Stakeholder Theory, Public Engagement, and Epistemic Injustice: The Case of Covid-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in Scotland’s African, Caribbean, and Black Communities

Josephine U. Adekola; Robert Chia

doi:10.1007/s13753-024-00572-8

Volume 15 Issue 4

Aug. 2024

Turn off MathJax

Article Contents

Article Navigation > International Journal of Disaster Risk Science > 2024 > 15(4): 552-564

Josephine U. Adekola, Robert Chia. Stakeholder Theory, Public Engagement, and Epistemic Injustice: The Case of Covid-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in Scotland’s African, Caribbean, and Black Communities[J]. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 2024, 15(4): 552-564. doi: 10.1007/s13753-024-00572-8

Citation:

Josephine U. Adekola, Robert Chia. Stakeholder Theory, Public Engagement, and Epistemic Injustice: The Case of Covid-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in Scotland’s African, Caribbean, and Black Communities[J]. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 2024, 15(4): 552-564. doi: 10.1007/s13753-024-00572-8

Citation:

Josephine U. Adekola, Robert Chia. Stakeholder Theory, Public Engagement, and Epistemic Injustice: The Case of Covid-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in Scotland’s African, Caribbean, and Black Communities[J]. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 2024, 15(4): 552-564. doi: 10.1007/s13753-024-00572-8

PDF

Stakeholder Theory, Public Engagement, and Epistemic Injustice: The Case of Covid-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in Scotland’s African, Caribbean, and Black Communities

doi: 10.1007/s13753-024-00572-8

Adam Smith Business School, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, G11 6EY, UK

Accepted Date: 2024-06-30

Available Online: 2024-10-26

Publish Date: 2024-08-26

Abstract

Abstract

The adoption of a stakeholder approach to public engagement within the public sector has been extensive. However, there remain critical gaps in the understanding of stakeholder participation arising from hidden disparities that contribute to unequal access to communication channels, information, and hence ultimately knowledge and decision making. The term “epistemic injustice” has been used to describe such inequality of access and consequently, the outcome that ensues. Epistemic injustice is much overlooked in stakeholder theory. This article shows how epistemic injustice can act as a barrier to effective stakeholder engagement and hence to successful public policy formulation and implementation. We use the case of vaccine hesitancy among Scotland’s African, Caribbean, and Black (ACB) communities to illustrate this problem of unequal participation. The study drew on primary data involving 85 participants and secondary data sources from extant literature and explored salient factors shaping barriers to vaccine uptake during the recent pandemic. The findings demonstrate how the failure to grasp epistemic injustice undermines the effectiveness of the stakeholder approach, even with the most well-intentioned efforts. We argue that epistemic injustice is a critical barrier to effective stakeholder approaches.
- Covid-19 vaccine hesitancy,
- Epistemic injustice,
- Public engagement,
- Scotland,
- Stakeholder theory

FullText(HTML)

References(81)

