5 beneficiaries of your research findings

• Prof Mark Reed and Radoje Lausevic (Deputy
• Jan 9, 2016
• 10 min read

Who will benefit from your research and who will block it? How to identify stakeholders

Updated: Feb 21, 2020

Updated 2019 guide now available here .

For the original 2016 guide, continue reading...

________________________________________________

Researchers are increasingly expected by funders to identify and incorporate ‘beneficiaries’ into their work from the outset. Working out who might benefit from your work isn’t always easy though. Even if you do know who will benefit from your research, an equally important but often unasked question is: “who might be disadvantaged or lose out as a result of my research?” Even if you can answer both of these questions, there is another crucial question that every researcher should ask themselves: “who has the power to enable me to do my research and achieve impacts, and who has the power to block my work?”

It is just as important to identify individuals, organisations and groups who my be disadvantaged by the outcomes of your work, or who may block your research, as it is to know who your beneficiaries are, and who can help you. Knowing about potentially problematic stakeholders at the outset can give you the necessary time to adapt your research so that it no longer disadvantages those groups, or work out ways of ameliorating negative impacts before you run into opposition or achieve bitter-sweet impacts for one group at the expense of another.

What is a stakeholder?

A stakeholder is any person, organization or group that is affected by or who can affect a decision, action or issue. Rather than just identifying ‘beneficiaries’, a stakeholder analysis seeks to identify people, organisations or groups who may be either positively or negatively affected by your research. In addition to identifying those affected by your research, stakeholder analysis seeks to also identify those who might affect your ability to complete your research and generate impacts, either positively or negatively. These stakeholders might not directly benefit from or be negatively affected by your work, but they may have the power to enable or block your work from making a difference.

Why analyse your stakeholders?

It may seem self-evident that all the relevant stakeholders should be identified prior to any attempt to engage. However, it is surprising how often this step is omitted in research projects that need to work with stakeholders. In many cases this omission can significantly compromise the success of the research. For example, the project may miss crucial information that could have been provided, had they engaged with the right people.

In cases where very few stakeholders are identified or engaged with, this can lead to a lack of ownership of project goals, which can sometimes turn into opposition from certain stakeholders. In cases where a single important stakeholder has been omitted from the process, that organization or group may challenge the legitimacy of the work, and undermine the credibility of the wider project. Stakeholder analysis helps solve these problems by:

Identifying who has a stake in your work;

Categorising and prioritizing stakeholders you need to invest most time with; and

Identifying (and preparing you for) relationships between stakeholders (whether conflicts or alliances).

A successful stakeholder analysis will help you:

Start talking early to the right people, so that you can identify any major barriers to your work, and identify the people who can help you overcome those barriers. There is evidence that projects that engage with stakeholders early engender a greater sense of ownership amongst stakeholders, who are then more likely to engage throughout the lifetime of the project, and implement the recommendations of the work you have done together.

Know who you need to talk to: don’t just open your address book or talk to the ‘usual suspects’. Find out who might lose out, as well as who will benefit. Find out who is typically marginalized and left out, as well as the people and organisations that everyone knows and trusts. For example, Bec Colvin suggests drawing on methods from the arts to identify stakeholders using tacit knowledge or past experience. Those who are left out are usually the first to question and criticize work that they feel no ownership over.

Know what they’re interested in: you need to have a clear idea of the research issue at stake before you will be able to effectively identify stakeholders. But that doesn’t mean that the research questions and issues you explore together should be set in stone. As you begin to identify stakeholders, you will find out more about the nature of their stake in your research, and you may need to broaden your view of what is included in your work, if everyone is to feel that their interests are included.

Find out who’s got the most influence to help or hinder your work: some people, organisations or groups are more powerful than others. If there are highly influential stakeholders who are opposed to your project, then you need to know who they are, so that you can develop an influencing strategy to win their support. If they support your work, then it is also important to know who these stakeholders are, so you can join forces with them to work more effectively. There will be some influential stakeholders who have relatively little interest in your work. For example, they may have a broad remit that includes many issues that are more important and urgent to them than the specific focus of your research. Influential individuals are often busy and inaccessible, and you may need to spend significant time and energy getting their attention, before you are able to access their help.

Find out who is disempowered and marginalized: stakeholder analysis is often used to prioritise more influential stakeholders for engagement. Although time and resources may be limited, it is important not to use stakeholder analysis as a tool to further marginalize groups that are already disempowered and ignored. Many of these groups may have a significant interest in your research, but very little influence over the issues you are researching, and little capacity to help you achieve the impacts you want.

Identify key relationships so you avoid exacerbating conflicts and can create alliances that empower marginalized groups. It can be incredibly valuable to know in advance about conflicts between individuals, organizations or groups, so that you can avoid inflaming conflict and where possible resolve disputes. Through stakeholder analysis, it can sometimes become possible to create alliances between disempowered groups and those with more power, who share similar interests and goals, thereby empowering previously marginalized groups.

Methods for stakeholder analysis

Doing a proper stakeholder analysis doesn’t have to take a lot of time. We would recommend that you invite a small number of non-academics who know the stakeholder landscape well to help you with this task. But if you are short on time, then even if you just fill out the table below with your research team, you will be able to do far more impactful research than you would have done if you did not take this step.

The following methodology will take you approximately 2 days to complete, including between half a day and a day for an initial workshop, followed by a series of half hour telephone interviews to check your findings with key stakeholders (which is also a great opportunity to get their feedback on the focus of your research and start getting ownership as you adapt your work to stakeholder interests). The following steps are designed to be straight-forward and replicable, but this does not mean that they should be inflexibly applied. Local circumstances may require these steps to be adapted, to ensure that the stakeholder analysis is a tool that brings stakeholders together and facilitates active engagement in research.

1. Identify 2-4 cross-cutting stakeholders: Identify between 2-4 individuals from cross-cutting stakeholder organisations who operate at the scale of your research (if you have multiple study sites, you may need to do this for each site). The key criterion for selection is their breadth of interest in the issues you are researching, so that they are familiar with the widest possible range of organisations that might have a stake in your work. Aim to represent a range of different perspectives on the issue, so that you can facilitate debate about the relative interest and influence of different stakeholders (e.g. someone from a Government department or agency and someone from an NGO, not just people from different Government departments)

2. Invite cross-cutting stakeholders to half-day workshop: only 2-4 stakeholders plus project team should be present, as it is not the aim to represent all stakeholders at this workshop (this isn’t possible as we have yet to systematically identify them). This workshop should take approximately 4 hours (half a day), but if there is time, it is more relaxed to do this over a day:

Clearly establish the focus of the research that you think individuals, organisations or groups might have a stake in: it is important to be as specific as possible about your focus, so you can clearly identify who has a stake and who does not. You might want to consider the geographical or sectoral scope of the project (e.g. are you interested only in stakeholders at a local level, or is this a national issue that may involve national (or international) stakeholders? Which sectors of the economy or population are relevant to the research? A discussion about these sorts of questions at the start of the workshop should clarify any differing perceptions amongst the group, to avoid confusion later (approx. 15 mins);

Choose a well-known stakeholder organization and run through the stakeholder analysis for this organisation as an example. Draw copies of the extendable matrix below on flip chart paper and stick to walls, so that everyone can see what is being done. Explain that interest and influence can be both positive and negative (e.g. a group’s interests might be negatively affected and they may have influence to block as well as facilitate) (approx. 10 mins);

Ask participants to identify organisations, groups or individuals who are particularly interested and/or influential, and list them in the first column of the matrix at the bottom of this page. We've provided you with a blank table and a worked example to illustrate how this might look. Use the questions in the box below as prompts to help you identify as many stakeholders as possible (approx. 15 mins);

As a group work through each of the columns in the matrix, one stakeholder at a time, discussing the nature of their interest and reasons for their influence etc., and capturing the discussion as best as possible in the matrix (getting participants to capture points on post-it notes where necessary to avoid taking too long) (approx. 1-2 hours);

Take a break, and then invite participants to use the remaining time working individually to complete the columns for all the remaining stakeholders, adding rows for less interested and influential stakeholders as they go. Remind people to try and identify groups who might typically be marginalised or disadvantaged, but who still have strong interest in the research (approx. 1 hour);

Ask participants to check the work done by other participants, adding their own comments with post-it notes where they disagree or don’t understand (approx. 15 minutes);

Facilitate a discussion of key points people feel should be discussed as a group about stakeholders where there is particular disagreement or confusion and resolve these where possible (accepting differing views where it is not possible to resolve differences) (approx. 30 minutes);

Identify key individuals to check findings with after the workshop. Identify up to 5 individuals from particularly influential organisations, trying to get as wide a spread of different interests as possible (to do this, it may be necessary to start with a longer list and then identify people who are likely to provide similar views to reduce the length of the list). Finally consider if there are any particularly important stakeholders who have high levels of interest but low influence, who you do not want to marginalize and go through the same process, to arrive at a list of around 7-8 individuals who you can check the findings of the workshop with (approx. 20 mins).

3. Interview key individuals to check that no important stakeholders have been missed. Depending on the sensitivity of the material collected, you may only want to share the list of stakeholder organisations and their interests (not level of interest or anything else). For some of the individuals, it may be possible to check all columns in the matrix, but beware that some organisations may be upset that workshop participants perceive them to have low interest and/or influence. If the list of stakeholders from the workshop is sent in advance, these interviews should take no longer than 30 minutes each, and can be done by telephone.

4. Depending on how much the analysis changes from the workshop, you may want to check the amended version with workshop participants and make final tweaks.

5. Write-up: some columns can easily be converted into graphs, where there is numerical or categorical data involved. Consider carefully whether you want to all qualitative data to be made publically available in a form that is linked to specific named organisations and individuals, especially where this concerns conflicts between organisations. For a publically available version of the report, types of conflict may be summarized and the nature of stakes and types of influence may be summarized for different types of stakeholder, accompanied by graphs of numerical/categorical data e.g. farming organisations are most likely to be interested in certain aspects and have most influence over certain policy areas. The full stakeholder analysis matrix should be retained for use by the project team.

Images from a stakeholder analysis conducted for the UK Government's Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, February 2016

Do your own stakeholder analysis with this template

We've developed an editable template that will guide you through doing your own stakeholder analysis, based on Prof Reed's "extendable matrix" approach - see Reed et al. (2009) and Reed and Curzon (2015) .

Download our stakeholder analysis matrix ( Word | PDF )

To give you a sense of what this can look like, you can view or download a worked example below, based on a hypothetical stakeholder analysis developed for a project funded by the Swedish International Development and Cooperation Agency (Sida), led by the Regional Environment Centre in cooperation with local partner IUCN ROWA. The Water SUM project , for which this was developed, is using this template to train country teams how to conduct a stakeholder analysis in preparation for local water security action planning in collaboration with stakeholders.

Click on the image above to view the full example

Alternatively, take a look at this stakeholder analysis we did for the UK Government's Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to identify stakeholders in honeybee health, which informed the development of their National Pollinator Strategy last year. This project was done over a year, and involved Social Network Analysis and the analysis of many in-depth interviews, but you can get what you need for most research projects over a couple of days, using the methods described above. You can see the sort of thing that is possible with an in-depth stakeholder analysis like this in this presentation .

The template above is based on the template used in Fast Track Impact training. Both templates have columns that rate and then characterise the nature of people’s interest and their influence over the research and its impact. You can adapt the columns in this matrix to fit with your own purpose, bearing in mind that the more columns you add, the longer your workshop will take.

Thanks to WaterSUM project (www.watersum.rec.org) implemented by the Regional Environmental Center (www.rec.org) for funding that led to the production of this blog.

Follow us on Twitter

#stakeholderanalysis #stakeholders #beneficiaryanalysis #beneficiaries #pathwaytoimpact #researchimpact #methods

• Research Impact Guides

Related Posts

Tips and tools for making your online meetings and workshops more interactive

How to integrate impact into a UKRI case for support

Presenting with Impact

Taking Research Outcomes to Target Beneficiaries: Research Uptake, Meaning and Benefits

• First Online: 10 December 2021

Cite this chapter

• Clara Chinwoke Ifeanyi-obi 3  

Part of the book series: Women in Engineering and Science ((WES))

443 Accesses

Every research is targeted to stimulate change through generating outcomes that proffer solutions to identified problems. Until these outcomes are mainstreamed into policy and practice, the expected research impact is yet to be felt. Researchers are therefore expected to possess the capacity not only to conduct viable research but to also mainstream their research findings into policy. This chapter is aimed at enlightening researchers on the importance of taking their research outcomes to target beneficiaries. It explained the concept of research uptake, highlighted the benefits of conducting research uptake to both the target audience and researchers and further prescribed a guide to researchers on the process of conducting research uptake. Researchers will find in this chapter guide on when to begin planning their research uptake programme, how to choose the right research uptake to implement, setting realistic objectives for their uptake programme, effective stakeholder mapping, developing effective uptake message, identifying effective communication channel and producing materials that clearly communicate uptake message.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Guide to developing and monitoring a research uptake plan. Malaria consortium. Disease control, Better health. https://www.google.com/search?q=Guide+to+developing+and+monitoring+a+research+uptake+plan&rlz=1C1YTUH_enNG942NG942&oq=Guide+to+developing+and+monitoring+a+research+uptake

Research on Food Assistance for Nutritional Impact (REFANI). (2016). What does it mean to implement a research uptake strategy? Experiences from REFANI Consortium

Google Scholar  

Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Sekeran. (2006). Research methods for business. A skill building approach . Wiley.

Madukwe, M. C., & Akinnagbe, O. M. (2014). Identifying research problems in Agricultural Extension. In M. C. Madukwe (Ed.), A guide to Research in Agricultural Extension . Agricultural Society of Nigeria (AESON).

