자연주의적 탐구조사(Naturalistic Inquiry)

Maps of Narrative Practice

David Coghlan and Teresa Brannick (2009): Doing Action Research in Your Own Organisation Sage, London 2010, (3rd edition), $ 44.95, euro 27.99 (amazon), pp. 184, Paperback ISBN: 9781848602168 Reviewed by Richard Ennals This new edition of a popular text, used by researchers and practitioners, focuses attention on central issues in Action Research. David Coghlan has been an active participant in many of the separate traditions of Action Research. Both he and his co-author Teresa Brannick teach in University Business Schools in Dublin, moving Action Research into the mainstream. This new edition takes the opportunity to refer to the latest literature in a fastgrowing and diverse field. It provides a valuable foundation for new researchers in the field. There has been a separate literature, for example dealing with Educational Action Research (Noffke/Somekh 2009; McNiff/Whitehead 2009), with a focus on the individual reflective practitioner. By contrast we can point to work on Action Research and Organisational Renewal, which has included consideration of major managed programmes (Gustavsen et al. 2001; Levin 2002; Fricke/Totterdill 2004) which have deployed Action Research in order to pursue policy objectives. This has raised questions as to how Action Research is itself to be defined (Greenwood/Levin 2007). At this point we may have concluded that what different instances of Action Research have in common is that they are cited as instances of Action Research. There are family resemblances. However, readers of earlier editions of works in the field (e.g. Reason/Bradbury 2001) will have noticed limited cross-citations of literature from other traditions. Coghlan and Brannick have made a welcome contribution, both in the breadth of their referenees, and in the platform which they provide for further debate and development. The title of the book deals with Action Research in one's own organisation. The implication is that such research is not necessarily part of a larger scale managed programme. Reliance is not to be placed on research expertise from outside. The authors define Action Research as "an approach to research which aims at both taking action and creating knowledge or theory about that action. The outcomes are both an action and a research outcome, unlike traditional research approaches which aim at creating knowledge only". They set out the cyclical process of planning, taking action, and evaluating. They emphasise the collaborative dimension, whereby the members of the system which is being studied participate actively in the cyclical process. They highlight the diversity of approaches. The focus is on the combination of organisational roles with the additional demands of a role of inquiry and research. This raises practical challenges such as the selection of a research question, attaining some sense of objectivity, and choice of frameworks for viewing and understanding the data. Action Research work can be undertaken for different reasons, including securing academic qualifications, with some expectation of benefit for the organisation. Action Research can involve dealing with emergent processes, and leading radical change, which requires a capacity for self-reflection, realistic expectations, self-containment and an ability to learn. The book is intended to complement books exploring the theory and practice of action research (Greenwood/Levin 2007; Reason/Bradbury 2008; Shani et al. 2008). The three sections of the book cover "Foundations", "Implementation", and "Issues and Challenges in Researching Your Own Organisation". The book ends with discussion of closeness and distance with respect to the organisation under study, contexts of politics and ethics, and hints on writing an Action Research Dissertation. The style of the book is clear and non-dogmatic, making good use of diagrams and summaries. Researchers and research students will have encountered scepticism about Action Research, and arguments that more traditional approaches are "safer", in the context of the need for academic recognition. …

Doing Action Research in Your Own Organisation

The creative arts can be used to support stakeholders of mental health services to communicate and share their lived experience. Digital storytelling is one method that has been used to capture people's lived experience. In this scoping review, we were interested in mapping how digital storytelling has been used in mental health, and to identify gaps in the literature. Nine databases were searched to identify peer reviewed literature published between January 2000 and August 2015; 15 articles were included in the review. The articles were categorized across four broad areas: educational interventions, learning skills, learning about other people's lived experience, and learning about personal lived experience. We identify that while digital storytelling has potential as a participatory process to promote mutual understanding of and empathy towards lived experiences in mental health, there is a dearth of research in this area. More research is needed on the use of digital storytelling in mental health to determine its effectiveness in progressing a recovery orientation in service provision that is built on solidarity and a social justice agenda.

How digital storytelling is used in mental health: A scoping review

Digital storytelling refers to a 2 to 5 minute audio-visual clip combining photographs, voice-over narration, and other audio (Lambert, 2009) originally applied for community development, artistic and therapeutic purposes, and more recently adapted as an arts-based research method. To date, no systematic review of the use of digital storytelling in a research capacity, to generate information about a phenomenon has been conducted. Accordingly, our aim was to provide a systematic review of digital storytelling in research. The review identified 25 articles representing 23 discrete studies that met inclusion criteria. A thematic analysis of results indicated that digital storytelling in research was especially appropriate for use with marginalised groups, and was most commonly used in this context. There was some variation in the extent to which digital storytelling in research adhered to the principles with which it was originally developed. Surprisingly, although digital storytelling provides a ready-made knowledge translation product, few research projects employed the digital stories generated to this end. Across research projects, participants reported several benefits of digital storytelling. While some disadvantages were noted, overall, these were outweighed by the benefits of using a respectful, participatory research practice.

