How volunteering at 'biscuit club' helped me build bridges between parents and researchers

Posted by Ella Anderson, Fuse Public Involvement and Engagement Manager, Newcastle University

 

“volunteering feels like the morally right thing to do – we can’t just ‘take’ from groups and not offer something in return”

 

MumSpace volunteers together

Supported by the Newcastle University’s staff volunteering scheme and Fuse colleagues, I had the opportunity to volunteer with MumSpace. As Fuse’s Public Engagement and Involvement Manager, this meant that I could spend some time away from my desk learning more about the voluntary sector within a grass roots organisation, build sustainable community relationships, collaborate with volunteers who have valuable connections to local communities and, above all, help out in a way that was specific and useful to the needs of the community group.

What is MumSpace?

MumSpace is a warm, welcoming and inclusive community group for parents, carers and their little ones. Here, the focus is on building supportive networks and providing children with a safe space to play. MumSpace is part of Parents and Communities Together (PACT), set up by Citizens UK. PACT was first set up in London as a community-led social support project and has since been successfully piloted in North Tyneside too. The project aims to empower parents and improve the health and development of young children.

The community group meets twice a week in North Tyneside during term-time. There is no cost to attend, although it’s possible to leave a small optional donation that goes towards drinks and snacks.

Toy time at MumSpace

Why did I choose to volunteer with MumSpace?

There are both personal and professional reasons why MumSpace was an obvious choice as a place for me to volunteer. On a personal level, I was lucky enough to attend MumSpace myself with my two children, in particular with my little boy. I always found this to be a welcoming space, no matter how I was feeling or what kind of day I was having. It was a place where you could chat with other parents and carers or just have a quiet cuppa whilst your little one whizzed about and played. I have made some brilliant friends at this group and I witnessed first-hand the value groups like this have on people’s wellbeing. It felt like the natural thing to do to give something back.

When I joined Fuse in 2021, I was already a regular at MumSpace with my son. Every week, there would be new faces and new people to speak with. It was evident that everyone’s experiences and backgrounds were unique - the one constant was that we were all caring for a little person. Each parent or carer has their own story, and it shows beautifully how one person alone cannot represent all thoughts, feelings and experiences of an entire parenting community. It was this diversity of experience that I could see would be a valuable addition to the Fuse Public Partner Network, as we seek to celebrate and share a wide range of voices and experiences in public health research.

In some ways, it felt like a natural next step to see if the group organiser, Wendy McConnell, might like to talk about involvement in public health research. Nevertheless, I admit that I felt a little nervous speaking with Wendy about a possible collaboration with Fuse, not least because I didn’t want to change the general feel of this space that felt miles away from my ‘work life’. But I needn’t have worried. Wendy and I chatted easily about our respective roles, about Fuse more generally, and about how there might be opportunities for working together. It felt a bit strange to be talking about work whilst at the same time chasing after my 4 year-old and trying to encourage him to play with the toys rather than steadily work his way through all of the biscuits on offer. After all, this was the group he fondly called “biscuit club”...

Looking back, I suspect that it was this informal and gentle approach - building on an existing foundation of trust and knowing one another - that in turn has made the relationship between Fuse and PACT more meaningful and fruitful.

MumSpace disco

How has MumSpace been involved with Fuse?

Wendy, PACT and the MumSpace parents and carers have played a significant role across a number of public health research projects. Wendy, for example, originally joined as a Fuse Public Partner in a personal capacity. But her role as a Parent and Community Organiser also lends itself well to building bridges between members of community groups and researchers. For example, parents and carers from MumSpace are collaborating on a project around poverty-proofing maternity services, have contributed to research around barriers to returning to work and childcare costs, and a researcher will be visiting the group in May 2024 to discuss a new project relating to food insecurity during pregnancy. Wendy has also spoken at a Fuse Public Involvement and Engagement Group meeting to share what it was like to belong to a community group involved in health research and to reflect on the associated benefits.

Mam’s time

What have the benefits of involvement in research been for the group?

Wendy explained that benefits of involvement have included the feeling of empowerment for parents and carers, feeling ‘heard’ and making positive changes, for example to services. There have also been benefits from collaboration with researchers, for instance, the development of a formal evaluation of MumSpace. This evaluation played a key role in securing new funding* to continue running the group. This demonstrates that research relationships can be positive for all involved. It also shows how reward and recognition for involvement can extend beyond remuneration – there can be other ways for university-based researchers to usefully and meaningfully ‘give back’. Volunteering can fall into this category too.

Arts and crafts

Has volunteering been useful for building relationships within community groups?

There have been notable benefits to Fuse and wider health research as a result of the volunteering and community engagement activities with MumSpace. It has helped to build trust; shows a commitment to truly listening to people and their stories; acts as a gentle stepping-stone towards the inclusion of diverse voices and perspectives within the Fuse Public Partner Network; and offers a greater sense of transparency about what involvement in health research is and what it can look like. It aligns with many of the core principles of the NIHR Community Engagement Toolkit. Newcastle University have also added PACT as an organisation who university staff and students can volunteer with in the future, so even after I have left there will be opportunities for continuity. In short, volunteering feels like the morally right thing to do – we can’t just ‘take’ from groups and not offer something in return.

What has it been like to volunteer?

Volunteering has been an incredibly positive and rewarding experience. To be on the ‘other side’ of the group and helping to set up, offering people what would often be their first teas and coffees of the day, and welcoming new people to the group and then seeing them return the following week has been brilliant. I can still only remember a maximum of two drink orders at a time (!!) but I hope people have felt as welcome and included as I did when I first joined.

Want to find out more? Get in touch!

For more information, please email Ella Anderson, Fuse Public Involvement and Engagement Manager on eleanor.anderson@ncl.ac.uk.

For more information about MumSpace, PACT and Citizens UK in particular, email Parent and Community Organiser Wendy McConnell: wendy.mcconnell@citizensuk.org

New faces are always welcome at the group:

Tuesdays – 12.30pm to 2pm at St. Luke’s Church, 10 Frank Street, Wallsend NE28 6RN
Thursdays – 9.15am to 11.15am at St. Cuthbert’s Church, Albion Road West, North Shields NE29 0JB


*From March 2020 to August 2023, MumSpace was funded by Comic Relief and, following a successful funding bid, it is now funded by Public Health North Tyneside.

Things I wish I’d known when I started my PhD… (part 2)

Posted by members of the Population Health Interventions Programme at the MRC Epidemiology Unit

This is Part 2 of our PhD SURVIVAL GUIDE. In Part 1 we found out that doing a PhD (or any research) is challenging but the ‘this might be okay’ stage always comes; continuously comparing your work, and yourself, to others is the thief of joy; and research is a team sport and you're the boss so start channelling your inner Arsène Wenger!

