Deliberations with our Inquiry Panel
An overview of our Inquiry Panel deliberations, conducted between October 2025 and March 2026, exploring the barriers to co-produced and participatory research across UK higher education, what needs to change, and how practical change can happen – including how to make the case with key decision-makers and what each of us can do within our own organisations.
- Deliberation 1 - How to address systemic and cultural barriers
- Deliberation 2 - Culture change through charters and databases
- Delivery 3 - Advocacy and agency
Deliberation 1 - How to address systemic and cultural barriers
Our first deliberation on 12 October 2025 confirmed a shared shift in focus – from simply scaling local solutions to addressing the deeper systemic and cultural barriers that hinder co-produced and participatory research in UK higher education.
Reflections from the panel
Our discussions highlighted the importance of mapping “inflection points” for systemic change, such as the cyclical reviews of the REF and KEF, and using the current context of UK HE as a means to achieve simplified, more enabling processes.
We also reflected on how researchers and professional services colleagues are constantly finding creative workarounds for barriers like participant payments, but that the real obstacles lie within broader structures and cultures, not individual effort.
We explored tensions between community control and funding mechanisms, drew insights from international examples (including approaches in France and Canada), and discussed how to reframe risk by asking about the “risk of not enabling” co-production.
Some progress is being made by creating governance forums that work across university functions, which are in place long-term, where issues can be escalated, and there can be ongoing dialogue for continuous improvement.
There was strong support for recognising civic and community engagement within research metrics and for “humanising” institutional processes by fostering closer collaboration between researchers and professional services teams.
Looking ahead
Future discussions of the Inquiry Panel could look at the emerging alternative models that reframe the fundamental purpose of research funding as a resource for HEIs.
Looking ahead, we proposed developing a “systems map” to capture different approaches to change and a forward timetable of future inflection points.
Deliberation 2 - Culture change through charters and databases
This second deliberation on 12 January 2026 built on our previous focus on structures and processes by turning more explicitly to cultural change, relationships and the wider research and innovation ecosystem in which universities sit.
We situated the session within a series of further provocations from invited speakers whose work seeks to inspire change by recognising, formalising and sharing good practice through charters and databases of good practice.
Throughout these reflections, it became clear that change cannot be understood in terms of structures or cultures alone, but in how these interact and reinforce one another.
Examples from practice
Emily Howlett introduced the Greater Manchester Respectful Research Charter, and the infrastructure that has grown around it, including training, communities of practice, forums and peer networks. This highlighted that the value of charters often lies less in the final document than in the process of developing and embedding shared values.
We also heard from Matt Ryan about Participedia as a global network and crowdsourcing platform for those interested in public participation and democratic innovation. While funded primarily as a technical output, the discussion highlighted that the platform’s real strength lies in the informal international networks and relationships it has enabled. Together, these examples highlighted how their impact relies on relational infrastructures, shared ownership and ongoing practices which allow them to connect people, circulate values and sustain change over time.
Panel reflections
Together, we reflected on how complementary efforts like these might be brought into conversation with one another, and discussed the need for an ongoing space to act as a connecting or ‘relational tissue’ to share and map ongoing practice, learn collectively, and make impacts more visible.
We also discussed how to incentivise engagement in this work, and whether the case for co-production might be strengthened by reframing it around the kinds of failure it helps to prevent. This raised questions about the consequences of not taking co-production seriously, as well as how those risks are currently understood or valued.
The session also returned to important recurring questions around whether we should reform our existing systems or develop new ones entirely, as well as who drives this work and who decides what is important.
Looking ahead
We discussed exploring a range of approaches, including examples that bypass or broker beyond the university by working with other parts of the research ecosystem (such as intermediary roles), efforts to shift dominant narratives or articulate the case for change in new ways, and opportunities for collective unlearning through peer-based, reflexive learning forums.
Deliberation 3 - Advocacy and agency
In this session on 25 March 2026, we focused on advocacy and agency. Having already explored the barriers to doing co-produced and participatory research, what needs to change and how practical change could happen, this session asked: How do we make the case for co-production with different decision-makers, and what can each of us do from where we sit?
Panel members presented a 3-minute pitch addressing these guiding questions. We then reflected on what resonated with us, who has the influence and power to make a change in this space, and whether any gaps or patterns were emerging in who we need to speak with.
Who can generate change?
We recognised that university leaders, funders, and government are key audiences, each requiring a tailored ‘case’. The current civic university agenda and focus on place-based approaches present a timely opportunity to position co-production as the methodology that can deliver on these policy priorities, meaning now is a particularly important moment to act.
As co-production rises on government and funders’ agendas, it is important to ensure it is embedded meaningfully, rather than as an ‘add-on’. The cost of getting this wrong is not just reputational for universities but also actively harmful to communities.
What can individual Panel members do?
We explored what members could do individually from within their existing roles, as well as what we can do collectively. The panel discussed the importance of using their own networks to communicate the value of co-production, as well as pushing forward internal culture change within their own organisations to better support participatory and co-produced research. We heard examples of work already underway in these areas, including at the Medical Research Council, British Science Association, IVAR, Y-PERN, and the NCCPE.
What can we do collectively?
As a collective, we recognised the need to align existing efforts already working towards improving the conditions for co-produced and participatory research. Rather than producing new evidence, we should prioritise curating and mobilising what already exists, keeping it alive and accessible as living knowledge.
Alongside this, we reflected on the importance of articulating the risks of not taking co-production seriously, while also evidencing what excellent co-production looks like across different contexts.
Underpinning all of this is the need to distil the value of co-production into clear principles that speak directly to government priorities around both economic and societal impact.
