What we are learning about policy and influence: Reflections from 2024 and 2025

Part I

Our October 2025 Community of Practice

Our network activities are spaces where people involved in community-led research come together to share learning, ask honest questions, and explore what change looks like in real life. 

In October, our Community of Practice (CoP) 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. 

This blog brings these reflections together to synthesise What The Community Network Is Saying About Policy Impact.

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.

This Community of Practice included Liz Ellis, Mary Ann Ferguson, Lyra Wang, Victoria Bell, Lewis Hou, Sophie Kendrick, Max Besana, Natalia Rodríguez and more. 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.

October’s Community of Practice focused on policy impact and influence

The session opened with two framing questions that invited participants to reflect on what policy impact they would like to see stemming from community-led research and what examples of influence already exist. 

Throughout the session, participants agreed that policy impact in community-led research is fundamentally about relationships, creativity and persistence. Meaningful change begins when communities are seen as equal partners in shaping the policies that affect their lives rather than subjects of research. The examples and reflections shared in the session demonstrated how influence emerges from local knowledge, community organising and long term commitment.

Across the discussion, people emphasised that they would like to see community knowledge and lived experience be included at the very beginning of policy formation rather than consulted after decisions have already been made. One participant discussed their experience with Island Impact Assessments wherein the removal of copper phone lines left island residents without service during power cuts. Some participants felt that these assessments often occur after policy decisions have already been made. This example illustrated why early involvement matters.

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 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.

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, and should be positioned as 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.

For this, people stressed the importance of addressing language barriers. 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 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.

Key Enabling Factors for Policy Impact

Within 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. 

We also acknowledged the need for patience and persistence. Policy change is rarely linear and meaningful impact grows from consistent engagement and trust building. Collaboration and trust require time. The work moves slowly because it is trying to move fairly.

The group also emphasised the power of combining narrative and data, noting that data alone rarely shifts policy while stories alone can similarly 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.

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.

examples of successful policy 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.

living experience

The conversation in our breakout spaces often returned to what policy impact feels like when people are living the realities of decisions. Themes of equity, evidence and relationships appeared throughout the session, but the group discussions 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.

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.

Participants 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.

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.

Thanks to all those who came along to the October 2025 Community of Practice and contributed to the discussions and reflections above.

Read Part II of this blog to see how questions about evidence, relationships, and policy influence have continued to build across the network over time.