Like most research groups, ours comprises an ever-changing cast of early, mid and senior career researchers. Our training is in a variety of academic disciplines and we all have different short, medium and long term life and career aspirations. While our experiences of public health research are naturally individual, we have noticed some commonalities. We share these here to provide reassurance to those new to the game that whatever they’re feeling is almost certainly ‘normal’. Challenging experiences are often interpreted negatively, particularly when they are first met. We propose that they can often be reassessed and reframed in ways that make them positive parts of a continuous learning and career development journey. Other people might have different experiences, this is ours…

 

Licensed to YouTube by: UMG (on behalf of Walt Disney Records); UNIAO BRASILEIRA DE EDITORAS DE MUSICA - UBEM, ASCAP, AMRA, LatinAutorPerf, Walt Disney Music Company (Publishing), LatinAutor - SonyATV, LatinAutor - UMPG, CMRRA, UMPI, and 15 Music Rights Societies

4. We’re all in this together – don’t take it personally

It is impossible to overstate the importance of not taking feedback personally. Opening a document containing feedback from your supervisor or peers and seeing a page full of colourful tracked changes and comments can sometimes feel like personal criticism. It’s all too easy to see this as a setback but in reality, this is what teamwork looks like. Your supervisor is there to ask the difficult questions, and to stretch you intellectually. All feedback is intended to be helpful, so you can produce a stronger output.

Trust us, your supervisor doesn’t expect perfection. Think they don’t receive similar feedback from their colleagues? Think again. But they’ve learned from experience that falling short of perfection is okay. Few imperfect ideas are that imperfect!

Also, what does perfect look like? There’s rarely a ‘right’ answer to any question, and there are different but equally valid ways to approach most things. Different is not necessarily better. Although you’re bound to immediately presume what you’ve done is ‘wrong’, our advice is to take a breath, remind yourself why you did what you did, and be prepared to defend that. This will be an essential skill for your viva! But remember to respect the time it took for someone to really consider your work, by reciprocating and carefully considering their ideas.

Your supervisor wants to see you succeed because your success is also theirs. Seeing your student flourish is immensely gratifying. It rewards everyone’s intellectual contribution to the work, and validates that seedling of an idea, planted by your supervisor, which has since blossomed under your care. Lastly, don’t forget that as much as you’re learning from them, they’re learning from you, too. You wouldn’t be doing that systematic review if they knew the answer already. 

"Piled Higher and Deeper" by Jorge Cham www.phdcomics.com

5. A PhD is a job, not a way of life

For most of us, reaching the start of a PhD represents lots of hard work and effort. It is tempting to think that means you should pour your life into research, and nothing but research, for three or more years, to do justice to that opportunity.

But your PhD can benefit from some down time. Giving yourself a mental break from research means you can return to work with renewed enthusiasm. Time away can also offer clarity and sometimes inspiration! Setting boundaries between research and the rest of your life can make the entire PhD process more sustainable and ultimately, more enjoyable. It can be easier to work efficiently and effectively in distinct working hours (even if those aren’t 9-5), with the incentive of doing something else that you enjoy at the end of it.

However, intending to take time off work and actually doing it are two very different things. During busy periods, it is easy to prioritise your PhD over other areas of life. It also becomes harder to switch off thoughts like “should I read that extra paper?” or “maybe I should do that analysis?” while you are trying to relax.

There are simple ways you can give yourself a better chance of achieving the elusive ‘work-life’ balance. Scheduling time – and protecting that time – to do a particular hobby, sport or social activity can help. It is much easier to rearrange a “hope to do yoga at some point this week” than a class you have booked at 7pm on Wednesday. Similarly, committing to doing things with other people is a great way to cultivate new friendships with colleagues, enjoy their company, and follow through with a plan. At times of self-doubt, it is also a good reminder that there are many other things you are capable of, and that life isn’t all about the PhD! 

6. Some bad things may happen that are not okay

A healthy PhD experience should be challenging, yes, but if this starts to have a negative impact on your physical or mental health and affects how you would normally function, something could be wrong. There are fantastic resources on the Mind website which are a great starting point to help you be more aware of your feelings. Struggling with mental health is very common in life and you are not alone. Seeking help and support is important though. Don’t be afraid to tell your supervisor if you’re struggling.

Sometimes though, the cause of these struggles can be external, and in particular, your relationships with supervisors. Supervisors are responsible for challenging you but also encouraging and supporting you. If there is a problem with your relationship, it is always wise to talk to your supervisor if you can, as they may not realise there is a problem. People are not always immediately compatible in their working styles; this is okay and can be worked through.

If a dysfunctional relationship is caused by a supervisor who is behaving inappropriately, this is not okay. Harassment or bullying of any kind should be escalated through the proper channels in your university. Speak to fellow students you trust candidly about your experiences too; you may not be the only one suffering and they could help support you through it.

The student always becomes the master

7. Enjoy every step of the journey

The good things that come from doing a PhD are not necessarily what you might expect. For some, the highest high is indeed right at the end, the crescendo, when the thesis is submitted. But for many this can feel like an anti-climax. The more you can learn to embrace and enjoy the process, and the less you anticipate what you think will be the good things, the more good things will come your way. A breakthrough with your data collection, your first set of meaningful results, mastering a new skill, or even just a meeting with your supervisor that goes particularly well, are all cause for celebration. Each milestone is a block that forms the foundation of your PhD and each one is a vital move towards your end goal. There is nothing more rewarding than the sense you are on the right track.

As you progress, you will also start noticing that people begin treating you like the expert you are becoming. You might not feel like it, but the student always becomes the master. As strange as these moments feel, you should enjoy them. They are an external reminder that you know more than you think you do. 

Occasionally you will sit back and realise, "I'm doing a PhD! And that’s pretty cool". Stop thinking that you need to have all the answers, or even that you know where your research is going, and instead realise you are there to learn and there to explore, wherever that takes you.

That’s it!

We hope that these points have been helpful, and that you are able to look back at these blog posts when it feels like everything is going wrong. Trust us, it most probably isn’t. We have all been where you are and have lived to tell the tale. Most of us would love to be in the position you are right now again, even just to spend time reading those papers that we still can’t get around to. Try your best to enjoy this incredible experience. You’ve got this!

