Finally, the term stakeholder may inadvertently feed into a colonialist mentality. Those who work with Native Americans and Indigenous groups tend not to use the word because it is laden with connotations of claiming land.8 In these contexts, a proverbial stake can be more than just a stick or a pole, but rather a potent symbol of something that can be possessed or hoarded.9 At the very least, it can engender a strong sense of suspicion regarding equitable treatment given the historical use of the term.10 If we are committing to the principles of diversity, equity and inclusion, it would make sense to avoid this problematic term in other contexts, too.
Avoid Mistakes
One reason that stakeholder has gained so much currency is because it’s an easy, almost throwaway, term. It’s elastic enough to cover any person or group that has an interest or concern in a project. That ambiguity is, in many ways, its greatest strength, as well as its greatest weakness. One can always sidestep the issue, speak on behalf of many people and then get little resistance by saying that it is the mandate of the stakeholders. Thinking of alternative terms or phrases is much tougher and sometimes ends up with even more problematic language.11
Personally, I tend to use the word participant when I have to generically substitute for stakeholder. It is certainly not synonymous, but it probably conveys the more nuanced reality of stakeholder engagement or participation in the research that I do.12 I like this term because it reverses the logic of stakeholding: Instead of stakeholders being invited and identified because they have stakes, participants derive their own investment by virtue of their participation.
Use of the word participant also helps undo the value proposition that may be engendered by the term stakeholder. Participant is, after all, a low bar—it describes the people who have been directly involved, rather than a high bar of holding a stake and speaking on behalf of others. It also doesn’t necessarily shut out those who did not or could not participate because they didn’t have stakes. But, as mentioned, it doesn’t capture in its fullness what is meant by being a stakeholder.
Other terms that I’ve encountered include interested parties and partners.13 These are probably better than stakeholders and retain a sense of ambiguity, but like participant, are still inadequate. After all, partner implies a sense of equality or equity, but power differentials can be hidden even with such plain language. Interested parties also sends a signal that only those with direct interest should be parties in the outcome of a project. Think of uninterested parties, and the distinction becomes clearer. These terms also may have legal definitions that can complicate issues. In any case, such positives and negatives of each term may be why no clear alternative to stakeholder has arisen.
