By Michelle Banfield
How can stakeholder engagement in research be effectively planned? What parameters need to be taken into account? How can flexibility be built in to accommodate different levels of researcher and stakeholder experience?
The framework presented here was developed for health services research, but is more broadly applicable. The framework has three separate dimensions.
- The stakeholders to involve
- The stages of the research at which they will be involved
- The level of involvement for each stakeholder group at each stage.
When combined, these dimensions form an easy to use matrix to plan the involvement of stakeholders at the initiation of the project. The model is designed to break planning into manageable pieces. This encourages thinking “outside the box” in terms of design and methods, giving stakeholders the opportunity to decide how they would like to contribute and reducing the chances of imposing the researchers’ plans upon them.
The stakeholder engagement matrix
The relevant stakeholders will vary from project to project and it is helpful to consider everyone who has something useful to contribute to understanding or acting on the problem. There are also multiple ways of describing the stages of research, with the five stages shown in the figure below providing a straight-forward characterisation that is broadly applicable.
As the figure below demonstrates, when the first two dimensions (stakeholders and research stages) are combined, they form a blank matrix into which research planners can insert level of involvement ‘markers’ to complete the plan of involvement in their project.
(Source: Banfield, Yen and Newby 2011)
The level of engagement shown in the figure below is based on Arnstein’s ladder (1969), a description of which can be found in Katrin Prager’s blog post comparing participation and co-creation.
(Source: Banfield, Yen and Newby 2011)
The “best” involvement is that which is appropriate to the project as well as to the skills and experience with collaborative research of all stakeholders including the researchers. This is not always at the highest end of the scale.
A completed matrix may then look something like the figure below (based on a fictitious example), where:
- there is joint planning among all stakeholder groups when deciding what to research
- researchers have greater responsibility for deciding on methods and carrying out the project, with some consultation and advice from stakeholders
- consumers and practitioners have more responsibility when the research findings are disseminated
- completing the cycle (and beginning a new cycle) with decisions on the next steps such as implementation plans and further research is again a joint planning process.
(Source: Banfield, Yen and Newby 2011)
A key feature of the proposed framework is flexibility. Researchers are not constrained by applying one level of involvement to their entire project or to all the involved stakeholders. Further, the plan should not be considered as fixed, but rather to be modifiable throughout the course of the research if necessary. For example, if consumers showed particular interest in data collection and capacity existed to train them, it would be possible to update the above plan to reflect delegated responsibility for consumers in carrying out the research.
Final thoughts
Engagement needs to be appropriate – don’t set people up to fail, so consider:
- Skills of the people offering the engagement opportunity
- Skills of the people being engaged
- Build in plenty of time and resources for engagement – it should be central to program and research design, not an afterthought
- Ensure people involved in your work are not out-of-pocket (reimburse costs)
- Shared expectations are crucial to a good experiences for all parties
- Document your own assumptions about engagement, what you want from the process, boundaries of things that cannot be altered and areas of flexibility
- Document the same for the people being engaged
- Invest time discussing documented positions to reach a shared understanding
- Be prepared to negotiate and ensure you are in a position to use the feedback provided: it is tokenistic to consult stakeholders, especially people with lived experience, if you are unwilling or unable to use their recommendations.
Finally, the proposed framework is designed to encourage researchers to think about their own capabilities in managing the involvement process and to design a project that maximises the opportunity of all to succeed. Many researchers strongly support stakeholder involvement in research but feel they do not have sufficient experience and skills to undertake higher level involvement such as employing a consumer researcher. The proposed framework allows these researchers to start with involvement in specific parts of their research and build on their successes in a continual cycle of improvement and extension.
What do you think? Would you find such a framework useful? Does it cover everything that you think is important? Are there other frameworks that you use?
To find out more:
Banfield, M., Yen, L. and Newby, L. (2011). Stakeholder involvement in primary health care research: Report and recommendations. Australian Primary Health Care Research Institute: Canberra, Australia. Online (downloadable): https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/handle/1885/119219 (PDF 612KB).
Reference:
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35, 4: 216-224.
Biography: Michelle Banfield PhD is Head of Lived Experience Research at the Centre for Mental Health Research, Research School of Population Health, The Australian National University in Canberra, Australia. She leads a program of work that takes a health systems approach to evidence for effective mental health service provision. As a researcher with lived experience of mental illness, her research has a strong engagement and translational focus. She conducts research in collaboration with other consumers, carers and stakeholders to develop and implement effective mental health services and policy reform.
Michelle Banfield is a member of blog partner PopulationHealthXchange, which is in the Research School of Population Health at The Australian National University.