Reflecting on Phase 1 of the Community-led Research Collaboration

Introducing the Community-Led Research Collaboration

The Community-Led Research Collaboration (CLRC) is a project hosted by the British Science Association (BSA) and funded by Wellcome. It brings together a group of community researchers from across the UK to co-design, test and build the case for new ways of resourcing and supporting community-led research.

Phase one ran from November 2025 to May 2026. Over that time, the group came together in person in Manchester and London, alongside online sessions to explore the realities and challenges of doing community-led research and to identify an idea they wanted to take forward into testing. Drawing on the wealth of experience and knowledge they brought from direct experience, the group set out to generate ideas before gathering further insight from others working in this space via a series of exploratory conversations - this included talking to funders, intermediaries and others working at grass-roots level within communities. This insight was then combined with a thorough mapping of the existing landscape to surface gaps, opportunities and unmet needs. Finally, the group navigated a process of consensus-based decision making to settle on an idea: a community-led funding model, designed and stewarded by community researchers themselves, that will be piloted and tested in Phase 2.

The group is supported by Carolyn Bishop, Partnership and Advocacy Manager for BSA, acting as the bridge between the group and the charity, and Ray Cooper, leading on facilitation and supporting the group to work together in a way that feels inclusive and productive. Six months in, the group reflects below on what they've learned, where they are now, and what they're paying attention to as Phase 2 gets underway.

What we've learned from Phase 1

One of the most important things we built through Phase 1 was a sense of solidarity within the group. Bringing people together in person created space for trust, safety and genuine curiosity. Through spending time together, sharing meals and having honest conversations, we began to move from being a collection of individuals to a cohesive group with a shared purpose. Many of us came into the process carrying experiences of systemic barriers, including racism, ageism, classism, sexism and other forms of exclusion. These experiences can often contribute to feelings of self-doubt or imposter syndrome. What stood out about this process was the way the group created conditions where those feelings could be acknowledged and worked through collectively rather than individually.

Honesty, vulnerability and empathy became important foundations for our work together. The space allowed people to bring not only their ideas but also their emotions, doubts and challenges. We were able to question and challenge one another constructively while remaining connected to a shared sense of purpose.

The support provided by the BSA team played an important role in creating this environment. As the project anchor for the BSA, Carolyn brought a sense of calm and consistency that allowed people to contribute without feeling policed or managed. Ray's creative and responsive facilitation helped the group navigate complexity while remaining focused on building relationships. Importantly, both were willing to share their own vulnerabilities, which helped flatten traditional hierarchies and reinforced the principle that everyone's voice and experience mattered.

One of the most surprising aspects of the process was the extent to which our voices genuinely shaped the work. Many of us are used to engaging with systems where our perspectives are consulted but not necessarily empowered to lead. In this process, community expertise was not only welcomed but actively centred. This created a growing belief in ourselves as a group and supported a shift towards more cohesive collaboration and confidence in collective decision-making.

The transition from our initial gathering in Manchester to our second meeting in London felt significant. There was something important about convening in different places and making the journey to be together, both physically and mentally. As a group made up of people from different communities, backgrounds and parts of the country, place became more than just a venue. Travelling to meet, sharing space and spending time together helped strengthen the relationships, trust and sense of collective responsibility that underpin this work. In many ways, the act of coming together became part of the process itself, reflecting the values of connection, commitment and community that sit at the heart of community-led research. It also helped deepen our understanding of both the opportunities and challenges facing community-led research, including the gaps within existing infrastructure and funding systems that often shape and constrain this work.

We also learned that creating an inclusive space across different modes of participation requires ongoing attention. While the in-person meetings were valuable for building relationships and trust, there were challenges when people joined online during these sessions. Ensuring that remote participants could contribute equally to discussions and decision-making was not always straightforward, and highlighted the importance of designing processes that work well for everyone, regardless of how they are taking part.

Where we are now

Phase one culminated in a democratic decision making process through which the group identified the idea we wanted to take forward into testing - a community-led funding approach designed around the values and principles that emerged through our collaboration. Rather than projects commissioned from a funder perspective, the pot will be used to resource community-led research that's already underway or in development, driven by need within the community itself. The aim is to test what becomes possible when funding follows existing community priorities rather than shaping them.

The process of arriving at this point was not without challenges. There were moments of intensity, particularly when the group had to make significant decisions and take collective responsibility for the direction of the work. However, these moments also reinforced the strength of the relationships that had been built and demonstrated the group's ability to work through complexity together.

Another important learning has been seeing power-sharing put into practice. One example was the development of a wellbeing pot, a small dedicated fund to support participants to stay engaged in the project in a sustainable way, responding to needs and pressures that arise through the work. Initially, there were challenges in understanding how it would work, what it could be used for and how decisions around it would be made. As conversations developed, however, it became a positive example of collaborative problem-solving and trust-building. Decisions around wellbeing structures and ways of working were shaped collaboratively, with learning flowing in multiple directions. Rather than community members adapting to existing systems, there has been a genuine willingness from those supporting the programme to learn, unlearn and adapt alongside us.

For many group members, this has also represented an important milestone in our personal and professional journeys. For some, it has been the first time receiving grant funding directly and participating in a process where transparency around budgets, resources and decision-making has been actively encouraged rather than restricted.

What we're paying attention to as we move forward

It's worth saying that we are still in a transitional period between phase one and phase two. The headline idea is in place, but many of the practicalities are still being worked through. Part of the transition period that we're in at the moment is figuring out what a community-led funding process can look like in practise.

As we begin testing our idea, we are paying close attention not only to what the funding pot achieves, but also to how we work together throughout the process.

We want to understand how group dynamics evolve over time, what enables meaningful participation and what conditions are needed for community-led decision-making to flourish. Reflection will remain a central part of the work, helping us understand both the practical outcomes and the relational aspects of the process.

We are also interested in what we have started to think of as the “CLRC way” of working. This includes values such as trust, transparency, power-sharing, responsiveness and a willingness to challenge traditional hierarchies. As the project develops, we want to explore what becomes possible when community-led research is supported in this way, and how it compares with more conventional approaches often led through institutions and universities. We are interested not only in what the funding pot enables, but in what the process itself teaches us about creating the conditions for community leadership, shared decision-making and meaningful participation.

Closing reflection

As we move into Phase 2, there is a growing sense of excitement and empowerment across the group. This feels like an opportunity to build something together and act collectively in an increasingly precarious social and political climate.

For many of us, this work is about more than a single project. It is about demonstrating that different ways of working are possible, and that communities can play a leading role in shaping research, funding and decision-making. We hope the learning from this next phase helps create stronger conditions for community-led research to thrive and become a more valued part of how change happens.