This essay series was produced by the British Science Association (BSA) with support from UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) with the aim of strengthening and sharing the growing evidence base for the impact that community-engaged research can have.

Each of the essays within this collection are the product of a participatory process – with the support of Ray Cooper, equity and inclusion facilitator, we designed the writing and editing process together with the authors and their communities, to share ideas, and to support people who had not written about their work in this format before. Contributors from a range of diverse backgrounds have worked with us to shape not just the content, but the very approach to this work - the result is a series that doesn’t just talk about inclusion – it embodies it. Together we’ve explored what meaningful co-production of research looks like, what this work achieves and what needs to change to support it.

Selecting the essays 

We wanted to hear directly from people working with communities, and to go beyond our existing networks. We issued an open call in Spring 2024, inviting short expressions of interest from anyone working with communities and research.

We received over 230 responses:

• The highest proportion came from London and South East England, followed by Scotland and Wales.
• The most common research areas were health and wellbeing, and environment.
• Nearly half the responses came from researchers, around one in six responses were from small charities, and a further one in six were from university staff in non-research roles.
• Most of the responses from researchers came from people in post-doctoral or research fellowship roles, and most of the responses from non-researchers came from people at Manager-level. 

The expressions of interest were reviewed by a panel of seven people with expertise in community engagement and research. The panel included community representation, and each reviewer was compensated for their time. Ahead of reviewing the applications the team engaged in a workshop exploring potential bias and how that shows up when assessing written applications. In addition, Ray removed the organisation and names of the people behind the expression of interest to reduce bias based on professional status. Each expression of interest was read by at least two reviewers, and each reviewer chose a score out of three for the expressions of interest they read. Reviewers were looking for clear approaches, relevance to researchers and communities, unique perspectives, and insights that went beyond single projects. 

We longlisted 22 expressions of interest. We then took a 'portfolio' approach to selecting the final shortlist: this meant that we looked to represent a mixture of insights, backgrounds, research areas, locations, and  community representation. 

CLICK HERE TO READ THE ESSAY SERIES SUMMARY BOOKLET

The writing process

The editorial approach for this essay series was designed to be collaborative and participatory, ensuring that each contributor had an active role in shaping their work. We wanted create a writing process that was inclusive of people with no previous publication experience. Additionally, early-on in the project, we heard from the authors that they wanted to get to know each other, and that a major benefit of taking part was to share and learn with others doing community-engaged work. So, together with a designer and facilitator, we developed a 'co-editing' approach where authors could share reflections, with us and with each other, throughout the writing process. Co-editing in this context was more than just refining text - it was about creating space for reflection, conversation, and collective shaping of ideas. 

Activities included:

• Connection-building session: we brought all the authors together to meet each other, share their experience in community-engaged research, and share their plans for their essays.
• Individual co-editing sessions: we had at least two sessions with each author where we talked through their essay draft and encouraged them to reflect on its strengths and weaknesses. We were led by the authors in these sessions and tried not to come in with fixed ideas about what needed to change. 
• Specific feedback and tracked changes: as essays developed, we gave more specific feedback to ensure clarity and consistency. We tried to keep this to a minimum and frame editorial feedback as guidance rather than instruction, so that we preserved the voice and message of the authors. 
• Group feedback sessions: at the final draft stage, all authors were invited to share and read other essays in the series.

Our approach required thoughtful engagement and flexibility, recognising that editing can be a relational practice rather than merely a technical process. By centring collaboration and care, the co-editing process helped shape a collection that is both authentic to each contributor and meaningful as a whole. In addition, we also had a small pot of money to distribute to the contributors. In order to decide who and how much people should be renumerated we invited everyone to express their needs and contexts, and decided upon a couple of different tiers of renumeration for main authors and co-authors who were not doing this work as part of full-time paid employment. The decisions around this were shared openly and transparently with the group. 

CLICK HERE TO READ ALL THE ESSAYS

https://www.britishscienceassociation.org/creating-knowledge-together

Reflecting on the essay series

Not only do the essays invite us to reflect on what it takes to create a thriving research ecosystem, but the process itself has also highlighted the spaces and support that are needed for those doing this work to be able to shape the priorities and practices that are adopted more generally. On 1 April we ran a retrospective with all of the contributors to continue to learn from this experience together and use that to inform the role that BSA and others can be playing in service of community-led research.

Ray reflects on what they learnt from the relationships and understanding they developed through their role in supporting the BSA and the contributors:

The process of working on this essays series has revealed to me just how under resourced and undervalued those working in this space are. While this essay series was primarily intended to platform and showcase the people and practices behind community research, it was clear that everyone needed a lot more space to process everything they have to carry to make this a reality. The profound nature of this work has the power to change so much within our society, and many of these essays clearly demonstrate that. But they also shine a light on the barriers that we all complicit in upholding which get in the way of true community-led and participatory approaches.