Authors: Catrin Penn-Jones, David Ogilvie, David Pell, Dolly Theis, Emma Lawlor, Hannah Forde, Jean Adams, Jenna Panter, John Rahilly, Kate Ellis, Martin White, Matt Keeble, Nina Rogers, Rich Patterson, Roxanne Armstrong-Moore, Tom Burgoine, Yuru Huang.

Video: 

Song: We're All In This Together (From "High School Musical"/Soundtrack Version)

Artist: High School Musical Cast

Writers: Robbie Nevil, Matthew Gerrard

Licensed to YouTube by: UMG (on behalf of Walt Disney Records); UNIAO BRASILEIRA DE EDITORAS DE MUSICA - UBEM, ASCAP, AMRA, LatinAutorPerf, Walt Disney Music Company (Publishing), LatinAutor - SonyATV, LatinAutor - UMPG, CMRRA, UMPI, and 15 Music Rights Societies

Images:

1. "Piled Higher and Deeper" by Jorge Cham www.phdcomics.com

2. Courtesy of Henry_RS via Pixabay: https://pixabay.com/photos/darth-vader-luke-lego-star-wars-4344381

Feeling like an imposter? Learn to get comfortable with ambiguity

Peter van der Graaf, Fuse Knowledge Exchange Broker, Teesside University and Travis Sztainert, Knowledge Mobilization Specialist, Frayme

Do you ever feel like your lack of ability or knowledge is going to be exposed? In that case, you might suffer from Imposter Syndrome! Knowledge Mobilisers work across boundaries and are asked to perform tasks that they don’t feel “qualified” for, triggering feelings of anxiety and failure. What causes these feelings and how can we overcome them? In an attempt to answer these questions, we compared experiences across the pond by reflecting on our roles as Knowledge Mobilisers in Canada and in the UK. We argue that these feelings should not be avoided but harnessed by turning imposter syndrome into a useful repertoire for the role.

"Piled Higher and Deeper" by Jorge Cham www.phdcomics.com

In March the annual UK Knowledge Mobilisation Forum took place, which brings together practitioners, researchers, students, administrators and public representatives who are engaged in the art and science of sharing knowledge and ensuring that it can be used. This year, the Forum was held online for the first time, and one of the sessions was dedicated to interactive posters. Participants could preview posters in GoogleDocs and leave comments and questions for the presenters, who were later interviewed to respond to the feedback left on their posters.

In our poster, we explored why Knowledge Mobilisers are particularly prone to feelings of being an imposter. They work in a competitive specialist profession; everyone strives to be a guru, but at the same time their work occurs in the background. It often goes unrecognised if done well (and shows up particularly bad if it fails!) but is time-intensive with work often being unclear, making it feel like you’re not moving forward.

Our poster - see the full version here

Developing trusting relationships between knowledge producers and users often requires complex and lengthy conversations, which only increase the risk of being exposed as an imposter. At the same, there are limits to collaboration (not everybody wants to work together or share their knowledge), which can add to feelings of failing at your job as a knowledge broker.

Moreover, the role requires you to be a neo-generalist with varied expertise and, therefore, there is always more to learn. Organisational change and consequently personal change (the one certainty of working in the health and care sector) are always on the horizon, meaning that you have to continuously adapt your role. In addition, system changes often change the knowledge and evidence that is required by users and this increases transaction costs (time and resources spent on adapting knowledge) for boundary workers.

However, there is a lack of ‘professionalisation’ of the field and training is scattered: this can make you feel like you’re missing essential skills and knowledge. During the poster session we conducted a quick poll to ask how many participants had received formal training in knowledge mobilisation: 83% had not. Or as one of the participants summarised: Knowledge Mobilisation is a Cinderella service. Being undervalued by funders, universities and professional organisations means you are often faced with a lack of resources and unable to do your job. In fact, it is often expected that Knowledge Mobilisation can be done “off the side of the desk” or in addition to work as a researcher or policy maker. Thus, a paucity of time and space is set aside to adequately tackle complex issues.

To overcome these challenges, the first rule of Knowledge Mobilisation is that you need to be comfortable with ambiguity. Feeling like an imposter is not (in itself) bad, is a normal part of the learning process, and can be harnessed. Skills are most often developed on-the-job, and feelings of imposter syndrome can help drive you to learn more, do better, and be open to new concepts and experiences. Overconfidence can lead to a lack of insight into your weaknesses, which in turn can lead to actually becoming an imposter. Accept that you have shortcomings and areas for improvement. It’s okay not to know what you’re doing, or not to have all the answers. Think of yourself as an enthusiastic learner who is gaining experience and expertise - imposter syndrome will help you to stay humble.

Being open and honest about not having all the answers can actually be seen as a strength. As one participant pointed out in response to the poster: it helps to level power differences between partners by showing that you don't hold all the power (and are human like everyone else) and therefore empowers those working with you. It's ok for them not to know it all too and therefore may prompt questions that people may otherwise have been afraid to ask, leading to more open conversations, and strengthening relationships and trust. It can also mean that, when you are sure of answers, others know that they can trust you because you have previously shown that you would not say you knew something when you did not.

What skills do you need to be a good knowledge mobiliser? @AnnetteBoaz reckons connectivity, charm, inclusivity, empathy, creativity, integrity, curiosity, diplomacy and humility. Sounds very familar! #KMb2021 #ukkmbf2021

— Vicky Ward (@VLWard) March 22, 2021

Participants described this as a cyclical process, where feelings of imposter syndrome drive new learning, which increases your confidence to go into new situations that lead to fresh experiences of imposter syndrome, starting the cycle again. Forum members also emphasised the importance of operating as a team: the vast amount of skills required as a Knowledge Mobiliser (keynote speaker Annette Boaz mentioned connectivity, charm, inclusivity, empathy, creativity, integrity, curiosity, diplomacy and humility for starters), means it is almost impossible to develop these skills as an individual. Teams of Knowledge Mobilisers can bring these skills together and use different skills at the same time.

Moreover, acting like an imposter can be a valuable role: by communicating out of character a knowledge broker can help to make sense of differences in knowledge use. Adapting to the audience and stage required helps knowledge brokers to translate differences in performances between policymakers, practitioners and academics. Knowledge Mobilisers should not fear being an imposter but instead learn to embrace imposter syndrome!

If you are interested in learning more about imposter syndrome in knowledge mobilisation, take a look at:

• Travis’s PowerPoint presentation at the Canadian Knowledge Mobilization Forum sharing experiences, reflections and potential antecedents and consequences of imposter syndrome, as well as exploring ways to address this feeling (https://www.dropbox.com/s/x73adly7m3c1bid/Feeling%20Like%20and%20Imposter%2C%20and%20How%20to%20Overcome%20it.pptx?dl=0)
• Peter’s upcoming book chapter in Palgrave Handbook of ‘Imposter Syndrome’ in Higher Education (in print), reflecting on challenges in knowledge brokering through AskFuse, a rapid response and evaluation service run by Fuse, the Centre for Translational Research in Public Health, which caused feelings of being an imposter.
• Their joint poster can be accessed here: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/travis-szt_imposter-syndrome-in-knowledge-mobilisation-activity-6782473994651217920-XUud

Bringing the voice of lived experience and community learning into research

Posted by Angela Broadbridge, Peer Research Lead, The Young Foundation (former Research and Evaluation Lead, Fulfilling Lives Newcastle Gateshead)

“There’s something really interesting in our data here, we don’t quite have the full picture, let’s talk to some people to puzzle it over more.”

This is something I hear myself or the team at Fulfilling Lives Newcastle Gateshead (FLNG) say really regularly. We’re an 8 year National Lottery Community Fund learning programme working to improve the lives of people facing multiple disadvantage and build a trauma-informed approach within the services that supports them. We have a wealth of data from supporting over 250 people locally, and we work with a team of Experts by Experience, people with lived experience working to bring about change across the systems they have been through, using their voices to be heard across different platforms.

Fulfilling Lives Newcastle Gateshead Experts by Experience Network co-design session

As the programme has developed our relationship with Fuse has changed and connections have grown, we now do much of our ‘puzzling over’ with Fuse colleagues! I joined Fuse as an associate member back in 2017 when I took up my post as research and evaluation lead for FLNG. I attended Fuse Quarterly Research Meetings to build up my contact base and learn from others operating in this interesting space between frontline practice and research and learning. As I began to see frontline practitioners come into those sessions, I invited some of our own frontline staff to join me to share their experience of working with people who have experienced complicated and challenging circumstances and struggled navigating systems.

I want to highlight some of our learning from building collaborative relationships through and with Fuse researchers, as this has proved to offer new platforms for the voice of lived experience not just to be heard in research, but to set research agendas and co-produce work alongside academics.

In 2018, Dr Sheena Ramsey (co-lead of the Fuse Healthy Ageing Research Programme) invited me to attend a Research Hub Initiative event with Public Health England and I pitched a seed grant funding idea with support from Fuse researchers. Our recently published work on deaths in the multiple complex needs community, an issue our Experts by Experience network encouraged us to explore, was borne out of this funding. We have since joined up with Sheena again in a new study identifying effective and sustainable interventions to improve the oral health of adults with severe and multiple disadvantage. This collaboration works because Sheena and other researchers associated with the study took the time to really get to know our programme, and our Experts by Experience network. Sheena visited us at the men’s accommodation project where we were based a few years ago, met some of our frontline staff and also built trusting relationships with the network, introducing us to academic and practice colleagues to further situate our programme learning within Fuse.

Brainstorm - what makes a good collaboration?

While this was happening, Prof Susan Carr (Fuse Associate Director), set up a meeting with her team at Northumbria University and FLNG peer researchers to talk about projects we were both working on and to explore collaborations. She also arranged for our peer researchers to present early findings from their work to Prof Kevin Fenton, Public Health Regional Director for London, and it was at this point that we started to see how people with lived experience could be involved in local research and practice beyond being participants. There were opportunities for genuine collaboration and learning together.

Fast forward to early in the pandemic and we were involved in two applications to the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) for the North East and North Cumbria. One of these applications was exploring food insecurity with Fuse Associate Dr Steph Scott, and Kevin Dobson and Keith Gibson from FLNG’s research team set about exploring our own programme data around foodbank use. Our Lottery funded programme is quite unique in that we have a personal budget fund to use to support people on the programme with anything from their basic needs, including food and accommodation, to more creative uses like buying art materials or enjoying an afternoon at the cinema. Once again we had a ‘there’s something interesting here’ moment.

I sent Steph an email saying:

“we’ve worked with 259 people in Newcastle Gateshead over 6 years and of these 127 individual client records contained a reference to food insecurity or food poverty. We had 14 unique cases, interestingly all female, whose notes had 10 or more references to food poverty and we can see from the notes frequent references to benefits being suspended, people not eating, or missing the foodbank opening times.”

Working with partners to surface system barriers and solutions

The conversation that followed led to us talking to the Experts by Experience about food insecurity, they were similarly enthused by the topic and together we made a successful joint application to the Catherine Cookson Foundation within Newcastle University for a project exploring mutual aid during Covid-19. Using our Lottery funded programme learning and building on our experience co-producing research in other projects with Fuse researchers we are working with a group of Experts by Experience who have developed research questions to start a listening exercise with their peers around their experiences of food insecurity, mutual aid and Covid-19.

This relationship with Fuse is evolving and changing, and it now feels like a relationship truly rooted in the principles of co-production. Our team report that they feel their frontline experience is listened to and helps shape research projects, and our peer researchers are involved in numerous projects and have the confidence to approach Fuse researchers to develop new pieces of work building on the issues that are important to them and their communities. As our programme comes to an end in March 2022, the Experts by Experience network is now thinking about its legacy, we very much hope to continue to build on this strong foundation for collaboration and learning.

Experts by Experience challenge us to create opportunities for them to take the lead in research

Posted by Ang Broadbridge (Research and Evaluation Lead) and Ged Hazlehurst (Expert by Experience) Fulfilling Lives Newcastle Gateshead

Earlier this year Fuse and Fulfilling Lives Newcastle Gateshead co-chaired a Quarterly Research Meeting sharing initial findings from a joint research project that explored the reasons underlying high death rates among people with multiple and complex needs (MCN). There we asked attendees to consider the findings and help shape recommendations.

Now as we write up the findings during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, we are reminded that drug related deaths and MCN issues have been a public health crisis long before the pandemic, though it has drawn an even sharper focus on health inequalities at this time.

The findings from the study will be available in a forthcoming end of project report but in this blog we wanted to go behind the scenes with Experts by Experience to share our experiences of co-production in public health research.

Some background

So what is Fulfilling Lives Newcastle Gateshead (FLNG), and what are Experts by Experience? FLNG is an eight-year learning programme looking to improve the lives of people with complex needs and build a trauma-informed approach within the services that support people across Newcastle and Gateshead. Experts by Experience are people with lived experience of multiple and complex needs, and have vital things to say that can help shape the future of how systems and services work for their peers.

