With the working from home guidance now coming to an end, many researchers and public contributors will be faced with the question of whether and when to return to in-person public involvement meetings.
Alongside the continuing risk of Covid-19 infections, a key issue to bear in mind is the potential of the internet and digital platforms to facilitate public involvement.
Indeed, over the past two years, virtual means of communication have become almost customary, and we have become more aware of the benefits of working in a virtual environment – not least the ability to involve people who are housebound or have reduced mobility. It is therefore unlikely that the recent shift towards virtual public involvement will simply be reversed. We are more likely to see a broadening of the ways in which public involvement is facilitated, with researchers and public contributors using a mix of both offline and online methods.
Flexible forms of public involvement
To adapt quickly to the COVID-19 pandemic, a lot of the discussion surrounding the move towards virtual public involvement focused on the use of video calling platforms to facilitate meetings. Less attention, however, has been given to the ways in which other kinds of digital platforms can be used to facilitate public involvement.
For an insight into the possibilities of other digital platforms, it’s useful to look back at INVOLVE’s Guidance on the use of social media to actively involve people in research (PDF). This guidance presents various examples, ranging from interactive websites that host chat forums to mobile phone apps that enable people to vote on research priorities. What these different examples point to is the potential of digital platforms to facilitate flexible forms of public involvement whereby public contributors have more control over when, where and how long they participate.
Micro-volunteering
To understand the potential benefits of such flexible involvement it is instructive to turn to literature on ‘micro-volunteering’ a term often used in the voluntary and community sectors to describe bite-size volunteering activities that are quick to complete and require little ongoing commitment).
A key insight from previous research conducted by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) and the Institute for Volunteering Research (IVR) is that micro-volunteering facilitated through digital platforms has the potential to engage people who are less likely to take up ‘traditional’ volunteering opportunities which tend to be long term and regular. This includes people who are ‘time poor’ or have shifting and unpredictable life circumstances, as well as young people who have grown up in the digital age and are thus well-versed in using digital platforms.
In their attempts to make public involvement more accessible to a broader range of people, researchers may wish to draw inspiration from the world of micro-volunteering, and find ways to make their public involvement more convenient and flexible.
Addressing diversity and inclusion
However, a word of warning: it shouldn’t simply be assumed that making public involvement more ‘virtual’ and ‘micro’ will make it more diverse and inclusive. As the aforementioned report by NCVO and IVR notes on page 30, micro-volunteering opportunities don’t address the underlying social factors that explain why certain groups are more likely to volunteer than others. Moreover, it is important to recognise how access to the internet and digital technologies continues to be lower amongst the poor, older and people with disabilities – a point brought home by the disadvantages the digitally excluded have faced during the pandemic.
It also shouldn’t be assumed that making public involvement convenient and flexible is always a good thing. Public involvement activities often require sustained interactions and ongoing commitment. Moreover, such regular and prolonged public involvement can help to foster collaborative and productive relations between researchers and public contributors.
A holistic approach
These cautionary notes serve as an important reminder of the need to be wary of overstating the potential benefits of using digital platforms to facilitate flexible public involvement. By the same token, they underscore the point that virtual or ‘micro’ public involvement shouldn’t simply replace but rather exist alongside and in combination with more ‘conventional’ forms. While it’s important to not lose sight of these cautionary notes, there are gains to be made by exploring and experimenting with the potentials that this blog has pointed to.
Maybe this is something to consider as you as researchers and public contributors seek to broaden the ways in which you facilitate and participate in public involvement activities.
