Innovations in the Dissemination of Action Research

Henriksen, Danah; Mishra, Punya

doi:10.1002/9781119399490.ch18

Cited by 7 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We know that when it comes to the reach and subsequent impact of research outputs, effecting change can be fraught. Educational researchers Henriksen & Mishra (2019) reported that "as many as 50% of papers are not read by anyone other than the authors, referees, and journal editors of a piece"(p. 395). 2 The traditional way of sharing research in academic papers, conferences, and other places for experts or academics, excludes a wide range of stakeholders-including communities-and often does not propel new insights to influence changes in policy and practice.…”

Section: Ngāngara (The Things That Hold Us Back)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Te Ruru

Johnson,

Allport,

Boulton

2024

JASC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Indigenous cultures have long-held perspectives that emphasise the interdependence of all living things as holistic systems. Our worldview is thus shaped by deeply embedded relationality, which is in constant response to our interconnected experiences and knowledges. Systems thinking is a way of looking at the world that recognises the interconnectedness of both natural and human-made systems. The systems change approach, which takes into account the interconnected nature of the world's economic, social, and ecological systems, finds common ground with an inclusive, connected Indigenous holistic world   view. This article explores the congruence and compatibility between systems change thinking and Indigenous frameworks, emphasizing their common ground. The article introduces an example from Aotearoa New Zealand, which has integrated the tenets of systems change methodology within tribally based principles and aspirations to create ‘Te Ruru”. Te Ruru, an Indigenous framework of systems change, has been designed by a tribally owned Māori (Indigenous peoples of New Zealand) health research centre to investigate the overarching system(s) that perpetuate inequity of Māori health outcomes. Te Ruru is depicted in three parts: the first part, or micro lens; the second part, the macro lens; and part three, the meso lens. The first part of the framework prioritizes Indigenous identities and values. In part two, Te Ruru's beak, eyes, and wings symbolize the translation of research findings, strategic oversight, and the ability to navigate systems change. The third part of the framework illustrates the goal of new mātauranga and the need to address internal barriers and traumas, emphasizing the necessity for healing and restoration to sustain long-term systems change. A case study of how Te Ruru has been used in conjunction with a research methodology (TUI) is also included. Te Ruru has been purposefully adapted from a specific tribe’s knowledge and iterated to represent not just the visible system(s) that Māori communities occupy, but also the ‘unseen’ within Indigenous and colonial histories. Using systems change from an intentional Indigenous paradigm is thereby an act of decolonisation— a direct act against the systems currently blocking Indigenous flourishing.   Te Ruru's transformational power lies in its ability to bring to the surface the seen and unseen, and thereby support Māori to take the helm to lead systemic change via the Indigenous translation of inclusive health research.

show abstract

Section: Ngāngara (The Things That Hold Us Back)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Te Ruru

Johnson,

Allport,

Boulton

2024

JASC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Research requires readers to engage with and assess the work that is presented. When engaging with action research studies, it is through this assessment that readers are able to transfer findings from a specific instance to their own contexts (Henriksen & Mishra, 2019). Action research produces conditions and findings that align with this type of generalization, known as case-to-case generalization (Firestone, 1993), which seeks applicability within one local context and transferability to other contexts.…”

Section: Samplementioning

confidence: 99%

Community-Based Internships: How a Hybridized High-Impact Practice Affects Students, Community Partners, and the University

Trager¹

2020

Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This qualitative participatory action research project demonstrates how participation in a communitybased internship (CBI), a hybridization of service-learning and internship practices, affects undergraduate students, community partners, and the university at a large public university. This article outlines a rationale for the study, demonstrating that robust knowledge regarding the effects of service-learning and internships exists, but there is a need to understand how hybridization of these high-impact practices (HIPs) affects program stakeholders. Next, the participatory methodological procedures will be highlighted as they are integral to the presentation and interpretation of the data. The findings will demonstrate that although stakeholders in a CBI have similar experiences to traditional service-learning and internship programs, the hybridization of these HIPs creates a unique environment that shapes these experiences. Furthermore, the participatory inquiry raises questions regarding how research ought to be conducted in service-learning and community engagement. Higher education institutions (HEIs) are charged with preparing students for their future professional roles (Coker et al., 2017) while maintaining a civic mission of developing engaged citizens (Ehrlich, 2000). Internships and service-learning experiences have been proposed as pedagogical practices that fulfill these goals-internships as a means to prepare students for professional life (Silva et al., 2016) and service-learning as a means to support the university's civic mission (Nichols, 2016). Therefore, understanding the structure of a program that amalgamates these two high-impact practices (HIPs) (Kuh, 2008) through an examination of the experiences of stakeholders of a community-based internship (CBI) is important. Furthermore, both internships and service-learning are relatively well understood and conceptualized in existing literature, yet there is much less information regarding the hybridization of these practices. Both service-learning and internships have been recognized for their positive impacts on students and have evolved into widely implemented practices; therefore, combining the two into one learning experience seems to be a pathway for future educational practice that meets the goals of HEIs. Context Investigation of a CBI requires a familiarity with existing knowledge of internship and service-learning structures and impacts. Before exploring these pedagogical practices, a brief discussion of HIPs provides a rationale for conceptualizing the CBI as a hybridization of internships and service-learning. According to Kuh (2008), both internships and service-learning are high-impact educational practices, which are defined as teaching and learning practices that are grounded in student activity, engagement, and collaboration. Students who partake in HIPs have shown gains in deep learning and personal development. More recently, hybridization of these practices has been described in the literature. Bringle (2017) termed the pedago...

