Carly Walker-Dawson discusses how to achieve meaningful community engagement by acknowledging and addressing power imbalances to build trust, value lived experience, and foster equitable, inclusive participation.
When doing community engagement – as academics, policy makers or practitioners – we often think or say that we’re equals with the communities we’re working with. But we’re not. There is a whole host of privileges we hold when coming into spaces with communities.. Recognising and addressing these dynamics is essential for moving beyond tokenistic or extractive practices and building genuine, reciprocal relationships. This blog explores why power and privilege matter in community engagement, and highlights important considerations for doing this work thoughtfully and respectfully.
All too often, community engagement is extractive – rather than being seen as a two-way exchange. This type of engagement is at best a tokenistic box-ticking exercise. At worst, it damages trust and relationships, deterring people from future engagement. Bad engagement is worse than none.
Whatever the intersecting experiences we bring into a space, there will inevitably be power dynamics at play. We need to be aware of these, name the power that exists, and put into action mitigations to lower the negative impacts of them. This applies to all of us – the status quo is in our bones and our actions reflect societal norms. Addressing something so embedded in society requires us to overtly acknowledge and challenge structural and systemic inequities.
So what do we need to consider, particularly as academics doing community engagement?
1 – Value lived and felt knowledge as much as learned knowledge
Communities and members of the public are experts – experts in their own experiences. This is where communities can bring the most added value. Members of the public can offer different perspectives and ideas, grounded in their everyday lives. Many problems come about when this lived and felt experience is not deemed as valuable as learned knowledge. Once communities’ value is appreciated in this sense, you will likely overcome many of the risks around being extractive and tokenistic. Deliberative engagement is an approach to decision making that allows participants to consider relevant information – evidence and learned knowledge – from multiple points of view before coming to judgement (as opposed to opinion). This is where lived and learned knowledge comes together and meaningfully values what communities can offer.
2 – Consider our own positionality, as individuals and institutions
We must recognise our positionality – in short, how our identities influence and bias our engagement with others. The same applies for the positionality of the organisation or institution you’re representing. By acknowledging that all aspects of our personal and professional selves influence how we engage, we can better understand and explore ways to work effectively with communities.
3 – Know your communities
Communities will know if you’re going in without first considering their needs and starting points. For example, what other engagement work has already been done through community and voluntary organisations? If you reinvent the wheel, you will be wasting your time as well as looking uninformed. What relationships will you need to build to reach less heard communities? This will be underpinned by trust (or lack of), so think about your messengers. Work collaboratively with independent experts or community leaders so you aren’t seen to have pre-planned outcomes or assumptions. If you have access to vital intelligence, share knowledge, connections and skills with others doing this work. All of this is essential to building meaningful relationships with communities.
4 – Clarity on your question and where outcomes will land
Be clear about the purpose and anticipated impact of the community engagement you’re doing – what you’re asking and where it will land. If you can’t sum up the overarching question you’re going to ask, you probably need to rethink it. The type of engagement you’re doing is important. At Involve, we use the International Association of Public Participation’s (IAP2) spectrum of public participation. This model doesn’t rank types of engagement in a hierarchy. All types are important at different times, but honesty about what you’re doing is crucial. If the final decision lies with the institution, don’t say you’re empowering communities to decide. Be honest—communities will know if you’re not.
5 – Proactively consider barriers to participation
There are an infinite number of barriers to engagement: lack of trust, lack of time, engagement fatigue, language and other accessibility barriers. These barriers are not always underpinned by bad intentions. First of all, you need to consider who is more and less heard in your communities. Often in community engagement, we hear from the same or similar voices. Those who have the ability to engage, usually those who have a level of privilege that allows them to participate, whether due to monetary, time, access or bandwidth factors. It can be easier to go through existing community organisations, but these don’t always reach everyone. Barriers are not just practical, but also attitudinal. Take a participant-focused, needs-based approach—consider mentors for communities or participatory action research, as modelled by the Rural Wales LPIP. Some basics include offering a gift of thanks (at least real living wage per hour), childcare as standard, ensuring venues are accessible, and providing tech and training for those digitally excluded.
6 – Centre wellbeing and use trauma informed approaches
Members of communities can only be productive and make a meaningful contribution if there is psychological safety – this means a space where people feel able to challenge and ask questions and know that they will not be punished if they challenge power structures. Consider who is holding engagement spaces—are there people participants relate to? Group building and contracting is vital to establishing group trust in light of power dynamics and privileges. Be aware of potential triggers, offer wellbeing spaces, provide a mental health professional if needed, and signpost to support. We’re not aiming for a safe space—this isn’t possible because power dynamics bring challenge and risk. Instead, create a brave space where participants can think critically, centre vulnerability, and show care for others.
7 – Think about the language we use
The language we use when discussing minoritised communities is often framed in terms of deficit. Terms that are regularly used include ‘hard to reach’, ‘vulnerable’ and ‘disadvantaged’. Yet we know that communities have many strengths and assets that are an asset to research and policy. Taking the term ‘hard to reach’ – it should be the responsibility of those reaching out to be able to engage different communities. This is why we say ‘less heard’ – putting the onus on institutions. The word ‘citizen’ can also be a tricky term, as many people who live in the UK are not naturalised or legal citizens. Similarly, using the terms ‘academic’ and ‘non-academic’ when discussing different partners in projects like LPIPs can connote a deficit and create a separation.
Power isn’t inherently bad
Power is not inherently bad. Instead, power determines what knowledge is shared, what knowledge is suppressed, and whose knowledge is valued. Failing to recognise the systemic impact of power differentials invalidates the anxiety and the experiences of some communities.
When approaching community engagement from a power framing, we need to take an equity-based approach, rather than an equality one. This means recognising there are different starting points and needs for the communities you’re working with. This starts with recognising that the spaces we hold are not neutral. We bring so much of ourselves and our institutions into a community space. Once we recognise this – a journey in itself – and name it, our starting point is far more honest. And the communities you work with will know it.
This blog was written by Carly Walker-Dawson, Director of Capacity Building and Standards at Involve. Carly is a member of the Local Policy Innovation Partnership Hub Delivery Team.
Find out more about the Local Policy Innovation Partnership Hub.
Disclaimer:
The views expressed in this post are those of the author and not necessarily those of City-REDI or the University of Birmingham.