SECTION MENU

Findings and recommendations

This section presents the findings and recommendations based on our step-by-step approach to developing insights and co-producing solutions. We begin by sharing insights from the initial workshops with the P&C research team and organisational representatives, which informed the design of the survey. After this the survey results are shared followed by the discussions and recommendations generated by the multi-stakeholder co-production workshops.

1. Project Co-design: Rose, Bud, Thorn of P&C Research

Our data gathering began with two workshops, one with P&C researchers, a second with organisational representatives. The aim of the workshops was to co-design the project focus and survey, informed by the successes, difficulties and future opportunities of P&C research in Tower Hamlets. In the workshops, participants identified the "roses" (successes), "buds" (future opportunities), and "thorns" (difficulties) of P&C research.

Answer:

As illustrated by the quotes below, participants highlighted the active presence of P&C research in Tower Hamlets, with a strong desire across sectors to collaborate in using this approach to develop place-based solutions for tackling inequities:

“So many different projects in Tower Hamlets using a peer and community research approach.” (P&C researcher)

“Several very skilled and well-respected VCS community research organisations.” (council officer)

“The desire to collaborate and create place-based / specific responses." (university researcher)

The power of P&C researchers in amplifying voices, developing innovative methodologies, and creating effective solutions was seen as empowering for residents and organisations, as illustrated in the quotes below:

“Unearthing things/voices not usually heard.” (P&C researcher)

“Valuing the skills of the community and being cognisant of power dynamics." (university researcher)

“Picking best methods for communities.” (P&C researcher)

“Innovative and creative methodologies for understanding the views of local residents.” (university researcher)

“Empowering for lay people to know what they think matters.” (P&C researcher)

Relevant research, topic, and questions answered rather than dwelling on things that do not matter to people.” (P&C researcher)

Participants were driven to support and conduct P&C research due to its potential to generate and influence local policy: “Gives opportunities to influence.” (P&C researcher)

“Seeing change happen is empowering.” (P&C researcher)

Participants also reflected on how the delivery and use of P&C research can build trust between residents and other stakeholders including the Council.

Answer:

Opportunities were identified around improving the sustainability of P&C research. These opportunities included moving away from short-term project-based work, avoiding duplication of projects on the same topic and increasing the impact of P&C research, as the following quotes suggest:

“We need to build a sustainable, long term model.” (P&C researcher)

“Communities can conduct continuous research (rather than one off project), anyone from communities can take part.” (P&C researcher)

“Developing a co-ordinated approach to sharing ongoing project work to prevent duplication and share best practices." (community organisation representative)

Rebalancing power dynamics and breaking down stigmas and assumptions between stakeholders emerged as an outcome of P&C research and central to its sustainable development.

“Chance to shift power relationships." (community organisation representative)

“Breaking down stigmas/assumption between professionals and communities. This means professionals’ assumptions about minoritised communities and communities’ assumptions about professionals.” (P&C researcher)

“Possibility to work with communities to really understand stigma and barriers.” (P&C researcher)

“There’s finally a widespread acknowledgment of structural racism and how it affects people of colour.” (P&C researcher)

Participants highlighted the need for stronger cross-sector collaboration, with hopes that HDRC could play a significant role in strengthening these efforts:

“The HDRC!! We didn't have it before as an explicit effort to build infrastructure and collaboration.” (university researcher)

“Making connections through the HDRC work to support other research collaborations in the long term.” (university researcher)

“So many projects could be shared better and be collaborative.” (P&C researcher)

“Building relationships is necessary.” (P&C researcher)

Answer:

Participants noted several practical challenges, including the risk of repetition in P&C research projects, the perception that the evidence generated by P&C research is not valued by some stakeholders, short-term funding, difficulty reaching certain communities to be included in research, P&C research being misrepresented after completion by policymakers, a lack of transparency and accountability in implementing recommendations, and insufficient support for P&C researchers and research projects.

