Category / writing

New qualitative research methods paper now online

Fusion themes, international, open access, Publishing, Training, writing

I am delighted to share that our most recent methods paper in the International Journal of Qualitative Methods entitled “Most Significant Change Approach: A Guide to Assess the Programmatic Effects” [1] is now published and is available online (click here!).  This paper is co-authored by Mohan K. Sharma, Shanti P. Khanal and Edwin R.van Teijlingen.

The paper outlines the so-called ‘Most Significant Change’ (MSC) participatory technique to monitor and evaluate programmatic effects. MSC is a form of monitoring that can be applied throughout the programme cycle and it provides information to help manage the programme. Furthermore, MSC as an evaluation method, provides stories from which programmes’ overall impact can be assessed. However, MSC, as a participatory evaluation technique using qualitative approaches, is often neglected by many evaluators.

 

This is the latest in a series of papers describing the strengths and weaknesses of applying specific research approaches.  Other recent methods papers included two on positionality [2-3], a paper on interview methods [4], reflections on conducting participatory policy analysis in Nepal [5], some considerations about the selection of study localities in health research [6], distinguishing between methods and methodology [7], the use of the appreciative inquiry methods [8], reflections on interdisciplinary research [9], and patient and public involvement in research in Bangladesh and Nepal [10].

Whilst older methods papers published Faculty of Health & Social Sciences academics include topics such as focus group discussions, working with translators, conducting pilot studies, the Delphi Method, comparative studies, and qualitative interviews [11-22].

 

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMWH

 

References:

  1. Sharma, M.K., Khanal, S.P., van Teijlingen E. (2024) Most Significant Change Approach: A Guide to Assess the Programmatic Effects, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/16094069241272143
  2. Gurr, H., Oliver, L., Harvey, O., Subedi, M., van Teijlingen, E. (2024) Positionality in Qualitative Research, Dhaulagiri Journal of Sociology & Anthropology 18(1): 48-54. https://doi.org/10.3126/dsaj.v18i01.67553
  3. Thapa, R., Regmi, P., van Teijlingen, E., Heaslip, V. (2023) Researching Dalits and health care: Considering positionality, Health Prospect 21(1): 6-8.
  4. Harvey, O., van Teijlingen, E., Parrish, M. (2024) Using a range of communication tools to interview a hard-to-reach population, Sociological Research Online 29(1): 221–232 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/13607804221142212
  5. Sapkota, S., Rushton, S., van Teijlingen, E., Subedi, M., Balen, J., Gautam, S., Adhikary, P., Simkhada, P., Wasti,SP., Karki, JK., Panday, S., Karki, A., Rijal, B., Joshi, S., Basnet, S., Marahatta, SB. (2024) Participatory policy analysis in health policy and systems research: reflections from a study in Nepal. Health Research & Policy Systems, 22(7) https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-023-01092-5 .
  6. Wasti, S.P., van Teijlingen, E., Simkhada, P., Rushton, S., Balen, J., Subedi, M., Karki, J., Adhikary, P., Sapkota, S., Gautam, S., Marahatta, S., Panday, S., Bajracharya, B., Vaidya, A. for the Nepal Federal Health System Team (2023) Selection of Study Sites and Participants for Research into Nepal’s Federal Health System, WHO South-East Asia Journal of Public Health
  7. Harvey, O., Regmi, P.R., Mahato, P., Dhakal Adhikari, S., Dhital, R., van Teijlingen E. (2023) Methods or Methodology: Terms That Are Too Often Confused. Journal of Education & Research, 13(2): 94-105. https://doi.org/10.51474/jer.v13i2.716
  8. Arnold, R., Gordon, C., Way, S., Mahato, P., van Teijlingen, E. (2022) Why use Appreciative Inquiry? Lessons learned during COVID-19 in a UK maternity service, European Journal of Midwifery 6 (May): 1-7. https://doi.org/10.18332/ejm/147444
  9. Shanker, S., Wasti, S.P., Ireland, J., Regmi, P., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E. (2021) The Interdisciplinary Team Not the Interdisciplinarist: Reflections on Interdisciplinary Research, Europasian Journal of Medical Sciences 3(2): 1-5. https://doi.org/10.46405/ejms.v3i2.317
  10. Simkhada, B., van Teijlingen, E., Nadeem, A., Green, S., Warren A. (2021) Importance of involving patients and public in health research in Bangladesh and Nepal. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 37: e10. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462320000811
  11. Kirkpatrick, P., van Teijlingen E. (2009) Lost in Translation: Reflecting on a Model to Reduce Translation and Interpretation Bias, The Open Nursing Journal, 3(8): 25-32 web address: bentham.org/open/tonursj/openaccess2.htm
  12. van Teijlingen E, Hundley, V. (2005) Pilot studies in family planning & reproductive health care, Journal of Family Planning & Reproductive Health Care 31(3): 219-21.
  13. van Teijlingen E, Pitchforth E. (2006) Focus Group Research Family Planning & Reproductive Health Care, Journal of Family Planning & Reproductive Health Care 32(1): 30-2
  14. van Teijlingen E, Pitchforth, E., Bishop, C., Russell, E.M. (2006) Delphi method and nominal group techniques in family planning and reproductive health research, Journal of Family Planning & Reproductive Health Care 32(4): 249-252.
  15. Pitchforth, E, van Teijlingen E, Ireland, J. (2007) Focusing the group, RCM Midwives Journal 10(2): 78-80.
  16. Pitchforth, E., van Teijlingen E. (2005) International Public Health Research involving interpreters: a case study approach from Bangladesh, BMC Public Health, 5: 71 Web address: http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2458-5-71.pdf
  17. Forrest Keenan, K., Teijlingen van, E., Pitchforth, E. (2005) Analysis of qualitative research data in family planning & reproductive health care, Journal of Family Planning & Reproductive Health Care 31(1): 40-43.
  18. Brindle S, Douglas, F, van Teijlingen E., Hundley V. (2005) Midwifery Research: Questionnaire surveys, RCM Midwives Journal 8 (4): 156-158.
  19. Douglas, F, van Teijlingen E, Brindle S, Hundley, V, Bruce, J., Torrance, N. (2005) Designing Questionnaires for Midwifery Research, RCM Midwives Journal 8: 212-215.
  20. van Teijlingen E Ireland, J. (2003) Research interviews in midwifery RCM Midwives Journal 6: 260-63. http://www.midwives.co.uk/default.asp?chid=439&editorial_id=13768
  21. van Teijlingen E, Sandall, J., Wrede, S., Benoit, C., DeVries, R., Bourgeault, I. (2003) Comparative studies in maternity care RCM Midwives Journal 6: 338-40.
  22. van Teijlingen E, Hundley, V. (2002) ‘The importance of pilot studies’ Nursing Standard 16(40): 33-36. Web: nursing-standard.co.uk/archives/vol16-40/pdfs/vol16w40p3336.pdf

