TY - JOUR
T1 - Interdisciplinary health research
T2 - Perspectives from a process evaluation research team
AU - Clarke, D.
AU - Hawkins, R.
AU - Sadler, Euan
AU - Harding, G.
AU - Forster, A.
AU - McKevitt, C.
AU - Godfrey, M.
AU - Monaghan, J.
AU - Farrin, A.
N1 - Copyright 2012 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2012/1/1
Y1 - 2012/1/1
N2 - Background Interdisciplinary health research (IDHR) is increasingly encouraged and is often a specific requirement for research grants provided by health research funding councils worldwide. There is consensus that research expertise and scholarship from a diverse range of disciplines are necessary to examine questions relating to complex health and social concerns for which single disciplinary approaches have been found inadequate. Methods This paper reports on the experiences of an interdisciplinary process evaluation research team working in the field of stroke care. Results Realising the perceived benefits is less than straightforward; setting up and conducting IDHR can present researchers with a range of challenges at a strategic, practical and individual level. We identify how differences in disciplinary perspectives and skills impacted on our research practice. Conclusions Whilst initially challenging, our different approaches to the research problem and the methods to address it, expanded conceptual and methodological understanding and proved of benefit for the research team and the study outputs.
AB - Background Interdisciplinary health research (IDHR) is increasingly encouraged and is often a specific requirement for research grants provided by health research funding councils worldwide. There is consensus that research expertise and scholarship from a diverse range of disciplines are necessary to examine questions relating to complex health and social concerns for which single disciplinary approaches have been found inadequate. Methods This paper reports on the experiences of an interdisciplinary process evaluation research team working in the field of stroke care. Results Realising the perceived benefits is less than straightforward; setting up and conducting IDHR can present researchers with a range of challenges at a strategic, practical and individual level. We identify how differences in disciplinary perspectives and skills impacted on our research practice. Conclusions Whilst initially challenging, our different approaches to the research problem and the methods to address it, expanded conceptual and methodological understanding and proved of benefit for the research team and the study outputs.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=yv4JPVwI&eid=2-s2.0-84864273618&md5=f7d81b7189f65d88fbaf9dc2c17da834
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84864273618
SN - 1479-1072
VL - 20
SP - 179
EP - 189
JO - Quality in Primary Care
JF - Quality in Primary Care
IS - 3
ER -