Co-producing research

Co-production is bringing together the people using services and the people providing those services to share power and work collectively to design, develop or deliver improvements to them. This also involves seeing services and staff as agents for change and seeing people who use services as assets with skills, who in turn, gain from their contributions and move towards positive change. For example, Experts by Experience on the FLNG programme have developed training resources for Department for Work & Pensions staff raising awareness of MCN issues, which were rolled out across JobCentre Plus.

FLNG wants research to be genuinely co-produced and has invested in creating a National Vocational Qualification accredited peer research skills training package and local Peer Research Network. This is to support a shift from involvement led by professionals to an approach in which peers define the remit and research questions, leading on all aspects of the research design, delivery and dissemination.

Experts by Experience defining research problems

The beauty of the Fulfilling Lives programme has been our small team and the small caseloads; with at the most eight frontline practitioners each working full time with just 10-12 people. We work intimately with these people, building strong trusting relationships, getting to know their families, and being by their side through crisis.

Between 2014 and 2020 we worked with 267 people, during which time we experienced 27 deaths on programme. That is around 10% of the client cohort, so you can perhaps imagine the impact of that 10% on a small team who have been deeply involved in the lives of the people they have navigated through services.

We talked to our Experts by Experience Network about this and as the programme research lead I (Ang) was really wary about the sensitive subject matter and its potential for re-traumatising. My thinking was challenged when the Experts Network were really passionate about deaths in their community and told us they were already talking about it, often without much support, so not to shy away. Then they challenged us to think about how our co-production and peer research offer could dig deeper to explore this issue. We asked Experts by Experience to help us explore what it would look like for them to take a peer-led approach to this work. They really helped shape the ethics process, for example they told us to look within their Network for participants, as we could guarantee good support for people to discuss any issues that emerged out of participation. In doing so they, the Experts by Experience, identified the topic for this project.

What was the feedback from our co-produced research event? 

When we met for the Fuse QRM the purpose of the session was to study the initial findings gathered from the series of focus groups we ran exploring MCN deaths. It was interesting then that the feedback we received from the event, asking people’s views on what we found and what was surprising, clustered around co-production in research. This suggests that this research has the potential to challenge beliefs about the involvement of people with lived experience in public health research:

• People were surprised by the extent to which Experts by Experience were able to take on such a difficult subject, and;
• People were surprised by the normalisation of death within our Expert by Experience community. 

It is our hope that this acts as a springboard for more and better involvement of people with lived experience of multiple and complex needs in public health research. We have explored a sensitive and challenging subject with Experts by Experience who challenged us to create opportunities for them to take the lead. We hope that as our Peer Research Network grows, other researchers can build on the peer research model we utilised in this study to shape their own research projects.

FLNG is one of twelve programmes linked across England funded by the National Lottery Community Fund, looking to influence the system nationally. A Core Partnership of Changing Lives (lead partner), Mental Health Concern and Oasis Community Housing lead the programme’s activity, for more information visit http://www.fulfillinglives-ng.org.uk/


Images courtesy of http://www.fulfillinglives-ng.org.uk

Research on the go with women in walking groups

Posted by Stephanie Morris, Research Fellow, University of York

In this blog Steph reflects on the use of mobile ethnography in a recent study of the place of walking groups in the lives of women in deprived areas of north-east England.

Ethnography’s signature method, participant observation, or ‘hanging out’, provides rich data inaccessible by other forms of qualitative research. Mobile ethnography, as the name suggests, uses this methodology in the context of mobility. It can involve ‘go-along’ interviewing (See Carpiano 2008, Kusenbach, 2003) and participant observation as researchers travel and converse with participants.

When conducting research with women in walking groups, I found that mobile ethnography facilitated inclusivity and openness. For example, some women were interested in participating in the study, but uninterested in having a formal ‘sit down’ interview. So this approach opened up the study to those who might not usually opt to take part in research. Walking with study participants also enabled me to build rapport in a more ‘natural’ way than in a one-off interview, when the research and participant go in ‘cold’. Walking and talking, what the women did on the walks, encouraged free and open conversation: participants talked a lot to me about the intricacies of their lives, as they did with each other.

Mobile ethnography produces data which I feel is not likely to be created in static interview interactions. In ‘go along’ informal interviews, objects and embodied experiences along the route are often talked about. Conversations ranged from discussing fly tipping and historical features in the landscape, to sharing experiences of bodily sensations whilst walking in all weathers! Walking with the groups also provided a first-hand experience of the sense of safety and solidarity that comes with group walking. The following excerpt from my fieldnotes* shows an example of how this happened:

"As we walk along, Ashley who is in front of us by a few metres, points out that there is a hole in the path. She puts her stick down it and shouts to us to be careful of the hole. We do the same for the people behind us. Less than a minute later, Lisa says ‘step’, as there is a slight step in the hard soil and she is warning me about it. I do the same for the people behind me, and I get the feeling that I am being watched out for, and that I am instantly doing the same for the others."

Acts like this also quickly make the researcher feel part of the group, an insider participant-observer.

Despite its broad affordances, mobile ethnography is not without its challenges. The logistics of note taking when walking are tricky to say the least! I used the note function on a smartphone to take notes and took photographs along the route to remind me of encounters noteworthy of description. I walked with a Nordic walking group, which was even more difficult as I often had to carry the Nordic poles in one hand or clip and unclip at the group’s brief stops to quickly take notes of conversations or observations. However, as it was usual for people to walk alone for moments during walks, these times provided me with opportunities for note-taking. Conducting ‘go along’ formal interviews with a voice recorder was for the most part unproblematic; however, external noise was an issue at points near busy roads.

As with all ethnography, doing it well requires a lot of time and emotional labour. For instance, as transcribing fieldnotes is time intensive and needs to be completed as soon as possible after participating in the activity/group being studied, this task can clash with life’s other responsibilities. Likewise, as participants can become friends, research relationships and boundaries need to be carefully negotiated. And lastly, when using a method that helps to build rapport and relationships valuable for research, at the end of a project it can be difficult to say goodbye (and it was particularly hard to say goodbye to the many pleasures of group walking!).

There are many other contexts where mobile ethnography could contribute to health research, including but not limited to other physical activity and sustainable travel interventions. Why not give it a try?!

*Anonymised using pseudonyms

Actions bring risks

Posted by Llinos Mary Jehu, Research Associate with AskFuse, and Pat Watson, Research Fellow, Teesside University

We all know that. At a time when many of us are returning from holiday (or conference), we can reflect on the risks we took, like driving to the airport or eating sea-food.

So it’s no surprise that participatory action research brings risks. Co-researchers may be exposed to the risks that academics frequently anticipate, such as risks arising from lone-working or the emotional impact of data collection and reflection. There are also risks associated with research being carried out by people who have not been trained to the level of an academic, such as confidentiality, informed consent or interviewing techniques.

