"It's Almost as if Stakeholder Engagement is the Annoying 'Have-to-do'…": Can Ethics Review Help Address the "3 Ts" of Tokenism, Toxicity, and Tailoring in Stakeholder Engagement?

IF 1.7 4区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics Pub Date : 2022-07-01 Epub Date: 2022-02-14 DOI:10.1177/15562646221078415
Abigail Wilkinson, Catherine Slack, Siyabonga Thabethe, Jessica Salzwedel
{"title":"\"<i>It's Almost as if Stakeholder Engagement is the Annoying 'Have-to-do'…</i>\": Can Ethics Review Help Address the \"3 Ts\" of Tokenism, Toxicity, and Tailoring in Stakeholder Engagement?","authors":"Abigail Wilkinson,&nbsp;Catherine Slack,&nbsp;Siyabonga Thabethe,&nbsp;Jessica Salzwedel","doi":"10.1177/15562646221078415","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Ethics guidance recommends that researchers engage stakeholders and that RECs review research for such engagement. The ethics review process may present a unique opportunity to support stakeholder engagement practices for HIV prevention studies. We conducted 28 interviews with experts from 12 countries to explore this issue, and analyzed the data using Thematic Analysis. We found that the value of engagement and review processes was strongly endorsed. However, we identified 3 major thematic complexities, namely: \"Tokenism\" where processes risk being \"tick-box\"; \"Toxicity\", where practices may inadvertently have negative consequences; and \"Tailoring\", where processes need careful variation in intensity. We make recommendations for how these \"Ts\" can be addressed during the review process to help contribute to thoughtful review of meaningful stakeholder engagement in research.</p>","PeriodicalId":50211,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/13/ef/10.1177_15562646221078415.PMC9136363.pdf","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646221078415","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/2/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Ethics guidance recommends that researchers engage stakeholders and that RECs review research for such engagement. The ethics review process may present a unique opportunity to support stakeholder engagement practices for HIV prevention studies. We conducted 28 interviews with experts from 12 countries to explore this issue, and analyzed the data using Thematic Analysis. We found that the value of engagement and review processes was strongly endorsed. However, we identified 3 major thematic complexities, namely: "Tokenism" where processes risk being "tick-box"; "Toxicity", where practices may inadvertently have negative consequences; and "Tailoring", where processes need careful variation in intensity. We make recommendations for how these "Ts" can be addressed during the review process to help contribute to thoughtful review of meaningful stakeholder engagement in research.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“似乎利益相关者参与是恼人的‘必须要做的’……”:道德审查能否帮助解决利益相关者参与中的象征性、毒性和剪裁的“3t”?
伦理指导建议研究人员与利益相关者接触,RECs审查研究是否有这种接触。伦理审查过程可能提供一个独特的机会,以支持利益相关者参与艾滋病毒预防研究的做法。我们对来自12个国家的28位专家进行了访谈,并使用专题分析方法对数据进行了分析。我们发现,参与和审查过程的价值得到了强烈认可。然而,我们确定了3个主要的主题复杂性,即:“象征性”,过程可能是“打勾框”;“毒性”,即做法可能在无意中产生负面后果;以及“裁剪”,即过程需要小心地改变强度。我们就如何在审查过程中解决这些“t”提出建议,以帮助对有意义的利益相关者参与研究进行深思熟虑的审查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
7.70%
发文量
30
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics (JERHRE) is the only journal in the field of human research ethics dedicated exclusively to empirical research. Empirical knowledge translates ethical principles into procedures appropriate to specific cultures, contexts, and research topics. The journal''s distinguished editorial and advisory board brings a range of expertise and international perspective to provide high-quality double-blind peer-reviewed original articles.
期刊最新文献
Understanding of Key Considerations for Effective Community Engagement in Genetics and Genomics Research: A Qualitative Study of the Perspectives of Research Ethics Committee Members and National Research Regulators in a low Resource Setting. Vulnerable Research Participant Policies at U.S. Academic Institutions. Considerations for the Design of Informed Consent in Digital Health Research: Participant Perspectives. Public Perspectives on Consent for and Governance of Biobanking in Japan. Comparison of Instructions to Authors and Reporting of Ethics Components in Selected African Biomedical Journals: 2008 and 2017.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1