Logistic Regressions and Checking Titles to Lemon Potatoes and Cheese Trays
The way I have been doing research has shifted over the years, from writing syntax in statistical programs at The Manitoba Research Data Centre on the Bannatyne campus and spending countless hours reading hundreds of studies, to ordering lemon potatoes and cheese trays. If anyone else is confused about this statement, let me provide some context. During graduate school, my research consisted of answering questions (a) by running logistic regressions using large nationally representative datasets from Canada and the United States or (b) reviewing study titles and abstracts to conduct meta-analyses, where we collected all the studies on a given topic and summarized the information to hopefully come up with a definitive answer on the current state of a research topic. The last time I collected data directly from participants or people was during my undergraduate honours thesis project in Psychology. The participants were elementary school children who received a fun eraser as an honorarium and Introduction to Psychology students whose participation earned them course credit. I met the children at their school during the school day and the university students on campus.
Fast forward about 10 years, and I am (re)applying for one of my first research grants as a Principal Applicant and Faculty member. As you may have guessed by the (re), I was unsuccessful in receiving an ENRRICH Catalyst Grant in the fall of 2020, the first time I applied. For my second application, I thought it was time to try something different. I had never collaborated with child or family partners before applying for the ENRRICH Catalyst Grant in the fall of 2022, but it was strongly recommended that research be conducted in partnership with children, families, and communities. The project we proposed was a program evaluation for an education series directed at caregivers about prenatal alcohol exposure (PAE) and fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD). The idea was to collect data before and after the series to see if the program improved participants’ (a) understanding of PAE and FASD, (b) understanding of their child’s behavior, and (c) sense of competence as caregivers. Our family partner was a caregiver of an adolescent with FASD. She had initially attended the series as a participant and subsequently delivered one of the eight sessions in the series. Once she became involved as a partner on the research team, many aspects of the proposal were modified and many of her suggestions included things that our research team had not considered. With the help of our family partner and the guidance of Carrie Costello, CHRIM’s past Patient Engagement Coordinator, we were successful in receiving the Fall 2022 ENRRICH Catalyst Grant (https://www.enrrichresearch.ca/research-1/building-circles-of-support-an-education-series-about-fasd-a-preliminary-program-evaluation).
Unfortunately, our first attempt at evaluating this series was largely unsuccessful due to difficulties with recruiting participants into our study. Only two people completed the survey after the series (we were hoping for 30 before and after the series!). As a research team, we regrouped and brainstormed alternative recruitment strategies for the next round. Our family partner suggested that we change our recruitment and data collection strategies and emphasized the importance of connection between the researchers and the participants. First, she suggested that we incorporate an element of self-care and well-being during data collection, sharing that she would be more likely to participate in a research project if there were at least some refreshments or a meal provided. Second, she recommended that we build in time for collecting data directly before the first session and after the last session, noting that families may be more likely to complete the survey if they have already set aside the time to attend the series rather than be asked to complete a survey at home and on their own time. Finally, she encouraged us to collect data in person and to have a research assistant available to support and connect with participants. We implemented all of these suggestions. I am happy to report that more people have expressed an interest in participating at the outset (even if they were not able to attend the lunch), communication between the research team and participants has improved, and more people are now participating in our study (5 before the series, which is a huge improvement from 0).
What I have learned from our family partner was further solidified when I attended CHRIM’s 19th annual Child Health Research Days this past October. Two major themes were clear to me during the presentations and informal discussions with presenters during lunch: (1) the importance of connecting with prospective participants and communities, and (2) that research in general takes time, but research that involves establishing relationships takes even longer. As an early career researcher, I appreciated that the presenters walked us through their journey of connecting and building relationships and learning from individuals with living experience. I also appreciated that they highlighted the challenges they experienced over the years but also noted the wins, even if they may seem small. Because of the previous methods I have used to conduct research, I often associated running analyses with “doing research,” but over time I’m continually learning that making time to build connections and reducing barriers to participation are some of the most important aspects of “doing research” even if it doesn’t feel like we are “doing research” at the time.
Lessons Learned:
Lesson #1: Reapply. As soul crushing as it is to receive a rejection from a granting agency or journal, incorporate the feedback and try again; shift gears if or where you need to.
Lesson #2: Collaborate with family partners with living experience*
Lesson #3: Research projects will take longer than we expect, especially if we take the time to build connections and establish relationships.It is worth it.
Lesson #4: Redefine what “doing research” looks like.
Lesson #5: It might sound cheesy, but when research efforts give you lemons, order lemon potatoes!
*You may notice that I used the term ‘living experience’ instead of ‘lived experience.’ During the opening remarks and keynote at the Canada FASD Conference this past November, Myles Himmelreich, a motivational speaker and adult with FASD, questioned the phrase ‘lived experience’ since we are often connecting with individuals about their current experiences. He suggested using the term living experience instead, so I’m using it here and hoping that it continues to catch on.
Kristene Cheung
Kristene Cheung is a clinical psychologist who works with children, adolescents, and their families at SSCY Centre. She is also a researcher at the University of Manitoba. Kristene is interested in learning about how to improve the lives of children, adolescents, and families. She is especially interested in understanding children who are often misunderstood.