FAQ

In Tower Hamlets, our survey suggests that a wide variety of research methods have been employed, ranging from traditional approaches like surveys, interviews, and focus groups to non-traditional, creative methods such as videos, drawings, gardening, and community dinners. There has also been an active effort to implement findings as part of the research, including community organising, campaigning, and policymaking.

Traditional qualitative and quantitative research methods are most used, particularly by universities (Figure 5). 92% of universities utilise these traditional methods, along with 85% of public sector representatives and 81% of community organisations. Among all stakeholders, public sector representatives use creative, non-traditional 26 methods the least (15% of public sector representatives), while community organisations are more likely to use them (44% of community organisations).

The dominance of traditional research methods and the limited familiarity with creative approaches among policymakers prompts a consideration of several key questions when commissioning, supporting, and conducting P&C research:

• What do different people understand to be the standards of good quality in peer and community research?How can we build a shared understanding of good quality? How can we enable good quality?

• What do we consider as ‘good’ evidence? Are community insights and P&C research evidence valued in the same way that academic evidence is? How might we expand our understandings of credible evidence?

The survey findings identified a need to re-evaluate P&C research methodologies. As one survey participant summarised in a free text comment:

“Part of the process of having community research accepted by policymakers is to also create the environment where this research is accepted as equally rigorous as traditional methods.” (community organisation representative)

In Tower Hamlets, training priorities and needs regarding P&C research vary widely across organisational stakeholders. In the survey, several P&C researchers (32%) and public sector representatives (57%) believe that community organisations, the Council/NHS and universities should receive training and support on how to work with residents in an ethical manner. Some university researchers (58%) identified a need for training on how to reach out and build trust with residents as research collaborators, while some community organisations (44%) expressed a need for training on recognising and shifting power dynamics between residents, community organisations, academics and council representatives. All stakeholders also pointed to the importance of a better understanding of the value and benefits of P&C research.

Compared to training for organisations, the views on training priorities for P&C researchers are more consistent across all stakeholders in our survey. The priorities include training to build skills (62%), paid work experience (49%), and accredited training courses (49%).

At present, more than half (58%) of P&C researchers receive incentives as payment (bank transfer/cash/voucher) (see Figure 7). Ideally, 52% of researchers would prefer to continue receiving payments this way, likely due to the complexities of welfare benefit policies. However, 32% of survey participants indicated a preference for contracted opportunities in an ideal scenario (including full-time, part-time, and zero-hours contracts), suggesting a demand for employment options. It is also worth noting that nearly one in ten (7%) P&C researchers have not received any payment, and only 4% prefer no payment in an ideal world. No P&C researcher who participated in the survey has been on a full-time contract, but 8% would prefer it. Additionally, nearly 7% are paid by invoice, which none of the respondents prefer, and over 4% receive only training and in-kind offers, which is also not preferred.

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

The information you provide when requesting Education Psychology (EP) involvement with your child and/or your needs will be handled in compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and processed as part of Tower Hamlets Council’s official authority to carry out tasks in the public interest. Your information may contribute to decision-making between services and partner agencies involved when a young person is assessed under part 3 of the Children and Families Act 2014.

Your information may be shared with relevant partners including, but not limited to the Special Educational Needs’ Section of The council, Health and/or Social Care and relevant educational professionals. Staff of the Educational Psychology Service will only share this information when they believe it is lawful, appropriate and in the best interests of your child. 

You have the right to make a formal request in writing for access to personal data held about you or your child, which must be responded to within 30 working days. You also have the right to request:

• a correction of any inaccurate data we hold about you or your child
• that we restrict our processing of you/your child’s data and/or restrict whom we share the data with, where permitted by law
• to withdraw consent and remove data relating to you/your child, where consent was obtained and is permitted by law.

The retention of your/your child’s information will vary between organisations and will be governed by each respective organisation’s records retention policy. Tower Hamlets Council will retain the information contained in this form for up to 35 years.

Tower Hamlets Council also has a duty under the Children’s Act 2004 to work with partners to provide and improve services to children and young people in the area. Therefore, The council may use this information for other legitimate and statutory purposes and may share this information where necessary with other bodies responsible for administering services to children and young people. These can include, but are not limited to, where we believe there is risk of significant harm to a child, young person or vulnerable adult, and for the purposes of crime prevention and national security. Personal data may also be shared with the Department of Communities and Local Government as part of the Troubled Families Scheme.

More information about your rights are available on our website, including your right to complain or contact our Data Protection Officer.

If you are have any concerns, please contact the EPS in the first instance and if you are not satisfied with our response you can then contact the Data Protection Officer. 

Information Governance Manager
Legal Services
London Borough of Tower Hamlets
Town Hall
160 Whitechapel Rd
London
E1 1BJ

Email:  DPO@towerhamlets.gov.uk.