There is currently limited research exploring the impact of undertaking sensitive or challenging research on the researcher, although some textbooks explore researcher preparedness. This article presents a discussion of the findings from a research project which engaged with the seldom heard voices of researchers themselves. The aim was to explore researchers’ experiences of undertaking research on sensitive topics, or with marginalized groups, as this can expose researchers to emotionally disturbing situations throughout data collection and analysis, which can be psychologically challenging. Although ethical codes of practice include discussion around protection of both the researcher and the participant, in practice, the ethics approval process rarely considers the impact of the proposed research on the researcher. Their experiences are therefore seldom acknowledged or heard, resulting in potential distress for the researcher. Semistructured interviews were undertaken with social science researchers from a range of discipline backgrounds and at different points in their research careers ( n = 10). This article explores two themes emerging from the data: preparedness and positionality. It considers what these themes mean in terms of supporting researchers who encounter challenging research data, and issues related to supporting researcher reflexivity and the requirements for institutional support offered to researchers will also be considered.

Bournemouth University, UKThis paper presents the case for increased integrated working between financial, health and social care services to support older people during times of economic down turn. It briefly summarises those findings of a study exploring the financial capability

IntroductionThis research investigates how community-led organisations’ (CLOs’) use of assets-based approaches improves health and well-being, and how that might be different in different contexts. Assets-based approaches involve ‘doing with’ rather than ‘doing to’ and bring people in communities together to achieve positive change using their own knowledge, skills and experience. Some studies have shown that such approaches can have a positive effect on health and well-being. However, research is limited, and we know little about which approaches lead to which outcomes and how different contexts might affect success.Methods and analysisUsing a realist approach, we will work with 15 CLOs based in disadvantaged communities in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. A realist synthesis of review papers, and a policy analysis in different contexts, precedes qualitative interviews and workshops with stakeholders, to find out how CLOs’ programmes work and identify existing data. We will explore participants’ experiences through: a Q methodology study; participatory photography workshops; qualitative interviews and measure outcomes using a longitudinal survey, with 225 CLO participants, to assess impact for people who connect with the CLOs. An economic analysis will estimate costs and benefits to participants, for different contexts and mechanisms. A ‘Lived Experience Panel’ of people connected with our CLOs as participants or volunteers, will ensure the appropriateness of the research, interpretation and reporting of findings.Ethics and disseminationThis project, research tools and consent processes have been approved by the Glasgow Caledonian University School of Health and Life Sciences Ethics Committee, and affirmed by Ethics Committees at Bournemouth University, Queen’s University Belfast and the University of East London. Common Health Assets does not involve any National Health Service sites, staff or patients.Findings will be presented through social media, project website, blogs, policy briefings, journal articles, conferences and visually in short digital stories, and photographic exhibitions.

No abstract

No abstract