Selecting a Research Topic:
All stakeholders at the co-production workshops discussed the issue of repetition of P&C research projects in Tower Hamlets, a concern that was also highlighted by the survey. They suggested that contributing factors may include short timelines that make reviews of previous research difficult, the pressure on research providers to "chase after funding", and the limited visibility and availability of P&C research project reports and dissemination materials through research databases.
To enhance the visibility and accessibility of pre-existing P&C research, the following recommendations have been developed by workshop participants:
HDRC to advocate and enable access to a public database of P&C research. The database should be accessible to all research providers for input and updates and not owned by any single organisation. The database should draw on the learning from the Community Insights Programme (22) and be managed by professionals with the expertise to handle diverse forms of community insights data. It must also be financially sustainable.
To deliver this recommendation the project team suggest the following options:
• Use an existing regional or national platform, such as the Community Insights Hub hosted by the Greater London Authority, or the UK Data Service which is the largest digital repository for quantitative and qualitative research in the UK. These platforms allow data to be searched by borough, making it a cost-effective and sustainable option. It also enables Tower Hamlets data to contribute to national research and policymaking. Support and training on how to use and update the database should be provided for research from all sectors, funders, and commissioners.
• Develop a new repository as part of the upcoming HDRC Research Collaboration Hub website or a new platform co-hosted by local universities. This repository should allow for more creative presentations of research insights, beyond just text and numbers. It should also be easily accessible and navigable by all stakeholders.
HDRC to advocate for mandatory literature reviews to be conducted before projects are commissioned or project applications are submitted to funding schemes. These reviews could be enabled by the access to/development of the public database described above. This process would mean that research is not repeated and the insights from P&C research is used to inform the development of new projects delivered by different stakeholders. This process would also provide opportunities for networking between organisations and individuals who have a track record of producing research on certain topics and/or using certain methods in their research.
Funding for P&C Research:
Participants highlighted that the competitive nature of securing funding for P&C research acts as a barrier to collaboration. Participants also noted that most P&C research is project-based, with research providers and stakeholders often withdrawing once the project ends. This approach leaves little time or space for reflection, learning, and improvement. As a result, the knowledge, skills, and connections developed during projects are not sustained, and the potential for achieving long-term change is diminished.
Workshop participants proposed several recommendations to improve the funding landscape and make P&C research more sustainable:
HDRC to advocate collaborative working as a condition for all commissioning and funding activities. To reduce unnecessary competition and strengthen capacity building, the Council should update its processes for commissioning P&C research to encourage collaboration among organisations. For example, it could support collaborative bids by groups of organisations for commissioned contracts, using group interviews as part of the application process. The HDRC should actively invite partnership working with other organisations through the funding bids it supports. Workshop participants recommended seeking sufficiently large funding opportunities that encourage partnerships among all stakeholders, again this is something the HDRC can facilitate.
HDRC to advocate for the pooling of funding to make research more ambitious and impactful. Pooling expertise and teams would create larger and more ambitious projects and enhance impact. It also opens the possibility of conducting long-term programmes of research rather than one-off projects, thereby improving the sustainability of the research efforts.
HDRC to advocate greater transparency regarding the funding received and awarded for P&C research by the Council and NHS. Participants called for more openness about who receives funding for P&C research and for what purposes. Participants suggested that such practices already occur within the VCS and they could be used to inform the co-production of processes for the transparent allocation of P&C commissioning and funding.
HDRC to advocate participatory commissioning. Participatory commissioning would involve all stakeholders from the start led by the sentiment that “we are all commissioners” (community organisation representative). Learning from other organisations, such as Trust for London (see Background section), could support a pilot of participatory commissioning, ensuring broader involvement in decision-making from residents, P&C researchers and the VCS. It would also support the call for transparency outlined in the above recommendation.
