Dataset Information

Hmong Older Adults' Perceptions of Insider and Outsider Researchers: Does It Matter for Research Participation?

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Recruiting racial/ethnic minorities into health research is challenging. Although researchers affiliated with members of the study population (seen as insiders) may increase research participation of racial/ethnic minorities, little is known about who participants see as insiders and how they respond to insider versus outsider researchers. OBJECTIVES:The aim of the study was to examine perceptions of Hmong older adults toward insider versus outsider researchers and the influence of these perceptions on their willingness to participate in research. METHODS:Participants in a study evaluating use of a culturally and linguistically adapted audio computer-assisted self-interviewing system with helper assistance (ACASI-H) provided information about what they thought would encourage others in their community to participate in research. ACASI-H was used for collection of health data with 30 Hmong older adults. Participants rated the likelihood of participation if the researcher was Hmong and answered open-ended questions about participation when the researcher was not Hmong. Conventional content analysis was used to analyze open-ended questions. RESULTS:Sixteen (53%) participants reported that they would be "likely" to participate in the research if the researcher was Hmong. Fourteen (47%) participants reported that they would participate in research if the researcher was not Hmong. In addition to ethnic affiliation, trust in the researcher could shift the perception of the researcher toward insider status, thereby increasing willingness of Hmong adults to participate in research. Trust in the researcher and movement toward insider status could be increased by calling out a connection between the researcher and the participant or creating reciprocity. DISCUSSION:Findings suggest that increasing research participation of Hmong (and possibly other) participants, particularly when researchers do not share ethnic membership, can be achieved by building trust. This study also suggests a more nuanced perception of insider status, as a continuum, rather than a dichotomy, may be a more accurate reflection of the relationship between participants and researchers.

SUBMITTER: Lor M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5927621 | biostudies-literature | 2018 May/Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Hmong Older Adults' Perceptions of Insider and Outsider Researchers: Does It Matter for Research Participation?

Lor Maichou M Bowers Barbara J BJ

Nursing research 20180501 3

<h4>Background</h4>Recruiting racial/ethnic minorities into health research is challenging. Although researchers affiliated with members of the study population (seen as insiders) may increase research participation of racial/ethnic minorities, little is known about who participants see as insiders and how they respond to insider versus outsider researchers.<h4>Objectives</h4>The aim of the study was to examine perceptions of Hmong older adults toward insider versus outsider researchers and the ...[more]

PMID: 29698328

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:There is increasing evidence that research misbehaviour is common, especially the minor forms. Previous studies on research misbehaviour primarily focused on biomedical and social sciences, and evidence from natural sciences and humanities is scarce. We investigated what academic researchers in Amsterdam perceived to be detrimental research misbehaviours in their respective disciplinary fields. Methods:We used an explanatory sequential mixed methods design. First, survey participants from four disciplinary fields rated perceived frequency and impact of research misbehaviours from a list of 60. We then combined these into a top five ranking of most detrimental research misbehaviours at the aggregate level, stratified by disciplinary field. Second, in focus group interviews, participants from each academic rank and disciplinary field were asked to reflect on the most relevant research misbehaviours for their disciplinary field. We used participative ranking methodology inducing participants to obtain consensus on which research misbehaviours are most detrimental. Results:In total, 1080 researchers completed the survey (response rate: 15%) and 61 participated in the focus groups (3 three to 8 eight researchers per group). Insufficient supervision consistently ranked highest in the survey regardless of disciplinary field and the focus groups confirmed this. Important themes in the focus groups were insufficient supervision, sloppy science, and sloppy peer review. Biomedical researchers and social science researchers were primarily concerned with sloppy science and insufficient supervision. Natural sciences and humanities researchers discussed sloppy reviewing and theft of ideas by reviewers, a form of plagiarism. Focus group participants further provided examples of particular research misbehaviours they were confronted with and how these impacted their work as a researcher. Conclusion:We found insufficient supervision and various forms of sloppy science to score highly on aggregate detrimental impact throughout all disciplinary fields. Researchers from the natural sciences and humanities also perceived nepotism to be of major impact on the aggregate level. The natural sciences regarded fabrication of data of major impact as well. The focus group interviews helped to understand how researchers interpreted 'insufficient supervision'. Besides, the focus group participants added insight into sloppy science in practice. Researchers from the natural sciences and humanities added new research misbehaviours concerning their disciplinary fields to the list, such as the stealing of ideas before publication. This improves our understanding of research misbehaviour beyond the social and biomedical fields.

Project description:Researchers’ participation in online rimssThis article examined how researchers participated in research information management systems (RIMSs), their motivations for participation, and their priorities for those motivations. Profile maintenance, question-answering, and endorsement activities were used to define three cumulatively increasing levels of participation: Readers, Record Managers, and Community Members. Junior researchers were more engaged in RIMSs than were senior researchers. Postdocs had significantly higher odds of endorsing other researchers for skills and being categorized as Community Members than did full and associate professors. Assistant professors were significantly more likely to be Record Managers than were members of any other seniority categories. Finally, researchers from the life sciences showed a significantly higher propensity for being Community Members than Readers and Record Managers when compared with researchers from engineering and the physical sciences, respectively.Researchers’ motivations to participate in rimssWhen performing activities, researchers were motivated by the desire to share scholarship, feel competent, experience a sense of enjoyment, improve their status, and build ties with other members of the community. Moreover, when researchers performed activities that directly benefited other members of a RIMS, they assigned higher priorities to intrinsic motivations, such as perceived self-efficacy, enjoyment, and building community ties. Researchers at different stages of their academic careers and disciplines ranked some of the motivations for engaging with RIMSs differently. The general model of research participation in RIMSs; the relationships among RIMS activities; the motivation scales for activities; and the activity, seniority, and discipline-specific priorities for the motivations developed by this study provide the foundation for a framework for researcher participation in RIMSs. This framework can be used by RIMSs and institutional repositories to develop tools and design mechanisms to increase researchers' engagement in RIMSs.

Dataset Information

Hmong Older Adults' Perceptions of Insider and Outsider Researchers: Does It Matter for Research Participation?

Publications

Hmong Older Adults' Perceptions of Insider and Outsider Researchers: Does It Matter for Research Participation?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets