Participatory Research Emergent Recommendations for Researchers and Academic Institutions: A Rapid Scoping Review

Benjamin Scher, Juliet Scott-Barrett, M. Hickman, B. Chrisinger
{"title":"Participatory Research Emergent Recommendations for Researchers and Academic Institutions: A Rapid Scoping Review","authors":"Benjamin Scher, Juliet Scott-Barrett, M. Hickman, B. Chrisinger","doi":"10.35844/001c.74807","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, a range of academic disciplines have emphasized the potential benefits of prioritizing meaningful engagement with individuals and communities who have lived and have living experience with the topics, phenomena and problems researchers seek to study. In March 2022, we were asked to produce a paper to inform a university workshop and training materials to help students and faculty engage with participatory methods. In turn, we conducted a rapid scoping review of reviews to document key recommendations relating to methodology, logistics and ethics within the various modes of participatory research. Searches were conducted in Web of Science, SCOPUS, ProQuest, Pub Med, OVID (including Medline, PschyInfo/EMBASE, APAPsych) to identify published academic reviews (e.g., systematic, scoping, literature reviews and evidence gap maps), for best practices relating to participatory research. This approach drew out aggregated best practices and lessons learned across many primary studies and increased the speed of the review. From 276 studies imported for screening, 43 full-text studies were assessed for eligibility and 28 were deemed relevant for full inclusion. Results are presented as: 1) participatory research recommendations for researchers; and 2) participatory research recommendations for academic institutions. Three sub-themes emerged within the context of suggestions for researchers engaging with participatory methods: 1) early-stage considerations for study design and planning; 2) conducting the research; and 3) dissemination and knowledge exchange. This rapid scoping review highlights key recommendations for researchers interested in using participatory approaches in their own research, and for academic and institutional stakeholders who aim to support these practices.","PeriodicalId":73887,"journal":{"name":"Journal of participatory research methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of participatory research methods","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.35844/001c.74807","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

In recent years, a range of academic disciplines have emphasized the potential benefits of prioritizing meaningful engagement with individuals and communities who have lived and have living experience with the topics, phenomena and problems researchers seek to study. In March 2022, we were asked to produce a paper to inform a university workshop and training materials to help students and faculty engage with participatory methods. In turn, we conducted a rapid scoping review of reviews to document key recommendations relating to methodology, logistics and ethics within the various modes of participatory research. Searches were conducted in Web of Science, SCOPUS, ProQuest, Pub Med, OVID (including Medline, PschyInfo/EMBASE, APAPsych) to identify published academic reviews (e.g., systematic, scoping, literature reviews and evidence gap maps), for best practices relating to participatory research. This approach drew out aggregated best practices and lessons learned across many primary studies and increased the speed of the review. From 276 studies imported for screening, 43 full-text studies were assessed for eligibility and 28 were deemed relevant for full inclusion. Results are presented as: 1) participatory research recommendations for researchers; and 2) participatory research recommendations for academic institutions. Three sub-themes emerged within the context of suggestions for researchers engaging with participatory methods: 1) early-stage considerations for study design and planning; 2) conducting the research; and 3) dissemination and knowledge exchange. This rapid scoping review highlights key recommendations for researchers interested in using participatory approaches in their own research, and for academic and institutional stakeholders who aim to support these practices.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
参与式研究对研究人员和学术机构的紧急建议:快速范围审查
近年来,一系列学术学科都强调了优先考虑与研究人员寻求研究的主题、现象和问题有过或有过生活经验的个人和社区进行有意义的接触的潜在好处。在2022年3月,我们被要求制作一篇论文,为大学研讨会和培训材料提供信息,以帮助学生和教师采用参与式方法。反过来,我们对审查进行了快速的范围审查,以记录与各种参与式研究模式中的方法,后勤和道德有关的关键建议。在Web of Science、SCOPUS、ProQuest、Pub Med、OVID(包括Medline、PschyInfo/EMBASE、APAPsych)中进行检索,以确定已发表的学术综述(例如,系统性、范围界定、文献综述和证据差距图),寻找与参与性研究相关的最佳实践。这种方法从许多主要研究中总结出了汇总的最佳实践和经验教训,并提高了审查的速度。从用于筛选的276项研究中,43项全文研究被评估为合格,28项被认为与完全纳入相关。结果呈现为:1)对研究人员的参与性研究建议;2)学术机构参与式研究建议。在研究参与式方法的建议背景下,出现了三个子主题:1)研究设计和规划的早期考虑;2)进行研究;3)传播和知识交流。这一快速的范围审查强调了对有兴趣在自己的研究中使用参与式方法的研究人员以及旨在支持这些实践的学术和机构利益相关者的关键建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Editorial: ”How Communities and Research Institutions Work Together to Dismantle Structural Racism and Advance Health Equity” Program Evaluation and Improvement by a Homeless Community Using a Human Centered Design Approach The RESPCCT Study: Community-led Development of a Person-Centered Instrument to Measure Health Equity in Perinatal Services The Equity-Centered Participatory Compensation Model (EPCM): A Tutorial for This Emergent Methodology Amplifying Youth Voices Using Digital Technology: A Case Study in Collaborative Research With Youth Service Organizations
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1