Putting Together a P&C Research Team:
The need for better understanding and involvement of residents in P&C research projects was highlighted in the survey. To address this, workshop participants provided the following recommendations:
HDRC to secure resources and funding to evaluate the value and impact of P&C research methodologies. This evaluation project should aim to assess the quality and value of P&C research methodologies applied in Tower Hamlets and the impact of involving P&C researchers at all stages of the research process. We recommend that all stakeholders, including P&C researchers, be involved in defining the standards for good quality P&C research and co-developing the evaluation project.
HDRC to secure resources and funding to conduct P&C research on resident experience of research. Stakeholders found it valuable to review what we termed ‘the journey’ of P&C researchers in this project, which was revised and discussed in all the workshops. They recommended a similar analysis to be carried out for research participants (e.g. residents). This project should identify areas for improvement in the research process to encourage more residents to participate in P&C research, ensuring their involvement is both meaningful and valued. Examples can include developing a better understanding of how findings and research impacts are communicated to residents at the end of projects and the impact of good dissemination practices on the trust residents have in P&C research, and the willingness to be involved in future P&C research projects.
Conducting Research:
There was a consensus in the workshops that the value of P&C research needs to be re-evaluated, clarified and updated. This may be due to inadequate communication about methodologies in the dissemination and reporting materials of research providers, and the perceived weakness of P&C research evidence by academic researchers and policymakers, who tend to value more traditional academic research underpinned by traditional research methods. The earlier recommendation to evaluate P&C research methodologies could address this issue. Good practice regarding the better understanding and use of P&C research by policymakers is already undertaken by other statutory bodies, including the Greater London Authority (GLA). Tower Hamlets could adopt learning from this and instigate a programme of educating policymakers and academic researchers about the nature and value of P&C research (to be discussed later).
The HDRC should advocate for P&C research providers to communicate their methodologies clearly in dissemination and reporting materials. To improve the understanding and credibility of P&C research, it is recommended that research providers communicate their methodologies more fully, transparently and reflexively in each project. This practice will help stakeholders appreciate the rigor of the non-traditional methods (e.g. creative methods) used in P&C research, fostering greater acceptance and integration of these methods in policymaking and practice.
Dissemination and Impact:
Workshop participants highlighted the positive outcomes that P&C research can bring to the individuals who are involved in its delivery (e.g. P&C researchers and residents). However, it appears that the impact and value of P&C research for policymaking is unclear. Participants recommended improving transparency and accountability in the implementation of research findings.
HDRC to implement a system to track and communicate the use, implementation, and impact of P&C research. Workshop participants recommended that implementation of findings should be regularly publicised and accessible to all stakeholders, including residents, through various channels such as WhatsApp. The project team suggests that this could be facilitated through the upcoming Research Collaboration Hub, which aims to showcase how research has been applied to key decisions. The existing Tower Hamlets Council WhatsApp "Tower Hamlets Channel" could be utilised for broader public communication, with a dedicated channel established specifically for P&C research. Exploring other possibilities of updating existing channels of communication should also be explored.
Supporting Stakeholders: Stakeholders emphasised the importance of providing long-term support to P&C researchers and community organisations to ensure the sustainability of P&C research. Currently, the training and assistance for P&C researchers and other stakeholders lacks adequate coordination.
Participants stressed that P&C training should move away from traditional formats. Instead, it should encourage reflection and critical engagement with concepts such as knowledge production, the nature of research, and the power dynamics inherent in P&C research and collaborations within institutional settings.
In addition to training, discussions in the workshop focused on the financial impact of payments to P&C researchers, particularly for those on low incomes. Stakeholders felt that large institutions have yet to fully recognise the significance of this issue and develop measure to mitigate it.
Workshop participants noted that organisations pay researchers according to their internal policies and may offer guidance on how these payments could affect researchers' social security benefits or refer them to advice centres. However, the process of paying P&C researchers is a challenge for many organisations facilitating P&C research. Stakeholders acknowledged that large bureaucratic organisations, such as universities and councils, may struggle to change their policies. For instance, a representative from London Metropolitan University pointed out that, while "Met temps" was created with good intentions to streamline contracting of P&C researchers, it has seen limited use due to the requirement for a portion of grant funding to sustain the service.
