Valuing local communities in research and policymaking

Evidence‑based policymaking remains the gold standard in Scotland and beyond. But definitions of evidence are changing, and communities have expressed frustration with research and policy processes that collect data about them rather than building knowledge with them. In response, the RSE and CoDeL, with support from the Williamson Trust, convened a two‑day gathering at Sabhal Mòr Ostaig on the Isle of Skye. Community groups, researchers, policymakers, funders, artists, and public bodies came together to reflect on how community knowledge is created, shared and valued, and how some voices continue to be overlooked.

Download the valuing local communities in research and policymaking report (2MB, PDF)

Executive summary

Evidence-based policy-making endures as a gold standard of national policy-making in Scotland. However, what counts as evidence for policymakers and researchers alike continues to evolve, and there is increased recognition of the importance of integrating lived experience and community research in shaping policy. Concurrently, questions around different forms of knowledge, including the significance of deep, place-based systems of knowledge, around who holds or creates knowledge, and the diverse types of impact (at local/regional/national level) continue to be interrogated in Scotland and beyond.

It was in this context that the Royal Society of Edinburgh and CoDeL, with financial support from the Williamson Trust, brought together a diverse group of people with rich experience of research practices (e.g. community groups, universities, independent researchers, public bodies, funders) in August 2025, at Sabhal Mòr Ostaig. The Gàidhlig college in Skye provided a physical context immersed in locally rooted knowledge and culture, while a local artist presented her research to kickstart the group’s reflection on how knowledge is preserved and shared, and how different voices are represented, remembered, or excluded.

The diverse programme of presentations, discussions and facilitated sessions created a space for the participants to engage with each other on a basis of equality and respect, to reflect on different types of research, especially community-rooted research. They recognised the extent to which many communities are already delivering such research, and shared real-life examples of it. Participants emphasised the need to ground different types of research in deep reciprocity and respect for communities to ensure research is collaborative rather than extractive. Rather than being filtered or interpreted through externally designed frameworks and language alien to communities and their deeply held cultural knowledge, community-rooted research draws on the knowledge and voices of local people, and is already changing narratives and influencing policy, from local to national.

This report presents the main learning outcomes from the two-day event, some case-studies, and the ideation process that led to a shared vision for research with communities. The report sets out key characteristics of such research that is embedded in processes of community action and development. It is pluralistic and relational, not extractive. Collaboration, hope, reflective and relational processes, based on equality, shared resources and shared responsibilities emerged as core principles. In particular, it recognises the rich and diverse repository of knowledge (including embodied and inherited knowledge) and lived experience that communities hold, and is rooted in a deep understanding of place and history, of language and cultural identity. Communities occupy a central role in the research process, not just participating in engagement activities, and are appropriately remunerated, to ensure that researchers remain accountable to them and that solutions identified proceed from shared community values. And it is community research, rooted in local place, experience and knowledge, that can underpin more relevant, tailored and impactful policy across the multiple and diverse contexts found within Scotland.

A diverse set of recommendations emerged around themes such as research methodology and ethics, funding models and new structures for research that empower communities to lead and shape the generation of knowledge and give them agency. Research should amplify community voices rather than extracting knowledge from them or treating them as “living labs.”

Participants therefore sought to identify opportunities to foster new and more equitable and collaborative approaches to research, including addressing the inequalities of structures and power dynamics. They envisioned approaches that are radically open, just, inclusive and transformative, and that can lead to effective and more equitable policymaking.

Recommendations

A range of recommendations emerged from the workshop in Skye, relating both to research design and to policy. First, however, we outline two overarching recommendations:

• The first step for both effective design and policy is to recognise and value the extent of community-rooted research already being delivered by many communities themselves and their impact in driving positive and meaningful change.
• While there is no one best approach that would suit all research projects, community-rooted research should proceed from a recognition of the deep knowledge repositories that are held in communities and their central role in designing adequate policy.

Methodology and ethics for communities in research

Many of the recommendations that emerged relate to methodology, proposing a thoughtful approach that builds on respect and reciprocity, shared responsibility and ethics.

