There is a trend in medical and health research to involve patients in the research process. A recent role is the patient acting as a research partner in a team of professionals. There are a few publications about these collaborations and the value of research partners. But is the research partner accepted as a credible knower? How can equality in the collaboration be reached? And how to handle tensions between the research partner’s personal agenda and the interests of and burdens on fellow patients? Finally there is the question of how the research influences the research partner’s self-perception. The purpose of this article is to investigate these epistemological, relational, ethical, and existential issues, while presenting an ethnodrama. In this drama, the personal narrative of the research partner, a person with a renal disease, unfolds in dialogue with her research mates, whose voices are also present in the text. The article is based on a health research agenda—setting process with the Kidney Association in the Netherlands.
Abma, T.A. ( 2005). Patient participation in health research: Research with and for people with spinal cord injuries. Qualitative Health Research, 15, 1310-1328.
2.
Abma, T., Nierse, C., Van de Griendt. J., Schipper, K., & Van Zadelhoff, E. (2007). Leren over lijf en leven. Een agenda voor sociaal-wetenschappelijk onderzoek door nierpatiënten. Eindrapportage ten behoeve van nierstichting en Nierpatiënten Vereniging Nederland [Learning about body and live: An agenda for social-scientific research: End report for Kidney Fund and Dutch Patient Organization for kidney patients.) . Amsterdam, Netherlands: Kidney Fund.
3.
Abma, T.A., Nierse, C., & Widdershoven, G. A. M. (2009). Patients as partners in responsive research: Methodological notions for collaborations in mixed research teams. Qualitative Health Research, 19, 401.
4.
Abma, T.A., & Widdershoven, G.A.M. (2005). Sharing stories. Narrative and dialogue in responsive nursing evaluation. Evaluation & Health professions, 28(1), 90-109.
5.
Austin, W., Park, C., & Goble, E. ( 2008). From interdisciplinary to transdisciplinary research: A case study. Qualitative Health Research, 18, 557
6.
Balch, G.I., & Mertens, D.M. ( 1999). Focus group design and group dynamics: Lessons from deaf and hard of hearing participants. The American Journal of Evaluation, 20, 265-278.
7.
Blume, S. ( 2006). Grenzen aan genezen: over wetenschap, technologie en de doofheid van een kind [Limitations on restitution]. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Bert Bakker.
8.
Caron-Flinterman, F., Broerse, J.E.W., & Bunders, J.F.G. (2005). The experiential knowledge of patients: a new resource for biomedical research? Social Science & Medicine, 60, 2575-2584.
9.
Charmaz, K. ( 1997). Good days, bad days. The self in chronic illness and time. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
10.
Ellingson, L.L. ( 2006). Embodied Knowledge: Writing Researchers’ bodies into qualitative health research. Qualitative Health Research , 16, 298.
11.
Frank, A.W. ( 1995). The wounded storyteller: Body, illness and ethics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
12.
French, S., & Swain, J. ( 1997). Changing disability research: Participating and emancipatory research with disabled people. Physiotherapy, 83(1), 26-32.
13.
Gadamer, H.G. ( 1975) Truth and method. New York: Seabury.
14.
Greene, J., & Abma, T. A. (Eds.). (2001). Responsive evaluation: New directions for evaluation (No. 92). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hewlett, S., de Wit, M., Richards, P., Quest, E., Hughes, R., Heiberg, T., et al. (2006). Patients and professionals as research partners: Challenges, practicalities, and benefits. Arthritis & Rheumatism, 55(4), 676-680.
17.
Holland, K. ( 2007).The epistemological bias of ethics review: Constraining mental health research. Qualitative Inquiry, 13, 895.
18.
Huber, J., & Clandinin, D.J. (2002). Ethical dilemmas in relational narrative inquiry with children. Qualitative Inquiry, 8, 785.
19.
Hughes, I. ( 2005). The status of action research in the People’s Republic of China. Action Research, 3(4), 785-803.
20.
Kirwan, J.R., Minnock, P., Adebajo, A., Bresnihan, B., Choy, E., de Wit, M., et al. (2007). Patient perspective: Fatigue as a recommended patient-centered outcome measure in rheumatoid arthritis. The Journal of Rheumatology, 34, 1174-1177.
21.
Koch, T. ( 2000). "Having a say": Negotiation in fourth generation evaluation . Journal of Advanced Nursing, 31, 117-125.
22.
McClean, S., & Shaw, A. ( 2005). From schism to continuum? The problematic relationship between expert and lay knowledge- an exploratory conceptual synthesis of two qualitative studies. Qualitative Health Research, 15, 729.
23.
Mogendorff, K. ( 2007). Looking in a mirror. Creating space to explore identities with impairments. Medische Antropologie, 19(2), 269-287.
24.
Oliver, S. ( 2006). Patient involvement in setting research agendas. European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 18, 935-938.
25.
Plaat, V.D. ( 1999). Locating the feminist scholar: Relational empowerment and social activism. Qualitative Health Research, 9, 773.
26.
Saldaña, J. ( 2003). Dramatizing data: A primer. Qualitative Inquiry, 9, 218.
27.
Schipper, K., Abma, T.A., Hené, R.J., & Widdershoven, G.A.M. (2009). A patient’s journey with polycystic kidney disease. British Medical Journal , 1203-1205.
28.
Schneider, B., Scissons, H., Arney, L., Benson, G., Derry, G., Lucas, K., et al. (2004). Communication between people with schizophrenia and their medical professionals: A participatory research project. Qualitative Health Research, 14, 562.
29.
Schwandt, T.A. ( 2001). A postscript on thinking about dialogue. Evaluation, 7, 264-276.
30.
Slatman, J. ( 2008). Vreemd lichaam. Over medisch ingrijpen en persoonlijke identiteit [Strange body: On medical interventions and personal identity] . Amsterdam, Netherlands: Ambo.
31.
Stake, R.E. ( 1975). To evaluate an arts program. In R. E. Stake (Ed.), Evaluating the arts in education: A responsive approach (pp. 13-31). Columbus, OH: Merrill .
White, M.A., & Verhoef, M.J. ( 2005). Toward a patient-centered approach: incorporating principles of participatory action research into clinical studies. Integrative Cancer Therapies, 4(1), 21-24.
34.
Whitstock, M.T. ( 2003). Seeking evidence from medical research consumers as part of the medical research process could improve the uptake of research evidence . Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 9, 213-224.
35.
Zukoski, A., & Lulaquisen, M. (2002). Participatory evaluation. What is it? Why do it? What are the challenges?Community-Based Public Health, Policy, and Practice, 5.
