Create to Collaborate: using creative activity and participatory performance in online workshops to build collaborative research relationships

Springer Science and Business Media LLC - Tập 9 - Trang 1-18 - 2023
Alice Malpass1, Astrid Breel2, Jo Stubbs3, Tassos Stevens4, Persis-Jadé Maravala5, Ellie Shipman6, Zoe Banks Gross7,8, Michelle Farr1,9
1The National Institute for Health and Care Research Applied Research Collaboration West (NIHR ARC West) at University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
2Research and Graduate Affairs, Bath Spa University, Bath, UK
3Elizabeth Blackwell Institute, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
4Coney Ltd, Toynbee Studios, London, UK
5ZU-UK (Zecora Ura Theatre Company Limited by Guarantee), St Mary’s Complex, Bootle, England
6Freelance Artist, Illustrator and Workshop Facilitator, Bristol, UK
7Knowle West Media Centre, Bristol, UK
8Sustrans, 2 Cathedral Square, Bristol, UK
9Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

Tóm tắt

Creative methods/practices have been highlighted as helpful to develop more collaborative, equitable research partnerships between researchers and communities/public-participants. We asked artist partners to design four online workshops, one on each research priority area: school environments and mental health; wellbeing within the Somali community; air pollution; health data. We aimed to understand whether creative processes can enable public-participants and researcher- participants to meet in a neutral space to discuss a research theme and begin to build collaborative relationships through more equal engagement. Ideas could be taken forwards with seed funding, providing opportunity for collaboration to continue beyond initial workshops. Different artist partners designed and facilitated four workshops. Evaluation data was collected on each workshop using participatory observation and fieldnotes, alongside chatlog data, and one-to-one interviews with 21 workshop participants, providing a contextually rich, comparative evaluation across four diverse workshops. Analysis was thematically driven. Artist partners took different approaches to designing workshops. The workshops began with introductory games and activities, and there was less emphasis on introductions of people’s roles, with the intention to avoid hierarchical dynamics. Whilst public-participants enjoyed this, some researchers found it challenging and reported confusions over their workshop roles. Disrupting usual practice and challenging norms was not always an easy experience. There were examples where emergent, co-created knowledge was enabled. However, it was more challenging to facilitate longer-term collaborative research projects from the workshops due to different stakeholder priorities, and lack of staff time/ less sense of ownership for further work. Creative activities can influence and impact the types of conversations between public-participants and researchers in a way that changes and challenges power dynamics, shifting towards public-participant driven discussion. Whilst deconstructing hierarchies is important, supporting researchers is key so that any discomfort can be productive and experienced as a vital part of co-production. Longer term collaborative research projects were limited, highlighting a need for facilitation beyond initial workshops, and a sense of ownership from workshop participants to take things forwards. Workshops like these may lend themselves well to research prioritisation. However, taking community-led ideas forwards within research funding landscapes remains challenging. Create to Collaborate aimed to develop and facilitate creative public involvement workshops with members of the public, researchers, and community organisations, who were potentially interested in collaborating on a future health research project. We wanted to evaluate the extent to which creative, external facilitation by different artists could enable the development of more equal relationships and reduce power differences at the beginning of a research process. We worked with artists who designed and facilitated an online workshop, and community partners who helped recruit members of the public to increase diversity in participation. Then, we delivered and evaluated the workshops to understand different participants’ experiences. Four workshops are reported in this article, each focused on a different topic: mental health in school environments, wellbeing in Bristol’s Somali community, air pollution, and health data. We took observational notes at the workshops and conducted one-to-one qualitative interviews with 21 workshop participants. Feedback from public-participants taking part in creative workshops led by artist facilitators described them as ‘engaging’, ‘comfortable’ and ‘equitable’. Researcher-participants reported workshops as ‘open’, ‘inclusive’ and ‘engaging’, whilst also reporting some confusion over what their own roles were and how much they could contribute as academic researchers. The project demonstrates a need for further clarity, particularly for researchers, over what roles may be in setting up a collaborative relationship, and possible disparity in expectations between those attending in an employment capacity and those joining as a public-participant in their own time.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Hickey G, Brearley S, Coldham T, Denegri S, Green G, Staniszewska S, et al. Guidance on co-producing a research project. Southampton: NIHR INVOLVE; 2018.

Islam S, Albert A, Haklay M, McEachan R. Co-production in ActEarly: nothing about us without us. Bradford Institute for Health Research & University College London; 2022.

Islam S, Joseph O, Chaudry A, Forde D, Keane A, Wilson C, et al. We are not hard to reach, but we may find it hard to trust” …Involving and engaging ‘seldom listened to’ community voices in clinical translational health research: a social innovation approach. Res Involv Engagem. 2021;7(1):46.

Boydell K, Gladstone BM, Volpe T, Allemang B, Stasiulis E. The production and dissemination of knowledge: a scoping review of arts-based health research. In Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 2012;13(1).

Phillips L, Christensen-Strynø MB, Frølunde L. Arts-based co-production in participatory research: harnessing creativity in the tension between process and product. Evid Policy. 2022;18(2):391–411.

Micsinszki SK, Buettgen A, Mulvale G, Moll S, Wyndham-West M, Bruce E, et al. Creative processes in co-designing a co-design hub: towards system change in health and social services in collaboration with structurally vulnerable populations. Evid Policy. 2022;18(2):291–310.

Grindell C, Sanders T, Bec R, Mary Tod A, Wolstenholme D. Improving knowledge mobilisation in healthcare: a qualitative exploration of creative co-design methods. Evid Policy. 2022;18(2):265–90.

