Collaborative self-study explores how researchers navigate challenges through strengths-based approaches.
Although the transformative processes of becoming an activist researcher have been increasingly documented, few studies have done so from a strengths-based, salutogenic perspective. This situation leaves somewhat unclear how activist researchers draw on both individual and sociocultural resources to create meaningful, coherent research experiences while navigating the challenges and stresses of activist research. This collaborative self-study aimed to explore the learning journeys of three researchers enacting a salutogenic and activist strengths-based approach. Data were generated via collaborative discussions (group debriefing sessions, final focus groups and follow-up meetings) and a shared reflective journal. These data were inductively and deductively analysed using reflective thematic analysis. The river of life metaphor suggested itself as a fruitful way of understanding and depicting the dynamic, flowing nature of the researchers’ journeys. The findings illustrate how the researchers (1) developed a sense of coherence throughout their research journeys by cultivating comprehensibility, manageability and meaningfulness; (2) learned to make sense of complex and unpredictable contexts and transform their initial confusion into clear, purposeful action; (3) drew on personal, social and professional resources to adapt to shifting challenges and develop strategies to navigate uncertainty with confidence; and (4) were sustained by a strong sense of purpose through moments of insecurity and exhaustion, enabling them to reshape their professional identities and remain committed to the process. These findings highlight the value of salutogenesis for researchers as both an analytical lens for examining the actors and actions under study and as a resource for making sense of their own experiences of becoming particular kinds of researchers.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sáez-Gallego et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: