A Team-based Approach to Qualitative Inquiry: The Collaborative Retreat

BackgroundGetting research into policy and practice in healthcare is a recognised, world-wide concern. As an attempt to bridge the gap between research and practice, research funders are requesting more interdisciplinary and collaborative research, while actual experiences of such processes have been less studied. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to gain more knowledge on the interdisciplinary, collaborative and partnership research process by investigating researchers’ experiences of and approaches to the process, based on their participation in an inventive national research programme. The programme aimed to boost collaborative and partnership research and build learning structures, while improving ways to lead, manage and develop practices in Swedish health and social services.MethodsInterviews conducted with project leaders and/or lead researchers and documentation from 20 projects were analysed using directed and conventional content analysis.ResultsCollaborative approaches were achieved by design, e.g. action research, or by involving practitioners from several levels of the healthcare system in various parts of the research process. The use of dual roles as researcher/clinician or practitioner/PhD student or the use of education designed especially for practitioners or ‘student researchers’ were other approaches. The collaborative process constituted the area for the main lessons learned as well as the main problems. Difficulties concerned handling complexity and conflicts between different expectations and demands in the practitioner’s and researcher’s contexts, and dealing with human resource issues and group interactions when forming collaborative and interdisciplinary research teams. The handling of such challenges required time, resources, knowledge, interactive learning and skilled project management.ConclusionsCollaborative approaches are important in the study of complex phenomena. Results from this study show that allocated time, arenas for interactions and skills in project management and communication are needed during research collaboration to ensure support and build trust and understanding with involved practitioners at several levels in the healthcare system. For researchers, dealing with this complexity takes time and energy from the scientific process. For practitioners, this puts demands on understanding a research process and how it fits with on-going organisational agendas and activities and allocating time. Some of the identified factors may be overlooked by funders and involved stakeholders when designing, performing and evaluating interdisciplinary, collaborative and partnership research.

Service user involvement in mental health research is on the international political agenda, for example mirrored by an emphasis on user involvement in funding of research. The idea is that service users contribute with their lived experiences of mental distress to the research process and thereby heighten the quality and relevance of the research. The purpose of this scoping review was to identify and evaluate empirical research of how mental health service users actually partake in collaborative research processes and to summarize this research in dialogue with mental health user-researchers. The review included 32 studies. Main findings indicated that actual involvement of service user-researchers in research processes encompassed a complex set of precarious negotiation practices, where academics and service user-researchers were positioned and positioned themselves in alternative ways. The review accounts for how mental health service users were involved in collaborative research processes. The extracted themes concerned: (i) Expectations of research processes, (ii) Contribution to research processes, and (iii) Training and learning from research processes. The study reveals that collaborative research in mental health requires changes to traditional research practices to create and support genuine collaborative partnerships and thereby avoid tokenism and power inequalities.

Collaborative research teams are an attractive means of conducting nursing research in the clinical setting because of the many opportunities that collaboration can supply. These opportunities include a chance to: (1) network with other nurses who have similar interests, (2) share knowledge and expertise for designing clinical studies that directly affect daily practice, (3) develop instruments, (4) write grant proposals, (5) collect and analyze data, and (6) prepare manuscripts for publication. The effectiveness of research teams, however, is strongly influenced by group functioning. This article describes the functioning of a collaborative family interventions research team of nursing faculty members and CNSs at a large Midwestern university setting. The formation of the group and membership characteristics are described, along with strategies used to identify the research focus and individual and group goals. Aspects related to the influence of the group on members and the internal operations of the group are also addressed. Future strategies to be explored will focus on the size of the group and joint authorship issues. The authors also set forth a number of recommendations for development of collaborative research groups.

Many different landscape research approaches involve some form of collaboration between researchers with different disciplinary backgrounds or between these researchers and societal actors. Often, however, the underlying theoretical assumptions behind these approaches and corresponding research goals and intended societal outcomes are not made explicit. These goals and intended outcomes do however require different forms of stakeholder participation, representing various degrees of sharing responsibilities and powers concerning the collaborative research process between researchers and societal stakeholders. Taking the theoretical perspectives, aims and goals and types of stakeholder participation into account, we distinguish between four general types of collaborative research approaches in landscape research. These types reflect the increasing engagement of researchers in processes of societal and institutional change. The case chapters in this book reflect this gamut of collaborative research types. In each of them, the authors describe and reflect on the theories and methods they used, the contribution to societal development they intended to achieve, the challenges or difficulties they encountered, the actual outcomes they achieved and the lessons they learned. The cases thus provide a valuable knowledge base for a comparative analysis of the collaborative practices and research roles employed and of the adequacy of the theories and methodologies practiced. The insights derived are used in the last chapter for the formulation of practical recommendations for those who want to engage in collaborative research for landscape development and governance.

The diversity of learning needs within the TESOL field creates inherent tensions between the need for targeted professional learning for TESOL teachers, the more generalist nature of tertiary TESOL courses, and the varied research interests of teacher educators. This article describes a collaborative research project between university-based teacher educators and TESOL teachers working in an adult education centre. With a range of aims amongst the research participants, this article reports on the ‘fluid’ and ‘messy’ process of collaborative research (Burns & Edwards, 2014, p. 67) as we investigate the use of identity texts (Cummins & Early, 2011) as a mediating tool for professional learning. In acknowledging the practice of teaching as highly situated, the data presented focuses on the individual experience of each teacher, voiced through an action research frame, before we discuss the achievements and challenges which emerged through this collaborative research process. In the findings, we argue for the importance of championing the case for the messy processes of collaborative research within the broader research academy.

The article highlights the promising ways of providing access to cloud-based platforms and tools to support collaborative learning and research processes. It is emphasized that the implementation of cloud computing services is a promising trend in the development of modern ICT pedagogical systems. The concept of cloud-based open learning and research platform is considered. The benchmarking studies of using ICT tools for learning and research within the pedagogical systems of higher education are fulfilled. The analysis and evaluation of the existing experience of using different types of software packages to support learning and research processes within the cloud-based environment are proposed. The issues of integration of knowledge-based services, language technologies and database network services within the open systems of learning and research are covered. A model of the cloud-based open learning and research collaborative environment involving the use of cloud-based components based on AWS virtual desktop, IBM Box, WPadV4 and other tools is substantiated. The reasonable ways of tools selection are considered and the prospects for their use within the cloud-based open learning and research platform in pedagogical systems of higher education are described. The research methods are the analysis of official international documents, publications on the subject of the research, observation, comparison, the analysis of the experience of using educational and scientific network packages, application of cloud technologies, benchmarking studies and experimental studies. Conclusions and recommendations encompass the application of cloud-based open learning and research technologies covering research platforms, scientific and educational network packages, and also cloud services for collecting, submitting and processing data as a promising trend in the development and modernization of the educational environment of higher education institutions and collaborative research.

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is a collaborative research process which engages researchers and community members as equals during all phases of a research project. This approach promotes social change and enhances the practical relevance of the research. One key tool in CBPR is the community advisory board (CAB), where individuals with lived experience and community organizations are integrated into the research process and align research with community priorities. This scoping review: (1) explores best practices for effective recruitment and engagement of people with lived experience (PWLE) on CABs; and (2) identifies the scope of literature on minimizing power dynamics between organizations and community members with lived experience who work on CABs together. A scoping review was conducted utilizing Embase, Medline and PsychINFO. Peer reviewed publications and grey literature published between Jan. 1, 1990, and Mar. 30, 2023, were considered. Two independent reviewers screened references in successive stages of title/abstract and full-text screening. Conflicts were resolved by consensus or a third reviewer. Selected studies were analyzed using a content analysis strategy with NVIVO software. 2346 peer-reviewed studies and 15 articles of grey literature were identified with initial search and 53 texts were included in final analysis. Three main themes were identified; recruitment of PWLE; engagement of PWLE; and navigating power dynamics of PWLE working alongside representatives of community organizations. Within recruitment, subthemes of CAB selection strategies, challenges, and successes were reported. Within engagement, subthemes of CAB management, CAB roles and activities, capacity strategies, challenges, successes, and compensation of members were reported. Lastly, within PWLE working alongside organizational representatives, subthemes of challenges and mitigation strategies were reported. We emphasize the importance of relationship building and mutual respect within the CAB; clearly defined roles and responsibilities to reduce role confusion and tokenism; appropriate compensation, whether monetary or otherwise, bi-directional capacity building; and the use of a cultural insider whilst establishing/operating a CAB. We identified key factors that contribute to the effective recruitment and engagement of PWLE on CABs in the context of CBPR. This scoping review, completed by a CBPR group, identified key factors that can be utilized by other CBPR groups to better engage PWLE on CABs. Further research is needed to demonstrate the proposed best practices’ influence on CAB effectiveness. This scoping review used the Arksey and O’Malley scoping review methodology, with the addition of Levac’s sixth stage of consultation, in consultation with I-CREAte’s own CAB. This work has been completed by a CBPR group, and informed by its CAB, thus grounding it in the needs of CBPR groups and PWLE engaging in research, to provide resources for groups who employ similar models. This scoping review is narrowed to the realms of social and health services, and the relevance to other domains is uncertain. This review was restricted to literature in English and French, thus may have excluded relevant research published in other languages. Despite all efforts to be thorough with identification of the literature, we may have missed relevant publications.

