The ECOUTER methodology for stakeholder engagement in translational research

BMC Medical Ethics 18 (1):24 (2017)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Because no single person or group holds knowledge about all aspects of research, mechanisms are needed to support knowledge exchange and engagement. Expertise in the research setting necessarily includes scientific and methodological expertise, but also expertise gained through the experience of participating in research and/or being a recipient of research outcomes. Engagement is, by its nature, reciprocal and relational: the process of engaging research participants, patients, citizens and others brings them closer to the research but also brings the research closer to them. When translating research into practice, engaging the public and other stakeholders is explicitly intended to make the outcomes of translation relevant to its constituency of users. In practice, engagement faces numerous challenges and is often time-consuming, expensive and ‘thorny’ work. We explore the epistemic and ontological considerations and implications of four common critiques of engagement methodologies that contest: representativeness, communication and articulation, impacts and outcome, and democracy. The ECOUTER methodology addresses problems of representation and epistemic foundationalism using a methodology that asks, “How could it be otherwise?” ECOUTER affords the possibility of engagement where spatial and temporal constraints are present, relying on saturation as a method of ‘keeping open’ the possible considerations that might emerge and including reflexive use of qualitative analytic methods. This paper describes the ECOUTER process, focusing on one worked example and detailing lessons learned from four other pilots. ECOUTER uses mind-mapping techniques to ‘open up’ engagement, iteratively and organically. ECOUTER aims to balance the breadth, accessibility and user-determination of the scope of engagement. An ECOUTER exercise comprises four stages: engagement and knowledge exchange; analysis of mindmap contributions; development of a conceptual schema ; and feedback, refinement and development of recommendations. ECOUTER refuses fixed truths but also refuses a fixed nature. Its promise lies in its flexibility, adaptability and openness. ECOUTER will be formed and re-formed by the needs and creativity of those who use it.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,075

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Philosophy, methodology and educational research: Introduction.David Bridges & Richard Smith - 2006 - Journal of Philosophy of Education 40 (2):131–135.
The Balance Between Expertise and Authority in Citizen Engagement About New Biotechnology.David Castle - 2006 - Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology 9 (3):1-13.
School Engagement: A ‘Danse Macabre’?Shelby L. Sheppard - 2011 - Journal of Philosophy of Education 45 (1):111-123.
The Balance Between Expertise and Authority in Citizen Engagement About New Biotechnology.David Castle - 2006 - Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology 9 (3):1-13.
School Engagement: A 'Danse Macabre'?Shelby L. Sheppard - 2011 - Journal of Philosophy of Education 45 (1):111-123.

Analytics

Added to PP
2017-04-04

Downloads
32 (#500,820)

6 months
7 (#433,721)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Andrew Turner
Saint Mary Seminary and Graduate School of Theology

References found in this work

How to do things with words.John Langshaw Austin - 1962 - Oxford [Eng.]: Clarendon Press. Edited by Marina Sbisá & J. O. Urmson.
Of grammatology.Jacques Derrida - 1997 - Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Edited by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak.
The Subject and Power.Michel Foucault - 1982 - Critical Inquiry 8 (4):777-795.

View all 28 references / Add more references