Exploring the Experience of Student Researchers and Family Partners Working as an Interdisciplinary Team
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Many institutions seek to engage postsecondary students in research to grow future researchers. Despite this common goal, the means to achieve that end is often unknown creating difficulties for students as they seek out research opportunities. Objective This article will share first-hand reports on the experiences of graduate students, undergraduate students, and family partners following their engagement as an interdisciplinary research team. Methods This is a qualitative study using individual open-ended interviews with undergraduate students, graduate students, and patient family partners. The research was conducted using a Patient-Oriented Research approach. The transcripts were analyzed inductively by using Braun and Clarke's six phases of reflexive thematic analysis. Results Two themes were developed from the analysis. The theme of Benefits & Facilitators was developed based on the many positive thoughts, feelings, resiliency, and learning expressed by the students and family partners. The undergraduate students found the experience of “doing” research fulfilling and a great tool for learning how to better use research in practice. Within the second theme Perceived Hierarchy, undergraduate students described themselves as helpers, not responsible, and they did not have the power to make decisions. Conclusion Given the challenges identified in this study, future efforts in this approach should carefully consider the culture and how to best engage graduate students, undergraduate students, and family partners in research teams.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".