Tina Cook

What the Camera Sees and from Whose Perspective Fun methodologies for engaging children in enlightening adults

This article draws on the experience of three research projects where photography was used with children as a data collection method and presentation tool. It was used as a way of trying to enhance opportunities for adults to hear about topics from the perspective of children. The projects were not designed to investigate the use of cameras as a research methodology; the article is a synthesis of incidentally observed outcomes and issues raised by the use of cameras within these projects. Watching young children has told us a lot about how they engage with their environment and how to help them fit into the adult agendas we call ‘education’, ‘growing up’ and ‘life’, but how much does it tell us about how children really experience their worlds?

The purpose of mess in action research: building rigour though a messy turn

Mess and rigour might appear to be strange bedfellows. This paper argues that the purpose of mess is to facilitate a turn towards new constructions of knowing that lead to transformation in practice (an action turn). Engaging in action research – research that can disturb both individual and communally held notions of knowledge for practice – will be messy. Investigations into the ‘messy area’, the interface between the known and the nearly known, between knowledge in use and tacit knowledge as yet to be useful, reveal the ‘messy area’ as a vital element for seeing, disrupting, analysing, learning, knowing and changing. It is the place where long‐held views shaped by professional knowledge, practical judgement, experience and intuition are seen through other lenses. It is here that reframing takes place and new knowing, which has both theoretical and practical significance, arises: a ‘messy turn’ takes place.

Collaborative Action Research within Developmental Evaluation Learning to See or the Road to Myopia

This article investigates the use of collaborative action research in both the development and evaluation of a project designed to develop inclusive practice in Early Years and childcare settings.The purpose of the evaluation was to ascertain how practitioners understand the term ‘inclusion’, how those understandings were translated into practice and how changes in that practice might be conceptualized and carried out.The article explores the use of facilitated collaborative action research as a core element in developmental evaluation. Reflecting on other approaches such as theory of change, it considers whether the use of action research supported the critical examination and development of a project, or whether, by being so similar in design, it constricted the evaluation in terms of reliability of data, accountability and providing a framework for planning and development.

Reflecting and learning together: action research as a vital element of developing understanding and practice

Abstract This article details how an action research/reflective practitioner approach added value to the efforts of participants who were engaged in developing their practice and working together within a New Labour area-based policy initiative. The process of reflecting and learning together in the project supported practitioners in thinking, learning about, designing, engaging in and changing elements of their practice according to the evidence they had gathered. A key element of the article is how the notion of reflection ‘in’ action and ‘on’ action (Schön) supported people from different backgrounds and settings in understanding and developing their practice through improving self-knowledge and confidence and, in turn, their knowledge of other perspectives. The article raises issues in relation to the use of action research at the interface between micro- and macro-development, individual and group work, and worker and manager perspectives. It concludes by suggesting some of the issues that those engaged in further development of innovative, interagency and interdisciplinary projects might need to address if an action research/reflective practice model of working together for change is to be made more widely available, relevant and useful.

In the name of inclusion: we all, at the end of the day, have the needs of the children at heart.

Romantown local education authority (LEA), like other authorities in England and Wales, is adopting a policy of ‘inclusion’ in providing education for young disabled people alongside non-disabled peers. Ostensibly, at least, this is a process of radical change towards institutions which are explicitly designed to cater for all, rather than the ‘integration’ or assimilation of disabled individuals into existing or adapted mainstream provision. We argue that a change of name is not necessarily a change of policy, and a move towards a more inclusive policy and provision has the rights of disabled people at heart, rather than ‘the needs of children’.

Ten top tips for effectively involving people with a learning disability in research

Purpose – Historically, people with learning disabilities have been the subjects of research, rather than true participants or contributors. Common approaches used to inform people with learning disabilities about research include simplifying information sheets and reading out the information. Literature to date suggests that little is known about what people with learning disabilities understand about research. This paper aims to address this issue.Design/methodology/approach – A total of seven men and ten staff members were invited to become co‐researchers with two academic researchers from Northumbria University, over 20 months. Lessons learned can now be used to: educate other adults; show how it can be helpful; and how it can make a difference in the lives of people with learning disabilities. This study used a facilitated collaborative action research approach involving participants becoming researchers in their own right, enabling collaborative discussions, and using multiple ways of engaging with,...

