Written by KL Dunkle, SVRI Technical Advisor

As we close out the most recent SVRI research priority-setting (RPS) process on child sexual violence, we inevitably find ourselves reflecting across RPS efforts SVRI has facilitated. Given that these processes grew out of SVRI’s deep commitment to broadening the base of voices that drive agendas in our field, it feels timely to ask: What have we learned about building equity into the RPS process itself?

From convening the first Stewardship Group meetings to crunching data on the final question ranking surveys, inclusion isn’t something to bolt on at the end. It has to be embedded in every stage. This blog reflects on where and how equity considerations — including the meaningful participation of LGBTQI+ people, people with disabilities, and other marginalised groups — can be strengthened across all phases of the CHNRI method on which SVRI’s RPS process are based.

These reflections build on insights shared during the Launch of the Research Agenda on Child Sexual Violence and our colleagues’ recent reflections on Shaping the Future of Child Sexual Violence (CSV) Research.

Through the additional reflections shared here, we aim to support other teams planning RPS processes.

Step 1: Begin with Inclusive Stewardship and Advisory Groups

Inclusion and equity start with governance. Each RPS process that SVRI has facilitated has reinforced the importance of ensuring that Stewardship and Advisory Groups reflect the diversity of those affected by and working on the issue at hand, explicitly including people with lived experience of marginalisation that impacts their experiences of violence and their ability to access prevention and response services. These may include survivors of violence, LGBTQI+ people, people with disabilities, sex workers, migrants and refugees or others. Ensuring that these stakeholders can work side-by-side with research-active members helps ground discussions and decisions in both realities of both research and advocacy.

Of course, it’s not enough to invite diverse members after the process is scoped. Seeking the input of the most marginalised early in the conceptualisation of the process helps shape the right questions, avoid extractive dynamics, and strengthen community trust. Stewardship and Advisory Group members also need robust onboarding and continued support to engage with the scope and purpose of RPS processes, especially where the RPS method is unfamiliar or technical.

Inclusion at the governance level sets the tone and builds a stronger foundation for the work to come.

Step 2: Embed Qualitative Insights Early

Too often, qualitative processes have been bolted on as validation or illustration when standard CHNRI processes yielded gaps in those represented. Instead, needed focus groups and in-depth interviews should be planned and resourced from the beginning, and conducted in parallel with literature reviews and scoping exercises. This ensures that community and practitioner insights shape not only the list of suggested research questions, but the entire frame of what’s considered important.

In the CSV RPS process, our qualitative work with marginalised participants focused especially on grassroots practitioners and frontline providers, asking what kinds of knowledge would help them do their work better. We used similar approaches in FGDs with children and youth, by focusing on what they wanted themselves and the adults around the to know about addressing CSV. These approaches yielded deeper, more relevant responses than asking them to frame formal research questions in pre-defined domains. However, it also required more intensive data analysis: extracting challenges, mapping knowledge gaps, and drafting implied research questions.

When involving participants with disabilities or other access needs in qualitative data collection, it’s critical to plan well in advance to provide appropriate accommodations, including accessible materials, sign language interpretation, transport stipends or whatever the participants request.

That said, it’s good practice to ask ALL participants in discussion and qualitative data collection processes about their access needs and how to make the requested engagement work for them. And of course, compensation for the expertise of lived experience should be offered fairly and consistently.

Inclusion means designing qualitative methods that meet people where they are, and resourcing them properly so everyone can participate fully.

Step 3: Validate and Close the Feedback Loop

Before moving to the broader ranking phase, it’s essential to validate the questions and domains that emerge jointly from the scoping review and qualitative enquiry processes. This is part of respectful, reciprocal research practice, especially when engaging those whose knowledge is too often dismissed or decontextualised.

Member-checking with qualitative research participants and key stakeholders from marginalised and vulnerable groups can be done informally (through debrief calls or reflective summaries), or more systematically (through follow-up consultations or feedback emails). Keep access needs in mind, and make sure qualitative and other participants have the opportunity to see how their insights are being translated into domains of enquiry and potential research questions, and that they are able to offer corrections or additions.

Participants who give input in these formative qualitative stages of the RPS processes should also be explicitly invited to take part in question ranking surveys and any final review stages. When possible, invite a small number of participants to help review the near-final draft of the priority list to ensure that phrasing and emphasis resonate. And yes — plan for continued compensation if you’re asking for continued time and expertise.

Closing the loop is about building trust, respect, and accountability – and it makes for stronger, more grounded outputs.

Step 4: Treat Survey Design as an Equity Issue

When it comes to the actual ranking of research questions, survey design decisions are also equity decisions. In past question ranking surveys, participants have flagged technical and usability barriers, and post-hoc analyses of participant drop-off have shown that those using mobile phones or working in a second language were more likely to drop off and not complete the process. If a survey can’t be read, navigated, or understood properly, it’s not inclusive.

Some of our key learnings:

• Use Qualtrics or another platform that allows robust logic flows, multiple languages, and device-responsive design.
• Pilot test surveys across different browsers and mobile devices, including cellular devices, screen readers and other accessibility tools.
• Shorten text blocks to the size of a single cell phone screen, simplify instructions, and use clear, mobile-friendly layouts.
• Allow participants to skip domains that don’t apply to their expertise, while still collecting data across a balanced sample.
• Replace forced-ranking with slider scales, which reduce cognitive load and allow people to rate questions independently. This is especially important when looking at research priorities for marginalised groups; we want to avoid asking people to rank different and overlapping forms of marginalisation against each other.

Demographic questions, particularly around gender, disability, and sexual orientation, should use pre-translated, community-validated language rather than relying on commercial translators to get nuanced language right. Mistakes in translation that lose key shades of meaning (like “genre” vs “sexe” in French) are easy to make, but can be deeply alienating to participants. In particular, terms related to disability and LGBTQI+ identities should always be vetted by first language speakers who are members of the population in question.

As highlighted in the input of LGBTQI+ communities to the African Shared Research Agenda on GBV, failure to use inclusive language and accessible formats can signal exclusion and silence the very voices most urgently needed.

Accessible surveys are not a luxury. They are central to equitable participation and must be funded, tested, and prioritised accordingly.

Step 5: Document, Share, Improve

Each RPS process offers new lessons, but only if we capture them. Institutional memory matters.

We recommend creating short post-process reflection documents that capture insights on what worked, what didn’t, and what could be done differently next time. This includes lessons on inclusion, accessibility, translation, community engagement, and the tensions between rigour and responsiveness.

These learnings should be shared internally, with partners, and ideally with future Advisory and Stewardship Groups to build collective capacity and avoid repeating missteps.

Equity improves over time. But only if we actively reflect and iterate.

Looking Ahead: Equity Needs Time, Trust, and Budget

Across all these stages, one message echoes: inclusion doesn’t happen by default. It requires:

• Clear invitations and safe spaces for marginalised participants.
• Accessible, well-tested tools that honour linguistic and physical diversity.
• Fair compensation and thoughtful pacing.
• Ongoing reflection and adjustment.

This means that funders and planners must budget and plan for equity from the outset — not as an add-on, but as a fundamental quality criterion. Whether we’re working with children, LGBTQI+ communities, or people with disabilities, inclusion is only meaningful when it’s built into the structure of how we work.

SVRI continues to learn, evolve, and share as we deepen our practice of inclusive agenda-setting. We hope these reflections support others in building RPS processes that are not just participatory in name — but truly equitable, inclusive, and grounded in justice.