• Research processes, irrespective if conducted by community researchers, academics, or in collaboration, should proceed from a base of respect and shared responsibilities to each other and the environment, and these principles should be integrated into the approach to conducting research.
• Carefully consider the relationships around who holds the research taking place within communities. Research must proceed from an ethos of equality, including in sharing resources, so that trust is built and sustained throughout the process.
• Respect, shared responsibility and trust facilitate “cultural mending.” Research relating to communities must acknowledge the connection to place, history, and cultural identity.
• Design thoughtful research methodologies which carefully consider normative research practices, rooted in respect and reciprocity, equality and collaboration, rather than perpetuating extractive processes (taking knowledge from communities without their meaningful involvement or benefit).
• This can be helped by making room for more creative approaches, such as art, music, stories, poetry, and performance to connect communities, preserve memory, and communicate insights beyond conventional research outputs.
• It can also be helped by appropriate use of language. Research should not seek to frame deeply held cultural knowledge within a generic linguistic framework used in research institutions, that is often alien to those from communities participating in the research.
• Ensure all voices are heard, not just the privileged and most vocal members of the groups.
• Carefully consider the complexity of different forms of knowledge and avoid prioritising certain types of knowledge over others (e.g. “expert” knowledge over knowledge embodied in community practices).
• Ensure that the research process itself is recorded and valued, not just the outcomes, in order to highlight community contributions and enable dialogue and learning.

Recommendations for policy

• Given the prominence of evidence-based policymaking, recognising the breath of “data” advocated by community-rooted research can lead to richer repositories of knowledge to inform policy design. Although data could be perceived as a central element of research in communities, it is a wider understanding of “data” than is commonly used in policymaking, including aspects such as the lived experience of communities and diverse forms of knowledge. Approaches that embrace co-production of research and policy rooted in “more inclusive and democratic approaches to developing and sharing knowledge” (footnote 4) are needed to address the complex challenges and crises we face such as the climate and biodiversity emergencies (as the IPBES argues).
• Policymaking derived from such practices can foster meaningful relationships, amplify local voices, mobilise local agency, and enable better understanding of the complexity of human experience. As a community-rooted process is critical in enabling the voices of groups often not engaged to be heard, it can ultimately lead to better policymaking, informed by a variety of viewpoints rather than a dominant few.
• As the case studies included in the report show, and the participants reflected in the workshop, policymaking driven by research rooted in communities can lead to more nuanced and tailored policy solutions, that meet the needs of different communities (which might differ significantly from what is assessed externally as suitable). Moreover, in some cases, it can enable communities to drive changes not just locally, but nationally across Scotland, by enabling bottom-up mobilisation.
• In an age of eroding trust in policymakers at national and international levels, community-rooted research, which holds trust as a central tenet of its approach, can support countering misconceptions, and potentially lead to better relationships of policymakers and other agencies with different communities, and better buy-in for the solutions and actions proposed. Participants’ reflections throughout the workshop emphasised that policymaking in parts of Scotland has not led to a transformative change in the realities of rural and island life. Policies that draw on community-rooted research need to identify novel solutions that lead to fair, just, and transformative change that is inclusive and enduring.
• Most importantly, however, as emphasised throughout the report, is that communities are enabled to occupy a central role in the evidence-building processes and a more prominent role in policy design. This might enable finding positive and innovative solutions to the complex problems Scotland faces, such as to address the decreasing and ageing population trend in different parts of the country, or to support the delivery of national priorities and build a wellbeing economy for the country.
• An immediate consequence of recognising and valuing community-rooted research, with the benefits outlined above, is to invest more resources directly into such research through funding models that empower communities to define research agendas, commission and deliver research, weigh in on the suitability of different policy options, and control the narratives about their own contexts. This includes addressing the structural barriers that prevent more equitable forms of collaboration.
• An effective strategy to enhance community capacity and skills is to build on the significant good practice already existent within communities across Scotland. This requires support for cross-community learning and collaboration, sharing best practices, methods and resources to inspire and inform other community groups and expand the policymakers’ toolkits.
• Finally, it is important to note that while this report has focused significantly on community-rooted research, participants at the workshop felt strongly that many of the principles and recommendations that emerged are equally relevant to most forms of research and policymaking processes that involve communities. Mainstream research models should foster genuine partnerships of equality, giving communities better agency and challenging extractive practices. Following such a model would ensure communities play a central role in all relevant research, and are appropriately remunerated for their involvement, not just participate in engagement activities, to promote/enable greater impact and outcomes.

Download

Download the valuing local communities in research and policymaking report (2MB, PDF)