Learning as an outcome of involvement in research: what are the implications for practice, reporting and evaluation?
Learning as an outcome of involvement in research: what are the implications for practice, reporting and evaluation?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s40900-019-0147-1
复制
发表时间：
2019-01-01
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Barron, Duncan
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Staley, Kristina;Barron, Duncan
在过去二十年中，在循证医学原则主导的文化中，公众对研究的参与不断发展。因此，一些研究人员将同样的想法应用于参与，特别是参与研究项目，就不足为奇了。这也许可以解释为什么他们倾向于将干预概念化为一种干预，试图以与测试治疗方法相同的方式评估其影响，强调干预需要证据基础，并使用研究语言来描述其实践和报告其结果。在本文中，我们将探讨为什么这种想法可能是无益的。我们建议采用另一种方法，将参与概念化为“支持双向学习的对话”。在这种框架下，没有参与的“方法”，而是需要根据所涉及的个人的背景和需求量身定制一系列广泛的方法。研究人员与公众之间互动的质量变得比过程更重要。各方都需要做好准备，提供和接受建设性的批评，并参与建设性的冲突，从而产生最好的想法和决定。就研究人员所学的内容而言，参与的直接结果是主观的（特定于研究人员）和不可预测的（因为研究人员一开始不知道他们不知道什么）。这使得量化这些结果以及对不同方法进行比较具有挑战性。在此基础上，我们认为以符合循证医学价值观的方式获得参与结果的“有力证据”可能是不可能或不合适的。我们认为，研究人员对他们通过涉入学到的东西的主观描述，代表了一种同样有效的方式，可以了解涉入是否产生了影响。需要采用不同的方法来评估和报告参与情况，这些方法描述了谁说了什么和学了什么（短期结果），结果做出了什么改变（中期结果），以及对研究文化和议程的长期、更广泛的影响。分享研究人员的个人账户可能有助于更广泛地了解参与是如何起作用的，为谁以及何时起作用的。
Public involvement in research has evolved over the last two decades in a culture dominated by the principles of evidence-based medicine. It is therefore unsurprising that some researchers have applied the same thinking to involvement, particularly to involvement in research projects. This may explain why they tend to conceptualise involvement as an intervention, seek to evaluate its impact in the same way that treatments are tested, highlight the need for an evidence-base for involvement, and use the language of research to describe its practice and report its outcomes. In this article we explore why this thinking may be unhelpful. We suggest an alternative approach that conceptualises involvement as 'conversations that support two-way learning'. With this framing, there is no 'method' for involvement, but a wide range of approaches that need to be tailored to the context and the needs of the individuals involved. The quality of the interaction between researchers and the public becomes more important than the process. All parties need to be better prepared to offer and receive constructive criticism and to engage in constructive conflict that leads to the best ideas and decisions. The immediate outcomes of involvement in terms of what researchers learn are subjective (specific to the researcher) and unpredictable (because researchers don't know what they don't know at the start). This makes it challenging to quantify such outcomes, and to carry out comparisons of different approaches. On this basis, we believe obtaining 'robust evidence' of the outcomes of involvement in ways that are consistent with the values of evidence-based medicine, may not be possible or appropriate. We argue that researchers' subjective accounts of what they learnt through involvement represent an equally valid way of knowing whether involvement has made a difference. Different approaches to evaluating and reporting involvement need to be adopted, which describe the details of what was said and learnt by whom (short term outcomes), what changes were made as a result (medium term outcomes), and the long-term, wider impacts on the research culture and agenda. Sharing researchers' personal accounts may support wider learning about how involvement works, for whom and when.