Suchergebnisse

IntroductionPublic engagement and impact are important to research funders. But how these are done successfully in administrative data research is less established than in research where engagement mechanisms are more embedded. As admin data research is a relatively new field in public understanding, questions arise around how to utilise potentially sensitive datasets, or to utilise 'ordinary' data sets to illuminate issues around vulnerable or marginalised communities.
Objectives and ApproachOur objective was to develop an approach to maximise engagement with NGOs, data owners and policymakers; and research impact. We will use a series of case studies to demonstrate how we employed principles of public engagement in a model of co-production with stakeholders using project Steering Committees, targeted events and involvement workshops. Steering Committees comprised of governmental policymakers, data owners, and NGO representatives have a key role in shaping the research questions, responding to results, and incorporating findings into their work.
ResultsEngagement on several of our projects have been key to accessing data previously unavailable for researchers, shepherding findings towards government initiatives in need of evidence, helping to interpret findings, and directing future research. This has been particularly true of research on potentially sensitive topics.
Conclusion / ImplicationsGovernments have traditionally been cautious about data-sharing. Their default position is inertia, fearing public backlash. However, proactive and robust engagement is possible with complex and sensitive datasets. It enhances research and is demonstrates to data owners the potential for generating new evidence from datasets that have previously been unused for research. Engagement and impact strategies have to work with, rather than around, the sensitivities in data research to deepen and maintain the social license and impact on policy and practice.

BackgroundThe Administrative Data Research Centre Northern Ireland (ADRC NI) is a research partnership between Queen's University Belfast and Ulster University to facilitate access to linked administrative data for research purposes for public benefit and for evidence-based policy development. This requires a social licence extended by publics which is maintained by a robust approach to engagement and involvement.
ApproachPublic engagement is central to the ADRC NI's approach to research. Research impact is pursued and secured through robust engagement and co-production of research with publics and key stakeholders. This is done by focusing on data subjects (the cohort of people whose lives make up the datasets, placing value on experts by experience outside of academic knowledge, and working with public(s) as key data advocates, through project steering committees and targeted events with stakeholders. The work is led by a dedicated Public Engagement, Communications and Impact Manager.
DiscussionWhile there are strengths and weaknesses to the ADRC NI approach, examples of successful partnerships and clear pathways to impact demonstrate its utility and ability to amplify the positive impact of administrative data research. Working with publics as data use becomes more ubiquitous in a post-COVID-19 world will become more critical. ADRC NI's model is a potential way forward.

ObjectiveIt is generally accepted that involving experts by experience is necessary to deliver research that is relevant to community need and to progress the data democratisation agenda. We have piloted and evaluated a model of co-production for data-driven research with seldom heard groups.
ApproachIn partnership with the charity Voice of Young People in Care (VOYPIC) and a group of care experienced young people, the Administrative Data Research Centre Northern Ireland (ADRC NI) piloted and implemented a model of co-production in data-driven research. To evaluate the model, interviews were conducted with the young people, staff at VOYPIC, and ADRC NI researchers and public engagement team members.
ResultsThematic analysis of interview data identified numerous benefits and barriers to co-producing data-driven research with experts by experience. We offer reflections from three perspectives (the young people, VOYPIC and ADRC NI), as well as a model that can be adapted with different lived experience groups in other data-driven research programmes.
Conclusion Experts by experience can be equal partners in most stages of the data research cycle, and there are tangible benefits for all partners and the research itself. However, aligning the aspirational principles of co-production with the realities of delivering data research is challenging and has implications for achieving the democratisation of data.
ImplicationsThis session will share real world perspectives on the co-production of data research with seldom heard groups.

