Article Text


  1. J Tritter
  1. School of Languages and Social Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham, UK


Increasingly research funders call for greater involvement of patients and the public in all aspects of research; an agenda that is even more prominent for public funding bodies. This agenda has been linked to a growing recognition of the relevance of patient experience in developing health services and patient-centred care and shared decision-making in clinical consultations. In this paper I explore the conceptual challenges in defining patient involvement and public involvement and the implications this has for public legitimacy in shaping research agendas and the research process. Patients have a different, and typically individual stake in research while members of the public as policy agents can enact a more collectivist orientation. Collaborative research is premised on different forms of expertise but is often framed as a contestation between different types of knowledge often reflecting the zero-sum model of decision making power that underpins Arnstein's Ladder of Citizen Participation. Such an approach fails to consider that members of a research team typically have different roles and responsibilities and that this does not necessarily diminish the collaboration. I conclude with reflections on how partnership in research should be based on the recognition of difference rather than equal roles and responsibilities. Such an approach, I argue may enhance rather than compromise research collaboration between academics, service users and members of the public.

Statistics from

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.