Recent articles..

Biographic Narrative Interpretative Method Training

Louise Oliver

My research on child-to-parent abuse aims to interview families who are experiencing this issue, using the Biographic Narrative Interpretative Method (BNIM) developed by Tom Wengraf.  BNIM involves conducting rule governed interviews in which the first part of the interview is unstructured and the second part uses the words of the participant to ask more questions.  The analysis of the gathered information will be by using reflecting teams. These teams will help to maintain ‘multi-voiced’ interpretations. This idiographic method opens up the possibility for concurrently investigating multiple experiences, and through a better understanding, allows the development of new working-hypotheses.


The BNIM training is divided into two sections; the first part covers the interview technique to be used and the second part involves looking at the analysis method (This part will be delivered in 2015).


Having attended the first part of the training, understanding has been gained as to how challenging the interview technique is.  To know when to “push” for a ‘Particular Incident Narrative’ (PIN) can only be developed through practice, as is knowing when the participant is giving a PIN and not a generic incident narrative.   The initial training has involved holding six interviews; improving each time   with practice.  All attendees have had the opportunity to send two transcripts and notes to Wengraf for further critique, prior to holding the pilot interview.


There are three sub-sessions within this interview technique.  The first one uses the ‘Single -Question aimed at Inducing Narratives’ (SQUIN).  This involves asking one question, such as “tell me your life story” and allowing the participant to talk about what is important to them.  After a short break, or if appropriate another day, sub-session two can begin, using CUED-questions which are the participant’s exact words in the order given, pushing towards  the PINs.  Sub-session three is used, if required, on a separate day, to garner more information relevant to the research, using a semi-structured interview technique.


What has been observed is how powerful this interview technique is, to garner information especially when the interviewer is not steering the interview.  How deep the participant goes into their memory when they are relating a particular PIN, determines how detailed the story becomes.  This technique, if used properly, can open up endless possibilities that may not have been considered previously.

Who to contact in RKEO?

RKEO has had a lot of changes over the past six months and this guide aims to explain who to contact in the new structure.

You can read more about the roles about all staff in RKEO and access a structure chart here:

Support with writing your bid and identify a funder/scheme/call:

– For support with developing your ideas, horizon scanning for possible funding, building networks or advice on structure and content, you should speak with your Research Facilitator:

  • Faculty of Management – Alexandra Pekalski
  • Faculty of Media & Communication – Alexandra Pekalski
  • Faculty of Science and Technology – Jennifer Roddis
  • Faculty of Health and Social Sciences – Jennifer Roddis

– For support with EU and/or international research bids you should speak with one of our EU/international funding specialist Research Facilitators:

  • Any Faculty – Emily Cieciura and Paul Lynch


Support with submitting a bid:

– For support with costings, internal approvals, submitting your bid, recording it on RED, using Research Professional, etc. you should contact your Funding Development Officer:

  • Faculty of Management – Ehren Milner
  • Faculty of Media & Communication – Dianne Goodman
  • Faculty of Science and Technology – Kerri Jones and Alice Brown
  • Faculty of Health and Social Sciences – Jason Edwards


Support with managing your research project(s):

– For support with financial and project management of your research grant, legal and audit queries, reporting, etc. you should contact your Project Officer:

  • Faculty of Management – Philip Leahy-Harland
  • Faculty of Media & Communication – Dean Eatherton
  • Faculty of Science and Technology – Laura Zisa-Swann (Laura is due to go on maternity leave soon and will be replaced by Giles Ashton)
  • Faculty of Health and Social Sciences – Cristina Lujan Barroso

– For specialist support you should contact:

  • Outputs, publishing, open access – Pengpeng Hatch
  • Complex financial queries, budgeting, forecasting – Gary Cowen
  • Ethics, governance and research data management – Eva Papadopoulou
  • Fusion investment fund administration – Sue Townrow


Support with knowledge exchange:

For specislist support with KE activities, you should speak with:

  • Public engagement, including the Festival of Learning – Naomi Kay or Harry Gibson
  • HEIF projects and business development – Jayne Codling
  • KTPs – Rachel Clarke
  • Research communications, PR, research website – Rachel Bowen
  • Student engagement with research – Sam Squelch

“A Breath of Fresh AiR”

The Bournemouth University ARTS in Research Collaborative (AiR) held a two-day workshop in late summer to experiment with interviewing, narrative and ephemera, and arts-based representations of such approaches (reported here previously). An article available online from today in The Qualitative Report by Kip Jones entitled, “A Report on an Arts-led, Emotive Experiment in Interviewing and Storytelling” details the thinking behind this effort and the mechanisms put in place that contributed to the workshop’s success.

