Tagged / research methods

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

NIHR Be Part of Research platform

Guidance, NHS, Research Ethics

The NIHR Be Part of Research platform is an online service that makes it easy for research participants to find and take part in health and social care research. Participants may search for trials and studies taking place looking at certain health conditions and in locations accessible to them.

Clinical researchers may also make use of the service to extend their recruitment and widen their recruitment methods, as the platform has been designed to make it easier for researchers and potential study participants to find each other.

Using Be Part of Research to recruit participants

To use the service for your recruitment, the study must meet the following requirements:

  • Be funded or supported by the NIHR. This includes studies on the NIHR Clinical Research Network Portfolio.
  • Have Research Ethics Committee approval to use the service as a recruitment tool.
  • Have a dedicated point of contact such as a pre-screener or website for interested volunteers to engage with your research team.

Getting your study onto the Be Part of Research platform

Once your study has been registered on either ISRCTN, ClinicalTrials.gov, or on the NIHR Clinical Research Network (CRN) Central Portfolio Management System (CPMS), your project will then appear on Be Part of Research. Given those visiting the site are mostly patients and members of the public, medical and scientific terminology should be omitted when writing your study summary, with plain English used to ensure the information is accessible to a broad audience. In order to do this, you should:
  • Keep it short – but don’t oversimplify it. The reader must understand what the study is trying to achieve.
  • Imagine you are talking to the reader.
  • Take out any jargon.
  • Make sure you cover the what, why, when, where and how so they have the basics of your study.

Additionally, to make sure that participants contact the appropriate person, the contact details provided on ISRCTN or ClinicalTrials.gov should be up to date and accurate. In general, the registry record should be monitored continuously so that any changes are reflected on Be Part of Research as soon as possible.

Further support/contact

If you have any questions regarding the platform or regarding clinical research in general, please email Suzy Wignall, Clinical Governance Advisor: swignall@bournemouth.ac.uk or clinicalresearch@bournemouth.ac.uk

Navigating the Maze of Research

student research

Earlier this month Elsevier published the 6th Edition of ‘Navigating the Research Maze: enhancing nursing and midwifery practice‘.  Edited by Debra Jackson, Tamara Power and Helen Walthall, this book seeks to demystify some of the complexities in planning, conducting and reading research and draws on a wide range of research leaders from around the world as authors.  This book could be a useful addition to reading lists for students undertaking units focusing on research and evidence-based practice.

It was a pleasure to work on Chapter 6 (Navigating Ethics) with Andrea Donaldson from Massey University in New Zealand.  It was interesting to learn how research ethics is managed differently in different parts of the world but also reassuring to confirm that the underpinning ethical principles are the same wherever research is conducted.

Sometimes it can be hard to see how new editions of books have changed but in developing this edition efforts have been made to add useful resources for both students and lecturers.  Readers can access student challenges, quizzes, resource kits, Powerpoint slides, a test bank and teaching tips for each chapter.

Research process seminar. Automated content analysis using machine learning. 3pm on 28th March on Zoom

Hi all,
After a short break, the research process seminar series is back, with a seminar almost every week between now and mid June. Unlike other seminar series’ that often showcase the findings and outcomes of research, we pay attention to the process of research: the methods, the challenges, the successes and failures and the reflections we collect along the way.
Today we are delighted to welcome an external speaker, Rainer Freudenthaler (Universität Mannheim), who is talking about automated content analysis using machine learning
This session will focus on measuring explicit and implicit bias and implicit racism in ethnic minority reporting. We use semi-supervised machine learning to distinguish explicit and implicit stigmatization of ethnic and religious groups in German journalistic coverage (n = 697,913 articles). The talk will engage with how we validate the method, what the strengths and weaknesses of the method are, etc.
It promises to be a really interesting session.
It is at 3pm, Tuesday 28th march on Zoom
https://bournemouth-ac-uk.zoom.us/j/9292103478?pwd=UzJnNTNQWDdTNldXdjNWUnlTR1cxUT09

Meeting ID: 929 210 3478
Passcode: rps!4fmc

Hope to see you there. All welcome
Dan and Sae

Research process seminar. From personal experience to theory-building: developing new methods and research directions out of transformative experiences. Tuesday 29th Nov at 2pm on Zoom

You are welcome to join us for this week’s research process seminar. Hosted in FMC but open to all staff and research students.

