‘Community collaboration is the cornerstone of EDI in research’ (Texas Centre for Equity Promotion).

When setting out to formulate a research question, researchers are working to at least two immediate agendas. Firstly, the priorities of the funders of research, such as funding councils and charities or organisations working across health and social care policy and service provision. At the very least, core parameters will be set in terms of research focus and overarching aims. Secondly, the extant evidence base; hence, the all-important review of the literature to identify research priorities in the field of interest. This is explored in greater detail in another OpenLearn article in which we discuss citational politics. Again, researchers are likely to be led in particular directions, depending on the assumptions and conventions which have informed the development of this evidence. Collectively, these two conditions mean that the question formulation is vulnerable to perpetuating biases even, perhaps sometimes especially, when seeking to demonstrate fit with predominant interests and corpuses of knowledge. 

Watch the video below as Joanne Jordan talks to Jennifer Agbaire about how to formulate equitable research questions.  

Transcript (85.1 KB) .

Recent exposure of significant Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) deficits in research practices that underpin the extant evidence base underlines the importance of maintaining a critical lens when using it in the formulation of questions. The following examples provide just a flavour of the deficits that have been highlighted. Crowe et al. (2021) show how research priority setting (a key component of which is the development of research questions) for people who identify as LGBTQ+ has been built on a Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich and Democratic (WEIRD) bias in social science research, systematically excluding the very people it is supposed to benefit. Ruzycki and Ahmed (2022) quote ‘Researched to Death’ – a synthesis of 11 studies examining violence against Indigenous women in Canada – which found that all asked similar questions and produced similar recommendations, none of which had been implemented. In their review of research priority setting in relation to ‘Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME)’ health, Iqbal et al. (2021) highlight the non-inclusion of these communities in establishing priorities and in the implementation of research to address identified priorities. Collectively, all of these authors prioritise the need for different questions to be asked, premised on different research practices, to deliver meaningful findings and positive change.  

Concerning research funding, and reflecting the above inadequacies, there has been a recent awakening for EDI to be explicitly addressed in research, both in the processes through which research proposals are developed, and in their research aims and focus (e.g. UKRI, 2023; Wellcome Trust, n.d.; NIHR, 2022). This development has the potential to strengthen the capacity of research to produce more ‘scientifically’ valid knowledge (e.g. in terms of representativeness) and contribute to social justice by encouraging the formulation of questions relevant to the needs of groups previously marginalised or overlooked (Darko, 2023; Farooqui et al., 2018; For Equity, 2022). However, as Lett et al. (2022) have convincingly argued, the danger is that this burgeoning interest will lead to what has been described as health equity tourism. This phenomenon sees researchers lacking the necessary experience or commitment ‘parachuting’ (p. 2) into the field, often using the same or similar conventional research practices, thereby perpetuating the very inequities they claim to be working against.  

So, how can researchers help to ensure that the questions they formulate are meaningfully premised on EDI principles? Here, I (a white cisgendered female) focus on two core responsibilities. Firstly, through learning. Ruzycki and Ahmed (2022, p. 910) talk about a need to undertake ‘a historical review of [your] field through an EDI lens’. Such a review goes further than consulting only the evidence base to include, for example, seeking out literature on how research has been involved in oppression and other forms of harm. The Gund Institute for Environment (2021) describes a process of personal development through reading of relevant equity and social justice literature, self-reflection on positionality, and being open to challenge, uncertainty and discomfort. Similarly, the framework for ‘equity-centred transformative research’ outlined by Venkateswaran et al. (2023) compels researchers to develop a critical consciousness, to understand how their own position sits within dominant frameworks of understanding and values, including in relation to research practice. 

Secondly, by collaborating with the people most likely to be impacted by the research. To enhance the social relevance of research, the questions it asks need to be informed by a multiplicity of voices from beyond the academy. Expertise comes in many forms and that derived from lived experience is as valuable than that brought by researchers (Lett et al., 2022). Although diversity of experience should be sought across social location, identity, knowledge and experience, the pursuit of equity mandates that particular attention is paid to those historically underrepresented or excluded in research (Darko, 2023; Islam et al., 2021; Ruzycki and Ahmed, 2022). Examples include people living in areas of socio-economic deprivation, minoritised ethnic groups and younger people. In listing these categories, the danger becomes one of approaching diversity and inclusion in terms of single dimension identity, failing to take account of multiple, overlapping identities. Such ‘intersectionality’ prioritises a need for researchers to be aware of differences across and within groups in the process of question formulation. In this context, Kelly et al. (2022) talk about intersectionality as a methodology, that is, an approach that informs all aspects of research practice. Indeed, the methodological centrality of intersectionality is underlined by its repeated mention in other sections of this article. 

The work associated with the responsibilities outlined above takes time and effort, as well as a commitment to the potential for change in mindset concerning the purpose of research (the ‘real’ point of research is social justice?) and practice (how can research advance social justice by asking the ‘right’ questions?). Stripping oneself back to think about personal values and deliberately challenging oneself to consider the questions that should be asked can be unnerving. And engaging in meaningful collaboration in the development of these questions cannot be achieved without determination and initiative. When considering how to include people from underrepresented groups, the old mantra of ‘hard to reach’ has been rightfully discredited. As is being increasingly made clear, the issue is one of ‘hardly reached’ (Singh, 2023) or ‘seldom heard’ (Prinjha et al., 2020) because of deficits in conventional research practice. Inclusion is possible when these conventions are replaced in favour of more innovative and responsive opportunities for participation (Nί Shé et al., 2019). Finally, the issue of the time necessary to undertake the work should not be underestimated. Given their long-standing exclusion from research, trust in the research process and confidence to participate of those now being asked to contribute cannot be presumed (Islam et al., 2021). As both Lett et al. (2022) and Venkateswaran et al. (2022) make clear, collaboration requires research processes that are ‘slower’; this is no less relevant to the formulation of research questions as it is to all other aspects of research practice.