ObjectivesIt is widely recognised that involving "experts by experience" from historically excluded groups (e.g. those with experience of care) is necessary to maximise research impact, ensure mutual benefit, and is central to the democratisation of data for research. We aim to develop a model of co-production in data-driven research.
MethodPublic engagement in research generally, and data-driven research specifically, has increased significantly in the last decade. However, the co-production of data-driven research with the people behind the data is still rare. This pilot project was designed and delivered in partnership between Administrative Data Research Centre Northern Ireland (ADRC NI), Voice of Young People in Care (VOYPIC) and a group of care experienced young people. Through a range of methods (including meetings, a series of workshops and an internship for a care experienced young person at ADRC NI) we explored and tested opportunities for the co-production of research.
ResultsLed by the group of care experienced young people, we identified a range of entry points for the co-production of data-driven research. While some stages of the research process remained challenging for those with lived experience to penetrate, most notably the analysis of quantitative data in a secure environment, other stages of the research process were meaningfully co-produced. These include the prioritisation of research topics, the development of research questions, the interpretation of findings and the creation of lay language dissemination materials. Formal evaluation of the pilot is pending, but early benefits for all project partners include the development of new skills and knowledge, re-focused research priorities, and more accessible research outputs.
ConclusionCo-production of data-driven research with experts by experience is feasible and necessary for the democratisation of data. It delivers tangible benefits which amplify the positive impact of data-driven research. This session will share innovative practice, key learnings, and practical guidance for the co-production of data research with historically excluded groups.

In this project we forward insights about the importance of being in 'the room where it happens' – creating tactility and togetherness in the research encounter – for research with children and young people in times of the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. Created in response to the intense uptake of digital methods catalysed by COVID-19, in this project we productively re-imagine moments from our creative visual research with children and young people from before the COVID-19 pandemic. This re-imagining began early in 2020 and has continued to evolve, incorporating our shifting perspectives and 'thinking with' the scholarship of leading creative methodologists. The creative output is in the form of a 'Prezine' which is our concept and is a portmanteau bringing together 'Prezi' a presentation tool, and 'zine'. The Prezine charts our creative conversation, moving between four connected rhizomes of thinking about creative research with children and young people: 'the room where it happens', being in the encounter, spaces for the unexpected, and what we are calling 'methodological alchemy'. The Prezine documents our experiment in thinking about research futures where we openly and creatively explore the process of making this reflective resource about research 'becomings'.

In diesem Beitrag wird die Propagandastrategie Russlands hinsichtlich der Programmgestaltung von »Russia Today« (RT) auf »YouTube« untersucht. Es wird eine Methodologie entwickelt, mit der festgestellt werden soll, welche Themen RT für welches Publikum in den Fokus rückt, wie auch der relative Erfolg, mit dem Zuschauer zu den verschiedenen Kanälen gebracht werden. Wir entwickeln darüber hinaus eine Hypothese zu einer breiter angelegten Strategie von RT, mit der der Sender versucht, unterschiedliche Nachrichten-Mixe auf unterschiedliche Zuschauergruppen auszurichten, seine Berichterstattung an einen breiteren internationalen Nachrichtenzyklus anzupassen, eine bestimmte, vom Kreml diktierte Ideologie zu verbreiten und dem Westen entgegenzutreten, indem dieser entlang der selben Kriterien angegriffen wird, nach denen westliche Länder Kritik an Russland üben.

In diesem Beitrag wird die Propagandastrategie Russlands hinsichtlich der Programmgestaltung von »Russia Today« (RT) auf »YouTube« untersucht. Es wird eine Methodologie entwickelt, mit der festgestellt werden soll, welche Themen RT für welches Publikum in den Fokus rückt, wie auch der relative Erfolg, mit dem Zuschauer zu den verschiedenen Kanälen gebracht werden. Wir entwickeln darüber hinaus eine Hypothese zu einer breiter angelegten Strategie von RT, mit der der Sender versucht, unterschiedliche Nachrichten-Mixe auf unterschiedliche Zuschauergruppen auszurichten, seine Berichterstattung an einen breiteren internationalen Nachrichtenzyklus anzupassen, eine bestimmte, vom Kreml diktierte Ideologie zu verbreiten und dem Westen entgegenzutreten, indem dieser entlang der selben Kriterien angegriffen wird, nach denen westliche Länder Kritik an Russland üben.

2. The Social Constructivist Approach Develops Intersubjectivity3. The Social Constructivist Approach Develops the Healthy Integration of Cognitive Processes; 4. The Social Constructivist Approach Develops Habits of Well-Being; 5. The Social Constructivist Approach Develops Executive Function; 5 What Is the Best Approach to Discipline in an Early Childhood Education Program?; A. Corporal Punishment and Physical Restraints; B. Timeouts and In-School Suspensions; C. Restorative Justice; 6 What Is the Best Approach to Technology in an Early Childhood Education Program?