Suchergebnisse

La famille est souvent identifiée comme jouant un rôle déterminant dans l'activité physique des seniors. Cependant, nous avons peu de détails sur la façon dont la vie de famille peut influencer les croyances, les compréhensions et les pratiques en matière d'activité physique lors du processus de vieillissement. Les améliorations de l'espérance de vie, notamment, ont mené à des changements dans la vie de famille, avec un nombre croissant de personnes côtoyant des membres de leur famille de plusieurs générations. Par conséquent, les familles bénéficient d'un plus grand nombre d'années de vie partagée. Cette variation dans la structure familiale peut influencer la manière de 'faire famille', c'est-à-dire les rôles et responsabilités qui constituent la vie de famille. Ainsi, il y a eu un intérêt croissant pour les relations entre générations dans les familles. Cependant, dans le domaine de l'activité physique, la recherche s'est concentrée sur deux générations. En outre, nous avons peu d'information sur la façon dont les relations entre les générations peuvent influencer les croyances, les compréhensions et les pratiques en matière d'activité physique, surtout celles concernant les séniors. Se reposant sur des données récoltées auprès des membres de trois générations dans cinq familles résidant dans l'ouest de l'Écosse, cet article montre en effet comment l'activité physique des seniors contribue à la construction d'une culture familiale en activité physique, renforçant ainsi les liens intergénérationnels.

Action Research (AR) erachtet sich selbst als Bereich von theoretischer und praktischer Bedeutung. Für die Identität dieses Bereichs ist essenziell wichtig, dass Forschungsteilnehmer/innen als engagierte, subjekthafte und an der Forschungsarbeit partizipierende Personen anerkannt werden, die im Verlauf des Forschens dazulernen und sich verändern. Zugleich wird die Verfügbarkeit einer ernstzunehmenden und zuverlässigen Methodologie von außen oft bezweifelt bzw. die Validität der mittels AR gewonnen Ergebnisse wird infrage gestellt. Kommt AR zum Einsatz, häufen sich Hinweise auf Qualifikationen und Rechtfertigungen, da die Forschenden teilweise Probleme haben, ihre Vorgehensweisen in disziplinären und methodischen Feldern zu behaupten, die auf (prüfbare) Validität und (angemessene) Methoden Wert legen.
Selbst als Praktikerin in der Stadtentwicklung tätig, habe ich AR-Ansätze für das Design und die Umsetzung diverser Projekte genutzt. Als Wissenschaftlerin konnte ich AR-Ansätze für die Datenerhebung einsetzen und in der Folge gemeinsam mit Praktiker/innen aus dem Gesundheitssektor Interventionen konzipieren und umsetzen. Auch aus diesen Gründen war ich sehr gespannt, Neues über aktuelle Entwicklungen im Bereich AR zu lesen und das Buch mit Blick auf seinen Hauptzweck zu prüfen: als "Handbuch", um Forschung und Praxis anzuleiten.
Insgesamt enthält der Band 32 Kapitel zu AR-Theorie und -Praxis, verbunden mit Praxisbeispielen. Ich habe all dies mit besonderem Interesse daran gelesen, wo, wie und warum ich die jeweiligen Inhalte nutzen würde und ob sie bieten, was ein Forschungshandbuch leisten sollte: praktische Unterstützung bei Design, Anwendung und Analyse unter Verwendung von AR. Alles in allem bietet das Handbuch tatsächlich detaillierte Beispiele von Forschungsprojekten und zum Prozess des Forschens, aber für künftige Ausgaben würde ich mir wünschen, dass zum einen komplementären Methoden, die im Rahmen von AR-Studien genutzt werden können und zum anderen der Analyse von Daten, die aus AR-Projekten hervorgehen, mehr Aufmerksamkeit geschenkt wird.

This paper explores how an ideal relational ethic based on Zygmunt Bauman's (1995) notion of forms of togetherness is needed to underpin university-community engagement processes and practices. We focus on the notion of being-for, and suggest that it can be used as an 'engagement bridge' between higher education institutions, the creation of human capital and communities, and can be a means to achieve ethical outcomes to local concerns. Much of Bauman's (1995; 2001; 2007) theoretical development has focussed on the liquidity of modernity, to give the impression that community - in the spatially, physically located and fixed sense of the term - no longer exists. This paper proposes that spatial dimensions, particularly in the context of developing relational ethics, are important. This is particularly so for paying adequate attention to context-specific values, principles and issues in communities, for developing enterprising human capital via engagement, and for addressing matters of socio-political importance such as the environment. Contemporary neo-liberal times require ethical and moral leadership from universities. This paper suggests that such leadership can be developed from focussing attention on the forms of togetherness fostered by university-community engagement.

