The impossibility of engaged research: Complicity and accountability between researchers, ‘publics’ and institutions

Abstract

Over the past decade, U.K. universities have increasingly sought to involve publics in research as active participants in the construction of academic knowledge. Sociologists of health have largely welcomed this enthusiasm for engaged and participatory ways of working, including methodologies long in use in the field such as patient‐led research and co‐creation. Despite the strong interest in engaged research, however, we argue that funding patterns, bureaucratic structures and an overreliance on people employed on casual contracts make it extremely difficult, often impossible, to do engaged research in British universities. Drawing on our own experiences, we show how our attempts to practise and deepen accountability to variously situated publics were constrained by the way our institution imagined and materially supported engagement. We argue that it falls to individual researchers to mitigate or work around structural barriers to engagement, and that this process creates dilemmas of complicity. If engaged research is to fulfil its remit for inclusion and its radical potential, researchers need to think carefully about how the U.K. engagement agenda entwines with processes of casualisation, acceleration and projectification, and how institutional recuperations of engagement can undermine its political and epistemic objectives.

Co-creating safe spaces: Study protocol for translational research on innovative alternatives to the emergency department for people experiencing emotional distress and/or suicidal crisis

“…Co-design extends beyond ‘consultation’ to embed lived experience in the planning, delivery, and evaluation of programs and services, and is underpinned by a focus on early engagement, inclusivity, diversity, transparency, shared power, and equity of knowledge [ 40 , 41 ]. For research projects, this requires significant commitments of time and resources in building relationships; agreeing on aims, principles, study outcomes, and methods among multiple partners; and working collaboratively to interpret and translate findings for researchers, policy makers, and practitioners [ 42 ]. It seems fitting then that a research study exploring the co-creation of safe spaces comprises a significant element of lived experience, with non-academic and non-research-based co-investigators included in the core research team.…”

“…As such, the funding application had to be sufficiently pliant to allow for processes of ongoing engagement and decision making from stakeholders, as well as the capacity to adjust the research methods as needed [ 44 ]. Funding timeframes and priorities, coupled with established university and health systems within which the project must be conducted, place additional demands upon the research team [ 42 ]. These may be exacerbated when service user experiences and needs are prioritised within the research design [ 45 ].…”

Exploring the mental health effects of Universal Credit: a journey of co-production

“…We anticipate more bumps in the road. While hopefully we may have contributed by outlining our approach, we are aware that the existing ‘hierarchies of academic knowledge production’ 17 make it challenging to fully realise the transformative potential of publicly engaged research.…”

Community engagement to improve access to healthcare: a comparative case study to advance implementation science for transgender health equity

“…As others have documented, the current structure of universities, research, and funding for social services has severely constrained possibilities for accountable and impactful community engagement vis-à-vis implementation practice or research [50][51][52][53]. To promote trans health equity, traditional philanthropic and federal funding mechanisms may require restructuring to support community engagement during the pre-award and monitoring phases of a grant cycle and to facilitate more flexible and collaborative transgender community partnerships for grantees.…”