Forms of practitioner research

Based on a review of practitioner research in the social care field with adults. 72 papers published in English 1990-2012. They were analysed by affiliation and country of researchers, research problem, research participants,... [ view full abstract ]

Based on a review of practitioner research in the social care field with adults. 72 papers published in English 1990-2012. They were analysed by affiliation and country of researchers, research problem, research participants, methods employed, attention to research quality, attention to research ethics, reported benefits, and utilization evidence. This presentation focuses on evidence that suggests there are two very different kinds of practitioner research (Type 1 and Type 2). A common term for both types of inquiry ought to be adopted with extreme caution. They differ in:
1. Occupational roles of researchers
2. Working relationship between researchers
3. Focus of the research questions and problems.
4. Research methodology
5. Extent to which benefits and utilisation of the research are addressed
6. Writing ‘voice’ in published outputs
E.g. Type 1 and 2 studies contrasted sharply in terms of research methods employed. The former, conducted often in a health service setting and clinical researchers, gave weight to quantitative methods and measurement scales, while the latter were predominantly qualitative in approach. In Type 1 almost no-one reported active steps to work with practitioners or service users in relation to the practice implications of the research. No-one made direct claim to any evidenced benefits of the study. The writing style and voice of the Type 1 articles were similar to mainstream academic articles. Literature reviews figured almost universally. There was minimal engagement with wider audiences. This raises questions of how plausible it is to describe some of Type 1 studies as practitioner research – practice research more broadly, but less clearly practitioner research. Conclude:
• Practitioner research is not a homogenous form.
• Resist distinctions of naïve versus mature; small versus large; and practitioner versus practitioner+academic models.
• Value of methodological diversity.
• Importance of understanding the experience of doing practitioner research.