This article reviews literature to provide context for a reflective narrative on a collaborative research project undertaken by disabled people, practitioners and academics. This approach required reconsidering many aspects of methodology and practice as the research relationships are altered. The article reflects on how the collaborative and participatory approach was developed and sustained and how it impacted on the research process and its outcomes. The article explores how the group of people worked together on a complex large-scale research project to bring the voices of service users and other key players together in a discussion about social care. The article is written by one of the academic partners and draws on consortium documents and reflections from other consortium members provided for the article.
AdamsRDominelliLPayneM (2005) Social Work Futures: Crossing Boundaries, Transferring Practice, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.
2.
BarnesC (2003) What a difference a decade makes: Reflections on doing ‘emancipatory’ disability research. Disability and Society18(1): 3–17.
3.
BarnesM (2008) Passionate participation: Emotional experiences and expressions in deliberative forums. Critical Social Policy28(4): 461–481.
4.
BarrettGBrennanMBrownDBurtonNGordonsWWatkinsC (2011) Supporting People: Towards a Person-Centred Approach, London, UK: Shaping Our Lives in association with Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
5.
BeckerSBrymanASempikJ (2010) Advocates, agnostics and adversaries: Perceptions of service user involvement in social policy research. Social Policy and Society9(3): 355–366.
6.
BeresfordP (2002) User involvement in research and evaluation: Liberation or regulation?Social Policy and Society1(2): 95–105.
7.
BeresfordP (2005) Theory and practice of user involvement in research: Making the connection with public policy and practice. In: LowesLHulattI (eds) The Involvement of Service Users in Health and Social Care Research, London, UK: Routledge, pp. 6–18.
8.
BeresfordPBranfieldF (2006) Developing inclusive partnerships: User-defined outcomes, networking and knowledge – a case study. Health and Social Care in the Community14(5): 436–444.
9.
BeresfordPCroftS (2004) Service users and practitioners reunited: The key component for social work reform. British Journal of Social Work34(1): 53–68.
10.
BeresfordPCroftS (2012) NIHR School for Social Care Research Scoping Review – User Controlled Research, London, UK: NIHR School for Social Care Research.
11.
BeresfordPFlemingJGlynnMBewleyCCroftSBranfieldFPostleK (2011) Supporting People: Towards a Person-Centred Approach, Bristol, UK: Policy Press.
12.
BewleyCBranfieldFGlynnMBeresfordPCroftSFlemingJPostleK (2011) Person-Centred Support: A Service-Users’ Guide, London, UK: Shaping Our Lives in association with Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
13.
BourkeL (2009) Reflections on doing participatory research in health: Participation, method and power. International Journal of Social Research Methodology12(5): 457–474.
14.
BradburyHReasonP (2003) Action research: An opportunity for revitalizing research purpose and practices. Qualitative Social Work2(2): 155–175.
15.
Cabinet Office (2009) Working in a Consortium – Summary Guide: A Guide for Third Sector Organisations Involved in Public Service Delivery. London, UK: Cabinet Office, Office of the Third Sector. Available at: http://bit.ly/dxgcaN (accessed 13 April 2012).
16.
CareyM (2006) Should I stay or should I go?: Practical, ethical and political challenges to ‘service-user’ participation within social work research. Qualitative Social Work10(2): 224–243.
17.
CroftSBewleyCBeresfordPBranfieldFFlemingJGlynnMPostleK (2011) Person-Centred Support: A Guide to Person-Centred Working for Practitioners, London, UK: Shaping Our Lives in association with Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
18.
DehertoghBDriessensKDierckxD (2011) Two birds of a feather? Collaboration in social work research in Europe. European Journal of Social Work12(1): 1–9.
19.
FaulknerA (2004) Ethics of Survivor Research: Guidelines for the Ethical Conduct of Research Carried Out by Service Users and Survivors, Bristol, UK: Policy Press.
20.
FaulknerA (2009) Principles and motives. In: WallcraftJSchrankBAmeringM (eds) Handbook of Service-User Involvement in Mental Health Research, Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 13–24.
21.
FaulknerA (2010) Changing Our Worlds: Examples of User-Controlled Research in Action, Eastleigh, UK, INVOLVE–INVOLVE.
22.
FlemingJGlynnMGriffinRBeresfordPBewleyCBranfieldF (2011) Person-Centred Support – Choices for End of Life Care, London, UK: Shaping Our Lives in association with Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
23.
FlemingJWardD (1999) Research as empowerment: The social action approach. In: SheraWWellsL (eds) Empowerment Practice in Social Work, Toronto: Canadian Scholars Press, pp. 370–390.
24.
FlemingJWardD (2004) Methodology and practical application of the social action research model. In: Maggs-RapportF (ed.) New Qualitative Research Methodologies in Health and Social Care: Putting Ideas into Practice, London, UK: Routledge, pp. 162–179.
25.
FlemingJWardDYatesS (2010) How to Use a Consortium-Working Approach, London, UK: National Children’s Bureau.
26.