/pdf/digital-storytelling-in-research-a-systematic-review-5tjdmwdonj.pdf

Digital Storytelling in Research: A Systematic Review

Aim
To explore the meaning of the term recovery to people with experience providing and receiving mental health services.

Background
Internationally, governments have proposed recovery-oriented mental health policy. In practice, people managing mental health difficulties struggle to recover, self-manage, or improve their quality of life. Mental health services increasingly provide acutely focused and poorly coordinated services to people experiencing mental health difficulties, with self-management, wellness and recovery overlooked.

Design
A cooperative enquiry, action research design guided the study. Participants were people with experience of mental health difficulties from consumer, carer and clinician perspectives.

Method
Data were collected between August 2012–July 2013. Analysis was conducted using an iterative process for the duration of the study. A thematic network was developed that reflected key organizing themes.

Results
The overarching theme developed from the participants' group discussions, reflections, actions and observations was recovery as an ongoing quest in life. This global theme was constructed from five organizing themes: ‘finding meaning’, ‘an invisible disability’, ‘empowerment and agency’ ‘connection’ and ‘the passage of time’.

Conclusion
Participatory approaches support the inclusion of lived experience perspectives. Structured processes are needed to bring different perspectives together to find solutions, through dialogue, and acknowledge the barriers to participation that people who use mental health services experience. The lack of integration of lived experience perspectives demonstrates forms of discrimination that inhibit consumer participation and prevent the recovery-oriented transformation required in mental health systems.

The meaning of recovery in a regional mental health service: an action research study

The present study describes participants' perspectives of the meaning of recovery-oriented care in developing services for people with psychosocial disability associated with mental illness. Participants were involved in a 12-month cooperative inquiry action-research group from August 2012 to July 2013, with six consumers, four clinicians, and a carer. A major finding was the importance of the facilitation of dialogue that acknowledged the asymmetrical power differences between participants. Thematically-analysed data identified an overarching global theme: 'I want services to hear me'. The theme reflected a shared view that participation is important in service development. Actions included mapping the integration of consumer participation within a mental health service and developing workshops to support change. Addressing the asymmetrical power relationship inherent in traditional mental health design is important. Using participatory processes, structural discrimination is revealed, and tensions associated with clinical mental health services and psychiatric practice can be discussed. A partnership approach to service development enables the social determinants of health to be addressed more effectively, as well as supporting individual recovery. These approaches create the potential for genuine transformational change. Approaches that support coproduction and codesign have the potential to enable solutions.

Exploring the meaning of recovery‐oriented care: An action‐research study

Background Family-focused practice (FFP) is an effective approach to supporting individuals with mental illness. ‘Recovery’ is also central to contemporary mental health care. However, there is a dearth of evidence about how the two concepts are related and subsequently implemented in practice. The aim of this study was to explore practitioners’ understandings and practices of FFP within a recovery framework. Methods Purposive/snowball sampling was used to recruit and conduct qualitative interviews with 11 mental health practitioners in rural Australia. Concurrent sampling and data collection were informed by thematic analysis and continued until data saturation was reached. Results Participants found it difficult to articulate their understandings of FFP within a recovery framework. Nonetheless they were able to describe practices that embodied family-focused recovery. Barriers to such practices included medical models of care, where there are often a shortage of skilled staff and high demands for care. Stigma (self and from others) and confidentiality were also identified as barriers to involving family members in recovery focused care. Conclusions Family-focused recovery care is a priority in many high-income countries. A family-focused recovery framework is needed to assist service planners, practitioners, family members and those with mental health needs and ensure such care is embedded within practice guidelines.

/pdf/family-focused-practice-within-a-recovery-framework-4b36ik1f4n.pdf

Family-focused practice within a recovery framework: practitioners' qualitative perspectives.

Family members often provide significant support and care to their relative who has a mental illness. Nonetheless, how family members might be part of an individual's mental health recovery journey is rarely considered. The aim of this study was to investigate how those with a mental illness define 'family' and the role of family (if any) in their recovery journey. A qualitative approach was used. Purposive sampling and snowballing were used to recruit and conduct semi-structured interviews with 12 people who have been diagnosed with a severe mental illness. Participants defined family in various ways with some being very inclusive and others more selective. There was acknowledgement that family contributed to the individual's recovery in a myriad of ways, although the need for boundaries was stressed. While no participants suggested that their family might become active treatment facilitators, they did want clinicians to support them in talking to their family about their mental illness. A multifaceted approach is needed to promote family-focused recovery practice. The needs of different family members and the needs of the family as a group should be considered concurrently alongside the individual's needs in their recovery plan. Individual and relational components of recovery should be embedded in policy and clinical practice.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/inm.12528

Susan Kidd

Papers

How digital storytelling is used in mental health: A scoping review

The meaning of recovery in a regional mental health service: an action research study

Exploring the meaning of recovery‐oriented care: An action‐research study

Family-focused practice within a recovery framework: practitioners' qualitative perspectives.

Family-focused recovery: Perspectives from individuals with a mental illness