↓ Skip to main content

The ECOUTER methodology for stakeholder engagement in translational research

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The ECOUTER methodology for stakeholder engagement in translational research
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12910-017-0167-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Madeleine J. Murtagh, Joel T. Minion, Andrew Turner, Rebecca C. Wilson, Mwenza Blell, Cynthia Ochieng, Barnaby Murtagh, Stephanie Roberts, Oliver W. Butters, Paul R Burton

Abstract

Because no single person or group holds knowledge about all aspects of research, mechanisms are needed to support knowledge exchange and engagement. Expertise in the research setting necessarily includes scientific and methodological expertise, but also expertise gained through the experience of participating in research and/or being a recipient of research outcomes (as a patient or member of the public). Engagement is, by its nature, reciprocal and relational: the process of engaging research participants, patients, citizens and others (the many 'publics' of engagement) brings them closer to the research but also brings the research closer to them. When translating research into practice, engaging the public and other stakeholders is explicitly intended to make the outcomes of translation relevant to its constituency of users. In practice, engagement faces numerous challenges and is often time-consuming, expensive and 'thorny' work. We explore the epistemic and ontological considerations and implications of four common critiques of engagement methodologies that contest: representativeness, communication and articulation, impacts and outcome, and democracy. The ECOUTER (Employing COnceptUal schema for policy and Translation Engagement in Research) methodology addresses problems of representation and epistemic foundationalism using a methodology that asks, "How could it be otherwise?" ECOUTER affords the possibility of engagement where spatial and temporal constraints are present, relying on saturation as a method of 'keeping open' the possible considerations that might emerge and including reflexive use of qualitative analytic methods. This paper describes the ECOUTER process, focusing on one worked example and detailing lessons learned from four other pilots. ECOUTER uses mind-mapping techniques to 'open up' engagement, iteratively and organically. ECOUTER aims to balance the breadth, accessibility and user-determination of the scope of engagement. An ECOUTER exercise comprises four stages: (1) engagement and knowledge exchange; (2) analysis of mindmap contributions; (3) development of a conceptual schema (i.e. a map of concepts and their relationship); and (4) feedback, refinement and development of recommendations. ECOUTER refuses fixed truths but also refuses a fixed nature. Its promise lies in its flexibility, adaptability and openness. ECOUTER will be formed and re-formed by the needs and creativity of those who use it.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 93 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 23 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 12%
Student > Master 10 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 5%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 4 4%
Other 17 18%
Unknown 23 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 14 15%
Social Sciences 13 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 3%
Psychology 3 3%
Other 25 27%
Unknown 30 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 November 2017.
All research outputs
#4,890,016
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#471
of 1,009 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,024
of 310,925 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#8
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,009 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,925 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.