Probably there is not enough stakeholder retention, or participation, because there was not enough engagement. This sounds like obvious but I think it’s more frequent than we think, specially when it’s related with community.
Some research teams do the theory at the beginning, even gathering some of the right stakeholders, but maybe not enough of them, not enough involved in the process and maybe not the right people, so sometimes community leaders are ongoing for a long period (and always the same people) so we can think we have a good community representation but also community based organizations sometimes are apart of the real leaders and community needs.
I think it’s important to map stakeholders deeply, going further of the usual faces / representatives. It’s better to consider any posible stakeholder and then not having it in the final process than realize along it that it was missed. I guess the most difficult challenge is the own engagement, but I believe that if the research team develop the whole research beside those stakeholders mapped (planning, developing, implementing and evaluating, and information dissemination) the engagement will be easier and meaningful.
Plan with them, check their arguments and experience since the beginning and continue the comunication frequently, not just communicating outcomes but also work together in the whole process. In my experience another useful thing working with stakeholders is to mix them and make them to cooperate together. Networking is one of the most engaging experience for any stakeholder.