show abstract

“…Social media may facilitate rapid dissemination to busy practitioners, allowing them to access and interpret research evidence efficiently [ 8 - 10 ]. Because social media are widely used and not limited in space and time [ 8 , 11 ], they have the potential to overcome barriers to dissemination, including reaching practitioners with limited professional opportunities or time constraints and filtering the exponentially increasing volume of research evidence produced every year [ 9 , 12 - 14 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining the Effectiveness of Social Media for the Dissemination of Research Evidence for Health and Social Care Practitioners: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Roberts-Lewis,

Baxter,

Mein

et al. 2024

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Social media use has potential to facilitate the rapid dissemination of research evidence to busy health and social care practitioners. Objective This study aims to quantitatively synthesize evidence of the between- and within-group effectiveness of social media for dissemination of research evidence to health and social care practitioners. It also compared effectiveness between different social media platforms, formats, and strategies. Methods We searched electronic databases for articles in English that were published between January 1, 2010, and January 10, 2023, and that evaluated social media interventions for disseminating research evidence to qualified, postregistration health and social care practitioners in measures of reach, engagement, direct dissemination, or impact. Screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments were carried out by at least 2 independent reviewers. Meta-analyses of standardized pooled effects were carried out for between- and within-group effectiveness of social media and comparisons between platforms, formats, and strategies. Certainty of evidence for outcomes was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) framework. Results In total, 50 mixed-quality articles that were heterogeneous in design and outcome were included (n=9, 18% were randomized controlled trials [RCTs]). Reach (measured in number of practitioners, impressions, or post views) was reported in 26 studies. Engagement (measured in likes or post interactions) was evaluated in 21 studies. Direct dissemination (measured in link clicks, article views, downloads, or altmetric attention score) was analyzed in 23 studies (8 RCTs). Impact (measured in citations or measures of thinking and practice) was reported in 13 studies. Included studies almost universally indicated effects in favor of social media interventions, although effect sizes varied. Cumulative evidence indicated moderate certainty of large and moderate between-group effects of social media interventions on direct dissemination (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.88; P=.02) and impact (SMD 0.76; P<.001). After social media interventions, cumulative evidence showed moderate certainty of large within-group effects on reach (SMD 1.99; P<.001), engagement (SMD 3.74; P<.001), and direct dissemination (SMD 0.82; P=.004) and low certainty of a small within-group effect on impacting thinking or practice (SMD 0.45; P=.02). There was also evidence for the effectiveness of using multiple social media platforms (including Twitter, subsequently rebranded X; and Facebook), images (particularly infographics), and intensive social media strategies with frequent, daily posts and involving influential others. No included studies tested the dissemination of research evidence to social care practitioners. Conclusions Social media was effective for disseminating research evidence to health care practitioners. More intense social media campaigns using specific platforms, formats, and strategies may be more effective than less intense interventions. Implications include recommendations for effective dissemination of research evidence to health care practitioners and further RCTs in this field, particularly investigating the dissemination of social care research. Trial Registration PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42022378793; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=378793 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) RR2-10.2196/45684

show abstract

Innovations in the Dissemination of Action Research

Cited by 7 publications

References 27 publications

Te Ruru

Te Ruru

Community-Based Internships: How a Hybridized High-Impact Practice Affects Students, Community Partners, and the University

Examining the Effectiveness of Social Media for the Dissemination of Research Evidence for Health and Social Care Practitioners: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About