scholarly journals The Role of Evaluation in Research—Practice Integration Working Toward the ‘‘Golden Spike’’

2009 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 538-553 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Brown Urban ◽  
William Trochim
Keyword(s):  
2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 417-431 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebekah Cupitt ◽  
Per-Anders Forstorp ◽  
Ann Lantz

Visuality is a concept that crosses boundaries of practice and meaning, making it an ideal subject for interdisciplinary research. In this article, we discuss visuality using a fragment from a video meeting of television producers at Swedish Television’s group for programming in Swedish Sign Language. This example argues for the importance of recognizing the diversity of analytical and practice-derived visualities and their effect on the ways in which we interpret cultures. These different visualities have consequences for the methods and means with which we present scholarly research. The role of methods, methodology, and analysis of visual practices in an organizational and bilingual setting are key. We explore the challenges of incorporating deaf visualities, hearing visualities, and different paradigms of interdisciplinary research as necessary when visibility, invisibility, and their materialities are of concern. We conclude that in certain contexts, breaking with disciplinary traditions makes visible that which is otherwise invisible.


2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-72 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marin Sawa

Scientific laboratories are increasingly becoming a collaborative place to design in an emergent biodesign practice, yet there is very little literature on the actual place and practice. This paper describes an empirical account of a laboratory-based, interdisciplinary design research practice, exploring the intersection with algal biotechnology. Aimed at generating multiple applications of microalgae, the author spent 3 years (2012-2015) working in close collaboration with algal scientists in their research laboratories at Imperial College London. It expounds on the laboratory space and facilities and discusses collaborative experimentation with the intersectional outcome: Algae Printing. It reports that the sum of resultant biotechnological artefacts are scientific, aesthetic, and ecosophical with potential for the domestication of algal biotechnology. It reflects on the interdisciplinary collaborative practice with literature reviews and addresses suggestions for future practices. The main finding is that the integration of a designer into the laboratory life can lead to co-invention and that a role of designer in early stages of scientific research can be demonstrated.


This chapter introduces the core thematic ideas of the present volume: that psychiatric research is in crisis, that it has entered a period of extraordinary science, and that a fully adequate response to the crisis should be responsive to the perspectives and interests of persons. We identify various sources of the crisis, drawing special attention to controversies concerning the role of the DSM in psychiatric research. And, we identify different strategies of response to the current crisis, including approaches that emphasize the importance of personal perspectives and the needs of the clinic and those that emphasize the important role of various scientific research programs. Further, we survey various developments (e.g., debates over fundamentals and a role for philosophical analysis, probing of the problems of the DSM framework, relaxation of standard forms of research practice, the introduction of the Research Domain Criteria initiative and other novel research programs) that are jointly suggestive of Thomas Kuhn’s characterization of periods of crisis that can arise in scientific research and of the “extraordinary science” that ensues. We suggest that this Kuhnian framework is useful for understanding the state of psychiatric research and it provides a framework for thinking about responses to the current crisis. We conclude with brief overviews of the contributions to the volume, each of which provides such a response.


Author(s):  
Wendy Luttrell

Reflexivity can be regarded as part of a continuous research practice. Qualitative researchers work within and across social differences (e.g., cultural, class, race, gender, generation) and this requires them to navigate different layers of self-awareness—from unconscious to semiconscious to fully conscious. Because researchers can be aware on one level but not on others, reflexivity is facilitated by using an eclectic and expansive toolkit for examining the role of the researcher, researcher-researched relationships, power, privilege, emotions, positionalities, and different ways of seeing. Over the past fifty years, there has been a progression of reflexive practice as well as disciplinary debates about how much self-awareness and transparency are enough and how much is too much. The shift can be traced from the early practitioners of ethnography who did not reflect on their positions, power or feelings (or at least make these reflections public), to those who acknowledged that their emotions could be both revealing and distorting, to those who interrogated their multiple positionalities (mostly in terms of the blinders of Western/race/class/gender/generation), to those calling for the mixing and blurring of different genres of representation as important tools of reflexivity. Reflexivity is not a solitary process limited to critical self-awareness, but derives from a collective ethos and humanizes rather than objectifies research relationships and the knowledge that is created.


Oral Diseases ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (S1) ◽  
pp. 117-122 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vaishali Sharma Mahendra ◽  
Amitha Ranauta ◽  
Anandi Yuvraj ◽  
Anthony J. Santella ◽  
Aditia Taslim ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 316-340 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca Whiting ◽  
Gillian Symon ◽  
Helen Roby ◽  
Petros Chamakiotis

This article applies paradox as a metatheoretical framework for the reflexive analysis of roles within a participatory video study. This analysis moves us beyond simply describing roles as paradoxical, and thus problematic, to offer insights into the dynamics of the interrelationship between participant, researcher, and video technology. Drawing on the concept of “working the hyphens,” our analysis specifically focuses on the complex enactment of Participation-Observation and Intimacy-Distance “hyphen spaces.” We explore how video technology mediates the relationship between participant and researcher within these spaces, providing opportunities for participant empowerment but simultaneously introducing aspects of surveillance and detachment. Our account reveals how video study participants manage these tensions to achieve participation in the project. It examines the roles for the researched, the technology, and the researchers that are an outcome of this process. Our analysis advances methodology by bringing together a paradox perspective with reflexive work on research relationships to demonstrate how we can more adequately explore tensions in research practice and detailing the role of technology in the construction and management of these tensions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document