Knowledge spaces and public social science
Lead Research Organisation:
University of Exeter
Department Name: Peninsula Medical School
Abstract
Abstracts are not currently available in GtR for all funded research. This is normally because the abstract was not required at the time of proposal submission, but may be because it included sensitive information such as personal details.
Organisations
Publications
Gibson A
(2017)
Evaluating patient and public involvement in health research: from theoretical model to practical workshop.
in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy
Gibson A
(2012)
Theoretical directions for an emancipatory concept of patient and public involvement.
in Health (London, England : 1997)
Maguire K
(2018)
'You're there because you are unprofessional': patient and public involvement as liminal knowledge spaces.
in Sociology of health & illness
| Description | Our analytic framework for analysing the emergence, dynamics and impact of new knowledge spaces (KS) addresses the problem of epistemic inequality under four main headings: the prior KS; emergence of the new KS; the nature and dynamic of the new KS; and outcome/action/impacts of the KS. Participation in the seminars created a network of people who have shared discussions on topics of common interest and strengthened local collaborations. The seminars helped to build relationships with outside partners that are now continuing into research bids and projects. We are currently pursuing a suggestion from one of our professional collaborators to host a session in which the learning from the series would be shared with policy colleagues to support them in their use of evidence. One of our PhD students, who attended all the seminars, has used the concept of knowledge spaces as an organising framework for her thesis about the experience of public involvement in health research. We did not advertise our seminars formally, but the take up of personal invitations was high, and most of the people invited did attend. Our lay collaborators, all social activists in their own KS, reported that they valued the opportunity to reflect and learn about the experiences of others in other contexts, as well as being able to strengthen their own relationships with local professionals. They spoke of gaining a 'store cupboard of ideas and ways of thinking' and being inspired by stories of success. However they also said that in these tough financial times it is not easy to make use of these ideas. They pointed out that real change requires long term commitment to communities, and this poses challenges for engagement initiatives. Academics and lay members live in 'different worlds', although community members used learning from the series to access more distant networks and other areas of knowledge. Our professional collaborators reported that, despite initial reservations about the time commitment, they felt that attendance at the seminars had been worthwhile. Despite differences in language, they had been able to contribute to the seminar discussions and learn from them. They found it inspiring that varied perspectives had been listened to respectfully. They felt that the insights from different participants had been distinct but complementary, and that academics and professionals had given members of local communities the confidence to contribute. They spoke of the increased skill base in communities as an important factor in embedding and sustaining change. There are key tensions about what counts as credible evidence, and what counts as success; successful local outcomes may not translate into academic measures of success. Our academic colleagues encouraged us to think more about public sociology, and how academics can 'do things' in the world. They discussed the relationship between academics' personal values and political actions, and the role of social media. They pointed out the distinction between action research and foresight sociology, the latter informing alternative visions of society. These in turn could be articulated in imaginative ways, for example through poetry. |
| Exploitation Route | We hope to apply our learning to a new potential knowledge space in which lay and professional knowledge are brought together, for example in health technology assessment. We are also considering applying our learning from the seminars in the form of guidance about how to bring different conflicting forms of knowledge together in constructive ways. |
| Sectors | Healthcare |
| Description | The findings from our seminar series have informed a range of workshops about patient and public involvement in health research funded by NIHR. The workshops have been based on our theoretical model for patient and public involvement (Gibson, Britten and Lynch, Health 2012) which was developed during preparation for the seminar series. We have made several presentations of this model to lay and academic audiences, most recently the NW London CLAHRC Learning together event, 17th July 2014 (Invited presentation) Mapping and Evaluating Public Involvement. Other groups have contacted us about using the model for the development and evaluation of their own patient and public involvement activities. These workshops encourage patients and the public to reflect on their own involvement activities in terms of four criteria: whether the goals being pursued are those of the system or those arising from their own concerns; whether their involvement influences decision making or not; whether there are many or few avenues of involvement; and whether the organisation they work with is open to change or not. The discussions prompted by these workshops help patients and the public to consider whether their involvement is what they would wish it to be, and how the processes of involvement could be enhanced, depending on the context in which it occurs. |
| First Year Of Impact | 2012 |
| Sector | Healthcare |
| Impact Types | Societal |
| Description | Workshops using the theoretical framework for patient and public involvement |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Policy Influence Type | Influenced training of practitioners or researchers |
| Impact | As a result of the workshops, members of the public have on occasion realised the greater potential of their own involvement. We have collected quantitative data from three workshops and are in the process of analysing them for publication. |
| Description | Knowledge space seminars |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Public/other audiences |
| Results and Impact | We ran 6 seminars in London (2), Salford, South Wales, Exeter and Cumbria. Each seminar was attended by the 6 academic co applicants, our 4 lay collaborators and 4 public policy collaborators, 4 collaborating academics as well as participants from the relevant local communities. These participants included local residents, community representatives, members of local organisations including residents' and patients' groups. Our lay collaborators, who were all social activists in their own knowledge space, reported that they valued the opportunity to reflect and learn about the experiences of others in other contexts, as well as being able to strengthen their own relationships with local professionals. They spoke of gaining a 'store cupboard of ideas and ways of thinking' and being inspired by stories of success. However they also said that in these tough financial times it is not easy to make use of these ideas. They pointed out that real change requires long term commitment to communities, and this poses challenges for engagement initiatives. Academics and lay members live in 'different worlds', although community members used learning from the seminar series to access more distant networks and other areas of knowledge. Our professional collaborators reported that, despite initial reservations about the time commitment, they felt that attendance at the seminars had been worthwhile. Despite differences in language, they had been able to contribute to the seminar discussions and learn from them. They found it inspiring that varied perspectives had been listened to respectfully. They felt that the insights from different participants had been distinct but complementary, and that academics and professionals had given members of local communities the confidence to contribute. They spoke of the increased skill base in communities as an important factor in embedding and sustaining change. There are key tensions about what counts as credible evidence, and what counts as success; successful local outcomes may not translate into academic measures of success. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2011,2012,2013 |