The paper reports on the two-day experimental workshop in arts‐led interviewing technique using ephemera to elicit life stories and then reporting narrative accounts back using creative means of presentation.

 Academics and students from across Departments at Bournemouth University told each other stories from their pasts based in objects that they presented to each other as gifts. Each partner then reported the shared story to the group using arts‐led presentation methods.

Narrative research and the qualitative interview are discussed. The conclusion is drawn that academics yearn to express the more emotive connections generated by listening to the stories of strangers.

The procedures followed for the two‐day workshop are outlined in order that other academics may also organize their own experiments in eliciting story using personal objects and retelling stories creatively.

Because the group wanted to take the impact of this experience further, AiR applied and was accepted to present the concept at the Social Research Association’s workshop ‘Creative Research Methods’ on 8 May at the British Library in London. The Collaborative is about to meet up to brainstorm ways in which to translate their experiences of the workshop into a more presentational one.

Anyone from across Departments, whether lecturer, researcher, student or faculty, is welcome to join the ARTS in Research Collaborative. Please contact Kip Jones if you are interested in joining or just want to know more about the Collaborative.

 This just in from Creative Quarter!

Ten ‘rules’ for being creative in producing research

£500,000 funding – Better interactions between people and machines

Investment up to £500,000 in feasibility studies in the area of user experience (UX). The aim is to encourage new and improved ways for machines, their computing systems and people to interact.

Innovate UK is to invest up to £500,000 in feasibility studies in the area of user experience (UX). The aim is to encourage new and improved ways for machines, their computing systems and people to interact. Proposals may address technologies that contribute to these new approaches, such as sensing information about the user, or they may address technologies that help with specific types of experience, such as mobile or wearable devices. Projects must be collaborative and business-led. The competition is open only to micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, with the option to collaborate with one additional SME or research organisation/academic partner. 

Small businesses could receive up to 70% of their eligible project costs and medium-sized businesses up to 60%. 

Projects are expected to last between 3 and 12 months and to have total project costs of up to £50,000. 

The feasibility studies are part of a £1.5m Innovate UK programme to stimulate innovations in user experience (UX). This competition runs in parallel with a £1m Knowledge Transfer Partnership competition. For details, visit the competition page.

 This competition opens on 16 February 2015 and the deadline for registration is noon on 25 March 2015. The deadline for applications is noon on 1 April 2015. A briefing day (with webinar option) for potential applicants will be held in London on 18 February 2015.

SW businesses can benefit from £5k of funding from Creative England

Creative England is offering creative digital businesses in the South West the chance to apply for a third round of Business Strategy and Innovation Vouchers.

The scheme provides companies with £1,000 – £5,000 to subsidise much of the cost of procuring expert third party services in order to aid growth.

Funded by the Creative Industries iNet programme through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Regional Growth Fund (RGF), the initiative focuses strongly on digital innovation and business strategy.

The Creative England Innovation Programme helps creative companies build and sell innovative products and services more successfully. This work is delivered through structured projects – which include seed investment, mentoring, marketing, and business support, planning and strategy. These projects help companies jump over business barriers to grow more quickly and profitably.

In order to apply to this round, businesses must be based in Bristol, Bath, Dorset, Devon, Wiltshire, Somerset or Gloucestershire, and be able to provide a total equalling 30% of the requested amount in match funding.

The voucher scheme is part of a wider £314k programme of support through the Creative England Innovation Programme.

Applications for the Voucher Scheme close on February 27th, 2015. For more information please read the guidelines below. Companies can apply directly here.


Searching for innovative salt replacement and shelf life extension technologies

Strategic Allies are looking  for new solutions for food products in two specific areas:

 Salt substitution using a non-sodium ingredient.

Full (100%) salt substitution using a new innovative ingredient or process in order to achieve the same flavour and sensorial properties, without sodium (e.g. MSG would not be of interest).

Shelf life extension – improvement and maintenance of the “freshly roasted” texture and flavour.

Any process or technology innovation that maintains the texture and flavour experienced after cooking, for a period of 12 months. ​

The  client is a European manufacturer of snacks and bite-sized foods who is interested in new technologies and solutions to improve the nutritional profile and presentation of their products. The majority of the company’s products are based on roasted, fried and baked snacks.

