What We Are Learning About Policy Influence: Reflections from 2024 and 2025

Our October 2025 Community of Practice

The Community Knowledge Matters Community of Practice (CoP) is a space where people involved in community led research come together to share learning, ask honest questions and explore what change looks like in real life. October’s session focused on policy impact and influence, with participants describing the challenges and possibilities they encounter when trying to bring community evidence into decision making. Many of the same themes resurfaced at the November Gathering in Inverness, where conversations became more grounded in local stories and lived experience. These discussions also connected back to ideas raised at the 2024 Gathering, showing how questions about evidence, relationships and policy influence have continued to build across the network. This blog brings these threads together to reflect on how thinking about impact has developed over the past two years.

This Community of Practice included Helena Macleod, Becky Ford, Dave Blackbell, Liz Ellis, Mary Ann Ferguson, Jean Knowles, Lyra Wang, Victoria Bell, Lewis Hou, Sophia Kendrick, Max Besana, and Natalia Rodríguez. Thanks to all those who came along and contributed to the discussions and reflections below. If you were present and would like to be named, to be credited differently (e.g. with a different name or next to each of your quotes), or if you prefer not to be named at all in this blog, please get in touch with Natalia at natalia@scienceceilidh.com.

This blog was developed by Lyra Wang and Victoria Bell, MSc in Science Communication and Public Engagement students at the University of Edinburgh, while on placement with Science Ceilidh.

What The Community Network Is Saying About Policy Impact

The October CoP session opened with two framing questions that invited participants to reflect on what policy impact they would like to see with community-led research and what examples of influence already exist. Across the discussion, people emphasised that community knowledge and lived experience need to be included at the very beginning of policy formation rather than consulted on after decisions have already been made. The Island Impact Assessment was discussed as one example, as it was felt that  these assessments often occur after policy decisions. Participants described this as the wrong way round and pointed to the removal of copper phone lines that left island residents without service during power cuts. This example illustrated why early involvement matters.

A strong theme in the conversation was the need to redefine what counts as evidence. Participants stressed that lived experience and community knowledge are valid and essential, equal to academic research. As one participant said, “Our stories are not anecdotes; they are the data of our lives.” Community-led research was recognised as a structured way to gather and present this life data in ways that shouldn't be dismissed in policy settings.

We also talked about how desired policy impact must lead to tangible improvements in daily life. Examples of this included ensuring equity in digital and energy transitions, such as reconsidering the removal of copper telephone lines and addressing the rollout of smart meters in 'not spots' (areas without mobile connectivity), which had created what participants described as absolute chaos in island communities. Transport challenges were also highlighted, including limited bus schedules that prevented residents from reaching medical appointments. One practical response was a volunteer driver network created by the community, showing how evidence can drive local solutions.

People discussed these issues across multiple levels. At the national level, participants wanted policymakers to treat community-led research as legitimate evidence and embed local insights into policy frameworks. Some also noted that Scotland’s experience with community empowerment could contribute to international conversations about participatory development, sustainability and lifelong learning. At the local level, participants called for policies that reflect the realities of rural, remote and island communities rather than relying on one size fits all approaches.

Examples of Successful Influence or Change

Despite challenges, participants shared many examples of influence achieved through relationships, creativity and persistence. The Clearances Again campaign, which opposed Highly Protected Marine Areas, was highlighted as a vivid example of collective advocacy. Residents combined community research with creative storytelling, including a protest song that went viral, which contributed to a policy reversal. Another example involved a community that saved its local shop by gathering its own evidence, such as traffic safety data, to counter objections from local authorities.

Participants also pointed to systemic influence achieved through alliances. The Scottish Community Coalition on Energy, which includes Community Energy Scotland and the Development Trust Association Scotland among others, successfully lobbied both UK and Scottish governments for greater community ownership and benefits in renewable energy projects. This showed how collective voice strengthens influence.

