With the increase in user activism in the Western societies in recent years, there has also been an increase in promoting user involvement in research. Hence, is necessary to address the danger of tokenism, a false appearance of inclusiveness, in user involvement, as well as to explore methods for promoting active user involvement. Using a Norwegian research project on the rehabilitation processes following traumatic injuries organised via user involvement, this study reviews ways in which to avoid tokenism in user involvement and how to instead stimulate active user engagement in research. The analysis employs an ethnographic approach using participant observations from real life settings involving user involvement during the five years research process. The empirical material includes 472 pages of transcribed audio recordings from meetings between researchers and collaborators discussing personal experiences with traumatic injuries, and 340 pages of documents on the project’s involvement process. This empirical material was examined by thematic analysis, involving processes such as decontextualising, flagging and re-contextualising. Two main categories of facilitation emerged as promoting non-tokenistic, active user involvement in research: 1) defining the collaborative arena, (i.e. the setting of collaboration) which entails preparing for participation and promoting active involvement, and 2) designing for research counselling, which involves gathering user perspectives and valuing criticism. Taking into account the existing asymmetric relationships between researchers and collaborators, enabling more evenly distributed power dynamics also proved to be essential. To achieve active participation that is relevant to the collaborators, two interconnected yet analytically independent themes should be considered: the collaborative arena and counselling. Both prove crucial for curbing power imbalance and stimulating the involvement process. The study indicates that non-tokenistic involvement should be anchored in the respect for participants and their ability to make contributions. This analysis can help researchers who seek active engagement and non-tokenistic involvement in research to find methods for facilitating and organising participation in their fields.

中文翻译：

---

促进非象征性用户参与研究

近年来，随着西方社会用户积极性的增加，促进用户参与研究的力度也有所增加。因此，有必要在用户参与中解决象征主义的危险、虚假的包容性表现，以及探索促进用户积极参与的方法。本研究使用挪威一项关于通过用户参与组织的创伤性损伤后康复过程的研究项目，回顾了在用户参与中避免象征主义的方法，以及如何激发用户积极参与研究。该分析采用人种学方法，使用来自现实生活环境的参与者观察，在五年研究过程中涉及用户参与。实证材料包括 472 页的转录录音，这些录音来自研究人员和合作者之间讨论创伤性伤害的个人经历的会议，以及 340 页关于项目参与过程的文件。这些经验材料通过主题分析进行了检验，涉及诸如去语境化、标记和重新语境化等过程。促进非象征性的、积极的用户参与研究出现了两大类促进：1）定义协作领域（即协作的设置），这需要为参与做准备和促进积极参与，以及 2）设计研究咨询，这涉及收集用户的观点和重视批评。考虑到研究人员和合作者之间现有的不对称关系，实现更均匀分布的功率动态也被证明是必不可少的。为了实现与合作者相关的积极参与，应考虑两个相互关联但分析独立的主题：合作领域和咨询。两者都被证明对于遏制权力不平衡和刺激参与过程至关重要。该研究表明，非象征性的参与应该立足于尊重参与者及其做出贡献的能力。这种分析可以帮助寻求积极参与和非象征性参与研究的研究人员找到促进和组织参与其领域的方法。应考虑两个相互关联但分析独立的主题：协作领域和咨询。两者都被证明对于遏制权力不平衡和刺激参与过程至关重要。该研究表明，非象征性的参与应该立足于尊重参与者及其做出贡献的能力。这种分析可以帮助寻求积极参与和非象征性参与研究的研究人员找到促进和组织参与其领域的方法。应考虑两个相互关联但分析独立的主题：协作领域和咨询。两者都被证明对于遏制权力不平衡和刺激参与过程至关重要。该研究表明，非象征性的参与应该立足于尊重参与者及其做出贡献的能力。这种分析可以帮助寻求积极参与和非象征性参与研究的研究人员找到促进和组织参与其领域的方法。