FAQ

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.