References

[1]	Abuelgasim, E., L.J. Saw, M. Shirke, M. Zeinah, and A. Harky. 2020. COVID-19: Unique public health issues facing Black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. Current Problems in Cardiology 45: Article 100621.
[2]	Adekola, J., D. Fischbacher-Smith, T. Okey-Adibe, and J. Audu. 2022. Strategies to build trust and COVID-19 vaccine confidence and engagement among minority groups in Scotland. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science 13(6): 890-902.
[3]	Aguilar-Gaxiola, S., S.M. Ahmed, A. Anise, A. Azzahir, K.E. Baker, A. Cupito, M. Eder, and T.D. Everette et al. 2022. Assessing meaningful community engagement: A conceptual model to advance health equity through transformed systems for health: Organizing committee for assessing meaningful community engagement in health & health care programs & policies. National Academy of Medicine Perspectives. https://doi.org/10.31478/202202c.
[4]	Bachrach, P., and M. Baratz. 1962. Two faces of power. American Political Science Review 56(4): 947-952.
[5]	Becares, L., R.J. Shaw, S.V. Katikireddi, P. Irizar, S. Amele, D. Kapadia, J. Nazroo, and H. Taylor. 2022. Racism as the fundamental cause of ethnic inequities in COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: A theoretical framework and empirical exploration using the UK Household Longitudinal Study. SSM-Population Health 19: Article 101150.
[6]	Belk, R.W., and R.V. Kozinets. 2005. Videography in marketing and consumer research. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 8(2): 128-141.
[7]	Besley, J.C. 2012. Imagining public engagement. Public Understanding of Science 21(5): 590-605.
[8]	Boserup, B., M. McKenney, and A. Elkbuli. 2020. Disproportionate impact of COVID-19 pandemic on racial and ethnic minorities. The American Surgeon 86: 1615-1622.
[9]	Brandt, A.M. 1978. Racism and research: The case of the Tuskegee Syphilis study. Hastings Center Report, 21-29.
[10]	Brandt, F., J. Josefsson, and M. Spierenburg. 2018. Power and politics in stakeholder engagement. Ecology and Society 23(3): Article 32.
[11]	Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2012. Thematic analysis. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
[12]	Brugha, R., and A. Zwi. 1998. Improving the quality of private sector delivery of public health services: Challenges and strategies. Health Policy and Planning 13: 107-120.
[13]	Burgess, R.A., N. Kanu, T. Matthews, O. Mukotekwa, A. Smith-Gul, I. Yusuf, I. Lamptey, N. McCauley, et al. 2022. Exploring experiences and impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on young racially minoritised people in the United Kingdom: A qualitative study. PloS One 17: Article e0266504.
[14]	Byskov, M.F. 2021. What makes epistemic injustice an “injustice”?. Journal of Social Philosophy 52: 114-131.
[15]	Byskov, M.F., and K. Hyams. 2022. Epistemic injustice in climate adaptation. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 25: 613-634.
[16]	Cass, N. 2006. Participatory-deliberative engagement: A literature review. Department of Geography: Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
[17]	Cheshmehzangi, A. 2022. Vulnerability of the UK’s BAME communities during COVID-19: The review of public health and socio-economic inequalities. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment 32: 172-188.
[18]	Chilvers, J. 2010. Sustainable participation? Mapping out and reflecting on the field of public dialogue on science and technology. University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
[19]	Collingridge, D., and C. Reeve. 1986. Science speaks to power: The role of experts in policy making. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
[20]	Cummings, S., C. Dhewa, G. Kemboi, and S. Young. 2023. Doing epistemic justice in sustainable development: Applying the philosophical concept of epistemic injustice to the real world. Sustainable Development 31(3): 1965-1977.
[21]	Davis-Kean, P.E., J. Jager, and J. Maslowsky. 2015. Answering developmental questions using secondary data. Child Development Perspectives 9(4): 256-261.
[22]	Driedger, S.M., G. Capurro, J. Tustin, and C.G. Jardine. 2023. I won’t be a guinea pig: Rethinking public health communication and vaccine hesitancy in the context of COVID-19. Vaccine 41: 1-4.
[23]	Elliott, G., M. Day, and S. Lichtenstein. 2020. Strategic planning activity, middle manager divergent thinking, external stakeholder salience, and organizational performance: A study of English and Welsh police forces. Public Management Review 22: 1581-1602.
[24]	Enders, A.M., J. Uscinski, C. Klofstad, and J. Stoler. 2022. On the relationship between conspiracy theory beliefs, misinformation, and vaccine hesitancy. PloS One 17: Article e0276082.
[25]	Fieller, D., and M. Loughlin. 2022. Stigma, epistemic injustice, and “looked after children”: The need for a new language. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 28(5): 867-874.
[26]	Foo, L.-M., D. Asenova, S. Bailey, and J. Hood. 2011. Stakeholder engagement and compliance culture: An empirical study of Scottish private finance initiative projects. Public Management Review 13: 707-729.
