Search

Traditional views of the writing process as a solitary and painstaking task can inhibit postgraduate students from pursuing useful conversations about their writing. Recent research has suggested that spaces for opening discussion on writing are needed and are important in supporting postgraduate writers to develop their academic identity (Cuthbert & Spark, 2008; Cuthbert, Spark & Burke 2009; Kamler & Thomson, 2007; Lee & Boud, 2003). This paper explores the experiences of five students at University College London (UCL), who were the first cohort to take a writing module which aimed to introduce theoretical and practical approaches to writing and to encourage reflection and evaluation of writing practices. The three key themes to emerge from the research were related to the development of the students' confidence as writers and more generally as researchers. These were: (1) Space--the value of having a defined space for writing, providing a new focus for learning in a less formal environment; (2) Academic Identity--the development of the students' academic identity through writing and gaining confidence as writers; and (3) Peer Learning--the importance of discussion with peers in developing writing and academic identity.

Background: Informing policy and practice with up-to-date evidence on the social determinants of health is an ongoing challenge. One limitation of traditional approaches is the time-lag between identification of a policy or practice need and availability of results. The Right Here Right Now (RHRN) study piloted a near-real-time data-collection process to investigate whether this gap could be bridged. Methods: A website was developed to facilitate the issue of questions, data capture and presentation of findings. Respondents were recruited using two distinct methods--a clustered random probability sample, and a quota sample from street stalls. Weekly four-part questions were issued by email, Short Messaging Service (SMS or text) or post. Quantitative data were descriptively summarised, qualitative data thematically analysed, and a summary report circulated two weeks after each question was issued. The pilot spanned 26 weeks. Results: It proved possible to recruit and retain a panel of respondents providing quantitative and qualitative data on a range of issues. The samples were subject to similar recruitment and response biases as more traditional data-collection approaches. Participants valued the potential to influence change, and stakeholders were enthusiastic about the findings generated, despite reservations about the lack of sample representativeness. Stakeholders acknowledged that decision-making processes are not flexible enough to respond to weekly evidence. Conclusion: RHRN produced a process for collecting near-real-time data for policy-relevant topics, although obtaining and maintaining representative samples was problematic. Adaptations were identified to inform a more sustainable model of near-real-time data collection and dissemination in the future.

