Active participation of stakeholders in health research practice is important to generate societal impact of outcomes, as innovations will more likely be implemented and disseminated in clinical practice. To foster a co-creative process, numerous frameworks and tools are available. As they originate from different professions, it is not evident that health researchers are aware of these tools, or able to select and use them in a meaningful way. This article describes the bottom-up development process of a compass and presents the final outcome. This Co-creation Impact Compass combines a well-known business model with tools from design thinking that promote active participation by all relevant stakeholders. It aims to support healthcare researchers to select helpful and valid co-creation tools for the right purpose and at the right moment. Using the Co-creation Impact Compass might increase the researchers’ understanding of the value of co-creation, and it provides help to engage stakeholders in all phases of a research project.
https://www.fons.org/Resources/Documents/Journal/Vol11No1/IPDJ_1101_11.pdfBackground: There is a growing amount of research in which older adults contribute as co-researchers. The quality of this research depends, among other factors, on the nature of relationships between professional researchers and co-researchers. Reflections on these relationships can offer structured insight into this form of research.Aim: Our reflection on the co-operation between two older adults and a nurse researcher aims to share the lessons learned based on a critical understanding of our journey. Our main questions are: 1. How has the relationship developed over time, including in terms of mutuality and equality? 2. Which moments have been decisive in this development?Conclusion: We regard our co-operative relationship as a ‘dynamic search’. The meaning of mutuality and equality may change over time and so enrich the relationships. There is a need for further understanding into how these values can be nurtured in different configurations of researchers and co-researchers.Implications for practice: Evolving relations can be nurtured through deliberative sharing of the perceptions, expectations and experiences of the researchers and co-researchers Combining a formal working atmosphere with informal moments helps the research team respond to the individual needs of its members To enhance equality and mutuality, it is important to appreciate and value everyone’s contribution rather than concentrating on ‘what’ or ‘how’ individuals contribute
MULTIFILE
A five-year experiment of collaborative curriculum design teams including lecturers, students and researchers in Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences in nine disciplines, has led to a deepened insight in its complexity. Three ambitions were central in the longitudinal project funded by the Ministry of Education: cross-stakeholder-collaboration, the integration of research in bachelor programs, and systematic curriculum design. Curriculum co-design of students, lecturers and researchers offers opportunities for more meaningful innovations, while adding to the complexity of the design process (Bovill, et. al., 2016 Cook-Sather, et al., 2014 Healey and Healey, 2018). Ideally, each team commits to making a difference and therefore creates a social learning space by mutually engaging uncertainty (Wenger-Trayner and Wenger-Trayner, 2020). But how to make such a collective effort? The further integration of research in professional bachelor programs aimed to better educate our students as future professionals in a hypercomplex world (Barnett, 2012). But realizing this integration is not straightforward at all (Markauskaite & Goodyear, 2017 Young & Muller, 2014). Existing conceptual frameworks, such as from Brew (2012) and Healey (2005) need to be collectively learned, interpreted and adapted, and often the current body of knowledge did not provide any direction for research integration (see also Griffioen, Groen, & Nak, 2019). Finally, to increase the quality of the curriculum design processes, teams were stimulated to apply the Curriculum Spiderweb by Van den Akker (2003), which showed to be a useful instrument, but its usage also showed the high complexity of curriculum design as such, let alone collectively. The combined complexity of the multifaceted processes of curriculum design, the co-creative setup, and the ambition to further integrate research into the curriculum has shown to be a challenging endeavor. Still, these challenges the SoTL community needs to get to grips with to increase the quality of higher education.
MULTIFILE