Department for International Development. (2016). Research uptake: A guide for DFID-funded research programmes. Department for International Development and Association of Commonwealth Universities. Research uptake in a virtual world. A guide

Fisher, J. R. B., Wood, S. A., Bradford, M. A., & Kelsey, T. R. (2020). Improving scientific impact: How to practice science that influences environmental policy and management. Conservation Science and Practice., 2 , e210. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.210

Article   Google Scholar  

Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations, 5th Edition . Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-0-7432-5823-4.

Wejnert, B. (2002). Integrating models of diffusion of innovations: A conceptual framework. Annual Review of Sociology, 28 , 297–326. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.141051.JSTOR3069244.S2CID14699184

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, University of Port Harcourt, Port Harcourt, Nigeria

Clara Chinwoke Ifeanyi-obi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Clara Chinwoke Ifeanyi-obi .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Biochemistry, University of Port Harcourt, Port Harcourt, Nigeria

Eucharia Oluchi Nwaichi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Ifeanyi-obi, C.C. (2022). Taking Research Outcomes to Target Beneficiaries: Research Uptake, Meaning and Benefits. In: Nwaichi, E.O. (eds) Science by Women. Women in Engineering and Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83032-8_3

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83032-8_3

Published : 10 December 2021

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-83031-1

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-83032-8

eBook Packages : Engineering Engineering (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Internet Explorer is no longer supported by Microsoft. To browse the NIHR site please use a modern, secure browser like Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, or Microsoft Edge.

How to disseminate your research

Published: 01 January 2019

Version: Version 1.0 - January 2019

This guide is for researchers who are applying for funding or have research in progress. It is designed to help you to plan your dissemination and give your research every chance of being utilised.

What does NIHR mean by dissemination?

Effective dissemination is simply about getting the findings of your research to the people who can make use of them, to maximise the benefit of the research without delay.

Research is of no use unless it gets to the people who need to use it

Professor Chris Whitty, Chief Scientific Adviser for the Department of Health

Principles of good dissemination

Stakeholder engagement: Work out who your primary audience is; engage with them early and keep in touch throughout the project, ideally involving them from the planning of the study to the dissemination of findings. This should create ‘pull’ for your research i.e. a waiting audience for your outputs. You may also have secondary audiences and others who emerge during the study, to consider and engage.

Format: Produce targeted outputs that are in an appropriate format for the user. Consider a range of tailored outputs for decision makers, patients, researchers, clinicians, and the public at national, regional, and/or local levels as appropriate. Use plain English which is accessible to all audiences.

Utilise opportunities: Build partnerships with established networks; use existing conferences and events to exchange knowledge and raise awareness of your work.

Context: Understand the service context of your research, and get influential opinion leaders on board to act as champions. Timing: Dissemination should not be limited to the end of a study. Consider whether any findings can be shared earlier

Remember to contact your funding programme for guidance on reporting outputs .

Your dissemination plan: things to consider

What do you want to achieve, for example, raise awareness and understanding, or change practice? How will you know if you are successful and made an impact? Be realistic and pragmatic. 

Identify your audience(s) so that you know who you will need to influence to maximise the uptake of your research e.g. commissioners, patients, clinicians and charities. Think who might benefit from using your findings. Understand how and where your audience looks for/receives information. Gain an insight into what motivates your audience and the barriers they may face.

Remember to feedback study findings to participants, such as patients and clinicians; they may wish to also participate in the dissemination of the research and can provide a powerful voice.

When will dissemination activity occur? Identify and plan critical time points, consider external influences, and utilise existing opportunities, such as upcoming conferences. Build momentum throughout the entire project life-cycle; for example, consider timings for sharing findings.

Think about the expertise you have in your team and whether you need additional help with dissemination. Consider whether your dissemination plan would benefit from liaising with others, for example, NIHR Communications team, your institution’s press office, PPI members. What funds will you need to deliver your planned dissemination activity? Include this in your application (or talk to your funding programme).

Partners / Influencers: think about who you will engage with to amplify your message. Involve stakeholders in research planning from an early stage to ensure that the evidence produced is grounded, relevant, accessible and useful.

Messaging: consider the main message of your research findings. How can you frame this so it will resonate with your target audience? Use the right language and focus on the possible impact of your research on their practice or daily life.

Channels: use the most effective ways to communicate your message to your target audience(s) e.g. social media, websites, conferences, traditional media, journals. Identify and connect with influencers in your audience who can champion your findings.

Coverage and frequency: how many people are you trying to reach? How often do you want to communicate with them to achieve the required impact?

Potential risks and sensitivities: be aware of the relevant current cultural and political climate. Consider how your dissemination might be perceived by different groups.

Think about what the risks are to your dissemination plan e.g. intellectual property issues. Contact your funding programme for advice.

More advice on dissemination

We want to ensure that the research we fund has the maximum benefit for patients, the public and the NHS. Generating meaningful research impact requires engaging with the right people from the very beginning of planning your research idea.

More advice from the NIHR on knowledge mobilisation and dissemination .

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Scope and Delimitation & Benefits and Beneficiaries of Research

2020, Division of Palawan

This module was designed and written with you in mind. It is here to help you master the Scope and Delimitation and Benefits and Beneficiaries of Research. The scope of this module permits it to be used in many different learning situations. The language used recognizes the diverse vocabulary level of students. The lessons are arranged to follow the standard sequence of the course. But the order in which you read them can be changed to correspond with the textbook you are now using. The module is divided into Two (2) lessons, namely: Lesson 1- Scope and Delimitation of research Lesson 2- Benefits and Beneficiaries of research After going through this module, you are expected to: a. define scope and delimitation of research; b. appreciate the scope, limitation and delimitation; and, c. write the benefits and beneficiaries of research.

Related Papers

Asfarasin Maricar

mabuta mustafa

lecture notes

md. faruk miah

Michael Evans

Farhan Ahmad

mahrukh fatima

For Students, Scholars, Researchers, Investigators, Trainees and Scientists. “If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.” Isaac Newton. This book on research is an attempt to try to answer the basic fundamental questions that come to the minds of young students, researchers, scholars, investigators, trainees or scientists. It is an outcome of collaboration between 43 researchers from 11 different countries (Pakistan, India, United States, Iran, United Kingdom, Nepal, Canada, Greece, Poland, Japan and Australia). Although there is a lot of literature available to answer the queries that come to the mind of a young investigator, the language is often too complex and difficult to understand and thus, aversive. Some of these teaching materials sound more like experts talking to each other. This book would act as a catalyst in providing useful reviews and guidance related to different aspects of research for students who need to be inducted and recogniz...

Emil Ilyasov

Mustafe Hassan Dahir

Kiyoung Kim

What is the research for in the society? We may imagine the professionals engaged in these activities, shall we say, university professors, researchers in the public and private institutions, and even the lay inventors at home or in the neighborhood. The research is related with some of knowledge or ideas, which, however, should be creative and original. It is the main function of those professionals, and can develop in dissemination of the findings produced by research. It frontiers the knowledge of humans which enables a better view of world and generates the public welfare. The scholars are often those professionals who are required or in some cases, squeezed to produce an original contribution to the specific field of academy. As the society develops, we now require a scientific knowledge beyond the plain understanding of the nature and society. The scientific knowledge is qualified of some elements, i.e., evidence-based, universal frame to be applied, sense of understanding, pragmatic in comprehension or application, more persuasion on theory, paradigm, typologies, intersubjectivity, empirical relevance and so. It informs a philosophy of humans, makes them conscientious and knowledgeable, as well as enhances a professional performance for not only their field but also other disciplines. For example, the criminal justice system borrows the idea or information confirmed by other disciplines, psychology and sociology notably. What is the Durham rule in the excuse of culpability? The scope of rule could not enjoy a persuasion if not to be supported by the works of psychologists. The scientific knowledge perhaps could recourse its most salient dynamism in coupling with an economic exploitation. A cultivation of knowledge to serve the economic use and its industrialization reveals it’s competitive edge in the society. The kind of concepts, information age, e-technology, and intellectual property rights are leading the present time of narrative as we see routinely. May new laws, and new concept of e-education or e-government, GMO products as well as the travel of universe in the near future also follow that the updated profile of scientific knowledge on the engineering and natural science contributed to expand our horizon of subsistence.

RELATED PAPERS

ACTA CLINICA …

Elizabeta Topic

IRJET Journal

Gilmar Henz

Benjamin Haywood

Cadernos de Saúde Pública

João Erlon Rosa Peres

Neetu Thakur

Ayşegül Karataş

asitha kodippili

Finding New Ways to Engage and Satisfy Global Customers

Satish Murari

Applied and Environmental Microbiology

jongshin yoo

COLLOQUIUM AGRARIAE

Eduarda Damacena

Boletim de Geografia

FREDERICO YURI HANAI

DNA and Cell Biology

Ayşe Nur İnci Kenar

Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Centro de Estudios Avanzados de Puerto Rico y el Caribe

German W. Cabassa Barber, Ph.D.

2010 Second International Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX)

iman mossavat

Sumaia Inaty Smaira

Synthetic Metals

Martin Baumgarten

Jurnal Aplikasi Bisnis dan Manajemen

Hendro Sasongko

Journal of Management Studies

Bone marrow transplantation

Claudio Giardini

EGS - AGU - EUG Joint Assembly

Oleg Melnik

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

horacio rodriguez rilo

Progress in Organic Coatings

Monica Periolatto

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 22 June 2012

Benefits and payments for research participants: Experiences and views from a research centre on the Kenyan coast

• Sassy Molyneux 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 ,
• Stephen Mulupi 1 ,
• Lairumbi Mbaabu 4 &
• Vicki Marsh 1 , 2 , 3  

BMC Medical Ethics volume  13 , Article number:  13 ( 2012 ) Cite this article

12k Accesses

64 Citations

7 Altmetric

Metrics details

There is general consensus internationally that unfair distribution of the benefits of research is exploitative and should be avoided or reduced. However, what constitutes fair benefits, and the exact nature of the benefits and their mode of provision can be strongly contested. Empirical studies have the potential to contribute viewpoints and experiences to debates and guidelines, but few have been conducted. We conducted a study to support the development of guidelines on benefits and payments for studies conducted by the KEMRI-Wellcome Trust programme in Kilifi, Kenya.

Following an initial broad based survey of cash, health services and other items being offered during research by all programme studies (n = 38 studies), interviews were held with research managers (n = 9), and with research staff involved in 8 purposively selected case studies (n = 30 interviewees). Interviews explored how these ‘benefits’ were selected and communicated, experiences with their administration, and recommendations for future guidelines. Data fed into a consultative workshop attended by 48 research staff and health managers, which was facilitated by an external ethicist.

The most commonly provided benefits were medical care (for example free care, and strengthened quality of care), and lunch or snacks. Most cash given to participants was reimbursement of transport costs (for example to meet appointments or facilitate use of services when unexpectedly sick), but these payments were often described by research participants as benefits. Challenges included: tensions within households and communities resulting from lack of clarity and agreement on who is eligible for benefits; suspicion regarding motivation for their provision; and confusion caused by differences between studies in types and levels of benefits.

Conclusions

Research staff differed in their views on how benefits should be approached. Echoing elements of international benefit sharing and ancillary care debates, some research staff saw research as based on goodwill and partnership, and aimed to avoid costs to participants and a commercial relationship; while others sought to maximise participant benefits given the relative wealth of the institution and the multiple community needs. An emerging middle position was to strengthen collateral or indirect medical benefits to communities through collaborations with the Ministry of Health to support sustainability.

Peer Review reports

Debates on the ethics of international health and health research have shifted over the last twenty five years away from a focus on the relevance and value of informed consent, towards considering broader challenges such as the potential for exploitation in international research, the need to make research responsive to local needs of host communities, and the implications of research for international relations and law [ 1 , 2 ]. This shift is related to growing recognition that focusing on the protection of research participants through reviewing research proposals before they begin is inadequate; that there is a need to look beyond the design of studies and to see how research is actually being conducted on the ground [ 2 ]. The importance of social science studies for understanding the dilemmas that are faced and generated, and the ethical implications of how these are resolved, have begun to be highlighted [ 3 ]. Depending on their design, such studies can fall within the spectrum of approaches termed ‘empirical ethics’ [ 4 , 5 ], and may incorporate deliberative elements [ 6 ].

Within this general movement in ethical focus, there is consensus that unfair distribution of the benefits of research is exploitative and that - as a moral wrong - it should be minimised. One approach to doing this is to provide ‘fair benefits’ to participants and their communities [ 7 , 8 ]. There is still debate over what constitutes fair benefits, and over the appropriate balance in benefits between micro level issues of justice and broader social determinants of health at the macro level [ 7 – 13 ]. However, increasing benefits to participants and communities involved in research is widely agreed as one approach to minimize exploitation.

The fair benefits framework distinguishes between benefits from both the conduct and results of research, and between:

· direct benefits to those enrolled in the research (for example diagnostic tests, distribution of medications and evaluation services); and

· collateral or indirect benefits not targeted specifically at those involved in the research (for example providing antibiotics for respiratory infections, health service provision, digging of bore holes for clean water, or research capacity building) [ 7 , 8 , 14 ]. Beneficiaries of collateral benefits might be research participants, other identifiable individuals such as family members, or the general community.

In considering fair benefits for research, a widely accepted ethical condition is that the research must pose few risks to individual participants, or the benefits to them should outweigh the risks [ 7 ]. Where potential risks outweigh benefits to participants, the social value of the research should justify the risks [ 15 , 16 ]. It is also increasingly argued that the risk-benefit ratio for the communities within which the research is conducted should be favourable [ 15 ]. However, the exact nature of the benefits that can and should be provided for various studies in different settings, and their mode of provision, remain ill-defined and often strongly debated. The boundary between ‘benefits’ and obligations, for example with regards to ancillary-care in health, is also complex and contested [ 17 – 19 ], as will be returned to in the discussion of this paper.

The notion of undue inducement, and the paradoxical relationship with exploitation, has received particular attention in benefits debates. As Koen et al. [ 20 ] have argued, inducement by itself can be ethically justifiable, even if it contributes to participants doing something that they might otherwise not have done. However inducement becomes ‘undue’ where an excessive offer distorts decision-making, leading to individuals participating against their better judgment. Also of concern with regards to inducement is the potential to disproportionately attract the poor, and the fabrication of information in order to access study benefits. The dilemma, raised by Macklin (1989) and summarized by Ballantyne is: ‘ offer participants too little and they are exploited, offer them too much and their participation may be unduly induced ’ [ 21 ]; p 179. This paradox is particularly stark in international collaborative research, where research institutions and bodies may be relatively wealthy, operating in and among relatively low income settings and populations.

One specific form of benefit in research is payment of cash. Cash payments which reimburse or compensate for time and inconvenience are not considered benefits, and are widely accepted in international guidelines. For these forms of payment, the challenge is the limited amount of operational guidance to set appropriate payment levels. More controversial are cash payments as incentives to participate in research, or as appreciations for contributions to the research [ 20 ]. The specific additional concern about money as a benefit (beyond undue inducement) is the potential to commercialize an altruistic endeavor. Those in favour of financial payments argue that altruistic motives are not incompatible with receiving pay, that research has long been commercialized for other research stakeholders, and that participants are not only motivated by money [ 20 ]. A particular concern expressed informally in low income settings is that populations should not be deprived of potential payments simply because of their poverty as this leads to a double inequity: both poverty and inability to benefit financially.

Debates on benefits and payments in all low income settings are hampered by relatively little information on what is currently happening on the ground, and on the range of stakeholders’ views on current practice. An exception is work by Lairumbi et al. [ 22 – 24 ] which explores perceptions of, and experiences with, benefits among a diverse range of research stakeholders across Kenya. In this paper we present a separate but complementary set of data. We explore views and experiences with regards to benefits and payments from a diverse range of studies conducted by one large and long-term multi-disciplinary research programme in Kenya - the Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI)-Wellcome Trust Research Programme in Kilifi - and consider the implications for institutional guidelines aimed at ensuring fair involvement of participants. We focus on the direct and collateral ‘benefits’ (all cash, health services and other items) offered to study participants and to community members over the course of the conduct of studies, as opposed to post study benefits, or aspirational benefits.

KEMRI- Wellcome Trust Programme in Kilifi

The KEMRI-Wellcome Trust Programme is a collaboration between the KEMRI Centre for Geographical Medicine Research, Coast (CGMRC), and the Wellcome Trust, UK. KEMRI is a parastatal organisation under the Ministry of Health (MoH), with 10 research centres in Kenya, of which the CGMRC is one of the largest. The KEMRI-Wellcome Trust research programme (KEMRI/WT) was established in 1989. It has grown enormously over the last twenty years, now employing over 800 staff between sites in Nairobi and Kilifi, and conducting a wide range of interdisciplinary research including clinical, basic science, epidemiological and public heath aspects of major childhood and adult diseases of concern in Kenya. A core aim of the programme is strengthening regional capacity to conduct and lead internationally competitive research.

This paper focuses on work conducted in the largest of the two sites, Kilifi. Kilifi district is on the coast of Kenya, with residents primarily from the Mijikenda ethnic group. There are very high levels of poverty, and low levels of literacy across the district. As described in greater detail elsewhere [ 25 ], a key feature of the Kilifi work has been its’ deliberate development within a District Hospital, with much research being carried out in a “real world environment” serving a rural community. The research centre provides support to the hospital to ensure a good standard of care is available to those using the departments where research is conducted, regardless of their involvement in research. This is a form of collateral benefit to the general community as a result of the research programme having a long-term presence in the area, with the additional resources including medical and clinical officers, paediatric drugs and equipment and a paediatric intensive care ward. Within the community, clinical services are supported at specific government health centres and dispensaries.

Every study carried out by the programme is scrutinised in advance by local and independent national and international scientific and ethical review committees. Over the last ten years, informed by social science research activities (see for example [ 25 – 29 ]), both programme wide and study specific community engagement activities have been strengthened. For example a large network of KEMRI community representatives elected by community members has been established, and the amount and type of interactions between research staff and community leaders and ‘ordinary’ community members has been increased. Interactions have increased in communities and within the research programme and hospital.

The research presented in this paper was initiated out of an institutional interest in developing locally appropriate guidance on benefits and payments for the diverse range of studies conducted in Kilifi. From the outset, it was clear that relatively high risk studies – such as phase 1 and 2a trials - needed separate consideration with particularly careful scrutiny on benefits and payments by the Ethics Review Committee. These studies were therefore not discussed and are not included in the considerations outlined in the rest of this paper.

Data collection was in two main phases: an initial audit of current practice and experiences and views from front-line staff involved in distributing benefits; and a workshop involving a wide range of research staff and some MoH managers.

Audit of current practice

The audit involved an initial email survey followed by semi-structured interviews with principal investigators and interface staff involved in eight purposively selected case studies. These data were supplemented by interviews with key informants expected to have relevant cross-study information.

Email survey

56 principal investigators leading active Kilifi based studies were contacted to identify studies that were still in recruitment, data collection, analysis or write-up stages. Semi-structured questionnaires were filled for each of the 38 active (sub) studies identified (n = 24 PIs). The questionnaire for these studies covered: the nature of services, payments and other items (‘benefits’) offered to participants, the intended recipients of benefits, stage of study at which benefits are given, and any community benefits.

In-depth interviews

On the basis of the data gathered above, eight studies were purposefully selected as case studies. Selection was based on maximising diversity among the case studies with regards to: duration of participant involvement; age and health status of study participants; whether studies were facility or community based; whether studies were based only in Coast Province or multi-centre international studies; level of risk in studies; and whether any money was given to participants. A summary of the case studies is presented in Table  1 . Study PIs and/or their Project managers (n = 11) were individually interviewed while the fieldworkers of two studies (n = 19) participated in two FGDs. Interviews explored in more detail what benefits were given to whom and why, how benefits are communicated to participants and wider communities, and their experiences, views and recommendations with regards to benefits and payments.

Individual and group interviews covering similar topics were held with nine key staff members including community facilitators, the head of clinical trials, and the research coordinator based at a dispensary in the district where there has been significant research activity.

Consultative workshop

On the 15 th of December 2009, a workshop to discuss current and future policies and practices around payments and benefits to research participants and communities for KEMRI/WT studies was held in Kilifi. 48 people attended the workshop, representing different cadres of staff at the research centre, including senior and mid-career scientists, research officers, community liaison staff, field workers, doctors and nurses. Non-KEMRI participants included the District Medical Officer (DMO) and nursing officers representing Kilifi District Hospital. Professor Mike Michael Parker, a bioethicist and Director of the Ethox Centre at Oxford University, UK, facilitated the planning of the workshop and the final plenary discussion.

Given that an important objective of the workshop was to propose approaches to payments and benefits for different types of research in Kilifi, the workshop included : 1) presentation of a review of relevant literature and the findings of the above audit; 2) six small group discussions bringing together staff with similar experience on appropriate individual and community benefits for a series of hypothetical studies designed on the basis of the audit (Table  2 ); and 3) a final plenary session where issues raised in the small groups were discussed in more detail. For the small group discussions, topics allocated to specific groups to discuss in more detail in relation to each scenario outlined in Table  2 were:

· Compensation for travel: Groups 1 and 2: field staff and community facilitators

· Medical benefits to participants: Groups 3 and 4: research assistants and medical staff

· Collateral benefits to communities: Groups 5 and 6: senior researchers and MoH managers

In each case, the specific areas of interest for discussion about each type of study were: should this benefit be given, and if so what specifically should be given, how and to whom? Groups were also asked to consider whether there should be any flexibility and how would this be managed.

Following the workshop, a draft report was circulated to all participants for their comments and inputs, and issues documented as needing further resolution taken up by a small group consisting of two experienced community facilitators in the research programme (who are local residents, including the community liaison manager), a clinical trials manager (who is also a clinician), and two social scientists (SM and VM).

Data management and analysis

All audit interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim shortly thereafter. Three authors independently identified key themes, and following discussion agreed on themes to group key data. Summaries of data were used to develop the ideas and discussion guides for the workshop. At the workshop, notes were made by specially allocated note takers from both the small group and plenary discussions. These notes were drawn upon by the same three researchers to highlight areas of agreement, and areas of debate and disagreement requiring further discussion or research by the small group formed to take forwards discussions and agreements post workshop.

In this section we bring together the data from the audit and the workshop, to illustrate what is happening on the ground in Kilifi regarding each major form of benefit or payment, including challenges and negative impacts, and views on what should happen. Following an overview of types and levels of benefits across all studies, we look in turn at experiences with: medical benefits, travel costs, other benefits and compensation for time. The cross-cutting issues relevant to developing guidelines, including the importance of community level collateral benefits in low income settings, and the need for flexibility and careful consideration of communication issues in policies and procedures, are highlighted in the discussion.

Types and levels of benefits offered

From reported data in the audit, with the exception of the verbal autopsy study, which involved a 30–45 minute interview only with adults in their homes, all studies offered some form of benefit or payment to participants. Table  3 shows the benefits and payments given by the seven studies, illustrating not only the diverse range, but also the centrality of direct and collateral medical benefits, and the reimbursement of travel expenses. Other types of benefits included provision of food for individuals, and other small gifts such as books and pens. In general, the levels of collateral benefits for individuals increased with studies seeking to involve participants for longer, and where an (experimental) intervention was involved. For example the benefits for individuals in the malaria vaccine study (MV) and the Immunology study (Immuno) were greater than that of the TB study or the RSV study.

Overall the workshop discussions on the scenarios supported the general trend of more benefits for longer-term/higher risk studies. There was a clear overall agreement that participants should not be made worse off by their participation in any research. It was felt that if the short and low risk activities illustrated in scenarios 1 and 2 in Box 1 had no costs – direct or hidden – it was appropriate not to offer any benefit or payment beyond an appeal to aspirational benefits, and showing common courtesy through for example providing refreshments and research findings, where appropriate. An area of debate (discussed in more detail below) was how much time needs compensation, and what kind of compensation is appropriate for that time. The recommended range of collateral benefits for scenarios 3 and 5, both of which require repeated interactions with well children, were relatively high, to compensate for the relatively large amount of time involved in these studies, and to minimize drop-outs and monitor health. Beyond the payment of direct costs and showing common courtesy, the main benefits considered to be appropriate were diagnosing, treating and referring study children, and providing community benefits such as strengthened dispensary services. The debate (also discussed in greater detail below) was on whether siblings and parents can access health care benefits, and how this is balanced by strengthening community benefits. In scenario 4, there were considered to be significant direct benefits built into the trial design, and significant community benefits as part of wider support to the hospital, and some concern that continuing to increase the collateral benefits to participants might compromise voluntariness in informed consent.

Experiences with regards to specific benefits, payment and other items

Medical benefits.

There was a general perception that medical services are often the most appropriate form of benefit given that health care is close to our area of interest and expertise, and that this form of benefit minimizes the move towards a commercialization of the research encounter. All of the seven studies offering benefits provided some form of direct medical benefit to study participants (Table  3 ), with details of the package depending on the study. In addition to free treatment of the disease or problem of interest (for example clinical shock, TB, malaria, RSV, or HIV), study participants usually received free consultation and treatment for other minor or acute illnesses over the course of the study, including out of hours, and in some cases (e.g. PS) without queueing? Other treatment included in most studies were referral of more complex or chronic illnesses identified over the course of the study to other government facilities, including vehicles or transport to the referral facility (PS), costs of doing diagnostic tests e.g. X-rays (HIV) and medical fees (Immuno, MV).

All studies included collateral medical benefits to non-participants through for example strengthening of the general services of a facility for all patients with a similar problem. Specific support offered included improved laboratory facilities for TB tests (TB); provision of emergency care training for all intensive care ward medical staff (PS), provision of weighing scales, haemacue machines, i-STAT, and thermometers (PS); and provision of medical staff and refurbishment of existing health facilities (MV).

The audit and workshop group discussions highlighted several challenges related to medical benefits in studies. One set of concerns was how much of a benefit individuals actually get from a specific study beyond standard of care . The first challenge is that the standard of care in the paediatric wards is already high relative to other district hospitals as a result of programme wide support (see background); support that is described by some senior researchers both as a collateral benefit and as a necessity for researchers to feel comfortable to conduct research in an area with so many unmet health needs, and to minimise inducement. The overlaps between standards of care, collateral benefits and study requirements were illustrated in an interview:

"We took that approach right from the beginning that we would just first set up a platform for TB diagnosis in Kilifi hospital and which is fundamental to doing the study, but also pretty fundamental to the care for children so we set up this platform and we have made it part of standard of care for children with […] so any child who is referred with suspected TB or is admitted with symptoms and signs consistent with suspected TB gets worked up for TB (IDI No. 1, Researcher)."

Despite the relatively high standard of care, sometimes contributed to by individual studies, it was argued that studies often do involve greater observation and investigation in study children, and that this can lead to improved diagnosis and care even within a relatively well equipped ward.

The second challenge is that while researchers describe free treatment as a benefit, there are national policies for exemption of charges for all children aged less than five years. Nevertheless, it was recognised that across the country there is relatively little adherence to exemption policies [ 30 , 31 ], and therefore that free care remains a significant benefit. When combined with transport, or reimbursed fares (discussed next), the medical benefits were therefore felt to be quite significant especially for the scenarios 3, 4 and 5. PIs working on similar studies reported that non-participants regularly asked to join studies, illustrating that benefits are valued.

