Research collaboration with older people as a matter of scientific quality and ethics: a focus group study with researchers in ageing and health.
Journal
Research involvement and engagement
ISSN: 2056-7529
Titre abrégé: Res Involv Engagem
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101708164
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 Jan 2024
10 Jan 2024
Historique:
received:
21
10
2023
accepted:
08
01
2024
medline:
11
1
2024
pubmed:
11
1
2024
entrez:
10
1
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Society is placing increasing demands on collaboration with actors outside the academia to be involved in the research process, and the responsibility for turning this into reality lies with the researchers. As research collaboration is a way to increase the societal relevance of research and since older people have the right to be actively involved in research that concerns them, this study is addressed to researchers who work with and for older people. The purpose of this article is to explore researchers' experiences of research collaboration with the heterogeneous group of older people, from healthy to frail. The focus group method was applied based on a qualitative approach that is based on a social constructivist research tradition. It differs from other qualitative methods, such as interviews, in that it encourages interaction between research participants and contributes to shedding light on a collective understanding of the world. A total of 14 researchers participated in four focus groups (three to five participants/group). The results provided support for the overall theme: "Good scientific quality and ethics are balanced against the needs and abilities of older people". This means a balance between the researcher and the older people collaborating with them to receive the best possible scientific quality. This is highlighted in the core category "Positioning for research collaboration" with the subcategories "Involvement or not", "Traditional or innovative thinking" and "Selectivity or representativeness", and the core category "Research collaboration - an ethical issue of power" with the subcategories "Research collaboration a risk for freedom of research", "Research collaboration a risk of abuse of power" and "Discriminatory academic power structures create ethical issues". Addressing the balancing act of collaborating with older people in research, the findings contribute with an understanding of the importance of researchers' awareness of social and academic structures to minimise the risk of epistemic injustices in research on ageing and health. We want to highlight the researchers' voice and clarify the role that researchers have in terms of the opportunities for older people to become part of the collective understanding of ageing and health and make their voices heard. Society is increasingly expecting researchers to involve people who are not researchers in their research. To understand how such collaboration could become a reality, this study aimed to explore researchers’ experiences of collaborating with older people in research on ageing and health. A total of four focus groups consisting of 14 researchers from two universities were conducted to discuss experiences, approaches, opportunities and obstacles for research collaboration with older people. The results revealed an overarching theme that describes research collaboration as a balancing act with scientific quality and ethics on one side, and the needs and abilities of older people on the other side. This means that researchers need to strike a balance between achieving the highest scientific quality and considering the needs and abilities of older people they are collaborating with. To understand how unethical, it is to not involve older people in research, the concept epistemic injustice has been used. It refers to the systematic exclusion of certain groups from knowledge production and dissemination which can lead to the exploitation of vulnerable populations and the perpetuation of harmful stereotypes. In addressing the challenges of collaborating with older people in research, this study emphasises the importance of researchers being aware of both social and academic structures that might affect whose voices are heard in research. This awareness could help researchers clarify their role in giving older people the opportunity to be part of the collective understanding of ageing and health.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Society is placing increasing demands on collaboration with actors outside the academia to be involved in the research process, and the responsibility for turning this into reality lies with the researchers. As research collaboration is a way to increase the societal relevance of research and since older people have the right to be actively involved in research that concerns them, this study is addressed to researchers who work with and for older people. The purpose of this article is to explore researchers' experiences of research collaboration with the heterogeneous group of older people, from healthy to frail.
METHODS
METHODS
The focus group method was applied based on a qualitative approach that is based on a social constructivist research tradition. It differs from other qualitative methods, such as interviews, in that it encourages interaction between research participants and contributes to shedding light on a collective understanding of the world. A total of 14 researchers participated in four focus groups (three to five participants/group).
RESULTS
RESULTS
The results provided support for the overall theme: "Good scientific quality and ethics are balanced against the needs and abilities of older people". This means a balance between the researcher and the older people collaborating with them to receive the best possible scientific quality. This is highlighted in the core category "Positioning for research collaboration" with the subcategories "Involvement or not", "Traditional or innovative thinking" and "Selectivity or representativeness", and the core category "Research collaboration - an ethical issue of power" with the subcategories "Research collaboration a risk for freedom of research", "Research collaboration a risk of abuse of power" and "Discriminatory academic power structures create ethical issues".
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Addressing the balancing act of collaborating with older people in research, the findings contribute with an understanding of the importance of researchers' awareness of social and academic structures to minimise the risk of epistemic injustices in research on ageing and health. We want to highlight the researchers' voice and clarify the role that researchers have in terms of the opportunities for older people to become part of the collective understanding of ageing and health and make their voices heard.
