Chiasmatic interpretative communities: an innovative methodology

Focus groups, originally used in fields such as marketing and consumer research, are rapidly gaining popularity as a research methodology in the social sciences. It is interesting to note that most of the scholarly work on focus groups continues to come from business rather than the social sciences. Few researchers have discussed the differing purposes and goals in social science and consumer research (Ospina, 1994; Moore, 1996). Furthermore, the literature on focus group research rarely utilizes social work knowledge of group dynamics or group facilitation skills. Rather, the literature on focus groups tends to give guidelines for leading groups, telling focus group facilitators what to do and what not to do in leading such groups. We believe that these guidelines, while generally helpful, can lead to rigidity on the part of focus group leaders. We suggest that, in social work research, focus group facilitators should use their knowledge of group dynamics and the values of individualization and empathy to modify focus group rules where appropriate. This paper describes part of a qualitative study of client/worker relationships in residential mental health settings. During the course of this research, group work principles came into conflict, at times, with recommended guidelines for focus group leaders. The paper illustrates how insights gleaned from group work theory and practice can enable a researcher to break focus group rules responsibly, thus bringing greater depth to the data gathered and allowing the researcher to be more sensitive to the needs of focus group participants.

The purpose of this study is to take stock of the extant research on occupational health and safety (OHS) with the aim of identifying gaps and mapping out a future research agenda for human resource management (HRM) scholars. A comprehensive review of OHS research from 1956 to 2019 was first conducted. A total of 564 articles from 17 leading journals were then identified and categorized into five distinct, yet inter-related, themes: (1) antecedents and work-related factors influencing OHS; (2) industrial policy and regulations surrounding OHS; (3) OHS management practices; (4) approaches to, and models of, managing OHS and (5) outcomes of OHS management. The review also discusses OHS research methodologies and design foci. Overall, we found that OHS research is poorly integrated into the field of HRM, and we identify a plethora of opportunities for HR researchers to add value to this field of research. A future agenda is formulated, encompassing new OHS theory-building, novel directions for empirical research, and innovations in research design and methodology.

In the ever-evolving landscape of qualitative social science research, innovative methodologies are crucial for capturing the complexities of human behavior and societal dynamics. Bricolage, a versatile approach derived from Claude Lévi-Strauss’s structuralist inquiry, has flourished within post-structuralism, post-modernism, critical theories, feminism, and cultural studies. Despite its growing recognition, challenges persist in comprehending and applying bricolage due to its interdisciplinary and eclectic nature. More established research methodologies face limitations in adapting to contemporary realities, whereas bricolage offers a pliable and adaptive lens. This paper explores bricolage’s conceptual underpinnings and real-world application, aiming to underline the importance of embracing innovative research methodologies. By presenting bricolage as a potent tool for generating knowledge, this study seeks to inspire researchers to explore its rich potential in understanding the multifaceted landscapes of human experience.

Qualitative research designs provide future-oriented plans for undertaking research. Designs should describe how to effectively address and answer a specific research question using qualitative data and qualitative analysis techniques. Designs connect research objectives to observations, data, methods, interpretations, and research outcomes. Qualitative research designs focus initially on collecting data to provide a naturalistic view of social phenomena and understand the meaning the social world holds from the point of view of social actors in real settings. The outcomes of qualitative research designs are situated narratives of peoples’ activities in real settings, reasoned explanations of behavior, discoveries of new phenomena, and creating and testing of theories. A three-level framework can be used to describe the layers of qualitative research design and conceptualize its multifaceted nature. Note, however, that qualitative research is a flexible and not fixed process, unlike conventional positivist research designs that are unchanged after data collection commences. Flexibility provides qualitative research with the capacity to alter foci during the research process and make new and emerging discoveries. The first or methods layer of the research design process uses social science methods to rigorously describe organizational phenomena and provide evidence that is useful for explaining phenomena and developing theory. Description is done using empirical research methods for data collection including case studies, interviews, participant observation, ethnography, and collection of texts, records, and documents. The second or methodological layer of research design offers three formal logical strategies to analyze data and address research questions: (a) induction to answer descriptive “what” questions; (b) deduction and hypothesis testing to address theory oriented “why” questions; and (c) abduction to understand questions about what, how, and why phenomena occur. The third or social science paradigm layer of research design is formed by broad social science traditions and approaches that reflect distinct theoretical epistemologies—theories of knowledge—and diverse empirical research practices. These perspectives include positivism, interpretive induction, and interpretive abduction (interpretive science). There are also scholarly research perspectives that reflect on and challenge or seek to change management thinking and practice, rather than producing rigorous empirical research or evidence based findings. These perspectives include critical research, postmodern research, and organization development. Three additional issues are important to future qualitative research designs. First, there is renewed interest in the value of covert research undertaken without the informed consent of participants. Second, there is an ongoing discussion of the best style to use for reporting qualitative research. Third, there are new ways to integrate qualitative and quantitative data. These are needed to better address the interplay of qualitative and quantitative phenomena that are both found in everyday discourse, a phenomenon that has been overlooked.

