Recording of presentation introducing narrative analysis, outlining what it is, why it can be a useful approach, how to do it and where to find out more. Presentation given at methods@manchester seminar at University of Manchester on 4 March 2010.

What is Narrative Analysis

Thank you for reading experimental and quasi experimental designs for research. Maybe you have knowledge that, people have search numerous times for their favorite readings like this experimental and quasi experimental designs for research, but end up in malicious downloads. Rather than reading a good book with a cup of tea in the afternoon, instead they cope with some infectious virus inside their laptop.

Experimental And Quasi Experimental Designs For Research

Contemporary Sociology 7(5) (September 1978):566—68. When the intellectual history of our times comes to be written, that peculiarly Left Bank mixture of Marxism and structuralism now in fashion will be among the most puzzlingofourideastoevaluate.Aliteral “archeology of knowledge” (the title of one of Foucault’s earlier books) will be required to sort out the valuable from the obvious rubbish. I suspect that in this exercise the iconographers of the present (like Barthes) will fare less well than those who have read the past. Of such “historians” (a description which does not really cover his method) Foucault is the most dazzlingly creative. Discipline and Punish (which, shamefully, has taken over two years to be translated into English) follows Madness and Civilization (1961) and The Birth of the Clinic (1971) as the next stage in Foucault’s massive project of tracing the genealogy of control institutions (asylums, teaching hospitals, prisons) and the human sciences symbiotically linked with them (psychiatry, clinical medicine, criminology, penology). His concern throughout is the relationship between power and knowledge, the articulation of each on the other. Here (as he makes explicit in an interview recently published in the English journal, Radical Philosophy) he opposes the humanist position that, once we gain power, we cease to know——it makes us blind—— and that only those who keep their distance from power, who are no way implicated in tyranny, can attain the truth. For Foucault, such forms of knowledge as psychiatry and criminology (with its “garrulous discourses” and “intermidable [sic] repetitions”) are directly related to the exercise of power. Power itself creates new objects of knowledge and accumulates new bodies of information. Thus to “liberate scientific research from the demands of monopoly capitalism” can only be a slogan. Placing such programmatic Big Issues on one side, though, a superficial first reading of the book mightstartatthelevelofitssubtitle, “The Birth of the Prison.” The key historical transition——at the end of the eighteenth century——is from punishment as torture, a public spectacle, to the more economically and politically discreet prison sentence. The body as the major target of penal repression disappears: within a few decades, the grisly spectacles of torture, dismemberment, exposure, amputation, and branding are over. Interest is transferred from the body to the mind; a coercive, solitary, and secret mode of punishment replaces one that was representative, scenic, and collective. Gone is the liturgy of torture and execution, where the triumph of the sovereign was symbolized in the processions, halts at crossroads, public readings of the sentence even after death, where the criminal’s corpse was exhibited or burnt. In its place comes a whole technology of subtle power. When punishment leaves the domain of more or less everyday perception and enters into abstract consciousness, it does not become less effective. But its effectiveness arises from its inevitability not its horrific theatrical intensity. The new power is not to punish less but to In Retrospect: 1978 29

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0094306118815499a

Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison:

Learning to Labour: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs

The UK Medical Research Council’s widely used guidance for developing and evaluating complex interventions has been replaced by a new framework, commissioned jointly by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health Research, which takes account of recent developments in theory and methods and the need to maximise the efficiency, use, and impact of research.

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/374/bmj.n2061.full.pdf

A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: Update of Medical Research Council guidance

Existing guidance for developing public health interventions does not provide information for researchers about how to work with intervention providers to co-produce and prototype the content and delivery of new interventions prior to evaluation. The ASSIST + Frank study aimed to adapt an existing effective peer-led smoking prevention intervention (ASSIST), integrating new content from the UK drug education resource Talk to Frank (
 www.talktofrank.com
 ) to co-produce two new school-based peer-led drug prevention interventions. A three-stage framework was tested to adapt and develop intervention content and delivery methods in collaboration with key stakeholders to facilitate implementation. The three stages of the framework were: 1) Evidence review and stakeholder consultation; 2) Co-production; 3) Prototyping. During stage 1, six focus groups, 12 consultations, five interviews, and nine observations of intervention delivery were conducted with key stakeholders (e.g. Public Health Wales [PHW] ASSIST delivery team, teachers, school students, health professionals). During stage 2, an intervention development group consisting of members of the research team and the PHW ASSIST delivery team was established to adapt existing, and co-produce new, intervention activities. In stage 3, intervention training and content were iteratively prototyped using process data on fidelity and acceptability to key stakeholders. Stages 2 and 3 took the form of an action-research process involving a series of face-to-face meetings, email exchanges, observations, and training sessions. Utilising the three-stage framework, we co-produced and tested intervention content and delivery methods for the two interventions over a period of 18 months involving external partners. New and adapted intervention activities, as well as refinements in content, the format of delivery, timing and sequencing of activities, and training manuals resulted from this process. The involvement of intervention delivery staff, participants and teachers shaped the content and format of the interventions, as well as supporting rapid prototyping in context at the final stage. This three-stage framework extends current guidance on intervention development by providing step-by-step instructions for co-producing and prototyping an intervention’s content and delivery processes prior to piloting and formal evaluation. This framework enhances existing guidance and could be transferred to co-produce and prototype other public health interventions. ISRCTN14415936
 , registered retrospectively on 05 November 2014.