Another set of concerns related to medical benefits concerned who is eligible and where they can seek treatment from . Regarding the former, the challenge was what to do if parents brought other sick family members for free treatment, or even their neighbour’s children. Interface staff who were approached by individuals not formally eligible for this benefit sometimes found it difficult to refuse a needy case, but were also concerned that providing care would start a precedent for other families and studies. The dilemma could be particularly difficult for members of the index child’s family, with families reportedly commenting that research can introduce unfairness within households, and for example accusations that researchers are interested in the child but not the person who gave birth to him/her:

"In case a parent has been involved in an accident and it is a parent to a study child, the vehicle cannot be offered....they [community members] tell us, “mtoto hakujizaa mwenyewe, alizaliwa na mimi” [this child didn’t give birth to him/herself, I gave birth to him] (FGD no 1; fieldworkers)"

Some study clinicians reported that attending quickly to study children while referring their sick sibling to a long hospital queue felt wrong, and that they would sometimes treat the sibling out of compassion (KI) even where study policy did not support this action. Others would diagnose the non-participants’ problem and then refer them to the hospital pharmacy to buy drugs; thereby at least saving the parent queuing time. But this was difficult where the parent had no money to buy prescribed drugs. Staff described such dilemmas, and having to stick to standard operating procedures (SOPs) set by people who were not present, as incredibly stressful:

"Even we FWs sometimes hurt inside…you may see me growing thin and yet it is stress from the job (laughter)…you are having this enormous burden all on you…(FGD no 1; fieldworkers)"

These challenges were exacerbated by some studies being more inclusive and flexible with regards to assistance of other family members than others. While this would be expected with such different studies, there appeared to be both a lack of standardisation across very similar studies, and problems in communicating clearly about these differences. Related challenges were confusion and sometimes irritation regarding the timing of medical benefits; in some cases participants can receive free treatment at any point over the course of the study (MV), in others it is only when they come back for a specific follow up visit (e.g. PS; TB). The latter can feel short changed, and may be taunted by others:

"…they [non-participants] would tell the participants that, “look, it is only when KEMRI needs to draw blood from your child, that they send you vehicles, but when your child is sick, you trek to hospital just like the rest of us”… (FGD no 1; fieldworkers)"

This phenomenon of local interpretation of perceived differences in benefits between studies leading to confusion and tensions was general to all types of benefits, as discussed more below. One outcome was potential refusal to participate in studies with less tangible benefits:

"[we get told] “No, you are not coming to this house to ask any questions… you take everything [benefits] to the other homes and here you only come to ask questions….No, go to that house… that is your house…(FGD no 2; community facilitators)"

"some would say that, “we are not in the project but we are also seen by the KEMRI doctors (it doesn’t matter that you are seen first)…and we also get lifts-just like you…but only you struggle in the project”… (FGD no 1; fieldworkers)"

At the workshop it was felt that for longer term studies, medical benefits provided should be greater than for short term studies, and that these medical benefits should be extended to participant siblings and other family members wherever possible, not least to help strengthen the relationship with participant families and help ensure retention. There was agreement that overall, support to siblings should at least ensure that the benefits to individuals are not lost through for example a sibling having to queue for care, and that with referrals to other facilities, all costs for the first visit including treatment should be covered. With regards to inter-current illnesses experienced by participants between planned visits in longitudinal studies, for example following discharge from the district hospital, there was a general agreement that these should not be paid for, because there are already significant benefits built into studies, and a requirement for this support would be impossible for many studies.

Travel costs

All of the seven studies aimed to ensure that patients did not incur any travel costs (Table  3 ). Travel costs were therefore either avoided (for example by organising research centre transport to collect people from their homes to facilities; MV study) or refunded. In general, costs were not met for travel that would have happened in the absence of the study. For example fares were not refunded for participants in the TB or RSV studies for their first visit to the hospital, because this travel occurred as part of care seeking before they were recruited in the study.

There were differences across the studies with regards to how fares were refunded, at what level and what specific costs they were supposed to cover or compensate. For example some studies (e.g. Immuno) would give out money in advance, providing funding at each visit to cover the travel costs of a subsequent attendance. Others (e.g. MV) only refunded return fares on arrival for the research visit. Some studies reimbursed set amounts based on known costs of public transport from the participant’s area of residence, while others refunded actual amounts claimed on the day, in some cases only on production of a receipt. Some studies added a small ‘top up’ to allow for purchase of refreshments for the trip, and some paid a small fixed amount of money to those who walked to the facility because they lived close by or could not access public transport. One study (HIV) incorporated into standard ‘travel costs’ some compensation for time spent on the research activity.

Another difference across studies was exactly who had fares covered, and for what services. For example, costs could include those for the child only, or other siblings that the parent might need to travel with, and for one or two parents; and sometimes studies allowed for transport costs in unexpected health emergencies. Emergency assistance was generally offered only in consultation with health facility nurses, and only by the longer term studies out of normal working hours, primarily as a ‘ humanitarian response ’ (MV) or as a way of ‘ being part of the community ’ (Immuno).

"‘We have been encouraged by the MoH not to set up a parallel system… [they] were very categorical that if somebody is unwell they should follow the normal procedure- go to the nurse in the health facility who will call the ambulance…also because of medico-legal reasons…the ambulance comes with a nurse…there is some sort of first aid at hand…(IDI no 8; researcher)"

The audit revealed significant challenges with (re)payment of travel costs, including concerns associated with different approaches across studies, and between the institution and others operating in the area:

"‘Even with fares; a study will give exact fare, another one will give extra - like one and a half the amount that people are charged, so sometimes it brings problems and you know sometimes they are in one study when they complete then maybe another child is in another study, so they are like, “why is it that I was given double fare and now you are giving me only one way” (laughter)…’ (IDI no 6; clinical officer)"

As for medical benefits, this quote hints at the mistrust that can be introduced by these different approaches, or at least by them being inadequately communicated. Another challenge was introduced by perceived lack of fairness or even sense in not extending transport support beyond the index child in a study, as noted above.

Specific concerns raised with giving fares long in advance of appointments were that:

· where money was spent on other pressing needs, parents would sometimes avoid appointments or otherwise fail to turn up, leading to relatively expensive follow up visits to homes, and possibly embarrassment for families, or

· parents may feel unable to change their minds about coming to follow-up visits, having already accepted the money at an earlier stage.

· Other travel payment concerns were that transport receipts were often difficult for parents to obtain, and that amounts claimed were sometimes higher than those incurred. On the other hand collecting participants from home with research vehicles included the possibility of introducing long waits where arrival time at homes were difficult to predict, and difficulties with handling others needing lifts at the same time. Finally, there were some reports of fieldworkers using their own funds to assist participants and finding it difficult to ask for reimbursement from the study team.

At the workshop it was agreed that transport costs incurred specifically for research must always be paid/reimbursed, and should include a little extra to cover for time spent and other needs on the journey (e.g. drink/snacks). There was a suggestion that to maximise fairness and clarity, to minimise potential to negatively impact on informed consent and to simplify administration systems, studies should:

· Set repayments based on where participants live, regardless of whether they actually use that public transport on that day, and therefore even without receipts. The amounts can be calculated depending on the zone participants live in surrounding research facilities, a with everybody from that zone given the highest expected cost from that zone. Amounts per zone should include a small additional amount to actual expected transport cost, to cover for refreshments or unexpected costs for the journey.

· Allow participants to choose whether they wish to be paid in advance for a future visit, or during that future visit

· Ensure travel is reimbursed for one parent and the index child if he or she is five years or above.

Other non-medical benefits

The most common other items offered by studies were food and snacks (five studies) offered when participants were visiting facilities away from home, or – less commonly – when significant amounts of time were taken within households. These were either to compensate for missed meals, as a token of appreciation, or to calm children (sweets and biscuits). Food was provided ready to eat (MV, Immuno, RSV, MV), as money for families to buy their own food (PS), as tickets to exchange for food at selected outlets (HIV), or as dry food for participants to cook themselves as convenient (reported in cross-cutting interviews). Other benefits included notebooks and pens (Immuno) for school-going children. In HIV studies participants were also given T-shirts, lubricants and legal services of a lawyer where charged with minor non-criminal offences such as loitering. Some people also considered the hiring of field workers from the local community as a significant community benefit.

Specific challenges with regards to these benefits (beyond those of other benefits of the amounts and who received these) were reports that some participants felt that very small benefits, juices and biscuits for instance, belittled their contribution, and led to them being taunted by others in the community. A particular concern with regards to t-shirts distributed by one study (HIV) was that some participants reportedly did not want to wear them as they were concerned that they would be stigmatised as having HIV/AIDS.

Financial compensation for time

At present, compensation for time is through the inflated fares described (or fares being given where they are not strictly needed), or through medical and other benefits. There were concerns raised through the audit that compensating for time through inflated transport costs, particularly where no transport costs were actually incurred, raised confusion and suspicion. For the HIV studies, there were reports that this approach risks people falsifying information in order to obtain cash, or concerns about confidentiality.

"some would even lie… they would ask, “how come you are there, what did you say?…Okay, these are the kind of people they want?…Okay, I will just go and say this is what I am…I would say I am MSM… I am a sex worker- that is what they want”. (IDI no 7; research manager)."

"Actually for us, maybe one of the things is the variation of reimbursement…you will say that the uninfected cohort, you will give 350… then you have another one being given 500… then you have someone on the trial getting 600… volunteers challenge us…they really want to know why is it that so and so gets 500…and I can’t tell the person what it is about.. I can’t break confidentiality about their status (IDI no 7; research manager)."

While the latter concern may be particularly applicable to research in stigmatised diseases or populations, lack of clarity about what the payments are for, particularly where somebody has walked to a facility, was reported for several studies, and in the workshop. This lack of clarity, in some cases linked to a broader misinformation about what the research is about and how it differs from standard health checks or treatment, can contribute to disputes within households (for example, concerns from husbands about where the mothers of participant children have received money from and why), and fuel rumours around the aims and objectives of the activities (for example, concerns about whether KEMRI is ‘buying blood’).

"…and what that does to the home dynamics… the decision-making…when you give the woman the fare, and ideally a married woman here is only supposed to be supported by the husband…she is only supposed to get money from the husband; so here is KEMRI coming to give her money…exactly what are you doing to the power relations between the woman and the husband…on top of that you are giving her more than she needs for fare…(IDI no 9; community facilitator)"

"[We are told that] “You know very well that there are no matatus [public transport vehicles] in this area yet you say that this is fare…no… just tell us what this money is, but don’t you say that it is fare”…(IDI no 11; nurse)"

It was agreed at the workshop that time costs – including what somebody might be doing in that time, such as preparing a meal or earning an income - should be properly considered in research planning because these costs are often under-estimated. It was recognised for example that families may often stay at the dispensary waiting for a one hour assessment for far longer than an hour, and that field staff may turn up late to a household for an appointment, causing delays. It was agreed that appreciation and common courtesy should be maximised by minimizing inconvenience to participants, and – especially where the participant leaves home - considering the need to provide snacks or lunches. However the question of if and how to provide a reasonable allowance in cash for ‘lengthy’ research activities (either in homes or away from them) was highly complex, given the different types of income generation people have, diverse incomes and the different approaches research staff took to the issues. Given that there was no simple calculation that we could draw on at the workshop, and that there were concerns and debates about moving towards a more commercial relationship with participants/communities, the area was recommended for further careful research and discussion. Subsequently, the small group formed to take forwards workshop findings have suggested that where significant individual time is taken (for example the exceptional cases of an overnight stay in a facility that would not otherwise be necessary), past research in our area supports payment in accordance with national guidelines on minimum daily unskilled wages. At the time of writing this was 300/= or GBP 2.30 per day in an urban setting.

There is general consensus that fair benefits are essential in international health research, but the exact nature of benefits that should be provided to participants and communities, and their mode of provision, are not clearly defined, and often strongly contested. There has been little detailed research on experiences and challenges with benefits on the ground, particularly from low-income settings, to feed into on-going debates. We explored benefits and payments offered for a diverse range of studies within a large long-term multi-disciplinary research programme in Kenya, using both a descriptive and consultative approach. Although not all relevant parties were involved (most notably absent were study participants or their parents, community representatives, health workers and ethics committee members), we were able to include a broad range of programme staff, including the voices of those who are often excluded from policy discussions: the interface staff who explain and administer benefits and payments to research communities; many of whom are from those communities themselves.

We did not cover some types of collateral benefits from studies to communities, such as employment of local personnel, capacity strengthening of researchers from the region, nor post trial benefits. Also not discussed in detail were the collateral benefits such as clinical staff and services funded by the programme to the paediatric wards at the district hospital, and to government health centres and dispensaries in which research is conducted. Nevertheless, we believe that we have gathered sufficient information to begin to draft institutional guidelines on what ‘ought’ to be done in our setting for studies (both procedural and substantive elements), and to highlight some areas that need further research and discussion.

