“ 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
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 17789723 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Abigail Wilkinson (0000-0002-3715-2847, University of KwaZulu-Natal, corresponding author), C Slack (0000-0002-6608-0248, University of KwaZulu-Natal), Siyabonga Thabethe (University of KwaZulu-Natal), Jessica Salzwedel (AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition) |
| Year | 2022 |
| Volume | 17 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 292-303 |
| Publication date | 2022-02-14 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1556-2646 • E-ISSN: 1556-2654 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1177/15562646221078415 |
| PMID | 35164594 |
| OpenAlex | W4213019860 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 7 |
| References cited | 32 |
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
Business ethics · Engineering ethics · Political science · Public engagement · Public relations · Qualitative research · Social science · Sociology · Stakeholder · Stakeholder analysis · Stakeholder engagement · Thematic analysis · Tokenism · Engineering · Ethics in Clinical Research · Ethics in medical practice · Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
‘They (researchers) don't have to justify their presence, why do we have to justify ours?’
Stakeholders’ engagement for improved health outcomes
Dogs on Call”
Ready, Set, Sort! A User-Guide to Card Sorts for Community-Engaged Empirical Bioethics
The “3 Ps” of EmPowerment, Partnership and Protection - Stakeholder Perceptions of Beneficial Outcomes of Engagement in HIV Prevention Trials
Invited Peer Commentary
Increasing the Value of Health Intervention Trials
Grand Challenges in Global Health
Sampling and Sampling Methods
Null
Thematic analysis.
Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (Coreq)
A Systematic Review of the Empirical Literature Evaluating IRBs
Who is answerable to whom? Exploring the complex relationship between researchers, community and Community Advisory Board (CAB) members in two research studies in Zambia
Using the Emanuel et al. Framework to Assess Ethical Issues Raised by a Biomedical Research Ethics Committee in South Africa
Research Ethics Committees’ Oversight of Biomedical Research in South Africa
What Can IRBs Learn From CABs? A Qualitative Analysis of the Experiences of Recruitment and Training of Nonscientist Members on Research Review Boards
How to learn to love your research ethics committee
Why would you promote something that is less percent safer than a condom
| Unique citing works | 7 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1.75 |
| Citation span | 2022 - 2026 (5) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 6 |