 You can find further information regarding this search here.



North Wales Brain Injury Service – Independence in cooking tasks

This competition aims to promote independence in cooking tasks , to identify and develop innovative solutions that maximise the benefits for brain injury service users’ and benefits for public services.

On Thursday 26th February 2015 the competition will launch to seek and develop innovative solutions that will promote independence in cooking activities for North Wales Brain Injury Service users rather than current practice which involves direct one to one prompting from therapists and support workers. 

Organisations will be invited to compete for a share of a total £160,000 fund for the further development and commercialisation of innovative technologies, processes and business models.

The competition will open on 26th February 2015 and close on 20 April 2015. There will  be a formal launch event on Monday 23rd March 2015 in Wrexham.   

Once the competition is open, interested parties will be able to get further information, register their interest and book a place at the briefing event on 23rd March 2015 via the following email address;

 For further details click here.

Grants Academy small grants scheme launched!

RKEO are delighted to launch the Grants Academy small grants scheme! This scheme, only available to members of the Grants Academy, offers funding of up to £2000 for small or pilot studies which will lead to a submission to an external funder. It is anticipated that it will allow the collection of pilot data, but other activities will be considered. All current grants academy members are encouraged to submit an application; it is anticipated that 5 awards will be made. All projects must be completed by 31st July 2015.

The deadline for proposals is 4th March 2015. Any queries should be directed to Jennifer Roddis – . The application form and guidance can be found at I:\R&KEO\Public\GA pilot funding 2014-15. We look forward to receiving your applications…

The editor is a *!@#*!

Editors of academic journals are regularly cursed by academics worldwide.  At universities across the globe we can regularly hear expression such as “Who does the editor think he is rejecting my paper?” or “Why does it have to take six months (or more) to find out my paper is rejected?” or “Why does the editor not understand how good/novel/innovative/… our paper is?  These kinds of expression of dismay may or may not be accompanied by an expletive.  Being both busy editors and well published authors we thought timely to put pen to paper and explain the work (role and limitations) of the typical editor of an international academic journal.

First, being an editor is not all bad, and is actually a privilege. It is an opportunity to nurture new authors, be at the forefront of your discipline and it is part of being a ‘serious’ scholar. However, we have been at the receiving end of the wrath of authors dissatisfied with something we did or didn’t do as an editor AND we have been disappointed as authors with what we perceived to be, poor editorial decisions!

We wrote a short outline of the proposed paper and send it to the editor of Women and Birth.  The idea was readily accepted and resulted in a paper published this week in the scientific journal.

The paper includes little snippets of insight and advice to authors.  For example, a reminder that the average editor of an academic journalist an unpaid volunteer, usually a full-time lecturer and/or researcher with a busy day job, who does most of her editorial work on Sunday morning when the kids are still in bed or Tuesday night after the second-year marking has been completed. We hope that knowledge of the editors’ role will help authors (a) understand the submission process better; and (b) be a little bit more patience with the editors.  And, last but not least, we hope our article helps the development of editors of the future.


Jenny Hall, Vanora Hundley & Edwin van Teijlingen



Hall, J., Hundley, V., van Teijlingen, E. (2015) The Journal editor: friend or foe? Women & Birth (accepted).

Thinking about monographs in a world of open access – blog post by Professor Geoffrey Crossick

Original article is published on 22 January 2015 via –

Distinguished Professor of the Humanities, School of Advanced Study, University of London

In this post, Professor Geoffrey Crossick introduces his report on monographs and open access, outlining the key messages of the report and giving his personal take on the issues and the wider contexts. Professor Crossick is Distinguished Professor of the Humanities, School of Advanced Study, University of London and led the HEFCE Monographs and Open Access Project.
Open access to research publications has in recent years emerged as a major issue for academics, publishers and funders. Discussion and policy have, however, overwhelmingly focused on articles in journals. That is where funders, including HEFCE and RCUK, have announced mandates which require open access, and with most academic journals now published in digital format it is easier to think about making them open access.

There has been only limited discussion of how open access might apply to books, even though these are an important way in which academics in the arts, humanities and social sciences communicate their research. This classically means a monograph, but research books also include works such as scholarly editions, books of research essays by different authors, and scholarly exhibition catalogues.

