THURS-109 - Constructing Agency: Rhetorical Roles in Clinical Trial Protocols and Informed Consent Forms
Thursday, April 23, 2026
5:00 PM - 6:00 PM PST
Location: Plaza Foyer, Plaza Level
Area of Responsibility: Area VI: Communication Keywords: Ethics@@@Health Communication@@@Health Research, Subcompetencies: 6.3.1 Use communications theory to develop or select communication message(s). 6.3.2 Develop persuasive communications (e.g., storytelling and program, 6.2.3 Identify factors that facilitate and/or hinder the intended outcome of the communication. Research or Practice: Research
At the end of this session, participants will be able to:
Describe how the terms "subject" and "participant" construct different expectations of agency, responsibility, and trust within clinical trial documents commonly encountered in public health and health education contexts.
Examine how institutional language choices and grammatical structures in consent and protocol materials influence perceptions of autonomy, ethical engagement, and power among people invited to enroll in clinical research.
Apply insights from rhetorical analysis to assess and improve the clarity, ethical alignment, and trust-building potential of clinical research communication relevant to public health practice and health education.
Brief Abstract Summary: Learn how the words we choose in clinical trial documents affect how people see themselves in research. This session explores how terms like "subject" and "participant" send signals about respect, trust, and collaboration. By comparing protocols with informed consent forms, this study shows what happens when the language is consistent, and what risks emerge when it is not. Attendees will recognize how small wording choices can carry big ethical weight, shaping whether individuals feel valued partners or passive data sources. The session offers practical insights for researchers, regulators, and health communication professionals on how to make study documents more respectful, transparent, and supportive of participant dignity.
Detailed abstract description: Clinical trial documents are more than administrative paperwork. They are rhetorical texts that shape how individuals are invited into research and how they understand their roles. Seemingly small choices, such as calling someone a "subject" versus a "participant", carry big consequences for trust, dignity, and agency. This presentation shows why the language of protocols and informed consent forms matters, and what public health professionals can do to make that language align with values of respect and transparency.
Attendees will learn how naming practices in clinical research communicate implicit messages about autonomy, collaboration, and compliance. Drawing from rhetorical analysis of clincial trial protocols and informed consent forms, this session compares cases where terms are consistent across documents and where they are not. Inconsistent terminology can undermine credibility, while consistent but poorly framed terminology can appear respectful but still reinforce passivity. By highlighting these rhetorical patterns, the session offers insight into how language either supports or erodes participant engagement.
The session also explains why these findings matter beyond clinical trials. Many areas of health communication rely on standardized templates and regulatory language. While those documents ensure compliance, they can unintentionally distance the very people they are meant to serve. By recognizing that naming is not cosmetic but ethical, professionals can make intentional choices that better support trust, clarity, and human dignity.
Attendees will leave this session with three key takeaways:
1. Recognize the stakes of naming: Understand how terms like "subject", "participant", and "volunteer" shape identity, trust, and agency in research contexts.
2. Identify rhetorical (mis)alignment: See how differences between internal documents (protocols) and participant-facing ones (consent forms) influence perceptions of respect and transparency.
3. Apply insights to practice: Gain strategies for reviewing and drafting health communication documents — whether in research, regulation, or education — with an eye toward participant-centered language.
This presentation appeals to practitioners, regulators, educators, and researchers who want to strengthen the ethical and communicative quality of their work. By bridging regulatory practice with rhetorical insight, it demonstrates how deliberate language choices can build trust, affirm dignity, and create more transparent, participant-centered approaches to health communication.
