Engaging community members to ensure culturally specific language is used in research: should I use gay, queer, MSM, or this other new acronym?

Abstract

AbstractResearchers often use terminology to define their participant groups that is rooted in a clinical understanding of the group’s shared identity(ies). Such naming often ignores the ways that the individuals who comprise these populations identify themselves. One oft-cited benefit of patient-oriented or community-engaged research is that language is local and relevant to impacted communities. This paper aims to contribute to the literature on how this local and relevant language can best be established. We ask how researchers can identify and implement accurate terminology, even when divergent perspectives exist within the communities involved. We draw from our experience with the Expanding Plasma Donation in Canada study, a community-engaged research study, which explored the views of people impacted by the “men who have sex with men” (MSM) blood donation policies in Canada. We describe the collaborative process through which we came to a consensual naming of this population, the challenges we faced, and a set of guiding principles we used to address them. We did not find an all-encompassing term or acronym that worked for all stages of research. Instead, we offer a set of guiding principles that can aid researchers engaging in a similar process: harm reduction, consent and transparency, collaboration and community involvement, recognition of missing voices, and resisting and/or restructuring oppressive standards.