HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) In Brief TRACK Comments: Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when TRACK Comments are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Katerndahl, D. Articles by Crabtree, B. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Katerndahl, D. Articles by Crabtree, B.

Creating Innovative Research Designs: The 10-Year Methodological Think Tank Case Study

¹ Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, Tex
² Department of Family Medicine, UMDNJ-RWJ Medical School, Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ

CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: David A. Katerndahl, MD, MA Department of Family and Community Medicine University of Texas 7703 Floyd Curl Dr San Antonio, TX 78229 katerndahl{at}uthscsa.edu

PURPOSE Addressing important but complex research questions often necessitates the creation of innovative mixed methods designs. This report describes an approach to developing research designs for studying important but methodologically challenging research questions.

METHODS The Methodological Think Tank has been held annually in conjunction with the Primary Care Research Methods and Statistics Conference in San Antonio since 1994. A group of 3 to 4 methodologists with expertise balanced between quantitative and qualitative backgrounds is invited by the think tank coordinators to serve on a 2-day think tank to discuss a research question selected from those submitted in response to a call for proposals. During the first half-day, these experts explore the content area with the investigator, often challenging beliefs and assumptions. During the second half-day, the think tank participants systematically prune potential approaches until a desirable research method is identified.

RESULTS To date, the most recent 7 think tanks have produced fundable research designs, with 1 being funded by a K award and 4 by R01 grants. All participating investigators attributed much of their success to think tank participation. Lessons learned include (1) the importance of careful selection of participating methodologists, (2) all think tank communities of inquiry must go through 4 stages of development from pseudocommunity to community, and (3) the critical importance of listening by the investigator.

CONCLUSION Researchers and academic departments could use this process locally to develop innovative research designs.

Key Words: Research design • faculty development • innovation • multimethods

This article has been cited by other articles:

				K. C. Stange In This Issue: Capacity for Caring and Generating New Knowledge Ann. Fam. Med, September 1, 2006; 4(5): 386 - 388. [Full Text] [PDF]