BU e-health paper read 4,000 times

international, Publishing, Women's Academic Network, writing

Our paper ‘Midwives’ views towards women using mHealth and eHealth to self-monitor their pregnancy: A systematic review of the literature’ [1] reached 4,000 reads on ResearchGate today.  Obviously, there is a growing interest in the use of mobile apps as well as the more general application of mHealth and eHealth in the UK and elsewhere.

 

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

Centre for Midwifery & Women’s Health

Reference:

  1. Vickery, M., van Teijlingen, E., Hundley, V., Smith, G. B., Way, S., Westwood, G. (2020). Midwives’ views towards women using mHealth and eHealth to self-monitor their pregnancy: A systematic review of the literature. European Journal of Midwifery, 4: 1-11. https://doi.org/10.18332/ejm/126625

Delegation in Healthcare book: BU writing opportunity

Publishing, writing

BLOG delegation

Rowena Slope and Lucy Stainer are leading a unique writing opportunity for BU staff to join their writing team for the Delegation in Healthcare book, which has a publishing agreement with the Taylor & Francis Group. Your contribution could make a significant difference in the field of healthcare delegation.
 – Do you have case studies/ experiences that can be used in this book?
 – Do you have research/ literature on delegation?
If it’s ‘yes’ to either of these questions and you would be willing to share or would like to join our writing team (current membership is Teresa Burdett, Emily Brooks, Joanna Cleall, Chantel Cox, Alex Hull, Ursula Rolfe & Clare Shearer), please get in touch with us via email: lstainer@bournemouth.ac.uk
We’re excited about the possibility of including your work and expertise in our book, and we would love to hear from you.
(more…)

New sociology paper Freedom from Academentia

international, open access, Women's Academic Network, writing

Congratulations to Laura Favaro, Lecturer in Social Science in the Faculty of Health & Social Sciences, who published the paper ‘Let us be free from “ACADEMENTIA”’ this last weekend of June [1].   “Survivor of academentia” is how one former lecturer in sociology described herself when to Laura interviewed her for her ethnography of academia. In particular, the research explored the “gender wars”, namely the disputes around sex and gender that have escalated dramatically since the mid 2010s in Britain and increasingly also in many other countries. This article builds on feminist and other critical uses of the term academentia with original insights from interview and document data about the detrimental impact of queer theory and politics. The hope is to stimulate further inquiry into the push towards queering at universities, and beyond, as well as into the connections between the
transgender and mad movements.

The content of this paper has been covered by writer Victoria Smith in  The Critic  and Laura will be presenting about this exciting topic at a conference this summer.

Well done!

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

Centre for Midwifery & Women’s Health

 

Reference:

Favaro, L. (2024) Let us be free from “Academentia”, Cuestiones de género: de la igualdad y la diferencia. Nº. 19: 659-92.

 

Positionality in qualitative research

international, open access, Publishing, student research, Women's Academic Network, writing

At the online editorial board meeting today [Saturday 29th June] of the Dhaulagiri Journal of Sociology and Anthropology I had the pleasure of seeing Bournemouth University’s latest paper ‘The Importance of Positionality for Qualitative Researchers‘ ahead of publication [1].  The lead author of this paper is Hannah Gurr and this methodology paper is part of her M.Res. research project in Social Work.  Hannah is supervised by Dr. Louise Oliver, Dr. Orlanda Harvey and Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen in the Faculty of Health & Social Sciences (FHSS).