“Research projects are not informed by existing research insights and data.” (P&C researcher) 

“Community research is not valued, recognised (P&C researcher, workshop) Short termism limits impact.” (P&C researcher)

“People get activated and excited and then the money runs out.” (P&C researcher)

“It can be challenging to reach certain communities. Housebound, digitally excluded people for example.” (P&C researcher)

“Research being misrepresented once it is done, endangering communities.” (P&C researcher)

“Accountability is a key factor. Sometimes dissemination is too limited, missing people out, biasing reports to make it look more impact was achieved than in reality. We are accountable to the public.” (P&C researcher)

“Lack of transparency: organisations and co-researchers all need to know what is happening, including dissemination.” (P&C researcher)

“Policymaker buy in drops off at the implementation stage. A waste of time and money.” (P&C researcher)

“Trust breaks down if no change taken.” (P&C researcher)

“Clear payment policy is needed.” (P&C researcher)

“Lack of clarity around DWP guidance on peer research and benefits." (community organisation representative)

“Effective training does not exist: training needs to be inclusive; examples of effective training could be stakeholders sharing different expertise and insights, and training logistics on a research project.” (P&C researcher)

In addition to these challenges, a lack of trust and togetherness was highlighted due to issues such as perceived discrimination against P&C researchers, insufficient resources for meaningful community engagement and involvement in research, and the extraction of P&C research from the people and groups who produced it.

“Not sharing the same ideas of what we are trying to do.” (council officer)

“Lack of trust between communities and institutions from previous experiences and current challenges.” (university researcher)

“Residents not feeling welcome into research and local authority spaces.” (university researcher)

“Discrimination by researchers and council officers when framing research themes, interpreting data and sharing results.” (university researcher)

“Providing sufficient resources and time to meaningfully engage and sustain relations with communities." (community organisation representative)

“Risk of tokenism and extraction.” (university researcher)

2. Survey Findings: Current Activities of P&C Research

The survey was co-designed following discussions of the "rose, bud, thorn" framework and was completed by over 70 local stakeholders. The findings suggest that peer and community (P&C) research is relatively active in Tower Hamlets, with at least 25 organisations - including public sector bodies, VCS organisations, universities, and independent consultants - facilitating, commissioning, or supporting it. This demonstrates strong potential for further development, where the collective impact of efforts can exceed the sum of individual parts. In this sub-section, we will review current P&C research activities by following the typical journey of a P&C research project. This will be followed by an exploration of the gaps that have been identified through the review.

Answer:

In Tower Hamlets, according to the survey, organisations have conducted research on various subjects, with the most focus on health and healthcare (37%). In contrast, social care (11%) and environmental issues (11%) have received the least attention.

Most survey respondents indicated that research topics explored by future HDRC research should be decided collaboratively by community organisations, residents, the Council, and universities, with residents and community organisations being approached first.

Approximately one-third (33%) of organisational representatives from the VCS, universities, the NHS, and the Council believe that there is a risk of repetition among P&C research projects, while over one in ten (12%) note that projects often overlook existing research insights and data. This suggests that resources are wasted because P&C research findings are not synthesised across projects or built on by newer projects.

Answer:

Funding remains a significant challenge for P&C research. Alongside the difficulty of implementing research recommendations through policy and system changes, funding was highlighted as one of the top challenges by survey participants (see Figure 4).

top challenges hdrc 1

top challenges hdrc 2

Fragmented organisation and short-term funding were cited by one in four survey respondents (25%) as limiting the impact of P&C research. Limited funding was noted by nearly one in five participants (16%). This challenge on funding was particularly noted by public sector and university representatives. Community organisations also emphasised the need for better funding arrangements to ensure the quality of P&C research.

Answer:

In Tower Hamlets, organisations taking part in the survey worked with between 0 to 50 P&C researchers over the past year, with an average of eight P&C researchers per organisation. P&C researchers bring valuable experience, skills, and networks, which greatly enhance the research process.

One in three organisational representatives from the VCS, universities, the NHS, and the Council noted that P&C researchers are not involved in all stages of the research and policymaking process. This raises the question of whether P&C researchers are involved only to access communities and collect data from them. Another question, inspired by a P&C researcher, concerns the role of P&C researchers: are they there to represent their own views, or are they expected not only to share their own perspectives but also to research the views and experiences of their communities? How is this ambivalent role reflected in the design, facilitation, and interpretation of the research? A detailed review of P&C researchers' roles and participation is beyond the scope of this project, but such a review could enhance understanding of P&C research among all stakeholders, potentially improve its credibility, and showcase its methodologies and impact.

Answer:

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).

research methods figure 5 hdrc

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)

Answer:

Three in four (75%) community organisations in our survey reported they include efforts to implement findings through community organising, campaigning, or policymaking. In contrast, with a greater focus on contributing to academic knowledge, university research rarely have the time and resources to actively drive change (8%), instead primarily relying on disseminating findings through academic outputs as the standard approach to influence policymakers and encourage policy implementation.