[27]	Freeman, R.E. 2010. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
[28]	Freeman, R.E., J.S. Harrison, A.C. Wicks, B.L. Parmar, and S. De Colle. 2010. Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
[29]	Freeman, E., and A. Moutchnik. 2013. Stakeholder management and CSR: Questions and answers. uwf UmweltWirtschaftsForum 21: 5-9.
[30]	Freeman, R.E., and D.L. Reed. 1983. Stockholders and stakeholders: A new perspective on corporate governance. California Management Review 25: 88-106.
[31]	Fricker, M. 2007. Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
[32]	Fusch, P.I., and L.R. Ness. 2015. Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2281&context=tqr. Accessed 16 Jan 2024.
[33]	Gillard, C.J., S. Al-Dahir, M. Earls, and B. Singleton. 2022. A culturally competent vaccine hesitancy educational model for community pharmacists to increase vaccine uptake, Louisiana, 2021-2022. American Journal of Public Health 112: S900-S903.
[34]	Grasswick, H. 2018. Understanding epistemic trust injustices and their harms. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements 84: 69-91.
[35]	Greco, G., N. Sciulli, and G. D’Onza. 2015. The influence of stakeholder engagement on sustainability reporting: Evidence from Italian local councils. Public Management Review 17: 465-488.
[36]	Grinyer, A. 2009. Assumption, ethics, and practicalities. Pan 12: 49-58.
[37]	Heath, J., and W. Norman. 2004. Stakeholder theory, corporate governance and public management: What can the history of state-run enterprises teach us in the post-Enron era?. Journal of Business Ethics 53: 247-265.
[38]	Ho, A., and D. Unger. 2015. Power hierarchy and epistemic injustice in clinical ethics consultation. The American Journal of Bioethics 15: 40-42.
[39]	Hookway, C. 2010. Some varieties of epistemic injustice. Episteme 7: 151-163.
[40]	Hou, X., Y. Jiao, L. Shen, and Z.A. Chen. 2024. The lasting impact of the Tuskegee study: COVID-19 vaccination hesitation among African Americans. Journal of Population Economics 37: Article 41.
[41]	Jones, L., and K. Wells. 2007. Strategies for academic and clinician engagement in community-participatory partnered research. Jama 297: 407-410.
[42]	Katikireddi, S.V., S. Lal, E.D. Carrol, C.L. Niedzwiedz, K. Khunti, R. Dundas, F. Diderichsen, and B. Barr. 2021. Unequal impact of the COVID-19 crisis on minority ethnic groups: A framework for understanding and addressing inequalities. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 75(10): 970-974.
[43]	Kirby, T. 2020. Evidence mounts on the disproportionate effect of COVID-19 on ethnic minorities. The Lancet Respiratory Medicine 8: 547-548.
[44]	Knoblauch, H., B. Schnettler, J. Raab, and H.G. Soeffner, eds. 2012. In Video analysis: Methodology and methods. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
[45]	Kok, J., D. de Kam, I. Leistikow, K. Grit, and R. Bal. 2022. Epistemic injustice in incident investigations: A qualitative study. Health Care Analysis 30(3): 254-274.
[46]	Kozinets, R.V., and R.W. Belk. 2006. Camcorder society: Quality videography in consumer and marketing research. In Handbook of qualitative research methods in marketing, ed. R.W. Belk, 335-344. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
[47]	Leyden, K.M., A. Slevin, T. Grey, M. Hynes, F. Frisbaek, and R. Silke. 2017. Public and stakeholder engagement and the built environment: A review. Current Environmental Health Reports 4: 267-277.
[48]	Lo, C.-H., L.H. Nguyen, D.A. Drew, E.T. Warner, A.D. Joshi, M.S. Graham, A. Anyane-Yeboa, F.M. Shebl, et al. 2021. Race, ethnicity, community-level socioeconomic factors, and risk of COVID-19 in the United States and the United Kingdom EClinicalMedicine 38: Article 101029.
[49]	Lukes, S. 1974. Power: A radical view. London: Macmillan.
[50]	MacDonald, N.E. 2015. Vaccine hesitancy: Definition, scope and determinants. Vaccine 33(34): 4161-4164.
[51]	Mahmood, F., D. Acharya, K. Kumar, and V. Paudyal. 2021. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) communities: A qualitative study on the perspectives of BAME community leaders. medRxiv: 2021.03. 03.21252286.
[52]	Marrett, C.B., C.P. Jones, M. Alexander, C.T. Laurencin, Engineering National Academies of Sciences, and Medicine. 2021. Disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on Black communities. In COVID-19 and the present and future of Black communities: The role of Black physicians, engineers, and scientists: Proceedings of a workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
[53]	Mitchell, D. 2022. Bought in? The contingent effect of stakeholder support upon strategic implementation success in American municipalities. Public Management Review 24: 773-798.
[54]	Moes, F., E. Houwaart, D. Delnoij, and K. Horstman. 2020. Questions regarding “epistemic injustice” in knowledge-intensive policymaking: Two examples from Dutch health insurance policy. Social Science & Medicine 245: Article 112674.
[55]	Momplaisir, F., N. Haynes, H. Nkwihoreze, M. Nelson, R.M. Werner, and J. Jemmott. 2021. Understanding drivers of coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine hesitancy among Blacks. Clinical Infectious Diseases 73: 1784-1789.
