Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35211657›Full record

ArticleWellcome open research2021

Towards a feminist philosophy of engagements in health-related research.

Sonja Erikainen, Ellen Stewart, Angela Marques Filipe, Sarah Chan, Sarah Cunningham-Burley, Sophie Ilson, Gabrielle King, Carol Porteous, Stephanie Sinclair, Jamie Webb

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Wellcome open research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Developing a Women's Thought Collective methodology for health research: The roles and responsibilities of researchers in the reflexive co-production of knowledge.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Sonja ErikainenCentre for Biomedicine, Self and Society, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH8 9AG, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1442-3050
Ellen StewartCentre for Biomedicine, Self and Society, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH8 9AG, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3013-1477
Angela Marques FilipeCentre for Biomedicine, Self and Society, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH8 9AG, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7899-7336
Sarah ChanCentre for Biomedicine, Self and Society, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH8 9AG, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0653-6741
Sarah Cunningham-BurleyCentre for Biomedicine, Self and Society, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH8 9AG, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0009-7653
Sophie IlsonCentre for Biomedicine, Self and Society, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH8 9AG, UK.
Gabrielle KingCentre for Biomedicine, Self and Society, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH8 9AG, UK.
Carol PorteousCentre for Biomedicine, Self and Society, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH8 9AG, UK.
Stephanie SinclairCentre for Biomedicine, Self and Society, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH8 9AG, UK.
Jamie WebbCentre for Biomedicine, Self and Society, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH8 9AG, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/S037578/2
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Engagement with publics, patients, and stakeholders is an important part of the health research environment today,and different modalities of 'engaged' health research have proliferated in recent years. Yet, th ere is no consensus on what, exactly, 'engaging' means, what it should look like, and what the aims, justifications, or motivations for it should be. In this paper, we set out what we see as important, outstanding challenges around the practice and theory of engaging and consider the tensions and possibilities that the diverse landscape of engaging evokes. We examine the roots, present modalities and institutional frameworks that have been erected around engaging, including how they shape and delimit how engagements are framed, enacted, and justified. We inspect the related issue of knowledge production within and through engagements, addressing whether engagements can, or should, be framed as knowledge producing activities. We then unpack the question of how engagements are or could be valued and evaluated, emphasising the plural ways in which 'value' can be conceptualised and generated. We conclude by calling for a philosophy of engagements that can capture the diversity of related practices, concepts and justifications around engagements, and account for the plurality of knowledges and value that engagements engender, while remaining flexible and attentive to the structural conditions under which engagements occur. Such philosophy should be a feminist one, informed by feminist epistemological and methodological approaches to equitable modes of research participation, knowledge production, and valuing. Especially, translating feminist tools of reflexivity and positionalityinto the sphere of engagements can enable a synergy of empirical, epistemic and normative considerations in developing accounts of engaging in both theory and praxis. Modestly, here, we hope to carve out the starting points for this work.

Indexed as

engagementepistemologyevaluationfeministhealth researchinvolvement

Identifiers

PMID35211657
PMCPMC8837807.2

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.