Challenges with current practice

Our interviews and interactions helped us learn about some of the realities of administering a wide range of benefits and payments on the ground (medical, transport, food and other). A picture emerges of current practice being appreciated by staff and communities, but also being associated with significant issues and challenges which have received little attention in the literature, relative to concerns about undue inducement. Costs to participants that may not be considered for example are lack of common courtesy in research encounters, and amounts of time spent waiting or travelling for research appointments. These costs can mean that participants, rather than being induced into research, are potentially under compensated for their role in research. Concerns of researchers to minimize this possibility and even to introduce a benefit rather than simply a compensation to participants, can contribute to the payment of inflated or unnecessary fares described in our study. The complexity involved in apparently simple reimbursements has recently been noted for another Kenyan setting [ 32 ]:

" Underneath the seeming obviousness of the concept of ‘reimbursement’ many other considerations were at play and informally negotiated. These included questions of justice and ethics, and personal commitment to provide some help for poor study subjects, but also budgetary constraints, competition with other groups for participants, and concerns with recruitment rates and participant retention [32 ; page 50 ] ’. "

The transport issues noted above illustrate the complexity in practice in defining benefits, and specifically in distinguishing between benefits and compensation. The transport fare issues in our study also illustrate how benefits and payments can in themselves also exacerbate or introduce new inequities, conflicts and rumours within households and communities, especially where benefits are both significant and visible. Even where benefits have been carefully considered for the participant him/herself in one study, these considerations might be undermined by a household situation (for example if a mother has to queue twice: once for a study participant and again for another sibling), or by other studies being conducted by the same organisation (for example another similar study offering different levels and types of benefits). In this way, the wider research and social context is key to the way that study specific benefits work out in practice. For researchers, these realities may be both obscure and complex, supporting the need for locally relevant institutional guidelines aimed at ensuring that participants are adequately compensated, that intended benefits actually reach participants and communities, and that wider concepts of fairness are supported.

A middle ground between micro and macro justice issues in approaches to benefits

It became clear over the course of the audit and workshop that research staff generally approach benefits and payments deliberations in two ways: a) focusing on ensuring that participants do not incur overall costs, with their overall approach being one of research being based on good will and partnership between researchers and research participants or communities, underpinned by a concern about moving away from this type of relationship towards a more commercial one; or b) aiming to maximise benefits as far as possible to participants , given the relative wealth of the institution and poverty of many community members/research participants.

Overall, an appropriate compromise or middle ground that emerged for our context was ensuring that direct benefits to individuals are primarily medical (rather than financial or for example food), and that there is an effort at all times to maximise collateral medical benefits to whole communities, through developing strong collaborations with the Ministry of Health. The collateral benefits can be offered both by specific studies as illustrated by many of our case studies in this paper, but also at a programme wide level through the kind of support that is currently provided as summarised in the institutional section under methods in this paper. This compromise it was hoped would avoid a commercial relationship with participants, and protect and strengthen a key relationship with the MoH. This approach might be considered one way to tackle micro-level justice issues (for example fair benefits and compensations for research participants) in a way that recognises macro-level justice concerns (for example historical grievances and global inequities that perpetuate poverty and ill health), as one of a set of approaches to benefit-sharing at both the micro and macro levels [ 12 , 21 , 23 ].

There are three important issues to note in proposing this balance. Firstly, while we are describing here appropriate direct and collateral medical benefits , we must recognise that all ‘benefits’ that have to be given to participants or communities to ensure scientific validity, prevent study-related harms or address study related injuries, are not benefits at all. Beyond these basic requirements, many other medical ‘benefits’ described as appropriate by our participants might equally or more accurately be framed as ancillary care responsibilities or even obligations .

This is particularly given that we are a long term, well resourced research programme (indicating relatively strong relationships and opportunity and capability to provide care), operating in a low income setting facing significant basic health care challenges (indicating urgency of health care needs) [ 17 , 19 ]. Secondly, we recognise the risk that medical benefits increase the potential for therapeutic misconceptions (TMs) arising [ 29 ]. Nevertheless we see this TM potential as emphasising the need for careful communication about studies and any included care or benefits rather than as undermining the arguments to provide the benefit or services. Thirdly, we recognise the importance of very careful negotiations and discussions within the institution, and with key Ministry of Health representatives, to ensure that sustainability of additional support is assured, and even that pre-existing services are not undermined in the longer term.

Towards institutional guidelines to support clarity and transparency in benefits and payments

The need for flexible guidance to support clarity and transparency in benefits and payments was emphasised as crucial by research staff at all levels. It was felt that institutional guidelines could help develop agreed, consistent and rational approaches and explanations on benefits and payments for the main types of study conducted, minimize differences between similar projects, and thereby reduce perceived unfairness. It was also felt that institutional guidelines would potentially reduce staff anxiety associated with conducting research in situations of poverty and hardship. The need for strengthened communication about benefits and payments, including about differences between different types of studies and reasons for these differences, was also highlighted as essential to minimise perceptions of unfairness. The specific issue of benefits and payments is clearly therefore key to include in broader community engagement plans and consent SOPs for studies and the programme overall [ 28 , 33 ].

We are developing guidelines aimed at ensuring fair reimbursement and benefits for research participants and communities. In these guidelines, for all studies researchers will be prompted to:

· Carefully consider the real time, inconvenience and expenses for participants to ensure that these are not underestimated

· Ensure that common courtesy is demonstrated throughout studies by for example minimising inconvenience, ensuring good communication, and providing refreshments.

· Where payments are made, base these on time, inconvenience and expenses for each study and participant, rather than on a flat rate. In calculating fare reimbursements to local residents, offer rates based on zones surrounding a given location, with a small allowance for refreshments, and make payments regardless of production of a receipt. In this approach we differ with that of for example the South African Medical Research Council guidelines which set a flat rate policy per visit for clinical trial participants. The flat rate approach has been variously critiqued for being excessive, inappropriate, unaffordable to non-industry funded trials, and ultimately unfair: participants are paid the same amount but do not do the same things or incur the same expenses [ 20 ].

· Recognise that individual participants want their contributions to research to be adequately acknowledged, and that what we might be currently calling medical benefits are in fact responsibilities or obligations in our setting (discussed more below). Ensure that actual benefits for individuals are weighed against potentially introducing intra-community conflicts, and that institutional emphasis IS PLACED where possible ON providing health benefits to broader communities (through discussions with MoH managers and other relevant stakeholders).

To facilitate thinking about specific benefits in relation to a spectrum of study types our guidelines will distinguish between four types of studies 1) clinical trials; 2) sampling only involving no intervention; 3) observational studies involving no sampling or interventions; and 4) interview only studies. For the shortest and least inconvenient studies (for example, a 45 minute interview only study), the key requirements will be communicating effectively about the study, minimising inconvenience and ensuring common courtesy, including returning results where appropriate, rather than offering study benefits. As participants’ inconvenience and time contribution increases, increasing benefits are likely to be appropriate, for example for clinical trials (such as phase 2b and 3 vaccine/drug trials with prolonged follow up) and longer term observational studies. The main argument for increasing benefits for these studies in our setting is linked to concepts of compensation and for a stronger requirement for reciprocity in the studies with longer and more intensive relationships [ 34 ]. At the same time, we are aware of a counter-argument that this might introduce a perceived or real unfairness across studies (with those we are more engaged with receiving for example better health care), and that participant ability to withdraw might be compromised [ 35 ]. Furthermore, it is not necessarily straightforward to argue that duration and intensity of relationship should influence research participants’ benefits [ 36 ]. We try to consider and counter these concerns through strengthening wherever possible programme wide and study specific community benefits, as described above. A relatively complex area that needs further work is how much time needs compensation, and what form of compensation is due for that time. Given the overall concern with setting precedents and distorting the research relationship into a commercial one, this will need particularly careful review and monitoring.

We plan to finalise our guidelines, and check these with research staff and other key stakeholders such as members of the national ERC, community representatives and MoH staff. If agreed, we will begin to implement guidelines with careful monitoring of impacts on individuals, families and communities, and front-line and senior research staff. Importantly, the communication of decisions made regarding benefits and payments will have to be passed within teams to the frontline staff and between research teams and community members as a key part of broader community engagement plans and activities. We hope that this process will help us to continue to learn about this critical, complex and contested area. In so doing we hope we can continue to learn from and feed into experiences and guidelines from other settings.

We drew on interviews and a consultative workshop to develop draft guidelines for our programme that focus on the direct and collateral benefits offered to study participants and to other community members over the course of the conduct of studies. The difference in benefits and payments currently offered for similar studies in our programme, and some perverse outcomes associated with levels and types of benefits, and how they are administered, support the importance of this initiative for our programme and potentially for other similar settings. Also supporting this initiative is the complexity in distinguishing on the ground between compensation and benefits, and between medical benefits and obligations and responsibilities. We reiterate that consideration of these forms of benefits are only one component of wider considerations at both the micro and macro level of benefit-sharing by individual studies and the institution, including post-study benefits, aspirational benefits from research, and capacity strengthening in research and of health systems.

a Zones to be created for areas with similar known costs to the facility

1 Zones to be created for areas with similar known costs to the facility

Acknowledgements and funding

We are grateful to all of the research and hospital staff who participated in the interviews and workshop discussions. Special thanks to Professor Mike Parker, who facilitated the workshop in Kilifi, and to those who assisted with the workshop preparation and post workshop discussions, including Salim Mwalukore (Community Liaison Manager), Francis Kombe (Community Facilitator), Patricia Njuguna (Clinician/researcher), Sam Kinyanjui (Head of Training), and Dorcas Kamuya (Social scientist). This work was supported by the Wellcome Trust, UK (WT085418 to S.M; 089316/Z/09/Z to V.M.; GR074314MA to VM/DK/SM) and the Kenya Medical Research Institute, Kenya. This article is published with the permission of the director, KEMRI.

IJsselmuiden CB, Kass NE, Sewankambo KN, Lavery JV: Evolving values in ethics and global health research. Global Public Health. 2010, 5 (2): 154-163. 10.1080/17441690903436599.

Article   Google Scholar  

Benatar S: Reflections and recommendations on research ethics in developing countries. Social Science and Medicine. 2002, 54: 1131-1141. 10.1016/S0277-9536(01)00327-6.

Molyneux CS, Geissler W: Editorial: Ethics and ethnography in medical research in Africa. Social Science and Medicine. 2008, 67 (5): 685-695. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.02.023.

Dunn M, Ives J: Methodology, epistemology and empirical bioethics research: a constructive/ist commentary. Am J Bioeth. 2009, 9 (6–7): 93-95.

Kon AA: The role of empirical research in bioethics. Am J Bioeth. 2009, 9 (6–7): 59-65.

Parker M, Principles of Health Care Ethics, Second: Deliberative bioethics, in Ashcroft RE Dawson A, Draper H and McMillan JR. 2007, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester, UK, Second Edition

Google Scholar  

Participants and Conference on Ethical Aspects of Research in Developing Countries: Fair benefits for research in developing countries. Science. 2002, 298: 2133-2134. 10.1126/science.1076899.

Moral Standards for research in developing countries: from 'reasonable availability' to 'fair benefits'. Hast Cent Rep. 2004, 34: 17-27. Participants

The Ancillary-Care Obligations of Medical Researchers Working in Developing Countries. PLoS Med. 2008, 5 (5): e90-Participants

London A: Justice and the human development approach to international research. Hast Cent Rep. 2005, 35 (1): 24-37.

London A: Two dogmas of research ethics and the integrative approach to human subjects research. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy. 2007, 32: 99-116. 10.1080/03605310701255727.

London A, Zollman J: Research at the Auction Block: Problems for the Fair Benefits Approach to International Research. Hast Cent Rep. 2010, 40 (4): 34-45. 10.1353/hcr.0.0281.

Benatar S, Singer P: Responsibilities in international research: a new look revisited. J Med Ethics. 2010, 36: 194-197. 10.1136/jme.2009.032672.

Schulz-Baldes A, Vayena E, Biller-Andorno N: Sharing benefits in international health research: Research-capacity building as an example of indirect collective benefit. EMBO reports. 2007, 8: 1-10.1038/sj.embor.7400887.

Emanuel EJ: What Makes Clinical Research in Developing Countries Ethical? The Benchmarks of Ethical Research. J Infect Dis. 2004, 189 (5): 930-937. 10.1086/381709.

Kenya National Council for Science and Technology (NCST): Guidelines for Ethical Conduct of Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects in Kenya. 2004, NCST document No 45, Nairobi

Lavery JV, Bandewar SVS, Kimani J, Upshur REG, Plummer FA, Singer P: ‘Relief of oppression’: an organising principle for researcher’ obligations to participants in observational studies in the developing world. BMC Publ Health. 2010, 10: 384-10.1186/1471-2458-10-384.

Participants in the 2006 Georgetown University Workshop: The ancillary-care obligations of medical researchers working in developing countries. PLOS Medicine. 2008, 5 (5): e90-

Hyder AA, Merritt MW: Ancillary care for public health research in developing countries, 2009. JAMA. 2009, 302 (4): 429-431. 10.1001/jama.2009.1072.

Ballantyne A: Benefits to research subjects in international trials: do they reduce exploitation or increase undue inducement?. Developing World Bioethics. 2008, 8 (3): 178-191. 10.1111/j.1471-8847.2006.00175.x.

Koen J, Slack C, Barsdorf N, Essack Z: Payment of trial participants can be ethically sound: moving past a flat rate. South African Medical Journal. 2008, 98 (12): 926-9.

Lairumbi GM, Parker M, Fitzpatrick R, English M: Stakeholders understanding of the concept of benefit sharing in health related research in Kenya: A qualitative study. BMC Medical Ethics. 2011, 12: 20-10.1186/1472-6939-12-20.

Lairumbi GM, Parker M, Fitzpatrick R, English M: Ethics in practice: The state of the debate on promoting the social value of research in resource settings. BMC Medical Ethics. 2011, 12: 22-10.1186/1472-6939-12-22.

Lairumbi GM, Parker M, Fitzpatrick R, English M: Forms of benefit sharing in global health research undertaken in resource poor settings: A qualitative study of stakeholder’s views in Kenya. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine. 2012, 7: 7-10.1186/1747-5341-7-7. 17 January 2012

Marsh V, Kamuya D, Gikonyo C, Rowa Y, Molyneux CS: Beginning community engagement at a busy biomedical research programme: experiences from KEMRI CGMRC-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Kilifi. Social Science and Medicine. 2008, 67 (5): 721-733. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.02.007.