I’ve been involved in participatory action research at two universities, as well as within the NHS and local government. I’ve been through university ethics and NHS ethics, jumping through hoops as we’ve recruited and trained co-researchers, often re-submitting so we can finally start collecting and analysing data. I’ve also spent a fair amount of time getting to grips with systems for paying co-researchers expenses and honoraria. It’s amazing how complicated getting agreement to give out some supermarket vouchers can be, as both the ethical risks and financial risks are apparently enormous.

For all these projects, risk was removed, reduced or managed through our training and support systems. The training sessions allowed potential co-researchers to build their understanding of what the research involved, giving them an opportunity to opt-out should they choose. The sessions also built open, trusting relationships which, very occasionally, allowed us to identify and counsel people away from the project and signpost them to other opportunities. These relationships were vital during data collection periods. We may have drunk gallons of coffee and eaten far too much cake, but frequent, informal meetings with co-researchers ensured we kept a handle on what was happening in terms of ethics, finance and lone-working.

Consequently, I was a bit thrown when AskFuse - the responsive research and evaluation service run by Fuse - received a query from Pat Watson at Teesside University. Pat’s been commissioned by Sunderland City Council to carry out a piece of participatory action research involving pregnant mums in the design, development and implementation of a project looking at how expectant mums make decisions on how to feed their babies. The university Ethics committee had asked about insurance for co-researchers, and we had to admit that no one in the AskFuse team had any examples of formal arrangements. I also had a slight concern that, given the risk-averse nature of many large organisations, such a requirement might pose an insurmountable barrier for the research proposal. Undeterred, Pat went on the hunt, with a meandering email trail that eventually reached the University’s Deputy Director of Finance and the Liability Underwriter for the University’s insurers, UMAL. To my absolute surprise and delight, they confirmed ‘that the Teesside University Employer Liability/Public Liability/Public Indemnity covers apply to all University authorised research activity’. If Ethics approve participatory action research, then the co-researchers are insured.

It’s a huge relief that we now have a tick to put in the required box, and we have an example to cite should another researcher be asked the same question. I am really impressed with the approach of the insurance company: as their website states, they ‘never shy away from difficult risks’. However, managing risk in participatory action research requires far more than ticking boxes, regardless of how important these boxes may be. An equally important tool for identifying and managing risk is the strong relationships that successful co-research depends on. These relationships require time and investment, going to where people are and being prepared to share their space. They require trust and respect; possibly not asking people to show you a receipt before you pay their bus fare and not assuming that they’ll use their supermarket voucher to buy cider.

Research tools, data collection and analysis will be different, and often better, when the research process involves or is led by people who share the same standpoint, or even are, the research subjects. Hopefully universities will continue to recognise the benefits of participatory action research, recognise that the relationships it generates are a valuable asset and tool for managing risk, and not shy away from any ‘difficult risks’ it may present.


Image: 'victorian risk assessment cartoon' by John C Bullas BSc MSc PhD MCIHT MIAT via Flickr.  Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0):
https://www.flickr.com/photos/johnbullas/7788230372

Managing difficult conversations at work; ambulances, snow ploughs and submarines

Posted by Peter van der Graaf, AskFuse Research Manager / Fuse Knowledge Exchange Broker, Teesside University

We all face difficult conversations in our work; whether as a PhD student trying to tell a supervisor that they are not very helpful, or as post-doctoral researcher, explaining to your line manager that you really don’t want to take up any more teaching responsibilities. Or even as a practitioner having to point out to an esteemed researcher that their pet project is not relevant at all for your practice.

Like most people, I try to avoid these conversations as much as I can and prefer ‘flight’ rather than ‘fight’. Best to give in and avoid confrontation than have an uncomfortable row that will keep me up at night.

But could confrontations also be useful, and if so, how could you manage them in a way that they benefit you? This was the aim of the Courageous and Compelling Conversations Masterclass I attended in London as part of the NIHR Leadership Development Programme. Before starting the masterclass, I had to complete a self-assessment of my preferred response mode to confrontational conversations, which neatly confirmed my ‘flight’ status and gave me new labels for it: 60% Give In; 20% Run Away; and 20% Compromise.

What the masterclass taught me was that confrontation is not about preparing well for the other’s potential responses; for instance, by endlessly scripting clever and rational dialogues to counteract every accusation that a person could throw at me.

Instead, the course focused on better understanding my own response style in relation to other people. My light bulb moment was the realisation that you can’t control the response of the person you are talking to, but that you can manage yourself on how to respond, and take time to formulate this response during the conversation. Therefore, my nights (more preferably work hours) would be better spent understanding what I want to get out of the confrontation (outcome) and plan my conversations accordingly, instead of worrying what the other person will say and need.

During the course we were split into three groups, according to our preferred Motivation Value Style, with each group given its own emblem in the shape of a transport vehicle. Apparently, I am an ambulance, which is the symbol of the ‘carer’ group, who are motivated by the protection, growth and welfare of others. We prefer to ensure that everyone is happy, relationships are good and don’t want to be a burden to others. As an ambulance, I am responsive to other people’s needs and therefore go into conversations where I am needed (with blue lights if possible!).

In contrast, the ‘driver’ group (snow ploughs) - motivated by task accomplishment and achieving results - prefer to exercise persuasion. The third group, technicians (submarines) are different again in that they are motivated by meaningful order and thinking things through; they want to be practical and fair.

Although, these three styles feel quite stereotypical, I was surprised to see how much each of us on the course was conforming to these styles when explaining their behaviour in difficult conversations. We discovered that we incorporate elements of each style into our conversations but have a natural gravitas to a particular style. Realising your preferred style and working out the preferred style of your conversation partner, proved really helpful.

For example, someone who prefers to be a submarine (technician style), does not respond well to pressure to make an on the spot decision. Forcing them to agree to a solution at the end of the conversation will only escalate the confrontation. Instead, agreeing to give them time to mull the problem over and come back with a response later, will likely result in a much more favourable response and implementable solution.

Under stress, people tend to respond in either of two ways: they become more extreme in their preferred style (dig their heels in) or switch to a different style. What we were encouraged to do during the training course, was to play with different styles and practice switching during a confrontational conversation to a different style that would be more attuned to the person we were speaking to. In that sense, we are better able to manage ourselves and the responses we get from the person we are confronting.

