Dr Marie Janes, Research Fellow in the Centre for Dementia Research

Hi Marie, what does an inclusive research environment look like to you, particularly when working with communities that have traditionally been underserved by research?

To me, an inclusive research environment recognises that people have different circumstances, experiences and ways of engaging, and as researchers, we have to accommodate those differences within the design of our research. It requires us to consider whether participation is accessible, whether people recognise themselves in our invitations, and also whether the research feels relevant to their lives. Additionally, it also requires us to examine the kinds of expectations that we place upon our participants, including expectations that may seem unremarkable from within an academic setting.

Through my latest project in particular, I’ve became much more aware of the practical decisions that determine whose participation is made possible. Offering telephone, online and face-to-face interviews, for example, has enabled involvement from people who might have been excluded by an online-only approach. Some people also preferred to participate alongside their spouse or supporter, and so making space for those preferences meant accommodating how people felt able to contribute and weren’t being inadvertently excluded.

I’ve also found that language also shapes who feels invited. For example, someone supporting a spouse or parent may not identify as a “carer”, but rather they may understand that relationship through family responsibility, cultural expectations or simply love and compassion. I’ve found that using broader descriptions such as family members, friends or supporters can help people recognise that their experiences are relevant and this in turn has enabled inclusion.

Equally, explaining a study in plain English does not necessarily communicate why it matters. For example, I learned to introduce our research through its relevance to identifying support needs earlier and improving care planning, rather than leading with the technical terminology that is everyday language in academic settings, and this involved thinking about the study from the perspective of the people being approached.

I have also become cautious about treating underserved communities as a single category and I think this is really important. Different communities, and individuals within them, have different needs and preferences. An inclusive environment therefore must have flexibility built into it as well as a willingness to recognise when our usual ways of working are creating barriers. In order to make sure your research is inclusive then it needs to begin well before recruitment begins and this is achieved by the choices that we as researchers make that make the research understandable, relevant and possible to participate in.

How do you make sure the people and communities involved in your research have a genuine voice in how that research develops?

A genuine voice needs the opportunity to influence researchers’ decisions. And this means recognising community knowledge as expertise and being willing to change our approach in response to it. We might, as researchers bring methodological knowledge, but that does not make us experts in somebody else’s community, relationships or experiences and it’s extremely important to remain humble and recognise where our own understanding ends.

In my most recent study, for example, community groups directly contributed to how recruitment and participation was organised by acting as gatekeepers. For example, one community organisation shared our study advert with their members, provided interpreters and helped identify appropriate ways for people to become involved. Their understanding of their community informed decisions that I wouldn’t have been able to make as effectively through my academic knowledge alone and this really helped me appreciate that organisations can make a substantive contribution to research practice through their knowledge of what is appropriate and feasible on a local level.

It’s also really important to ensure that individual perspectives are faithfully heard, and this requires attention within the research encounter. Working with interpreters has made me more conscious of how meaning is conveyed and how additional examples, paraphrasing or summarising can unintentionally shape participants’ responses. We have to recognise that the interpreter becomes part of the interaction, and their contribution needs to be recognised within our methodological thinking. Because we want to capture genuine voices that belong to our participants it’s really important that we plan things like interpreter briefings and set expectations around pacing, translating shorter sections and preserving participants’ meaning.

I also think that having a genuine voice raises questions about what happens to people’s contributions afterwards. A diverse sample does not, by itself, establish that different perspectives carry equal weight. I think that researchers need to remain attentive to experiences that challenge their expectations or are less readily accommodated within familiar explanations.

What have you learned about creating a sense of trust, belonging and shared ownership within research?

I’ve learned that trust exists within communities long before a researcher arrives and we can’t assume that people should trust us because we come from an academic background, or have a “Dr” title. These things create a power dynamic and I think it goes back to what I said earlier about being humble. Community organisations have well-established relationships through which people may feel more reassured about considering participating in your study. Being introduced through those relationships carries a responsibility to respect them and to understand why confidence in research institutions cannot be assumed. Historical injustice, discrimination and experiences of being poorly served by institutions may all shape how an invitation is received.

This awareness has made me conscious about approaching relationships with patience and being transparent about my intentions. When approaching communities whose perspectives were underrepresented, I always explain why those particular perspectives matter without making people feel as though they are being sought simply to fill a demographic gap and be valued for their experiences as opposed to being responsible for representing an entire community.

One particularly significant experience involved an older Roma participant’s reluctance to record their ethnicity because of memories of how Roma communities had been identified and targeted during WW2. Up to this point, I had never considered that the demographic questions I asked were anything other than relatively neutral, and I realised that information collected to demonstrate representation could feel exposing or unsafe to the person being asked to provide it. Therefore, having a choice about how their identity was recorded was therefore an important aspect of emotional safety.

For me, belonging involves being accepted without feeling obliged to disclose more than someone wishes. I think it also involves having space to question the researcher, express any reservations and also to decide whether participation feels right for them at that particular time. Having conversations with community groups and organisations helps to create opportunities for concerns to be discussed that might not have emerged through written information alone.

