Challenges to ethical public engagement in research funding: a perspective from practice.

Open research Europe Pub Date : 2024-11-06 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.12688/openreseurope.18126.2
Kalli Giannelos, Martijn Wiarda, Neelke Doorn
{"title":"Challenges to ethical public engagement in research funding: a perspective from practice.","authors":"Kalli Giannelos, Martijn Wiarda, Neelke Doorn","doi":"10.12688/openreseurope.18126.2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>European research funding organizations (RFOs) are increasingly experimenting with public engagement in their funding activities. This case study draws attention to the challenges they face in preparing, implementing, and evaluating ethical public engagement in the context of setting funding priorities, formulating calls for proposals, and evaluating project proposals. We discuss challenges related to seven themes: (1) recruiting participants; (2) commitments and expectations; (3) meaningful dialogue and equal engagement; (4) accommodating vulnerability; (5) funding call formulations; (6) lack of expertise in engagement ethics; and (7) uncertainty, resource constraints, and external factors. To address these challenges, we propose the following seven interventions: (1) developing comprehensive recruitment strategies with experienced recruiters and community organizations; (2) establishing clear communication of roles, expectations, and outcomes through codes of conduct; (3) training mediators to address power imbalances; (4) designing flexible engagement methods and providing tailored support; (5) implementing collaborative feedback loops for inclusive funding call formulation; (6) enhancing ethical standards through internal expertise and external advisory inputs; and (7) developing adaptive strategies for flexible and ethical public engagement. These recommendations emphasize the need for context-adaptive insights to support funding organizations to implement ethical public engagement activities, even when faced with organizational constraints and a lack of ethical expertise.</p>","PeriodicalId":74359,"journal":{"name":"Open research Europe","volume":"4 ","pages":"179"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11549538/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open research Europe","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.18126.2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

European research funding organizations (RFOs) are increasingly experimenting with public engagement in their funding activities. This case study draws attention to the challenges they face in preparing, implementing, and evaluating ethical public engagement in the context of setting funding priorities, formulating calls for proposals, and evaluating project proposals. We discuss challenges related to seven themes: (1) recruiting participants; (2) commitments and expectations; (3) meaningful dialogue and equal engagement; (4) accommodating vulnerability; (5) funding call formulations; (6) lack of expertise in engagement ethics; and (7) uncertainty, resource constraints, and external factors. To address these challenges, we propose the following seven interventions: (1) developing comprehensive recruitment strategies with experienced recruiters and community organizations; (2) establishing clear communication of roles, expectations, and outcomes through codes of conduct; (3) training mediators to address power imbalances; (4) designing flexible engagement methods and providing tailored support; (5) implementing collaborative feedback loops for inclusive funding call formulation; (6) enhancing ethical standards through internal expertise and external advisory inputs; and (7) developing adaptive strategies for flexible and ethical public engagement. These recommendations emphasize the need for context-adaptive insights to support funding organizations to implement ethical public engagement activities, even when faced with organizational constraints and a lack of ethical expertise.

从实践角度看公众参与研究资助的道德挑战。
欧洲的研究资助机构(RFOs)在其资助活动中越来越多地尝试公众参与。本案例研究提醒人们注意,在确定资助重点、征集提案和评估项目提案的过程中,他们在准备、实施和评估符合道德规范的公众参与时所面临的挑战。我们讨论了与七个主题相关的挑战:(1) 招募参与者;(2) 承诺和期望;(3) 有意义的对话和平等参与;(4) 兼顾脆弱性;(5) 制定资助要求;(6) 缺乏参与伦理方面的专业知识;(7) 不确定性、资源限制和外部因素。为应对这些挑战,我们提出了以下七项干预措施:(1) 与经验丰富的招聘人员和社区组织一起制定全面的招聘战略;(2) 通过行为守则建立明确的角色、期望和结果沟通;(3) 培训调解员以解决权力失衡问题;(4) 设计灵活的参与方法并提供量身定制的支持;(5) 实施合作反馈循环以制定包容性的资金征集方案;(6) 通过内部专业知识和外部咨询意见提高道德标准;(7) 制定灵活且符合道德规范的公众参与适应性战略。这些建议强调,即使在面临组织限制和缺乏伦理专业知识的情况下,也有必要提出适应具体情况的见解,以支持资助组织开展合乎伦理的公众参与活动。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信