I have been involved in some commercially funded research for the last few years. My advice to any academic researcher considering this is to approach such opportunities with a great deal of caution.
Corporate ethnography, that might focus on how users use things (Microsoft uses ethnographers) might be safest, since these approaches are designed to learn more rather than to change behavior. Research that is focused on behavior change can be more problematic , especially if there is profit associated with behavior change through increased demand for a product or service. I am wrapping up a project during the next several months and walking away with some benefits, that include fewer publications than I'd like, presentations to an audience that I do not necessarily consider my primary target audience, and a great deal of experience doing actual intervention research with humans. The latter is of course a positive; actual research 'product' - papers and presentations - has been disappointing as I think I could have made far more progress working with a team consisting of people with the same or at least more similar priorities. Profit vs. public health are not always compatible goals. Some graduate students have had opportunities to observe and participate in research, and again this has had a mixed result since this work did not always reflect a systematic approach to a clear research question and I would prefer to expose students to "best" or at least "pretty good" practices. One of the biggest challenges has been the structure of the team - it is not always clear who reports to whom and who is responsible for what.
0 Comments
I might need to reconsider the negative things I have said (mostly in person so rarely in writing) about BioMedCentral journals.
Fair publication of qualitative research The link is to an open access article (more of a letter, actually) from the International Journal in Equity and Health, and the authors address the value of qualitative research. The article was written in response to the British Medical Journal questioning the value of qualitative inquiry, and stating intention to focus on non-qualitative inquiry that is supposed to be more "definitive" and less "exploratory". In this letter published in the open access BMC J of Equity and Health, and signed by 170 researchers and other professionals, some excellent arguments are made for qualitative research specifically to address health inequality. My own responses are: if there was no need for exploratory research, why is it still a challenge for health researchers to address behavioral health problems? Seems like we should have solved most by now instead of relying on the loop of theory development and then a lot of testing (via surveys) with the odd RCT mixed in, with generally mixed results. Additionally, why is all health/health behavior research not mixed? Seems like we always need the whys and hows (and why nots) along with the whats. The photo above (because of the word 'eating' in the post title) is of Indian food at "Little India," Queen Street, Toronto, CA, during fall of 2015. I was there for the Qualitative Health Research Conference. The original BMJ editorial (actually a response to a letter) is here: Qualitative research and the BMJ And, it is important to note that the editors of BMJ expressed willingness to compromise although they resisted quotas (i.e., 1 qual article per month) as I think they should. But for me, even the suggestion that qual is of less value (and the defensive responses) are worrying. Of the five or so solicitations I have received today - to publish or present (and it is just after 9 a.m. my time), this one is the most intriguing. And, they will accept papers in ALL SCIENTIFIC FIELDS. I am tempted to submit one that has been a little problematic (multiply declined) just to see what happens.
Note the photo below of Gary Oldman (with Winona Ryder) as Vlad Tepes/Dracula (which is of course what "Transylvania" makes me think of), is, according to Google, safe for reuse. The post title reflects a quote from Van Helsing in the original Bram Stoker Dracula novel. This is not meant to be a political post although I am using numbers from a political poll.
According to the Gallup Daily approval rating, the estimated proportion of people who "approve" of the job US President Trump is doing is 37% whereas 57% have expressed "disapproval." The stated margin of error is 3%. |
AuthorI am Sheryl L. Chatfield, Ph.D, C.T.R.S. I am a member of the faculty in the College of Public Health at Kent State University. I also Co-coordinate the Graduate Certificate in Qualitative Research and I am a member of the Design Innovation Team at Kent State. Archives
February 2024
Categories
|