This has been a great thread to read.
Overall it seems to me that the reason audit has been traditionally
sepparated from research because of the motive difference of those taking
part. In research it is to find out about, in audit it is to look at systems
for delivering the results of research. Outcomes are predefined in audit.
There is also a difference in funding of the two modes.
In research the researcher tries to get people to fund their
research(often, though pharmaceutical companies may take researchers and set
tasks to acheive), where as audit involves rewards, at times, in the form of
money for acheiving targets. It may be rewarded by an improved service or
efficiency.
Some audit is done by people who also do research.The boundaries are most
often blurred in these, as the methods used for the audit are usually more
rigorous than when done by those who do not have formal research training.
In audit generalisability is not important( though in some it may be
possible) as the audit is done to "improve" the situation in the place where
it is done.
PDSA cycles used in the collaboratives are one stage further away from
generalisability, in that no scientific sampling is necessary, the emphasis
is on change which can be reversed if it does not seem to work. It also
makes change less frightening.
Audit can be taken into a definition of research, and the arguments make me
think of those about qualitative research versus quantitative, which I have
heard over the years. These modes are all looking to answer different
questions.
What they have in common is that they involve the human inate curiosity and
a wish to change our environment.
|