DEVELOPING THE FIELD
One finding of the Dalberg report was that there is not a widely shared understanding of engagement – what it is, who should do it, how it can be assessed – and that if there was, it might be easier to promote it. It is argued above that ‘Engagement’ can be characterised as a field of activity. Here attention is given to aspects of how it could be developed as such. Dalberg also noted that there were some significant differences, such as levels of scientific and actual literacy, technological options, linguistic preferences as well as political, legal and broader media contexts, between engagement work in the UK and in the Global South. This raises the question of whether carrying out engagement there merits special arrangements, labelling both practice and study as being ‘for development’ as has happened in other fields.
|Eder, Milton et al||2013||A Logic Model for Community Engagement Within the Clinical and Translational Science Awards Consortium: Can We Measure What We Model?|
|Lavery, James||2019||Building an evidence base for stakeholder engagement The private sector provides lessons and models|
|Luck, Amy||2016||Gathering views of international public and community engagement with research across Africa and India|
|RRI Tools Project Team||RRI Toolkit|
|Tindan, Paulina et al||2007||Grand Challenges in Global Health: Community Engagement in Research in Developing Countries|