Why blog?

Posted by Jean Adams

It seems an odd thing to write a blog post about the value of blogging. I mean, if you’re reading this blog, it suggests you place some sort of value on the medium. Or maybe, you don’t really but you came to my presentation today on blogging and felt some vague compulsion/interest in following up the link on the handout just this once, seeing as it was such a funky little handout.

What is a blog? What’s it for?

If this really is your first visit to a blog, let me tell you a bit about it and show you around. 

Blogs (a contraction of web logs) are web-sites, or parts of web-sites, that are designed to be regularly updated with new content, including text, images, audio and video content. Entries, or ‘posts’, are presented in reverse chronological order with the most recent first. By providing a facility for readers to comment, and writers to respond to readers’ comments, blogs provide a forum for interactive discussion. Blogs can be single or multi-author and about anything and everything.

This page is mostly text. But we try to include either still or video images with every post. If you scroll down a bit, you’ll find previous posts. And even older ones if you scroll right to the bottom and click ‘older posts’.

Don't say  I didn't prepare - the natty little handout you would have got if you'd come to my presentation

You can see that posts are written by a variety of different people – this is a multi-author blog. Anyone affiliated with Fuse can post and we also accept guest posts from people not affiliated. At the bottom of each post, there’s a little note highlighting either that there are currently ‘no comments’ or maybe ’23 comments’. We haven’t quite cracked the ‘interactive discussion’ bit here, but if you’d like to help overcome that you just need to click on the ‘no comments’ link and let rip. This is the internet, so we use links within posts to source material, or more information on various concepts, rather than a list of references at the bottom of posts.

To the right of the main text, you can see some other stuff introducing the blog and what it’s about, listing previous posts, and bigging up our besties. There's also some Twitter and social network sharing stuff there. We publicise the blog primarily through Twitter. If you're new to blogs, a good way to find out about new posts is to follow me (@jeanmadams) or @fuse_online on Twitter.

The majority of mainstream science communication follows a formal, and often highly structured, format. In contrast, blogs allow scientists and researchers to be both authoritative and informal. In blogs the personality of a researcher can shine through in a way that it rarely does in peer-reviewed publications and traditional science journalism. For this reason, science blogs have been proposed as “one way to demythologize science”.

Fuse is a Public Health Research Centre of Excellence that brings together academics and researchers from five universities in the North East of England. One of Fuse’s key aims is to engage with those working in public health policy and practice across the region (policy and practice ‘partners’) to conduct research with and for these groups, and to ensure translation of research findings into policy and practice.

We set up the Fuse Blog because, although awareness of Fuse seemed high locally, understanding of what exactly it does and how, appeared limited. We were also concerned about a feeling that Fuse researchers were perceived by policy and practice partners as a bit far removed from the real world, up in their ivory towers. Finally, we wanted a method to build some sort of community across a research centre that is located in five different universities at some geographical distance from each other.

To achieve these things, posts tend to be about the day-to-day realities of doing public health research, written in a way that hopefully makes us look human. But we also sometimes post what might be considered lay summaries of our research findings and accessible discussions of recent research developments.

Why should I bother blogging?

I asked my Twitter followers why they blogged. These are some of the responses I got:

I think that the reasons that a researcher might want to blog can be broken into three areas: personal, professional and organisational.

From a personal point of view, I quite enjoy blogging. Like Bronia, I like having an opportunity to write about the things that matter to be but that I can’t put in academic papers. It can be quite cathartic. I also like the people that I’ve met – both in person, and virtually – through blogging. I’m quite a shy person underneath, so this medium suits me well.

Professionally, Sherry and Lynne cover some of the important points. Blogging is a form of engagement that allows researchers to speak to people they often can’t access through traditional dissemination routes, about things those routes don’t generally cover. On the blog, I am Jean. It’s fine for Jean to discuss the everyday realities of doing public health research and to chat about her research. Most other public places I go in a professional capacity, I am Dr Adams. From her you get cautious interpretation of her latest peer-reviewed findings.

This sort of engagement ticks boxes in terms of communicating the method of science. But it is also considered a moral duty by some: if the public fund our research through government agencies, don’t we have a duty to tell them about it in a way they might understand?

As Lynne says, blogging is also a good way to get into writing – a skill that every researcher needs. It’s quick (we normally say 5-800words for a post, but this one is rapidly breaking the rules, but I’m the editor, so that’s fine) and it doesn’t have to be perfect (I seem to have identified a number of post-publication typos...).