From personal experience to theory-building: developing new methods and research directions out of transformative experiences – by Prof. Roman Gerodimos

How do personally transformative experiences inform our thinking and inspire our research? How can we design new research agendas and methods based on micro-level (or even autobio) experiences? 

Using my experience of Burning Man and a recent British Academy bid as a case study, I will reflect on the interaction between our ‘real life’ experiences and the ‘big theory’ questions we grapple with in our research, how that can inform method design, and also how the interaction between the individual and the social map onto broader questions in psychosocial studies. The concept of change – when, how and why this happens – is key to this discussion and the self can act as a useful ‘petri dish’ for broader experimentation.

Tuesday 29 November at 2pm on Zoom:

https://bournemouth-ac-uk.zoom.us/j/9292103478?pwd=UzJnNTNQWDdTNldXdjNWUnlTR1cxUT09

Meeting ID: 929 210 3478

Passcode: rps!4fmc

Today’s research process seminar: Quantitative content analysis. Tuesday 24th May at 2pm on Zoom.

You are warmly welcomed to this week’s research process seminar. Hosted in FMC but open to all.

This week we have an external speaker, Dr Sarah Van Leuven, who will speak about quantitative content analysis.

Sarah Van Leuven is associate professor at the Department of Communication Studies at Ghent University. She is the head of the research group Center for Journalism Studies (CJS), head of the Journalism Division of NeFCA (Netherlands-Flanders Communication Association), and editorial board member of the SSCI-ranked journal Digital Journalism. Since 2021 she is a member of the Flemish Council for Journalism (Raad voor de Journalistiek).

She has published work on a broad range of topics, including the role of news media in political communication, sourcing practices, international news, journalist profiles and innovation in newsrooms. Together with prof. dr. Karin Raeymaeckers, she coordinates the five-annual survey of Belgian professional journalists, and she is also principal investigator for Belgium in the Journalistic Role Performance Project.

Details of her talk are below. This will be of use to anyone who is interested in methods of analysing media or other texts as part of a research study.

In this session, I will present a step-by-step toolbox to develop a reliable research design for a content analysis. Specifically, I will discuss how theoretical constructs can be translated into manifest content variables, and how research outcomes can be influenced by sampling decisions. The different steps will be illustrated by means of a content analysis study of “global journalism”.

2pm on 24th May. 

https://bournemouth-ac-uk.zoom.us/j/9292103478?pwd=UzJnNTNQWDdTNldXdjNWUnlTR1cxUT09

Meeting ID: 929 210 3478

Passcode: rps!4fmc

Hope to see you there

Dan and Sae

Congratulations to Dr. Rachel Arnold on her latest paper

NHS, open access, Publishing, writing

Congratulations to Dr. Rachel Arnold in the Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health (CMMPH) on the publication today of her  paper ‘Why use Appreciative Inquiry? Lessons learned during COVID-19 in a UK maternity service‘ [1].  This methodological paper is co-authored with Dr. Clare Gordon who holds a has joint clinical academic post at UCLan and Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, with a focus on developing clinically focused stroke research, education and improvement. Clare is also a former BU Ph.D. student.  Further co-authors from CMMPH are Professors Sue Way and Edwin van Teijlingen.  The final co-author, Dr. Preeti Mahato, finished her post in CMMPH two days ago to start her Lectureship in Global Health at Royal Holloway (part of the University of London).