Society is increasingly expecting researchers to involve people who are not researchers in their research. To understand how such collaboration could become a reality, this study aimed to explore researchers’ experiences of collaborating with older people in research on ageing and health. A total of four focus groups consisting of 14 researchers from two universities were conducted to discuss experiences, approaches, opportunities and obstacles for research collaboration with older people. The results revealed an overarching theme that describes research collaboration as a balancing act with scientific quality and ethics on one side, and the needs and abilities of older people on the other side. This means that researchers need to strike a balance between achieving the highest scientific quality and considering the needs and abilities of older people they are collaborating with. To understand how unethical, it is to not involve older people in research, the concept epistemic injustice has been used. It refers to the systematic exclusion of certain groups from knowledge production and dissemination which can lead to the exploitation of vulnerable populations and the perpetuation of harmful stereotypes. In addressing the challenges of collaborating with older people in research, this study emphasises the importance of researchers being aware of both social and academic structures that might affect whose voices are heard in research. This awareness could help researchers clarify their role in giving older people the opportunity to be part of the collective understanding of ageing and health.
Autres résumés
Type: plain-language-summary
(eng)
Society is increasingly expecting researchers to involve people who are not researchers in their research. To understand how such collaboration could become a reality, this study aimed to explore researchers’ experiences of collaborating with older people in research on ageing and health. A total of four focus groups consisting of 14 researchers from two universities were conducted to discuss experiences, approaches, opportunities and obstacles for research collaboration with older people. The results revealed an overarching theme that describes research collaboration as a balancing act with scientific quality and ethics on one side, and the needs and abilities of older people on the other side. This means that researchers need to strike a balance between achieving the highest scientific quality and considering the needs and abilities of older people they are collaborating with. To understand how unethical, it is to not involve older people in research, the concept epistemic injustice has been used. It refers to the systematic exclusion of certain groups from knowledge production and dissemination which can lead to the exploitation of vulnerable populations and the perpetuation of harmful stereotypes. In addressing the challenges of collaborating with older people in research, this study emphasises the importance of researchers being aware of both social and academic structures that might affect whose voices are heard in research. This awareness could help researchers clarify their role in giving older people the opportunity to be part of the collective understanding of ageing and health.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38200610
doi: 10.1186/s40900-024-00540-y
pii: 10.1186/s40900-024-00540-y
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
6Subventions
Organisme : Forskningsrådet om Hälsa, Arbetsliv och Välfärd
ID : AgeCap 2013-2300, 2013-2496, 2016-07097 and 2018-00471
Organisme : Forskningsrådet om Hälsa, Arbetsliv och Välfärd
ID : UserAge 2016-17090
Organisme : Forskningsrådet om Hälsa, Arbetsliv och Välfärd
ID : AgeCap 2013-2300, 2013-2496, 2016-07097 and 2018-00471
Organisme : Forskningsrådet om Hälsa, Arbetsliv och Välfärd
ID : UserAge 2016-17090
Organisme : Forskningsrådet om Hälsa, Arbetsliv och Välfärd
ID : UserAge 2016-17090
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
2020/21:60 P. Forskning, frihet, framtid – kunskap och innovation för Sverige. 2020.
European Commission D-GfR, Innovation. Horizon Europe, open science : early knowledge and data sharing, and open collaboration. Publications Office of the European Union; 2021.
European Commission. Open Science https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/strategy/strategy-2020-2024/our-digital-future/open-science_en [Available from: https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/strategy/strategy-2020-2024/our-digital-future/open-science_en .
Hultqvist S, Jonsson O, Jönson H, Iwarsson S. Collaboration in grant proposals and assessments in ageing research - justification or a quest for a collaborology? Soc Epistemol. 2021;35(5):427–40.
doi: 10.1080/02691728.2021.1913769
Compagnucci L, Spigarelli F. The third mission of the university: a systematic literature review on potentials and constraints. Technol Forecast Soc Chang. 2020;161: 120284.
doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120284
Macq H, Tancoigne É, Strasser BJ. From deliberation to production: public participation in science and technology policies of the European commission (1998–2019). Minerva (London). 2020;58(4):489–512.
doi: 10.1007/s11024-020-09405-6
Iwarsson S, Edberg A-K, Ivanoff SD, Hanson E, Jönson H, Schmidt S. Understanding user involvement in research in aging and health. Gerontol Geriatric Med. 2019;5:2333721419897781.
doi: 10.1177/2333721419897781
Ghamgosar A, Nemati-Anaraki L, Panahi S. Correction: Barriers and facilitators of conducting research with team science approach: a systematic review (BMC Medical Education. BMC Med Educ. 2023;23(1):638. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04619-0 .
