Exploring the development and impact of new and remodelled housing initiatives aimed at older people involves a complex array of research tools. Bringing such complexity together in a meaningful and integrated way poses significant challenges at all stages of the research process, from design, to fieldwork, analysis, writing up and publication. The importance of using a variety of research methods when seeking to understand complex human experience is well established. However, the paradigmatic, political and practical challenges of doing so are less well debated and documented. Lack of understanding of these issues, and the corresponding gap in the research literature, is potentially a serious threat to the integrity of the evidence base on which both service provision and policy making are formulated.

This symposium brought together colleagues currently undertaking research on a range of initiatives around the UK in order to examine the methodological challenges we face. It included short presentations from each participant, followed by an open discussion of the issues. Participants were:

• Karen Croucher, York University – ‘Hartfields: what documentary evidence does, and doesn’t tell us’.
• Julienne Hanson, on behalf of the interdisciplinary team from UCL and King's College London - ‘Remodelling sheltered housing and residential care: methodological challenges’.
• Bernadette Bartlam on behalf of the Keele team – ‘Denham Garden Village: the challenges of developing a participatory action research project’.
• Robin Darton, on behalf of PSSRU team, Kent - 'DH supported schemes: self-completed or interviewer-administered tools; and staff or residents as respondents?'
• Simon Evans, University of the West of England, Bristol. ‘Research or marketing? The challenges of managing relationships with funders.’

The session was chaired by Mim Bernard from Keele University and Sheila Peace from the Open University led the discussion that followed. The presentations and the wide ranging and frank discussions raised a number of key issues, including:

• When, as researchers, is it most appropriate to become involved in evaluations and research of these kinds? When does the research actually start?
• What are appropriate designs for research of this nature? Can it be participatory? Who gets involved and who doesn’t? What are the implications for our findings? Are the findings already ‘set’? How innovative can the work be? What sorts of data are available and what is missing? How rigorous is the work we are undertaking? What are the implications for confidentiality?
• Should we be sharing and comparing more material between projects? Can we develop comparative tools across projects and, if so, which are the key issues we need to address?
• What political challenges do we face when it comes to writing up, presenting findings and getting agreement over publication? Can we ‘bite the hand that feeds us’? How can ‘negative’ findings be positively communicated?

Around these issues were clearly identifiable themes: ethics as process both at the level of the individual researcher and the research team; what counts as evidence and who decides; and research management in interdisciplinary work. As ever, the discussion left us all with many more questions than answers. It also left us with a real sense that the challenges we grapple with are not unique but shared through the group and yet again BSG provided a forum of support in which to explore risky and sometimes uncomfortable issues. Realising that so many of these issues and themes are not specific to this area of work, we are currently having ongoing discussions about how best to engage in broader dialogue with colleagues across disciplines and research topics. Many thanks to all the Sheffield organising team for their support in facilitating such a useful event.

For those interested in the work of HCOPRnet group, and for more details on the presentations in the symposium, please visit:
www.hcoprnet.org.uk