This article discusses challenges of language differences in qualitative research, when participants and the main researcher have the same non-English native language and the non-English data lead to an English publication. Challenges of translation are discussed from the perspective that interpretation of meaning is the core of qualitative research. As translation is also an interpretive act, meaning may get lost in the translation process. Recommendations are suggested, aiming to contribute to the best possible representation and understanding of the interpreted experiences of the participants and thereby to the validity of qualitative research.

Patients are increasingly actively involved in research. We depart from an approach that understands patient participation as dialogue. This idea is grounded in hermeneutic philosophy and responsive research. Patients are engaged in research via dialogues with other stakeholders. New is the inclusion of patients as research partners. Several methodological notions underpin responsive research. In two health research agenda-setting processes (intellectual disability and kidney disease), these notions have been applied and refined for collaboration with research partners in mixed research teams. The findings demonstrate that equal partnerships include involvement in all research activities from beginning to end, a focus on experiential knowledge, mutual learning, openness, and respect. Mutual learning processes help to overcome stereotypes and handle tensions. Other experiences include the financial reimbursement of research partners, and the necessity of an acceptable workload and scheme. The collaboration might then have a surplus value for the research process and for those involved.

Background Collaboration with patients in healthcare and medical research is an emerging development. We aimed to develop a methodology for health research agenda setting processes grounded in the notion of participation as dialogue.

A traditional approach to teaching medical ethics aims to provide knowledge about ethics. This is in line with an epistemological view on ethics in which moral expertise is assumed to be located in theoretical knowledge and not in the moral experience of healthcare professionals. The aim of this paper is to present an alternative, contextual approach to teaching ethics, which is grounded in a pragmatic-hermeneutical and dialogical ethics. This approach is called moral case deliberation. Within moral case deliberation, healthcare professionals bring in their actual moral questions during a structured dialogue. The ethicist facilitates the learning process by using various conversation methods in order to find answers to the case and to develop moral competencies. The case deliberations are not unique events, but are a structural part of the professional training on the work floor within healthcare institutions. This article presents the underlying theory on (teaching) ethics and illustrates this approach with an example of a moral case deliberation project in a Dutch psychiatric hospital. The project was evaluated using the method of responsive evaluation. This method provided us with rich information about the implementation process and effects the research process itself also lent support to the process of implementation.