[56]	Nephew, L.D. 2021. Systemic racism and overcoming my COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. EClinicalMedicine 32: Article 100713.
[57]	Novak, A. 2014. Anonymity, confidentiality, privacy, and identity: The ties that bind and break in communication research. Review of Communication 14: 36-48.
[58]	O’Connell, M., and A.M. Ward. 2020. Shareholder theory/shareholder value. In Encyclopedia of sustainable management, ed. S. Idowu, R. Schmidpeter, N. Capaldi, L. Zu, M. Del Baldo, and R. Abreu, 1-7. Cham: Springer.
[59]	Orgut, I.S., N. Freeman, D. Lewis, and J. Parton. 2023. Equitable and effective vaccine access considering vaccine hesitancy and capacity constraints. Omega 120: Article 102898.
[60]	Petr, C., R. Belk, and A. Decrop. 2015. Videography in marketing research: Mixing art and science. Arts and the Market 5(1): 73-102.
[61]	Pfarrer, M.D. 2010. What is the purpose of the firm?: Shareholder and stakeholder theories. In Good business: Exercising effective and ethical leadership, ed. J. O’Toole, and D. Mayer, 86-93. New York: Routledge.
[62]	Phiri, P., G. Delanerolle, A. Al-Sudani, and S. Rathod. 2021. COVID-19 and Black, Asian, and minority ethnic communities: A complex relationship without just cause. JMIR Public Health and Surveillance 7: Article e22581.
[63]	Pozzi, G. 2023. Automated opioid risk scores: A case for machine learning-induced epistemic injustice in healthcare. Ethics and Information Technology 25: Article 3.
[64]	Razai, M.S., T. Osama, D.G.J. McKechnie, and A. Majeed. 2021. Covid-19 vaccine hesitancy among ethnic minority groups.BMJ 372: Article n513.
[65]	Reed, M.S., S. Vella, E. Challies, J. De Vente, L. Frewer, D. Hohenwallner-Ries, T. Huber, and R.K. Neumann et al. 2018. A theory of participation: What makes stakeholder and public engagement in environmental management work?. Restoration Ecology 26: S7-S17.
[66]	Restrepo, N., and H.J. Krouse. 2022. COVID-19 disparities and vaccine hesitancy in Black Americans: What ethical lessons can be learned?. Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery 166: 1147-1160.
[67]	Riege, A., and N. Lindsay. 2006. Knowledge management in the public sector: Stakeholder partnerships in the public policy development. Journal of Knowledge Management 10: 24-39.
[68]	Rowe, G., and L.J. Frewer. 2005. A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology, and Human Values 30: 251-290.
[69]	Sandelowski, M. 1995. Qualitative analysis: What it is and how to begin. Research in Nursing & Health 18: 371-375.
[70]	Savoia, E., R. Piltch-Loeb, B. Goldberg, C. Miller-Idriss, B. Hughes, A. Montrond, J. Kayyem, and M.A. Testa. 2021. Predictors of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: Socio-demographics, co-morbidity, and past experience of racial discrimination. Vaccines 9: Article 767.
[71]	Sedereviciute, K., and C. Valentini. 2011. Towards a more holistic stakeholder analysis approach. Mapping known and undiscovered stakeholders from social media. International Journal of Strategic Communication 5: 221-239.
[72]	Selin, C., K.C. Rawlings, K. de Ridder-Vignone, J. Sadowski, C.A. Allende, G. Gano, S.R. Davies, and D.H. Guston. 2017. Experiments in engagement: Designing public engagement with science and technology for capacity building. Public Understanding of Science 26: 634-649.
[73]	Stirling, A. 2008. “Opening up” and “closing down” power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values 33: 262-294.
[74]	Thorpe, C., and J. Gregory. 2010. Producing the post-Fordist public: The political economy of public engagement with science. Science as Culture 19: 273-301.
[75]	Tongco, M.D.C. 2007. Purposive sampling as a tool for informant selection. Ethnobotany Research and Applications 5: 147-158.
[76]	Valerio, M.A., N. Rodriguez, P. Winkler, J. Lopez, M. Dennison, Y. Liang, and B.J. Turner. 2016. Comparing two sampling methods to engage hard-to-reach communities in research priority setting. BMC Medical Research Methodology 16: Article 146.
[77]	Weil, D., A. Fung, M. Graham, and E. Fagotto. 2006. The effectiveness of regulatory disclosure policies. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 25(1): 155-181.
[78]	Wellstead, A.M., and R. Biesbroek. 2022. Finding the sweet spot in climate policy: Balancing stakeholder engagement with bureaucratic autonomy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 54: Article 101155.
[79]	Willis, D.E., J.A. Andersen, B.E.E. Montgomery, J.P. Selig, S.K. Shah, N. Zaller, K. Bryant-Moore, and A.J. Scott et al. 2023. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and experiences of discrimination among Black adults. Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities 10: 1025-1034.
[80]	Wynne, B. 2006. Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science -Hitting the notes, but missing the music?. Public Health Genomics 9: 211-220.
[81]	Zimmerman, T., K. Shiroma, K.R. Fleischmann, B. Xie, C. Jia, N. Verma, and M.K. Lee (2023) Misinformation and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy Vaccine 41: 136-144.