"“Interest‐holders”: A new term to replace “stakeholders” in health research and policy"

[Sandra Holdsworth]

“Interest-Holders” to replace “stakeholders” what are your thoughts?

Please read especially page four where they discuss other options that were considered.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.70007

[Katie Upham]

@Sandra-Holdsworth thank you for this! I have been well aware of the issues with the term "stakeholders" and have been searching for a viable alternative for awhile now!

[Sandra Holdsworth]

@Katie-Upham you’re welcome. So do you like the new term “interest-holders” assuming Stakeholders is eliminated?

Others @Chris-Johnston @Claire-Snyman @Carolyn-Canfield @Dawn-Richards @Sandra-Zelinsky

[Alies Maybee]

@Sandra-Holdsworth I thought I'd weigh in here. I like the option to use "interest-holders" but think any option we use should fit the context and be clear if it includes patient/caregiver partners or not. I think we are actually not necessarily interest-holders but actually that unique category that is "patient" or "caregiver". Welcome this conversation!

[Chris Johnston]

@Sandra-Holdsworth Thanks for sharing the paper and opening the discussion Sandra!

I’ve been pondering this over the past week having read both the paper and several linked articles.

First, I have to confess that I love language and don’t like to think of any word being banned per se, but thoroughly agree that we need to choose words and terms with care for the context in which they will be used, and mindful of the myriad connotations they carry. While moving away from any familiar terminology often requires an uphill struggle toward widespread adoption, it can prove a powerful means to provoke reflection and establish new norms.

I have no strong attachment to the ‘stakeholder’ term and understand the negative connection. However I was intrigued that the paper made no reference to any discussion, consultation or collaboration with First Nations or Indigenous organizations to ascertain their preferences for an alternative term. The MuSE group is described as diverse, but having read their newsletters, papers etc., I could find no indication of whether the group included indigenous members. I know that they conducted a survey to help identify new terms, but couldn’t find any indication of whether they’d captured demographics to determine whether the survey had reached any indigenous communities. Of course I’m inferring from lack of information which may be entirely wrong, it just seems an oversight not to mention it.

The BC government site referenced in the paper states that it’s more appropriate to refer to indigenous peoples as partners, though they also don’t mention any consultation, so it still leaves me wondering whether any consultation has taken place, and if not, why not? If anyone is aware of consultations that have taken place, please let me know, I’d love to hear the outcomes!

In the absence of which, my instinctive reaction is that partner feels stronger and is a more intuitively understood term than interest-holder. The rationale given for rejecting it is poorly framed and I suspect not fully explored. Particularly as it was the preferred option identified in their first survey - as confirmed in their Sep 2023 newsletter. Then for some unspecified reason they chose to run a further survey and settled on a different result.

For myself, I certainly claim the title of partner even when it’s not offered, as I think it communicates how I expect to be treated and how I choose to contribute.

It’s an interesting topic with ramifications for everyone involved or hoping to become involved in healthcare research, quality improvement, governance or policy making - and one that I think will take some time to achieve consensus.