Molyneux CS, Peshu N, Marsh K: Trust and informed consent: insights from community members on the Kenyan Coast. Social Science and Medicine. 2008, 61 (7): 1463-1473.

Gikonyo C, Bejon P, Marsh V, Molyneux CS: Taking social relationships seriously: Lessons learned from the informed consent practices of a vaccine trial on the Kenyan Coast. Social Science and Medicine. 2008, 67 (5): 708-720. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.02.003.

Marsh VM, Kamuya DM, Mlamba A, Williams T, Molyneux S: Experiences with community engagement and informed consent in a genetic cohort study of severe childhood diseases in Kenya. BMC Medical Ethics. 2010, 11: 13-10.1186/1472-6939-11-13.

Marsh VM, Kamuya DM, Parker MJ, Molyneux CS: Working with concepts: The role of community in international collaborative biomedical research. Public Health Ethics, Special Edition on Concepts of Community. 2011, 4 (1): 26-39.

Opwora A, Kabare M, Molyneux CS, Goodman CA: Direct funding of Kenyan health centres and dispensaries: Implementation and perceived impact of a pilot intervention. Health Policy & Planning. 2009, 25 (5): 406-418.

Chuma J, Musimbi J, Okungu V, Goodman C, Molyneux CS: Reducing User Fees for Primary Health Care in Kenya: Policy on Paper or Policy in Practice?. International Journal of Equity & Health. 2009, 8: e15-10.1186/1475-9276-8-15.

Geissler PW: Transport to where?. Journal of Cultural Economy. 2011, 4 (1): 45-64. 10.1080/17530350.2011.535335.

Boga M, Davies A, Kamuya D, Kinyanjui S, Kivaya E, Kombe F, Lang T, Marsh V, Mbete B, Mlamba A, Molyneux S, Mulupi S, Mwalukore S: Strengthening informed consent process in international health research by incorporating local community's understanding and perceptions of research - The Communication and Consent Committee, KEMRI Wellcome Trust Research programme, Kilifi, Kenya. PLoS Medicine. 2011, 8 (9): e1001089-10.1371/journal.pmed.1001089.

Ravitsky V, Wilfond BS: Disclosing Individual Genetic Results to Research Participants'. Am J Bioeth. 2006, 6 (6): 8-17. 10.1080/15265160600934772.

Meltzer LA: Undesirable Implications of Disclosing Individual Genetic Results to Research Participants. Am J Bioeth. 2006, 6 (6): 28-30. 10.1080/15265160600935811.

Fryer-Edwards K, Fullerton SM: Relationships with test-tubes: where's the reciprocity. Am J Bioeth. 2006, 6 (6): 36-38. 10.1080/15265160600938294.

Pre-publication history

The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6939/13/13/prepub

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Health Systems and Social Science Research Group, Kenya Medical Research Institute/Wellcome Trust Research Programme, P.O. Box 230, Kilifi, Kenya

Sassy Molyneux, Stephen Mulupi & Vicki Marsh

Centre for Tropical Medicine, University of Oxford, OX3 7LJ, Oxford, UK

Sassy Molyneux & Vicki Marsh

The Ethox Centre, Department of Public Health and Primary Health Care, Oxford University, OX3 7LJ, Oxford, UK

Child and Newborn Health Group, Kenya Medical Research Institute/Wellcome Trust Research Programme, P.O. Box 43640 – 00100, Nairobi, Kenya

Lairumbi Mbaabu

Kenya Medical Research Institute/Wellcome Trust Research Programme, P.O. Box 230, Kilifi, Kenya

Sassy Molyneux

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sassy Molyneux .

Additional information

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

S Molyneux and V Marsh were involved in the conception and design of the study. S Molyneux, V Marsh and S Mulupi participated in data collection, analysis and report write up, while L Mbaabu contributed to literature review and conceptual thinking. S Molyneux wrote the first draft of the paper; all authors commented on drafts, and read and approved the final manuscript.

Rights and permissions

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Molyneux, S., Mulupi, S., Mbaabu, L. et al. Benefits and payments for research participants: Experiences and views from a research centre on the Kenyan coast. BMC Med Ethics 13 , 13 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-13-13

Download citation

Received : 21 January 2012

Accepted : 22 June 2012

Published : 22 June 2012

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-13-13

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Travel Cost
• Malaria Vaccine
• Medical Benefit
• Community Benefit
• Kenya Medical Research Institute

BMC Medical Ethics

ISSN: 1472-6939

• General enquiries: [email protected]

How To Write Significance of the Study (With Examples) 

Whether you’re writing a research paper or thesis, a portion called Significance of the Study ensures your readers understand the impact of your work. Learn how to effectively write this vital part of your research paper or thesis through our detailed steps, guidelines, and examples.

Related: How to Write a Concept Paper for Academic Research

Table of Contents

What is the significance of the study.

The Significance of the Study presents the importance of your research. It allows you to prove the study’s impact on your field of research, the new knowledge it contributes, and the people who will benefit from it.

Related: How To Write Scope and Delimitation of a Research Paper (With Examples)

Where Should I Put the Significance of the Study?

The Significance of the Study is part of the first chapter or the Introduction. It comes after the research’s rationale, problem statement, and hypothesis.

Related: How to Make Conceptual Framework (with Examples and Templates)

Why Should I Include the Significance of the Study?

The purpose of the Significance of the Study is to give you space to explain to your readers how exactly your research will be contributing to the literature of the field you are studying 1 . It’s where you explain why your research is worth conducting and its significance to the community, the people, and various institutions.

How To Write Significance of the Study: 5 Steps

Below are the steps and guidelines for writing your research’s Significance of the Study.

1. Use Your Research Problem as a Starting Point

Your problem statement can provide clues to your research study’s outcome and who will benefit from it 2 .

Ask yourself, “How will the answers to my research problem be beneficial?”. In this manner, you will know how valuable it is to conduct your study. 

Let’s say your research problem is “What is the level of effectiveness of the lemongrass (Cymbopogon citratus) in lowering the blood glucose level of Swiss mice (Mus musculus)?”

Discovering a positive correlation between the use of lemongrass and lower blood glucose level may lead to the following results:

• Increased public understanding of the plant’s medical properties;
• Higher appreciation of the importance of lemongrass  by the community;
• Adoption of lemongrass tea as a cheap, readily available, and natural remedy to lower their blood glucose level.

Once you’ve zeroed in on the general benefits of your study, it’s time to break it down into specific beneficiaries.

2. State How Your Research Will Contribute to the Existing Literature in the Field

Think of the things that were not explored by previous studies. Then, write how your research tackles those unexplored areas. Through this, you can convince your readers that you are studying something new and adding value to the field.

3. Explain How Your Research Will Benefit Society

In this part, tell how your research will impact society. Think of how the results of your study will change something in your community. 

For example, in the study about using lemongrass tea to lower blood glucose levels, you may indicate that through your research, the community will realize the significance of lemongrass and other herbal plants. As a result, the community will be encouraged to promote the cultivation and use of medicinal plants.

4. Mention the Specific Persons or Institutions Who Will Benefit From Your Study

Using the same example above, you may indicate that this research’s results will benefit those seeking an alternative supplement to prevent high blood glucose levels.

5. Indicate How Your Study May Help Future Studies in the Field

You must also specifically indicate how your research will be part of the literature of your field and how it will benefit future researchers. In our example above, you may indicate that through the data and analysis your research will provide, future researchers may explore other capabilities of herbal plants in preventing different diseases.

Tips and Warnings

• Think ahead . By visualizing your study in its complete form, it will be easier for you to connect the dots and identify the beneficiaries of your research.
• Write concisely. Make it straightforward, clear, and easy to understand so that the readers will appreciate the benefits of your research. Avoid making it too long and wordy.
• Go from general to specific . Like an inverted pyramid, you start from above by discussing the general contribution of your study and become more specific as you go along. For instance, if your research is about the effect of remote learning setup on the mental health of college students of a specific university , you may start by discussing the benefits of the research to society, to the educational institution, to the learning facilitators, and finally, to the students.
• Seek help . For example, you may ask your research adviser for insights on how your research may contribute to the existing literature. If you ask the right questions, your research adviser can point you in the right direction.
• Revise, revise, revise. Be ready to apply necessary changes to your research on the fly. Unexpected things require adaptability, whether it’s the respondents or variables involved in your study. There’s always room for improvement, so never assume your work is done until you have reached the finish line.

Significance of the Study Examples

This section presents examples of the Significance of the Study using the steps and guidelines presented above.

Example 1: STEM-Related Research

Research Topic: Level of Effectiveness of the Lemongrass ( Cymbopogon citratus ) Tea in Lowering the Blood Glucose Level of Swiss Mice ( Mus musculus ).

Significance of the Study .

This research will provide new insights into the medicinal benefit of lemongrass ( Cymbopogon citratus ), specifically on its hypoglycemic ability.

Through this research, the community will further realize promoting medicinal plants, especially lemongrass, as a preventive measure against various diseases. People and medical institutions may also consider lemongrass tea as an alternative supplement against hyperglycemia. 

Moreover, the analysis presented in this study will convey valuable information for future research exploring the medicinal benefits of lemongrass and other medicinal plants.  

Example 2: Business and Management-Related Research

Research Topic: A Comparative Analysis of Traditional and Social Media Marketing of Small Clothing Enterprises.

Significance of the Study:

By comparing the two marketing strategies presented by this research, there will be an expansion on the current understanding of the firms on these marketing strategies in terms of cost, acceptability, and sustainability. This study presents these marketing strategies for small clothing enterprises, giving them insights into which method is more appropriate and valuable for them. 

Specifically, this research will benefit start-up clothing enterprises in deciding which marketing strategy they should employ. Long-time clothing enterprises may also consider the result of this research to review their current marketing strategy.

Furthermore, a detailed presentation on the comparison of the marketing strategies involved in this research may serve as a tool for further studies to innovate the current method employed in the clothing Industry.

Example 3: Social Science -Related Research.

Research Topic:  Divide Et Impera : An Overview of How the Divide-and-Conquer Strategy Prevailed on Philippine Political History.

Significance of the Study :

Through the comprehensive exploration of this study on Philippine political history, the influence of the Divide et Impera, or political decentralization, on the political discernment across the history of the Philippines will be unraveled, emphasized, and scrutinized. Moreover, this research will elucidate how this principle prevailed until the current political theatre of the Philippines.

In this regard, this study will give awareness to society on how this principle might affect the current political context. Moreover, through the analysis made by this study, political entities and institutions will have a new approach to how to deal with this principle by learning about its influence in the past.

In addition, the overview presented in this research will push for new paradigms, which will be helpful for future discussion of the Divide et Impera principle and may lead to a more in-depth analysis.

Example 4: Humanities-Related Research

Research Topic: Effectiveness of Meditation on Reducing the Anxiety Levels of College Students.

Significance of the Study: 

This research will provide new perspectives in approaching anxiety issues of college students through meditation. 

Specifically, this research will benefit the following:

 Community – this study spreads awareness on recognizing anxiety as a mental health concern and how meditation can be a valuable approach to alleviating it.

Academic Institutions and Administrators – through this research, educational institutions and administrators may promote programs and advocacies regarding meditation to help students deal with their anxiety issues.

Mental health advocates – the result of this research will provide valuable information for the advocates to further their campaign on spreading awareness on dealing with various mental health issues, including anxiety, and how to stop stigmatizing those with mental health disorders.

Parents – this research may convince parents to consider programs involving meditation that may help the students deal with their anxiety issues.

Students will benefit directly from this research as its findings may encourage them to consider meditation to lower anxiety levels.

Future researchers – this study covers information involving meditation as an approach to reducing anxiety levels. Thus, the result of this study can be used for future discussions on the capabilities of meditation in alleviating other mental health concerns.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. what is the difference between the significance of the study and the rationale of the study.

Both aim to justify the conduct of the research. However, the Significance of the Study focuses on the specific benefits of your research in the field, society, and various people and institutions. On the other hand, the Rationale of the Study gives context on why the researcher initiated the conduct of the study.

Let’s take the research about the Effectiveness of Meditation in Reducing Anxiety Levels of College Students as an example. Suppose you are writing about the Significance of the Study. In that case, you must explain how your research will help society, the academic institution, and students deal with anxiety issues through meditation. Meanwhile, for the Rationale of the Study, you may state that due to the prevalence of anxiety attacks among college students, you’ve decided to make it the focal point of your research work.

2. What is the difference between Justification and the Significance of the Study?

In Justification, you express the logical reasoning behind the conduct of the study. On the other hand, the Significance of the Study aims to present to your readers the specific benefits your research will contribute to the field you are studying, community, people, and institutions.

Suppose again that your research is about the Effectiveness of Meditation in Reducing the Anxiety Levels of College Students. Suppose you are writing the Significance of the Study. In that case, you may state that your research will provide new insights and evidence regarding meditation’s ability to reduce college students’ anxiety levels. Meanwhile, you may note in the Justification that studies are saying how people used meditation in dealing with their mental health concerns. You may also indicate how meditation is a feasible approach to managing anxiety using the analysis presented by previous literature.

3. How should I start my research’s Significance of the Study section?

– This research will contribute… – The findings of this research… – This study aims to… – This study will provide… – Through the analysis presented in this study… – This study will benefit…

Moreover, you may start the Significance of the Study by elaborating on the contribution of your research in the field you are studying.

4. What is the difference between the Purpose of the Study and the Significance of the Study?

The Purpose of the Study focuses on why your research was conducted, while the Significance of the Study tells how the results of your research will benefit anyone.

