We demonstrate the fruitfulness of using card sort activities as an engagement method by detailing community consultation for ethical, legal, and social implications of sociogenomics. Readers are provided with a user-guide for card sort engagement through: (1) an overview of the card sort activity and its merits for engagement, (2) detailed methods of sorting for values-elicitation and prioritization goals, and (3) strategies to design this approach for other participatory research designs. Our intent is to add to meaningful exchanges between community engaged researchers and empirical bioethicists.
BeatonA.HudsonM.MilneM.PortR. V.RussellK.SmithB.WihongiH. (2017). Engaging māori in biobanking and genomic research: A model for biobanks to guide culturally informed governance, operational, and community engagement activities. Genetics in Medicine, 19(3), 345–351. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2016.111
2.
BlanchardJ. W.HiratsukaV. Y.BeansJ. A.LundJ.SaunkeahB.YrachetaJ.SpicerP. (2020). Power sharing, capacity building, and evolving roles in ELSI: The Center for the Ethics of Indigenous Genomic Research. Collaborations (Coral Gables, Fla.), 3(1). https://doi.org/10.33596/coll.71
CanterC.MeagherK. M.CadiganR. J.KoopmannA. M.WatsonS.KucmanicM.PrinceA. E. R. (2024). Scanning the horizon of sociogenomics: An assessment of the development and growth of polygenic scores for social traits. SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4898797
5.
CDCA. S. T. D. R. (2011). Principles of community engagement. NIH publication.
CoghlanD.CaseyM. (2001). Action research from the inside: Issues and challenges in doing action research in your own hospital. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 35(5), 674–682. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01899.x
8.
ConnorsE.SeloveR.CanedoJ.SandersonM.HullP.AdamsM.McDermottI.BarlowC.Johns-PorterD.McAfeeC.GilliamK.MillerO.CoxN.FaddenM. K.KingS.TindleH. (2019). Improving community advisory board engagement in precision medicine research to reduce health disparities. Journal of Health Disparities Research and Practice, 12(6), 80–94.
9.
ConradL. Y.TuckerV. M. (2019). Making it tangible: Hybrid card sorting within qualitative interviews. Journal of Documentation, 75(2), 397–416. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-06-2018-0091
De VriesR. G.RyanK. A.GordonL.KrenzC. D.TomlinsonT.JewellS.KimS. Y. (2019). Biobanks and the moral concerns of donors: A democratic deliberation. Qualitative Health Research, 29(13), 1942–1953. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732318791826
12.
DonnerJ. C. (2001). Using Q-sorts in participatory processes: An introduction to the methodology. Social Development Papers, 36, 24–49.
13.
EstlundD (1993). Chapter 2. Making truth safe for democracy. In D. Copp, J. Hampton, & J. E. Roemer (Eds.), The Idea of Democracy (pp. 71–100). New York: Cambridge University Press.
GaventaJ.CornwallA. (2015). Power and knowledge. In The Sage handbook of action research (pp. 465–471). London, UK: Sage Publications.
16.
GlandonD.PainaL.AlongeO.PetersD. H.BennettS. (2017). 10 Best resources for community engagement in implementation research. Health Policy and Planning, 32(10), 1457–1465. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czx123
17.
HaldemanK. M.CadiganR. J.DavisA.GoldenbergA.HendersonG. E.LassiterD.ReavelyE. (2014). Community engagement in US biobanking: Multiplicity of meaning and method. Public Health Genomics, 17(2), 84–94. https://doi.org/10.1159/000357958
18.
HarrisonK. L.TaylorH. A. (2016). Organizational values in the provision of access to care for the uninsured. AJOB Empirical Bioethics, 7(4), 240–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2016.1170075
19.
HillW. D.DaviesN. M.RitchieS. J.SkeneN. G.BryoisJ.BellS.DearyI. J. (2019). Genome-wide analysis identifies molecular systems and 149 genetic loci associated with income. Nature Communications, 10(1), 5741. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-13585-5
20.
HinesP. A.YuL. H.GuyR. H.BrandA.Papaluca-AmatiM. (2019). Scanning the horizon: A systematic literature review of methodologies. BMJ Open, 9(5), e026764. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026764
IsraelB. A.KriegerJ.VlahovD.CiskeS.FoleyM.FortinP.TangG. (2006). Challenges and facilitating factors in sustaining community-based participatory research partnerships: Lessons learned from the Detroit, New York city and Seattle urban research centers. Journal of Urban Health, 83, 1022–1040. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-006-9110-1
23.
