Collaborative Learning Framework for Online Stakeholder Engagement

Published in: Health Expectations, 2015

Posted on RAND.org on December 23, 2015

by Dmitry Khodyakov, Terrance Dean Savitsky, Siddhartha Dalal

Read More

Access further information on this document at Health Expectations

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

BACKGROUND: Public and stakeholder engagement can improve the quality of both research and policy decision making. However, such engagement poses significant methodological challenges in terms of collecting and analysing input from large, diverse groups. OBJECTIVE: To explain how online approaches can facilitate iterative stakeholder engagement, to describe how input from large and diverse stakeholder groups can be analysed and to propose a collaborative learning framework (CLF) to interpret stakeholder engagement results. METHODS: We use 'A National Conversation on Reducing the Burden of Suicide in the United States' as a case study of online stakeholder engagement and employ a Bayesian data modelling approach to develop a CLF. RESULTS: Our data modelling results identified six distinct stakeholder clusters that varied in the degree of individual articulation and group agreement and exhibited one of the three learning styles: learning towards consensus, learning by contrast and groupthink. Learning by contrast was the most common, or dominant, learning style in this study. CONCLUSION: Study results were used to develop a CLF, which helps explore multitude of stakeholder perspectives; identifies clusters of participants with similar shifts in beliefs; offers an empirically derived indicator of engagement quality; and helps determine the dominant learning style. The ability to detect learning by contrast helps illustrate differences in stakeholder perspectives, which may help policymakers, including Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, make better decisions by soliciting and incorporating input from patients, caregivers, health-care providers and researchers. Study results have important implications for soliciting and incorporating input from stakeholders with different interests and perspectives.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit www.rand.org/about/principles.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.