Question 2 (Shannon M. & Simon R.)

Disagreement between different stakeholder groups is “seen as an inevitable consequence of collaborative working.” (pg 6)

Having different perspectives can be beneficial because it results in diverse input. In a collaborative research setting, why do you think involving different stakeholder groups has resulted in tensions?

What are some steps researchers can take in order to prevent these tensions from rising?

Tension between stakeholders could results in tension that arise from different experiences and backgrounds, preconceived notions and stereotypes about the other stakeholders
Tokenism would also contribute to these tensions. Also, if roles and goals are not well defined and agreed upon by all parties or if there is bad communication between groups.

Good communication between all parties from the beginning would help to prevent these tensions from rising. Being clear about the aim of the study and the role of each stakeholder would help. Also having an effective and responsive moderator could be important.

Clinicians and the public often perceive that public input is a waste of time and merely a necessary metric required to secure funding. A number of ways to overcome this challenge with stakeholders was listed in the article, and one in particular stood out to me. On p. 7 they mention "The need for hosting institutions, research ethics committees, journals and funders to be more proactive in facilitating and embedding PI within infrastructure systems and in promoting the reporting of PI." This common approach of effecting change seems like a reliable way to convince stakeholders of why PI is important; once ideas are embedded and institutionalized they typically become common practice.

As to why I think involving different stakeholder groups has resulted in tensions, I think it is inevitable to have disagreements when diverse stakeholder groups get together and try and form a consensus, especially when the meaning of PI isn't entirely clear. I agree with Shannon that communication is key. I also feel that leadership is beneficial in promoting new ideas to groups who may be resistant to change (opposed to the idea of PI). This latter point is similar to what is referred in the article as "management of team dynamics." As always, money is a barrier, and the lack of proper paid training can result in poor understanding and disagreements among stakeholders.