Organisationally, the most important thing that the Fuse blog might have done is make us a bit more democratic. Our posts tend to be written by early career researchers who often don’t speak up in other forums. As one professor eloquently put it, the blog gives a voice to those who are too often voiceless in our organisation.

In turn, this gives a good impression of Fuse to the outside world: we’re the sort of organisation who aren’t afraid to let our early career staff and students speak out and we support them to do that. The blog also means we have a constantly updated web presence. It says: we are flourishing.

But…what about all the bad stuff?

Obviously you should be aware of the risks of anything before you start. Simon Wren-Lewis from Oxford University offers sound responses to many of the risks you might think blogging has, from not having enough time, to not having anything to say. With a multi-author blog like the Fuse blog we easily absorb many of these. Matt Might from the University of Utah also offers some good tips on low-effort blog post strategies – if you’re going to write a presentation for a departmental seminar on blogging, write a blog post about it.

With a central editor (me) who scrutinises all posts before they go live we also add an additional layer of checking to the ‘read it again in the morning’ strategy used by Wren-Lewis. We err on the side of caution and if there’s anything I think you might live to regret posting, I’ll talk to you about it. But that rarely happens – researchers live and breathe confidentiality and professionalism.

No…I meant: what will people think?

Well, what do you think? Do you think that researchers and academics writing about their day-to-day working lives in non-peer-reviewed publications is ‘vulgar’? Do you think Athene Donald, professor of physics at Cambridge University and Fellow of the Royal Society is ‘showing off’ in her blog? Do you think Trish Greenhalgh, professor of primary health care at Queen Mary, who contributes to many multi-author blogs has ‘too much time on her hands’? Most people probably think the same way you do.

If you’ve written a post or want to chat about ideas for posts, get in touch.

Working effectively with patients and public in research

Posted by Dorothy Newbury-Birch

I’m chair of the Engagement Strategy Group in my research institute. I’m not sure, like most things, how that came about, but I’m here and I’m on a steep learning curve. You see, like most of us, for a long time I thought that patient and public involvement meant that we should have a couple of lay people on our steering groups. And I was wrong, so wrong. It is so much more than that and if done properly can make your research much better in so many ways. I can only talk for myself but I’ve really started thinking about this differently, in particular, in relation to one of the trials I am the Principal Investigator (PI) for.

How not to do patient and public involvement in research

SIPS JR-HIGH is a pilot feasibility trial of alcohol screening and brief interventions in schools with 14-15 year olds. On the program management group we have a representative from the education department at the local council. He has expertise in alcohol and drug education in schools and we’ve met with him a number of times both at the project management group and separately to discuss the intricacies of the work. He’s a co-PI on the project and his input was invaluable to its success in being funded. He was also our link to getting the schools on board.

We have the Young Mayor (yes, North Tyneside has a Young Cabinet) on our Trial Steering Group, who we have met and spoken to a number of times. The Young Cabinet also looked over all our paperwork prior to submitting our application for university ethics approval. We also have a young person and their mum on the steering group. They were interested in the research, trialled our intervention and gave us valuable feedback. We've been to a couple of the schools a few times to trial the questionnaires and to ask them what they think of the information leaflets we’re using.

So what are my tips from my new found knowledge? Firstly, don’t just expect people to rock up to a meeting after sending them piles of paperwork and expect them to engage. Meet with them prior to the meeting; explain what is going to happen at the meeting. Talk through some of the issues and the paperwork and get their views. Explain to them that their input is important. Check to see if they need any help in coming to the meeting i.e car parking or childcare. Make sure you have spoken to them about financial reimbursement for their time. A great resource is available from INVOLVE which can help.

Secondly, have someone in the group meet with the person a few minutes before a meeting and have a coffee and introduce people as they turn up for the meeting. Have this person sit next to the lay member and explain things if necessary and encourage them to have their say if they want to. Don’t rush them away after the meeting; ask them what they thought and if they have any questions. Make arrangements to give them a call in a couple of weeks to chat through things if necessary. Work at their pace, don’t assume they can or can’t do things.

If you take these things on board, your research, I promise you, will be better and more fulfilling for yourself and the people we are doing the research with and for.

From middle-class to world-class

Posted by Peter Tennant

I enjoy watching tennis, use words like 'loo' and 'supper', and open my Christmas presents after lunch. In the UK, this makes me firmly middle-class. But much as I might protest (usually by wittering about my 'deprived' schooling), I know it's the truth. Why else would I feel so at home in academic research, a profession dominated by the middle classes?