The paper highlights that selecting the most appropriate research method is an important decision in any study. It affects the type of study questions that can be answered. In addition, the research method will have an impact on the participants – how much of their time it takes, whether the questions seem important to them and whether there is any benefit in taking part. This is especially important when conducting research with staff in health services. This article is a reflection on the process of using Appreciative Inquiry (AI) in a study that explored staff well-being in a UK maternity unit. The authors  discuss our experience of using AI,the strengths and limitations of this approach, and conclude with points to consider if you are thinking about using AI. Although a study team was actively involved in decisions, this paper is largely based on reflections by dr. Arnold, the researcher conducting the field work in the maternity services.

 

Reference:

Arnold, R., Gordon, C., van Teijlingen, E., Way, S., Mahato, P. (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

Participatory Research Workshops

Training

Participatory Research: Doing research inclusively, doing research well
July 11 & 12 1.30-3.30pm

This course comprises two 2-hour workshop sessions for 12-30 people (optimum 20) plus recordings and additional materials. Both sessions will be in person, and we encourage academics from all faculties to sign up for both workshops.

Participants will gain clear insight into the multiple agendas driving participatory research. Together we will develop know-how in addition to know-what needed for participatory research. The group will work collaboratively to develop their own ideas stimulated by shared examples and real life conundrums.

Programme

Day 1: The why of participatory research – Adding value

  • Researching with not on: The changing dynamics of research and rationale behind the democratisation of research
  • Making the most of lived experience to add value to research
  • Participatory research designs and methods – different ways of knowing
  • 5 practical changes we can make and why

Day 2: The how of participatory research – How to enhance research participation and quality

  • Co-producing research proposals and project designs
  • Participatory ways of working – getting ideas from successful projects
  • This is my truth – tell me yours – co-producing findings and outputs
  • 5 steps to doing research inclusively and doing research well.

This training is delivered by Professor Melanie Nind, author of What is Inclusive Research? Melanie is Director of the Centre for Research in Inclusion at University of Southampton, Deputy Director of the South Coast Doctoral Training Partnership and Co-director of the ESRC National Centre for Research Methods. She has expertise in the areas of education, disability studies and methodology and has extensive experience supporting the development of participatory/inclusive research locally and internationally.

Book here now!

Research process seminar today. Rhetorical Analysis in Social Science Research. 2pm on Zoom

You are warmly welcomed to join us for today’s research process seminar. Hosted in FMC but open to all staff and research students.

 

Rhetorical Analysis in Social Science Research by Dr Chris Miles (BU)

This session looks at how rhetorical analysis can be used for analysing data in social science/political science research. Rhetorical analysis provides an alternative approach to thematic analysis, discourse analysis, etc. This session will address what makes rhetorical analysis ‘rhetorical’ and also looks at how it provides some interesting perspectives on how interview and focus group respondents try to persuade the researcher.

Tuesday 17th May at 2pm on Zoom.

https://bournemouth-ac-uk.zoom.us/j/9292103478?pwd=UzJnNTNQWDdTNldXdjNWUnlTR1cxUT09

Meeting ID: 929 210 3478

Passcode: rps!4fmc

Hope to see you there

 

Dan and Sae

Research process seminar today, 19th April. Social media analysis – possibilities and pitfalls. 2pm on Zoom

You are warmly welcomed to today’s research process seminar. Hosted in FMC but open to all.

Today’s speaker is Prof. Anders Olof Larsson

Anders is one of the world’s leading researchers of online political communication. He is also a truly interdisciplinary scholar and has mastered the methods of extracting and analysing social media data from all of the major platforms. His talk will reflect on his 10+ years of working on social media platforms, and how the rules and methods of collecting data have changed.

Bio:

