Home FAQs
SECTION MENU

FAQ

FAQsRSS FeedAtom Feed

Answer:
A P&C research project often begins with the identification of a specific topic that needs investigation. This can be initiated by communities, commissioners/funders, or research-active organisations/individuals (e.g. community organisations, universities, independent consultants).
Answer:

P&C research in Tower Hamlets can be independently funded through a grant, internally funded by an organisation, or a P&C research team can be commissioned by an organisation to undertake a research project on their behalf. Examples of these different approaches are described below:

• Independently funded: A research organisation secures funding for P&C research it wishes to undertake and then uses the research findings to develop recommendations for policymakers they wish to influence. For example, the Blueprint Architects group is funded by the National Lottery, with the goal of influencing the council’s decision-making on food and climate issues.

• Internally funded: A council department might coordinate a team of community researchers, with internal funding set aside for this team. Government organisations like the London Borough of Camden and the Greater London Authority’s Peer Outreach team facilitate P&C research in-house. The Community Insights Programme in Tower Hamlets was an in-house 13 programme funded by the Tower Hamlets Council who delivered projects on a range of topics to support the development and delivery of council services and initiatives.

• Commissioned: The Council or NHS commissions a research provider to conduct P&C research that feeds into a specific strategy or policy. An example is Toynbee Hall being commissioned by the Council to carry out community research for the Tower Hamlets Poverty Review.

Some funders in London have implemented participatory commissioning in their grant-giving processes, involving residents from the outset. Examples include Shift Design for Trust for London, Black Food Fund, and Thrive LDN’s Right to Thrive Fund.

Answer:
When funding is secured, organisations typically begin recruiting P&C researchers, although the ideal scenario would be to involve them at the point of deciding a topic.
Answer:
While many organisations aim to co-design research methods with P&C researchers, this process is often constrained by funders requiring methods to be outlined before the P&C research team has been established. Once methods are finalised, the P&C researchers will deliver projects in collaboration with research practitioners (e.g. community-based researchers or university-based researchers).
Answer:
As a minimum, organisations usually share research findings through reports and/or presentations. If research is created or commissioned for the council’s decision making, the council will attempt to learn from it and use it to inform their decisions to some extent. However, the process for this is currently unclear. Sometimes, organisations and/or P&C researchers are involved in implementing the findings. At other times, research providers use their research to create change through campaigning or by putting pressure on the council to make their recommendations a reality.
Answer:

Most organisations are focused on supporting stakeholders and improving their practice and approach to P&C research, such as offering training and enhancing payment procedures. We are not aware of any existing P&C research training specifically targeted at organisations in Tower Hamlets. However, the Greater London Authority recently supported Xia Lin (project lead in this study) in delivering P&C research learning workshops for policymakers from 15 local, regional, and national organisations.

Currently, training for P&C researchers is primarily delivered by P&C research providers and universities. For example, Megan Clinch and Sara Paparini (project leads in this study) designed and delivered a 5 day course to 10 P&C researchers 14 who work with different organisations in east London on various health and health determinants projects. Toynbee Hall and The Centre for Creative Collaboration at QMUL, are currently delivering a project that works with young P&C researchers to ensure they are meaningfully included in academic research.

Answer:
A literature review was conducted on current P&C research activities across Tower Hamlets and London to understand who is conducting P&C research and how. The review also sought to understand the dynamics between research providers, P&C researchers, and policymakers (see Appendix 1 for examples). A brief review of P&C research systems in the UK and beyond was also included (see Background section above). The results of this review were used to inform the design of the survey and orientate the discussion at the co-production workshops by providing examples to inspire recommendations.
Answer:
Recruitment materials were sent out to a broad range of networks, with targeted correspondence sent to organisations working with P&C researchers. The facilitation team also sent invitations directly to P&C researchers they had worked with previously. The recruitment form was live for less than three weeks and received 25 submissions. A group of 8 P&C researchers were selected on the basis of the diversity of their P&C research experiences and demographics. Maximum effort was made to ensure the diversity of the P&C research team. For example, a young P&C researcher was sought out when it became clear that no one between the ages of 18-25 had responded to the call for participants. Applicants who were not selected to become members of the project team were invited to take part in the co-production workshops.
Answer:

 Two half-day workshops were conducted to co-design the survey, which aimed to better understand P&C activities in Tower Hamlets. These discussions also began to 17 identify components and functions of a future P&C research system in the borough based on the experiences and aspirations of the workshop participants.

The process began with a workshop with the P&C research team, followed by a second workshop with 14 organisational representatives from the VCS, universities, the NHS, and the Council. In both workshops, a "rose, bud, thorn” activity was used to explore the strengths, potential, and weaknesses of P&C research in Tower Hamlets, which will be presented in the findings section (see Appendix 2 for notes and themes). This activity was followed by a discussion to develop the survey questions. The P&C research team was involved in identifying and shaping these questions, which were then commented on by the group of wider stakeholders to make sure that their knowledge and experiences were also accounted for.

After these workshops the facilitation team further refined the questions and produced a final survey (see Appendix 3) that was organised into the following sections:

1. Information of role and involvement in P&C research;

2. Methodologies currently used in P&C research;

3. Strengths and weaknesses of involvement in P&C research;

4. Potential areas for improvement of P&C research.

To keep the survey manageable demographic questions were excluded. The project team then piloted the survey before the data collection phase.

rose bud HDRC

 

Answer:
The survey was promoted through various networks, including the HDRC, Tower Hamlets Council for Voluntary Services (THCVS), and existing contacts of the facilitation and P&C research teams. Over a period of around three weeks 72 valid responses were gathered, with more than one-third (35%) coming from P&C researchers. The respondents included a fairly balanced mix of representatives from VCS (24%), universities (17%), and the public sector (19%), along with a small number of funders and independent consultants (5%). It was challenging to include certain communities through the online survey, such as P&C researchers who are digitally excluded. To mitigate this, we offered to accept group responses if community organisations could conduct the survey (or part of it) with P&C 18 researchers. The relatively small sample size limited our ability to analyse specific sectors, making any sector-specific findings indicative rather than definitive.
Displaying 81 to 90 of 668
Previous … 7 8 9 10 11 … Next