Evaluation of Public Involvement in Doctoral Research Using a Four‐Dimensional Theoretical Framework

Abstract

Background: Working together and co‐production with public advisors have become popular among health researchers. This practice extends to doctoral researchers who involve public advisors at different stages of their research or throughout their doctoral journey. Objective: A doctoral researcher and two public advisors jointly evaluated public involvement in doctoral research. Methods: Using the established public involvement evaluation framework by Gibson and colleagues, public advisors and a doctoral researcher mapped and evaluated their experiences of public involvement in doctoral research. The four‐dimensional framework allowed the authors to reflect on (1) the strength of the public voice, (2) the number of ways in which public advisors had an opportunity to get involved, (3) whether the discussion was about the public or organisation's (doctoral researcher, university or funder) concerns and (4) if the organisation changed or resisted feedback. Results are presented in a diagrammatic and narrative way. Results: Public advisors saw themselves as having a stronger voice in doctoral research than the doctoral researcher perceived. All agreed that there existed multiple ways for public advisors to be involved. Public advisors' feedback was taken on board, but it was also limited due to restrictions of what the doctoral programme allowed. Conclusion: Public advisors ensured that the doctoral research was more relevant to the public. The ongoing involvement also shaped the doctoral researcher's thinking and views. Patient and Public Involvement: Two public advisors were involved throughout the 3 years of this doctoral research. They co‐evaluated this involvement and are co‐authors of this paper