Strawberries and cream at Wimbledon

On the plus side, this makes for some delicious bring-and-share lunches, what with all the Marks & Spencer nibbles, and home-made cakes (made, of course, with organic locally-sourced ingredients). But much as I enjoy free-range cupcakes, is it good for research, especially in a subject called 'public' health?

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair might have once declared that 'we're all middle class now', but the gap between the UK's rich and poor is arguably wider than any time since the Second World War. And where there are income differences, there are also differences in health status and health-behaviour. Which has left me wondering, are a largely middle-class community best placed to understand and empathise with the UK's most deprived, so often the 'public' we are trying to target in 'public health'?

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that great work isn't being done by great people. And I'm not saying any researcher is actively biased. Anyone who's ever met a Scientist will agree; we are generally quite objective. After years of being drilled to act like a robot, some of us have even converted to running on petrol and oil, rather than continuing to rely on the inefficiency of food and water.* But even the most robotic researcher will find it harder to accept something, or even think to ask about something, that doesn't fit with their own experiences or world-view.

ERROR! ERROR! DOES NOT COMPUTE

Could this narrow demographic also (partly) explain why researchers find certain groups so hard to recruit? Or, to put it more bluntly, are UK public health researchers sometimes talking a different language? As an unhealthy person working in an Institute with the word ‘health’ in its name, I know how patronising it can feel:

“Post-exercise endorphins you say? I’m afraid all I get is wheezing, cramp, and a sensation of impending death”

I doubt it’s a coincidence that successful commercial organisations like Weight Watchers employ members of the local community, who have previously lost weight and maintained a healthy weight thereafter, to run their meetings. In other words, people who speak the same language. Could you imagine the same meetings being run by an average public health researcher?

1) LOADING WEIGHT LOSS PROGRAMME LESSON 001
2) INSTRUCT AUDIENCE TO “DO 30 MINUTES OF MVPA**”.
3) LESSON END

OK. Slight over-exaggeration. In fact, the best public-health interventions draw on detailed qualitative research (i.e. where brave researchers have ventured outside the ivory tower to speak to real members of the public) to ensure it addresses the needs and barriers of the target population. But I still think a bit more demographic diversity wouldn’t do the profession any harm.

*This sentence may contain factual errors
**MVPA, by the way, is public health research speak for 'Moderate or Vigorous Physical Activity'

How can I help you help me?

Posted by Dorothy Newbury-Birch

I’ve never failed to get practitioners on board for a research project.

I’m not bragging (oh okay I am a bit). Some of the projects have been really difficult environments to do research: Accident and Emergency Departments, prisons, probation, magistrates courts, crown courts, youth offending teams, police stations, schools, GP surgeries. But I see people struggling with engaging practitioners and I wonder why. It’s by no means easy – actually getting someone to answer the phone or respond to your email can be really difficult but there are ways around that. Don’t believe what people say about it being more difficult elsewhere in England either – we’re often told that its much harder in London to engage but I don't agree: it is harder to get around London for meetings, but not harder to engage. I’ve done it – I know!

So what are my tips for success in engaging practitioners?

1. Send an email followed up by a telephone call about a week later where you tell them you’re following up on your email will probably get you somewhere. If you are a Dr. or working with a Dr. saying this helps.

2. Use current contacts to help you – however remember if you say that ‘Dorothy’ suggested I call you that you are using my reputation, so use it wisely.

3. When arranging to meet, ask what suits them best. Making it clear that you will come to them,  out of hours if necessary, usually works.

4. NEVER say you want to arrange a meeting (even though you do). Always say something like, ‘have you got time for a coffee and a chat about some research I’m working on which I think you would be really interested in’.

5. When you do meet (for a coffee!) find out very quickly if they are the right person to talk to about the research – they may be the PI but it may be someone else that you will be liaising with. Get the first person to introduce you to the next person.

6. Don’t go the meeting (coffee) with a huge list of things you need them to do. Tell them about the research and go through the main things – the list should come later (although you should never have too long a list).

7. When you get to meet the team (there is usually a team) my years of research experience tell me that ONLY providing blueberry muffins works. For some reason, chocolate ones don’t work the same.

8. Offer solutions to problems. In one trial I worked on with probation where I wanted them to fax me something each day, they said that they didn’t have time. So I offered to set the fax up to send me the list at the same time that they HAD to send it to someone else.

9. Listen to their solutions. They know their systems much better than you.

10. Keep them updated with what is going on throughout the research. THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT not just for your research project, but for others that may come after.

11. Ok, I know I have 11 tips and 10 sounds better but this one is important. Involve the people you’re working with in the design, carrying out and the dissemination of the work (if they want to) it really makes for much better research.