Fox M, Martin P and Green G (2007) Doing Practitioner Research. London: Sage.
27.
Frankham J (2009) Partnership research: A review of approaches and challenges in conducting researching partnership with service users. ESRC National Centre for Research Methods Review Paper. Available at: www.eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/778/1/Frankham_May_09.pdf.
28.
GarlandDO’ConnorMWolferTNettingF (2006) Team-based research: Notes from the field. Qualitative Social Work5(1): 93–109.
GlynnMBeresfordPBewleyCBranfieldFCroftSFlemingJPostleK (2011) Making Change: A Guide to Running Successful and Accessible Workshops and Training, London, UK: Shaping Our Lives in association with Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
31.
GoldsteinL (2000) Ethical dilemmas in designing collaborative research: Lessons learnt the hard way. Qualitative Studies in Education13(5): 517–530.
32.
Hammersley M (2006) Are ethics committees ethical? Qualitative Researcher 2(Spring): 4–7.
33.
Hanley B, Bradburn J, Barnes M, Evans C, Goodare H, Kelson M, et al. (2004) Involving the Public in NHS, Public Health, and Social Care Research: Briefing Notes for Researchers. Involve Support Unit. Available at: www.invo.org.uk/pdfs/Briefing%20Note%20Final.dat.pdf.
34.
HovardLCroweSHussainN (2004) Effectiveness and Quality in User Involvement Projects (EQUIP) Final Report, Oxford, UK: Public Health Resource Unit.
35.
LevinB (1993) Collaborative research in and with organizations. Qualitative Studies in Education6(4): 331–340.
36.
LofmanPPelkonenMPietilaA (2004) Ethical issues in participatory action research. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences18(3): 333–340.
37.
LuntNFoucheC (2010) Practitioner research, ethics and research governance. Ethics and Social Welfare4(3): 219–235.
38.
McLaughlinH (2009) What’s in a name: ‘Client’, ‘patient’, ‘customer’, ‘consumer’, ‘expert by experience’, ‘service user’ – what’s next?British Journal of Social Work39(6): 1101–1117.
39.
McLaughlinH (2010) Keeping service-user involvement in research honest. British Journal of Social Work40(5): 1591–1608.
40.
Mertens D and Ginsberg P (2008) Deep in ethical waters: Transformative perspectives for qualitative social work research. Qualitative Social Work 7(4): 484–503.
41.
NIACE (no date) Step by Step Guide to Developing Voluntary and Community Sector Learning Consortia. Available at: http://bit.ly/99t444.
42.
NindM (2011) Participatory data analysis a step too far?Qualitative Social Work11(4): 349–363.
43.
OliverM (1990) The Politics of Disablement, Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan.
PeledE (2010) Doing good in social work research: With or for participants?: A commentary on: ‘The obligation to bring about good in social work research: A new perspective’. Qualitative Social Work9(1): 21–26.
46.
PostleKCroftSFlemingJBeresfordPBewleyCBranfieldFGlynnM (2011) Working Towards Person-Centred Support: A Local Case Study, London, UK: Shaping Our Lives in association with Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
47.
RitchieSRiganoD (2007) Solidarity through collaborative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education20(2): 129–150.
48.
ScourfieldP (2010) A critical reflection on the involvement of ‘experts by experience’ in inspections. British Journal of Social Work40(6): 1890–1907.
ShawI (2005) Practitioner research: Evidence or critique. British Journal of Social Work35(8): 1231–1248.
51.
SmithLJ (2008) How ethical is ethical research? Recruiting marginalized, vulnerable groups into health services research. Journal of Advanced Nursing62(2): 248–257.
52.
SmithR (2004) A matter of trust: Service users and researchers. Qualitative Social Work3(3): 335–346.
53.
StaleyK (2009) Summary Exploring Impact: Public involvement in NHS, Public Health and Social Care Research, Eastleigh, UK: INVOLVE.
54.
StrierR (2006) Anti-oppressive research in social work: A preliminary definition. The British Journal of Social Work37(5): 857–871.
55.
TewJ (2006) Understanding power and powerlessness: Towards a framework for emancipatory practice in social work. Journal of Social Work6(1): 33–51.
56.
TewJ (2008) Researching in partnership: Reflecting on a collaborative study with mental health service users into the impact of compulsion. Qualitative Social Work7(3): 271–287.
57.
TurnerMBeresfordP (2005) User Controlled Research: Its Meanings and Potential Report Summary, Eastleigh, UK: INVOLVE.
58.
Van EwijkH (2011) Collaboration in community research. European Journal of Social Work14(1): 41–52.
59.
Van de SandeASchwartzK (2011) Research for Social Justice: A Community-Based Approach, Halifax and Winnipeg: Fernwood Publishing.
60.
VickersTCraigGAtkinK (2012) Research with Black and Minority Ethnic Social Care Service Users, Methods Review 11, London, UK: NIHR School for Social Care Research.
61.
YuK (2011) Exploring the nature of researcher-practitioner relationship in qualitative educational research publications. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education24(7): 785–804.
