Donna Frost

Discussion and conclusions 265 8 responsible in our communicationwith people at the edges of the inquiry.We spoke honestly, for example, about thepossibility that peoplemaysaymore in conversation with us than originally intended and the various ways that such information could be retracted or removed from the research record. We took care to remind people that we were engaged in research activities and not just a casual conversation and to create situations in which it was easier for potential participants to say ‘no’ rather than ‘yes’ to participation. Importantly, during conversations with participants, if they asked for our response to the nursing encounter we had witnessed, we didn’t divert or dissemble. If we felt able we too used association cards, for example, to represent our reaction and as a setting off point for our contribution to the dialogue which followed. If it didn’t feel appropriate, for example because the other person had not yet shared their views, we were open about our intentions and the process, and came to a mutually agreed plan for the direction of the conversation. Working like this opened my eyes to what recognizing participants as people with self determination looks like in action. When my intentions and ways of doing were transparent, authentic and person-centred (McCormack & McCance, 2010 , 2017 ) I created the space to notice and heed the boundaries of the other person. I became aware of the ways in which participation could help them tell their stories; not just to us, but to themselves as well (cf. Horsfall & Titchen, 2007 ; 2011 ). In this way I came to experience, and later to understand, how merging of horizons could happen with people in any part of the inquiry and how, when the right conditions were created, participation could support the co-creation of meaning about the nursing encounter for both the participant and the researcher. My understandings and conceptualisations of what participation in research could look like and the limits, or rather potential, of reciprocity and mutuality were expanded. Kidd, Kenny and McKinstry ( 2014 ) describe how a successful relational participatory process challenges the researcher’s assumptions about their own clinical practice. Within the CCCI my assumptions about my research practice were challenged. Stuhlfauth, Knutsen and Foss ( 2019 ) examined the roles and positioning of researchers and patient representatives as they participated together as members of focus groups looking at both parties’ experiences with user involvment in research. Their findings suggest that although roles and positions were constantly changing throughout the research, the researchers remained in positions of power. Nierse’s ( 2019 ) doctoral research into user involvement in health research agenda setting, however, demonstrates that mutually satisfying and effective collaboration is possible when the curiosity of willing and able participants is honored. She