During the recent webinar on an embedded researcher network, I listened to the speakers' experiences of embedded research with a mixture of anticipation and curiosity. Aware of the NIHR funded study that Vicky Ward is involved in, I was eager to hear details of what had emerged in the scoping review.
It was interesting to hear the criteria used to define embedded research: trained researchers, creating knowledge in a health setting for the benefit of the host and spending part of the working week in a health service.
I am rarely enticed by social movements that take place in a virtual space. I never succumbed to the Ice Bucket Challenge, I have yet to use #metoo (or any hashtags for that matter) and the title has to be absolutely irresistible to get me to click on a TED video link.
I simply don't get excited by the virtual in the same way that I do by the physical. However much I support and agree with these movements, I simply never find myself swept into them online as I do on the streets.
I have so far blamed this lukewarm online enthusiasm on my age. I'm too old for that stuff. And I would have continued in this vein had it not been for the Embedded Research project's webinar on creating an embedded researcher network.
As one of the four lay representatives for the Embedded Research project, I want to share some thoughts about some of the Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) issues that are coming up in the initial part of the project.
We had a pretty good idea that Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) would not feature very much in the lives of embedded researchers and this proved to be the case from the literature researches and the preliminary data gathering.