I say only limited discussion, but underneath the surface there has been a great deal of paddling going on. This has meant debates about how monographs (I’ll use the term from now on to refer to all research books) might be made available on an open access basis, and a variety of initiatives to find financially and organisationally viable ways of doing so.

The Finch Report on open access focused above all on journal articles, and acknowledged that more work was needed to understand the issues with respect to monographs. HEFCE explicitly recognised this when it announced that it would not require them to be open access for the next REF.

And that is where I came in. Late in 2012 HEFCE invited me to lead some work on the implications of open access for monographs. The aim was not to come up with Finch-style policy recommendations, because the development of open access for books is at too early a stage for that. What was needed was some consultation, collecting of information and thinking with a view to producing a report that would be helpful to those interested in developing policy though not in itself setting out what policy might be.

I readily accepted the invitation. Book-centred disciplines have been part of my life as an academic (I’m a historian) and in my roles in higher education and research management. The arts, humanities, and social sciences matter to me, and I appreciate the importance of securing the future of the research book in a changing world of scholarly communication.

I put together an Expert Reference Group drawn from academics, librarians, publishers, funders and others to support me in this work. Together we set about a project that from the outset was not about open access alone, but about the whole position of the monograph today. If we didn’t understand the role of the monograph in research activity and communication, if we didn’t understand its function in the cultures of disciplines and departments, if we didn’t know what was happening to the monograph today, then we really couldn’t begin to understand what open access might mean for it.

My report to HEFCE (and to the AHRC and ESRC who supported the project) was published on 22 January. It covers a lot of ground in exploring the key issues that need to be understood by anyone wanting to think about policy in this area. It needs some 70 pages plus annexes to engage with the reality of what books mean, as well as the potential and the challenges of their moving to open access. The report, therefore, has much to say about the world of research and publication in universities.

As a humanities scholar I’m used to reporting complexity where complexity exists, as it does here. Some things are nonetheless clear. Talk of the monograph in crisis is hard to sustain – they’re being published in ever-increasing numbers, academics are writing and reading them, and libraries and individuals are buying them. That doesn’t mean that all is rosy, but it is important to see open access as an opportunity rather than as a response to a crisis.

It is essential that any future for open access monographs sustains their fundamental importance in most arts, humanities and social science disciplines. That means better technology to enable many of the material qualities of the book that go beyond words alone (the format, images, layout, references and much else) to be retained in a digital future. Though few academics told us that they enjoyed reading a whole research monograph on a screen – if they like it they buy or borrow a print edition. Printed books will not disappear.

It also means being flexible about the kind of licences required for books on open access, it means overcoming the potential high charges that owners of third-party rights (to images, texts, bars of music or dance notation) might impose, and it means finding the business models that will make it work. On this last issue there are many experiments underway and it seems to me improbable that any one of them will become dominant – the future will be one with a diversity of business models.

There is much more in the report and I really look forward to its discussion, and to see how HEFCE and others will take the issues forward. Open access carries with it great potential for larger readership and easier access, and also for new ways of engaging with and using the results of research. I was struck by the constructive approach that I found in responses from academics to the question of open access for monographs.

There were, of course, anxieties and policy needs to take these into account, but there was also real recognition of the potential. My advice to HEFCE and other policy makers is that there is much to be gained by working with the grain of academic opinion, and much to be lost by not doing so. I look forward to the debate!

Major HEFCE study of monographs and open access sheds light on complex issues

Original article appeared on 21 January 2015 via –

The Monographs and Open Access Project considers the place of monographs in the arts, humanities and social science disciplines, and how they fit into the developing world of open access to research. It concludes that open access for monographs has a great deal to contribute to scholarly communication, but that the challenges of introducing it will be real and policy should take account of the various issues identified in the report.

The Monographs and Open Access Project was led by Geoffrey Crossick, Distinguished Professor of Humanities at the School of Advanced Study, University of London [Note 1]. It was commissioned by HEFCE in partnership with the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) and the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC).

Important messages in the report are that:

  • Monographs are a vitally important and distinctive vehicle for research communication, and must be sustained in any moves to open access. The availability of printed books alongside the open-access versions will be essential.
  • Contrary to many perceptions, it would not be appropriate to talk of a crisis of the monograph; this does not mean that monographs are not facing challenges, but the arguments for open access would appear to be for broader and more positive reasons than solving some supposed crisis.
  • Open access offers both short- and long-term advantages for monograph publication and use; many of these are bound up with a transition to digital publishing that has not been at the same speed as that for journals.
  • There is no single dominant emerging business model for supporting open-access publishing of monographs; a range of approaches will coexist for some time and it is unlikely that any single model will emerge as dominant. Policies will therefore need to be flexible.

