The language we use in research impact matters. It shapes how we understand the people and communities connected to research, whose knowledge and experiences we recognise, and how we approach engagement.
A commentary published in Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods explores this through the widespread use of the term “stakeholder”. The authors consider the term’s colonial connotations and propose “interest-holders” as an alternative.
They define interest-holders as groups with legitimate interests in an issue because they are responsible for, or affected by, decisions that research evidence can inform.
I think this is a useful contribution to a much wider conversation about the language of research impact. There is still quite a lot of fuzziness around terminology. I mostly use “research users”, because it encourages researchers to think about who might actually use or benefit from their research. But that language has limitations too: people and communities can have a legitimate interest in research without necessarily being expected to “use” its findings.
That is where I can see real value in “interest-holders”. It gives us another way of thinking about the people who have an interest in, or may be affected by, research.
What does this mean for research impact practice?
Context matters. This is a useful prompt to think more carefully about the language we choose.
When planning impact and engagement, we might ask:
- Who is affected by this research, as well as who might use it?
- Does the language we are using accurately describe people’s relationship to the research?
- Are there terms that could exclude, misrepresent or cause harm to the people we hope to engage?
Language is not separate from good engagement practice. Being willing to question familiar terminology, and find alternatives when it no longer serves us, is part of creating more thoughtful and inclusive approaches to research impact.
