2pm-4pm, 3rd December 2025

Franklin Wilkins Building, King’s College London

Our second session of the PhD Participatory Research Network brought together PhD students from King’s College London, Queen Mary University of London, Imperial College London, and Goldsmiths, University of London. This session was co-facilitated by Emma Hayashibira (QMUL) and Cheyenne Contreras (KCL).

Recap from Session 1
We began with a quick reflection on our first meeting. Members shared that they appreciated the friendly environment and the sense of “not being alone” in navigating participatory approaches within the constraints of PhD research. Cheyenne reiterated that the network is a collective learning space, shaped by and for its network members. In response to Session 1 feedback, future sessions will continue to prioritise PhD-led discussion, rather than set out structures. This also ensures that the network is tailored to everyone’s needs, particularly as everyone is at a different stage in their participatory journey.

Guest Speaker: Kate Fifield (contact: kate.fifield@kcl.ac.uk)

We welcomed our guest speaker, Kate Fifield, a postdoctoral researcher at King’s College London. Kate discussed the barriers and successes she encountered while integrating PPI into her PhD feasibility study on digital assessment technology for young adults with a rare genetic disease.

Key reflections included:

• How different everyone’s experience will be
  Kate highlighted that every researcher’s experience with PPI will look different, and this will shape how you plan and engage with involvement work.
• When planning PPI
  It is important to think carefully about the people you are engaging with and how this may influence involvement – for example, whether they may be considered vulnerable and what additional considerations this may require (e.g. ethics applications, communication styles).
• Remaining flexible
  Kate emphasised that things may overrun or not follow the original plan. Being adaptable is essential when working with people.
• Working with groups
  Take time to make group members feel comfortable. Get to know them, and help them get comfortable with each other too, such as hosting an introduction session. 
• Providing relevant information
  Offer clear explanations of what PPI is, key terms, and an overview of the study. Give members an opportunity to shape their role and accommodate their preferred ways of being contacted and involved.
• Difficulties as a PhD student
  Kate discussed the challenge of maintaining a PPI group from start to finish during a PhD, especially with limited funding and support.
  Kate’s advice: prioritise quality over quantity.

Q&A Highlights

• How to deal with small groups and dropouts
  Kate recommended having a backup plan – for example, a waiting list of people who have expressed interest or an alternative recruitment strategy.
• When to apply for ethics
  Kate shared that she did not need ethics approval for her PPI group because members were not study participants.
  Other network members discussed their experiences applying for ethics, particularly when working with minors (requiring parental consent) or vulnerable groups.
• Evaluations – when is it too much?
  A question was raised about how often to use evaluations or feedback forms without overwhelming participants.
  Kate suggested discussing this openly with the group – explain why evaluations are needed and agree together on what feels manageable and how often they should be completed.
  Evaluations do not need to happen after every session, and many groups prefer something like every other meeting.

Small Group Discussions

To kick off the small group discussions, each member wrote on a post-it note and added it to a shared flipchart under the prompt “What brings you here today?” This simple activity helped surface the key questions and discussion points that members wanted to explore during the session. These collective contributions then shaped the main themes for the next part of the session.

Three main themes emerged, including: ethics, funding, and recruitment. The network split into two groups and discussed ethics and recruitment.

Group Discussions: Ethics & Recruitment

Ethics

Timing: When to apply for ethics?
Many members shared uncertainty about the overall timeline – when ethics, recruitment, and funding should happen within a PhD project. While the group agreed that securing funding is almost always the first step, the timing of ethics applications and recruitment can vary widely depending on the study design and the population involved (e.g., vulnerable groups). Institutional processes also differ, so students should discuss timelines with supervisors and/or ethics committees. This was identified as an area that would benefit from clearer guidance in our toolkit.

When does PPI need ethics?
The group also discussed when participatory research, particularly advisory groups, requires ethics approval. Many members noted that they did not need ethics to start an advisory group, as members were not study participants. However, attendees felt it would be helpful for the toolkit to include a section outlining what situations would require ethics and what considerations PhD students should keep in mind when working with advisory groups.

Power dynamics & co-designing
A question was raised about how to manage power dynamics when co-designing a study with advisory group members and other researchers, especially when differing views emerge. The group agreed that differences of opinion are common. As the researcher, it can be helpful to discuss these points with your supervisor and, if something is not possible to implement, clearly explain this to the group and outline the reasons why.

Informing participants
Members reflected on how much detail to provide when informing participants about their role and the study. Some shared that, in hindsight, they wished they had spent more time on this. An introductory session can be especially valuable to ensure group members fully understand their role and the work ahead. It is also important to hear from the group and discuss how they feel they can contribute – shaping roles collaboratively from the beginning of the process.

Recruitment

Finding the right recruitment pathways
Members reflected on how much detail to provide when informing participants about their role and the study. Some shared that, in hindsight, they wished they had spent more time on this. An introductory session can be especially valuable to ensure group members fully understand their role and the work ahead. It is also important to hear from the group and discuss how they feel they can contribute – shaping roles collaboratively from the beginning of the process.

Voluntary vs funded involvement
The group reflected on how to communicate whether participation is voluntary or paid. Being transparent early on helps manage expectations and ensures involvement is fair and accessible.

Building trust 
Researchers highlighted the value of showing who they are, adding a personal touch, being clear about motivations, and building trust, especially when working with vulnerable groups.

Sensitive topics
Members emphasised being mindful of vulnerability, staying reflexive about personal experiences, and making space for debriefing and self-care.

Adapting to different groups
Age ranges, backgrounds, and previous experiences can shape how people respond to recruitment. Tailoring communication to each group was seen as good practice.

Reflections from Session 2

• There is a strong need for practical, PhD-specific guidance, particularly around ethics, recruitment, and structuring PPI/participatory groups.
• Reflections from guest speakers offer valuable insights into what participatory research looks like in reality.

Registration is now open for Session 3 of the PhD Participatory Research Network!

Our next session will be held on 7th January, from 2-4 pm, in Room 1.16, Franklin Wilkins Building, King’s College London. 

Come and join fellow PhD students to explore how participatory values can be embedded in PhD-level research!