Training for community-based researchers: learning, enabling and empowering

As part of our co-production community of practice project, the team reviewed training aimed at community-based researchers with 4 reviewers from community organisations. Here they blog about what they found. Authors include Jean Smith and Beverley Forbes (Nilaari Agency), Samira Musse (Barton Hill Activity Club), Salma Aideed (Caafi Health), Sarah Donald, Mari-Rose Kennedy and Helen Watts (all ARC West).

We asked community-based colleagues from Bristol with a range of research experience to review freely available training resources aimed at community-based researchers like themselves. This included a 10-week self-directed online programme. Our reviewers included the CEO and the research coordinator of a mental health charity, a domiciliary care coordinator and a director of a grass-roots family activity charity.

During our final review session, we combined thoughts, experiences and reflections of both the review process and the training. Themes the reviewers identified as important when developing and delivering training to support co-produced research projects included:

1. Training participants
2. Accreditation
3. Mode of training
4. Style of training
5. Making time for training
6. The ideal trainer

Who are the participants?

Training and support should be available for everyone involved in co-production. It should target not only community-based colleagues, but also university or NHS colleagues.

Training can also raise awareness about co-production research. If aimed at people who haven’t yet dipped a toe into this world, it can encourage those who may be hesitant or think ‘this isn’t for me’.

Participants may need different entry points depending on their level of understanding and experience. Different languages might need to be offered to access whole communities.

Accreditation

Acknowledging the learning that has happened and recognising the effort involved in completing training was crucial for our review team. Formal accreditation, although accepted as valuable, was not a priority. In the words of one colleague, “I don’t feel accreditation is needed, as it’s not my main goal”.

However, others might welcome accreditation. One reviewer explained: “If you are doing it with a bigger vision”, looking to the long-term, then a more formal approach would “pay off in the long run”.

All reviewers confirmed that an informal certificate recognising what they had completed would be very welcome.           

Mode of training

We discussed the balance between in-person, online or hybrid training models. Ideally, training should be in person, so group discussion can support shared learning and add ‘richness’. Reviewers also felt it was easier to attend training if meetings were at a fixed time and place.

In person training is particularly important if access to internet and IT is limited. Another benefit was the “immediate response to areas that aren’t easy to understand”.

We recognised that in person training increases cost and time, so a hybrid option might be acceptable. With a self-directed online model, one reviewer admitted they would be less likely to complete a long course.

Another suggestion was to ‘adapt’ existing training modules to meet the needs of participants who can’t or are not interested in attending a longer programme.

Style of training

Reviewers felt interactive learning accommodates different learning styles and enables more trainees to remember the content. They said using creative and interactive methods is ‘relaxing and fun’ and ‘builds relationship’.

They suggested learning could be woven into interactive exercises and could be scenario based. Any activity must be ‘pitched properly’ to enable full participation.

Making time for training

All reviewers acknowledged the challenge of making time for training: “It has to be short and sweet”. A regular slot is easier to commit to. In-person training could combine with online learning between sessions or online training could accompany in-person support between modules. Either could work well.

We discussed the option of a support forum for training participants to run alongside any online or in-person course.

The trainer

The trainer needs to be a skilled and experienced community researcher so they can answer questions on the spot. The person needs to be “engaging, flexible, relaxed” and a good listener who can forge relationships.

Other recommendations

We identified the need for 4 levels of training to support colleagues in community settings to engage more effectively in co-production research and to benefit from that engagement:

1. Co-production community awareness: a brief introduction to co-production aimed at a wide audience, to encourage awareness and participation.
2. Introduction to co-production: a series of modules covering the main topics of co-production, to enable active participation in a co-produced research project (for a good example see University of Liverpool Community Researcher Toolkit.
3. Co-production practitioner online training: a more in-depth presentation and reflection with learning resources and activities for those fully engaged in co-production research or planning to be fully engaged (a good example of this is the Future Learn / KCL modules. Combined with some form of in-person support forum, this would enable full and confident participation in leading or collaborating in any co-produced research project.
4. Existing higher education research training modules: for those who wish to take their learning and practice further and to gain external accreditation. Many options are available from higher education institutions, in person and online, with undergraduate and postgraduate options.