Influencing policy with participatory research: reflecting on experience 

On the 13^th March 2025, we ran a workshop to explore how we, as academic researchers, can deepen the impact of participatory research on policy debates, processes, decision-makers and decisions. The workshop provided space to reflect on and discuss the practical experience of third sector organisations engaged in evidence generation and advocacy through participatory research.  

We asked third sector and advocacy organisations, as well as those they support, to join us and engage in some reflection and critical discussion on this topic. We wanted to hear about their experiences of engaging in research using creative methods, employing participatory approaches and producing interactive outputs for policy audiences. The focus was on sharing good practice in participatory research, with a view to deepening our collective impact through research and research outputs. Twenty participants attended the workshop. 

Outline of the day 

We began by discussing one example of a piece of participatory research for policy audiences, which was carried out as part of the SIPHER consortium in 2023/24: the housing and health layered systems map.  

We then heard from four participants with significant experience in participatory research for policy audiences:  

• Fiona McHardy, formerly of Poverty Alliance, now at the University of Strathclyde 

• Elaine Downie and Brian Scott of the Poverty Truth Community 

• Catherine-Rose Stocks-Rankin of the Scottish Policy and Research Exchange. 

They each shared their reflections on more and less successful examples of efforts to bring participatory research into policy discussions. 

We then moved to roundtable discussions that explored what participatory methods and interactive research outputs can offer, beyond the benefits of more traditional forms of research and evidence creation on people’s lived experiences. These discussions were also a chance to consider some of the risks and challenges in using these methods and to collectively explore and develop effective ways to move influence policy with participatory research. We also asked participants to share their thoughts on post-its, which we stuck to the wall under different discussion questions. 

The value of participatory research 

Workshop participants described the value of participatory research as multi-faceted, extending beyond mere information gathering, to fostering democratic engagement, as well as personal and collective growth. They argued that participatory research supports the principle of "nothing about us without us" and can be used to ensure that policies affecting communities are designed with them, not just for them. It fundamentally shifts the paradigm from traditional, extractive knowledge production to a collaborative and potentially empowering process. 

Key aspects of the value of participatory research identified by participants included: 

• Ethics and democracy: participatory research champions the right of communities to co-design and research topics that concern them, acknowledging individuals as experts of their own experience. It seeks to democratise knowledge production by involving people who are directly affected, challenging assumptions that education equates to knowing best. Instead, it allows participants to control the narrative and share stories that are meaningful to them, such as experiences of connection and fun, not just adversity. 

• Enhancing knowledge and actionable insights: by adopting a "ground-up approach", participatory research uncovers issues and solutions directly from communities, providing actionable insights that might otherwise be missed by external researchers. It can reveal "unknown unknowns" that are crucial for effective policy development. 

• Agency and empowerment: participatory research can provide participants with control over something, even if small, which can significantly build their confidence and challenge feelings of worthlessness. In this way, it has the potential to cultivate agency, enabling people to define their own relationships with policy and gain the knowledge and confidence to challenge existing structures. Participatory research can restore respect, dignity, and power to participants, in stark contrast to the experience of sharing traumatic stories that are then processed by external researchers, beyond the reach of those who experienced them. 

• Grounded in lived experience: workshop participants argued that participatory research often results in knowledge that is "much more meaningful and robust”. This underpins more memorable ("sticky") insights from research. Moreover, findings are developed in a way that is grounded in deep knowledge that stems from lived experience, making it both more robust and useful. 
• Building community: participatory research can foster connections and understanding across communities, which is particularly important in times of societal fragmentation. It has the potential to humanise social problems and shift perceptions through the process of critical enquiry, collaboration and sharing. 

Challenges in influencing policy with participatory research 

Despite its inherent value, participants felt that participatory research faced significant challenges in influencing policy: 

• Systemic and structural barriers: the policy-making process is inherently slow, with lengthy lead times required both for conducting meaningful consultations and for drafting legislation, which can impede urgent social change. Moreover, policy horizons are often short-term and policy design is typically outcomes-focused, which can be challenging to align with the organic, emergent nature of participatory research. These challenges are deepened by public sector funding cuts, which inhibit the ability of policy-makers to respond to participatory research, even if they are able to acknowledge the value of findings. 

• Co-option and misrepresentation: participants identified the danger that participatory research can be co-opted to serve external narratives and could be used to justify neoliberal policies by shifting research work onto unfunded communities. Participation can also be erroneously presented as endorsement of policy, even when highly critical, and there is a risk of participatory research being used as "cover for bad decisions". Truly participatory research is inherently "uncontrollable" and may not yield outcomes aligned with initial policy expectations, which opens up the possibility of co-option. 

• Valuing qualitative insights: workshop participants felt that research funders often demonstrate a preference for quantitative data, making it challenging to convincingly present qualitative findings from participatory research to policy audiences. In turn, scepticism towards participatory approaches by policy makers can hinder genuine engagement by affected communities. This is further reinforced by policymakers acknowledging lived experience evidence but making few substantive changes to policy as a result, citing quantitative evidence as the driving force in decision-making. 
• Keeping lines of communication open: the impact of participator research can rely on long-standing relationships with supportive policymakers, in which trust is inherently embedded. The departure of key individuals or allies from policy organisations can lead to a loss of both influence and of institutional learning for those organisations. 

