Exploring the Relationship (and Power Dynamic) Between Researchers and Public Partners Working Together in Applied Health Research Teams.
Exploring the Relationship (and Power Dynamic) Between Researchers and Public Partners Working Together in Applied Health Research Teams.
复制标题
DOI：
10.3389/fsoc.2019.00020
复制
发表时间：
2019
影响因子：
2.5
通讯作者：
Johns T
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Green G;Johns T
在联合王国，公众参与应用卫生研究已成为获得包括国家卫生研究所在内的一些机构资助的先决条件。然而，这种参与在很大程度上被批评为象征性的，权力不平等，公众的声音被征求意见，但可能被忽视。为了纠正这种不平衡，出现了更多参与性的参与方式，例如合作制作。本文通过对参与项目的14名研究人员和6名公共贡献者的访谈进行专题分析，探讨了研究人员和公共合作伙伴之间的关系和权力动态，这些项目被确定为具有与包容性共同生产研究相关的许多特征。公众参与受到重视，但科学知识和非专业知识在平等基础上的融合存在问题。在实践中，“增选关系”是最常见的，即公共合作伙伴被安排到由研究人员/研究小组为他们指定的角色中。不过，也有一些更平等的伙伴关系建立的例子，以分享权力和决策，包括两个研究想法是由公共伙伴发起的案例。然而，建立平等关系和分享权力受到应用卫生研究的等级性质以及围绕治理和问责制的问题的限制。具体来说，实证主义范式在应用健康研究中占主导地位，倾向于给予经典科学思维方式特权，这是经验知识得到同等重视的障碍。这表明了建立平等关系所固有的挑战，并表明要使权力分享成为现实，需要对研究实践、文化和等级制度进行转变。具体而言，应用卫生研究的文化需要采用更民主的参与性方法，例如在源自服务使用者运动的研究中使用的方法，因为在这些工作方式中，公共伙伴可以更容易地分享权力。
Public involvement in applied health research in the UK has become a pre-requisite for receiving funding from some bodies including the National Institute of Health Research. However, much of this involvement has been criticized as being tokenistic with an unequal power dynamic whereby the public voice is consulted but may be ignored. To redress this imbalance more participatory methods of involvement, such as co-production have emerged. This paper explores the relationship and power dynamic between researchers and public partners through the thematic analysis of interviews with fourteen researchers and six public contributors who were involved in projects that were identified as having many features associated with inclusive co-produced research. Public involvement was valued but the integration of scientific and lay knowledge on an equal basis was problematic. In practice, “co-opted relationships” were most common whereby public partners were slotted into a designated role created for them by the researcher/research team. There were though some examples of more equal partnerships being established to share power and decision-making including two cases where the research idea was initiated by the public partner. However, establishing an equal relationship and sharing power was constrained by the hierarchical nature of applied health research as well as issues around governance and accountability. Specifically, the positivist paradigm that predominates in applied health research and tends to privilege classically scientific ways of thinking, was a barrier to experiential knowledge being equally valued. This demonstrates the challenges inherent in establishing equal relationships and suggests that a transformation of research practices, culture and hierarchies is required for power sharing to become a reality. Specifically, the culture of applied health research needs to embrace more democratic participatory approaches, such as those used in research originating from the service user movement, as it is within these ways of working that public partners can more readily share power.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
--
作者：
Green G
通讯作者：
Green G
DOI：
10.1136/bmj.h1258
发表时间：
2015-03-19
期刊：
BMJ (Clinical research ed.)
影响因子：
--
作者：
Moore GF;Audrey S;Barker M;Bond L;Bonell C;Hardeman W;Moore L;O'Cathain A;Tinati T;Wight D;Baird J
通讯作者：
Baird J
影响因子：
3.2
作者：
McClean, S;Shaw, A
通讯作者：
Shaw, A
影响因子：
2.4
作者：
Barnes, C
通讯作者：
Barnes, C
影响因子：
2.1
作者：
Gibson, Andy;Britten, Nicky;Lynch, James
通讯作者：
Lynch, James