Anders Olof Larsson (PhD, Uppsala University, 2012) is Professor at the Department of Communication, Kristiania University College. Larsson was previously a Postdoctoral Fellow working in the Social media and Agenda-Setting in election campaigns project at the Department of Media and Communication, University of Oslo. During his PhD work, which was funded by The Swedish Research School of Management and Information Technology, Larsson took part in the 2011 Oxford Internet Institute Summer Doctoral Programme. His PhD thesis – “Doing Things in Relation to Machines – Studies on Online Interactivity” (pdf) – was awarded the 2012 Börje Langefors award (for best Swedish thesis within the field of Informatics) and the 2012 FSMK Doctoral Dissertation award (for best Swedish thesis within the field of media and communication studies). Anders Olof Larsson’s research interests include the use of online interactivity and social media by societal institutions and their audiences, journalism studies, political communication and methodology, especially quantitative and computational methods. As of January 2021, Larsson’s work has been cited 4147 times, resulting in an h-index of 33 and an i10-index of 57. In June of 2017, Larsson was ranked as among the top 100 most productive researchers in Norway. In October 2020, Larsson was the only communication & media studies scholar with a Norwegian affiliation ranked among the top 2 % in his field worldwide following a ranking from Stanford University

 

The subject of Anders’ session is: Social media analysis – possibilities and pitfalls 

What types of data can we get from different social media platforms, such as Facebook, Instagram or Twitter? I will present the possibilities we currently have, and I will also touch upon some interesting opportunities for analysis of social media data.

April 19th, 2pm on Zoom.

https://bournemouth-ac-uk.zoom.us/j/9292103478?pwd=UzJnNTNQWDdTNldXdjNWUnlTR1cxUT09

Meeting ID: 929 210 3478

Passcode: rps!4fmc

We hope to see you there!

 

Computational Approaches to Online Uncivil Discourse. Research process seminar. 2pm, Tuesday 5th April on Zoom

You are warmly welcomed to join us for this research process seminar presented by Dr Patrícia Rossini, a Derby Fellow of Communication and Media at University of Liverpool. Again, this talk is highly interdisciplinary and should be of interest to staff and research students from across the university.

Computational Approaches to Online Uncivil Discourse – by Dr Patrícia Rossini

This session will focus on the process of using supervised machine learning to develop algorithms to classify large quantities of data, with a focus on complex concepts such as uncivil and intolerant discourse. We will discuss the challenges of scaling up nuanced content analysis work with machine learning, some best practices in generating high-quality data, and the overall advantages and disadvantages of using computational methods to study complex issues. 

Bio:

Dr Patrícia Rossini is a Derby Fellow in the Department of Communication and Media. Prior to joining the University of Liverpool, Dr. Rossini was a postdoctoral research fellow in the School of Information Studies at Syracuse University (USA). She has a Ph.D. in Communication from the Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil. Broadly speaking, her research is concentrated on the impact of social media in politics and democracy. Specifically, Patrícia studies informal political talk online, with an emphasis on incivility and intolerance, and provides a conceptual framework to identify the extent to which these behaviors are democratically harmful. She is also interested in computational social sciences and is currently working on developing algorithms to measure strategic communication and political discussion online. Other research interests include political campaigns online, political deliberation, and political participation.

Patrícia is currently (co-) principal investigator in five externally funded projects. She is the lead investigator in a grant awarded by Facebook to investigate perceptions of uncivil and intolerant discourse online in four countries, and on a project to study the use of private messaging apps and social media as sources for political misinformation, funded by WhatsApp. She is co-lead investigator on a project funded by Twitter to investigate conversational dynamics and develop metrics to detect polarization, incivility, and intolerance in discussions around contentious and non-contentious topics, co-lead investigator of a comparative research project funded by Facebook to study visual misinformation on social media in eight countries across five continents, and co-lead investigator on a project analyzing political advertising on Facebook in the 2020 elections in the United States, supported by the Knight Foundation.

Tuesday 5th April at 2pm on Zoom

https://bournemouth-ac-uk.zoom.us/j/9292103478?pwd=UzJnNTNQWDdTNldXdjNWUnlTR1cxUT09

Meeting ID: 929 210 3478

Passcode: rps!4fmc

Research process seminar: Computational Approaches to Online Uncivil Discourse. Tues 15 March at 2pm on Zoom

You are warmly invited to join us for this week’s research process seminar. Hosted by FMC but open to all staff and PGR students.

