More than participatory? From ‘compensatory' towards ‘expressive' remote practices using digital technologies

Based on the shift from face-to-face participatory action research (PAR) with groups in situations of vulnerability to digital methods during COVID-19, we reflect on how we can go beyond compensating for the physical absence of the researcher from the field. We argue that instead of simply aiming to replace face-to-face research with a digital equivalent for maintaining ‘participatory' and ‘inclusive' research practices, remote practices have the potential of being more-than compensatory. We suggest that when producing multi-method digital approaches, we need to go beyond a concern with participant access to remote practices. By rethinking remote PAR in the light of expressive rather than participatory research practices, we critically reflect on the (sometimes experimental) process of trying out different digital research method(s) with Brazilian youth in situations of digital marginalisation, including the initial ‘failures' and lessons learned in encouraging diverse forms of participant expression, and ownership using WhatsApp. © The Author(s) 2023.

Recruiting, paying, and evaluating the experiences of civic scientists studying urban park usage during the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic

This paper describes an attempt to utilize paid citizen science in a research project that documented urban park usage during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in two U.S. cities. Strategies used by the research team to recruit, pay, and evaluate the experiences of the 43 citizen scientists are discussed alongside key challenges in contemporary citizen science. A literature review suggests that successful citizen science projects foster diverse and inclusive participation;develop appropriate ways to compensate citizen scientists for their work;maximize opportunities for participant learning;and ensure high standards for data quality. In this case study, the selection process proved successful in employing economically vulnerable individuals, though the citizen scientist participants were disproportionately female, young, White, non-Hispanic, single, and college educated relative to the communities studied. The participants reported that the financial compensation provided by the study, similar in amount to the economic stimulus checks distributed simultaneously by the Federal government, were reasonable given the workload, and many used it to cover basic household needs. Though the study took place in a period of high economic risk, and more than 80% of the participants had never participated in a scientific study, the experience was rated overwhelmingly positive. Participants reported that the work provided stress relief, indicated they would consider participating in similar research in the future. Despite the vast majority never having engaged in most park stewardship activities, they expressed interest in learning more about park usage, mask usage in public spaces, and socio-economic trends in relation to COVID-19. Though there were some minor challenges in data collection, data quality was sufficient to publish the topical results in a peer-reviewed companion paper. Key insights on the logistical constraints faced by the research team are highlighted throughout the paper to advance the case for paid citizen science. Copyright © 2022 Alizadehtazi, Woerdeman, Tangtrakul, Gussenhoven, Mostafavi and Montalto.

The role of accounting in the assessment of knowledge production from a multi-stakeholder’s perspective

Purpose>The purpose of this study is to provide insights into how accounting and accountability systems can contribute to transforming metrics used thus far in research performance evaluation. New metrics are needed to increase research impact on the challenges addressed by science. In particular, we document and reflect on accounting transformations towards responsible research and innovation (RRI).Design/methodology/approach>The study draws on the European H2020 MULTI-ACT research project that focuses on the development of a collective research impact framework in the area of health research. We document, analyse and report our engagement in this project, which also included research funders, patient organizations, health researchers, accounting practitioners and health care providers. Drawing on RRI, Mode 2 knowledge production and accounting performativity, we inquire into the potential of accounting technologies to foster knowledge production and increase research impact.Findings>The study shows how the engagement of accounting with other disciplines enables the development of new and relevant forms of research impact assessment. We document how accounting can be mobilised for the development of new forms of research impact assessment (i.e. indicators that evaluate key accountability dimensions to promote RRI) and how it helps to overcome the difficulties that can emerge during this process. We also show how the design of multiple accountabilities’ indicators, although chronically partial, produced a generative interrogation and discussion about how to translate RRI to research assessment in a workable setting, and the pivotal role of certain circumstances (e.g. the presence of authoritative actors) that appear during the knowledge production process for creating these generative opportunities.Practical implications>This study illustrates the key role of accounts in the generation of knowledge. It also shows the value of considering the stakes of all affected actors in devising fruitful accounting approaches. This collective perspective is timely in the accounting discipline and could foster the connection between academics and practice which is so far under-reported. This perspective should be useful for policymakers such as the European Union and managers in the design of new policies, initiatives and practices.Social implications>Discussing and devising appropriate research assessment frameworks is strategic for the maximization of the social impact of research results. Accounting has a key role to play in optimizing a sustainable return on investment in research.Originality/value>How to assess research impact in a more balanced way is in an early stage of development. The study provides empirical and practical material to advance further work and develop its potential to broaden the conceptualization of accountability.