# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
PhD Participatory Research Network NCCPE Workshop

# data[].attributes.body
I like the idea of co-analysis involving lived experience by sharing the quantitative analysis findings with them and checking these findings reflect their lived expereince,  as well as asking them to check for any researcher assumptions that may be inaccurate when reporting the findings. Also asking them how they would like the findings to be shared and what they think the most helpful recommendations should be for practice and future research.

# data[].attributes.body
Asking community advisory group to share feedback on themes as part of inductive TA or IPA for qualitative semi-structured interviews and use of Photovoice-like method
-Who might need to be involved and when?

# data[].attributes.body
External trainers for analytic approach so positionality can be equal across all individuals
• Making sure timely training so knowledge is not lost
• Other placement students to help with organization of data, transcribing, facilitating focus groups, meetings, admin
-What support or boundaries do you need?

# data[].attributes.body
Supervisors for direction of PhD to remind us of timelines and commitments
• Knowing when we have enough data, saturation, not tipping over because one new idea came into play

# data[].attributes.body
My research is looking at prison healthcare. I’m considering the use of a participatory approach, but I have some concerns. In particular, I’m wondering whether involving participants in this way could unintentionally contribute to stigmatisation, especially given the prison context. I’m also unsure about the best way to approach acknowledging contributions from those involved in participatory elements of the research.

# data[].attributes.body
I have been fortunate enough to have access to a small amount of funding to pay lived expereince experts to advise on my study at different stages. I think it would be great if this kind of support was built into research proposals from the very beginning and that it was almost assumed as essential to participatory research
 

# data[].attributes.body
I'm hoping to do thematic co-analysis - working with the advisory panel to discuss codes, cluster them and interpret  themes.

I would like to do this with the advisory panel after I’ve done an initial coding and then also at the end to validate themes.

What support or boundaries do you need? That is the big question. I would like support on how to do this within a framework of a PhD when I am expected to be the sole creator of new knowledge. I would like some training tools, in order to explain to the advisory panel what a thematic analysis is and how it works. Guidance on how to do this collaboratively. For boundaries – I currently feel I don’t know what my boundaries need to be and reflections from others on this would help me.

# data[].attributes.body
Easy read/visual results and analysis that the SEND community can access and take part in.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Jennings et al Best practice framework for Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in collaborative data analysis of qualitative me

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
seale et al Negotiating a third space for participatory research with people with learning disabilities  an examination of bound

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Principles of Partnership Working | NCCPE

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The NCCPE works with universities to build inclusive knowledge through public engagement.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The NCCPE works with universities to build inclusive knowledge through public engagement.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This dimension of the powercube focuses how power manifests itself in different forms, which we call the visible, the hidden and the invisible. There is a long history of academic debate from which these concepts are drawn, read about the evolution of academic debate on the forms of power.