“The more I worked with the people on this project, the more I realised how little I knew. I would have got it wrong otherwise, and might have had the door slammed in my face for asking the wrong questions!” [Reference 14, page 11] Both concluded that the study had been very successful, because it had managed to gather the views of large numbers of local Gypsies and Travellers about their health and accommodation needs. Similar projects in other parts of the country did not succeed in capturing this information. Again using this example to develop a logic model (see Fig. 2), while collaborating with community members on research design (activity), the researcher heard about the interests and concerns of Travellers (learning) that led her to rephrase her interview questions and include female interviewers i.e. to change her research design (changed behaviour) which appears to have contributed to obtaining high quality data and therefore an improved understanding of accommodation needs by the local council (impact). Input Activity Short-term outcome Learning Medium-term outcome Behaviour Long-term impact Culture & conditions Gypsies and Travellers invited and supported to join a project Steering Group Discussing the project design Researcher learns about the community’s needs and concerns in relation to interviews on this topic Change to research design High quality data to a better understanding of the community’s accommodation needs Fig. 2. A logic model developed using Example 2. An important lesson here is that the researcher had no idea beforehand that this is what she would learn from working with Travellers. This was an ‘unknown unknown’ before she started. So while a researcher might expect involvement to address their ‘known unknowns’, for example they might start with questions such as ‘Is it reasonable to ask people to answer all these questions? What’s an acceptable length of time for an interview?’, on occasion what they learn is unexpected [17]. Researchers sometimes don’t know, what they don’t know. The assumptions they make in the absence of knowledge about patients’/ the public’s experiences, are only revealed and then -
understanding the nature of the problem. This resulted in a final review title ‘Interventions to support looked after children to stay in school’. This was based on young people’s decisions that the review would focus on: education, how to solve a problem, ‘support’ and ‘staying in’ rather than ‘dropping out’.” [Reference 15, page 9] Again developing a logic model for this example, (Fig. 3.), through working in partnership with young care leavers on a systematic review (activity), the researcher heard what young care leavers believe to be most important for their health, their concerns about stigmatising language (learning) as well as the strength of their feeling on these issues. This in turn informed the chosen topic and the focus of the evaluation of the published research findings i.e. influenced the design of the review (behaviour) and its findings (impact). Input Activity Short-term outcome Learning Medium-term outcome Behaviour Long-term impact Culture & conditions Setting up a group of young care leavers to be involved throughout the project Consultation on the scope of the review Researcher learns what’s most important to young care leavers in terms of their health and desired research outcomes Selection of topic and focus of review Findings of the review addressed the issues of most interest to young care leavers Fig. 3. A logic model created using Example 3. While there was an immediate, tangible outcome for the research the changed topic and scope - the researcher also reported how this experience increased her awareness of the bias in language used by researchers in this field. For example, the young people objected to including young offenders within the definition of looked after children, when many of the previous research studies had not made this distinction. Similarly many studies were focused on describing the ‘problems’ of looked after children, rather than seeking interventions to promote positive change in their lives. Importantly the face-to-face interactions between the researcher and the young care leavers, and the reported ‘fierce’ debate, ensured that not only information was exchanged, but also the young people’s values and emotions. Such an exchange led to a significant change in the researcher’s