MacGregor S, Cooper A, Searle M, Kukkonen T. Co-production and arts-informed inquiry as creative power for knowledge mobilisation. Evid Policy. 2022;18(2):206–35.

Starling B, Tanswell J. Diversifying audiences and producers of public involvement in scientific research: the AudioLab. Res Involv Engagem. 2018;4(1):39.

Walia C. A dynamic definition of creativity. Creat Res J. 2019;31(3):237–47.

Glăveanu VP, Beghetto RA. Creative experience: a non-standard definition of creativity. Creativity Res J. 2020;33(2):75–80.

Rose D, Kalathil J. Power, privilege and knowledge: the untenable promise of co-production in mental “health.” Front Sociol. 2019;4:57.

Harpin A, Nicholson HE. Performance and participation: practices, audiences, politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2017.

White G. Audience participation in theatre: aesthetics of the invitation. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2013.

Breel A. Conducting creative agency: the aesthetics and ethics of participatory performance. Kent: University of Kent; 2017.

Breel A. Meaningful agency in participatory performance: a contextual approach. Studies in Theatre and Performance. Forthcoming.

Klich R, Scheer E. Multimedia performance. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2011.

Dixon S. Digital performance: a history of new media in theater, dance, performance art, and installation. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2007.

Turnhout E, Metze T, Wyborn C, Klenk N, Louder E. The politics of co-production: participation, power, and transformation. Current Opin Environ Sustain. 2020;42:15–21.

Staniszewska S, Brett J, Simera I, Seers K, Mockford C, Goodlad S, et al. GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. Res Involv Engagem. 2017;3(1):13.

Redwood S, Mamluk L, Dawson S, Ijaz S, Condon L, Bell M, et al. How does school discipline affect pupil mental health and wellbeing? Bristol: NIHR ARC West; 2022 [Available from: https://arc-w.nihr.ac.uk/research/projects/how-does-school-discipline-affect-pupil-mental-health-and-wellbeing/

Lukes S. Power: a radical view. London: Macmillan; 2005.

Haugaard M. Rethinking the four dimensions of power: domination and empowerment. J Polit Power. 2012;5(1):33–54.

Haugaard M. The four dimensions of power: conflict and democracy. J Polit Power. 2021;14(1):153–75.

Gaventa J. Levels, spaces and forms of power. In: Berenskoetter F, Williams MJ, editors. Power in world politics. Abingdon: Routledge; 2007. p. 204–24.

Farr M. Power dynamics and collaborative mechanisms in co-production and co-design processes. Crit Soc Policy. 2018;38(4):623–44.

Farr M, Davies P, Andrews H, Bagnall D, Brangan E, Davies R. Co-producing knowledge in health and social care research: reflections on the challenges and ways to enable more equal relationships. Hum Soc Sci Commun. 2021;8(1):105.

Wellcome Trust. What researchers think about the culture they work in. London: Wellcome Trust. https://wellcome.ac.uk/reports/what-researchers-think-about-research-culture; (2020)

Dalgarno M, Oates J. The crucible of co-production: case study interviews with Recovery College practitioner trainers. Health Educ J. 2019;78(8):977–87.

Boaz A. Impact of Social Sciences Blog [Internet]. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2021/06/25/lost-in-co-production-to-enable-true-collaboration-we-need-to-nurture-different-academic-identities/: London School of Economics. 2021.

Boaz A, Borst R, Kok M, O’Shea A. How far does an emphasis on stakeholder engagement and co-production in research present a threat to academic identity and autonomy? A prospective study across five European countries. Res Eval. 2021;30(3):361–9.

Heney V, Poleykett B. The impossibility of engaged research: Complicity and accountability between researchers, ‘publics’ and institutions. Sociol Health Illn. 2022;44(S1):179–94.

Oliver K, Kothari A, Mays N. The dark side of coproduction: do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research? Health Res Policy Syst. 2019;17(1):33.

Williams O, Sarre S, Papoulias SC, Knowles S, Robert G, Beresford P, et al. Lost in the shadows: reflections on the dark side of co-production. Health Res Policy Syst. 2020;18(1):43.

Alexander J. Co-production: fostering greater inclusion or reproducing existing exclusion? An analysis of co-commissioning and resident participation on a South London housing estate. SN Soc Sci. 2021;1(2):56.

Jasanoff S. Technologies of humility: citizen participation in governing science. Minerva. 2003;41(3):223–44.

Knowles SE, Allen D, Donnelly A, Flynn J, Gallacher K, Lewis A, et al. More than a method: trusting relationships, productive tensions, and two-way learning as mechanisms of authentic co-production. Res Involv Engagem. 2021;7(1):34.

Traub T. Coproduction and subjectivity. Bristol: Changing Futures Bristol. 2022. [cited 2023]. https://www.changingfuturesbristol.co.uk/read-the-latest/coproduction-and-subjectivity.

Sameshima P, Vandermause R. Parallaxic praxis: an artful interdisciplinary collaborative research methodology. In: Kozuh B, Kahn R, Kozlowska A, editors. The practical science of society. Grand Forks: UND Publications; 2008. p. 141–52.

Williams O, Tembo D, Ocloo J, Kaur M, Hickey G, Farr M, et al editors. COVID-19 and co-production in health and social care research, policy, and practice. Co-production methods and working together at a distance, vol. 2. Bristol: Policy Press; 2021.

Young IM. Activist challenges to deliberative democracy. Polit Theory. 2001;29(5):670–90.

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Tập 9

1-18

Thông tin tác giả