In terms of shared ownership, this requires more than successful recruitment, and I would be careful about claiming it on that basis alone. Reciprocity nevertheless provides an important foundation. I found that by offering community organisations a summary of the findings was one way of acknowledging that our relationship should have continuing value beyond data collection as they could use these as evidence for lottery bids, or organising workshops on topics that feels pertinent to that community. I think we need to think more carefully about what researchers owe to those who make their work possible, including following through on commitments and being honest about what the study can realistically offer.

Tom St Quinton, Senior Lecturer in Psychology in the School of Humanities and Social Sciences

What does open and responsible research look like to you in the context of your work?

To me, open and responsible research means conducting research in a way that is transparent, ethical, and reproducible. This can be achieved through practices such as preregistering hypotheses, methods, and analysis plans; sharing research materials, analysis scripts, and data; and reporting findings honestly and transparently, regardless of whether they support the original hypotheses. In psychology, these practices help strengthen the credibility and reproducibility of research and increase confidence in psychological findings.

How does embracing a culture of transparency and openness influence your wider research environment, both within LBU and working with research partners?

Transparency and openness help strengthen the credibility and reproducibility of psychological research more generally. Within LBU, openly sharing ideas, methods, and resources can foster collaboration and support ongoing learning and development. It is also becoming the norm within psychology, with many leading journals now expecting researchers to adopt aspects of Open Science. Embedding these practices within teaching can help students appreciate the value of transparency and encourage them to carry these principles forward into their own research careers.

When working with external partners, transparent research practices help build trust, clarify expectations, and support high-quality, reproducible research. These practices are also becoming increasingly important within funding applications, where openness and research integrity are often expected. Ultimately, openness helps ensure that psychological research can make a meaningful contribution to both scientific knowledge and real-world practice.

What can researchers start doing themselves to take their first steps into open research practices?

Researchers can begin by taking small, manageable steps towards adopting Open Science practices. For example, they might preregister their study designs and analysis plans, improve the documentation of research procedures, and share questionnaires, materials, analysis scripts, and data where appropriate. Researchers can also familiarise themselves with reporting guidelines and consider publishing their work through open-access routes where possible. For those involved in teaching, embedding these principles within the curriculum can help prepare students for contemporary research expectations.

Adopting Open Science practices is often a gradual process, and even small changes can improve the transparency, credibility, and reproducibility of research.

Marie and Tom, what are some of the everyday actions researchers can take to help create a more inclusive, open and responsible research culture?

Marie

I think that researchers can begin by making advice-seeking and critical reflection an essential part of their practice. For example, when I encountered difficulties recruiting through Black community organisations, I approached a former colleague for guidance on what I could do differently. That conversation helped me examine my own approach rather than interpreting a lack of response as a lack of interest. Being able to acknowledge uncertainty means that opportunities are created from which we can learn from.

Small interpersonal decisions also matter. As I briefly mentioned early, I was conscious that my academic title could create distance, so I always introduced myself as Marie and if people addressed me as “Dr Janes”, I invited them again to call me Marie. Whilst this doesn’t remove institutional power differences, it does reflect an attentiveness to how we position ourselves in everyday interactions. Within research teams, we can regularly review who our recruitment approaches are reaching, whose perspectives remain absent from our data and also which assumptions need reconsidering. Furthermore, we should also be thoughtful about how we follow up with organisations, allowing time for a response and recognising the limits of their capacity. Persistence requires judgement and a recruitment target doesn’t entitle us to someone else’s time. Additionally, recording adaptations and the reasoning behind them can make learning more systematic. It helps to document these decisions consistently, including approaches that were unsuccessful or raised questions, and sharing that learning with colleagues would make the practical and ethical complexities of recruitment more visible.

I feel that responsible practice also involves examining the consequences of well-intentioned decisions. For example, acknowledging participants’ time through a monetary voucher requires us to recognise that the same amount may have very different significance for different people. An inclusive intention does not remove the need for ethical reflection.

Tom

Researchers can help create a more inclusive, open, and responsible research culture through a range of everyday actions. These include sharing knowledge and resources with colleagues, discussing research challenges openly, providing constructive feedback, and adopting transparent research practices where possible.

Researchers can also promote inclusivity by considering diversity in participant recruitment, ensuring research materials are accessible, and recognising the contributions of all team members fairly. Through teaching, researchers can model Open Science practices and discuss their value with students, helping to embed these principles in the next generation of researchers.

Collectively, these actions can contribute to a more collaborative, transparent, and supportive research environment.

About the Festival of Research and Knowledge Exchange

LBU colleagues and postgraduate research students are invited to book now for the 2026 Festival of Research and Knowledge Exchange, taking place on Tuesday 24 – Wednesday 25 November at Headingley Campus.

LBU Research Voices is a blog series that celebrates the experiences, journeys, and expertise of our LBU research community. Through this series, we explore the knowledge our researchers have gained, not just from their work, but from their lived experiences, career paths, and the communities they engage with. By sharing their stories, we hope to inspire learning, reflection, and connection across our LBU research culture.

Explore the full LBU Research Voices series to read more stories from across our LBU research community.