Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
I think I agree with Jorge: it would be great if GPP was a requirement. It has been shown that training in GPP increases support for GPP guidelines across all 16 areas and its relevance in research (see Ngongo et al., 2012). I’m currently look at ways to monitor and evaluate GPP awareness, acceptance and implementation (when engaging MSM communities). Any information would be appreciated…
The value of GPP and stakeholder engagement is highly regarded among the members of the research team that I am part of. I think GPP’s guiding principles and the practices are perceived as valuable when the goal is to successfully identify and develop mutually beneficial relationships with community stakeholders. Although there is an understanding and appreciation for GPP, most of the awareness revolves around the principles (respect, mutual understanding, etc.) which are related to research ethics (and overlaps with other disciplines e.g. values of community psychology, such as empowerment and self-determination; collaboration and democratic participation; health, wellness and the prevention of psychosocial stress; and social justice). Awareness and understanding of the 16 GPP topics (stakeholder engagement activities), I think, are general and some of the topics are perceived to be more important than others (formative research, advisory mechanisms & informed consent vs. communication and transparency & policies and documentation). As a research topic, I do not think the entire team is interested in GPP and/ or regard community/stakeholder engagement as an important activity in scientific research (which probably relates to an entirely different forum question).
