The university as a Just anchor: universities, anchor networks and participatory research

O’Farrell, Liam; Hassan, Sara; Hoole, Charlotte

doi:10.1080/03075079.2022.2072480

Cited by 9 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…4.1.1 | Breaking down the 'ivory tower' perception 37,38 and getting out into the community Both the survey and focus group study affirm the importance of investing in ways to get out into the community, 39,40 to get to know and build relationships with different groups to support PPI recruitment. Mutual trust and respect needs to be established to overcome initial feelings of alienation and discomfort that can arise when working with a university as a PPI contributor.…”

Section: Focus Groupsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diversity in patient and public involvement in healthcare research and education—Realising the potential

Hatch,

Fitzgibbon,

Tonks

et al. 2023

Health Expectations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundPatient and public involvement (PPI) is an increasing priority in health‐related research and education. Attracting and supporting people from different demographic groups to give up their time and get involved is important to help ensure that all parts of society are empowered, represented and their voices heard in decisions that may affect their health and quality of life.Objectives(1) To determine if a demographically diverse cross‐section of society would be interested in contributing to healthcare research and education. (2) To understand factors that can act as barriers and enablers to effective and diverse PPI.MethodPPI survey data was collected via engagement events, with the aim of scoping interest in PPI from a diverse public. A Focus Group study involving members of the public, academic and professional service staff, was then conducted to gain a deeper understanding around the barriers and enablers of diversity within PPI.Results71% of a diverse rich public indicated they would like to get involved in healthcare research and teaching. 76% of survey respondents indicated that they would be happy to share a personal or family experience of healthcare. The two biggest factors impacting on our cohort getting involved are’ availability of time’ and ‘being aware of PPI opportunities’. These factors may disproportionally affect specific groups. Shared and individual PPI enablers and barriers were identified across all stakeholder groups within the Focus Group Study, as well as generic and novel factors that would impact on an institutions’ ability to improve PPI diversity.ConclusionThese data points confirm a demographically diverse public's appetite to get involved in academic health research and teaching. This needs to be recognised and harnessed to ensure public contributor networks are representative of society. Equality Impact Assessments should be undertaken in relation to all PPI opportunities. There is a need to recognise the investment of time and resources required to build mutually beneficial relationships with diverse communities as well as the development of inclusive ‘fit for purpose’ PPI infrastructures to support the uptake of diverse PPI contributors.Public ContributionThis study involved members of the public responding to a short survey. Public contributors made up one of the three focus groups. The School of Medicine lead public contributor was also involved in the preparation of this manuscript.

show abstract

Section: Focus Groupsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diversity in patient and public involvement in healthcare research and education—Realising the potential

Hatch,

Fitzgibbon,

Tonks

et al. 2023

Health Expectations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the research team relied on links with a health service for consumer mandatory training, expense reimbursements, and access to consumers for recruitment. Whilst links with external organisations and stakeholders are advantageous to PhD students and universities [15], building long-term university co-production infrastructure is essential [14]. Lack of funding for consumer remuneration was frustrating and may have perpetuated the marginalisation of consumers from diverse backgrounds [32,41].…”

Section: Implications For Universitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The core principles of co-production are compatible with contemporary epistemic justice, where the knowledge of all social groups is valued [7], and knowledge mobilization where end users are central to translating research evidence into improvements in healthcare [12]. In these paradigms new partnerships are formed outside traditional academic institutions to grow a knowledgebased society [13,14]. The civic role of universities in delivering value to communities and universities as 'just anchor' institutions which deliver social, economic, and epistemic justice benefits through co-production with, and empowerment of, the public [14] are also aligned with the CCI ethos [8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In these paradigms new partnerships are formed outside traditional academic institutions to grow a knowledgebased society [13,14]. The civic role of universities in delivering value to communities and universities as 'just anchor' institutions which deliver social, economic, and epistemic justice benefits through co-production with, and empowerment of, the public [14] are also aligned with the CCI ethos [8]. Limited uptake of CCI in research may be due to a lack of academic knowledge and inadequate university support [8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

‘Learning and growing together’: exploring consumer partnerships in a PhD, an ethnographic study