Strategies for enhancing participatory research and policy influence 

Workshop participants identified several strategies for improving the influence of participatory research on policy, under three clusters: design, communication and accountability: 

1. Optimising process and design:  

• Early and continuous participation: genuine participation should be embedded from the very beginning of a research project's design and planning, extending through to dissemination and evaluation. 

• Clarity and honesty: being explicit about the definition of participation and the degree of control that participants will have in each project is important, along with educating policymakers on different levels of participation. 

• Mutual learning and capacity building: implementing "mutual mentoring," where knowledge about lived experience is exchanged for insights into policy processes, benefits both communities and policymakers. Capacity building in utilising participatory research findings in policymaking is required for both communities and policymakers. Providing media training and other skills development to research participants can further empower them to share their stories, insights and findings. 

2. Effective communication and engagement:  

• Plain language and accessibility: academics supporting participatory research or the sharing of findings from participatory research need to use clear, plain language is crucial to make research accessible, encourage broader participation, and reduce intimidation by complex policy jargon. Findings should be presented accessibly without "dumbing down" their complexity. 

• Humanising evidence: research findings should be connected to human narratives through "human libraries" or "embodied presence", which can be extremely powerful. Inviting decision-makers to a community’s "home turf" can help them recognise the people behind the research, moving beyond mere photo opportunities. 

• Creative dissemination: the sharing of research findings needs to move beyond traditional thematic reports with brief quotes. Innovative formats like podcasts, videos, animations, and even interactive installations (e.g., escape room-style games) can significantly enhance the uptake and memorability of findings. 

• Targeted advocacy: identifying the appropriate audience, such as civil servants or local government officials with community practice backgrounds, is key to successful influence. Lobbying from a lived experience perspective, similar to the ways in which private corporations engage with policymakers, can amplify impact. 

3. Accountability and power dynamics:  

• Securing commitments: decision-makers should be encouraged to make public "pledges" or commitments to action in response to participatory research, followed by gentle accountability and sustained follow-up, so that channels of influence remain open. 

• Shifting power: resources should be focused on shifting power directly into communities to foster a meaningful legacy. The concept of empowerment in participatory research should be redefined as creating valuable and effective interdependence, rather than merely providing the decision-making power over “what to cut" from public services. 

• Targeted opposition: it is crucial to challenge existing policies and practices directly, rather than individual policymakers, with strong relationships being key to this approach. Researchers also need to push back against undue requests for quantitative metrics and push evidence form qualitive and participatory research forwards. 
• Innovative engagement formats: formats such as "Ministerial listening parties" (where ministers are there specifically to hear narratives) and "reverse hustings" (where communities get more time) can foster deeper engagement. "Transformative evaluation", where decision-makers actively select impactful stories for reports, directly connects them to the research before it reaches their desk. 

Examples of Policy Influence 

Through this discussion, workshop participants also shared a number of ways in which participatory research has demonstrated tangible influence on policy: 

• Local and national policy change: examples included changes to school clothing grants, the development of a Patients Charter, and the direct influence of peer-led research, such as the Deepness Dementia project, on the Scottish Government’s new dementia strategy. 

• Narrative and guidance shifts: for example, the narrative change from government regarding care as an investment and focus on women and child poverty, alongside the adoption of more inclusive language. Participatory research has also led to changes in Council processes and analysis and updates to COSLA guidance. 

• Legislative impact: peer-led research has influenced local policies on issues like alcohol and drug abuse in Shetland (Open Shetland project), while research on LGBTQ+ domestic abuse contributed to a roundtable bill being put forward in parliament. Notably, trans voices were listened to and included in the Gender Recognition Reform Act following participatory processes. 

• Advocacy and awareness: projects like Rights in Action, using photovoice to document experiences of those navigating the asylum system, and research by ARRG on food banks have informed national draft plans and highlighted unseen issues, challenging existing assumptions among policymakers. 

Next steps  

Participants in this workshop argued that academic researchers have a role to play in strategically advancing participatory research, to both influence policy and foster social change. Crucially, participatory research should be designed to underpin community development and empowerment, rather than policy change alone. This involves embedding genuine participation from project inception to dissemination, avoiding extractive knowledge production, and allowing participants control over their narrative, focusing on their desired stories, not solely trauma. This will create knowledge that is of direct use to communities in addressing some of the problems they face. 

Engaging policymakers with participatory research requires us to foster mutual learning programs between community members and policymakers and facilitate immersive engagement for decision-makers in community settings. This is likely to involve pushing back on ingrained preferences for quantitative data and advocating for participatory research as both a process and a source of evidence for policy decision-making. 

This workshop was hosted by: 

Lisa Garnham and Kat Smith at the University of Strathclyde and Ellen Stewart and Clemmie Hill O’Connor at the University of Glasgow. It was funded by the Systems science in public health and health economics research (SIPHER) consortium, which was in turn funded by the UK Prevention Research Partnership (UKPRP).