Applications of conventional- and action research in nursing homes.

Abstract

Background. With the changing elderly care sector in the Netherlands, policy reforms stemming from the late 20th century are being critiqued on a large scale. A demand for more personal care within nursing homes is rising. Policy research has become a widely used tool to better understand and change these practices. Action research (AR) as a collaborative research approach is gaining popularity in this regard, but not much is known about its advantages and how it differs from other research approaches. Therefore, this study has researched the differences between AR and conventional research (CR) in nursing homes with the question: How do the differences between AR and CR manifest themselves in relation to their research elements and –outcomes in the context of nursing homes? Methods. Within a comparative case-study, theoretically operationalized elements and outcomes of both research designs were empirically tested. Two studies, one AR and one CR, were compared by assessing the research reports and conducting qualitative interviews with researchers and employees of the nursing homes. Results. The results show significant differences between the two research approaches. The elements of the research designs are more connected to the outcomes than was expected. They seem to be inextricably linked and form a web of dependency. The environments in which the researches took place could not have been more different and had a significant impact on the research. Conclusion. Adequate application research approaches is best to be predicated by the needs of the social practice and demands the managing of expectations for the research. This demands a good understanding of the research approach. AR is a unique research approach with potential for inclusive policy research, but in order for it to flourish in nursing homes a more flexible attitude towards the elements and outcomes of research is needed.