KaufmanD. J.Murphy-BollingerJ.ScottJ.HudsonK. L. (2009). Public opinion about the importance of privacy in biobank research. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 85(5), 643–654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2009.10.002
24.
KeyK.Furr-HoldenD.LewisE. A.CunninghamR.ZimmermanM. A.Johnson-LawrenceV.SeligS. E. (2019). The continuum of community engagement in research: A roadmap for understanding and assessing progress. Progress in Community Health Partnerships, 13(4), 427–434. https://doi.org/10.1353/cpr.2019.0064
25.
KheraA. V.ChaffinM.AragamK. G.HaasM. E.RoselliC.ChoiS. H.KathiresanS. (2018). Genome-wide polygenic scores for common diseases identify individuals with risk equivalent to monogenic mutations. Nature Genetics, 50(9), 1219–1224. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-018-0183-z
26.
KraftS. A.ChoM. K.GillespieK.HalleyM.VarsavaN.OrmondK. E.LeeS. S. J. (2018). Beyond consent: Building trusting relationships with diverse populations in precision medicine research. The American Journal of Bioethics, 18(4), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2018.1431322
27.
LeeS. S. J.ChoM. K.KraftS. A.VarsavaN.GillespieK.OrmondK. E.WilfondB. S.MagnusD. (2019). I don’t want to be Henrietta Lacks”: diverse patient perspectives on donating biospecimens for precision medicine research. Genetics in Medicine, 21(1), 107–113.
28.
LeeJ. J.WedowR.OkbayA.KongE.MaghzianO.ZacherM.CesariniD. (2018). Gene discovery and polygenic prediction from a genome-wide association study of educational attainment in 1.1 million individuals. Nature Genetics (Print), 50(8), 1112–1121. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-018-0147-3
29.
LemkeA. A.EsplinE. D.GoldenbergA. J.Gonzaga-JaureguiC.HanchardN. A.Harris-WaiJ.GarrisonN. A. (2022). Addressing underrepresentation in genomics research through community engagement. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 109(9), 1563–1571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2022.08.005
30.
LobbR.KingK.Pierre-LouisL.BoraC.AlbertA.RichmondA.Sprague MartinezL. (2023). Notes from the field: Moving initiatives from isolation to collective impact to change community-engaged research practices in an academic medical system. Journal of Community Practice, 31(3–4), 383–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705422.2023.2272181
31.
MacQueenK. M.BhanA.FröhlichJ. A.HolzerJ.SugarmanJ. (2015). Evaluating community engagement in global health research: the need for metrics. BMC Medical Ethics, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-015-0033-9
32.
MartschenkoD. O. (2021). The elephant in the room”: Social responsibility in the production of sociogenomics research. BioSocieties, 17(4), 713–731. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41292-021-00239-3
33.
MayanM.DaumC. (2016). Worth the risk? Muddled relationships in community-based participatory research. Qualitative Health Research, 26(1), 69–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315618660
34.
MeagherK. M.CurtisS.GammK. O.SuttonE. J.McCormickJ. B.SharpR. R. (2020). At a moment’s notice: Community advisory board perspectives on biobank communication to supplement broad consent. Public Health Genomics, 23(3–4), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1159/000507057
35.
MertzM.PrinceI.PietschmannI. (2023). Values, decision-making and empirical bioethics: A conceptual model for empirically identifying and analyzing value judgements. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 44(6), 567–587. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-023-09640-4
36.
MeyerM. N.AppelbaumP. S.BenjaminD. J.CallierS. L.ComfortN.ConleyD.ParensE. (2023). Wrestling with Social and Behavioral Genomics: Risks, Potential Benefits, and Ethical Responsibility. The Hastings Center Report, 53(S1). https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.1477
37.
Morente-MolineraJ. A.Ríos-AguilarS.González-CrespoR.Herrera-ViedmaE. (2019). Dealing with group decision-making environments that have a high amount of alternatives using card-sorting techniques. Expert Systems with Applications, 127, 187–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2019.03.023
38.
NewmanS. D.AndrewsJ. O.MagwoodG. S.JenkinsC.CoxM. J.WilliamsonD. C. (2011). Community advisory boards in community-based participatory research: a synthesis of best processes. Preventing Chronic Disease, 8(3), A70. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2011/may/10_0045.htm
OkbayA.BeauchampJ. P.FontanaM. A.LeeJ. J.PersT. H.RietveldC. A.BenjaminD. J. (2016). Genome-wide association study identifies 74 loci associated with educational attainment. Nature (London), 533(7604), 539–542. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature17671
41.
