# data[].attributes.body
1. What is inspiring/unique, purpose of the programmes

Diversity and geographical reach - UK regions

Variety Comm. orgs  (type, size, scope, audience, reach)

Longstanding bonds w/. CL's/groups, identification with the BSA, trusted organisation and (start of) connecting to science/engagement / research sector

Grew from micro grants – (developmental) relationships – more than just money

Insight/ reach into expertise & under represented groups BSA would struggle to engage/reach as the BSA, e.g. traveller, people living w/ additional needs/disabilities, lived experience, rural/urban, lower socio-econ. groups etc.

2. What have we learnt?

Motivation to Leaders - 'make a difference' & social impact in their community. Learn from BSA/Leaders.

Value for groups - builds motivation & understanding, a new networks & connection with BSA and other Leaders doing similar work

Upskilling building confidence of CLs (different 'stages' of experience/starting points)

BSA connecting with UK wide community organisations and underrepresented/served groups - who we'd otherwise not reach.

3. What opportunities are there?

Programme scale - small numbers but growing network

Engaging Leaders beyond/after Buddies prog.

Consultation/co-creation/involve CEN in the development of the programme / offer - and be more explicit about 'where we want Leaders to 'be' in future - i.e. is it about the research sector? is it about having a local voice in research/science? (we say this alot but what does that look like for a small community group?).

4. Issues/challenges/gaps
BSA consider partnerships / allegiances needed to form with Third Sector as well as other funders, universities / RI sector influencing.
Difficulties of building and continuing sense of network among Leaders during and after formal programme

# data[].attributes.headline
Involving researchers - Community Buddies

# data[].attributes.subject
Involving researchers - Community Buddies

# data[].attributes.body
1. What is inspiring/unique, purpose of the programmes

Inspiring as ‘opens doors’ and builds new relationships - connects Leaders from UK wide regions with researchers - not initially about a grant or project

Buddy Pairs who seemingly have little in common at the start [n terms of the scientific discipline], building equitable relationships that lead to unique engagement / projects as a result

Community Groups already connected to research/institutions gave freedom to develop a mutual relationship by taking a relational ‘People before Programme’ approach

Helping researcher and particular community groups understand each other – and in some cases the change/impact they want to see as a result of working together.

2. What have we learnt?

Importance of having pairs local / in same region.

Value of place-based - researchers and leaders highlighted connection to people/place, the change/s they want to see / positive impacts they want to have – especially at the project stage

We know (after 2 year pilot) why it’s helpful and important to researchers: their work, their organisation, their discipline

Bringing researchers ‘out of their comfort zone’ to think about their research/engagement differently.

Leads to creative/unique/co-created projects.

3. What opportunities are there?

Co-creation – community of practice – giving buddies space to contribute – both directions. Taster/sharing sessions examples from research and community partnerships. Approach & ways of working not just projects/outputs

Recruit a mix of research experience (1st 2x years) researchers with less engagement/participatory experience

Unknown – need to know more about host university organisations to support/engage.

Consider how people are matched – re academic discipline, community connection as well as self-selecting researchers applying by EOI.

4.  Issues/challenges/gaps

What next - offer after the Buddy programme.

Individual researcher vs. org/university systemic impact

Appeal to Leaders already connected to researchers or research organisations

Recognise wider participatory approaches in research

Projects – encourage Buddies to innovate. Do something new or differently as a result of working together.

# data[].attributes.body
1. What is inspiring/unique, purpose of the programmes

Develop collaborations between active researchers and community partners

Projects take place in informal settings

Facilitated by science festivals

Target audience: young people over 11, under-represented.

2. What have we learnt?

Shift in the relationship with science, including feeling more open to engaging with science and more optimistic about working with researchers

Sense of relatability between participants and researchers

Projects must strive to be relevant, relationship-oriented and meet the community groups where they are.

3. Opportunities?

Community partners could have more ownership in the relationship/project. Power dynamics

Building on the relationship: opportunities for legacy, longer term and more ambitious projects

Better understanding the long-term impact of the projects.

4. Issues/challenges/gaps

Smaller/volunteer-led festivals have less resource/confidence to apply for funding

Encourage project partners to think about the long term impact of the project instead of a one off event

How can we run Making Connections projects in locations with no science festivals?

# data[].attributes.headline
Involving researchers: H&I climate change community grants

# data[].attributes.subject
Involving researchers: H&I climate change community grants

# data[].attributes.body
1. What is inspiring/unique, purpose of the programmes

Placed based programme, responding to local/regional H&I climate needs

Strong need & appetite in communities and types of research approach (independent and university based)

Participatory grant making (community panel).