BackgroundTraditional research about substance use disorder (SUD) treatment is considered, among an increasing number of service users, to be disempowering and poorly reflective of their priorities. Thus, this methodological article sought to examine the experiences of a peer research group (PRG), whose four members were in long-term SUD recovery, and a principal investigator (PI), when collaborating on a study of SUD recovery. This article has also aspired to discern the influence of peer researcher participation on the research process. The purpose of the qualitative research project that formed the basis of this methodological study was to examine the reasons provided and strategies employed for abstaining from problematic substance use among persons with SUDs.MethodsThe project took place from 2015 to 2018, during which time individual interviews were conducted with 18 persons in recovery from SUDs. The PRG contributed to all parts of the project and worked alongside the PI in preparing the study, during early stages of data analysis, and while writing up the findings. In total, ten group discussions were held over the course of 3 years.ResultsThe study showed that the PRG offered important contributions with respect to developing the interview guide, preunderstanding among the PRG members, and discussing alternative forms of data collection. Key findings about how this collaborative research process was experienced relate to three matters: the group aspect of participation, the value of predictable routines and clear expectations, and the open sharing of private matters. The PI experienced the research process as having been enriched by alternative ways of asking questions and interpreting findings and as an interactive arena for reciprocal social and professional support.ConclusionsWhen establishing a PRG while studying recovery processes, it can be advantageous to include several peer researchers with diverse lived experiences concerning substance use, treatment, and recovery. If possible, at least one peer researcher with formal training or qualitative research experience might be included. The PI should be trained in collaborating with peer researchers or should be part of a research environment in which it is possible to discuss methodological challenges with other researchers.

Despite differences between countries, people's health needs are similar, as are nursing problems and issues. Collaborative nursing research is needed to identify similarities and differences among countries. Visiting researcher(s), however, must understand the host country's culture and traditions to avert exploitation and misunderstanding. Collaborative research should enhance nursing in each country. The authors describe a replication study, in a Japanese hospital, of nursing administration research previously conducted in the United States, which compared the type of head nurse response staff nurses (n = 126) would prefer in a problem situation with what they perceived their head nurse would use. Included are: (a) a discussion of the need for research with attention to selecting a culturally compatible theory; (b) the history of the visiting and host researcher's relationship; (c) gaining approval to conduct the study; (d) a discussion of all aspects of the research methodology with special attention to reliability and validity in instrument translation; (e) a description of what occurred in Japan prior to and after data collections; and (f) elaboration of the problems and benefits of collaborative international research. Data comparison of the two studies indicated marked similarities between the staff nurses in these two countries.

Water for the Seasons was a five-year collaborative research project which aimed to assess the climate resiliency of the Truckee-Carson River System, a snow-fed river system in the western United States. The collaborative research design featured iterative interactions involving an interdisciplinary research team and local stakeholders that produced climate science information identified by stakeholders as necessary to support adaptation to climate-induced water supply variability. This information included plausible climate scenarios to test the resiliency of the river system and models simulating hydrologic results to examine changes in water availability. In this paper, we present formative and summative evaluation data collected over the course of the project to determine the extent to which this collaborative research project met stakeholders’ climate science information needs. Results indicate that over a five-year period, the project: 1) co-produced new climate science information to support local climate adaptation; 2) consistently engaged stakeholders in research that facilitated social learning to identify innovative strategies to adapt water management; 3) provided iterative interactions between stakeholders and researchers to ensure resulting information services were useful to stakeholders; 4) combined diverse, practical stakeholder knowledge with rigorous scientific research to co-produce legitimate climate science information; and 5) effectively utilized Extension as a boundary organization to design, implement, and evaluate collaborative research processes and outcomes. Further empirical work is necessary to continue testing and standardizing metrics that illuminate collaborative research successes and failures, and to identify best practices that guide future collaborations to co-produce climate science information.

