Questioning design and method: Exploring the value of action research in relation to R&D in primary care

8Citations
Citations of this article
12Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

The Mant Report supports the need to involve primary care practitioners and their patients in research and development. This paper questions why this key report, that recognized the need for involvement of health care staff in R&D, did not identify the need for practitioner research methods in community practice. Next, it explores what is meant by practitioner-centred research and locates action research within this context. Drawing on ‘critical realism’ and ‘subtle realism’, the arguments for the use of action research in community research and development are explored. Caution is given to adopting extreme perspectives and, in preference to ‘practitioner-centred research’, practice-centred research is advocated. In conclusion, the paper suggests that the world of R&D is changing and that the time is right for influencing the uptake of alternative methods. It is suggested, given that 90% of contacts between the population and the NHS take place in primary care, it is vitally important that community-based practitioners are well versed with these arguments in order to move forward the debate and bring it closer to a vision of research that places practitioners more centrally in the process of research. © 2003, Arnold. All rights reserved.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Meyer, J. (2003). Questioning design and method: Exploring the value of action research in relation to R&D in primary care. Primary Health Care Research and Development, 4(2), 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1191/1463423603pc138oa

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free