Respondents highlighted impact and benefits of P&C research (see Figure 6). P&C researchers identified the improvement of understanding, trust, and collaboration between communities and all other stakeholders as the most significant benefit. Public sector representatives placed equal value on these aspects and on enhancing the understanding of local community needs. Community organisations and 27 universities prioritised the development of effective solutions and addressing inequalities.

figure 6 hdrc

Implementing research recommendations through policy and system change was identified as a top challenge of P&C research by 27% of survey participants (Figure 4), particularly among community organisations and P&C researchers. Organisation representatives noted several barriers to implementation, including a lack of support from policymakers (17%), insufficient funding to implement recommendations (17%), and policymakers' lack of understanding and appreciation for evidence generated from P&C research (15%). Community organisation survey respondents consider all these factors equally important, while public sector and university representatives see lack of funding as the biggest barrier.

Answer:

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.

figure 7 hdrc

Answer:

A reflection from the survey findings is that experiences and perspectives on P&C research vary significantly both across and within sectors. For survey questions related to views on P&C research in Tower Hamlets (e.g. its benefits, challenges, and who should coordinate P&C research in the borough), the highest proportion of respondents selecting any one option was only 29%, indicating a lack of consensus. This highlights the importance of ensuring that any further development of a P&C research system is inclusively co-designed.

Despite these differences, there was strong consensus in the survey (100% of participants) on the need to coordinate P&C research in Tower Hamlets and establish a shared system across the borough. Survey participants (25%) also emphasised the benefit of maintaining long-term relationships among stakeholders to ensure research quality. This priority was consistently shared across all 29 stakeholder groups, further underscoring the critical role of coordination in the P&C research system.

Opinions on who should lead the coordination of P&C research across the borough were diverse, with options including a group of organisations (29%), THCVS (22%), and the Council (12%). The small sample size (65 respondents on this question) means a sector-based analysis is not possible, but the idea of a group of organisations working together was the most popular, especially among P&C researchers (35%). This preference may stem from the perceived independence such a body could offer.

A coordinating group could take various forms, such as a funded collaborative partnership or a Community Interest Company (CIC). Regardless, such a group would have to ensure active involvement from P&C researchers and all relevant organisations. This is illustrated by a free text comment made by a VCS stakeholder in the survey:

“Various partners [should collectively lead the coordination body], just avoid supporting one or two gatekeepers please, it’s harmful.” (community organisation representative)

The HDRC uses the ActEarly co-production principles (27) to guide their engagement with residents. In the survey, we asked participants to what extent they agreed that these principles are applied when conducting P&C research in Tower Hamlets. Responses were scored from 1 to 5, with 1 indicating 'strongly disagree' and 5 indicating 'strongly agree'. The average score across all principles was above average (3.6 out of 5, see Figure 8 for individual scores), again highlighting both the strengths and opportunities for improvement in the collaborative approach to P&C research in Tower Hamlets.

 

figure 8 hdrc

3. Co-production Workshops: Recommendations for a P&C Research System

Building on the survey findings, over 50 workshop participants developed a set of recommendations to establish a more sustainable and impactful P&C research system in Tower Hamlets. These co-produced recommendations are divided into two categories: practical guidance for improving the delivery of P&C research, and guidance on the values and culture that should underpin the P&C research system.

Initial suggestions about how the recommendations might be implemented have been made. However, we acknowledge that further discussion between all stakeholders needs to occur to identify who is best placed to deliver on certain recommendations.

The HDRC leadership team includes representation from the Council, VCS, universities and Tower Hamlets residents. It also has the power to convene other stakeholders who deliver and support P&C research, such as national research funders and the NHS. Given this, in addition to implementing some of the recommendations through their research infrastructure, the HDRC can also advocate for change across the wider system.

Answer:

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

Answer:

During our workshops, stakeholders expressed a strong desire to cultivate an "us" mentality between all stakeholders involved in P&C research. The emphasis was on working together rather than being constrained by hierarchical roles and methods of research. An "us" mentality must be reflective, open to challenging power dynamics, privilege, research norms and values and the colonisation of knowledge-making. It embodies shared values, shared power and shared responsibilities.