Computational Approaches to Online Uncivil Discourse by Dr. Patrícia Rossini

This session will focus on the process of using supervised machine learning to develop algorithms to classify large quantities of data, with a focus on complex concepts such as uncivil and intolerant discourse. We will discuss the challenges of scaling up nuanced content analysis work with machine learning, some best practices in generating high-quality data, and the overall advantages and disadvantages of using computational methods to study complex issues.

Bio

Dr Patrícia Rossini is a Derby Fellow in the Department of Communication and Media. Prior to joining the University of Liverpool, Dr. Rossini was a postdoctoral research fellow in the School of Information Studies at Syracuse University (USA). She has a Ph.D. in Communication from the Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil. Broadly speaking, her research is concentrated on the impact of social media in politics and democracy. Specifically, Patrícia studies informal political talk online, with an emphasis on incivility and intolerance, and provides a conceptual framework to identify the extent to which these behaviors are democratically harmful. She is also interested in computational social sciences and is currently working on developing algorithms to measure strategic communication and political discussion online. Other research interests include political campaigns online, political deliberation, and political participation.

Patrícia is currently (co-) principal investigator in five externally funded projects. She is the lead investigator in a grant awarded by Facebook to investigate perceptions of uncivil and intolerant discourse online in four countries, and on a project to study the use of private messaging apps and social media as sources for political misinformation, funded by WhatsApp. She is co-lead investigator on a project funded by Twitter to investigate conversational dynamics and develop metrics to detect polarization, incivility, and intolerance in discussions around contentious and non-contentious topics, co-lead investigator of a comparative research project funded by Facebook to study visual misinformation on social media in eight countries across five continents, and co-lead investigator on a project analyzing political advertising on Facebook in the 2020 elections in the United States, supported by the Knight Foundation.

Tuesday 15 March at 2pm

https://bournemouth-ac-uk.zoom.us/j/9292103478?pwd=UzJnNTNQWDdTNldXdjNWUnlTR1cxUT09

Meeting ID: 929 210 3478

Passcode: rps!4fmc

RKEDF: Research Methods Training Fund – Applications Open

Funding opportunities

An unsuccessful grant application can be demoralising so make your next bid successful! Remember, there can be many reasons for the lack of success! Some beyond your control others not!  Funders feedback will help to evaluate why your bid was unsuccessful and along with training via the Research Methods Training Fund you can look forward to future success!  

 The Research Knowledge Exchange Development Framework has announced this fund specifically targeted at academics who have submitted unsuccessful bids!   The aspiration is that by reinvigorate the research methodology via a training workshop successful recipients will aim to resubmit their bid within a 12-month period! 

 

FAQs 

How do I apply?  

MS Form application 

 

When do I need to have booked and paid for the course by?  

By Wednesday 1st June 2022 

 

When is the closing date?  

Friday 22nd April 2022 

 

Who selects the successful applicants?  

DDRP and RDS Panel will offer support to those in scope 

 

Examples of courses that you might choose: 

NCRM research courses  

NCRM training overview 

Oxford Qualitative Courses: Short Courses in Qualitative Research Methods 

Oxford Qualitative Courses – from specialists in qualitative research methods — Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford 

Qualitative Research Methods Courses 

Qualitative Research Methods Courses | University of Oxford (oxforduniversitystores.co.uk) 

 

Examples of methodological support you might choose: 

Residential research retreat 

Research Design Service South West (nihr.ac.uk) 

 

Institutional Learning from Funder Feedback: Research Methods

An insight from Associate Professor – Dr. Ian Jones.

One of the great benefits of acting as a reviewer – whether of funding applications or research papers – is being able to learn what is happening at the ‘cutting edge’ of a field, not only in terms of subject knowledge, but also in terms of methodology. Here, we can learn from both good, and not so good practice. Having recently reviewed a number of applications for the funding scheme associated with my own professional body, It was clear that such a task has clearly had a significant impact upon my own understanding of what makes ‘good’ research, and what makes a ‘good’ application for funding.

