This is a timely and sensitive paper in which you seek to show how you have worked with people who have mental health difficulties, in seeking to improve internet access and usage with this community of users.
You set the context well by summarising your approach to working with individuals at the outset, reinforcing this with strong statements about your own values in section 3.2. I am not an expert in your particular area of mental health, so cannot comment comprehensively about your literature review or the web design issues that you raise in section 2.
In section 3, I found some inconsistencies with voice a little disruptive at times. You sometimes address the reader as â€śyouâ€ť (as in â€śYou may state what you believe in, or valueâ€ť but later write in the third person (â€śThe researcher then gathers evidence to show how they have developed their own learningâ€ť. And you speak in the first person, which is appropriate given the Living Educational Theory approach youâ€™re using (â€śI feel that not only must I be involved in my research, but â€Iâ€™ must be at the centre of my researchâ€ť). Ronan, Iâ€™d just go back and check the consistency of usage throughout the document.
In section 3.3, you indicate that false names have been used if people refused permission to use their real names, but not indicated whether you had to delete â€imagesâ€™. Your previous statement said that â€śMost agreed that their image and real names could be usedâ€ť so this raises questions in the readerâ€™s mind about whether ethics meant you had to delete or obscure peopleâ€™s faces, though I didnâ€™t notice this in any of the video clips.
There are lots of places where I put ticks in the margin (my shorthand for â€Yes, I agree!â€™) I have done this in 3.2 where you talked about ethical clearance; in 3.3 where you talked about your validation group; in the numbered points at the end of this section where you stated your desire to be judged on whether your educational values are clearly revealed and justified; in 4.3 where you clearly indicate that youâ€™ve genuinely involved your service users and state the ethical grounds for doing so; in 4.6 where Jack has commended your work; later in that section where you commend the service users for their time and effort, and that they have influenced your learning. At the end of 4.3.4 I have written â€śgreat structuringâ€ť as you lead the reader from Cycle One to Cycle Two.
Clearly coming through your description of the methodology, implementation and evaluation is your desire to really make these technologies work for the users, to help them to access what they believe they need from the internet. I did have some concerns when watching the videoclips, as some of your questions appear to â€leadâ€™ respondents in a way that is at variance with the way I have been taught to interview. However, it is possible that this degree of leading may be necessary given your client group. This is a question that should be answered by someone more familiar with the needs and requirements of this group than myself.
Certainly, your service users were very positive about what they had been able to achieve with your improvements. It is hard to see how, ethically, one could carry out work such as you have done without the informed, active involvement of these people. If you had just implemented design changes without their input, making assumptions about what you thought they needed, you would have violated your own values; from what you have said of good practice in your field, also current norms; and been at risk of inflicting changes that might not have worked at all well for your service users.
Ronan, I do believe that this is a strong paper, about which I would recommend few changes besides the relatively minor ones I have raised â€“ the voice issue, clarification about the â€imageâ€™ obliteration (if used), and perhaps a response to my comment about leading your respondents. Otherwise, I think the paper reads very well and that your values and the standards against which you wish to be judged, are clearly and appropriately expressed and met.
There are a few minor typos that I can alert you to if you wish to contact me by email â€“ not worth mentioning in this analysis.