Suppose your research is about the Effectiveness of Lemongrass Tea in Lowering the Blood Glucose Level of Swiss Mice . You may include in your Significance of the Study that the research results will provide new information and analysis on the medical ability of lemongrass to solve hyperglycemia. Meanwhile, you may include in your Purpose of the Study that your research wants to provide a cheaper and natural way to lower blood glucose levels since commercial supplements are expensive.

5. What is the Significance of the Study in Tagalog?

In Filipino research, the Significance of the Study is referred to as Kahalagahan ng Pag-aaral.

• Draft your Significance of the Study. Retrieved 18 April 2021, from http://dissertationedd.usc.edu/draft-your-significance-of-the-study.html
• Regoniel, P. (2015). Two Tips on How to Write the Significance of the Study. Retrieved 18 April 2021, from https://simplyeducate.me/2015/02/09/significance-of-the-study/

Written by Jewel Kyle Fabula

in Career and Education , Juander How

Jewel Kyle Fabula

Jewel Kyle Fabula is a Bachelor of Science in Economics student at the University of the Philippines Diliman. His passion for learning mathematics developed as he competed in some mathematics competitions during his Junior High School years. He loves cats, playing video games, and listening to music.

Browse all articles written by Jewel Kyle Fabula

Copyright Notice

All materials contained on this site are protected by the Republic of the Philippines copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published, or broadcast without the prior written permission of filipiknow.net or in the case of third party materials, the owner of that content. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright, or other notice from copies of the content. Be warned that we have already reported and helped terminate several websites and YouTube channels for blatantly stealing our content. If you wish to use filipiknow.net content for commercial purposes, such as for content syndication, etc., please contact us at legal(at)filipiknow(dot)net

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

16.2 Disseminating your findings

Learning objectives.

• Define dissemination
• Describe how audience impacts the content and purpose of dissemination
• Identify the options for formally presenting your work to other scholars
• Explain the role of stakeholders in dissemination

Dissemination refers to “a planned process that involves consideration of target audiences and the settings in which research findings are to be received and, where appropriate, communicating and interacting with wider policy and…service audiences in ways that will facilitate research uptake in decision-making processes and practice” (Wilson, Petticrew, Calnan, & Natareth, 2010, p. 91).  [1] In other words, dissemination of research findings involves careful planning, thought, consideration of target audiences, and communication with those audiences. Writing up results from your research and having others take notice are two entirely different propositions. In fact, the general rule of thumb is that people will not take notice unless you help and encourage them to do so.

Successful dissemination of your research findings requires you to determine who your audience is, where your audience is, and how to reach them. When considering who your audience is, think about who is likely to take interest in your work. Your audience might include those who do not express enthusiastic interest but might nevertheless benefit from an awareness of your research. Your research participants and those who share characteristics with your participants are likely to have some interest in what you’ve discovered in your research. Other scholars who study similar topics are another obvious audience for your work. Perhaps there are policymakers who should take note of your work. Organizations that work in an area related to the topic of your research are another possibility. Finally, any and all inquisitive and engaged members of the public represent a possible audience for your work.

It should not be difficult to locate where your audience is. You know where your research participants are because you’ve studied them. You can find interested scholars on your campus by offering to present your findings at a campus event, or at professional conferences. You can also locate scholars through publications like professional organizations’ newsletters and scholarly journals. Policymakers at the state and federal level are another potential audience. In theory, these representatives should be available to hear a constituent speak on matters of policy interest. Perhaps you’re already aware of organizations that do work in an area related to your research topic, but if not, a simple web search should help you identify possible organizational audiences for your work. Disseminating your findings to the public more generally could take any number of forms: a letter to the editor of the local newspaper, a blog, or even a post or two on your social media channels.

Finally, determining how to reach your audiences will vary according to which audience you wish to reach. Your strategy should be determined by the norms of the audience. For example, scholarly journals provide author submission instructions that clearly define requirements for anyone wishing to disseminate their work via a particular journal. The same is true for newspaper editorials; check your newspaper’s website for details about how to format and submit letters to the editor. If you wish to reach out to your political representatives, a call to their offices or a simple web search should provide guidance.

It is ultimately your decision to act on these suggestions. However, if you have conducted high-quality research and you have findings that are likely to be of interest to other, I would argue that it is your duty as a scholar and a social worker to share your findings. In sum, disseminating findings involves the following three steps:

• Determine who your audience
• Identify where your audience
• Discover how best to reach

Tailoring your message to your audience

Once you are able to articulate what to share, you must decide with whom to share it. While you would never alter your actual findings for different audiences, understanding who your audience is will help you frame your research in a way that is most meaningful to that audience. Certainly, the most obvious candidates with whom you’ll share your work are other social scientists. If you are conducting research for a class project, your main “audience” will probably be your professor. Perhaps you’ll also share your work with other students in the class.

What is more challenging, and possibly a little scary, is sharing your research with the wider world. Sharing with professional audiences is designed to not only bring your work to the attention of other social scientists and academics, but also other social workers or professionals who practice in areas related to your research. In the next few paragraphs, I will refer to my research project on Medicaid programs for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (DeCarlo, Bogenschutz, Hall-Lande, & Hewitt, 2017). [2] Scientists are probably the most interested in my study’s methods, particularly statistical tests or qualitative data analysis frameworks. Sharing your work with this audience will require you to talk about your methods and data in a different way than you would with other audiences.

Many outlets will not allow you to share your research until your results have undergone peer review. As you’ll remember from Chapter 2, this is a formal process in which other esteemed researchers and experts ensure your work meets the standards and expectations of the professional field. Peer review is used for both conference presentations and journal publication, though not all presentations and articles are peer-reviewed. Scientists who evaluate your work will be looking to ensure that your conclusions follow logically from your data, your design minimizes error and threats to validity, and your analysis of the literature is reasonable and thorough.

I’ve previously mentioned the qualitative study my colleagues and I conducted on policy for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. After we completed the data analysis, we sought publication in academic journals related to our topic, like the Journal of Disability Policy Studies and Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability . In this way, interdisciplinary journals would allow our work to be shared among other scholars and academics who study our topic. Why limit sharing my results to just social workers? Nurses, state administrators, client advocates, and countless others could make use of my data in their work. It is important for social workers to look outside the discipline when they share their results. Look back at your literature review and note the journal articles that commonly publish on your topic. Not only should you consider submitting your results to these journals, but you should also consider subscribing to them (in print or electronically) to stay current on the literature in your topic area.

Scholars take extraordinary care to avoid committing plagiarism . Presenting someone else’s words or ideas as if they are your own is among the most egregious transgressions a scholar can commit. Indeed, plagiarism has ended many careers (Maffly, 2011)  [3] and many students’ opportunities to pursue degrees (Go, 2008).  [4] Take this very seriously. If you feel a little afraid and paranoid after reading this warning, consider it a good thing— and let it motivate you to take extra care to ensure that you are not plagiarizing the work of others.

Formal presentations

Getting your work published in a journal is challenging and time-consuming, as journals receive many submissions but have limited room to publish. Researchers often seek to supplement their publications with formal presentations, which, while adhering to stringent standards, are more accessible and have more opportunities to share research. For researchers, presenting your research is an excellent way to get feedback on your work. Professional social workers often make presentations to their peers to prepare for more formal writing and publishing of their work. Presentations may be formal talks , either individually or as part of a panel at a professional conference; less formal roundtable discussions , another common professional conference format; or posters that are displayed in a specially designated area. We’ll look at all three presentation formats here.

When preparing an oral presentation , it is very important to get details well in advance about how long your presentation is expected to last and whether any visual aids such as video or slideshows are expected by your audience. At conferences, the typical oral presentation is usually expected to last between 15 and 20 minutes. While this may sound like a torturously lengthy amount of time, you’ll be amazed by how easily time can fly the first time you present formally. Researchers, myself included, can get so caught up explaining minute details like background literature or measurement quality that we don’t have enough time to thoroughly address the key conclusions of the study. To avoid this all-too-common occurrence, it is crucial that you repeatedly practice your presentation in advance—and time yourself.

One stumbling block in oral presentations of research work is spending too much time on the literature review. Keep in mind that with limited time, audience members will be more interested to hear about your original work than to hear you cite a long list of previous studies to introduce your own research. In scholarly written reports of your work, you must discuss the studies that have come before yours. In a presentation of your work, the key is to use what precious time you have to highlight your work. Whatever you do in your oral presentation, do not read your paper verbatim. Nothing will bore an audience more quickly than that. Highlight only the key points of your study. These generally include your research question, your methodological approach, your major findings, and a few final takeaway messages.

In less formal roundtable presentations of your work, the aim is usually to help stimulate a conversation about a topic. The time you are given to present may be slightly shorter than in a formal presentation, and you’ll also be expected to participate in the conversation that follows all presenters’ talks. Roundtables can be especially useful when your research is in the earlier stages of development. Perhaps you’ve conducted a pilot study and you’d like to talk through some of your findings and get some ideas about where to take the study next. A roundtable is an excellent place to get some suggestions and also get a preview of the objections reviewers may raise with respect to your conclusions or your approach to the work. Roundtables are also suitable places to network and meet other scholars who share a common interest with you.

Finally, in a poster presentation, you visually present your work. Just as you wouldn’t read a paper verbatim in a formal presentation, avoid at all costs printing and pasting your paper onto a poster board. Instead, think about how to tell the “story” of your work in graphs, charts, tables, and other images. Bulleted points are also fine if someone passing by can grasp your major argument and findings with ease. Posters, like roundtables, can be quite helpful at the early stages of a research project because they are designed to encourage the audience to engage you in conversation about your research. Don’t feel that you must share every detail of your work in a poster; the point is to share highlights and then converse with your audience to get their feedback, hear their questions, and provide additional details about your research.

For my study on policy for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, I decided to present at two social work research conferences: The Society for Social Work and Research conference and the Council on Social Work Education’s Annual Program Meeting. I encourage you to consider attending these conferences, and other social work conferences, during your social work education and beyond. Not only will you learn about the cutting edge of research in social work, but you may also walk away with a sense of how wide-ranging and vast the professional of social work truly is. Sharing my results with social workers is a good start, but to reach across various fields, my coauthors and I presented at the Association of University Centers on Disability conference, an interdisciplinary conference focused on research and advocacy for people with disabilities.

Presentations to stakeholders

While it is important to inform both academics and scientists about the results of your research, it is also important to identify stakeholders who would also benefit from knowing the results of your study. Stakeholders, as you’ll recall from Chapters 8 and 15, are individuals or groups who have an interest in the outcome of the study you conduct. Instead of the formal presentations or journal articles you may use to engage academics or fellow researchers, stakeholders will expect a presentation that is engaging, understandable, and immediately relevant to their lives and practice. Informal presentations are no less rigorous than formal presentations, but they do not follow a strict format.

For example, in my project on policy for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, I could have partnered with the National Association of Developmental Disabilities Program Directors (NASDDDS). NASDDDS provides training and coordination for the participants in our study, disability program administrators. I could make the results of my study relevant to the practice of these administrators and share them via a webinar, presentation at an annual meeting, or policy brief. These individuals are practitioners, so their foremost concern will be how to apply the results of my study in practice. They are also immensely knowledgeable about my topic, so representing conclusions with the humility required of a social scientist is prudent.

Simultaneously, I could have also addressed people with disabilities through the National Disability Rights Network. In this research project, people with IDD are my target population—the people for whom I want my study to have an impact. Providing these individuals with access to information about the programs designed to support them will support their self-advocacy for better and more responsive programs. Individuals in a state with relatively few benefits can point to programs from other states who have more robust programs as models for policymakers. I stated earlier that scientists and academics may be the most interested in your study’s methods, however that is only partially true. Advocates from your target population experience the issues you study every day. Therefore, they are immensely knowledgeable and will closely scrutinize your methods and results to make sure they accurately represent what happens in the real world.

Disseminating to the general public

While there are a seemingly infinite number of informal audiences, there is one more that is worth mentioning—the general public. I often say to my students that social work involves working in the areas of the social world that others do not want to see. Part of our job as social workers is to shine a light towards areas of social injustice and raise the consciousness of the public as a whole. Researchers commonly share their results with popular media outlets to reach a broader audience with their study’s conclusions. Unfortunately, journalism about scientific results can sometimes overstate the degree of certainty researchers have in their conclusions. If you’ve ever heard a study that says chocolate cures cancer, you know what I’m talking about. Consequently, it’s important to review the journalistic standards at the media outlet and reporter you approach by examining their previous work and clarifying the degree of control over the final product you will have.

Reports written for public consumption differ from those written for scholarly consumption. As noted elsewhere in this chapter, knowing your audience is crucial when preparing a report of your research. What are they likely to want to hear about? What portions of the research do you feel are crucial to share, regardless of the audience? What level of knowledge do they have about your topic? Answering these questions will help you determine how to shape any written reports you plan to produce. In fact, some outlets answer these questions for you, as in the case of newspaper editorials where rules of style, presentation, and length will dictate the shape of your written report.

Whoever your audience, don’t forget that you are reporting social scientific evidence. Take seriously your role as a social scientist and your place among peers in your discipline. Present your findings as clearly and as honestly as you possibly can. Pay appropriate homage to the scholars who have come before you, even while you raise questions about their work. Further, aim to engage your readers in a discussion about your work and about avenues for further inquiry. Even if you won’t ever meet your readers face-to-face, imagine what they might ask you upon reading your report, imagine your response, and provide some of those details in your written report.

In this chapter, the venues through which I shared my work may not be particularly helpful to your project (unless you also completed a project on intellectual and developmental disabilities). You will need to identify conferences, journals, stakeholders, or media for disseminating your research results. As you proceed, consider the following questions:

• What academic and research conferences are relevant to your topic?
• What journals publish in your topic area? What journals appeared often in your literature review?
• What interdisciplinary conferences and meetings are relevant to your topic?
• What stakeholders would find your research conclusions relevant?
• Who is your target population? What media do they consume?
• What popular media would find your research relevant or interesting? Can you trust them to report your results responsibly?

