1 University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland.
2 University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland.
Qual Health Res. 2019 Feb;29(3):431-444. doi: 10.1177/1049732318800675. Epub 2018 Oct 19.
Citizens' juries provide deliberative fora within which members of the public can debate complex policy issues. In this article, we reflect on our experience of undertaking three citizens' juries addressing health inequalities, to explore the positive and facilitative role that humor can play within group-based research focusing on sensitive health policy issues. We demonstrate how both participants and researchers engaged in the production of humor in ways which troubled prevailing power dynamics and facilitated positive relationships. We conclude by recommending that researchers, particularly health policy researchers and those pursuing the kind of lengthy group-based fora associated with deliberative research, consider the positive role humor can play when engaged reflexively. In so doing, we make a major contribution to extant literature on both deliberative fora (which is yet to consider humor's facilitative capacities) and the role of humor in qualitative (health) research (which rarely explores researcher complicity in humor production).
公民陪审团为公众提供了一个审议的论坛，让他们可以就复杂的政策问题进行辩论。在本文中，我们反思了我们进行三次公民陪审团的经验，以探讨在关注敏感健康政策问题的基于群体的研究中，幽默可以发挥的积极和促进作用。我们展示了参与者和研究人员如何以困扰主流权力动态的方式参与幽默的创作，并促进了积极的关系。最后，我们建议研究人员，特别是健康政策研究人员和那些从事与审议研究相关的长期基于群体的论坛的研究人员，考虑在进行反思性研究时幽默可以发挥的积极作用。通过这样做，我们为关于审议论坛（尚未考虑幽默的促进作用）和幽默在定性（健康）研究中的作用的现有文献做出了重大贡献（很少探讨研究人员在幽默创作中的共谋关系）。
