Involvement in research without compromising research quality

Stewart, Ruth; Liabo, Kristin

doi:10.1258/jhsrp.2012.011086

Cited by 57 publications

(67 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Collaboration for Environmental Evidence guidance noted that involving many people at an early stage may be particularly critical when the findings are likely to be contested (Fazey et al, 2004). However, stakeholder input needed to be carefully managed to avoid the question becoming too broad, complex or just impossible to answer (Stewart and Liabo, 2012). Review teams faced decisions about: which judgements they were willing and able to share with other stakeholders; which stakeholders could help make these judgements; who in the review team had the skills to consult or collaborate with stakeholders; what advance information would help stakeholders prepare for discussing the review; how much time was available for thought and discussion; what costs would be accrued; and how stakeholders' contributions would be acknowledged in the report (Rees and Oliver, 2012).…”

Section: Guidance For Stakeholder Involvementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Policy-relevant systematic reviews to strengthen health systems: models and mechanisms to support their production

Oliver¹,

Dickson²

2016

Evidence &Amp; Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Support for producing systematic reviews about health systems is less well developed than for those about clinical practice. From interviewing policy makers and systematic reviewers we identified institutional mechanisms which bring systematic reviews and policy priorities closer by harnessing organisational and individual motivations, emphasising engagement between policy and research, embedding efforts in conducive structures and supporting them with formalised procedures. Four models combine mechanisms appropriately to suit the initial degree of clarity and consensus of key issues underpinning the policy problem or research question, and whether the review is for a specific decision or widespread use. key words systematic reviews • policy-relevant • health systems

show abstract

Section: Guidance For Stakeholder Involvementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Policy-relevant systematic reviews to strengthen health systems: models and mechanisms to support their production

Oliver¹,

Dickson²

2016

Evidence &Amp; Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We are cautious about advocating such a complete blurring of professions, in which the profession of researcher and its associated skill set become obsolete as this function is primarily exercised by users. Stewart and Liabo (2012) argue for contributions from all (research users and producers), but taking care not to diminish the technical skills required to conduct research. In 2017, we reflect on this and extend the argument that co-production equally runs the risk of diminishing the technical skills of civil servants.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The forgotten example of 'settlement sociology': Gender, research, communities, universities and policymaking in Britain and the USA, 1880–1920

Oakley¹

2017

Research for All

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, we examine a key premise underlying evidence-informed decisionmaking (EIDM) -that research is for all, including service users and potential users, service providers and a wide range of decision-makers, from those running local services to national government officials and international agencies. Qualitative data collected on terminology used when writing and talking about EIDM over a period of 15 years during the implementation of a number of capacity development programmes in South Africa were combined with critical reflections in practice. Findings reveal that tensions exist in the titles and terminology used to describe the relationships between academia and government or between research and policy, and that these tensions have shifted over time, but not necessarily diminished. An analysis and critique of this terminology is provided to identify and unpack these tensions, which challenge the central premise of 'research for all'. The perpetuation of divisive labels that profile people, of job titles and specific terminology that describe agency, as well as the use of technical language, continues to exclude people from the approach. These have the effect of setting up users against producers of evidence. In conclusion, we challenge the advocates of the EIDM approach to review language and terminology to be more inclusive, to enable relationship-building and ease the process of engagement to ensure evidence-informed decision-making is true to its premise that research is for all.Keywords: evidence-informed; evidence-based; terminology; division; inclusion Key messages• This article establishes that how people write and talk about evidence-informed decision-making can polarize and exclude stakeholders, undermining the key premise of evidence-informed decision-making that research is for all.• It finds that the tensions in the terminology we use to describe the relationships between academia and government, and research and policy have shifted over time, but have not necessarily diminished.• This article challenges us to review our language and terminology around evidenceinformed decision-making to be more inclusive, to enable relationship-building and ease the process of engagement to ensure that all actors can contribute equally to the process of using evidence to inform policy and practice decisions. Terminology and tensions within evidence-informed decision-making in South Africa 253Research for All 1 (2) 2017

show abstract

“…There is a body of literature that aims to understand and advise how best to elicit contributions from stakeholders, including consideration of who initiates engagement [1]. There is however less guidance on what to do with the contributions stakeholders make, particularly if they contradict what methodologists recommend [2].…”

Section: Open Accessmentioning

confidence: 99%

How stakeholder engagement has led us to reconsider definitions of rigour in systematic reviews

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As a methodology designed to inform policy and practice decisions, it is particularly important to ensure that systematic reviews are shaped by those who will use them. There is a broad range of approaches for engagement of the potential users of reviews that aim to elicit their priorities and needs and incorporate these into the review design. This incorporation of their priorities and needs can create a tension between their calls for locally-specific, often rapidly-produced evidence syntheses for policy needs and the production of unbiased, generalisable, globally-relevant systematic reviews. This tension raises the question of what is a 'gold standard' review. This commentary aims to address head on this often undiscussed key challenge with regard to stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: that responding to stakeholders can mean reconsidering what makes a review rigorous. The commentary proposes a new model to address these tensions that combines the production of public-good reviews, with stakeholder-driven syntheses. In this, it presents the approach taken by our team at the Africa Centre for Evidence at the University of Johannesburg to achieve two different but complementary outputs: (i) 'public goods' , namely comprehensive and generalisable systematic reviews of the evidence available for and accessible to a global audience, and (ii) locallyfocussed, stakeholder-driven, pragmatically-produced syntheses for decision-making at a policy level. The designed approach incorporates balancing the formal requirements of full, published systematic reviews with engagement of national and international decision-makers. It also accommodates space to move from stakeholder engagement to co-production, where stakeholders are engaged to such an extent that they become partners in the production of the review. These approaches are integrated into the traditional steps for producing a systematic review with implications as to what constitutes a gold standard approach to synthesising evidence.

show abstract

Involvement in research without compromising research quality

Cited by 57 publications

References 12 publications

Policy-relevant systematic reviews to strengthen health systems: models and mechanisms to support their production

Policy-relevant systematic reviews to strengthen health systems: models and mechanisms to support their production

The forgotten example of 'settlement sociology': Gender, research, communities, universities and policymaking in Britain and the USA, 1880–1920

How stakeholder engagement has led us to reconsider definitions of rigour in systematic reviews

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About