doi: 10.1186/s12909-023-04619-0
pubmed: 37670349
pmcid: 10478305
Greenhalgh T, Raftery J, Hanney S, Glover M. Research impact: a narrative review. BMC Med. 2016;14(1):1–16.
doi: 10.1186/s12916-016-0620-8
Kylberg M, Haak M, Iwarsson S. Research with and about user participation : potentials and challenges. Aging Clin Exper Res. 2017;30(1):105–8.
doi: 10.1007/s40520-017-0750-7
Shippee ND, Domecq Garces JP, Prutsky Lopez GJ, Wang Z, Elraiyah TA, Nabhan M, et al. Patient and service user engagement in research: a systematic review and synthesized framework. Health Expect. 2015;18(5):1151–66.
doi: 10.1111/hex.12090
pubmed: 23731468
Gibson A, Britten N, Lynch J. Theoretical directions for an emancipatory concept of patient and public involvement. Health. 2012;16(5):531–47.
doi: 10.1177/1363459312438563
pubmed: 22535648
Berge I, Barenfeld E, Dahlin-Ivanoff S, Haak M, Lood Q. Challenging oneself on the threshold to the world of research - frail older people’s experiences of involvement in research. BMC Geriatr. 2020;20(1):410.
doi: 10.1186/s12877-020-01817-z
pubmed: 33069211
pmcid: 7568390
Stevenson FA, Gibson W, Pelletier C, Chrysikou V, Park S. Reconsidering “ethics” and “quality” in healthcare research: The case for an iterative ethical paradigm. BMC Med Ethics. 2015;16(1):21.
doi: 10.1186/s12910-015-0004-1
pubmed: 25952678
pmcid: 4493950
Steckler A, McLeroy KR. The importance of external validity (1971). Am J Public Health. 2008;98(1):9–10.
doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2007.126847
pubmed: 18048772
pmcid: 2156062
Kylén M, Slaug B, Jonsson O, Iwarsson S, Schmidt SM. User involvement in ageing and health research: a survey of researchers’ and older adults’ perspectives. Health Res Policy Syst. 2022;20(1):1–13.
doi: 10.1186/s12961-022-00894-3
Buck D, Gamble C, Dudley L, Preston J, Hanley B, Williamson PR, et al. From plans to actions in patient and public involvement: Qualitative study of documented plans and the accounts of researchers and patients sampled from a cohort of clinical trials. BMJ Open. 2014;4(12):e006400.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006400
pubmed: 25475243
pmcid: 4256646
Boylan AM, Locock L, Thomson R, Staniszewska S. “About sixty per cent I want to do it”: Health researchers’ attitudes to, and experiences of, patient and public involvement (PPI)—A qualitative interview study. Health Expect. 2019;22(4):721–30.
doi: 10.1111/hex.12883
pubmed: 30927334
pmcid: 6737750
Jaul E, Barron J. Characterizing the heterogeneity of aging: a vision for a staging system for aging. Front Public Health. 2021;9:513557.
doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.513557
pubmed: 34712633
pmcid: 8545798
Morley JEMBB, Vellas BMD, Abellan van Kan GM, Anker SDMDP, Bauer JMMDP, Bernabei RMD, et al. Frailty consensus: a call to action. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2013;14(6):392–7.
doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2013.03.022
pubmed: 23764209
pmcid: 4084863
Walker A. Why involve older people in research? Age Ageing. 2007;36(5):481–3.
doi: 10.1093/ageing/afm100
pubmed: 17913755
Bohlin G, Bergman M. Jag vill, men hinner inte! : forskares syn på kommunikation och öppen vetenskap : nationell enkätundersökning 2019. Stockholm: Vetenskap & Allmänhet; 2019.
LaCroix JM, Pratto F. Instrumentality and the denial of personhood: the social psychology of objectifying others. RevInt Psychol Soc. 2015;28(1):183–211.
Kowe A, Panjaitan H, Klein OA, Boccardi M, Roes M, Teupen S, et al. The impact of participatory dementia research on researchers: A systematic review. Dementia (London, England). 2022;21(3):1012–31.
pubmed: 35152790
Kitzinger J. Qualitative research. Introducing Focus Groups BMJ. 1995;311(7000):299–302.
pubmed: 7633241
Krueger RA, Casey MA. (2015) Focus groups : a practical guide for applied research. 5. [updated] ed: Thousand Oaks, Calif. Sage Publications
Dahlin Ivanoff S, Hultberg J. Understanding the multiple realities of everyday life: basic assumptions in focus-group methodology. Scandinavian J Occupational Therapy. 2006;13(2):125–32.
doi: 10.1080/11038120600691082
Wilkingson S. (2004) Focus group research. In: D S, editor. Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice. London: Sage Publications pp 177–99.
