Abstract
There is a growing criticism of both ‘pull’ and ‘push’ approaches to implementing evidence-based change, with the increasing prominence of co-production, also referred to as action research, participatory research, engaged scholarship and integrated knowledge translation. This paper draws on an auto-ethnography conducted over a nine-year period by a qualitative researcher embedded in a large-scale knowledge mobilisation partnership between a university and a range of local healthcare and third-sector organisations. It traces an individual journey from being a relatively disinterested observer, focusing on researching organisational change, towards becoming an enthusiast of co-production, promoting the practical impact of longitudinal research on the organisational structures and functions within the partnership.
At the same time, the paper highlights four dilemmas that longitudinal qualitative action researchers have to manage:
Conflicting identity: being ‘too academic’ for practitioners and ‘not academic enough’ for fellow researchers;
Compromising research rigour in order to quickly produce results fed back to non–academic partners;
Achieving a balancing act between being critical (in an academic way) and constructive (in a practice–oriented way);
Maintaining your own voice while truthfully reflecting the (often conflicting) voices of multiple stakeholders.
Resolving these tensions may require ‘compartmentalisation’, whereby two different sets of outputs are produced: for example, a series of high-quality critical journal papers for an academic audience and a series of practice-oriented reports for a practitioner audience. The obvious negative consequences of this approach include the constant need to wear ‘multiple hats’ and invest extra labour. The biggest difficulty, however, is achieving and maintaining ‘embeddedness’ in a healthcare organisation, which is a prerequisite for enabling change, „without losing critical distance, which is a prerequisite for producing high-quality critical qualitative research. Constant self-reflection and peer-debriefing with trusted colleagues are some of the strategies that can alleviate, if not completely resolve, this tension
At the same time, the paper highlights four dilemmas that longitudinal qualitative action researchers have to manage:
Conflicting identity: being ‘too academic’ for practitioners and ‘not academic enough’ for fellow researchers;
Compromising research rigour in order to quickly produce results fed back to non–academic partners;
Achieving a balancing act between being critical (in an academic way) and constructive (in a practice–oriented way);
Maintaining your own voice while truthfully reflecting the (often conflicting) voices of multiple stakeholders.
Resolving these tensions may require ‘compartmentalisation’, whereby two different sets of outputs are produced: for example, a series of high-quality critical journal papers for an academic audience and a series of practice-oriented reports for a practitioner audience. The obvious negative consequences of this approach include the constant need to wear ‘multiple hats’ and invest extra labour. The biggest difficulty, however, is achieving and maintaining ‘embeddedness’ in a healthcare organisation, which is a prerequisite for enabling change, „without losing critical distance, which is a prerequisite for producing high-quality critical qualitative research. Constant self-reflection and peer-debriefing with trusted colleagues are some of the strategies that can alleviate, if not completely resolve, this tension
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Title of host publication | BMJ Open |
| Volume | 9 (Suppl 1) |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Mar 2019 |