2. What have we learnt?

Grass roots community activity in Climate Change - real opportunity for collaboration with research (Development Trusts, Climate change activist groups, Island community networks, Schools/community centres)

Regional engagement coordinator and forming a stakeholder group - embed approach/legacy.

3. What opportunities are there?

6 month programme only a starting point

Opportunity to carry out further grass roots climate change/research partnerships.

4. Issues/ challenges/ gaps
Short term programme with no follow up. Legacy dependent on regional stakeholders.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Inspiration/purpose

National network of 840 Community representatives linked to the BSA

Part of creating long term relationships w/ CLs & communities

Community grants as a 'gateway' to science engagement and opportunity to develop relationships with groups.

2. What opportunities are there?

Audience insight and analysis of the network

Utilise the network; co-creation & programme development,

Develop different 'levels' of engagement w/ BSA & our work -

3. Issues/challenges/gaps

Comprised of grant applicants/self selecting

Mix of grassroot organisations/more traditional "community" organisations and more activity providers (STEM activity groups, museums, etc).

Exploring our reach and nurturing relationships with our networks (both in our grant programmes and those we are connecting to not necessarily funding)

Mechanisms for co-creation, consultation and sense checking (advisory boards, existing programmes)

Linking with partner organisations (creating joint offers and supporting wider science / research sector engagement.)

# data[].attributes.headline
Involving researchers - Community Led Research Pilot

# data[].attributes.subject
Involving researchers - Community Led Research Pilot

# data[].attributes.body
1. What is inspiring/unique, purpose of the programmes

Co-created with communities deciding their own research questions

Engagement led by CRs and ECR's

Systemic change within the University

Legacy: skills, ways of working, partnerships, investment in change and possible stakeholder funding to build on the programme.

2. What have we learnt? (early reflections)

Time to engage with universities with their competing demands e.g. around exams time

CR training has focused on the technical skills rather than the more rounded interpersonal skills, culture, insight into communities

University staff can access additional internal funds (like endowments) to support more innovative work.

3. What opportunities are there?

Roll out the model in different locations.

How this links with current UKRI pilot programmes (Community Knowledge Fund, Community Research Networks), Ideas Fund and wider research sector activity (e.g. Research Councils).

4. Issues/challenges/gaps

Currently - timescales - setting up partnerships and initial community recruitment takes time to do meaningfully as a foundation to programmes - as essential as the 'delivery'. (needs consideration for future roll out).

# data[].attributes.body
1. What is inspiring/unique, purpose of the programmes

Scale, place based, new grant making approach, flexible funding.

Linking communities with researchers, on their terms, looking at ideas around mental wellbeing.

Engaging branding, strong links and developing footprint in the four areas. Relationships with projects and Development Co-ordinators, as well as reach into place-based institutions.

Ability to test the model in different locations.

Learning partnership outputs/approach to help influence change beyond our four areas.

Wellcome's backing will probably help with the convening and influencing opportunities.

2. What have we learnt?

A number of common themes through project monitoring received, from logistical barriers (ethics etc), to the validation felt by working with researchers, as well as insights into when it doesn't work!

Often the starting point is not about engaging around research specifically, more about building a relationship, support for their project activities etc. How can funders adapt to this?

The huge gap that exists between community sector and academia. But opportunity to promote the benefits for both sides.

Various 'enquiries' completed around inspirational practice, state of the sector, indicators of a healthy system etc.

3. What opportunities are there?

Infrastructure funding and 'intervening' in the system, late 2022.

'Network' of projects that can learn from each other, as well as access to groups embedded in overlooked communities that we can build a relationship with.

Possibility of communities and researchers developing long term, sustained relationships and 'graduating' out of the Fund.

4. Issues/challenges/gaps

Link up the learning with UKRI initiatives.

Bringing the 'sector' along with us, co-ordinating with others.

# data[].attributes.body
1. What is inspiring/unique, purpose of the programmes

Festival as celebration. Perception of science/research

Showcasing research

Scale. Over 100 events

Multiple stakeholders/venues

Science/cultural engagement.

2. What have we learnt?

Festival is a good platform to test new approaches to public engagement

Community grants to engage inactive audiences.

3. Opportunities?

New festival model to target under-represented audiences

Legacy for audiences and host organisation

More co-produced programmes.

4. Issues/challenges/gaps

Skills on co-production

Location based on need/financial position of host university

Longer planning and delivery cycle.