/pdf/development-of-a-framework-for-the-co-production-and-4l3xu58h9p.pdf

Development of a framework for the co-production and prototyping of public health interventions

“I…don’t want to see you flashing your bits around”: Exhibitionism, othering and good motherhood in perceptions of public breastfeeding

The World Health Organisation guidance recommends breastfeeding peer support (BFPS) as part of a strategy to improve breastfeeding rates. In the UK, BFPS is supported by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance and a variety of models are in use. The experimental evidence for BFPS in developed countries is mixed and traditional methods of systematic review are ill-equipped to explore heterogeneity, complexity, and context influences on effectiveness. This review aimed to enhance learning from the experimental evidence base for one-to-one BFPS intervention. Principles of realist review were applied to intervention case studies associated with published experimental studies. The review aimed (a) to explore heterogeneity in theoretical underpinnings and intervention design for one-to-one BFPS intervention; (b) inform design decisions by identifying transferable lessons developed from cross-case comparison of context-mechanism-outcome relationships; and (c) inform evaluation design by identifying context-mechanism-outcome relationships associated with experimental conditions. Findings highlighted poor attention to intervention theory and considerable heterogeneity in BFPS intervention design. Transferable mid-range theories to inform design emerged, which could be grouped into seven categories: (a) congruence with local infant feeding norms, (b) integration with the existing system of health care, (c) overcoming practical and emotional barriers to access, (d) ensuring friendly, competent, and proactive peers, (e) facilitating authentic peer–mother interactions, (f) motivating peers to ensure positive within-intervention amplification, and (g) ensuring positive legacy and maintenance of gains. There is a need to integrate realist principles into evaluation design to improve our understanding of what forms of BFPS work, for whom and under what circumstances.

/pdf/a-realist-review-of-one-to-one-breastfeeding-peer-support-44x3wdqeq1.pdf

A realist review of one-to-one breastfeeding peer support experiments conducted in developed country settings.

NTRODUCTION:
We assessed the prevalence and frequency of waterpipe smoking among adults (aged 18+ years) in Great Britain (GB) and determined demographic factors associated with use.
METHODS:
We used cross-sectional representative population surveys conducted online in 2012 and 2013. A total of 12,436 adults in 2012 and 12,171 in 2013 were recruited from a commercial online survey panel.
RESULTS:
The prevalence of ever use of waterpipe across both survey years combined was 11.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 11.0-12.1). Frequent use (at least once or twice a month) was 1.0% (95% CI = 0.8-1.2) and was similar in both 2012 and 2013. There was some suggestion of increased ever but not frequent use among 18-24-year-olds between survey years. After adjustment for covariates, females had lower odds of ever waterpipe use than males (odds ratio [OR] = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.63-0.79), those in the lowest social grade had lower odds of use compared to those in the highest social grade (OR = 0.43, 95% CI = 0.35-0.54), older people were at much lower odds of ever use than younger people, ever having smoked cigarettes increased odds of ever waterpipe use, and being Asian (OR = 1.84, 95% CI = 1.39-2.45) or of mixed ethnicity (OR = 2.36, 95% CI = 1.64-3.40) increased likelihood of ever use compared to White ethnicity.
CONCLUSIONS:
Frequent waterpipe smoking was relatively rare in these representative samples of the GB adult population, and prevalence was similar between 2012 and 2013. Continued monitoring and targeted interventions are appropriate.

Prevalence of waterpipe (Shisha, Narghille, Hookah) use among adults in Great Britain and factors associated with waterpipe use: data from cross-sectional Online Surveys in 2012 and 2013.

Aimee Grant

Papers

Development of a framework for the co-production and prototyping of public health interventions

“I…don’t want to see you flashing your bits around”: Exhibitionism, othering and good motherhood in perceptions of public breastfeeding

A realist review of one-to-one breastfeeding peer support experiments conducted in developed country settings.

Prevalence of waterpipe (Shisha, Narghille, Hookah) use among adults in Great Britain and factors associated with waterpipe use: data from cross-sectional Online Surveys in 2012 and 2013.

Portrayal of waterpipe (shisha, hookah, nargile) smoking on Twitter: a qualitative exploration.