This paper describes the health and wellbeing applications of a protocol designed from a Gumbaynggirr Australian First People's concept, Bigaagarri. The protocol reframes threats to health and wellbeing as part of a communicative system of environmental signals, rather than an individualised, behavioural fight–flight–fear response. Developed by a Muruwari Gumbaynggirr researcher, the protocol enfolds Aboriginal perspectives of health values and the physicality of personal location in place and social context. It combines Indigenous standpoint theory and lived-experience narrative research methods to translate Indigenous practices into generally accessible modalities. The paper connects the first principles of this protocol to literature, then, using code-switching between academic and informal settler and Indigenous voices, it introduces personal lived experience narratives that include utilisation of the participatory and immersive protocol seen in the graphical abstract image to mitigate suicidal ideation. This approach unsettles Westernised conceptions of health and wellbeing research that privilege disease-specific, single-solution approaches. It contests the dominant social imaginaries and narratives embedded in standard service models, which perpetuate the ongoing recolonisation of Indigenous identities, and common exclusion of others outside of the neurotypical majority. The Bigaagarri protocol is a potential way forward to reimagine preventive health landscapes, decolonise support for suicide and mental health through the embedding of Indigenous knowledges to lead to holistic approaches for wellbeing.

Wellbeing programmes have the potential to support young carers in their formative years. However, there is a scarcity of research into wellbeing programmes for young carers and their associated outcomes. This review aims to identify targeted community programmes that support the mental health and social wellbeing of young carers and their outcomes through the academic literature. An initial search of databases retrieved 335 articles, with ten meeting the inclusion criteria. Findings were organised thematically according to the programme outcomes: improvement in emotional wellbeing and quality of life; the development of new skills; respite from caring; and social connectedness and peer support.

This article is a response to Oliver et al.'s Commentary 'The dark side of coproduction: do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research?' recently published in Health Research Policy and Systems (2019, 17:33). The original commentary raises some important questions about how and when to co-produce health research, including highlighting various professional costs to those involved. However, we identify four related limitations in their inquiry, as follows: (1) the adoption of a problematically expansive definition of co-production that fails to acknowledge key features that distinguish co-production from broader collaboration; (2) a strong focus on technocratic rationales for co-producing research and a relative neglect of democratic rationales; (3) the transposition of legitimate concerns relating to collaboration between researchers and practitioners onto work with patients, service users and marginalised citizens; and (4) the presentation of bad practice as an inherent flaw, or indeed 'dark side', of co-production without attending to the corrupting influence of contextual factors within academic research that facilitate and even promote such malpractice. The Commentary's limitations can be seen to reflect the contemporary use of the term 'co-production' more broadly. We describe this phenomenon as 'cobiquity' – an apparent appetite for participatory research practice and increased emphasis on partnership working, in combination with the related emergence of a plethora of 'co' words, promoting a conflation of meanings and practices from different collaborative traditions. This phenomenon commonly leads to a misappropriation of the term 'co-production'. Our main motivation is to address this imprecision and the detrimental impact it has on efforts to enable co-production with marginalised and disadvantaged groups. We conclude that Oliver et al. stray too close to 'the problem' of 'co-production' seeing only the dark side rather than what is casting the shadows. We warn against such a restricted view ...

This article is a response to Oliver et al.'s Commentary 'The dark side of coproduction: do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research?' recently published in Health Research Policy and Systems (2019, 17:33). The original commentary raises some important questions about how and when to co-produce health research, including highlighting various professional costs to those involved. However, we identify four related limitations in their inquiry, as follows: (1) the adoption of a problematically expansive definition of co-production that fails to acknowledge key features that distinguish co-production from broader collaboration; (2) a strong focus on technocratic rationales for co-producing research and a relative neglect of democratic rationales; (3) the transposition of legitimate concerns relating to collaboration between researchers and practitioners onto work with patients, service users and marginalised citizens; and (4) the presentation of bad practice as an inherent flaw, or indeed 'dark side', of co-production without attending to the corrupting influence of contextual factors within academic research that facilitate and even promote such malpractice. The Commentary's limitations can be seen to reflect the contemporary use of the term 'co-production' more broadly. We describe this phenomenon as 'cobiquity' – an apparent appetite for participatory research practice and increased emphasis on partnership working, in combination with the related emergence of a plethora of 'co' words, promoting a conflation of meanings and practices from different collaborative traditions. This phenomenon commonly leads to a misappropriation of the term 'co-production'. Our main motivation is to address this imprecision and the detrimental impact it has on efforts to enable co-production with marginalised and disadvantaged groups. We conclude that Oliver et al. stray too close to 'the problem' of 'co-production' seeing only the dark side rather than what is casting the shadows. We warn against such a restricted view and argue for greater scrutiny of the structural factors that largely explain academia's failure to accommodate and promote the egalitarian and utilitarian potential of co-produced research.