The word ‘stakeholder’ stands in for a range of people and practices across many research fields. Caitlin Hafferty, Ursula Pool and Pedi Obani argue that the colonial connotations and ingrained inequalities of the term, require scholars to rethink its use and take greater care with the way in which words shape attitudes and approaches to research.

Language shapes how we understand the world and engage with others. The words we use guide our thoughts, knowledge, actions, decisions, and ultimately how we conceptualise and give meaning to the world around us. While language can be used to promote fairness and inclusion, it can also exacerbate exclusion and systemic injustice. The word “stakeholder” is used widely by researchers seeking to engage people with their work to achieve impact. We argue that the term comes with inherent issues that risk perpetuating inequalities and colonial harm, and may undermine or contradict positive impacts sought by those who use it.

Rather than searching for a single replacement term we wanted to open a conversation on decolonisation, diversity, and equity in research and practice

With this in mind, we decided to critically examine the issues surrounding the use of the term “stakeholder”. Our aim was to raise awareness and encourage a broader discussion about the problems with the stakeholder paradigm, and to explore what alternative terms and ideas we could use. To do this, we ran online conversations and a workshop in November 2022, followed by an open authorship model to invite a wide range of contributions from an international community of practitioners and researchers. 

Rather than searching for a single replacement term we wanted to open a conversation on decolonisation, diversity, and equity in research and practice, using this word to shine a light on the role of language in engagement. The results of our collaboration are described in full in our paper.

Challenging problematic terminology

“Stakeholder” is a problematic term that demands greater scrutiny in research, policy and practice. However, discussions about alternative perspectives have been limited, despite widespread efforts to challenge harmful, exclusionary, judgemental, and biased terms that can dehumanise and perpetuate stigma (e.g., the movement towards person-centred language).

Issues with the term “stakeholder” go beyond its ambiguity; it has deep ethical implications stemming from its colonial roots and its association with Western power dynamics. Critics argue that its use in contexts affected by colonialism, especially concerning Indigenous groups and marginalised communities, underscores a ‘language of power’ that perpetuates rather than disrupts colonial logics, inequalities and injustices. This has led some researchers to advocate that the term should be ‘banished’ from modern use.

Issues with the term “stakeholder” go beyond its ambiguity; it has deep ethical implications stemming from its colonial roots and its association with Western power dynamics.

Using “stakeholder” without acknowledging these historical patterns of marginalisation and injustice is problematic, particularly when working with Indigenous groups and disenfranchised communities. It not only risks overlooking power dynamics, but promotes ways of thinking and knowing that over-privilege certain knowledge types, top-down control and the centralisation of ownership and use of land and other resources. Calibrating language to engage ethically with individuals in different contexts is crucial for more equitable communication and outcomes.

the term “stakeholder” is often used as an ambiguous catch-all term

Moreover, the term “stakeholder” is often used as an ambiguous catch-all term, leaving room for misinterpretation, bias, and hindering effective communication. For example, “stakeholders” could be the research beneficiaries, those vulnerable or at-risk from research outcomes, research partners, or anyone with an interest in any aspect of the research process and outcomes. Generic phrases like this are not helpful; as researchers, specifying our relationship to the people (or non-human species) linked to our work may be more difficult, but is also more informative and respectful.

Beyond substituting words

Swapping out “stakeholder” for new terms will not resolve the underlying power imbalances it denotes. Similar issues exist with terms like “engagement”, which can be tokenistic, reflecting broader concerns with disingenuous equality, diversity, and inclusion efforts. We need systemic change to address the root cause of the problematic paradigms that terms like “stakeholder” represent. 

Rather than fixating on a universal term, prioritise the well-being of those affected by research decision-making processes and outcomes. People should choose the language (often not the English language) that represents them best, and we should respect those who opt out of research for various reasons, and aim to support those who are disengaged and disempowered. This approach aligns with arguments from various scholars who emphasise the importance of centring the agency and empowerment of humans and nonhumans in research participation.

People should choose the language (often not the English language) that represents them best

While specific terms may be needed for practical reasons, like conducting a stakeholder analysis, it is important that researchers are aware of the alternatives that could be used. Depending on the context, these could include: partners, rightsholders, participants, citizens, communities, collaborators, and interested or relevant parties. We have suggested a list of potential alternative terms in the Supplementary Material section of our paper. Ultimately, these approaches aim to promote inclusive and respectful engagement practices in research, recognising the diverse needs and preferences of different communities.

How we can rethink the term “stakeholder”

To include and empower more people and nonhumans in research, we need to move away from the term “stakeholder”. Instead, we should use language to challenge and dismantle unjust practices and paradigms and centre the agency of affected humans and nonhumans. We urge colleagues, funders, editors, and institutions to develop processes and language that fairly represent and empower those impacted by research.

To do se, we make the following broad recommendations:

1. Recognise the power of language in shaping people’s experiences and relationships. 
2. Prioritise questions of power when considering language use to promote inclusive research strategies that address, rather than reinforces, existing inequalities.
3. Apply a social justice lens to research and impact, promoting ethical practices and empowering minoritised groups in decision-making processes.
4. Cultivate a culture of meaningful engagement, fostering respect, inclusivity, care and reciprocity among researchers and communities.
5. Respect the historical and cultural identities of those involved in research, understanding how cultural heritage shapes perspectives and agendas
6. Design processes that allow parties to self-identify how they want to be referred to, and when this is not possible, use language that accurately describes individuals, recognising pluralities and diverse perspectives.

This post draws on the authors’ article, Reimagining the language of engagement in a post-stakeholder world, published in Sustainability Science, which was produced as part of an international collaboration of more than 30 academics. 

The content generated on this blog is for information purposes only. This Article gives the views and opinions of the authors and does not reflect the views and opinions of the Impact of Social Science blog (the blog), nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science. Please review our comments policy if you have any concerns on posting a comment below.

Image Credit: Dolores M. Harvey on Shutterstock.