Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T00:17:53.315Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Advocates, Agnostics and Adversaries: Researchers’ Perceptions of Service User Involvement in Social Policy Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2010

Saul Becker ,
Joe Sempik  and
Alan Bryman
Saul Becker
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham E-mail: [email protected]
Joe Sempik
Affiliation:
Centre for Child and Family Research, Department of Social Sciences, Loughborough University
Alan Bryman
Affiliation:
University of Leicester, Leicester
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The involvement of service users in the research process is becomingly increasingly required by many funders of research and is being seen as an indicator of quality in its own right. This paper provides original data from a study of social policy researchers’ views of service user involvement in research. It shows a diversity of stances which have been categorised here as belonging to Advocates, Agnostics and Adversaries of user involvement. The views of Agnostics and Adversaries pose serious challenges that need to be addressed if service user involvement is to be more widely accepted and valued by some researchers and academics in social policy.

Type
Articles
Information
Social Policy and Society , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , July 2010 , pp. 355 - 366
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Becker, S., Bryman, A. and Sempik, J. (2006), Defining ‘Quality’ in Social Policy Research: Views, Perceptions and a Framework for Discussion, Lavenham: Social Policy Association.Google Scholar
Beresford, P. (2002), ‘User involvement in research and evaluation: liberation or regulation?’, Social Policy and Society, 12, 95–106.Google Scholar
Beresford, P. (2005), ‘Theory and practice of user involvement in research: Making the connection with public policy and practice’, in Lowes, Lesley and Hulat, Ian (eds.), Involving Service Users in Health and Social Care Research, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Beresford, P. (2007), ‘The role of service user research in generating knowledge-based health and social care: from conflict to contribution’, Critical Social Policy, 3, 3, 329–41.Google Scholar
Cowden, S. and Singh, G (2007), ‘The “user”: friend, foe or fetish? A critical exploration of user involvement in health and social care’, Critical Social Policy, 27, 1, 5–23.Google Scholar
Davies, H. T. O. and Crombie, I. K. (2001), ‘What is a systematic review?’, Evidence Based Medicine, 1, 5, http://www.evidence-based-medicine.co.uk/ebmfiles/WhatisSystreview.pdf [accessed 03.12.2007].Google Scholar
Department of Health (1999), National Service Framework for Mental Health: Modern Standards and Service Models, London: Department of Health.Google Scholar
Department of Health (2000), The NHS Plan: A Plan for Investment, a Plan for Reform, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Department of Health (2001), Research Governance Framework for Health and Social Care, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Glasby, J. and Beresford, P. (2006), ‘Who knows best? Evidence-based practice and the service user contribution’, Critical Social Policy, 26, 1, 268–84.Google Scholar
Hanley, B. (2005), Research as Empowerment? Report of a Series of Seminars Organised by the Toronto Group, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
Kroke, A., Boeing, H., Rossnagel, K. and Willich, S. N. (2003), ‘History of the concept of “levels of evidence” and their current status in relation to primary prevention through lifestyle interventions’, Public Health Nutrition, 7, 2, 279–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lockey, R., Sitzia, J., Gillingham, T., Millyard, J., Miller, C., Ahmed, S., Beales, A., Bennett, C., Parfoot, S., Sigrist, G. and Sigrist, J. (2004), Training for Service User Involvement in Health and Social Care Research: A Study of Training Provision and Participants’ Experiences (The TRUE Project), Worthing: Worthing & Southlands Hospitals NHS Trust.Google Scholar
Minogue, V., Boness, J., Brown, A. and Girdlestone, J. (2005), ‘The impact of service user involvement in research’, International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, 18, 2, 103–12.Google Scholar
Priestley, M. (1999), Disability Politics and Community Care, London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.Google Scholar
Royle, J., Steel, R., Hanley, B. and Bradburn, J. (2001), Getting Involved in Research: A Guide for Consumers, Consumers in NHS Research Support Unit (now ‘Involve’).Google Scholar
Sempik, J., Becker, S. and Bryman, A. (2007), ‘The quality of research evidence in social policy: consensus and dissension among researchers’, Evidence and Policy, 3, 407–23.Google Scholar
Simpson, E. L., Bryant, L. D., Ruddy, R. and Atkin, K. (2006), ‘Developing partnerships for research: training workshops for mental health service users, carers and workers’, Psychiatric Bulletin, 30, 67–69.Google Scholar
Stone, E. and Priestley, M. (1996), ‘Parasites, pawns and partners: disability research and the role of non-disabled researchers’, British Journal of Sociology, 47, 4, 699–716.Google Scholar