Table 1.

Active Involvement of Users in Research Observation Schedule coding list and descriptions

Observation/Coding	Description	Group dynamic component
interpersonal relations
1. Positive interactions	How the advisors and the research team interact. Take note of positive interactions (e.g. humorous or appreciative remarks).	Interpersonal attraction and cohesion
2. Reference to advisors’ expertise	How the researchers refer to the advisors and/or advisor input. Take note of comments that infer skill or knowledge (e.g. use of terms such as ‘expert’, ‘important’, ‘valuable’, ‘helpful’ ‘interested to know what you think’).	Social integration and influence
3. Linguistic barriers to advisor participation	The accessibility of the conversation to the advisors. Take note of any linguistic barriers (e.g. scientific language that is difficult to understand; interpretation issues, such as insufficient time to translate and miscommunications).	Communication processes and interaction patterns
4. Advisors showing a lack of interest/ being disengaged	Advisor body language. Take note of gestures or actions that infer a lack of interest (e.g. yawning, looking away from the point of focus, looking at mobile phone, doodling, checking the time).	Interpersonal attraction and cohesion
nature of advisor contributions
5. Invitations to speak	Researchers directly asking advisors to comment. This can be a specific question, or asking for any further thoughts on a point of discussion.	Communication processes and interaction patterns
6. Taking the initiative to speak	Advisors providing comments without being directly asked. This can include an advisor spontaneously adding to a response of another advisor (even if the first advisor was directly asked a question).	Communication processes and interaction patterns
7. Passively agreeing with researchers	Advisors’ responses to researcher questions. Take note of occasions when advisors appear to agree with researchers without active consideration. It is the level of engagement that is important. Active agreement with researchers should not be scored negatively.	Power and control
8. Offering insights appearing irrelevant to discussions	Advisors making comments that do not appear to be connected to the current conversation, or providing an unnecessary level of detail.	Communication processes and interaction patterns
how advisors guided research development
9. Challenging and suggesting alternatives to researchers	Advisors questioning the logic or approach of the researchers and/or providing different option(s) to consider. The relevance of challenges should be considered. Only constructive challenges should be scored positively.	Social integration and influence
10. Incorporation of advisors’ ideas in research planning	Advisor comments influencing the research plan. This could be in relation to any aspect of the research (e.g. questionnaire selection or modifications, study age range, recruitment strategies, interpretation of findings etc). It can include intentions to act on advisors’ comments (e.g. ‘We should try to pilot that questionnaire with more people’).	Social integration and influence
11. Ideas being ignored/treated with disregard	Active consideration of advisors’ ideas. Take note of occasions when advisors’ input appears to be overlooked. Actively challenging the advisors’ input should not be scored negatively. It is a lack of consideration that is the focus.	Power and control
12. Decisions made without the input of advisors	Research project decisions or intentions. Take note of when decisions appear to be made and whether advisors were involved in the process. Be mindful of decisions made in break‐out group formats or during breaks. The decision does not have to necessarily reflect the advisors’ choice, but their input should have been sought/offered and considered.	Power and control