Citizenship education in Singapore: controlling or empowering teacher understanding and practice?

Sim, Jasmine B.‐Y.; Print, Murray

doi:10.1080/03054980903141549

Cited by 39 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some researchers in this study, as in other work, struggled to see the value of PPI and were reluctant to share power and control of their work, seeing patients and the public as passive subjects of research. This is reflected in existing literature describing Singapore's hierarchical society, in which lay people rarely challenge the perceived expertise and authority of professionals and researchers . Such power imbalance may be deepened by a poorer understanding of research, lower literacy and poorer English amongst those with the greatest health needs, particularly older populations, with a consequent reluctance to speak out and/or engage with research.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is reflected in existing literature describing Singapore's hierarchical society, 33,59 in which lay people rarely challenge the perceived expertise and authority of professionals and researchers. 30,33 Such power imbalance may be deepened by a poorer understanding of research, lower literacy and poorer English amongst those with the greatest health needs, particularly older populations, 60 with a consequent reluctance to speak out and/or engage with research.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Researchers' perspectives on public involvement in health research in Singapore: The argument for a community‐based approach

Puerta

Bartlam

Smith

2019

Health Expectations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Singapore is becoming a world‐class research hub, promoting the advancement of patient care through translational clinical research. Despite growing evidence internationally of the positive impact of public involvement (PPI), in Singapore PPI remains unusual beyond patient participation as subjects in studies. Objective To explore health researchers' understandings of the principles, role and scope of PPI, and to identify barriers and opportunities for implementation in Singapore. Design Semi‐structured qualitative interviews between April and July 2018. Data were analysed using thematic framework analysis. Results Whilst most participants (n = 20) expressed a lack of experience of PPI, the interview process provided an opportunity for reflection through which it emerged as a beneficial strategy. Interviewees highlighted both utilitarian and ethical reasons for implementing PPI, particularly around increasing the relevance and efficiency of research. In addition to those challenges to PPI documented in the existing literature, participants highlighted others specific to the Singaporean context that make PPI at an individual level unlikely to be successful, including the socio‐political environment and prevailing social and professional hierarchies. They also identified asset‐based strategies to overcome these, in particular, a more community‐oriented approach. Conclusion The cultural reluctance of individuals to question perceived authority figures such as researchers may be overcome by adopting an approach to PPI that is closer to family and local community values, and which facilitates patients and the public collectively engaging in research. Further work is needed to explore the views of patients and the public in Singapore, and the implications for other Asian communities.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Researchers' perspectives on public involvement in health research in Singapore: The argument for a community‐based approach

Puerta

Bartlam

Smith

2019

Health Expectations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Secondly the "PPI Hawker" reduces the barriers between experts and the public, attening or reversing the pyramid of hierarchy 47 . Conventionally lay people are reluctant to challenge perceived expertise 48,49 , but the round table discussions appeared to generate mutual trust, and a willingness for the non-expert to comment, critique and challenge the research. Such exchange is often di cult to achieve in very hierarchical societies, like Singapore 48,50 but the "PPI Hawker" appears to achieve this by the development of a collective consciousness.…”

Section: Ppi Facilitator's Experiencementioning

confidence: 99%

The “PPI Hawker”: An innovative method for Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in health research

Puerta¹,

Smith²

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in health research entails doing research ‘with’ the public. Successful PPI requires a diversity of patients’ perspectives and experiences. In Singapore, including the public’s voice in research is still in its infancy and different ways of involving the public have to be explored. Our aims were to describe a PPI initiative that enables members of the public to share their ideas and opinions about health research, and to assess the feasibility, accessibility and utility of the initiative. Methods: Building on the concept of the PPI Café used in the west we designed a “PPI Hawker” for Singapore. Here Hawker Centres rather than cafes are used frequently for eating and socialising, providing a one-stop destination for a wide section of society. The PPI facilitators approached people sitting at tables and joined them to discuss questions of relevance to a local research study. Observations and reflexive field notes were used to evaluate the “PPI Hawker’s” feasibility, acceptability and utility in the Singaporean community. Results: In three “PPI Hawkers” we approached 96 people and 72 (75%) engaged in discussions about the design of a population-based research study. The majority (75%) of participants willingly discussed all of the questions posed to them by the researchers, indicating the feasibility of PPI. The PPI participants came from the three major ethnic groups in Singapore and appeared to be broad in age, suggesting “PPI Hawkers” are easily accessible. Both participants and researchers recognised the utility of the “PPI Hawker”, reflecting on people’s willingness to talk about the research issues, engaging in informative conversations and posing relevant questions. Conclusion: The “PPI Hawkers” succeeded in engaging the public in conversations about a local population-based study. The public brought to the researchers’ attention a variety of previously unheard perspectives about the research. Each event fostered connectivity between professionals and the public, generating among researchers a more positive perception of the power of public involvement. “PPI Hawkers” provide an opportunity for co-informed conduct of research studies with diverse members of the public. They create a focus within a community setting for researchers to engage with the public. The resources needed (costs and preparatory time) are relatively few. Not only do “PPI Hawkers” have potential in Singapore, but also for the rest of Asia.

show abstract

“…Secondly the "PPI Hawker" reduces the barriers between experts and the public, flattening or reversing the pyramid of hierarchy [51]. Conventionally lay people are reluctant to challenge perceived expertise [52,53], but the round table discussions appeared to generate mutual trust, and a willingness for the non-expert to comment, critique and challenge the research. Such exchange is Table 2 Impact of the "PPI Hawkers" on the population-based study design After the "PPI Hawker" Pilot, members of the Steering Group were receptive to the public's suggestions to allay concerns about data security by sharing more information on how participant data is stored and by requesting additional consent for data sharing with commercial collaborators (Question 1), to consider how the research data could be incorporated into the individual's health records (Question 2) and to regularly update participants on the study's progress (Question 3).…”

Section: Ppi Facilitator's Experiencementioning

confidence: 99%

The “PPI Hawker”: an innovative method for patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research

Puerta

Smith

2020

Res Involv Engagem

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in health research entails doing research 'with' the public. Successful PPI requires a diversity of patients' perspectives and experiences. In Singapore, including the public's voice in research is still in its infancy and different ways of involving the public have to be explored. Our aims were to describe a PPI initiative that enables members of the public to share their ideas and opinions about health research, and to assess the feasibility, accessibility and utility of the initiative. Methods: Building on the concept of the PPI Café used in the west we designed a "PPI Hawker" for Singapore. Here Hawker Centres rather than cafes are used frequently for eating and socialising, providing a one-stop destination for a wide section of society. The PPI facilitators approached people sitting at tables and joined them to discuss questions of relevance to a local research study. Observations and reflexive field notes were used to evaluate the "PPI Hawker's" feasibility, acceptability and utility in the Singaporean community. Results: In three "PPI Hawkers" we approached 96 people and 72 (75%) engaged in discussions about the design of a population-based research study. The majority (75%) of participants willingly discussed all of the questions posed to them by the researchers, indicating the feasibility of PPI. The PPI participants came from the three major ethnic groups in Singapore and appeared to be broad in age, suggesting "PPI Hawkers" are easily accessible. Both participants and researchers recognised the utility of the "PPI Hawker", reflecting on people's willingness to talk about the research issues, engaging in informative conversations and posing relevant questions. Conclusion: The "PPI Hawkers" succeeded in engaging the public in conversations about a local population-based study. The public brought to the researchers' attention a variety of previously unheard perspectives about the research. Each event fostered connectivity between professionals and the public, generating among researchers a more positive perception of the power of public involvement. "PPI Hawkers" provide an opportunity for co-informed conduct of research studies with diverse members of the public. They create a focus within a community setting for researchers to engage with the public. The resources needed (costs and preparatory time) are relatively few. Not only do "PPI Hawkers" have potential in Singapore, but also for the rest of Asia.

show abstract

Citizenship education in Singapore: controlling or empowering teacher understanding and practice?

Cited by 39 publications

References 14 publications

Researchers' perspectives on public involvement in health research in Singapore: The argument for a community‐based approach

Researchers' perspectives on public involvement in health research in Singapore: The argument for a community‐based approach

The “PPI Hawker”: An innovative method for Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in health research

The “PPI Hawker”: an innovative method for patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About