Accessing participatory research impact and legacy: developing the evidence base for participatory approaches in health research

Abstract Action research has been characterised as systematic enquiry into practice, undertaken by those involved, with the aim changing and improving that practice: an approach designed to have impact. Whilst much has been written about the process and practice of ‘researching’, historically ‘impact’ has been somewhat taken for granted. In recent years, however, the impact of all forms of research has become the focus of interest with many funding bodies now demanding that researchers not only articulate the prospective impact of their work, but what kinds of evidence will be proffered to demonstrate that impact. This has raised questions for action researchers, not about whether their work has an impact, but what form that impact takes, how it is recognised and by whom. This paper focuses on difficulties researchers find in both articulating the impact of participatory research and demonstrating links between such forms of research and impact. We draw on discussions about the notion of impact with authors that have self-reported and published their work as participatory. These discussions revealed that not only were there difficulties in clarifying the participatory dimension of their research but that whilst authors were able to discuss particular impacts of their work, articulating and evidencing that impact was often absent from their published papers. This paper offers insights into some of issues and barriers those who undertake participatory research face in explicating, for the external audience (and indeed sometimes for ourselves), the impact of this action-based form of enquiry.

Social impact of participatory health research: collaborative non-linear processes of knowledge mobilization

Abstract Social impact, defined as an effect on society, culture, quality of life, community services, or public policy beyond academia, is widely considered as a relevant requirement for scientific research, especially in the field of health care. Traditionally, in health research, the process of knowledge transfer is rather linear and one-sided and has not recognized and integrated the expertise of practitioners and those who use services. This can lead to discrimination or disqualification of knowledge and epistemic injustice. Epistemic injustice is a situation wherein certain kinds of knowers and knowledge are not taken seriously into account to define a situation. The purpose of our article is to explore how health researchers can achieve social impact for a wide audience, involving them in a non-linear process of joint learning on urgent problems recognized by the various stakeholders in public health. In participatory health research impact is not preordained by one group of stakeholders, but the result of a process of reflection and dialog with multiple stakeholders on what counts as valuable outcomes. This knowledge mobilization and winding pathway embarked upon during such research have the potential for impact along the way as opposed to the expectation that impact will occur merely at the end of a research project. We will discuss and illustrate the merits of taking a negotiated, discursive and flexible pathway in the area of community-based health promotion.

Participatory research with men with learning disability: informed consent

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is: to add to current understandings of how people with learning disability make informed choices in relation to participation in research; and to highlight both the competencies of people with learning disability in relation to participation in research and the impact of their involvement on the quality of that research.Design/methodology/approach – A participatory/collaborative approach, designed to engage participants in both developing processes for data generation and participating in the analysis of that data, was employed.Findings – The complexities of research and the implications of participation were poorly understood. Collaborative, recursive approaches are important for developing understanding. Participation in the research approach by people with learning disabilities enabled the generation of new understandings.Research limitations/implications – The small sample size means the collaborative, recursive approach, whilst researched in depth, has not been wi...

Evaluating the Early Excellence Initiative The Relationship between Evaluation, Performance Management and Practitioner Participation

This article focuses on an evaluation of the pilot implementation of the UK ‘Early Excellence’ programme, designed to improve Early Years services and achieve national impact. As with other ‘New Labour’ programmes, the evaluation approach was based on addressing the relationship between ‘context, process and outcome’; to facilitate this, nationally defined indicators were adopted through collaboration between a national evaluation team, local evaluators and local practitioners. This approach left considerable scope for interpretation and participation by local evaluators and practitioners, as they engaged in data collection and analysis. However, two major shifts later undermined the original scope: first, a shift from evaluation to performance management, and second, a shift from central practitioner participation to marginal practitioner involvement. In conclusion, we note the parallels and contrasts between this experience and others in UK public services, and propose some general learning points for similar evaluation initiatives.