Different in so many ways: Exploring consumer, health service staff, and academic partnerships in a research advisory group through rapid ethnography

Defining dignity at the intersection of disability: a scoping review

PURPOSE

This scoping literature review aimed to determine the definition of dignity in relation to disability. It also examined the extent to which inclusive research methods have been used to develop working definitions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted in five electronic databases, using a modified framework by Arksey and O'Malley. Narrative synthesis and qualitative content analysis were employed to examine definitions of dignity and the use of inclusive research methods.

RESULTS

22 peer-reviewed studies were included. The majority of the studies were qualitative (72.72%) and examined various disability populations in diverse settings. Although 19 studies offered a definition of dignity, there was no clear consensus. Dignity was frequently defined from a utilitarian perspective, emphasising affordances and barriers. However, engagement with theoretical constructs was superficial and limited. Further, no studies mentioned the use of inclusive research methods.

CONCLUSIONS

The absence of inclusive research methods hinders the development of a comprehensive definition of dignity that is accepted by and relevant to people with disability. Engaging with both theoretical and empirical perspectives of dignity is crucial to develop a meaningful and inclusive definition, which can inform interventions and policies that enhance dignity for people with disability across diverse settings and contexts.

'Learning and growing together': exploring consumer partnerships in a PhD, an ethnographic study

BACKGROUND

Consumer and community involvement (CCI) in health research is increasingly recognised as best practice and is closely linked with calls for epistemic justice and more transparent university collaborations with consumers. Given doctoral candidates play a key role in the future of co-production, examination of consumer partnerships in PhDs is important. This study aimed to describe and evaluate consumer partnerships in a PhD from the perspective of the consumer co-researchers, the PhD candidate, and the academic supervisors including optimal approaches, impacts, and benefits and challenges.

METHODS

This prospective, co-produced ethnographic study was conducted over 33 months. Data collection included field notes, a monthly online log of partnership experiences and time spent, interviews or a focus group every six months, and a PhD student reflexive diary. Qualitative data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The student, two academics, and four consumer co-researchers were involved. A mean of 11.10 h per month were spent on CCI. The student spent the most time (mean 15.86 h per month). Preparation for dissemination of findings was the most frequent partnership activity. The two overarching themes emphasised that a PhD promotes a rich partnership ethos with the student at the centre and that the partnership was a worthwhile but challenging process. The four sub-themes highlighted that developing a collegial and supportive environment with regular meetings combined with a multi-faceted and responsive co-learning approach were core to success. Additionally, there were benefits for individuals, research processes and outcomes, and for driving change in consumer-academic research partnerships. Recruiting to and forming the partnership, maintaining the collaboration through inevitable changes and challenges, and an ethical and supportive closure of the research team were critical.

CONCLUSIONS

This longitudinal ethnographic study demonstrated that doctoral research can create a rich ethos for research and knowledge co-production which evolved over time. Equalising power dynamics through relationship building and co-learning was critical. Additionally, a focus on supportively ending the partnership was essential, and CCI may reduce PhD student isolation and procrastination. Enhanced university incentivisation of co-production in health research is recommended to address gaps in consumer remuneration and student support.