This paper illustrates how systems theory can be used in social work research design to understand the systemic issues associated with spousal care in rural Australia. Spousal caregiving is embedded within multiple formal and informal systems, including family, community, health and aged care practice, social policy, and social and cultural norms. It is therefore a complex phenomenon to explore in social research, with each of these systems interacting with and influencing other aspects of the care system. The purpose of this paper is to provide an illustration of a research design that explores this systemic complexity. The design is conceptually underpinned by the transformative paradigm; a critical approach that reflects social work principles of social justice. The methodology is based on an ecosystems approach to assessment, using multiple methods to explore interactions between systems of care at policy, practice and individual levels. This application of systems theory to research presents an innovative opportunity for social work research to reflect long-established practices of understanding complex phenomenon within its sociocultural context.

Nordic College of Caring Sciences in the years to come

This chapter explores the intricacies of social policy amid contemporary globalizing dynamics. Centring on transborder exchanges, the chapter illuminates how these exchanges shape welfare systems worldwide, encompassing the flow of capital, goods, services, cultural exchanges and political actions, and examines the innovative reforms addressing health and welfare issues with particular focus on the global South. It poses critical questions about whether social policies can be isolated from their international contexts, and challenges the traditional, country-centric methodologies of social policy analysis. Emphasizing the necessity of a more encompassing transnational analytical approach, the chapter calls for a symbiotic relationship between traditional and transnational methodologies in social policy research. It underscores the variable influence that transnational actors, institutions and processes wield across different contexts. A core argument posits that a truly comprehensive understanding of social policy dynamics requires embracing the cross-border activities and their impacts on welfare structures within and between nations. This transnational analytics is presented as instrumental in understanding contemporary social policy dynamics. Additionally, the chapter stresses the need for comparative methods, urging an investigation into how different transnational forces shape social provision and policy across various contexts.

Focus groups as a tool for critical social research in nurse education

The integration levels among research methods, management, research tools, and psychology could guide the development of the ONDAS framework toward the secrets of knowledge. The research grounds on undergraduate and graduate students' challenges, with particular emphasis on the need for writing critical literature reviews and weaknesses in identifying benchmark studies to extract the research gap and main research questions, resulting in most fresh graduate students not graduating on time. Some master’s students write doctoral theses, and vice versa, confusing their identified research approach. The study utilizes desk documents to identify the main problems that most students experienced during their research, to determine the knowledge structure through the analysis of benchmark studies, and to achieve the framework’s development foundation. As a result, it proposes ONDAS framework characteristics, procedures, and rules to be applied in different fields through data triangulation. Aiming to help the research process, ONDAS focused the study from its very beginning until viva voice discussion; this framework decreases the time of writing and preparation, guiding the research and strategy processes, and promoting tools to help with the analysis and elaboration of final theses. Results were achieved by a qualitative approach using the case study method that includes 40 participants in a semi-structured questionnaire on their experiences with ONDAS framework. Most participants showed higher control and motivation, finishing on time and conducting their research with high precision and focus, establishing the integration of four primary levels that aid in developing the ONDAS framework across multiple disciplines and innovative research methodologies. Specifically, it is helpful for the scientific research community in academic-industry liaisons. This study is seen as the first of its kind to assess participants' attitudes, especially their research journey that serves as the primary way of adoption.

Family Caregiver Partnerships in Palliative Care Research Design and Implementation.