Perhaps the key term from the latest round of reviews – to me at least – was that of ‘coherence’, and coherence between various different elements of a proposed methodology. Often within applications there is an understandable focus upon ‘methods’ rather than ‘methodology’. To me, this means a missed opportunity to generate such coherence – and subsequently a missed opportunity to justify the key methodological decisions. As one example we can look at the importance of the ontological and epistemological basis of the work (perhaps more relevant within the social, rather than the natural sciences) which is often overlooked, or only briefly addressed. Often, even a relatively brief acknowledgement of these ideas can help to justify choices in terms of methods, sampling and data analysis. This can be taken further with reference to another – often overlooked – detail, that of the research design. Often, whilst research designs are outlined, their role as a ‘link’ between the epistemology of the study and the data collection and analysis methods is often omitted, where again, it can lead to a real sense of coherence within the methodology. The best bids had not only detail about the broader methodology, but also a real coherence between each element, with a consistent story being told, from the philosophical assumptions of the study, which guided the research design, where each method had a clear link both to the broader epistemological issues, and also the subsequent analysis and interpretation of the data.

Finally, and crucially from a reviewer’s perspective, the idea of coherence between researcher, subject and methodology is essential, often being the first question, a reviewer will be required to address. The research itself is not independent of the researcher, and does the study show coherence in terms of not only researcher-subject coherence (does the researcher have an established record in the area) but also researcher-methodology coherence (what evidence is there that the researcher could undertake this methodology successfully), again focusing not just on methods, but the broader methodology as a whole (for example is there coherence between the choice of research design, and the researcher’s own experiences and attributes (often key, for example, in ethnographic designs).

None of these points are ground breakingly original, but it is interesting to see that there is still great variation in how methodologies are constructed. And assessing such methodologies has proved to be of immense value when think about my own work.

Medical Research Council – Better methods, better research

Funding opportunities, innovation, NHS

MRC are opening up a £2,000,000 fund on 6th May for improving the methods used by others in biomedical and health research.

Deadline: 15th June 2022

The full economic cost of your project can be up to £625,000. MRC and NIHR will fund 80% of the full economic cost.

This is an ongoing scheme. Application rounds open twice per year, closing in June and November

More details on the funding opportunity here.

Your local branch of the NIHR RDS (Research Design Service) is based within the BU Clinical Research Unit (BUCRU)

We can help with your application. We advise on all aspects of developing an application and can review application drafts as well as put them to a mock funding panel (run by RDS South West) known as Project Review Committee, which is a fantastic opportunity for researchers to obtain a critical review of a proposed grant application before this is sent to a funding body.

Contact us as early as possible to benefit fully from the advice

Feel free to call us on 01202 961939 or send us an email.

Research process seminar, Tuesday 15th Feb at 2pm on Zoom. Intersectional Methods of Visual Media Analysis

You are warmly welcomed to this week’s research process seminar. Hosted in FMC but welcome to all staff and research students. This week’s talk is truly interdisciplinary, and delivered by a former BU staff member, now at Loughborough University (Emma Pullen).

 

Intersectional Methods of Visual Media Analysis by Dr. Emma Pullen & Dr. Laura Mora  

 

Is intersectionality a method? How can we implement intersectionality in our research? In this talk, Laura Mora and Emma Pullen cover the history and definition of (the nowadays buzzword) intersectionality, followed by a discussion of how its theory can be interpreted on a methodological level. As a tool for analysis, intersectionality makes visible how several systems of oppression (based on people’s identity markers) intersect and should be seen as mutually constitutive in creating power relations. This ensures that we move away from single-issue approaches (race-only or gender-only etc.) in our research, and instead reflect people’s complex realities. We discuss how to embed intersectionality into your sampling and in conducting a visual media analysis, discourse analysis and audience study. We also learn about the importance of intersectionality in positioning oneself as a researcher. Throughout the talk, we refer to our own visual media analysis of Paralympians’ Instagram posts, but there is plenty of room as well to walk through the possibilities of making research within your fields or case studies more intersectional.

