ID233 Inclusive People and Communities Involvement in Research & Impact

The Idea

Stimulated by the recent Strategic conversation on Humanities in Crisis, the forthcoming celebration of 20 years of people and communities’ involvement in research in Medicine and Health Sciences, the long-established reputation for excellent community-academic collaborations, e.g. CLOCK, CASIC, now KISI, the increasing demand for public involvement in discovery science, and coproduction for impact, there is strong evidence for high-quality, inclusive, community and public involvement in research for all. The idea is to coproduce with underserved local communities a strategy for Inclusive People and Community Involvement in research, jointly owned by stakeholders and Keele researchers from all Faculties. 

Why This Idea Should Be Considered

Community and public involvement and engagement in research and impact is a fast-evolving landscape. Our major funders already have public involvement in research as a key requirement of grant awards e.g. UKRI and many have community engagement strategies e.g. in global health (1), some higher educational institutions have public and community engagement in research strategies e.g. (2) and communities are increasingly becoming research ready e.g. (3-5). 

Some community groups might be under-served in terms of access to resources but over-solicited in terms of requests to participate in research and other projects. We can ensure benefits are reciprocal and equitable.

How will the strategy be produced and implemented? 

The idea has been shared with a Community of Practice (CoP) including a cohort of Keele staff known to be active in community involvement and engagement in research across Keele’s three faculties.  The CoP includes researchers, academic and professional services staff, ‘people and communities’ research leaders within the North West Midlands, and local community representatives of underserved groups involved in research.   

This CoP will meet virtually to map the community involvement and engagement in research strategies that we currently adhere to.  We will then host an interactive in person workshop to agree the key strategic priorities for a Keele strategy. These strategic priorities will then be shared a part of the development of a new Keele strategy for implementation. 

How We Would Implement This Idea

An Inclusive People and Community Involvement in Research and Impact Strategy could be core to Keele’s recognition and reward of community and public involvement in research and could draw on a range of high-quality research and knowledge mobilisation already established at Keele, along with partnerships with local and regional communities that may not normally engage with higher education or research. The strategy would ensure equity, would put communities in the heart of processes and procedures, and would strengthen the quality of Keele’s research and impact, sustain best practices and resource the inclusion of local communities in an equitable way. (6) 

What Success Would Look Like

A coproduced, Inclusive People and Communities Involvement in Research & Impact Strategy, that recognises and rewards the contributions of communities and the public in Keele research from ideas through to knowledge mobilisation and impact. A University-wide strategy should support communities to ‘grow in confidence in the world of research’ and promote a deeper understanding of the complexities of community engagement and involvement in research 

Success will lead to: 

• A Keele strategy for community involvement and engagement in research, endorsed by CoP members 
• A much clearer understanding of community roles, leadership and brokerage in research involvement  
• An increased awareness of the various interfaces with stakeholders, charities and funders  
• Flexible and responsive systems and processes that support Community involvement in research. We know that Community involvement is multilayered and Keele systems and processes should allow for flexibility e.g. our systems and processes could make this more or less equitable  
• Where we can, alignment of systems and processes to reduce the burden on communities, to make this more equitable 
• Having a more transparent system of reward and recognition. It may not all be monetary or the same, so flexibility is needed.  
• Keele as a successful negotiator with research funders for the benefit of communities  
• An acknowledgement that we all have multiple connections with different communities, and that should continue, and is viewed as positive (i.e. not one ‘front door’) 
• More excellent, coproduced research with impact with underserved communities 
• An enhanced and sustained trust in Keele’s community involvement and engagement in research and impact 
• Alignment with the Civic Universities’ network
• Membership of NCPPE and following the Seven Principles of Public Life. https://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/ 

Evaluation of success could be achieved locally through coproduced research, implementation of Keele’s existing research and its impact, and coproduced audit and feedback. We can celebrate all research practices in this context: performances, plays, films, novels, musical compositions, etc. It will be important to develop approaches that deliver direct, tangible benefits to community members and community partner organisations, as well as to the university. 

For example, this could include: 

• Building mechanisms within the strategy that ensure community partners gain value through participation (e.g. skills development, access to resources, co-authorship, or capacity strengthening) 
• Embedding reciprocity and mutual benefit as core principles, so that involvement is not extractive but supports community priorities and sustainability 
• Identifying ways in which research activity can contribute to longer-term outcomes for partner organisations (e.g. supporting service delivery, funding opportunities, or strategic goals) 
• Contributing to Organisational Communities of Practice that review and advise on research impact potential 

Explicitly recognising and articulating these reciprocal benefits within both the implementation plan and success measures will help strengthen the strategy and reinforce trust, equity, and sustainability in community relationships. 

References 

1. https://www.nihr.ac.uk/research-funding/global-health/community-engagement-and-involvement  
2. https://staff.admin.ox.ac.uk/article/oxfords-new-public-and-community-engagement-with-research-strategy   
3. https://www.communities1st.org.uk/REN-For-Researchers   
4. https://www.mpft.nhs.uk/about-us/latest-news/ren-research-engagement-network-programme-community-research-engagement-telford-gurdwara   
5. https://expertcitizens.org.uk/insight-research/  
6. https://mihealth.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Report_MHIPC_FINAL.pdf