https://www.fons.org/Resources/Documents/Journal/Vol11No1/IPDJ_1101_11.pdfBackground: There is a growing amount of research in which older adults contribute as co-researchers. The quality of this research depends, among other factors, on the nature of relationships between professional researchers and co-researchers. Reflections on these relationships can offer structured insight into this form of research.Aim: Our reflection on the co-operation between two older adults and a nurse researcher aims to share the lessons learned based on a critical understanding of our journey. Our main questions are: 1. How has the relationship developed over time, including in terms of mutuality and equality? 2. Which moments have been decisive in this development?Conclusion: We regard our co-operative relationship as a ‘dynamic search’. The meaning of mutuality and equality may change over time and so enrich the relationships. There is a need for further understanding into how these values can be nurtured in different configurations of researchers and co-researchers.Implications for practice: Evolving relations can be nurtured through deliberative sharing of the perceptions, expectations and experiences of the researchers and co-researchers Combining a formal working atmosphere with informal moments helps the research team respond to the individual needs of its members To enhance equality and mutuality, it is important to appreciate and value everyone’s contribution rather than concentrating on ‘what’ or ‘how’ individuals contribute
MULTIFILE
Active participation of stakeholders in health research practice is important to generate societal impact of outcomes, as innovations will more likely be implemented and disseminated in clinical practice. To foster a co-creative process, numerous frameworks and tools are available. As they originate from different professions, it is not evident that health researchers are aware of these tools, or able to select and use them in a meaningful way. This article describes the bottom-up development process of a compass and presents the final outcome. This Co-creation Impact Compass combines a well-known business model with tools from design thinking that promote active participation by all relevant stakeholders. It aims to support healthcare researchers to select helpful and valid co-creation tools for the right purpose and at the right moment. Using the Co-creation Impact Compass might increase the researchers’ understanding of the value of co-creation, and it provides help to engage stakeholders in all phases of a research project.
DOCUMENT
A five-year experiment of collaborative curriculum design teams including lecturers, students and researchers in Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences in nine disciplines, has led to a deepened insight in its complexity. Three ambitions were central in the longitudinal project funded by the Ministry of Education: cross-stakeholder-collaboration, the integration of research in bachelor programs, and systematic curriculum design. Curriculum co-design of students, lecturers and researchers offers opportunities for more meaningful innovations, while adding to the complexity of the design process (Bovill, et. al., 2016 Cook-Sather, et al., 2014 Healey and Healey, 2018). Ideally, each team commits to making a difference and therefore creates a social learning space by mutually engaging uncertainty (Wenger-Trayner and Wenger-Trayner, 2020). But how to make such a collective effort? The further integration of research in professional bachelor programs aimed to better educate our students as future professionals in a hypercomplex world (Barnett, 2012). But realizing this integration is not straightforward at all (Markauskaite & Goodyear, 2017 Young & Muller, 2014). Existing conceptual frameworks, such as from Brew (2012) and Healey (2005) need to be collectively learned, interpreted and adapted, and often the current body of knowledge did not provide any direction for research integration (see also Griffioen, Groen, & Nak, 2019). Finally, to increase the quality of the curriculum design processes, teams were stimulated to apply the Curriculum Spiderweb by Van den Akker (2003), which showed to be a useful instrument, but its usage also showed the high complexity of curriculum design as such, let alone collectively. The combined complexity of the multifaceted processes of curriculum design, the co-creative setup, and the ambition to further integrate research into the curriculum has shown to be a challenging endeavor. Still, these challenges the SoTL community needs to get to grips with to increase the quality of higher education.
MULTIFILE
Conducting research as part of a PhD study offers students a unique opportunity to explore new methods and methodologies. Although we each based our PhD studies on a more traditional participatory action research (PAR) methodology, we also took the opportunity to experiment with a new data analysis method. Working from a critical social science paradigm (Fay, 1987) that translates into critical and collaborative research practice with an emancipatory intent, our scope of freedom as to how to process data, perform the analyses, then synthesise and report the results, became restricted. We felt that if we were to be genuine in involving practitioners in data analysis, as co-researchers, we needed to adopt approaches that allowed the expression of all ways of knowing. Using the creative arts proved to be an innovative way of working and learning, facilitating the complex interpretation of narrative data, identifying patterns, themes and connections. As in all qualitative research, in order to enhance process and outcome rigour, the (learning) strategies and methods used by researchers should be congruent with the principles characteristic of the chosen methodology. In this chapter, we want to offer you, the reader, a deeper insight into the key principles underlying this method for data analysis, before describing how we "danced" with them in each of our studies. Building on the original work of Boomer and McCormack (2010), who used the key principles of practice development, namely participation, inclusion and collaboration,i we developed a "critical and creative data analysis framework". This framework rests on the three main philosophical principles of hermeneutics,criticality, and creativity. Applying these principles to data analysis we have learned that multiple perspectives usually show more similarities than differences, which we express visually and poetically in Figure 22.1. The interface between two perspectives is not a juxtaposition but a fluid transition, where the sky meets the sea and the sea meets the sand. Each is separate and yet part of the whole, bigger picture.
