CKM Gathering 2025: Discussion Table Reflections

Our more recent Community Knowledge Matters Gathering in Inverness in November 2025 was a day of connection and collaboration. It was a pivotal moment for us as a network bringing together those passionate and curious about community-led research across rural and island Scotland. Time spent in-person is precious, and this was a key moment for us to hear what a wide range of voices think should happen next - both for us as a network to direct how we support and build capacity, but also how we raise network voices to advocate to policy makers, funders and those involved in research for more systemic changes.

In the afternoon we had our discussion tables session where participants shared their thoughts and experiences about a variety of topics, including asks for policy makers and exciting work currently occurring in community-led research. Whilst the majority of participants were there as community members, we also had allied researchers, policy and decision makers, funders and stakeholders of community-led research (see who joined us here).

Each table discussed these topics in the context of a theme which is important to the network and builds from our previous community of practice discussions and 2024 Gathering. These themes were Ethics and Climate, Young People Led Research, Creative Co-production, Sustainability and Funding, Health and Social Care and Community-Research Partnerships.

Overview

The Ethics and Climate table emphasised the importance of long term, supportive and trusting funding, as well as knowledge exchange between community groups both during and following the conclusion of projects. The Sustainability and Funding table focused upon similar themes, highlighting the need for intermediaries to support community research, as well as the necessity of community research networks. The table focused upon community-researcher partnerships agreed that research is at its best when it is led by the knowledge of those whom the research impacts, especially when that research is rooted in trusting relationships. 

Others, such as participants of the Health and Social Care table,  pointed towards existing  community-led research as examples of success to aspire towards, including prevention and nature-based approaches to research. The Creative Co-Production table’s participants also emphasised existing creative research methods which have proven successful thus far, including poetic inquiry, data cafes and art residencies. Participants at the Young People-led Research table similarly supported existing methodologies and approaches to research led by young people, such as utilising Dixit Cards, outdoor activities, and the incorporation of peer champions.

Key Themes

A few key themes emerged across discussion tables, suggesting they ought to be prioritised when throughout community-led project approaches. One theme which arose consistently was the need for legacy building and knowledge sharing infrastructure across projects, including mentoring, forming community networks and sharing learning across projects and disciplines. One participant explained they were looking for “Long term funding, knowledge exchange & mobilisation after research has completed.”

Intermediaries may also be able to support another priority highlighted by participants: careful endings of projects and the emotional support that may be needed following a project’s conclusion. Participants discussed how some community-led projects are made to conclude rather hastily and without duly considering desired impact. This is often due to external circumstances such as the conclusion of funding or limited community capacity. To ensure completed projects are impactful and the knowledge gained during the process is preserved, intermediaries can assist in thoughtfully and intentionally wrapping up community-led projects. 

Participants emphasised the impactful nature of creative research and exploratory methods as well. Creative methods can make conducting, understanding and applying research more accessible to a wider range of people. Some participants particularly discussed how notably engaging creative approaches can be within youth-led research. Since young people are an underrepresented and often dismissed group within a research and policy space, creative methodologies can present a unique opportunity to platform youth voices.

Asks for Policy Makers and Decision Makers

Across the various tables was a recurring call for long-term, collaborative and community-controlled funding for community and youth-led research and projects. Participants emphasised experiences wherein projects had ended without conclusive impact due to a lack of long term funding availability. One participant discussed a need for “Sustained support for projects, not for just one year.” For example, long term funding allocated to community and youth-led projects demonstrates that decision makers value community and youth knowledge, which is essential to ensuring communities feel heard and valued by policy and decision makers. Another participant stated, “If a funder proves [a research model] can work, build on that and don’t lose it, “ reflecting how policy and decision makers can begin to advocate for community-led research by platforming the successes which already exist.

Similarly, funding rooted in strong relationships built over time and rooted in trust in communities was said to be experienced as much more impactful than funding controlled by policy and decision makers. One participant said, “People and relationships are more relevant than protocols and guidelines for community-researcher partnerships,” highlighting the particular relevancy of relationship building within community-led projects. Overall, participants urged policy and decision makers to attend informal events in communities, including creative events, so truly strong and trusting relationships may be built. 

Of course, commitment to the valuation of community and youth knowledge also relies upon tangible action following the conclusion of research projects. One participant stated they want policy makers to “...act on findings so voice genuinely leads to action.” Action resulting in positive impact to the lives of those involved in co-producing research is essential to demonstrating that their voices and efforts are being considered and implemented into policy. Similarly, another participant stated that policy and decision makers should “be more joined up within the public sector. Knowledge comes in from community research but can stay within departmental and geographical silos.” In this case, a piece of action arising from research is sharing that research with those who may be able to assist in creating tangible change.

Research and policy produced with communities and young people should also be shared back to those involved utilising clear and friendly language. Direct action takes the collaborative process beyond mere consultation of communities towards true valuation of community knowledge. One participant specifically requested policy and decision makers “show what you did to people in accessible way, and try to make an evidence [of] tangible change.” In this manner, policy and decision makers can reduce community consultation fatigue and distrust of researchers and decision makers overall. Similarly, some participants expressed concern about “how to communicate community based research in order to policy makers take it seriously, so they recognise it is valid data.” Ensuring there are spaces and opportunities for community-led research to be seriously considered by policy and decision makers is also essential to the valuation of community knowledge. In this way, policy and decision makers can contribute to “bring[ing] value to community-led research and work with people and communities.”

Policy and decision makers should also invest in preventative projects led by young people and communities. Participants explained that preventative work is especially important in the context of health and care research in rural and island of Scotland. The discussion table conversations made it clear that an influx of support for preventative projects from policy and decision makers would be greatly appreciated by many communities. 

Though many conversations at the discussion tables emphasised the need for centring community knowledge and voices, participants also highlighted that not all communities, individuals and young people may be interested in participating in research. True, uncoerced or pressured consent is essential when policy and decision makers are engaging in collaborative processes. 

Participants also suggested various funders and decision makers collaborate in order to make the most of available funding and support longevity for community-led projects. One participant stated that “Funders need to collaborate more… Join it all up more. Lower the risk.” Funder collaboration maximises the impact and support possible via funding, including funding longevity and breadth. Another participant echoed this call, sharing that “Dialogue and shared learning between funders to ensure there are pathways through is essential.” When learnings are shared, funders, communities, researchers and intermediaries alike can build on the knowledge created within existing projects, rather than beginning from scratch with each new project.

Opportunities for community-led research

Discussion table participants highlighted many exciting community-led research opportunities and projects. These discussions confirmed that there is already much community-led research occurring within Scotland and beyond, as well as a wealth of opportunities to support or get involved in community-led projects. 

Explore the core idea, key themes, policy link, main takeaway and practical resources from each discussion table below:

This information was synthesised in collaboration with Lyra Wang and Victoria Bell, MSc students at the University of Edinburgh, while on placement with Science Ceilidh.