JCPSLP Vol 16 no 3 2014_FINAL_WEB

presented in an aphasia-friendly format. A good example of this is the study by Davidson, Howe, Worrall, Hickson and Togher (2008) which explored social participation and friendships in older people with aphasia. Davidson et al. summarised the main themes from “stimulated recall interviews” (where the researcher and participant with aphasia discussed a video of that participant interacting with a friend) and presented these back to participants “for verification and validation” using supported conversation strategies (Kagan, 1998). Techniques like member checking not only add to the credibility of the research but they also give far more voice to the participant and add balance to the researcher/participant relationship. Participants and the dissemination, translation and impact of research Finally, how might reconsideration of the participant influence dissemination, translation and impact of the research? Clearly, the point made at the start of this paper about the change in the Speech Pathology Code of Ethics identifies that participants should be informed of the outcomes of research to which they have contributed. Perhaps more fundamentally, there is an argument that being informed is not sufficient but that, for example, even in the area of aphasia, research can be “user-led” and even “user-controlled” (Connect, 2007, p. 10) as described in the guide by Connect, a UK-based charity for people living with aphasia. This guide contains many practical suggestions to support communication at all stages of planning and engaging in research studies. It encapsulates a satisfying “about turn” in a field where people with aphasia might arguably move from being excluded from research studies to collaboratively shaping them. Perhaps the most obvious manifestation of this shift is found in participatory action research (PAR), which is prominent in a range of health, welfare and social science fields incorporating emancipatory and community development aims. While PAR is interpreted in a variety of ways, (and sometimes overlaps with the terms “participatory research” or “action research”) it encompasses research that aims to examine the needs of marginalised or disempowered groups in order to change or tackle the barriers that they face (Liamputtong, 2009). PAR aims not only to generate new knowledge that might help these groups of people but also to assist them to take ownership of their own knowledge bases. It involves collaborative work that should improve the lives of research participants and the communities from which they come. This approach entails partnership in the design of a study, in the data collection, in analysis and interpretation. The process of being involved in research is itself empowering and ensures the relevance of a study to the individual participants and on to local communities. Liamputtong points out that PAR is a methodology rather than a set of methods and the important underpinning is its philosophy of knowledge production and empowerment. Within the field of communication disorders, these ideas are now gaining ground. Duchan (2014) argues there are “both moral and political reasons for shifting our thinking and our research practices to become more emancipatory” (p. 3). A good example of this is the work by Hinckley, Boyle, Lombard and Bartels-Tobin (2014). They adopted a community-based participatory research approach with 25 members of an aphasia support group to find out what research topics the group thought were most important. Through a modified nominal group technique, they

established a list of 22 potential research questions. Interestingly, about 40% of these questions were not ones which current evidence is able to answer well. As well as revealing research priorities of people with aphasia, the researchers took considerable care to summarise the results of this process in an aphasia-friendly way for their participants and also to evaluate how accessible that summary was for the group. Another example of PAR is to be found in the doctoral work of Carole Pound (2013) which has explored the experiences of friendship for people with aphasia. PAR also lends itself well to cross-cultural research. The recent work of McLellan and colleagues highlights how these ideas are being used in the area of aphasia in New Zealand (McLellan, McCann, Worrall & Harwood, 2014). They use Kaupapa Mãori research (KMR), an Indigenous research approach which privileges Mãori culture and knowledge in the process thereby countering the notion of being researched to actively collaborating and directing it (Denzin, Lincoln, & Smith, 2008). McLellan et al. write that their goal is to achieve “more culturally appropriate and beneficial practices in the delivery of speech-language therapy services” (p. 455), thereby ensuring that the research is not simply the collecting of data but also giving back to the community. In Western Australia, the Missing Voices Research, funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council (2013–2015) and led by Elizabeth Armstrong, is currently exploring the experiences of Aboriginal Australian adults with acquired communication disorders. The research involves several strands (data linkage, the development of a screening tool, interviews with stakeholders) but overall draws on a participatory research approach, working in partnership with Aboriginal researchers and research assistants, and an Aboriginal reference group. While the research is ongoing, the requirement for it to be culturally secure and of benefit to the participants and communities involved, is uppermost in the design and running of the study. Ultimately, the research that has been carried out in aphasiology, as in other fields, has sought to bring benefit to participants and to the aphasia community more broadly. How the results of studies are disseminated and made accessible to participants varies. Results may be given directly to consumers, for example, via an aphasia group in the study by Hinckley et al. (2014), or through the Australian Aphasia Association Conference, a national conference for people with aphasia and their families. Connect (2007) includes an example of an aphasia-friendly summary of their “Discovery Project”. Research may be disseminated through a range of stakeholders. This may bring benefit through the service providers who come into contact with people with aphasia (Simmons-Mackie et al., 2007) or through a formal consideration of “knowledge transfer and exchange” targeting people with aphasia, clinicians, other service providers, managers and funders (Kagan, Simmons-Mackie, Brenneman Gibson, Conklin, & Elman, 2010). By considering research participants early on in a study, researchers can build their needs into the design, including how the results of that research might be disseminated and how the knowledge gained from the study might be shared. Conclusion In this paper, I have raised the role of participants by exploring the nature of their participation. Depending on the type of study in question, the participant may be more than simply being “subject” to the research process. His or her

125

JCPSLP Volume 16, Number 3 2014

www.speechpathologyaustralia.org.au