Political actors participate in policy debates as an advocacy strategy to influence political opponents and public opinion. They often engage in cross-sectoral advocacy by participating in multiple adjacent debates. To investigate what factors influence cross-sectoral advocacy in policy debates, we examined advocacy coalitions in two health policy debates in the UK – the regulation of sugar-sweetened beverages and alcoholic drinks. We predicted cross-sectoral advocacy efforts across 237 actors, such as health charities, manufacturers, or retailers, as a function of their belief system alignment relative to their advocacy coalition. In a methodological innovation, Bayesian item response models were applied to policy beliefs stated publicly by actors in eleven newspapers to measure the ideological positions of actors and beliefs relative to their advocacy coalition. Extreme belief alignment relative to one's coalition, a small spread of stated beliefs, and a strong engagement were found to explain cross-sectoral advocacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Citizens' juries provide deliberative fora within which members of the public can debate complex policy issues. In this article, we reflect on our experience of undertaking three citizens' juries addressing health inequalities, to explore the positive and facilitative role that humor can play within group-based research focusing on sensitive health policy issues. We demonstrate how both participants and researchers engaged in the production of humor in ways which troubled prevailing power dynamics and facilitated positive relationships. We conclude by recommending that researchers, particularly health policy researchers and those pursuing the kind of lengthy group-based fora associated with deliberative research, consider the positive role humor can play when engaged reflexively. In so doing, we make a major contribution to extant literature on both deliberative fora (which is yet to consider humor's facilitative capacities) and the role of humor in qualitative (health) research (which rarely explores researcher complicity in humor production). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Internet is a primary source of health information for many. Since the widespread adoption of social media, user‐generated health‐related content has proliferated, particularly around long‐term health issues such as diabetes and common mental health disorders (CMHDs). Objective: To explore perceptions and experiences of engaging with health information online in a sample of young adults familiar with social media environments and variously engaged in consuming user‐generated content. Methods: Forty semi‐structured interviews were conducted with young adults, aged 18–30, with experience of diabetes or CMHDs. Data were analysed following a thematic networks approach to explore key themes around online information‐seeking and content consumption practices. Results: Although participants primarily discussed well‐rehearsed approaches to health information‐seeking online, particularly reliance on search engines, their accounts also reflected active engagement with health‐related content on social media sites. Navigating between professionally produced websites and user‐generated content, many of the young adults seemed to appreciate different forms of health knowledge emanating from varied sources. Participants described negotiating health content based on social media practices and features and assessing content heuristically. Some also discussed habitual consumption of content related to their condition as integrated into their everyday social media use. Conclusion: Technologies such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube offer opportunities to consume and assess content which users deem relevant and useful. As users and organizations continue to colonize social media platforms, opportunities are increasing for health communication and intervention. However, how such innovations are adopted is dependent on their alignment with users' expectations and consumption practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Traditional views of the writing process as a solitary and painstaking task can inhibit postgraduate students from pursuing useful conversations about their writing. Recent research has suggested that spaces for opening discussion on writing are needed and are important in supporting postgraduate writers to develop their academic identity (Cuthbert & Spark, 2008; Cuthbert, Spark & Burke 2009; Kamler & Thomson, 2007; Lee & Boud, 2003). This paper explores the experiences of five students at University College London (UCL), who were the first cohort to take a writing module which aimed to introduce theoretical and practical approaches to writing and to encourage reflection and evaluation of writing practices. The three key themes to emerge from the research were related to the development of the students Traditional views of the writing process as a solitary and painstaking task can inhibit postgraduate students from pursuing useful conversations about their writing. Recent research has suggested that spaces for opening discussion on writing are needed and are important in supporting postgraduate writers to develop their academic identity (Cuthbert & Spark, 2008; Cuthbert, Spark & Burke 2009; Kamler & Thomson, 2007; Lee & Boud, 2003). This paper explores the experiences of five students at University College London (UCL), who were the first cohort to take a writing module which aimed to introduce theoretical and practical approaches to writing and to encourage reflection and evaluation of writing practices. The three key themes to emerge from the research were related to the development of the students' confidence as writers and more generally as researchers. These were: (1) Space - the value of having a defined space for writing, providing a new focus for learning in a less formal environment; (2) Academic Identity - the development of the students' academic identity through writing and gaining confidence as writers; and (3) Peer Learning - the importance of discussion with peers in developing writing and academic identity. confidence as writers and more generally as researchers. These were: (1) Space Traditional views of the writing process as a solitary and painstaking task can inhibit postgraduate students from pursuing useful conversations about their writing. Recent research has suggested that spaces for opening discussion on writing are needed and are important in supporting postgraduate writers to develop their academic identity (Cuthbert & Spark, 2008; Cuthbert, Spark & Burke 2009; Kamler & Thomson, 2007; Lee & Boud, 2003). This paper explores the experiences of five students at University College London (UCL), who were the first cohort to take a writing module which aimed to introduce theoretical and practical approaches to writing and to encourage reflection and evaluation of writing practices. The three key themes to emerge from the research were related to the development of the students' confidence as writers and more generally as researchers. These were: (1) Space - the value of having a defined space for writing, providing a new focus for learning in a less formal environment; (2) Academic Identity - the development of the students' academic identity through writing and gaining confidence as writers; and (3) Peer Learning - the importance of discussion with peers in developing writing and academic identity. the value of having a defined space for writing, providing a new focus for learning in a less formal environment; (2) Academic Identity Traditional views of the writing process as a solitary and painstaking task can inhibit postgraduate students from pursuing useful conversations about their writing. Recent research has suggested that spaces for opening discussion on writing are needed and are important in supporting postgraduate writers to develop their academic identity (Cuthbert & Spark, 2008; Cuthbert, Spark & Burke 2009; Kamler & Thomson, 2007; Lee & Boud, 2003). This paper explores the experiences of five students at University College London (UCL), who were the first cohort to take a writing module which aimed to introduce theoretical and practical approaches to writing and to encourage reflection and evaluation of writing practices. The three key themes to emerge from the research were related to the development of the students' confidence as writers and more generally as researchers. These were: (1) Space - the value of having a defined space for writing, providing a new focus for learning in a less formal environment; (2) Academic Identity - the development of the students' academic identity through writing and gaining confidence as writers; and (3) Peer Learning - the importance of discussion with peers in developing writing and academic identity. the development of the students' academic identity through writing and gaining confidence as writers; and (3) Peer Learning Traditional views of the writing process as a solitary and painstaking task can inhibit postgraduate students from pursuing useful conversations about their writing. Recent research has suggested that spaces for opening discussion on writing are needed and are important in supporting postgraduate writers to develop their academic identity (Cuthbert & Spark, 2008; Cuthbert, Spark & Burke 2009; Kamler & Thomson, 2007; Lee & Boud, 2003). This paper explores the experiences of five students at University College London (UCL), who were the first cohort to take a writing module which aimed to introduce theoretical and practical approaches to writing and to encourage reflection and evaluation of writing practices. The three key themes to emerge from the research were related to the development of the students' confidence as writers and more generally as researchers. These were: (1) Space - the value of having a defined space for writing, providing a new focus for learning in a less formal environment; (2) Academic Identity - the development of the students' academic identity through writing and gaining confidence as writers; and (3) Peer Learning - the importance of discussion with peers in developing writing and academic identity. the importance of discussion with peers in developing writing and academic identity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aim: Public health policy development is subject to a range of stakeholders presenting their arguments to influence opinion on the best options for policy action. This paper compares stakeholders' positions in the discourse networks of two pricing policy debates in the United Kingdom: minimum unit pricing for alcohol (MUP) and the soft drinks industry levy (SDIL)., Design: Discourse analysis was combined with network visualization to create representations of stakeholders' positions across the two policy debates as they were represented in 11 national UK newspapers., Setting: United Kingdom., Observations: For the MUP debate 1924 statements by 152 people from 87 organizations were coded from 348 articles. For the SDIL debate 3883 statements by 214 people from 175 organizations were coded from 511 articles., Measurements: Network analysis techniques were used to identify robust argumentative similarities and maximize the identification of network structures. Network measures of size, connectedness and cohesion were used to compare discourse networks., Findings: The networks for both pricing debates involve a similar range of stakeholder types and form clusters representing policy discourse coalitions. The SDIL network is larger than the MUP network, particularly the proponents' cluster, with more than three times as many stakeholders. Both networks have tight clusters of manufacturers, think-tanks and commercial analysts in the opponents' coalition. Public health stakeholders appear in both networks, but no health charity or advocacy group is common to both., Conclusion: A comparison of the discourse in the UK press during the policy development processes for minimum unit pricing for alcohol and the soft drinks industry levy suggests greater cross-sector collaboration among policy opponents than proponents., (© 2020 The Authors. Addiction published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society for the Study of Addiction.)

