Background: The co-production concept holds out the promise of forging new relationships between professionals and service users with intellectual disabilities.However, little empirical research explores the embodied practices these projects occasion. We identify two key tensions intrinsic to such projects; the tension between expert/professional knowledge and lay/experiential knowledge, and between co-producers as different from or typical of the public they are representing.Methods: We explored how these tensions were manifested and responded to in ongoing interactions by analysing video recordings of co-design groups where people with intellectual disabilities engaged in the production of Easy Read materials.Results: We noticed the instability of participants' claims to expert/professional knowledge, and the challenges of attending to and mobilizing participants' experiential knowledge within the constraints of the group task.Conclusions: Interactional dynamics were managed to preserve consensus and homogeneity within the groups, with the potential for reinforcing a limited identity associated with 'intellectual disability'.
Jacques Rancière's work has had significant impact in philosophy and literary theory, but remains largely undiscussed in the field of education. This article is a review of the relevance of Rancière's work to education research. Rancière's argument about education emerges from his critique of Bourdieu, which states that Bourdieu reinforces inequality by presuming it as the starting point of his analysis. What is at stake is the question of performativity, and the means by which discourse has effects. This debate has implications for considering the basis of claims to truth in literary and social science discourse. Parallels are drawn between Judith Butler's and Rancière's portrayal of the relationship between discourse and subjection, as well as their attention to discursive 'imitation' in making inequality representable. The article concludes with a discussion of the problematic which Rancière's work suggests for education research.
Waiting times in Accident and Emergency (A&E) Departments are a key performance indicator for the UK National Health Service (NHS) and are linked to medical decision making. We use the concept of medical disposal to consider the ways in which patients' medical problems are remoulded and transformed into a solvable problem enabling what he refers to as 'medical disposal'. Drawing on a study of 16 video-recorded cases from a single A&E Department in the UK, collected in 2014 and 2015, conversation analysis is used to explore how options for disposal (referral and discharge) are constructed and received in interactions between junior doctors and consultants. We consider the potential impact of information imbalances between junior doctors and consultants, as well as orientation to organisation goals in the form of standardised procedures and guidelines and constraints on time. In this way we demonstrate the interactional delicacy of discussions between junior doctors and consultants concerning moving patients on from A&E. We show how when juniors discuss cases with consultants the resultant decision making may be viewed as co-constructed. We make a case for detailed and nuanced understanding of interactions in A&E departments in order to understand the complexity of decision-making in this highly politically visible setting.
There is growing interest in the use of games for educational purposes, particularly with regard to teaching curriculum subjects. Much of the research, however, has focused either on the content of games or the learning theory they illustrate. This paper presents a methodology that allows for an examination of how players learn to play. The focus is on understanding learning within specific instances of play. Rather than generalising from such studies, it is argued that understanding such processes is crucial for incorporating specific games into educational systems. Three case studies are presented that illustrate the application of this method. We also evaluate its usefulness and limitations. The paper concludes with a discussion of issues in researching learning from games, and suggestions for how research methods in this area might be developed. IntroductionIn this paper, we explore the issues involved in studying learning in the context of playing digital games. Existing accounts of learning and digital game-based play are examined. We discuss a methodology for studying the process of learning to play in these contexts. Understanding this is, arguably, a prerequisite for incorporating games into educational systems, since it throws light on how games function as texts and therefore how they might be used for teaching and learning. The method is applied to three case studies, and its value and limitations are then discussed. The paper concludes with the identification of issues in researching learning from games and suggestions for further research in this area.
BackgroundUK-based research conducted within a healthcare setting generally requires approval from the National Research Ethics Service. Research ethics committees are required to assess a vast range of proposals, differing in both their topic and methodology. We argue the methodological benchmarks with which research ethics committees are generally familiar and which form the basis of assessments of quality do not fit with the aims and objectives of many forms of qualitative inquiry and their more iterative goals of describing social processes/mechanisms and making visible the complexities of social practices. We review current debates in the literature related to ethical review and social research, and illustrate the importance of re-visiting the notion of ethics in healthcare research.DiscussionWe present an analysis of two contrasting paradigms of ethics. We argue that the first of these is characteristic of the ways that NHS ethics boards currently tend to operate, and the second is an alternative paradigm, that we have labelled the ‘iterative’ paradigm, which draws explicitly on methodological issues in qualitative research to produce an alternative vision of ethics. We suggest that there is an urgent need to re-think the ways that ethical issues are conceptualised in NHS ethical procedures. In particular, we argue that embedded in the current paradigm is a restricted notion of ‘quality’, which frames how ethics are developed and worked through. Specific, pre-defined outcome measures are generally seen as the traditional marker of quality, which means that research questions that focus on processes rather than on ‘outcomes’ may be regarded as problematic. We show that the alternative ‘iterative’ paradigm offers a useful starting point for moving beyond these limited views.SummaryWe conclude that a ‘one size fits all’ standardisation of ethical procedures and approach to ethical review acts against the production of knowledge about healthcare and dramatically restricts what can be known about the social practices and conditions of healthcare. Our central argument is that assessment of ethical implications is important, but that the current paradigm does not facilitate an adequate understanding of the very issues it aims to invigilate.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.