MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309516552 · doi:10.1186/s40900-022-00400-7

Exploring the “how” in research partnerships with young partners by experience: lessons learned in six projects from Canada, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom

2022· letter· en· W4309516552 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Involvement and Engagement · 2022
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParticipatory Visual Research Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchBig Lottery FundBritish Academy
KeywordsPublic relationsPolitical scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Involvement of young partners by experience in research is on the rise and becoming expected practice. However, literature on how to promote equitable and meaningful involvement of young people is scarce. The purpose of this paper is to describe and reflect on different approaches between researchers and young partners by experience based on six research projects conducted in Canada, Netherlands, and United Kingdom. METHODS: From six exemplar research projects, at least one researcher and one young partner by experience were asked to collaboratively (1) describe the project; (2) summarise the values and practicalities of the project; and (3) reflect on their partnership. Thematic analysis was applied to the findings from these reflective exercises, which included meeting summaries, recordings, and notes. RESULTS: All projects shared similar values, including mutual respect between all team members. Young partners were offered a variety of opportunities and approaches to being involved, for example in recruiting participants, co-analysing or (co-)presenting results. Supports were provided to the teams in a variety of ways, including organizing accessible meetings and having dedicated facilitators. Regular and proactive communication was encouraged by using asynchronous modes of communication, establishing reference documents, and a personal approach by facilitators. Facilitators aimed to tailor the needs of all team members by continuously discussing their preferred roles in the project. While most projects did not offer formal research training, various learning and skill development opportunities were provided throughout, including presenting skills or advocacy training. CONCLUSION: With this paper, we demonstrated the value of reflection, and we invite others to reflect on their partnerships and share their lessons learned. Our recommendations for involvement of young people in research are: (1) Remember that it is okay to not know what the partnership might look like and there is no single recipe of how to partner; (2) Take the time to invest in partnerships; (3) Provide ongoing opportunities to reflect on partnerships; (4) Consider how to balance the power dynamics; and (5) Consider how to incorporate diversity in the background of young partners in research.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.089
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.522
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0890.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.954
GPT teacher head0.640
Teacher spread0.314 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it