 

Tuesday 15th Feb at 2pm on Zoom

https://bournemouth-ac-uk.zoom.us/j/9292103478?pwd=UzJnNTNQWDdTNldXdjNWUnlTR1cxUT09

Meeting ID: 929 210 3478

Passcode: rps!4fmc

FMC Research Process Seminars. Upcoming sessions – all staff and research students welcome

PG research, Research Integritiy

Hi colleagues,

For the last three and a half years, we have been running regular research seminars in the Faculty of Media and Communication. These are 60 min research seminars focussed on the process of doing research – particularly research methods but also including publishing, writing, time management etc. The idea here is that the speaker takes us through the anatomy of the project focussing particularly on the data collection and method – the challenges, the successes, and the failures. For the audience, we walk away with a practical application of a method we may not be familiar with or may not have applied in this way before.

The schedule until the start of June is below, with links to each seminar. Each will be led by an external speaker, who are leading experts in these methods.

If you would like to give a talk on an aspect of method or research process, then drop us a line

Dan Jackson and Sae Oshima, FMC

 

11 May at 2pm

Re-designing focus groups for inclusion – by Filippo Trevisan at American University, Washington, DC

Focus groups provide important opportunities for putting participants’ voices at the center of social research. However, ensuring that every participant has a fair chance of being heard can be difficult. This seminar will discuss strategies to ensure that focus groups are as inclusive as possible, focusing in particular on the challenges faced by participants with communication disabilities and disorders, which account for over 10% of the world’s adult population. Inspired by the principles of universal design, a range of solutions will be discussed that constitutes a flexible framework to empower new voices in research.

Join Zoom Meeting

https://bournemouth-ac-uk.zoom.us/j/87139699000?pwd=TjZKWnBMRnJtc0g3bDdoTEQ2RkNKQT09

Meeting ID: 871 3969 9000

Passcode: F+3iwB@Y

18th May at 2pm

Capturing incivility in online political spaces – by Rosalynd Southern and Emily Harmer at The University of Liverpool

Abstract TBA

Join Zoom Meeting

https://bournemouth-ac-uk.zoom.us/j/89365837916?pwd=bnlua1ZnMWJxOWJwUGxaNld6eks5dz09

Meeting ID: 893 6583 7916

Passcode: Za@D3Csq

25th May at 2pm

Examining the Dirt Under Our Fingernails: Exploring the Role of Ethnographic Mixed-Methods Research in Digital Political Communication – by James Dennis (University of Portsmouth), Amy Smith (BU) and Nikki Soo (Cardiff University)

As political actors diversify into multimedia communication strategies and citizens embrace semi-public and private digital spaces for everyday political talk, research into this realm has become increasingly complex. Effective and accurate investigation into political communication processes, events, and outcomes that occur in hybrid media systems means scholars must employ methodological reflexivity. In this paper, we argue that in particular, ethnography, the close observation of the phenomenon of study, is critical for scholars seeking to connect observations of digital communication with an understanding of the motivations that drive them. Combining insights from three projects analysing MPs, parties, news media organisations, and acRPStivist organisations, we provide advice for scholars looking to draw upon this methodological toolset.

Join Zoom Meeting

https://bournemouth-ac-uk.zoom.us/j/83798048442?pwd=TU56dG82dUpNV0ZUY3IyVFF4OVk1QT09

Meeting ID: 837 9804 8442

Passcode: p6x+Lb6A

1st June at 2pm

Thinking about epistemology – by Richard Thomas at Swansea University

This sort of philosophical thinking is often bypassed as we all dive into our research. But still worth pondering, I think. We will all find some particular approaches to our work are more suitable than others, and more suited to us as people and researchers. This talk sketches out a critical realist approach as particularly suitable to journalism/media research where we find out what the media does, how it does it, but most important of all – WHY they do it that way. Suitable perhaps for researchers, teachers and students.

Join Zoom Meeting

https://bournemouth-ac-uk.zoom.us/j/89956403486?pwd=cC95YnhMV1RGQ1RGQi9zS2RBZ2Z0UT09

Meeting ID: 899 5640 3486

Passcode: 6#tSV+*y