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Consumer and community involvement (CCI) in health research is increasingly recognised as best practice and is closely linked with calls for epistemic justice and more transparent university collaborations with consumers. Given doctoral candidates play a key role in the future of co-production, examination of consumer partnerships in PhDs is important. This study aimed to describe and evaluate consumer partnerships in a PhD from the perspective of the consumer co-researchers, the PhD candidate, and the academic supervisors including optimal approaches, impacts, and benefits and challenges. Methods This prospective, co-produced ethnographic study was conducted over 33 months. Data collection included field notes, a monthly online log of partnership experiences and time spent, interviews or a focus group every six months, and a PhD student reflexive diary. Qualitative data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results The student, two academics, and four consumer co-researchers were involved. A mean of 11.10 h per month were spent on CCI. The student spent the most time (mean 15.86 h per month). Preparation for dissemination of findings was the most frequent partnership activity. The two overarching themes emphasised that a PhD promotes a rich partnership ethos with the student at the centre and that the partnership was a worthwhile but challenging process. The four sub-themes highlighted that developing a collegial and supportive environment with regular meetings combined with a multi-faceted and responsive co-learning approach were core to success. Additionally, there were benefits for individuals, research processes and outcomes, and for driving change in consumer-academic research partnerships. Recruiting to and forming the partnership, maintaining the collaboration through inevitable changes and challenges, and an ethical and supportive closure of the research team were critical. Conclusions This longitudinal ethnographic study demonstrated that doctoral research can create a rich ethos for research and knowledge co-production which evolved over time. Equalising power dynamics through relationship building and co-learning was critical. Additionally, a focus on supportively ending the partnership was essential, and CCI may reduce PhD student isolation and procrastination. Enhanced university incentivisation of co-production in health research is recommended to address gaps in consumer remuneration and student support.

show abstract

“…At the same time, they also maintain "conceptual visibility" within the communities by serving as democratic public forums for debates and other forms of intellectual engagements, and as sites of knowledge production (Pickering, Kintrea, and Bannister 2012). Allowing communities to participate in intellectual engagement and knowledge production activities leads to the co-creation or coproduction of knowledge while also enhancing the visibility of universities within the regions (O'Farrell et al 2022).…”

Section: Anchor Universitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reflections on the conceptualisation and practices of community engagement as a core function of universities

Saidi¹

2021

SAJHE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The world saw the "human" side of universities during the Covid-19 pandemic as universities across the globe were at the forefront of efforts to control the spread of the Coronavirus, and to explore means of making the human population acquire immunity against the virulent disease. This article contends that, although this appeared as unusual, the universities were simply fulfilling their obligation to humanity because the raison d'être of universities includes being of service to society. Therefore, if they are unable to prevent crises from setting in, they should at least be at the forefront of efforts to combat the crises, and mitigate their effects on people. The article seeks to set the scene for the collection of articles that follow in this special issue of the South African Journal of Higher Education (SAJHE) on the theme of community engagement as a core function for universities. It argues that universities have social responsibility, and they should therefore serve as anchors of towns and regions; as engines of development in their respective geographical areas; and as champions of social causes. It presents and discusses the concepts and practices of community engagement that are critical to understanding the arguments and counterarguments in the articles that follow. These include the relationship between community engagement, on the one hand, and transformation of higher education as well as decolonisation of knowledge and ways of knowing, on the other. The article also reflects on the state of community engagement in universities in South Africa, and explains that it is mostly regarded as a stepchild because it is not valued, funded or supported in the same way as the other two core functions of teaching and learning, and research and innovation. The article also cautions against the use of rhetoric to romanticise community engagement when the projects on the ground leave much to be desired, and with not potential to make a difference to society.

show abstract

The university as a Just anchor: universities, anchor networks and participatory research

Cited by 9 publications

References 35 publications

Diversity in patient and public involvement in healthcare research and education—Realising the potential

Diversity in patient and public involvement in healthcare research and education—Realising the potential

‘Learning and growing together’: exploring consumer partnerships in a PhD, an ethnographic study

Reflections on the conceptualisation and practices of community engagement as a core function of universities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About