The use of focus group discussions in qualitative research has been increasing for the last decades, both in academics and applied research areas, mostly in social sciences, health, management and education. The focus group approach is a qualitative method to collect the data on the selected topic with a structured and focused discussion in a small group of people. Focus groups are especially useful as a complement to other methods of data collection for providing in-depth information in a relatively short period of time. The aim of the present paper is to give a review on focus group methods. It provides an overview of the current focus group concepts, including the definition, planning and organization of focus groups as well as discussing the importance and the limitations of these concepts in qualitative research. In addition to ‘traditional’ concepts, online focus groups, new approaches that are conducting the focus groups using internet online platforms are discussed.

Given the longstanding controversy about hypnosedative use, we aimed to investigate the attitudes of prescribing psychiatrists and service users towards long-term use of hypnosedative medication, and their perceptions of barriers to evidence-based nonmedication alternatives. Qualitative data from focus groups in Aotearoa/NZ were analysed thematically. A novel research design involved a service user researcher contributing throughout the research design and process. Service users and psychiatrists met to discuss each other's views, initially separately, and subsequently together. Analysis of the data identified four key themes: the challenge, for both parties, of sleep disturbance among service users with mental health problems; the conceptual and ethical conflicts for service users and psychiatrists in managing this challenge; the significant barriers to service users accessing evidence-based nonmedication alternatives; and the initial sense of disempowerment, shared by both service users and psychiatrists, which was transformed during the research process. Our results raise questions about the relevance of the existing guidelines for this group of service users, highlight the resource and time pressures that discourage participants from embarking on withdrawal regimes and education programmes on alternatives, highlight the lack of knowledge about alternatives and reflect the complex interaction between sleep and mental health problems, which poses a significant dilemma for service users and psychiatrists.

There is no universally agreed definition of authorship. The Committee on Publication Ethics suggests that authorship should balance contribution to conception, design, analysis and writing of the study against collection of data and other routine work.1 Journals receive many concerns and complaints about authorship, such as claims of being unfairly omitted as an author, claims of being included as an author without consent and backing out of authorship when concerns over the integrity of a paper are raised.2 The Australian Journal of Rural Health (AJRH) aspires to the best practice and the highest standards of ethical conduct in scholarly publishing. One of these standards is the ascribing of authorship. Ascribing authorship is important for many reasons. It recognises and describes the contribution and intellectual input of those involved in the research. It is part of the public record that signals to colleagues and the scientific community the experience, expertise and involvement of individuals in the research and publication process. It can contribute to the success of authors in obtaining grants, future employment and promotion. As such, it is very important not to under-state or over-state an individual's contribution to a published work. Senior authors who do a noble thing by ascribing first authorship to students and junior colleagues when it is not warranted are indeed being unfair to other students and junior staff whose mentors ascribe authorship according to ethical guidelines. There are numerous definitions, criteria and guidelines for ascribing authorship. The AJRH follows the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). The ICMJE lists four criteria that must be met for an individual to be listed as an author. These are: Substantial contribution to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data for the work; AND Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND Final approval of the version to be published; AND Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. The ICMJE recommends that individuals should meet ALL four criteria to be listed as an author and that all who meet the four criteria should be listed as an author. The guidelines are not designed as a means to exclude people from authorship. In fact, the guidelines recommend that those who meet the first criteria should have an opportunity to participate in criteria 2 and 3. This is important to equalising power imbalances for scholarly work with students and in work where service recipients (consumers) have been involved in research design. Authors must ensure the integrity of their contribution and be accountable for their work. Furthermore, all authors should have read and endorsed the final manuscript and take full responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of the contributions of their co-authors.3 When you agree to be a co-author, you agree to be accountable for the work of your co-authors. While this requirement has generated some discussion, it nonetheless remains an ICMJE recommendation. For those who contributed, but do not warrant authorship, their contributions should be acknowledged individually or as a group. This acknowledgement should clearly describe the nature and extent of the contribution. Since formal acknowledgement could imply endorsement of a publication, written permission should be obtained from all acknowledged individuals and groups. Accurately ascribing authorship is important and is informed by clear guidelines. Issues of authorship should be discussed and agreed very early in the research process. This includes the order in which authors are listed. This can vary by discipline and journal. Some disciplines list all authors in alphabetical order. Some clinical journals list the most senior author last. However most disciplines and journals, including this journal, list the authors from most to least contribution. Early reference to the publisher's (in our case, Wiley's) guidelines on publishing ethics4 and, if needed, the journal's ethics helpdesk (publication.ethics@wiley.com) can prevent authorship issues arising later. Being overly generous or being overly circumspect in ascribing authorship both have negative consequences and constitute unethical practice. Scrupulously adhering to the authorship guidelines helps ensure the quality and integrity of the publication and the scholarly discourse generally. All of these are standards to which the AJRH aspires.

