Objective: To develop valid and realistic manipulations for video-vignette research using expert opinion rounds, in preparation of an experimental study on clinicians' (un)reasonable argumentative... Show moreObjective: To develop valid and realistic manipulations for video-vignette research using expert opinion rounds, in preparation of an experimental study on clinicians' (un)reasonable argumentative support for treatment de-cisions in neonatal care. Methods: In three rounds, N = 37 participants (parents/clinicians/researchers) provided feedback on four video -vignette scripts and completed listing, ranking, and rating exercises to determine which (un)reasonable argu-ments clinicians may provide to support treatment decisions. Results: Round 1: participants deemed the scripts realistic. They judged that, on average, clinicians should provide two arguments for a treatment decision. They listed 13-20 reasonable arguments, depending on the script. Round 2: participants ranked the two most salient, reasonable arguments per script. Round 3: participants rated the most plausible, unreasonable arguments from a predefined list. These results guided the design of 12 experimental conditions. Conclusion: Expert opinion rounds are an effective method to develop video-vignettes that are theoretically sound and ecologically realistic and offer a powerful means to include stakeholders in experimental research design. Our study yielded some preliminary insights into what are considered prevalent (un)reasonable arguments for clinicians' treatment plans. Practice implications: We provide hands-on guidelines on involving stakeholders in the design of video-vignette experiments and the development of video-based health communication interventions - both for research and practice. Show less
Dominant approaches to research quality rest on the assumption that academic peers are the only relevant stakeholders in its assessment. In contrast, impact assessment frameworks recognize a large... Show moreDominant approaches to research quality rest on the assumption that academic peers are the only relevant stakeholders in its assessment. In contrast, impact assessment frameworks recognize a large and heterogeneous set of actors as stakeholders. In transdisciplinary research non-academic stakeholders are actively involved in all phases of the research process and actor-network theorists recognize a broad and heterogeneous set of actors as stakeholders in all types of research as they are assigned roles in the socio-material networks, also termed ‘problematizations’, that researchers reconfigure. Actor-network theorists consider research as a performative act that changes the reality of the stakeholders it, knowingly or unknowingly, involves. Established approaches to, and notions of, research quality do not recognize the heterogeneity of relevant stakeholders nor allow for reflection on the performative effects of research. To enrich the assessment of research quality this article explores the problematization as a potential new object of evaluation. Problematizations are proposals for how the future might look. Hence, their acceptance does not only concern fellow academics but also all other human and other-than-human actors that figure in them. To enrich evaluative approaches, this article argues for the inclusion of stakeholder involvement and stakeholder representation as dimensions of research quality. It considers a number of challenges to doing so including the identification of stakeholders, developing quality criteria for stakeholder involvement and stakeholder representation, and the possibility of participatory research evaluation. It can alternatively be summarized as raising the question: for whose benefit do we conduct evaluations of research quality? Show less