DOCUMENT
BackgroundIn 2015, Amsterdam became part of the WHO Age Friendly City community, thereby accepting the responsibility to work towards a more age friendly Amsterdam. To study senior citizens’ needs and wishes concerning the age friendliness of their neighbourhood, the municipality asked the Amsterdam University of Applied Science to set up two pilot projects in two neighbourhoods. Aim was to 1) gain insight in seniors’ views and wishes regarding an age friendly city, and 2) reflect on the experiences with working with senior co-researchers. MethodologyThe study followed a Participatory Action Research approach with research teams consisting of seniors as co-researchers and professional researchers. We chose two neighbourhoods with distinct characteristics: the Indische Buurt which is centrally located, vibrant, multicultural, and strongly gentrifying, and Buitenveldert, a suburban and spacious neighbourhood, with less facilities and a dominance of well-to-do senior citizens. In both areas, we recruited senior co-researchers to form the research teams. They generally lived in, or close to, the pilot neighbourhood, and varied in age and ethnical background. The aim was to put the co-researchers in the lead during the entire research process. However, it differed between the neighbourhoods which type of researcher was in the lead. As a team, they formulated the main research question, constructed a topic list for interviews with older citizens, convened the interviews, analysed the data, wrote the report, and presented the results. During the entire process, they were supported by professional researchers.Both research teams interviewed 40 senior citizens, who were recruited through the co-researchers’ networks, professional care organisations, neighbourhood communities, and local media. We intended to gather a sample representative for the neighbourhood population. In the Indische Buurt, this proved to be difficult, since the relatively large Turkish and Moroccan communities were difficult to get into contact with, and it was hard to find co-researchers from those communities who could have provided a way in. Process and outcomesWe will share some of the results, but we will mainly reflect on the research process. ProcessRegarding the process, we found some differences between the two neighbourhoods. In the Indische Buurt, it took much effort to find co-researchers, since the seniors we encountered said to be too busy with other neighbourhood activities. We did recruit a small group of four co-researchers of different ethnical background, but sadly lacking Turkish and Moroccan seniors. They started with a very limited research experience and experienced ownership, which greatly increased during the process. At the finalisation of the project, the group ceased to be, but the outcomes were followed up by existing groups and organisations in the neighbourhood.In Buitenveldert, a large group of co-researchers was recruited in no-time, bearing more resemblance to an action group than a research group. They were generally highly educated and some already had research experience. The group proved to be pro-active, had a strong feeling of ownership, and worked in constant collaboration with the ‘professional’ researchers, respecting each other’s knowledge and skills. At the finalisation of the project, the group remained active as partner of the local government. OutcomesConcerning the content of the outcomes, we found some expected differences and unexpected similarities. For instance, we expected to find different outcomes concerning housing and facilities between the neighbourhoods. Indeed, in Buitenveldert, housing was already age friendly whereas facilities were scarce and geographically far apart. Yet, in the Indische Buurt, housing was poorly equipped for physically impaired seniors, but facilities were abundant and close by.We also found that, in both neighbourhoods, senior citizens were reluctant to share their limitations and ask for support, despite differences in neighbourhood, ethnicity, age etc. Of course, this can be expected of seniors from the ‘silent generation’. However, they seemingly shared these emotions more easily with their peers than with professional researchers. ConclusionThe social-cultural context of the neighbourhood impacts the research process. Overall, co-research appears to be a fruitful method to involve senior citizens in decisions concerning the improvement of their neighbourhood. Aims and content of the workshopWe aim to:• present our reflections on the participative process of working with senior co-researchers in Amsterdam• exchange and discuss with the participants of the workshop the lessons learned on how to facilitate citizens’ participation in the community• discuss similar and future projects and possibilities for collaboration among the participants of the workshopContent of the workshop• Presentation• Exchange and discussion in small groups • Plenary discussion on possible collaboration projects aiming to enhance citizens’ participation in the community
DOCUMENT
Paper presentation at the international symposium "Consulting young People: why student voice matters"
DOCUMENT
Voor een inclusief-coöperatief afstudeerproject van de opleiding Sociaal Pedagogische Hulpverlening is een boekje geschreven. De auteurs zijn vier studenten van de Hogeschool Utrecht en twee medewerkers met een licht verstandelijke beperking van Reinaerde, tevens co-researchers van het onderzoek. Het boekje gaat over Gijs van Houten, een jongen met een licht verstandelijke beperking, die een week meeloopt op een hogeschool. Tijdens deze week leert hij nieuwe vaardigheden en loopt hij tegen een handvol hindernissen aan. In het verhaal is te lezen hoe hij deze uitdagingen aangaat en ervaart. “Gijs doet mee op een hogeschool” is geschreven naar aanleiding van de resultaten van het gelijknamige onderzoek. Hieruit bleek dat mensen met een licht verstandelijke beperking wel zouden willen participeren op een hogeschool, maar niet weten wat de werkzaamheden inhouden. Het boekje is speciaal ontwikkeld voor en door mensen met een licht verstandelijke beperking. Om het personage voor de lezers zo herkenbaar mogelijk te schrijven, hebben de co-researchers een groot aandeel gehad in het vormen van Gijs. Ook hebben zij geholpen met de invulling van de week, welke obstakels en overwinningen Gijs meemaakt, en op welke manier Gijs daarop reageert.
DOCUMENT
Abstract from AMS Scientific Conference '24, Amsterdam, Netherlands.In the two-year Nature-Based Area Development study researchers at four Dutch universities collaborated with planning professionals in cities, regions and companies to investigate how nature-based urban development can become a forceful reality. The study applied a combination of methods such as co-research sessions with consortium partners, in-depth interviews with experts and a multiple case study analysis of best practices in the Netherlands and abroad.Keywords: nature-based, area development, densification, urban ecosystem services, planning instruments
DOCUMENT
