1. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 13th March 2023 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

Journal of Medical Ethics - National Standards for Public Involvement in Research: missing the forest for the trees (McCoy et al - 2018)

Discussion in 'Research methodology news and research' started by Kalliope, Oct 20, 2018.

  1. Kalliope

    Kalliope Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    National Standards for Public Involvement in Research: missing the forest for the trees

    Biomedical research funding bodies across Europe and North America increasingly encourage—and, in some cases, require—investigators to involve members of the public in funded research. Yet there remains a striking lack of clarity about what ‘good’ or ‘successful’ public involvement looks like. In an effort to provide guidance to investigators and research organisations, representatives of several key research funding bodies in the UK recently came together to develop the National Standards for Public Involvement in Research. The Standards have critical implications for the future of biomedical research in the UK and in other countries as researchers and funders abroad look to the Standards as a model for their own policy development. We assess the Standards and find that despite offering useful suggestions for dealing with practical challenges associated with public involvement, the Standards fail to address fundamental questions about when, why and with whom public involvement should be undertaken in the first place. We show that presented without this justificatory context, many of the recommendations in the Standards are, at best, fragments that require substantial elaboration by those looking to apply the Standards in their own work and, at worst, subject to potentially harmful misapplication by well-meaning investigators. As funding bodies increasingly push for public involvement in research, the key lesson of our analysis is that future recommendations about how public involvement should be conducted cannot be coherently formulated without a clear sense of the underlying goals and rationales for public involvement.



    I haven't had the chance to look properly at the paper yet, but am saving it here for later and thought others at the forum could be interested as well. Am as always interested to hear your thoughts.
    Barry, Andy, Inara and 14 others like this.

Share This Page