The added value that can be gained from the active involvement of engaging service users in the roles of researchers and/or consultants within empirical research has been the subject of much discussion ((Beresford, 2000; Coleman, 2001; Goodare & Lockward, 1999; Trivedi & Wykes, 2002). Service user research involves the collaboration between a researcher or research team and service users. The over-riding aim when including service users as part of a research team is to allow service users a ‘say’ and a direct involvement in how research about their particular community is conducted, analysed and written for dissemination purposes. However, this position in itself is not one that can be treated as a discrete pathway as there can be problem areas which need have to be addressed before this route can be taken. For example, parameters need to be established of how much involvement is feasible within time and financial constraints, what formal research training needs to be given and more contentiously perhaps, the level of power devolvement submitted by the researcher to the collaborator(s) concerned. Carr (1999, p. 269) reiterates this important point thus: “A crucial finding relating to the power dynamics within the process of service user participation then, is that a degree of conflict seems inevitable…” By conflict, what is meant here are the ways in which research collaboration may result in tensions arising between the primary researcher and the research collaborators when the allocation of specific tasks and necessary timescales can create feelings of potential anxiety and discomfort within the team.
Taking some of the above points forward it was decided that direct user involvement would only encompass the mutual production of an interview schedule together with gathering feedback on the preliminary analysis. This decision was based upon the knowledge and experiential discourses that users could bring to enhance this part of the research process, whilst not impinging upon the time needed to transcribe, analyse and write up.
Goodare & Lockward (1999, p. 724) suggest that; “We need to recognise that …users…have the experience and skillsthat complement those of researchers…They will have a good idea ofwhich research questions are worth asking, and when a questionshould be framed
differently”. Whilst it can be appreciated that this fractured approach seems to afford users a limited level of ‘lip service’ within this project (Trivedi & Wykes, 2002), the pragmatic
65
limitations (financial and time constraints) within this research project did not easily lend itself to a more comprehensive collaboration .
As the fundamental objective of this research was to explore the spatial production of everyday service user life, it would seem pertinent from the outset that service users were involved in as much of the initial development of the research objectives as possible. This was seen as important because service users could advise on question areas to be included on the interview schedule (Appendix One) that had meaning for them and for other service users they knew.
It is worth noting at this point that some issues pertinent to daily service user life were not explored within this thesis. Service users were only invited to discuss the main spaces in which they spend the majority of their time, i.e. the home, the day care centre. The broader relationships service users had within their community settings was therefore not a focus within this research project. In addition, participants were not directly asked what
medication they were taking and their experiences within formalised psychiatric services at the time interviews were undertaken. These factors were not included to allow a more in- depth narrative around the key areas discussed within this thesis such as the experiential spatial and emotional accounts within psychiatric institutions, the day centre and home spaces.
In this way, the draft interview schedule (originally provided by me) was discussed and adapted to include further questions as advised by service users. Four service users were asked to provide advice and suggestions on the questions to be included in the interview schedule. All consultants were provided with a Participant Information Sheet (Appendix Two-a) and asked to sign an Informed Consent (Appendix Two-b).
3.5.1 Interview schedule
The interview schedule (Appendix One) embraced a psychosocial approach whereby issues such as everyday life and routines, living arrangements, employment, medication and benefits were explored together with the self-reflections of how these variables directly affect the self- identity of the service user. Additionally, questions also encompassed areas of physicality in terms of mobility, use and awareness of everyday spaces.
66
A key area for spatial analysis was the day centre. Therefore, questions surrounding the day centre were initiated by asking practical questions such as “How did you come to be involved in this support group?” Whilst responses within this set of questions may well elicit details relating to other factors of life experiences, their main purpose was to serve as an ‘ice breaker’ as such questions can lead towards a more emotive and intimate account of the day centre. By following this trajectory the day centre was not positioned as a static place consisting of bricks and mortar but as a valuable area for research purposes. What was trying to be established here was how the day centre made an individual feel both physically and
emotionally within varying social contexts. This was a multiplex phenomenon to explore as service users’ wants and needs from this space fluctuate in line with expressions of ‘feeling unwell’, ‘feeling social’ or ‘needing support and friendship’. It was also appreciated that these fluctuations may have been a result of other issues outside of this particular domain which nevertheless directly impacted upon the experiential discourses of this space. These were important factors that needed to be contextualised within an individual’s unique social milieu to further understand some of the challenges facing older service users in community care. Consequently, the questions included issues surrounding everyday routines, living arrangements, relationships, employment, practical and emotional support, and medication.