IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v8y2021i1d10.1057_s41599-021-00770-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Expect the unexpected? Challenges of prospectively exploring stakeholder engagement in research

Author

Listed:
  • Alison O’Shea

    (University of London)

  • Annette Boaz

    (University of London
    London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine)

  • Stephen Hanney

    (Brunel University)

  • Maarten Kok

    (VU University Amsterdam
    Erasmus University)

  • Robert Borst

    (Erasmus University)

  • Subhash Pokhrel

    (Brunel University)

  • Teresa Jones

    (Brunel University)

Abstract

Stakeholder engagement in research is increasingly viewed as making a major contribution to assisting impact. This paper draws on a longitudinal, prospective impact study exploring stakeholder engagement in a 3-year tobacco control research project which used stakeholder engagement in the development, testing and dissemination of its return on investment tool. The paper presents the challenges of data collection when undertaking prospective research on stakeholder engagement in health-related research. The impact study used mixed methods of data collection to explore stakeholder engagement in the target project, comprising surveys, interviews and observations of meetings and events involving stakeholders. Stakeholder engagement that actually occurred in the target project, and the data collection methods of stakeholder engagement that were actually used in the impact study, varied substantially from those intended in each case. Data collection for the impact study was dependent on the target project’s stakeholder engagement, which became substantially reduced. Modifications to data collection for the impact study were required. One of the reasons for the reduction of stakeholder engagement was linked to constraints on the target project to meet non-negotiable deadlines. Another factor was concerns about overburdening stakeholders. The knock-on effect of reduced stakeholder engagement highlighted the impact study’s lack of control over its data collection, which was related to the prospective nature of the study. The authors acknowledge that an advantage of a retrospective approach over a prospective one is researchers knowing about data availability and accessibility from the outset. However, the prospective approach of the impact study enabled insight into stakeholder engagement in real-time: how and when it occurred, the challenges, and the experiences of stakeholders and the target project researchers. While the quantity of data gathered was considerably less than anticipated, the quality of data was rich and enabled the impact study objectives to be achieved. With increasing emphasis on public engagement in research and calls for engagement to be evaluated for impact, this paper aims—by highlighting the challenges the impact study experienced—to provide some insight to future research that seeks to respond to those calls.

Suggested Citation

  • Alison O’Shea & Annette Boaz & Stephen Hanney & Maarten Kok & Robert Borst & Subhash Pokhrel & Teresa Jones, 2021. "Expect the unexpected? Challenges of prospectively exploring stakeholder engagement in research," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-8, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:8:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-021-00770-5
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-021-00770-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-021-00770-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-021-00770-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kathryn Oliver & Annette Boaz, 2019. "Transforming evidence for policy and practice: creating space for new conversations," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-10, December.
    2. Cheung, Kei Long & Evers, Silvia M.A.A. & Hiligsmann, Mickaël & Vokó, Zoltán & Pokhrel, Subhash & Jones, Teresa & Muñoz, Celia & Wolfenstetter, Silke B. & Józwiak-Hagymásy, Judit & de Vries, Hein, 2016. "Understanding the stakeholders’ intention to use economic decision-support tools: A cross-sectional study with the tobacco return on investment tool," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 46-54.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jonathan Breckon, 2022. "Communicating and using systematic reviews—Learning from other disciplines," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(4), December.
    2. Sachit Mahajan & Ming-Kuang Chung & Jenny Martinez & Yris Olaya & Dirk Helbing & Ling-Jyh Chen, 2022. "Translating citizen-generated air quality data into evidence for shaping policy," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-18, December.
    3. Elizabeth N. Farley-Ripple & Kathryn Oliver & Annette Boaz, 2020. "Mapping the community: use of research evidence in policy and practice," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-10, December.
    4. Mark Rickinson & Connie Cirkony & Lucas Walsh & Jo Gleeson & Mandy Salisbury & Annette Boaz, 2021. "Insights from a cross-sector review on how to conceptualise the quality of use of research evidence," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-12, December.
    5. Valérie Pattyn & Marjolein Bouterse, 2020. "Explaining use and non-use of policy evaluations in a mature evaluation setting," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-9, December.
    6. Timo Y. Maas & Annet Pauwelussen & Esther Turnhout, 2022. "Co-producing the science–policy interface: towards common but differentiated responsibilities," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-11, December.
    7. Diana Arnautu & Christian Dagenais, 2021. "Use and effectiveness of policy briefs as a knowledge transfer tool: a scoping review," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-14, December.
    8. Gregory Merlo & Katie Page & Pauline Zardo & Nicholas Graves, 2019. "Applying an Implementation Framework to the Use of Evidence from Economic Evaluations in Making Healthcare Decisions," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 533-543, August.
    9. Federica Angeli & Silvia Camporesi & Giorgia Dal Fabbro, 2021. "The COVID-19 wicked problem in public health ethics: conflicting evidence, or incommensurable values?," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-8, December.
    10. Michelle Farr & Philippa Davies & Heidi Andrews & Darren Bagnall & Emer Brangan & Rosemary Davies, 2021. "Co-producing knowledge in health and social care research: reflections on the challenges and ways to enable more equal relationships," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-7, December.
    11. Steve Connelly & Dave Vanderhoven & Robert Rutherfoord & Liz Richardson & Peter Matthews, 2021. "Translating research for policy: the importance of equivalence, function, and loyalty," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, December.
    12. Yi Ran & Yuanyuan Hu & Shouming Chen & Fangjun Qiu & Ahmed Rabeeu, 2022. "The Impact of Two-Invoice System on Pharmaceutical Manufacturers’ Selling Expenses in China: A Difference-in-Differences Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-18, April.
    13. Hannah B. Love & Alyssa Stephens & Bailey K. Fosdick & Elizabeth Tofany & Ellen R. Fisher, 2022. "The impact of gender diversity on scientific research teams: a need to broaden and accelerate future research," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-12, December.
    14. Axford, Nick & Morpeth, Louise & Bjornstad, Gretchen & Hobbs, Tim & Berry, Vashti, 2022. "“What works” registries of interventions to improve child and youth psychosocial outcomes: A critical appraisal," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    15. Chumba RKB & Ogemah V & Oulu M & Muyekho FN & Wambui CC & Aluso L & Mugendy MM, 2024. "Modeling a Sub-National Agroecology Policy for Sustainable Agriculture: The Case of Vihiga County, Kenya," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 8(4), pages 2574-2599, April.
    16. Mai, Nhat Chi, 2022. "The Impact of Two-Invoice System on Pharmaceutical Manufacturers’ Selling Expenses in China: A Difference-In-Differences Approach," OSF Preprints 68fsb, Center for Open Science.
    17. Vivian Tseng & Angela Bednarek & Kristy Faccer, 2022. "How can funders promote the use of research? Three converging views on relational research," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-11, December.
    18. Livia Fritz & Ulli Vilsmaier & Garance Clément & Laurie Daffe & Anna Pagani & Melissa Pang & Daniel Gatica-Perez & Vincent Kaufmann & Marie Santiago Delefosse & Claudia R. Binder, 2022. "Explore, engage, empower: methodological insights into a transformative mixed methods study tackling the COVID-19 lockdown," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-13, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:8:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-021-00770-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.