A key part of this switching of styles was being assertive; not shouting over the other or ignoring what they say, but quite the opposite: taking more time to listen to the other and trying to understand what they say and where they are coming from. Are we really hearing what the other person is telling us or are we too busy trying to contain our emotions and constructing our next argument in our heads? Armed with this understanding, you will be better prepared to say what you think and feel, and, most importantly, what you want to happen.

As an ambulance, I need to be patient with submarines and focus on the practical, while being more competitive and assertive with snow ploughs, or team up with submarines to create new opportunities in joint conversation with snow ploughs.


Image:

1. 'Arguments' by Jeff Eaton via Flickr. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0): https://www.flickr.com/photos/jeffeaton/7436909698

Public health isn’t good politics

Knowledge exchange lessons from the 4th Fuse international conference (part 1)

Posted by Peter van der Graaf, AskFuse Research Manager, Teesside University

When I attended the Fuse knowledge exchange conference in Vancouver, B.C. earlier this month, I did not know that some Canadian squirrels are black.

I also did not know how much knowledge exchange was embedded in Canadian research. In the UK we are struggling to get researchers involved in knowledge exchange while working in an academic system that does not reward these activities. For Canadian researchers this is a fundamental part of their job and firmly embedded in the CIHR (the Canadian equivalent of NIHR) mission statement: "… excel the creation of new knowledge and its translation into improved health for Canadians" (Canadian Institutes of Health Research Act).

As surprised as I was to see black squirrels skirting the trees in Stanley Park in Vancouver, I was also surprised by the number of Canadian presenters at the Fuse conference who pointed to the impossibility of translating research evidence into practice.

For instance, Steven Hoffman, made a convincing case about public health being not good politics and therefore difficult to translate into policy. He argued that everything that public health does makes it invisible to policy makers. For example, we focus on prevention instead of treatment, which is much more difficult to observe and showcase.

An image from Steven Hoffman's presentation

Moreover, the more successful we are (when we prevent population diseases from spreading), the greater our invisibility becomes (there is no longer a disease to worry about) and, consequently, the more difficult it is to ask for more resources to keep prevention efforts up.

We also focus on supporting long-term chronic conditions instead of delivering acute services that can provide an instant solution to health problems. Furthermore, our data, as a population science, is based on statistical lives instead of individuals with a face and story. This all makes public health a hard-sell to politicians.

But it is not only our modus operandi that causes this hard sell: the system in which policy makers operate makes the use of research evidence unlikely. Paul Cairney from the University of Stirling explained in his talk that policy makers must ignore almost all the evidence that they are presented with to make decisions. They do this, not by weighing up the evidence carefully as we as researchers would like them to do, but by taking shortcuts, which Paul described as ‘bounded rationality’.

Policy makers either select evidence that helps them to reduce uncertainty about how to achieve their goals or, (and this is the more popular option) they apply their gut-level, emotional, belief-driven knowledge to reduce ambiguity about policy options. Moreover, policy makers are often not in control of the policy process and therefore they cannot tell us what evidence is useful, when and how it will influence the decision-making process.

If public health policy is not good politics and research evidence is a hard sell to policy makers, what can we do to make a better investment case for public health? Luckily both speakers provided their own shortcuts for making it more likely that public health and our evidence would be heard and used by policy makers:

1.) Recraft the narrative. Smoking was banned in public places not because smoking was harmful to smokers but because the campaigns focused on the dangers of second-hand smoke to the wider public, particularly children. By reframing the story from an individual blame game to an emotive public issue, public interest could be galvanised and used to put pressure on national Government to take action, building on local interventions already in place with a proven evidence-base.

2.) Take account of how democracy works: politicians need votes. As public health researchers we need to give them glory in the eyes of their voters and provide them with opportunities to leave a visible legacy. We could this by advertising our successes more clearly and by making it personal. Eugene Milne, Director of Public Health at Newcastle City Council, summed this up in a simple statement: "...‘it could happen to me’, mobilises people".

3.) However, to do this effectively, we need to be aware of hierarchy in politics and different policy contexts and networks. Most importantly, we need to be able to navigate diffused decision-making processes. As Paul emphasised in his presentation, policy makers have different ideas about what counts as good evidence, and there are many ‘policymakers’ across many levels and types of government. In other words, there are many sources of policy relevant knowledge that public health research evidence has to compete with.

It will take time and long-term relationship building to understand and navigate the different policy contexts, networks and types of evidence used in both. Unfortunately, public health students are generally poorly equipped to navigate these networks. Steven Hoffman remarked that we are not equipping our PhD students with knowledge of political systems and, in not doing so, set ourselves up for continued failure to make public health and our evidence visible to policy makers.

This does not mean that each student should become a political expert and advocate fiercely for her/his research findings. But it does entail a student being able to recognise their role in the wider system that they are part of, including various political networks and contexts. How can we teach our students to act from their position in a political system in a way that will make public health more visible?

This brings me back to squirrels. The squirrels that I encountered in the park stood out because they were black; a different colour to the common British grey and (less common) red squirrels that I’m used to seeing. In a similar vein, we could make our PhD students stand out by teaching them how to take evidence shortcuts in the political system.

Sharon Hodgson, Shadow Minister for Public Health, speaking
at an event in Sunderland

When I returned to the UK, with more appreciation for squirrels, I attended a spotlight event at the University of Sunderland the next day, which aimed to increase the visibility of public health research at the university. Although heavily jet-lagged, what sparked my interest at the event was a debate that took place between Sharon Hodgson, the Shadow Minister for Public Health and various researchers in the room. They sparred about the evidence for introducing a minimum unit price for alcohol in England and whether 40p made more ‘sense’ (and to who) than 50p. The ensuing debate demonstrated many of the arguments made in this blog and therefore will be the focus of my next blog (part 2) with John Mooney, Senior Lecturer at the University of Sunderland.

We will use this example to demonstrate how Canadian experiences might inform local practice in the UK by recrafting the narrative, taking account of Labour as an opposition party, and making it personal for voters.


Image: "Black Squirrel" (11997818194_8f66516b30_z) by DaPuglet via Flickr.com, copyright © 2018: https://www.flickr.com/photos/dapuglet/11997818194

Getting physical activity research moving

Posted by Louise Hayes, Research Methodologist, Newcastle University and the Fuse Physical Activity Group

So, we all know we should be more physically active – the evidence is out there. People who are more active are less likely to suffer from many chronic diseases, have more energy, better mental health, sleep better…… But how do we get people to be more active?