Dhaulagiri Journal of Sociology and Anthropology is a Gold Open Access journal so when it appears online it will be free to read for anybody across the globe.

 

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

Centre for Midwifery & Women’s Health

Reference:

  1. Gurr, H., Oliver, L., Harvey, O., Subedi, M.van Teijlingen, E. (2024) The Importance of Positionality for Qualitative Researchers, Dhaulagiri Journal of Sociology and Anthropology 18 (1): 48-54.

FHSS academics’ paper cited 1,000 times

international, Publishing, Training, writing

This morning ResearchGate alerted us that our paper published two decades ago ‘The Importance of Pilot Studies’ has now been cited one thousand times [1].  This methods paper in the Nursing Standard is very often used by authors quoting a  paper in their research methods section when they have done pilot or feasibility study for a larger-scale study. This paper is also our second top cited paper with 1,982 citations on Google Scholar and, interestingly enough, on SCOPUS it is not listed at all.

Pilot studies are a crucial element of a good study design. Conducting a pilot study does not guarantee success in the main study, but it does increase the likelihood of success. Pilot studies fulfill a range of important functions and can provide valuable insights for other researchers. There is a need for more discussion among researchers of both the process and outcomes of pilot studies. 

This paper is one of several methods paper focusing on pilot studies we have published over the past 22 years [2-7].

 

Professors Vanora Hundley & Edwin van Teijlingen

Centre for Midwifery & Women’s Health

 

 

References:

  1. van Teijlingen E, Hundley, V. (2002) ‘The importance of pilot studies’ Nursing Standard 16(40): 33-36. Web: nursing-standard.co.uk/archives/vol16-40/pdfs/vol16w40p3336.pdf
  2. van Teijlingen E, Rennie, AM., Hundley, V, Graham, W. (2001) The importance of conducting & reporting pilot studies: example of Scottish Births Survey, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 34: 289-95.
  3. Simkhada, P, Bhatta, P., van Teijlingen E (2006) Importance of piloting questionnaire on sexual health research (Letter), Wilderness & Environmental Medical Journal, 17(4): 295-96. wemjournal.org/wmsonline/?request=get-document&issn=1080-6032&volume=017&issue=04&page=0295#Ref
  4. van Teijlingen E, Hundley, V. (2001) The importance of pilot studies, Social Research Update Issue 35, (Editor N. Gilbert), Guildford: University of Surrey.  Web:  http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/sru/SRU35.html
  5. Hundley, V., van Teijlingen E. (2002) The role of pilot studies in midwifery research RCM Midwives Journal 5(11): 372-74.
  6. van Teijlingen E, Hundley, V. (2005) Pilot studies in family planning & reproductive health care, Journal of Family Planning & Reproductive Health Care 31(3): 219-21.
  7. van Teijlingen E, Hundley, V. (2003) Pilot study, In: Encyclopaedia of Social Science Research Methods, Vol. 2, Lewis-Beck, M., Bryman, A. & Liao, T. (eds.), Orego, Sage: 823-24.

 

RKEDF: Writing Academy 18th/19th/20th June 2024

Training, writing

This 3-day workshop covers strategies for academic writing: targeting a journal, writing to prompts, types of prompt for academic writing, ‘snack’ writing, goal-setting for writing, freewriting, generative writing, analysing academic writing in your field, criteria, writing an abstract, using prompts in series, outlining, dealing with reviewers’ feedback, writing groups, micro-groups and retreats. Many of these can be used in preparing for a concentrated spell of writing at a writing retreat.

This is a practical workshop. The aim of the writing activities in this workshop is to let you try these strategies and consider how/if/where they can fit in your writing practice. We also discuss how they can be used for writing theses, articles and other writing. They also let you start and work on your writing project during the workshop.

This workshop will be delivered remotely by the facilitator however attendees will participant in person. It involves several short writing activities, all designed to help you develop your paper/chapter/thesis and use productive, healthy writing habits. By signing up to this course you agree to do the writing tasks and to talk about your writing in small-group discussions, to give and receive feedback on this writing and to discuss your writing plans and goals.

You can find the programme here.  Please note, participants are required to attend all three days of the Writing Academy sessions. Refreshments and lunch will be provided on all three days.

To book a place on this workshop please complete the Booking Form.

For any specific queries regarding this workshop please email rkedf@bournemouth.ac.uk

Workshop Date Time Location
Writing Academy: Day 1 – Workshop Tuesday, 18 June 2024 10.00 – 16.00 Talbot Campus (facilitator will be online)
Writing Academy: Day 2 – Writing retreat Wednesday, 19 June 2024 9:00 – 16.00 Talbot Campus (facilitator will be online)
Writing Academy: Day 3 – Writing day Thursday 20 June 2024 9:00 – 16.00 Talbot Campus