OkbayA.WuY.WangN.JayashankarH.BennettM. H.NehzatiS. M.YoungA. I. (2022). Polygenic prediction of educational attainment within and between families from genome-wide association analyses in 3 million individuals. Nature Genetics (Print), 54(4), 437–449. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-022-01016-z
42.
OlsonJ. E.RyuE.JohnsonK. J.KoenigB. A.MaschkeK. J.MorrisetteJ. A.CerhanJ. R. (2013). The mayo clinic biobank: A building block for individualized medicine. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 88(9), 952–962. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2013.06.006
43.
PeriyakoilV. S.NodaA. M.Chmura KraemerH. (2010). Assessment of factors influencing preservation of dignity at life's end: Creation and the cross-cultural validation of the preservation of dignity card-sort tool. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 13(5), 495–500. https://doi.org/10.1089/jpm.2009.0279
PrattB.De VriesJ. (2018). Community engagement in global health research that advances health equity. Bioethics (Oxford. Print), 32(7), 454–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12465
46.
PuertaL. L.KendallW.DaviesB.DayS.WardH. (2020). The reported impact of public involvement in biobanks: A scoping review. Health Expectations, 23(4), 759–788. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13067
47.
RadchukO.KerbeW.SchmidtM. (2017). Homo Politicus meets Homo Ludens: Public participation in serious life science games. Public Understanding of Science (Print), 26(5), 531–546. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516653030
48.
RietveldC. A.MedlandS. E.DerringerJ.YangJ.EskoT.MartínN. W.KoellingerP. (2013). GWAS Of 126,559 individuals identifies genetic variants associated with educational attainment. Science (New York, N.Y.), 340(6139), 1467–1471. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1235488
49.
RighiC.JamesJ.BeasleyM.DayD. L.FoxJ. E.GieberJ.RubyL. (2013). Card sort analysis best practices. Journal of Usability Studies, 8(3), 69–89. https://uxpajournal.org/card-sort-analysis-best-practices-2/
50.
RuggG.McGeorgeP. (1997). The sorting techniques: A tutorial paper on card sorts, picture sorts and item sorts. Expert Systems, 14(2), 80–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0394.00045
51.
SamJ.RichardsonC. G.CurrieL. M. (2022). Application of two-eyed seeing in adolescent mental health to bridge design thinking and Indigenous collective storytelling. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(22), 14972. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192214972
52.
SandersonS. C.BrothersK. B.MercaldoN. D.ClaytonE. W.AntommariaA. H. M.AufoxS. A.HolmI. A. (2017). Public attitudes toward consent and data sharing in biobank research: A large multi-site experimental survey in the US. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 100(3), 414–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2017.01.021
53.
SaundersM. N. (2015). Using mixed methods–combining card sorts and in-depth interviews. In Handbook of research methods on trust (pp. 134–144). Edward Elgar Publishing.
54.
Sprague MartínezL.ChasslerD.LobbR.HakimD.PamphileJ.BattagliaT. A. (2023). A discussion among deans on advancing community engaged research. Clinical and Translational Science, 16(4), 557–563. https://doi.org/10.1111/cts.13478
55.
StauntonC.TindanaP.HendricksM.MoodleyK. (2018). Rules of engagement: perspectives on stakeholder engagement for genomic biobanking research in South Africa. BMC Medical Ethics (Online), 19(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-018-0252-y
56.
Suárez-BalcázarY. (2020). Meaningful engagement in research: Community residents as co-creators of knowledge. American Journal of Community Psychology, 65(3–4), 261–271. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12414
TaberyJ. (2015). Why is studying the genetics of intelligence so controversial?Hastings Center Report, 45(S1), S9–S14. https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.492
59.
UlrichC. M.RatcliffeS. J. (2007). Hypothetical vignettes in empirical bioethics research. In Empirical methods for bioethics: A primer (Vol. 11, pp. 161–181). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
WallersteinN.OetzelJ. G.Sanchez-YoungmanS.BoursawB.DicksonE.KastelicS.KoegelP.LuceroJ. E.MagaratiM.OrtizK.ParkerM.PeñaJ.RichmondA.DuranB. (2020). Engage for equity: A long-term study of community-based participatory research and community-engaged research practices and outcomes. Health Education & Behavior : The Official Publication of the Society for Public Health Education, 47(3), 380–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198119897075
62.
WilkinsonA.SlackC.ThabetheS.SalzwedelJ. (2022). It’s almost as if stakeholder engagement is the annoying ‘have-to-do'…”: Can ethics review help address the “3 Ts” of tokenism, toxicity, and tailoring in stakeholder engagement?Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 17(3), 292–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646221078415
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