Youth-led research was another example of impact. The Open project in Shetland supported young people to research the lack of safe spaces in Lerwick. With mentorship from independent researchers familiar with the local council, they presented their findings persuasively, which led to the council listening in a way they never had before. Locally-led service innovation also came up, including the volunteer driver network developed in response to transport gaps. Another community saved its shop through its own evidence gathering, demonstrating how grassroots research can challenge and inform policy decisions.

Key Enabling Factors for Policy Impact

• Across all examples, long term relationships stood out as the foundation for influence. Trust based relationships between communities, researchers and policymakers made change possible. Participants observed that individual advocates, including junior council officers, often played pivotal roles. They also emphasised the power of combining narrative and data, noting that data alone rarely shifts policy while stories alone can be dismissed. The most effective influence came from grounding personal stories in solid evidence, often communicated through creative methods such as music, art or mapping.

• We also acknowledged the need for patience and persistence. Policy change is rarely linear and meaningful impact grows from consistent engagement and trust building. One participant captured this well by saying, “Participatory research does not take longer, it shines a light on how long good work takes.”

• Language barriers were also discussed. Participants noted that plain language is essential in both research and policy and that inaccessible language can unintentionally exclude communities even when they are invited to participate. Tools like the Jargon Jar we use as part of the network were mentioned as helpful for surfacing confusing terms and promoting shared understanding.

People also identified practical next steps, including strengthening connections between the community-led research network and the youth work network, continuing collaboration with community learning and development practitioners, and contributing to the new Learning for Sustainability Target 2030 guidance. Participants also highlighted the importance of incorporating lived experience and intersectionality, noting that gender, age, disability and geography all shape how policy is experienced.

Insights from the Community of Practice Meeting

The conversation in our breakout spaces often returned to what policy impact feels like when people are living the realities behind the decisions. Themes of equity, evidence and relationships appeared across the session, but the discussions at the tables brought them into sharper focus. People spoke about what change looks like from their side of the process and what it means for community knowledge to shape decisions in practice.

The examples shared were both practical and personal. People talked about power cuts, ferry cancellations and long waits for transport to appointments. These details made it clear that policy is not abstract. It is lived every day in places that do not always fit the systems designed for them. The stories people told about small fixes and creative workarounds were not complaints. They were evidence of how much knowledge already exists within communities, waiting to be recognised.

One line that stood out was that participatory research does not take longer; it shows how long good work takes. That sentiment captured the tone of the session. Collaboration and trust require time. The work moves slowly because it is trying to move fairly.

The Learning: for All. For Life. review came up as an example of how this approach could be built into national systems. The report’s call to value community learning and development resonated with the conversation about why community led research needs to be part of how policy is made, not an afterthought. Participants were not asking for special treatment, only for recognition that lived experience is a form of evidence too.

Storytelling was another thread that connected the discussions. People described how creative methods, from music to art to simple conversation, help turn data into something people can feel. It was a reminder that culture and policy are not separate. Facts explain the problem, but stories invite people to care about it.

Taken together, the conversations suggested that community-led research is itself a kind of policy practice. It is slow, relational and built on care. The influence may not always look dramatic, but it lasts because it comes from within the community.

The 2025 Gathering: Deepening the Conversations from 2024

Our last network Gathering took place on 11 November. The themes from the Community of Practice carried into the CKM Gathering in Inverness, where they became more specific, grounded and tied to real examples. Ideas about policy influence, evidence and relationships were expressed in different ways across the tables, yet the underlying message remained the same. Community led research is most powerful when it is rooted in real places and supported over time.

At the Ethics and Climate table, the need for continuity and care came through clearly. Participants stressed that climate action requires “sustained support for projects, not for just one year” and “long term funding knowledge exchange and mobilisation after research has completed.” They also highlighted the emotional dimension of endings, calling for “support to end projects and programmes well.” These concerns echoed earlier conversations about participatory ethics in 2024, where people focused on consent, privacy and trust. In 2025, those ethical questions were being applied more directly to climate work and the responsibility to end projects carefully.

