PDF (PhD Thesis) - UWE Research Repository - University of the ...

time. Two practitioners joined the group part way through and three group
members withdrew; one because of time constraints and two because I
was to ‗blindly‘ assess a piece of work for their part-time studies. The
ethics approval required me to exclude students whose work I would
assess, even though it would have been beneficial for the inquiry.
The co-inquirers worked in a number of different Trusts and some had met
before on a Reflective Practitioner Module. I was the only person who
knew everyone. There were several nurses and midwives, a speech
therapist and clinical psychologist working in a variety of healthcare
specialities. Co-inquirers chose their own pseudonyms to aid
confidentiality and anonymity:
Alex, F grade staff nurse working in general medicine
Alice, a clinical psychologist working in the learning disability field
Amy, a midwifery sister with a part-time remit for practice development
Jane, a sister in a minor injuries department
Jon, a modern matron working in elderly care
Jordon, a modern matron working in elderly care
Liz, working in a theatre practice development role
Lois, a speech therapist
Maria, a midwifery sister with a remit for practice development
Tracey, an assistant general manager working for a PCT (primary care
trust)
Lois and Alice, the non nurses, acted as critical friends by challenging our
taken for granted assumptions or blind spots as we called them. I felt this
would aid the quality of the inquiry because as nurses we needed help in
recognising our cultural assumptions. They also contributed their wisdom
of working in the NHS helping us to connect to possible systemic patterns.
50