NECESIDADES FINANCIERAS ANTES DE FUNCIONAMIENTO *

The practitioner or insider-researcher has more experience and knowledge of practice in their particular area in question than the traditional researcher. This has the

potential to produce new knowledge regarding CLBP management that is more relevant and of greater value to clinical practice. Solutions to problems within the workplace should not come from academic researchers but rather from practitioners reflecting on and researching the practice within the workplace (Fox et al., 2007). In the past, allied health professionals have lacked influence in the research field and may have been as regarded as subordinate professionals (Nairn, 2012). However, the culture of research within physiotherapy has changed in recent times directed toward evaluating practice with the objective of improving clinical effectiveness and

credibility (Wrightson and Cross, 2004). The practitioner may also understand the implications of a new idea such as the alternative physiotherapy programme, has knowledge of the workplace setting and a means by which knowledge can be generated, particularly how a research protocol may be conducted in a busy

physiotherapy department. There may be points of time during the research process that action is required to make changes where the research is situated. The insider- researcher has a greater advantage of using this action research approach. The aim of action research is to improve practice as part of a process of change. My study was not an action research project in the real sense as this type of research is context- bound and participative involving a continuous cycle of evaluation, collaboration and sharing of newly generated knowledge (Richards and Hallberg, 2015). This may be applicable to future implementation and evaluation of the alternative group

programme but beyond the scope of this current thesis. The insider researcher’s consideration of epistemology contributes to the research questions leading to the

115

knowledge and methodology through which these questions can be answered. If research uses the appropriate methodology to answer the research questions and the findings have implications for policy or practice change. Then any research findings are more likely to have an impact and be accepted by peer review journals for dissemination (Stockton and Morran, 2010; Trowler, 2011).

I have to consider the impact I have had on the research itself. Together with a self- awareness of my influence as a researcher I may have had on the work setting, participants and colleagues. In the focus group interviews, I was the moderator who introduced the topic and items for discussion. My role was to assist and facilitate participants to discuss the topics, encourage interaction and guide the conversations. I therefore played a major role in obtaining relevant and accurate information from the focus groups. It is possible that my relationship with the participants might have an impact on their behaviour whether negative or positive such that they may have behaved in a way they would not normally. This type of researcher-participant relationship could potentially affect the internal validity of the study (Drake and Heath, 2011).

Colleagues involved in the research project as part of their normal work have been required to spend extra time providing data for the projects such as completing additional questionnaires. I as the researcher have provided additional training sessions and presentations (See Chapter 4: Project Activity) to inform what was expected of colleagues and the objectives of the research. Informing colleagues about the research helps to create a supportive environment for the insider-researcher in the organisation (Costley

116

et al., 2010). I have to consider my relationship with colleagues as both researcher and practitioner. I cannot assume that colleagues will or should necessarily co-operate with the research or perform the tasks of the project as you would want them or expect them to do. For example, colleagues may have decided not to actively recruit participants into the study who met the inclusion criteria or document the reasons why the patient decided not to participate in the study.

It has been important to consider how the research process has changed me as a person by reshaping my thinking and beliefs as a researcher as well as how this may have had an impact on the research process. By understanding and undertaking reflexivity within the research process, an insider-researcher can maintain quality, enhance clinical practice and bridge the research-practice divide (Etherington, 2004). Reflection on the research being undertaken, reflection on self and reflection on self within the research process has been an essential aspect in the stages of this thesis. For example, I have reflected on whether the research findings are valuable and valued by my colleagues. I have also reflected whether the knowledge gained will be

meaningful and useable to the individual physiotherapists or at an organisational level.

Reflexivity is the capacity to reflect upon my own actions and values during the research, data production and write-up. My aim has been to become a better

researcher and not become rooted in dogmatic habits or attitudes. Being reflective is a process of questioning ourselves and the way we have done things. For example, what factors underlie the decision to use a particular experimental design, method or

117

way in which I have conducted this research which is termed epistemological reflexivity (Macfarlane, 2009). My own view of the world can frame my interaction with what research I am doing and this can depend on my ontological view. For example, if my approach is objective, knowledge is seen as governed by the laws of nature. In contrast, if my approach is subjective, knowledge is seen as something interpreted by individuals. Research is also likely to be affected by personal experiences and the context of the research involved whether quantitative or qualitative methods are employed (Labaree, 2002).

I can also consider what I have learnt from the research process and what would I do differently next time. There had been the dilemma of doing a postal or Internet survey. The trend has been to conduct Internet surveys rather than postal ones. I had decided on a postal survey as this in my view was more personalised with similar response rates. However, postal surveys present with a greater challenge compared to Internet surveys in the analysis of the data. Researchers have the potential to introduce bias by affecting data collection and analysis. The researcher’s philosophy,

background or values may affect the interpretation of the research findings and communication of conclusions. Reflexivity or self-reflection is a means of understanding the impact of the researcher’s views and can be seen as adding credibility to the research findings (Carolan, 2003). Reflexivity can serve against biased interpretations of data whether good or bad. The researcher can present unbiased results and be as objective as possible. This includes discussing the

limitations and strengths of the study as well as the transferability of findings to other settings. I have adopted a more honest and open approach to writing up my research including my experiences of the research processes and data produced. Being

118

reflexive may assist to provide a critical account of the researcher’s subjectivity on study design, data analysis and presentation of findings. This will add a richness and greater truth to the text rather than a self-justificatory narrative (Macfarlane, 2009). However, one issue with providing an open reflexive account of my research is to risk unnecessarily undermining its quality by highlighting the subjectivities and

weaknesses. Those with a positivist philosophy may see subjectivity as a threat to validity. Word restrictions in peer review journal articles may limit the degree to which researchers can provide such detailed reflexive accounts of their research (Newton et al., 2011).