In this article, we aim to identify and explore possibilities and challenges of academic interdisciplinary capacities and ethos. The objective is that this knowledge could be used both in future interdisciplinary research projects and in educational settings. We achieve this through self-reflective learning processes among a group of interdisciplinary scholars from four distinctly different subjects. The method used is an autoethnographic and empirical self-reflective approach to data collection, analysis and deconstruction of professional learning processes. This also serves to establish research methodological trustworthiness and authenticity. The results show that interdisciplinarity is undervalued by grant-giving institutions and the academic system, in general. It also entails time-consuming and risky research practices. However, interdisciplinary and collaborative research creates a more innovative and stimulating learning environment and enforces new ways of thinking and doing, in ascertaining each individual’s knowledge and competences. We argue that a long-term interdisciplinary and collaborative research process could enhance and raise a critical thinking and creative consciousness among scholars, contributing to a more holistic, sustainable and socially robust learning in research and higher education. Finally, we conclude that this academic interdisciplinary capacity and ethos could be framed and enhanced by the notion of Challenge-Based Learning.

In today’s recovery-oriented mental health care practice and research, the perspectives of service users are considered of great importance. However, academic research into mental health care still mainly produces a scientific monologue in which the researcher (without lived experience) has the last word about the subject’s experiences. A fundamental question that remains underexposed in mental health care research is one of relational ethics: how can these monological dynamics be reshaped into a real dialogue between people with and without lived experience? The aim of the current paper is to reflect on the research process that we, an academic researcher and an expert by experience, have conducted in a co-creative way in order to draw a number of key lessons on dialogical research ethics.

In this research project, three researchers from three different research backgrounds and academic disciplines drew on Bhabha's third space theory to reflect on their experience conducting collaborative research. The collaborative research process created a third space where the researchers were able to share their perspectives and challenge ideas to achieve consensus. Utilising a critical narrative inquiry approach, the researchers shared their experiences of working with each other in a collaborative research project. They sought to explore: 1) How do three different perspectives of research contribute to the research process? 2) What does the collaborative research practice look like? 3) How can this process contribute to new positions in qualitative research? Narratives were analysed using a cross-case thematic analysis. The findings revealed that the research process was not linear and prescriptive but more so a descriptive process, which created a space for new understandings about collaborative research to emerge.

Environmental health research is gaining interest due to the global concern of environmental factors impacting health. This research is often multifaceted and becomes complex when trying to understand the participation of multiple environmental variables. It requires the combination of innovative research methods, as well as the collaboration of diverse disciplines in the research process. The application of collaborative approaches is often challenging for interdisciplinary teams, and much can be learned from in-depth observation of such processes. We share here a case report describing initial observations and reflections on the collaborative research process of the Data Mining and Neonatal Outcomes (DoMiNO) project (2013–2018), which aimed to explore associations between mixtures of air pollutants and other environmental variables with adverse birth outcomes by using an innovative data mining approach. The project was built on interdisciplinary and user knowledge participation with embedded evaluation framework of its collaborative process. We describe the collaborative process, the benefits and challenges encountered, and provide insights from our experience. We identified that interdisciplinary research requires time and investment in building relationships, continuous learning, and engagement to build bridges between disciplines towards co-production, discovery, and knowledge translation. Learning from interdisciplinary collaborative research experiences can facilitate future research in the challenging field of environmental health.

Sustainable landscape development means researchers have to engage in collaborative research to find an informed, ethical and locally-valued balance between ecological resilience and societal pursuits, and build the capacity for co-ordinated adaptive management of the involved stakeholders and governance institutions. In this last chapter we analyse the collaborative research processes, or so-called boundary-spanning-processes, of the case chapters. The timing and the type of boundary objects and methods used more or less define the level of participation of social stakeholders and the role and function of the researcher in the ongoing societal learning, negotiation and innovation process. The cases show the variety of functions and knowledge broker strategies pursued. From the chapters it is not clear whether all research efforts led to concrete impacts; several authors highlighted dilemma's and bottlenecks that they found hard to deal with. We note that each type of problem and context setting requires a specific type of inquiry (theoretical system perspective), researcher role and boundary process, and to be effective the latter should evolve in line with the iterative societal learning, negotiation and innovation process. To be effective, collaborative researchers cannot limit themselves to 'knowledge production for action', but need to engage in 'knowledge production in action'. They have to analyse the situation and embed their research in the ongoing change process; to opt for a multiple-dimensional, flexible research approach, and to wisely combine various types of system thinking and the respective paradigmatic assumptions. With enough background knowledge on various system approaches, continuous monitoring and reflection, collaborative researchers may become competent performers, but at the end of the day collaborative research is an art. Experts have a holistic perspective, 'a feel' for nuances and apply creative thinking in action.