Council representatives in the workshops could not identify any specific policy on paying P&C researchers, although this is something that the HDRC is currently working on. The National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) provides useful guidance in this area, but some stakeholders were not aware of this. Beyond reviewing how the national and organisational policies affect individuals on welfare benefits, there is a need to raise awareness of policies and guidance that do exist. Together, stakeholders developed the following recommendations in response to these issues.
HDRC to coordinate training for P&C researchers, policymakers and other stakeholders. Training for policymakers, academic researchers and VCS organisations should focus on ethical and meaningful engagement with residents and the value of P&C research. The project team recommend that this training should involve P&C researchers as trainers and consider the power dynamics involved in research conducted in partnership between stakeholders (P&C researchers, the VCS, universities, the Council and NHS).
Training for P&C researchers should be accredited but also include mentorship. It should provide key transferable research skills and personal development for P&C researchers. Workshop participants suggested that P&C research providers should collaborate in creating this training, ensuring it is recognised across organisations. A standard grading system could be introduced to reflect the experience level of P&C researchers. To develop this 35 local accredited training, the project team recommend that the HDRC leverage the expertise of universities, who have experience of offering accredited training, and community organisations that have already been involved in developing accredited P&C research training (see examples 1 and 2).
HDRC to fund a P&C researcher directory to ensure long term opportunities for P&C researchers. A directory of P&C researchers, listing their skills, lived experiences, and specialisations, should be created. This would provide a process for P&C researchers access opportunities and develop their research practice. Workshop participants recommended that a coordination body (see further recommendations below) should take the lead in developing and sustaining this directory, including recruiting new individuals through the accredited training programs (see above). Nineteen P&C researchers who took part in this project have expressed interest in joining such a directory.
HDRC to advocate improvements in payment policies and practices. Community organisations, universities, and public sector bodies could benefit from enhanced support to ensure payments to P&C researchers are timely, flexible, and sufficient. During the workshops, several P&C researchers expressed a preference for tiered payment rates based on experience, rather than a flat rate.
While an overarching coordination body was recommended to provide broad support for P&C researchers (to be discussed later), the specific discussion on payment policies generated less consensus. Some workshop participants suggested that a community interest company, community organisation, or university could manage payments for P&C researchers and potentially participants. However, concerns were raised about the potential for added bureaucracy and uncertainty about which organisation could reliably and quickly handle payments.
Alternatively, offering training or guidance on good payment practices to organisations could be beneficial. Clear communication would help set expectations around payments, and the proposed coordination body should advise organisations on establishing these expectations. Additionally, system challenges, such as delays in payment processing by larger organisations, should be addressed.
HDRC to advocate and coordinate advice for P&C researchers on the impact of research payments on welfare benefits. Stakeholders favoured a single point of contact for P&C researchers to receive advice on how different types of income from P&C research could impact social security and tax. The advisor(s) could also support P&C researchers to communicate NIHR guidelines around research participation to their work coaches at Jobcentres. The project team recommend that the HDRC consider establishing a 36 partnership with the Tower Hamlets Community Advice Network to provide this support and incorporate it into the next contract procurement for the Network.
HDRC to coordinate the creation of a good practice guide for P&C research. The good practice guide should include: 1) an account of the value and impact of P&C research and the unique skills of P&C researchers; 2) guidelines on payment including a directory of available welfare benefits advice. This pack could also support P&C researchers to communicate to employers the skills and experience developed through P&C research and a paragraph that they could use to share their specific skills and experiences.
HDRC to advocate for improved DWP guidance and practices regarding benefit claimants receiving payments as P&C researchers. Workshop participants strongly recommended that the HDRC should urge the NIHR to lobby for clearer guidance from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) concerning benefit claimants who receive payments as P&C researchers. This includes providing more transparent guidelines for both P&C researchers and Jobcentres, as well as training for Jobcentre staff to ensure they understand and apply these rules to better support benefit claimants