The Interspace Series, Session 01: Defining inclusive and community research

An Elysium London Webinar Series. Convened by Muhammed Rauf. Elysium London.

Inclusive research and community research get used to mean very different things. Session one set out working definitions of both, placed them on Arnstein’s ladder of citizen participation, and closed on three questions that show where any project really sits: who holds the resources, who makes the decisions, and whose outcomes come first.

The recording is the taught hour, from the live session on Wednesday 11 November 2026. Use the chapters to go straight to a definition or a case study, or search the transcript for any word and the video jumps to it.

Where does your project sit?

Think of a project you are working on, or the last one you finished. Answer for what actually happens in it, whatever it is called. Nothing you choose here is saved or sent anywhere.

01Who holds the resources?

The institution holds them and decides how they are used The institution holds them, and communities influence how they are used They are shared with communities, at least in part A community organisation holds them

02Who makes the decisions?

The institution Shared, but only inside particular workshops or moments Shared with communities at every stage Communities

03Whose outcomes come first?

The institution’s Outcomes agreed together The community’s priorities

Citizen power

1. 8Citizen control
2. 7Delegated power
3. 6Partnership

Tokenism

1. 5Placation
2. 4Consultation
3. 3Informing

Non-participation

1. 2Therapy
2. 1Manipulation

Tap a rung to see what Arnstein meant by it.

Answer all three to see where it sits.

The ladder is Sherry Arnstein’s ladder of citizen participation (1969). She grouped its eight rungs into non-participation, tokenism and citizen power, and was clear that it is a simplification: in practice there might be 150 rungs, with blurred lines between them.

Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224. Rung descriptions are our summaries of her text. The two-sided reading (power shared, power claimed and held) is Elysium London’s.

From your seat

The three questions, asked from where you sit.

Funders Researchers Community organisations

What the room said

You have placed your own project. This is where the room placed theirs, and what they said.

The word you used for your last project

As written. Gold marks the seven words that described how the work felt.

Where your last project sat

Run through the three questions. 13 responses.

The quiz: which definition is right?

Every answer was a recognised definition. Some people picked more than one.

One thing you’d change

For your next project. 11 responses, as written, with names removed.

• “More feedback and learning sessions on the joint research process”
• “Community ownership and continuity”
• “Take a view about the power relationship”
• “Start with the community power arrangements and giving resources directly to groups”
• “More followups and update on the project progress.”
• “shared decision making of what comes next”
• “Confirm the power sharing arrangements”
• “Effective feedback of impact of insight to those who gave it as standard”
• “Nothing. It was great. Albeit doomed.”
• “Including community members in reports and outcomes more explicitly”
• “Train community researchers and academics on how to work together”

These numbers come from one room, so they are a starting point for the sessions that follow.

The working definitions

Every term here takes a position on power. Each definition has its own link, so you can send a colleague or a partner straight to the one you mean. The full definitions sheet is in the materials below.

The sector’s terms: check which one your partner means

These are not our definitions. Their meaning depends on who is speaking, so check which one your funder, team or partner means, write it down, and agree it at the start.

Term	What NIHR means	What others mean
Engagement	“Where information and knowledge about research is provided and disseminated” (NIHR Briefing notes, 2021, updated 2024).	A two-way process (NCCPE). An umbrella that runs all the way up to co-production (NICE NG44, 2016; NHS England, 2022).
Involvement (PPI)	Research carried out “with” or “by” members of the public, rather than “to”, “about” or “for” them.	Level 3 of 5 on the IAP2 spectrum used by many councils. In NHS law, the duty to involve can be met by consulting people or giving them information (NHS Act 2006, s.14Z45).
Participation	Taking part in a research study.	Taking part in decisions (NHS England, 2022). For Arnstein (1969), “a categorical term for citizen power”.
PPIE and its cousins	PPIE, PPIEP, CEI and now public partnerships. Their scope varies between NIHR centres: some add participation, some do not.	PPI is exposed “to criticisms of exclusivity and tokenism” (Ocloo and Matthews, 2016).
Research inclusion	An NIHR condition of funding since November 2024: inclusion designed in from the outset, as a costed part of the award.	About who takes part. On its own, it does not settle who decides.

The materials

Use and share them freely, with credit to Elysium London.

Definitions sheetPDF · 2 pagesWorking definitions of inclusive and community research, and the three questionsDownload the sheet SlidesPDF · 40 slidesThe deck from the taught hour, with its sourcesDownload the slides What the room saidPDF · 2 pagesEvery Slido result from the session, shared without namesSee the results

The studies and sources

Mothers’ photographs from the Indian Sundarbans: Ghosh, Bose, Bramhachari and Mandal (2016), BMC Health Services Research. The inclusive research case from part two.

Rebuilding Trust through Community Engagement and Empowerment: Centric Community Research (2022). The community research case from part three, in Southwark.

Mapping definitions of co-production and co-design in health and social care: Masterson, Areskoug Josefsson, Robert, Nylander and Kjellström (2022), Health Expectations. The review of 979 studies behind chapter 12:52: just over a third gave no definition.

Sundarbans photograph in the slides: the mothers’ own, from Ghosh, Bose, Bramhachari and Mandal (2016), CC BY 4.0.

Related reading

Define What You Mean, So You Can Make it a Reality, on why the words in research need agreeing at the start.

Community research has to claim power. The Interspace Essays, Issue 01.

How to cite

Rauf, M. (2026). Defining inclusive and community research: working definitions, version 1. The Interspace Series, Session 01. London: Elysium London. https://elysium.london/the-interspace-series/session-01/