee attitudes and superior firm performance.

By establishing serial mediation through organizational climate, affective commitment and employees’ intention to leave, this study brings new insights into the interpretation of underlying mechanism existing between participatory HRM and firm performance, thus uniquely contributes to the HRM and OB literature.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the idea that, in the last few decades, collaborative inquiry methods have evolved along a similar trajectory to dual lens research. Dual lens research, known in various contexts as both ways, two-eyed seeing Old Ways New Ways, and Koodjal Jinnung (looking both ways), is designed to generate new knowledge by exploring a theme through Aboriginal and contemporary western lenses. Participatory action research and a dual lens approach are considered in a number of projects with a particular focus on the issues such work can raise including conceptual challenges posed by fundamental differences between knowledge sets.

The authors hypothesize that a dual lens approach will become a branch of participatory action research, as such, a robust description needs to be developed and its ethical implications are considered. Existing work in this direction, including principles and processes, are collated and discussed.

Dual lens research as a branch of participatory action research is of great significance in countries with Aboriginal populations that are undergoing a cultural renaissance. As dual lens practitioners, the authors are finding their research outputs have a high positive impact on both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal populations and make a genuine contribution to reconciliation by finding ways of going forward together.

This paper joins a growing body of research that supports resonances between Aboriginal and “western” research methods.