Evidence to support the project was gathered through an extensive programme of consultations, surveys, data-gathering and focused research activities. The research was supported and shaped by an Expert Reference Group of publishers, academics, librarians, funders, open access experts with the additional help of distinguished representatives from overseas.

This project was set up following advice to HEFCE that monographs and other long-form publications should be excluded from requirements for open access in the post-2014 Research Excellence Framework (REF).

Professor Geoffrey Crossick said:

‘This project has demonstrated very clearly the vital importance of monographs to the academic community as a way of developing research thinking, a vehicle for research communication, a demonstrator of academic quality, and much more. Open access offers significant short- and long-term advantages for monograph publishing that should be pursued, but the clear message is that the academically essential qualities of the monograph must be sustained in any moves to open access.

‘The project has shown that, for open access to be achievable, a number of key issues must be tackled. Open access depends on a satisfactory transition to digital publishing that hasn’t yet happened for books in the way that it has for journals, and the various business models that can support open-access monographs are still largely experimental. Furthermore, the potential costs of third-party rights could pose serious problems, and there are issues around licensing that will need careful handling.

I have been encouraged by the very positive way in which academics and others have engaged with this project; it is important that this engagement continues, because there is much to be gained by working with the grain, and much to be lost by not doing so.’

Welcoming the report, David Sweeney, Director, Research, Education and Knowledge Exchange at HEFCE, said:

‘This report makes a huge contribution to the evolving debate around open access, shedding much-needed light on the issues around delivering open access to books. The wealth of evidence and commentary that this project has generated will spark continued debate among academics, learned societies and publishers, as well as provide important guidance to research funders and others interested in developing policies in this area.

‘I am very grateful to Professor Crossick for the open and engaged way that he has handled his investigation into this complex and sensitive area. The report is firmly grounded in the perspectives of the communities that rely so much on monograph publishing, and is all the stronger for it.

‘Monographs sit outside the open-access requirements for the next REF. But the long timescales for book authorship and publishing mean that any policy for open-access monographs in future REF exercises would need to be established soon to give due notice to the sector.’

Read the report

Next steps

HEFCE will consider this report and discuss its policy implications with other research funders including AHRC and ESRC, recognising that any steps towards policies for open-access monographs should be preceded by a thorough process of consultation and engagement.

Tweet #OpenAccess


  1. A monograph is a long academic book on a single research topic, normally written by one or sometimes two authors. For this project, the term was used more broadly to include edited collections of research essays, critical editions of texts and other works, and other longer outputs of research such as scholarly exhibition catalogues.
  2. The HEFCE Monographs and Open Access Project launched in late 2013. It was led by Professor Geoffrey Crossick and was overseen by a steering group, comprising membership from HEFCE, AHRC, ESRC and the British Academy.
  3. In March 2014, the UK higher education funding bodies announced a new policy for open-access in the post-2014 REF, requiring that certain outputs be made available in open-access format to be admissible to the next REF. Monographs and other long-form publications were excluded from these requirements.
  4. The report, setting out the findings of the project and the results of the various strands of research, is available on the HEFCE web-site.
  5. The remit of the HEFCE Monographs and Open Access Project was:
  • To develop an understanding of the scale and nature of the difficulties that are thought to be facing monograph publishing.
  • To develop an understanding of the place, purpose and appropriateness of the scholarly monograph within the overall ecology of scholarly communication in those arts, humanities and social science disciplines where it plays a significant part. This should include, among other issues, the importance of the monograph to scholarly communication and to reputation and career progression.
  • To examine the role that innovation in publishing and access models can play in ensuring that the various benefits and attributes associated with the monograph can be sustained and, where possible, enhanced. This will involve examining a range of opportunities, risks, challenges and solutions, which should include identifying and examining current and emerging models for monograph publishing, with particular reference to open-access models.


