Search results
desire to strengthen the involvement and engagement of service users, carers and members of the public in research has been driven by: Partnership Consultation a. a strong moral argument that any publicly funded research that aims to benefit health status or health services should be shaped and informed by the people it will affect (Hanley, 2012) Informing b. accumulating evidence of the benefits of patient and public involvement in research (Staley, 2015) c. recognition that service users and carers, by virtue of their lived experience, can bring a wealth of
be developed’. Csikszentmihalyi and Amabile, through their focus on novelty and recognition by a peer group, set the expectations of what would be judged to be a creative contribution higher than most research communication projects are likely to aim, particularly as creativity is rarely the primary purpose of research communication. So, in this context it is worth considering other definitions of creativity which might also shed some light on the value of creative communication approaches both to the research communicator and to those participating in
represent the pluralist notion of one person, one vote, politics in both the public and private spheres remains focused on questions around how, who and why people can participate and engage in political decision making, and relatively recently these issues have generated even greater interest with the recognition of a third approach to democracy (Held, 2006 ), that of deliberative democracy, which is perhaps most relevant to researchers seeking to communicate their work. Participatory approaches within the political framework lie at the heart of deliberative
has been an ongoing issue for applied arts and health projects, which typically involve interdisciplinary teams of clinicians and artists. Clinicians (and sometimes funders) may expect to see evidence of clinical benefit from such projects, which may not be realistic or easily measurable. As Brodzinski ( 2010 : 11) notes, ‘there is, then, a recognition of the efficacy of arts in health, but the field is struggling to develop a framework within which to reflect on the impact of such work’. While we do not wish to in any way suggest that the arts do not have
kinds of ways) that demonstrate that some kind of interpersonal bond exists between the two people involved … Second, there is emotional intimacy, itself a complex and compound dimension. Thus it can include the sharing of deep feelings, anxieties, doubts and passions. But it can also include the recognition of the emotional needs or likely emotional responses of others, perhaps even at a non verbal level … Third, there is intimate knowledge. Intimates have particular knowledge of each other, knowledge which is conventionally denied to others outside this core of