Search

This study discusses the methodological component of a research project with Sudanese musicians and their associated activist groups. The methodology included song-writing and, as such, is an example of collaborative creative research practice. Proponents of collaborative creative practice argue that the combination of aesthetic methods with ethnographic and participatory research methods brings both epistemological and ethical dividends. This paper considers whether these alleged epistemological and ethical advantages bore out in this research project. While confirming some benefits, my study also shows evidence of underlying tensions between aesthetic 'micro-methods' and ethnographic and participatory traditions of knowledge production. In relation to the alleged epistemological dividends, I argue that autoethnographic embedding in collaborative creative practice is alone insufficient. It requires a theoretical framework which theorises the relationship between one player's musical experience and another's. Only with this, can the sensory experiences of the researcher be used to inform analysis of participant observations and interviews. The autoethnographic experiences of the researcher are not findings in themselves. In relation to the ethical dividends, unlike other arts-based research, I found that the aesthetic micro-methods in this study did not naturally lend themselves to participant empowerment. The pursuit of aesthetic goals has its own division of labour which can lead to the deprioritisation of self-expression and co-learning which constitute the primary aims of classical participatory research. Overall, collaborative creative practice did enhance this research project but there are important caveats. To reflect these, I aruge that creative collaboration should not be considered as a simple sub-set of either ethnographic or participatory research but as a method in its own right. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Epistemic curiosity (EC) is the desire to obtain new knowledge capable of either producing positive experiences of intellectual interest (I-type) or of reducing undesirable conditions of informational deprivation (D-type). Although researchers acknowledge that there are individual differences in young children's epistemic curiosity, there are no existing measures to assess the I- and D-type constructs of EC in early childhood. The aim of this study was to develop and validate parent-report scales that reliably assessed early expressions of I- and D- type EC in young children. To develop the I/D-Young Children (I/D-YC) scales, 16 potential items were administered to 316 parents of children aged 3 to 8. These items were adaptations of an existing adult self-report measure of EC as well as newly developed items. Confirmatory factor analyses demonstrated that a 10-item 2-factor (5 I-type, 5 D-type) model had the best fit. Construct validity analyses and psychometric data indicated that our newly developed I/D-YC scales are valid and reliable measures of individual differences in early expressions of I- and D-type EC. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To explore, from a philosophy of knowledge perspective, the contribution of the guideline development process to reducing epistemic uncertainty in clinical decision-making – defined as the challenge of applying evidence to patients, dealing with conflicting information and determining the level of confidence in a medical conclusion. Longitudinal ethnographic study of national guideline development panels. Fieldnotes were collected from 19 panel meetings in UK, Netherlands and Norway (~120 h of observation) between September 2016 and February 2019. Draft guidelines, review protocols and background material were collated (~200 documents). Data were analyzed thematically to gain familiarity and then theorized using concepts of knowledge development and use and clinical decision-making. Guideline development panels in all three countries wrestled with epistemic tensions – notably between the desire to "purify" an assumed external truth (for example by limiting included evidence to high-quality randomized controlled trials) and a more pragmatic and pluralist approach that drew on a wider range of evidence including qualitative research, real-world data, clinical experience and patient testimony. Detailed analysis of the process by which particular guideline recommendations were constructed allowed us to draw out the implications of these tensions for guideline users in clinical practice. Guideline development panels apply multiple – often conflicting – understandings of knowledge, inference and truth in an attempt to reduce epistemic uncertainty. Guidelines makers, clinicians, scientists and students should engage critically and reflexively with the philosophical assumptions that underpin guideline development and inductive inference to build capability to deal with clinical complexity. • Ethnographic study of guideline development panels. • Informed by philosophical notions of the nature of knowledge, inference and truth. • Panel discussions included clinical experience and a broad range of knowledge. • Panels wrestled with tensions between purist and pluralist approaches of EBM. • Our findings question the philosophical assumptions of guideline development panels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]