联合制作:指导体育、锻炼和健康科学联合制作研究的资源

IF 8 2区 医学 Q1 HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM
Brett Smith, Oli Williams, Lydia Bone, the Moving Social Work Co-production Collective
{"title":"联合制作:指导体育、锻炼和健康科学联合制作研究的资源","authors":"Brett Smith, Oli Williams, Lydia Bone, the Moving Social Work Co-production Collective","doi":"10.1080/2159676X.2022.2052946","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT There is growing interest in co-production in the sport, exercise, and health sciences. That includes from researchers in sport and exercise physiology, public health, sports medicine, sport sociology, sport and exercise psychology, sport management, physical education, sport coaching, leisure studies, geography, and occupational therapy. Despite the disciplinary spanning interest, academic resources in our field dedicated to the complex problem of comprehensively detailing the co-production of research and taking it forward are lacking. This paper is a modest attempt to do this. Rationales outlining the need for a resource are first presented. What is meant by co-production is then attended to. An original typology is developed to illuminate different ways co-production is defined and put to use. In the typology three differing types of co-production are described: Citizens’ Contributions to Public Services; Integrated Knowledge Translation; and Equitable and Experientially-informed Research. Why researchers co-produce research, along with various challenges involved with doing it, are then offered. It is suggested that generally university structures and academic norms tend not to facilitate co-production processes. Next, working principles to promote co-production as a means to advance a participatory turn in sport, exercise, and health research are introduced. We also highlight practical options for how to co-produce research and advance various criteria for judging the quality of it. Throughout it is highlighted why qualitative researchers are well prepared to do high quality co-produced research and should be considered important collaborators for researchers without qualitative expertise intending to co-produce research. The paper closes with future directions.","PeriodicalId":48542,"journal":{"name":"Qualitative Research in Sport Exercise and Health","volume":"15 1","pages":"159 - 187"},"PeriodicalIF":8.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"46","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Co-production: A resource to guide co-producing research in the sport, exercise, and health sciences\",\"authors\":\"Brett Smith, Oli Williams, Lydia Bone, the Moving Social Work Co-production Collective\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/2159676X.2022.2052946\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT There is growing interest in co-production in the sport, exercise, and health sciences. That includes from researchers in sport and exercise physiology, public health, sports medicine, sport sociology, sport and exercise psychology, sport management, physical education, sport coaching, leisure studies, geography, and occupational therapy. Despite the disciplinary spanning interest, academic resources in our field dedicated to the complex problem of comprehensively detailing the co-production of research and taking it forward are lacking. This paper is a modest attempt to do this. Rationales outlining the need for a resource are first presented. What is meant by co-production is then attended to. An original typology is developed to illuminate different ways co-production is defined and put to use. In the typology three differing types of co-production are described: Citizens’ Contributions to Public Services; Integrated Knowledge Translation; and Equitable and Experientially-informed Research. Why researchers co-produce research, along with various challenges involved with doing it, are then offered. It is suggested that generally university structures and academic norms tend not to facilitate co-production processes. Next, working principles to promote co-production as a means to advance a participatory turn in sport, exercise, and health research are introduced. We also highlight practical options for how to co-produce research and advance various criteria for judging the quality of it. Throughout it is highlighted why qualitative researchers are well prepared to do high quality co-produced research and should be considered important collaborators for researchers without qualitative expertise intending to co-produce research. The paper closes with future directions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48542,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Qualitative Research in Sport Exercise and Health\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"159 - 187\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"46\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Qualitative Research in Sport Exercise and Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2022.2052946\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Qualitative Research in Sport Exercise and Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2022.2052946","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 46

摘要

摘要在体育、锻炼和健康科学领域,人们对合作生产越来越感兴趣。这包括来自运动和锻炼生理学、公共卫生、运动医学、运动社会学、运动和锻炼心理学、运动管理、体育教育、运动教练、休闲研究、地理和职业治疗的研究人员。尽管有跨学科的兴趣,但我们领域缺乏专门用于全面详细说明研究的共同成果并将其推进这一复杂问题的学术资源。这篇论文是一个适度的尝试。首先提出了概述资源需求的理性。然后关注共同生产的含义。开发了一种原始的类型学,以阐明共同生产的不同定义和使用方式。在类型学中,描述了三种不同类型的共同生产:公民对公共服务的贡献;综合知识翻译;以及公平和经验知情的研究。然后提供了研究人员为什么共同进行研究,以及进行研究所涉及的各种挑战。有人建议,一般来说,大学结构和学术规范往往不利于共同生产过程。接下来,介绍了促进共同生产的工作原则,以此作为推动体育、锻炼和健康研究参与性转变的手段。我们还强调了如何共同进行研究的实用选择,并提出了判断研究质量的各种标准。在整个过程中,我们强调了为什么定性研究人员准备好进行高质量的共同进行研究,并且应该被视为没有定性专业知识的研究人员的重要合作者。论文最后提出了未来的发展方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Co-production: A resource to guide co-producing research in the sport, exercise, and health sciences
ABSTRACT There is growing interest in co-production in the sport, exercise, and health sciences. That includes from researchers in sport and exercise physiology, public health, sports medicine, sport sociology, sport and exercise psychology, sport management, physical education, sport coaching, leisure studies, geography, and occupational therapy. Despite the disciplinary spanning interest, academic resources in our field dedicated to the complex problem of comprehensively detailing the co-production of research and taking it forward are lacking. This paper is a modest attempt to do this. Rationales outlining the need for a resource are first presented. What is meant by co-production is then attended to. An original typology is developed to illuminate different ways co-production is defined and put to use. In the typology three differing types of co-production are described: Citizens’ Contributions to Public Services; Integrated Knowledge Translation; and Equitable and Experientially-informed Research. Why researchers co-produce research, along with various challenges involved with doing it, are then offered. It is suggested that generally university structures and academic norms tend not to facilitate co-production processes. Next, working principles to promote co-production as a means to advance a participatory turn in sport, exercise, and health research are introduced. We also highlight practical options for how to co-produce research and advance various criteria for judging the quality of it. Throughout it is highlighted why qualitative researchers are well prepared to do high quality co-produced research and should be considered important collaborators for researchers without qualitative expertise intending to co-produce research. The paper closes with future directions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.60
自引率
10.20%
发文量
36
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信