Introduction. In the periods from 2014 to 2019 and from 2019 to 2022, Ukraine implemented various economic and social policies that resulted in diverse socio-economic consequences. This article aims to conduct a comparative analysis of specific aspects of social and economic policy during these periods. Analysis of scientific research. Research on specific theoretical and practical aspects of state economic and social policy implementation in Ukraine during the periods from 2014 to 2019 and from 2019 to 2022 has been conducted by prominent scientists including S. V. Mocherny, Yu. S. Shemchushenko, O. P. Orlyuk, and others. The examination of the socio-economic consequences resulting from the implementation of economic and social policies in Ukraine during the periods from 2014 to 2019 and from 2019 to 2022 remains insufficiently explored, necessitating comprehensive scientific research in this field. The purpose of this scientific article is to investigate specific aspects of economic and social policy implemented in Ukraine during the periods from 2014 to 2019 and from 2019 to 2022. The main tasks of the article are to provide a theoretical and mathematical description of specific aspects of economic and social policy during the periods from 2014 to 2019 and from 2019 to 2022, as well as to analyze their consequences in Ukraine. Research methodology and methods. During the writing of the article, several special research methods were employed. These methods include direct observation, which involved gathering information on various indicators such as the number of points in the Corruption Perception Index (CPI) in Ukraine from 2013 to 2022, changes in real gross domestic product (GDP) from 2016 to 2020, the amount of state and state-guaranteed debt from January 2016 to January 2022, and Ukraine's position in the democracy rating from 2014 to 2022. Information processing methods were used to develop tables for calculating the growth and changes in the number of points in the CPI in Ukraine from 2013 to 2022, as well as the amount of state and state-guaranteed debt from January 2016 to January 2022. Graphical analysis was conducted to examine the dynamics of the CPI in Ukraine from 2013 to 2022, changes in GDP from 2016 to 2021, the size of the state and state-guaranteed debt from January 2016 to January 2022, and Ukraine's position in the democracy rating from 2014 to 2021. The time range for analyzing changes in GDP and the national debt was chosen by the author to minimize the impact of the acute phases of the conventional Russian-Ukrainian war during 2014-2015 and after February 24, 2022. Similarly, the time range for the CPI from 2013 to 2022 was selected to demonstrate that the conventional war does not have a decisive influence on the fight against corruption. Additionally, the time range for Ukraine's position in the Democracy Rating from 2014 to 2021 was chosen to mitigate the impact of the large-scale conventional Russian-Ukrainian war that began on February 24, 2022. Research results. According to the data from the Corruption Perception Index, it was found that effective measures were taken by the Ukrainian authorities to combat corruption during the period of 2014-2018. However, from 2019 to 2023, the progress in the fight against corruption slowed down. The analysis also demonstrates that following the cessation of active hostilities that took place between 2014 and 2015, the economic policies implemented by the state authorities facilitated consistent economic growth for sixteen quarters, spanning from 2016 to 2019. However, after a change in power occurred in 2019, economic growth shifted from positive to negative starting from 2020. During the period of 2016-2019, the government's economic policies not only focused on fostering economic growth but also aimed at reducing the external debt burden on the economy. Conversely, following the change in power in 2019, the new leadership pursued an active policy of foreign borrowing, resulting in an increase in the debt burden on the Ukrainian economy. Scientific novelty of the research results. A comparative mathematical analysis was conducted to examine specific aspects of state economic and social policies in Ukraine during the periods from 2014 to 2019 and from 2019 to 2022. Practical significance of the obtained research results. The author believes that conducting a qualitative comparative mathematical analysis of specific aspects of state economic and social policy in Ukraine during the periods from 2014 to 2019 and from 2019 to 2022 will facilitate the identification of more effective methods for implementing economic and social policies. This, in turn, will contribute to the establishment of an independent and efficient state. The article contains: formulas: 3, fig. 8, tab. 5, bibl. 24.

The focus group method: Insights from focus group interviews on sexual health with adolescents