Barbour R. Doing Focus Groups. London2007. Available from: https://methods.sagepub.com/book/doing-focus-groups .
Kitzinger J. The methodology of focus groups: The importance of interaction between research participants. Sociol Health Illn. 1994;16:103–21.
doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.ep11347023
Fricker M. Epistemic injustice : power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007.
doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198237907.001.0001
AGE Platform Europe. The voices of older persons at EU level https://www.age-platform.eu/2023 [Available from: https://www.age-platform.eu/ .
Dewar BJ. Beyond tokenistic involvement of older people in research - A framework for future development and understanding. J Clin Nursing. 2005;14(3):48–53.
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2005.01162.x
Clarke JN. The case of the missing person: Alzheimer’s Disease in mass print magazines 1991–2001. Health Commun. 2006;19(3):269–76.
doi: 10.1207/s15327027hc1903_9
pubmed: 16719730
Berge I, Dahlin-Ivanoff S, Barenfeld E, Haak M, Lood Q. A real eye-opener: Nursing home staff experiences of co-designing nursing home services together with residents. J Aging Stud. 2022;62:101059.
doi: 10.1016/j.jaging.2022.101059
pubmed: 36008029
Gaby J, van Lieshout F, Borg M, Ness O. Being a Person-centered Researcher: Pinciples and Methods forDoing Research in a Person-Centered Way. In: Skovdahl K, editor. Eide H, Eide T, McCormack B, Dulmen Sv. Person-centred healthcare research: Chichester John Wiley & Sons Ltd.; 2017. p. 51–60.
Groot B, Hendrikx A, Bendien E, Woelders S, de Kock L, Abma T. In search of epistemic justice Dialogical reflection of researchers on situated ethics in studies with people living with language and/or cognitive impairment. J Aging Stud. 2023;66:101154.
doi: 10.1016/j.jaging.2023.101154
pubmed: 37704272
National Academies of Sciences E, Medicine, Affairs P, Global, Committee on Women in Science E, Medicine, et al. Improving Representation in Clinical Trials and Research: Building Research Equity for Women and Underrepresented Groups. 1 ed. Washington, D.C: Washington, D.C: National Academies Press; 2022.
Kaasa S, Torvik K, Cherny N, Hanks G, de Conno F. Patient demographics and centre description in European palliative care units: a cross sectional survey of the European association for palliative care (EAPC) research network. Palliat Med. 2007;21(1):15–22.
doi: 10.1177/0269216306072086
pubmed: 17169955
World Medical Association. WMA DECLARATION OF HELSINKI – ETHICAL PRINCIPLES FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/1964 [Available from: https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/ .
Högskoleförbund SU. Universitetens Magna Charta. 1999.
Haak M, Ivanoff S, Barenfeld E, Berge I, Lood Q. Research as an essentiality beyond one’s own competence: an interview study on frail older people’s view of research. Res Involv Engagem. 2021;7(1):91.
doi: 10.1186/s40900-021-00333-7
pubmed: 34952649
pmcid: 8705152
Romdenh-Romluc K. Hermeneutical injustice and the problem of authority. Feminist philos Q. 2017. https://doi.org/10.5206/fpq/2017.3.1 .
doi: 10.5206/fpq/2017.3.1
Glasberg A-L, Eriksson S, Dahlqvist V, Lindahl E, Strandberg G, Söderberg A, et al. Development and initial validation of the stress of conscience questionnaire. Nurs Ethics. 2006;13(6):633–48.
doi: 10.1177/0969733006069698
pubmed: 17193804
Anderson ES. The democratic university: the role of justice in the production of knowledge. Soc Philos Policy. 1995;12(2):186–219.
doi: 10.1017/S0265052500004726
Barbour R, Kitzinger J. Introduction: The challenge and promise of focus groups. In: Barbour R, Kitzinger J, editors. Developing focus group research: Politics, theory and practice. London: Sage Publications; 1999.
doi: 10.4135/9781849208857
Basch CE. Focus group interview: an underutilized research technique for improving theory and practice in health education. Health Educ Q. 1987;14:411–81.
doi: 10.1177/109019818701400404
pubmed: 3319971
Madriz E. Focus groups in feminist research. In: Denzin N, Lincoln Y, editors. Handbook of qualitative research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2000. p. 835–50.
Madriz EI. Using focus groups with lower socioeconomic status latina women. Qual Inq. 1998;4(1):114–28.
doi: 10.1177/107780049800400107
Morgan DL. Why things (sometimes) go wrong in focus groups. Qual Health Res. 1995;5(4):516–23.
doi: 10.1177/104973239500500411