Background: Informing policy and practice with up-to-date evidence on the social determinants of health is an ongoing challenge. One limitation of traditional approaches is the time-lag between identification of a policy or practice need and availability of results. The Right Here Right Now (RHRN) study piloted a near-real-time data-collection process to investigate whether this gap could be bridged., Methods: A website was developed to facilitate the issue of questions, data capture and presentation of findings. Respondents were recruited using two distinct methods - a clustered random probability sample, and a quota sample from street stalls. Weekly four-part questions were issued by email, Short Messaging Service (SMS or text) or post. Quantitative data were descriptively summarised, qualitative data thematically analysed, and a summary report circulated two weeks after each question was issued. The pilot spanned 26 weeks., Results: It proved possible to recruit and retain a panel of respondents providing quantitative and qualitative data on a range of issues. The samples were subject to similar recruitment and response biases as more traditional data-collection approaches. Participants valued the potential to influence change, and stakeholders were enthusiastic about the findings generated, despite reservations about the lack of sample representativeness. Stakeholders acknowledged that decision-making processes are not flexible enough to respond to weekly evidence., Conclusion: RHRN produced a process for collecting near-real-time data for policy-relevant topics, although obtaining and maintaining representative samples was problematic. Adaptations were identified to inform a more sustainable model of near-real-time data collection and dissemination in the future., Competing Interests: Competing interests The authors have no competing interests to declare.

An array of empirical research has emerged related to public participation in health research. To date, few studies have explored the particular perspectives of gay and bisexual men taking part in behavioural surveillance research, which includes the donation of saliva swabs to investigate HIV prevalence and rates of undiagnosed HIV. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with twenty-nine gay and bisexual men in Scotland who had participated in a bar-based survey. Thematic analysis of men's accounts of their motives for participation and their perceptions of not receiving individual feedback on HIV status suggested a shared understanding of participation in research as a means of contributing to 'community' efforts to prevent the spread of HIV. Most men expressed sophisticated understandings of the purpose of behavioural research and distinguished between this and individual diagnostic testing. Despite calls for feedback on HIV results broadly, for these men feedback on HIV status was not deemed crucial.

The increasing prominence of the Internet in everyday life has prompted methodological innovations in qualitative research, particularly the adaptation of established methods of data collection for use online. The alternative online context brings with it both opportunities and challenges. To date the literature on online focus groups has focused mainly on the suitability of the method for qualitative data collection, and the development of approaches to facilitation that maximise interaction. By reflecting on our experiences of designing and attempting to recruit participants to online focus groups for two exploratory research projects, we aim to contribute some novel reflections around the less articulated issues of sampling and recruitment for online focus groups. In particular, we highlight potentially problematic issues around offline recruitment for an online method of data collection; the potential of using social media for recruitment; and the uncertainties around offering incentives in online recruitment, issues which have received little attention in the growing literature around online focus groups. More broadly, we recommend continued examination of online social practices and the social media environment to develop appropriate and timely online recruitment strategies and suggest further areas for future research and innovation., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting Interests The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.