We knew researchers across North East England were working on physical activity related research and we knew that practitioners were delivering physical activity interventions, with the aim of getting more people active. What we didn’t know was who was doing what and whether or not the evidence from the researchers was getting to the practitioners or if the practitioners were delivering evidence-based intervention or evaluating their interventions. So, a little over five years ago, Martin White, the then Director of Fuse, Laura Basterfield and I (two physical activity researchers at Newcastle University), set about getting physical activity researchers from across the region together. We wanted to provide a forum for researchers to share information on current and future research and to identify opportunities for collaborations across individuals and teams conducting PA research in the Fuse partner universities. The inaugural Fuse Physical Activity Workshop (#FusePAW) was held at Newcastle University in May 2013.

It quickly became apparent that there was an appetite for a Fuse Physical Activity Group to be formed to build upon the enthusiasm for collaborative working and developing a shared physical activity research agenda that was in evidence at this first PAW. Several people also made it clear (and yes, we do mean you, @Scottylloyd1979!) that there was a need to widen the base of the group to include our practitioner partners involved in delivering physical activity interventions on the front line and to build relationships across sector boundaries. And so the Fuse physical activity group was born!

Liane Azevedo and I took on the role of leading the group, along with a team including Scott Lloyd, Caroline Dodd-Reynolds, Alison Innerd and Natalie Connor representing the North East Universities and public health partners. Since then we have had twice yearly Fuse PAWs, hosted by each of the five Fuse Universities and covering a range of topics from inequalities in physical activity to measurement of physical activity and physical activity during pregnancy. We’re proud to say that we’ve achieved an equal balance of academics and practitioners attending the events.

From the outside it might look like it’s been plain sailing – we’ve attracted an amazing cast of physical activity researcher royalty to present at our events, (see the list below - to name but a few!). On the inside there has been blood, sweat and occasional tears! Will the speakers agree to come? Will anyone sign up to attend? Will there be enough parking spaces/coffee? Will we be able to afford fruit during the breaks or just (unhealthy, but delicious) biscuits? (The latter has often been uppermost in the minds of some of our delegates if the feedback we receive in our, now infamous, shiny blue feedback box* is anything to go by!)

We were nervous that attendance might suffer when austerity measures cut into our budget meaning we were no longer able to provide lunch – but happily attendance has steadily increased and we have begun to attract individuals from outside the North East and sometimes even from outside the UK!

It was great to celebrate our tenth PAW on 20th April 2018, following #Fuse10 on 19th April, and to think about our previous events. All the hard work definitely felt worthwhile as we reflected on the many interesting presentations, workshops and discussions that have come out of the FusePAWs as well as collaborations, including a joint evaluation of the Redcar school pedometer intervention by Northumbria and Leeds Beckett Universities.

As #FusePAW, we have a responsibility to ‘do

’ physical activity research better and try to capture how FusePAWs inform physical activity within the region and further afield. To this end we discussed how we can work together more effectively as academics and public health practitioners to challenge traditional methods for delivering and evaluating physical activity interventions to nudge the field forwards at this event.  If you have any suggestions on how we can do this please contact me at louise.hayes@ncl.ac.uk

Watch this space for findings!


The Fuse Physical Activity Group is Louise Hayes, Liane Azevedo, Scott Lloyd, Caroline Dodd- Reynolds, Alison Innerd and Natalie Connor


Just a few of our amazing cast of presenters

Professor Ashley Cooper (University of Bristol), Dr Esther Van Sluijs (University of Cambridge), Dr Paul Kelly (University of Edinburgh), Dr Nick Cavill (Public Health England), Bob Laventure (Loughborough University), Prof Charles Foster (University of Oxford) Dr Mark Tully (Queens University), Prof Tess Kay (Brunel University), Prof Adrian Taylor (University of Plymouth) and Prof John Saxton (Northumbria University).

* Look out for our next event to see it for yourself!

Knowledge mobilisation: relationship guidance for ‘stubborn’ practitioners and ‘smug’ scientists

Posted by Peter van der Graaf, AskFuse Research Manager, Teesside University

Last week, I presented at the UK Knowledge Mobilisation Forum in Bristol, which is an annual event for all those with a passion for ensuring that knowledge makes a positive difference to society. The Forum brings together practitioners, researchers, students, administrators and public representatives who are engaged in the art and science of sharing knowledge and ensuring that it can be used.


Getting creative sticking to ‘unconference’ principles

One of the key note speaker, Dez Holmes who is the Director of Research in Practice with 20 years of experience in championing evidence-informed practice in social care, vented her frustration about a question she was often asked by people interested in knowledge mobilisation (KMb): where can I access training in this? Her response: you can’t! Knowledge sharing is personal and therefore a social skill that you can only develop by practising it.

The skills needed to practice KMb are everyday skills, such as listening, emotional intelligence and persuasion. Reciprocity and mutual respect are crucial in relationships and therefore in knowledge mobilisation. Knowledge mobilisers use these skills to make knowledge relatable and therefore relevant to people’s lives. Dez used a Japanese word to sum up these skills: ‘ikigai’ (meaning “reason for being”): if we can’t relate knowledge to people’s sense of self they won’t be inclined to use it.

Acknowledging feelings in knowledge mobilisation is therefore important, not least because implementation barriers for knowledge are often personal. Dez quoted the common misperception between practitioners and academics that are at the heart of the so-called knowledge-to-action gap: “scientist blame the stubbornness of practitioners for insisting on doing it their way, believing they know their patients best, while practitioners lamented the smugness of scientists who believe that if they publish it practitioners will use it”. These misperceptions signify emotions at work in the knowledge gap that need to be addressed before we can start mobilising knowledge.

A great example of on the job knowledge mobilisation learning was captured in a story told by Vicky Ward, Associate Professor in Knowledge Mobilisation at Leeds University and one of the organisers of the Forum, who reflected on her research about knowledge sharing between professionals in social care. The story, titled ‘Dealing with the carousal of knowledge’, illustrates how practitioners continuously added new and different types of knowledge to their team meetings but never really made use of this knowledge until Vicky started asking some ‘constructively clue less’ questions. These questions helped them to recognise the emotions they attached to the client cases that they were discussing and enabled them to discover patterns in their carousel of knowledge. Identifying patterns allowed the professionals to select knowledge that was most useful for each case and made this knowledge transferable.

The conference format itself acknowledged the relational and context-specific work involved in knowledge mobilisation: participants were encouraged to hone their skills in randomised coffee trials, open space discussions, interactive poster sessions, market stalls, short presentations and practical, interactive workshops. The programme was deliberately based on ‘unconference’ principles, which means that it focused on offering opportunities for conversations, creativity and collaborative learning, with much of the direction being driven by the participants instead of the conference organisers. In this sense, the conference was a training ground for knowledge mobilisers to practice and learn new skills.