Researchers in residence (RiRs) aim to bridge the gap between in-house evaluations and university-led research. Embedding a university employed researcher within the system to be evaluated increases the speed at which findings can be presented and acted upon, whilst maintaining the rigour of university-led research. These researchers become honorary members of staff within the system they are embedded, allowing them to understand what research questions are important, to co-design and undertake research, to give rapid actionable feedback about the local system, to maximise creation and distribution of generalisable knowledge, and improve local research capacity by offering research training and advice to staff within the system in which they are embedded.
Before COVID-19, RiR models focused on embedding the researcher into a team in a physical location (https://bristoluniversitypressdigital.com/view/journals/evp/15/2/article-p197.xml). This rested on the assumption that co-location aids the researcher in building relationships with the system staff and helps researchers understand the system itself. The pandemic restrictions meant that many health and social care teams temporarily or permanently changed to remote or blended working, making physical embedding impossible. From February 2021 until August 2022 I worked as an RiR within the Somerset mental health care system evaluating their work as an early implementor site for the Community Mental Health Framework for Adults and Older Adults (https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/community-mental-health-framework-for-adults-and-older-adults.pdf); this RiR work was nearly entirely remote. This blog reflects on the experience of being a remote RiR.
Less embedded or mirroring a new way of working?
The purpose of physical co-location by RiRs is partly to create a more thorough understanding of the system being evaluated. RiRs can draw on ethnographic techniques, making observations and fieldnote reflections alongside more formal techniques such as interviews, focus groups and patient note reviews. A key concern at the beginning of our project was that being remotely embedded might reduce these opportunities for data collection. Indeed, early planning meetings aimed to switch to in-person embedding once COVID-19 restrictions lifted. However, it soon became clear that it was still possible to ‘watch people working together’ and observe the system: most teams were now holding regular meetings online; these were easy to observe providing you knew which meetings there were and have the contacts to wrangle an invite. Furthermore, the teams I observed continued to meet via online platforms once restrictions lifted, as this was more convenient, taking up less of people’s worktime. Indeed, speaking with other RiRs who started projects post-pandemic restrictions, some arrived at offices planning to physically embed, only to find these offices mostly empty. Therefore, if looking to feel part of a team that meet and work remotely, remote embedding may be to the advantage of the RiR.
A challenge of this remote embedding might be observing interactions with service users and meeting service users face to face to engage them in research/evaluation. In our project, none of the service users contacted by phone/email by the research or practitioner team consented to be interviewed for the study. Experienced ethnographers within the research team suggested that this would have been more successful if one were able to ‘hang around’ reception areas and start informal conversations with service users.
Where do I belong?
A key question for a co-located RiR is where to place themselves – in which office, with which team, at which level in the system to be evaluated. This question is nicely rendered void when embedding remotely, as it is possible to embed remotely within multiple teams. For example, I embedded myself within the strategic level steering group to begin with, and maintained this relationship as I later embedded myself within a frontline locality team. Remote embedding also makes it easier to maintain relationships both within the evaluated system and the university; enabling evaluation of systems that are physically distant from the university and which may traditionally struggle to benefit from academic input.
However, caution should be applied here. As any observations are potential data, the possibility of signing up to collect more data than can be reasonably evaluated must be carefully guarded against by all RiRs; this problem may be amplified by embedding across multiple teams. Additionally, the RiR and their supervisor may need to work pro-actively to ensure that the researcher maintains some sense of identity and belonging, as they may feel responsibility to multiple teams within the system and the university, but feel like they do not truly belong to any of these teams. Personally, I found connecting to other RiRs embedded in other systems helped maintain a sense of belonging and identity.
Where’s the cake? Being the ‘researcher from Plymouth with the cats’
Health and social care practitioners and managers are often extremely busy with their usual roles, and being asked to contribute to evaluations and research may be onerous to them. Finding ways to engage staff with studies can be difficult, and is a regular topic between RiRs, with practical solutions such as “turn up with cake” being commonly discussed. I found that many tactics I deployed to engage people with the evaluation mirrored those used by physically embedded RiRs. For example, finding the key pivot people and forming relationships with them: The administrator who knows everyone’s name and role and can book you directly into people’s diaries; The person who is really passionate about the change you’re evaluating; The person who just seems to ‘click’ with your personality or has some shared background/experience with you.
For me, building relationships with both service user and practitioner participants has always been about sharing a little about myself before expecting them to share about themselves. One sets one’s own personal limits around this. In the same way as some people have pictures of their children in their office space and others choose not to, we might decide whether we have a blank background behind us in our video calls and sit in our home study with the door shut, or whether we allow potential participants to see the pictures we have hung up in our lounge wall. Everyone’s approach to this will differ, but somewhat by accident I became known as the ‘researcher from Plymouth with the cats’!
In summary, its entirely possible to undertake good RiR work remotely, and, mirroring health and social care systems, remote RiR work is likely to be here to stay. Whether embedding remotely is appropriate or not will depend on the system being evaluated and the topic of that evaluation. Many of the pros and cons of embedding remotely reflect existing conundrums within this still developing method.
Are you an RiR? Are you not sure if you’re an RiR? Fancy a chat with other RiRs? Our informal peer group meets monthly, giving people a safe space to bounce ideas off one another, and think about the future direction of the RiR approach. We operate on a very inclusive, all welcome, approach…pop in for 5 minutes or the whole hour. Email me at charley.hobson-merrett@plymouth.ac.uk for more information. Come and meet the cats!