Conducting Research in a Medical Science Museum: Lessons Learned from Collaboration Between Researchers and Museum Educators

2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. 273-283
Author(s):  
Tracy L. Durksen ◽  
Andrew J. Martin ◽  
Emma C. Burns ◽  
Paul Ginns ◽  
Derek Williamson ◽  
...  

Based on personal accounts of their experiences conducting qualitative and quantitative research in the countries of the Middle East and North Africa, the contributors to this volume share the real-life obstacles they have encountered in applying research methods in practice and the possible solutions to overcome them. The volume is an important companion book to more standard methods books, which focus on the “how to” of methods but are often devoid of any real discussion of the practicalities, challenges, and common mistakes of fieldwork. The volume is divided into three parts, highlighting the challenges of (1) specific contexts, including conducting research in areas of violence; (2) a range of research methods, including interviewing, process-tracing, ethnography, experimental research, and the use of online media; and (3) the ethics of field research. In sharing their lessons learned, the contributors raise issues of concern to both junior and experienced researchers, particularly those of the Global South but also to those researching the Global North.


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne-Marie Turcotte-Tremblay ◽  
Idriss Ali Gali Gali ◽  
Valéry Ridde

Abstract Background COVID-19 has led to the adoption of unprecedented mitigation measures which could trigger many unintended consequences. These unintended consequences can be far-reaching and just as important as the intended ones. The World Health Organization identified the assessment of unintended consequences of COVID-19 mitigation measures as a top priority. Thus far, however, their systematic assessment has been neglected due to the inattention of researchers as well as the lack of training and practical tools. Main text Over six years our team has gained extensive experience conducting research on the unintended consequences of complex health interventions. Through a reflexive process, we developed insights that can be useful for researchers in this area. Our analysis is based on key literature and lessons learned reflexively in conducting multi-site and multi-method studies on unintended consequences. Here we present practical guidance for researchers wishing to assess the unintended consequences of COVID-19 mitigation measures. To ensure resource allocation, protocols should include research questions regarding unintended consequences at the outset. Social science theories and frameworks are available to help assess unintended consequences. To determine which changes are unintended, researchers must first understand the intervention theory. To facilitate data collection, researchers can begin by forecasting potential unintended consequences through literature reviews and discussions with stakeholders. Including desirable and neutral unintended consequences in the scope of study can help minimize the negative bias reported in the literature. Exploratory methods can be powerful tools to capture data on the unintended consequences that were unforeseen by researchers. We recommend researchers cast a wide net by inquiring about different aspects of the mitigation measures. Some unintended consequences may only be observable in subsequent years, so longitudinal approaches may be useful. An equity lens is necessary to assess how mitigation measures may unintentionally increase disparities. Finally, stakeholders can help validate the classification of consequences as intended or unintended. Conclusion Studying the unintended consequences of COVID-19 mitigation measures is not only possible but also necessary to assess their overall value. The practical guidance presented will help program planners and evaluators gain a more comprehensive understanding of unintended consequences to refine mitigation measures.


Author(s):  
Susana Afonso ◽  
Ana Sofia Afonso

Museum educators play an important role in science communication, as they connect elements of an exhibit with visitors through emotion-driven experiences that are meaningful to them. Language is their main modus operandi in face-to-face interactions, but little is known of how they use it to communicate science, in part because little attention has been given to their practices and professional development. Nowadays, museums are changing, and science communication has become more demanding as these institutions exhibit hot themes of science. In this context, it is important that museum educators become aware of how they communicate science with an intended audience and reflect on how their practice can be improved. In this chapter, the authors focus on the way multimodal narratives can be used as a tool to access museum educators' discourse as well as how to promote museum educators' reflection about their practice and their professional development.


2018 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 233372141881262 ◽  
Author(s):  
Corinna Trujillo Tanner ◽  
Michael S. Caserta ◽  
Julia J. Kleinschmidt ◽  
Margaret S. Clayton ◽  
Paul S. Bernstein ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 ◽  
pp. 160940691984932 ◽  
Author(s):  
Graeme Law

In this article, the author reflects on the process of interviewing professional footballers about the sensitive issue of money and the lessons learned from this process. The article discusses a case study approach using in-depth qualitative interviews, which generates an innovative insight into a closed social world. The focus is on the difficulties of obtaining a sample where challenges faced are discussed. The article also focuses on the interview style employed when dealing with individuals who are experienced at being interviewed regularly. It also examines the issues of being an “insider” when conducting research and ways in which this can benefit the research process. The issue of research being a messy process is also discussed as when conducting this research, it was imperative that the author could deal with unpredictability and had to be flexible to conduct the research. Finally, the article discusses the insecurities of the participants and the issues of trust, as the current position of the author led him to be seen as an “outsider” by some participants.


2001 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 6-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary E. Evans ◽  
Luis J. Mejía-Maya ◽  
Luis H. Zayas ◽  
Roger A. Boothroyd ◽  
Orlando Rodriguez

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Athanasios Lourbopoulos ◽  
Iordanis Mourouzis ◽  
Christodoulos Xinaris ◽  
Nefeli Zerva ◽  
Konstantinos Filippakis ◽  
...  

Why can we still not translate preclinical research to clinical treatments for acute strokes? Despite > 1000 successful preclinical studies, drugs, and concepts for acute stroke, only two have reached clinical translation. This is the translational block. Yet, we continue to routinely model strokes using almost the same concepts we have used for over 30 years. Methodological improvements and criteria from the last decade have shed some light but have not solved the problem. In this conceptual analysis, we review the current status and reappraise it by thinking “out-of-the-box” and over the edges. As such, we query why other scientific fields have also faced the same translational failures, to find common denominators. In parallel, we query how migraine, multiple sclerosis, and hypothermia in hypoxic encephalopathy have achieved significant translation successes. Should we view ischemic stroke as a “chronic, relapsing, vascular” disease, then secondary prevention strategies are also a successful translation. Finally, based on the lessons learned, we propose how stroke should be modeled, and how preclinical and clinical scientists, editors, grant reviewers, and industry should reconsider their routine way of conducting research. Translational success for stroke treatments may eventually require a bold change with solutions that are outside of the box.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document