An "us" mentality can guide how we act on the practical recommendations from this report to enhance the journey of P&C research, from updating our approach to funding and commissioning, re-evaluating the value placed on P&C research data, and coordinating collective efforts to support P&C researchers. This “us” mentality aligns with the co-production values that already underpin the HDRC.

Guided by an "us" mentality, overarching recommendations were developed to foster mutual understanding among stakeholders and to establish a coordination body for P&C research. This body would support the implementation of the recommendations made above and contribute to the development of a more sustainable and impactful P&C research system.

HDRC to fund a cultural development programme to develop shared values across stakeholders, challenge power dynamics, privilege and norms, and encourage collaboration with these updated values. Workshop participants repeatedly noted the need to challenge power dynamics. They recommended that encouraging collaboration as individuals, rather than being constrained by hierarchical roles, should be a core value embedded in HDRC's work across all sectors. The project team recommend that resources should be allocated to support sustainable development in this area, potentially beginning with activities that encourage a shift in mindset. This initiative could be led by the proposed coordination body (see below), supported by external facilitators, or integrated as a core function of the HDRC.

HDRC to fund a coordination body for research coordination and support coordination. A gap identified in the current P&C research landscape is dedicated coordination body to enhance collaboration among stakeholders. All survey and workshop participants recognised the potential benefits of better-coordinated P&C research in Tower Hamlets, with consistent support across organisations and P&C researchers.

This coordination body could be an enduring legacy of the HDRC. With the HDRC’s support, it could develop effective strategies and operational models, aiming for financial sustainability. The ongoing support and development of these bodies will help sustain the P&C research system in the borough.

The key coordination activities of this body should be:

  • Research coordination: Facilitating collaboration on commissioning, funding, conducting, and implementing P&C research. This includes coordinating efforts among organisations and communities to align research priorities, avoid duplication, and undertake larger, more impactful projects.
  • Support coordination: Ensuring timely, flexible, and sufficient payments to P&C researchers, coordinating advice on the impact of payments on welfare benefits, and maintaining a comprehensive, growing directory accessible to all stakeholders. Additionally, this function would coordinate training for P&C researchers, policymakers, universities, and community organisations.

The project team recommend that the HDRC could fund one coordination body serving both functions. It is worth noting that these two functions should not merely act as networks; their role goes beyond information sharing. They should focus on how processes work across organisations and sectors, aiming to assess and transform power dynamics and support all stakeholders in achieving shared goals.

It is crucial that the leadership of the coordination body include multiple partners from each sector. The support coordination function should have strong leadership and decision-making input from P&C researchers, with support from the Council, universities, and community organisations. Workshop participants suggested identifying organisations that already play a brokering role, which could support the success of this coordination function.

All organisations involved in the coordination body should be transparent about their agendas and pressures, share research and engage in dialogue about these issues. Stakeholders recommended that funding from all Council teams should support these coordination bodies. This would make sure P&C research informed all aspects of local policymaking.

Workshop participants identified three potential options for managing the group of organisations who would constitute the coordination body:

  • Rotate chairing and hosting: A chair would be selected from stakeholder representatives and rotated at an agreed interval. This chair could be either a community member or an organisational representative and would also be responsible for managing the delivery and financial resources of the coordination body. This approach could help ensure the sharing of power among stakeholders. However, participants noted potential practical challenges with rotating the chair, such as logistical difficulties in community members hosting the coordination body with the necessary resources.
  • An independent chair with their own staff: An independent chair, not affiliated with any stakeholder organisation, could be employed by the coordination body. This chair would have their own staff to manage the day-to-day operations. Participants recommended this option to balance power and resources between communities and organisations, as community members often have less time and fewer resources, while organisations typically have more advantages. An independent chair and staff team could alleviate the administrative and organisational burden, allowing community members to participate equally. The City and Hackney Safeguarding Adults Board was cited as a good examplei .
  • Community researcher-led group: In this option, community researchers would lead the group, supported by other stakeholders (including community organisations, public sector bodies, and academics). This could help ensure the independence of the coordination body.

The project team acknowledges the uncertainty around whether the HDRC have the resources to fund this coordination body. The coordination functions and recommendations outlined in this report can either be implemented by the proposed coordination body or through existing teams within the HDRC or the Council, as appropriate. When deciding who should take on these tasks, it is important to consider the goal of power sharing and to recognise the valuable skills and expertise already present within the voluntary and community sector.