Dancing with Parkinson’s: Standing Tall, Stepping Boldly and Feeling Lovely

Lunchtime Seminar on Thursday 12th February 2015 , 1-1.50pm in EB708, Lansdowne Campus

Dr Sara Houston, Principal Lecturer in Dance at the University of Roehampton

Against the backdrop of a five-year study into dance for people with Parkinson’s, Dr Houston will examine what it means to ‘live well’ with Parkinson’s through those who participate in a dance class.  She will  examine how participants’ aims to ‘stand tall and step boldly’ are embodied and shaped by their dancing experience.  The seminar  will highlight one woman’s claim that dancing makes her feel beautiful, and, as such, is fundamental to her wellbeing. She will debate the challenge that this claim poses to those who argue that beauty in dance is at best unimportant, at worst disenfranchising. In debating this challenge she will create a link between aesthetics and health through a reformulation of the value of beauty in the context of chronic illness and wellbeing. This link will then allow her to discuss how feeling lovely could become relevant and meaningful within the context of participating in dance.

Dr Sara Houston is Principal Lecturer in Dance at the University of Roehampton.  Currently, she leads a longitudinal mixed-methods research study examining the experience of dancing with Parkinson’s commissioned by English National Ballet.  Her work won her the BUPA Foundation Vitality for Life Prize in 2011 and she was a Finalist for the National Public Engagement Awards in 2014.  For the last five years, Sara’s project with people with Parkinson’s has developed her work on the intersection between dance as art, health and wellbeing and on the tensions and collaboration between quantitative and qualitative methodologies and between art and therapy models of engagement.  In 2014, Sara won a National Teaching Fellowship from the Higher Education Academy for excellence in teaching.  She is Chair of the Board of People Dancing: the Foundation for Community Dance.  Her book Dancing With Parkinson’s: Art, Community and Wellbeing is in preparation and will be published by Intellect Books.

The seminar will be followed by the BU Humanisation Special Interest Group meeting  from  2 -4.30pm  in EB708, Lansdowne Campus. All are welcome.

Recent methods papers at BU

In the past six weeks we saw the publication of three methods papers by BU academics.     BU’s Joanne Mayoh and her colleague Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie in the USA published a paper on mixed-methods approaches in phenomenology.1  They argue that phenomenological research methods work extremely well as a component of mixed-methods research approaches. The purpose of this article is twofold, they provide: (1) a philosophical justification for using what they label mixed-methods phenomenological research (MMPR); and (2) examples of MMPR in practice to underline a number of potential models for MMPR that can practically be used in future research.

In the Faculty of Health & Social Sciences Catherine Angell and Jane Hunt with Professor Emerita Jo Alexander offer methodological insights into the ‘draw and write’ research method. 2   Their literature review identified that the method has been used inconsistently and found that there are issues for researchers in relation to interpretation of creative work and analysis of data. As a result of this, an improvement on this method, entitled ‘draw, write and tell’, was developed in an attempt to provide a more child-orientated and consistent approach to data collection, interpretation and analysis. This article identifies the issues relating to ‘draw and write’ and describes the development and application of ‘draw, write and tell’ as a case study, noting its limitations and benefits.

Finally, BU Visiting Faculty Emma Pitchforth and CMMPH’s Edwin van Teijlingen together with Consultant Midwife Helen MacKenzie Bryers published a paper advocating mixed-methods approaches in health research.3  This paper outlines the different paradigms or philosophies underlying quantitative and qualitative methods and some of the on-going debates about mixed-methods. The paper further highlights a number of practical issues, such as: (1) the particular mix and order of quantitative and qualitative methods; (2) the way of integrating methods from different philosophical stance; and (3) how to synthesise mixed-methods findings.   This paper is accompanied by an editorial in  Nepal Journal of Epidemiology. 4


Professor Edwin van Teijlingen

Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health



  1.  Mayoh, J., Onwuegbuzie, A.J.  (2015) Toward a Conceptualization of Mixed Methods Phenomenological Research, Journal of Mixed Methods Research 9(1): 91-107.
  2. Angell, C., Alexander, J., Hunt, J.A.  (2015) ‘Draw, write and tell’: A literature review and methodological development on the ‘draw and write’ research method.  Journal of Early Childhood Research, 13(1): 17-28.
  3. MacKenzie Bryers, H., van Teijlingen, E. Pitchforth, E. (2014) Advocating mixed-methods approaches in health research, Nepal Journal of Epidemiology 4(5): 417-422.
  4. Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E., Wasti, S.P., Sathian, B. (2014) Mixed-methods approaches in health research in Nepal (editorial) Nepal Journal of Epidemiology 4(5): 415-416.


Subscribe to receive the Daily Digest email