The Young People Led Research table highlighted creative, flexible methods that support genuine youth engagement. Participants described how consent must be continuous, with “mid way consent reminders to check understanding,” and how framing activities as “challenges” helps participation feel inviting rather than imposed. Tools like “Dixit cards” and outdoor methods such as “snorkelling as a way to gather authentic experiences” illustrated how youth-led research requires methods that prioritise comfort and autonomy. These examples built on 2024 discussions about participatory ethics by showing what consent and care look like in practice with young people.

At the Creative Co-Production table, the conversation centred on accessibility, trust and the value of immediate creative outputs. One participant put it plainly: “Listen to the community opinions.” Others emphasised that creative work needs “funding longevity” to avoid fragmenting relationships. This connected back to 2024 reflections on building relationships and recognising that people “do not have relationships with organisations; they have relationships with people.”

The Sustainability and Funding table pushed these insights into the structural realm. Participants spoke candidly about barriers and opportunities, noting that “funders need to collaborate more… join it all up more” and that intermediaries often “translate the systems and processes into different ‘languages’.” In 2024 people had already called for collaboration over competition and said “we need to see ourselves as not competitors, but as a community.” By 2025, these ideas had become a clearer agenda for how funding systems need to change.

At the Community Research Partnerships table, participants brought some of the most direct statements about evidence and validity. Comments such as “community led, not researcher led, has more impact” and “it is not about one voice in the room… but a collective of voices” aligned closely with earlier 2024 conversations on equitable partnerships, where people described this work as “more than co-production” and spoke about “communities being involved as equal partners in funding bids.” There was also a strong emphasis on tangible change, captured in the quote “tangible change as a common factor in these partnerships.”

Across the Gathering, the same ideas kept resurfacing, but through concrete details and lived examples. It felt like a continuation of the Community of Practice and a deepening of the 2024 Gathering, more grounded in place based challenges, specific stories and clearer calls for what needs to change.

Looking Ahead Together

Across both the Community of Practice session and the 2025 Gathering, people returned to a shared understanding. Community led research works because it starts with people and their lived realities. The discussions were filled with honesty about fatigue, frustration and slow systems, but they also carried a sense of persistence and grounded optimism.

Compared with the 2024 Gathering, the tone in 2025 had shifted

In 2024, many tables were focused on naming what needed to change. Participatory ethics conversations emphasised consent, anonymity and shared power. Public health and social care discussions highlighted a “fragmented and broken” system and called for community led and person centred approaches. Community research partnerships and funding tables talked about being “more than co-production,” “good will not being good enough,” and the need for “trust and risk” to be recognised as work that “costs money because it takes time.”

In 2025, people were building on those foundations and speaking more directly about infrastructure, funding models and the systems required to support community led research. At the Sustainability and Funding table, this came through in statements like “if a funder prove it can work, build on that and don’t lose it.” At the Community Research Partnerships table, participants moved beyond recognition and toward structural change, asking decision makers to “bring value to community led research and work with people and communities.” The questions from 2024 about who holds power and who owns data were still present, but they had become more focused on what funders and policymakers need to do differently.

The Gathering also reinforced that policy impact begins locally. Examples from the Young People Led Research table, such as “nature workshops facilitated by young people,” showed how change starts through practice. At the Health and Social Care table, participants stressed that “language is key,” especially when prevention and the social determinants of health are at stake. These were reminders that evidence is not only numbers or reports. It is also language, relationships and the experiences people carry.

Across every table, the importance of trust stood out. Whether people talked about continuous consent, funding longevity or shared learning, the message was consistent. Impact grows from relationships that are built slowly and maintained through care. One participant’s reflection from the Community Research Partnerships table captured this clearly when they said, “tangible change as a common factor in these partnerships.”

Once again, thanks to all those who came along to the October Community of Practice and our 2024 and 2025 Gatherings and contributed to the discussions and reflections above.