Mainstreaming public involvement in a complex research collaboration: A theory-informed evaluation
Mainstreaming public involvement in a complex research collaboration: A theory-informed evaluation
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/hex.13070
复制
发表时间：
2020-05-19
影响因子：
3.2
通讯作者：
Khedmati-Morasae, Esmaeil
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ward, Fiona;Popay, Jennie;Khedmati-Morasae, Esmaeil
导言关于公众参与研究的文献很多，但主要集中在研究人员和公众贡献者的经验以及促成或限制成功参与具体项目的因素上。从治理结构到研究项目，从治理结构到研究项目，从一个组织到另一个组织，人们较少考虑将PI嵌入整个组织。目的调查两个理论框架的结合，一个侧重于主流化，另一个是概念化质量，如何解释积极和有影响力的PI在整个研究组织中的嵌入。方法本研究使用了英国一个大型研究合作的评估数据。通过个人和小组访谈/研讨会，从131名受访者(包括公共顾问、大学、国民健康保险制度和地方政府工作人员)收集了基本数据。二手资料来源包括监测数据和内部文件。国家人权委员会和全国妇女委员会在将公众宣传纳入主流方面取得了实际进展。建立了组织愿景和基础设施，以便在所有级别嵌入个人投资，机会的数量和范围都有所增加；个人投资的角色变得更加明确，越来越多的公共贡献者感到能够影响决策。然而，在整个协作过程中将绩效投资纳入主流的愿望并未完全实现：缺乏员工的“认同”意味着在某些领域，绩效评估没有得到积极的体验或缺失。结论这两个理论框架带来了一个新的视角，有助于对整个组织结构和流程中绩效绩效质量的调查。我们认为，将这些框架结合起来可以辅助PI研究的评估。
Introduction There is an extensive literature on public involvement (PI) in research, but this has focused primarily on experiences for researchers and public contributors and factors enabling or restricting successful involvement in specific projects. There has been less consideration of a 'whole system' approach to embedding PI across an organization from governance structures through to research projects.Objective To investigate how a combination of two theoretical frameworks, one focused on mainstreaming and the other conceptualizing quality, can illuminate the embedding of positive and influential PI throughout a research organization.Methods The study used data from the evaluation of a large UK research collaboration. Primary data were collected from 131 respondents (including Public Advisers, university, NHS and local government staff) via individual and group interviews/workshops. Secondary sources included monitoring data and internal documents.Findings CLAHRC-NWC made real progress in mainstreaming PI. An organizational vision and infrastructure to embed PI at all levels were created, and the number and range of opportunities increased; PI roles became more clearly defined and increasingly public contributors felt able to influence decisions. However, the aspiration to mainstream PI throughout the collaboration was not fully achieved: a lack of staff 'buy-in' meant that in some areas, it was not experienced as positively or was absent.Conclusion The two theoretical frameworks brought a novel perspective, facilitating the investigation of the quality of PI in structures and processes across the whole organization. We propose that combining these frameworks can assist the evaluation of PI research.