Developing Lecturer Practitioner roles using action research

Abstract

Journal of Advanced Nursing 47(2), 153-164 Developing Lecturer Practitioner roles using action research Background. Lecturer Practitioner roles are well established in the United Kingdom. The national literature demonstrates that these staff are valuable to National Health Service trusts and universities however, their roles are busy and demanding, with conflicting expectations from the two employers. In addition, their role in addressing the theory-practice gap -a major reason for their establishment -is at best unclear. Although a number of qualitative studies have explored the topic, there have been no systematic attempts to develop the role or to quantify the effects on postholders.Aim. This paper reports a study that aimed to develop aspects of Lecturer Practitioners' work roles, examine the effects of this on individuals at one English university, and to quantify Lecturer Practitioners' occupational stress and burnout. Methods. A flexible, 'spiral' action research framework and 'collaborative group approach' were used, with mixed methods of data collection. Data were collected through focus groups, meetings and participant feedback, and participants' reflective diaries. A questionnaire using previously validated psychological attitude rating scales was also used to measure occupational stress and burnout, the extent to which the project influenced these, and the influence of Lecturer Practitioners' experience and qualifications. Six null hypotheses were constructed to measure these ideas. Findings from qualitative and quantitative perspectives were triangulated to give depth to the analysis. Findings. Five themes emerged from the focus groups: personal motivation, workload pressures, role clarity, preparation and support, and gains from the role. Specific policies and documentation were developed as a result of this initial project planning work. The findings from the questionnaire indicated that Lecturer Practitioners were no more stressed or burnt out than comparable workers. Synthesis of findings indicated, broadly speaking, that these LPs were 'thriving rather than just surviving'. Conclusion. Action research was an effective methodology for uncovering new knowledge, and bringing about organizational change in this project.

Working in the theory–practice gap: the lecturer practitioner's story

“…As indicated in Nelson & McSherry's (2002) study, LPs became more assertive as they became more experienced, so that they either managed time more effectively in clinical practice, or refused to take on teaching commitments that they could not fulfil. This is also supported in later studies (Fairbrother & Mathers 2004; Williamson 2004; Williamson et al . 2004), which appear optimistic about the LP role.…”

“…Fairbrother & Ford 1997) in addition to more recent research (e.g. Williamson, Webb & Abelson‐Mitchell 2004). Lack of role clarity seems to result in role conflict, and there is evidence that role conflict has diminished as LPs have become clearer about what their role entails.…”

Parents, Children and Their Therapists. A Collaborative Research Project Examining Therapist-Parent Interactions in a Music Therapy Clinic

“…The linking of practice and research in a single process and the potential for each to benefit from the other is reminiscent of the action research tradition, and indeed the two traditions are often linked (Reason 1994, Williamson et al 2004. Within healthcare, collaborative research has been pioneered primarily by nursing and many examples are to be found in the nursing literature along with models and guidelines (e.g.…”

Action research: politics, ethics and participation

“…These considerations mean that action researchers are asking implicit political questions about their organizations (Williamson & Prosser 2002). They illuminate the political climate in their organizations, highlighting considerable dissonance between the aims of the project and the researchers' experiences of their work.…”

“…Better acknowledgement of the political realities of power relations in organizational life is made by Coghlan and Brannick (2001 ): as action researchers are potentially the key instigators and change agents, they have a duty to protect their co‐researchers. They must therefore be willing to take professional and personal responsibility for obvious harm, and for the interpretation discussed in published work, and might legitimately ‘shelter’ less powerful or more vulnerable participants if required ( Kelly 1989, Williamson & Prosser 2002 ).…”