Key Takeaways

• Disseminating findings takes planning and careful consideration of your audiences.
• The dissemination process includes determining the who, where, and how of reaching your audiences.
• Plagiarism is among the most egregious transgressions a scholar can commit.
• In formal presentations, include your research question, methodological approach, major findings, and a few final takeaways.
• Roundtable presentations emphasize discussion among participants.
• Poster presentations are visual representations of research findings that also encourage discussion.
• Reports for public consumption usually contain fewer details than reports for scholarly consumption.
• Keep your role and obligations as a social scientist in mind as you write research reports.

Dissemination- “a planned process that involves consideration of target audiences and the settings in which research findings are to be received and, where appropriate, communicating and interacting with wider policy and…service audiences in ways that will facilitate research uptake in decision-making processes and practice” (Wilson, Petticrew, Calnan, & Natareth, 2010, p. 91)

Oral presentation- verbal presentation of research findings to a conference audience

Plagiarism- presenting someone else’s words or ideas as if they are your own

Poster presentation- presentations that use a poster to visually represent the elements of the study

Roundtable presentation- presentations designed to stimulate discussion on a topic

Image attributions

microphone by Skitterphoto CC-0

woman man teamwork by rawpixel CC-0

audience by MariSmithPix CC-0

feedback by surdumihail CC-0

• Wilson, P. M., Petticrew, M., Calnan, M. W., & Natareth, I. (2010). Disseminating research findings: What should researchers do? A systematic scoping review of conceptual frameworks. Implementation Science , 5 , 91. ↵
• DeCarlo, M., Hall-Lande, J. Bogenschutz, M., & Hewitt, A. (2017). State of the states in self-direction for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (Policy research brief 26, 1) . Minneapolis, MN:  Research and Training Center on Community Living at the University of Minnesota. Retrieved from: https://ici.umn.edu/index.php?products/view/952 ↵
• As just a single example, take note of this story: Maffly, B. (2011, August 19). “Pattern of plagiarism” costs University of Utah scholar his job. The Salt Lake Tribune . Retrieved from http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/cougars/52378377-78/bakhtiari-university-panel-plagiarism.html.csp?page=1 ↵
• As a single example (of many) of the consequences for students of committing plagiarism, see Go, A. (2008). Two students kicked off semester at sea for plagiarism. U.S. News & World Report . Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/paper-trail/2008/08/14/two-students-kicked-off-semester-at-sea-for-plagiarism ↵

Scientific Inquiry in Social Work Copyright © 2018 by Matthew DeCarlo is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

The Why: Explaining the significance of your research

In the first four articles of this series, we examined The What: Defining a research project , The Where: Constructing an effective writing environment , The When: Setting realistic timeframes for your research , and The Who: Finding key sources in the existing literature . In this article, we will explore the fifth, and final, W of academic writing, The Why: Explaining the significance of your research.

Q1: When considering the significance of your research, what is the general contribution you make?

According to the Unite for Sight online module titled “ The Importance of Research ”:

“The purpose of research is to inform action. Thus, your study should seek to contextualize its findings within the larger body of research. Research must always be of high quality in order to produce knowledge that is applicable outside of the research setting. Furthermore, the results of your study may have implications for policy and future project implementation.”

In response to this TweetChat question, Twitter user @aemidr shared that the “dissemination of the research outcomes” is their contribution. Petra Boynton expressed a contribution of “easy to follow resources other people can use to help improve their health/wellbeing”.

Eric Schmieder said, “In general, I try to expand the application of technology to improve the efficiency of business processes through my research and personal use and development of technology solutions.” While Janet Salmons offered the response, “ I am a metaresearcher , that is, I research emerging qualitative methods & write about them. I hope contribution helps student & experienced researchers try new approaches.”

Despite the different contributions each of these participants noted as the significance of their individual research efforts, there is a significance to each. In addition to the importance stated through the above examples, Leann Zarah offered 7 Reasons Why Research Is Important , as follows:

• A Tool for Building Knowledge and for Facilitating Learning
• Means to Understand Various Issues and Increase Public Awareness
• An Aid to Business Success
• A Way to Prove Lies and to Support Truths
• Means to Find, Gauge, and Seize Opportunities
• A Seed to Love Reading, Writing, Analyzing, and Sharing Valuable Information
• Nourishment and Exercise for the Mind

Q1a: What is the specific significance of your research to yourself or other individuals?

The first of “ 3 Important Things to Consider When Selecting Your Research Topic ”, as written by Stephen Fiedler is to “choose something that interests you”. By doing so, you are more likely to stay motivated and persevere through inevitable challenges.

As mentioned earlier, for Salmons her interests lie in emerging methods and new approaches to research. As Salmons pointed out in the TweetChat, “Conventional methods may not be adequate in a globally-connected world – using online methods expands potential participation.”

For @aemidr, “specific significance of my research is on health and safety from the environment and lifestyle”. In contrast, Schmieder said “my ongoing research allows me to be a better educator, to be more efficient in my own business practices, and to feel comfortable engaging with new technology”.

Regardless of discipline, a personal statement can help identify for yourself and others your suitability for specific research. Some things to include in the statement are:

• Your reasons for choosing your topic of research
• The aspects of your topic of research that interest you most
• Any work experience, placement or voluntary work you have undertaken, particularly if it is relevant to your subject. Include the skills and abilities you have gained from these activities
• How your choice of research fits in with your future career plans

Q2: Why is it important to communicate the value of your research?

According to Salmons, “If you research and no one knows about it or can use what you discover, it is just an intellectual exercise. If we want the public to support & fund research, we must show why it’s important!” She has written for the SAGE MethodSpace blog on the subject Write with Purpose, Publish for Impact building a collection of articles from both the MethodSpace blog and TAA’s blog, Abstract .

Peter J. Stogios shares with us benefits to both the scientist and the public in his article, “ Why Sharing Your Research with the Public is as Necessary as Doing the Research Itself ”. Unsure where to start? Stogios states, “There are many ways scientists can communicate more directly with the public. These include writing a personal blog, updating their lab’s or personal website to be less technical and more accessible to non-scientists, popular science forums and message boards, and engaging with your institution’s research communication office. Most organizations publish newsletters or create websites showcasing the work being done, and act as intermediaries between the researchers and the media. Scientists can and should interact more with these communicators.”

Schmieder stated during the TweetChat that the importance of communicating the value of your research is “primarily to help others understand why you do what you do, but also for funding purposes, application of your results by others, and increased personal value and validation”.

In her article, “ Explaining Your Research to the Public: Why It Matters, How to Do It! ”, Sharon Page-Medrich conveys the importance, stating “UC Berkeley’s 30,000+ undergraduate and 11,000+ graduate students generate or contribute to diverse research in the natural and physical sciences, social sciences and humanities, and many professional fields. Such research and its applications are fundamental to saving lives, restoring healthy environments, making art and preserving culture, and raising standards of living. Yet the average person-in-the-street may not see the connection between students’ investigations and these larger outcomes.”

Q2a: To whom is it most difficult to explain that value?

Although important, it’s not always easy to share our research efforts with others. Erin Bedford sets the scene as she tells us “ How to (Not) Talk about Your Research ”. “It’s happened to the best of us. First, the question: ‘so, what is your research on?’ Then, the blank stare as you try to explain. And finally, the uninterested but polite nod and smile.”

Schmieder acknowledges that these polite people who care enough to ask, but often are the hardest to explain things to are “family and friends who don’t share the same interests or understanding of the subject matter.” It’s not that they don’t care about the efforts, it’s that the level to which a researcher’s investment and understanding is different from those asking about their work.

When faced with less-than-supportive reactions from friends, Noelle Sterne shares some ways to retain your perspective and friendship in her TAA blog article, “ Friends – How to deal with their negative responses to your academic projects ”.

Q3: What methods have you used to explain your research to others (both inside and outside of your discipline)?

Schmieder stated, “I have done webinars, professional development seminars, blog articles, and online courses” in an effort to communicate research to others. The Edinburg Napier University LibGuides guide to Sharing Your Research includes some of these in their list of resources as well adding considerations of online presence, saving time / online efficiency, copyright, and compliance to the discussion.

Michaela Panter states in her article, “ Sharing Your Findings with a General Audience ”, that “tips and guidelines for conveying your research to a general audience are increasingly widespread, yet scientists remain wary of doing so.” She notes, however, that “effectively sharing your research with a general audience can positively affect funding for your work” and “engaging the general public can further the impact of your research”.

If these are affects you desire, consider CES’s “ Six ways to share your research findings ”, as follows:

• Know your audience and define your goal
• Collaborate with others
• Make a plan
• Embrace plain language writing
• Layer and link, and
• Evaluate your work

Q4: What are some places you can share your research and its significance beyond your writing?

Beyond traditional journal article publication efforts, there are many opportunities to share your research with a larger community. Schmieder listed several options during the TweetChat event, specifically, “conference presentations, social media, blogs, professional networks and organizations, podcasts, and online courses”.

Elsevier’s resource, “ Sharing and promoting your article ” provides advice on sharing your article in the following ten places:

• At a conference
• For classroom teaching purposes
• For grant applications
• With my colleagues
• On a preprint server
• On my personal blog or website
• On my institutional repository
• On a subject repository (or other non-commercial repository)
• On Scholarly Communication Network (SCN), such as Mendeley or Scholar Universe
• Social Media, such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter

Nature Publishing Group’s “ tips for promoting your research ” include nine ways to get started:

• Share your work with your social networks
• Update your professional profile
• Utilize research-sharing platforms
• Create a Google Scholar profile – or review and enhance your existing one
• Highlight key and topical points in a blog post
• Make your research outputs shareable and discoverable
• Register for a unique ORCID author identifier
• Encourage readership within your institution

Finally, Sheffield Solutions produced a top ten list of actions you can take to help share and disseminate your work more widely online, as follows:

• Create an ORCID ID
• Upload to Sheffield’s MyPublications system
• Make your work Open Access
• Create a Google Scholar profile
• Join an academic social network
• Connect through Twitter
• Blog about your research
• Upload to Slideshare or ORDA
• Track your research

Q5: How is the significance of your study conveyed in your writing efforts?

Schmieder stated, “Significance is conveyed through the introduction, the structure of the study, and the implications for further research sections of articles”. According to The Writing Center at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, “A thesis statement tells the reader how you will interpret the significance of the subject matter under discussion”.

In their online Tips & Tools resource on Thesis Statements , they share the following six questions to ask to help determine if your thesis is strong:

• Do I answer the question?
• Have I taken a position that others might challenge or oppose?
• Is my thesis statement specific enough?
• Does my thesis pass the “So what?” test?
• Does my essay support my thesis specifically and without wandering?
• Does my thesis pass the “how and why?” test?

Some journals, such as Elsevier’s Acta Biomaterialia, now require a statement of significance with manuscript submissions. According to the announcement linked above, “these statements will address the novelty aspect and the significance of the work with respect to the existing literature and more generally to the society.” and “by highlighting the scientific merit of your research, these statements will help make your work more visible to our readership.”

Q5a: How does the significance influence the structure of your writing?

According to Jeff Hume-Pratuch in the Academic Coaching & Writing (ACW) article, “ Using APA Style in Academic Writing: Precision and Clarity ”, “The need for precision and clarity of expression is one of the distinguishing marks of academic writing.” As a result, Hume-Pratuch advises that you “choose your words wisely so that they do not come between your idea and the audience.” To do so, he suggests avoiding ambiguous expressions, approximate language, and euphemisms and jargon in your writing.

Schmieder shared in the TweetChat that “the impact of the writing is affected by the target audience for the research and can influence word choice, organization of ideas, and elements included in the narrative”.

Discussing the organization of ideas, Patrick A. Regoniel offers “ Two Tips in Writing the Significance of the Study ” claiming that by referring to the statement of the problem and writing from general to specific contribution, you can “prevent your mind from wandering wildly or aimlessly as you explore the significance of your study”.

Q6: What are some ways you can improve your ability to explain your research to others?

For both Schmieder and Salmons, practice is key. Schmieder suggested, “Practice simplifying the concepts. Focus on why rather than what. Share research in areas where they are active and comfortable”. Salmons added, “answer ‘so what’ and ‘who cares’ questions. Practice creating a sentence. For my study of the collaborative process: ‘Learning to collaborate is important for team success in professional life’ works better than ‘a phenomenological study of instructors’ perceptions’”.

In a guest blog post for Scientific American titled “ Effective Communication, Better Science ”, Mónica I. Feliú-Mójer claimed “to be a successful scientist, you must be an effective communicator.” In support of the goal of being an effective communicator, a list of training opportunities and other resources are included in the article.

Along the same lines, The University of Melbourne shared the following list of resources, workshops, and programs in their online resource on academic writing and communication skills :

• Speaking and Presenting : Resources for presenting your research, using PowerPoint to your advantage, presenting at conferences and helpful videos on presenting effectively
• Research Impact Library Advisory Service  (RILAS): Helps you to determine the impact of your publications and other research outputs for academic promotions and grant applications
• Three Minute Thesis Competition  (3MT): Research communication competition that requires you to deliver a compelling oration on your thesis topic and its significance in just three minutes or less.
• Visualise your Thesis Competition : A dynamic and engaging audio-visual “elevator pitch” (e-Poster) to communicate your research to a broad non-specialist audience in 60 seconds.

As we complete this series exploration of the five W’s of academic writing, we hope that you are adequately prepared to apply them to your own research efforts of defining a research project, constructing an effective writing environment, setting realistic timeframes for your research, finding key sources in the existing literature, and last, but not least, explaining the significance of your research.

Share this:

• Share on Tumblr