1 / 8

Keeping Service User Involvement in Research Honest

Keeping Service User Involvement in Research Honest. Dr Hugh McLaughlin University of Salford h.mclaughlin@salford.ac.uk. Levels of Involvement. Tokenism Consultation Collaboration Service User Controlled Profile required. Claimed benefits for research. Common language

jud
Télécharger la présentation

Keeping Service User Involvement in Research Honest

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Keeping Service User Involvement in Research Honest Dr Hugh McLaughlin University of Salford h.mclaughlin@salford.ac.uk

  2. Levels of Involvement • Tokenism • Consultation • Collaboration • Service User Controlled • Profile required

  3. Claimed benefits for research • Common language • Identify questions overlooked, prioritizing • User-friendliness of tools • Range and quality of data enhanced • YP raise issues with other young people they would not raise with an adult • Self-esteem, confidence and employability • Energy • Presentation of results

  4. Before the Research Begins • Whose idea was it? • Recruitment –same old suspects? • Informing-for-consent • Training • Safeguarding • Morally active researcher • Over promising • Reward and recognition

  5. Issues During the Research • Support needs of service users • Confidentiality • Researcher discomfort • Identity- Service user co-researcher or co- researcher who is also a service user

  6. Knowledge Claims • Favours qualitative • ‘No research about us without us’ • Standpoint position • Service user peers • Same or different criteria of validity • Experience plus research tools

  7. Conclusions • Inadequate attention • Outcomes not just process • Less rhetoric more critical analysis • Neither underclaim nor overclaim • Keep service user involvement in research honest

  8. Final thoughts • If we accept that differing types of Knowledge and expertise contribute to a full understanding , then no one has privilged ‘insider’ knowledge, but everyone has differing knowledge from which everybody can learn. Herein lies the nub of the issue. Nolan et al. 2007:190

More Related