Good practice in engaging hard-to reach groups

Engaging hard-to-reach groups in research is central to their involvement in helping to shape service delivery, but it has its challenges. Claire Millett reflects on the key principles of effectively engaging hard-to-reach groups.

Good practice in engaging hard-to-reach groups in research

“We will only achieve real, sustainable change if local people are in the driving seat from the start, tailoring strategies to local needs.” John Prescott, White Paper on Urban Policy, 2000.

Involving the local community in government initiatives and policies is recognised as the correct way to go about decision-making and policy implementation. Recent legislation and other developments have formalised this and made it compulsory to engage with the community. For example, strengthening community involvement is a key part of the Government’s planning reforms and it is now obligatory for Local Planning Authorities to consult the community about planning decisions. Furthermore, the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal requires Local Strategic Partnerships to involve the community in developing a Community Strategy. As well as a statutory obligation, it is good practice to involve communities in decision-making as it should lead to better plans, policies and decisions. This is particularly important when considering hard-to-reach groups, as they are often the ones most in need of public services.

There are many different ways of involving communities in decision-making and policy implementation, and one of them is via research and consultation. Finding the most effective way to engage with communities, in particular hard-to-reach groups, is a challenging exercise. This paper looks at how to involve hard-to-reach groups in research by examining a number of key principles, illustrated by CLES Consultings previous experience.

Who are hard-to-reach groups?

Hard-to-reach groups are generally defined as groups or communities that are difficult to engage via most traditional and conventional techniques. When the term ‘hard-to-reach’ is mentioned, there are a number of groups that usually spring to mind, including asylum seekers and refugees, black and minority ethnic communities (BME), children and young people, disabled and elderly people, and lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgender.

However, membership of hard-to-reach groups can vary depending on the demographics of each community and the focus of the research. It is not unusual for people to think hard-to-reach groups mean minority groups or small communities. However, in some localised areas, groups that are minorities on a national level actually have relatively high populations but are still hard-to-reach (e.g. BME communities in some London Boroughs, young farmers in the countryside, or lesbians and gays in some large cities). It is not necessarily the size of the population that makes them more difficult to access as there may be organisations or networks that researchers can go through (e.g. Young Farmers’ Clubs). What may be more challenging for the researcher is finding appropriate ways of engaging with them as an ‘outsider’. Working closely with the organisations/networks can help provide a way in and inform the methodology so it is appropriate to the needs of the particular community.

Furthermore, the focus of the research will determine who the hard-to-reach groups are as not all communities will need to be involved every time (e.g. when looking at housing needs it may be important to engage lone parents, but not homosexuals). Therefore, hard-to-reach groups are determined by the characteristics of the community and the aims of the research, not a pre-defined list, as a ‘one-size fits all’ approach is always too limited. Planning the most appropriate ways to approach and engage communities at the outset should ensure that no one is ‘hard-to-reach’.

The principles of engaging hard-to-reach groups: Lessons from our experience

There are a number of lessons to bear in mind when engaging hard-to-reach groups in research and making the experience enjoyable for all. This section details a recent research project that displays a number of facets of good practice in relation to engaging hard-to-reach groups (in this case BME communities) in research. The research project was done in partnership on behalf of the DfES to identify best practice in supporting access to ICT for BME communities in deprived areas2. The main objectives of the project were to:
study existing community ICT projects to identify good practice messages for developing current and future provision;
assess the role or potential role of community leaders/champions within these projects in increasing the uptake and usage of ICT by BME populations.

Innovative methodology

Some research methods used to consult communities may not be appropriate when consulting hard-to-reach groups (e.g. quantitative surveys). The DfES project adopted a creative approach to the research by using community researchers to undertake the work. In effect, community ICT organisations were recruited in each of the target areas and asked to appoint a local community researcher to undertake case study research into the ICT project.

Using researchers from the local community made it easier to access hard-to-reach groups as firstly, their familiarity with the local area enabled access to communities that would have been more difficult for the consultants as outsiders. Secondly, using community researchers from the same ethnic background as the users of the project meant they did not face any of the language or culture barriers that the consultants may have had to handle. Thirdly, the community researchers knowledge of ‘what works’ in consulting people from their community was harnessed by giving them input into the issues that the case studies needed to cover. They were then given the flexibility to use whatever techniques they thought best to get the information, which ranged from gathering secondary data to undertaking surveys and face-to-face interviews.

Appropriate training and capacity building

Wherever possible it is good practice to build on the skills of the people involved in the research. This allows them to develop personally and professionally by increasing their employability, as well as their capacity to participate more in the democratic life of their local area.

In the DfES project, the methodology was carefully designed to provide the community researchers with as much support as possible, including a one-to-one link with an advisor from the consultancy team to provide personal and practical support; a series of training workshops to develop research skills; and an email forum for everyone involved to raise questions, exchange information and communicate generally with each other. This intensive support developed the community researchers personal and social skills as well as provided many of them with specific research skills that they did not have before. Consequently, many of them have gone on to undertake further research for the DfES and other organisations.

Sensitivity to community and individual needs

It is important to think about the practicalities of consulting hard-to-reach groups. Depending on the target group, these may be things such as an accessible venue for physically disabled participants or childcare for lone parents.

In the DfES project we found out the needs of the community researchers and users of the ICT projects by undertaking a scoping visit at the outset of the commission. This allowed the personal research advisors to meet the project users and community researchers and establish an effective working relationship. From this it transpired that participants are more likely to feel relaxed and comfortable with community researchers that are familiar to them, despite not coming from the same ethnic or cultural background, than researchers sharing similar characteristics but were strangers (although it was acknowledged that sharing similar traits helped, e.g. gender, religion). Consequently, some of the community researchers were from white backgrounds and were chosen by the ICT projects because they were known to, and trusted by, their users.

Feedback to participants

It is crucial that participants receive feedback on the outcomes of the research – and this is true of all communities, not just hard-to-reach ones. However, it is even more important that hard-to-reach groups are involved in the dissemination process, or at least informed of the results, as not doing so can lead to disillusionment and unwillingness to participate in future research. In some cases where a community may not consist of many members (e.g. young farmers) it is important to retain their support as losing it will make them an ‘even-harder-to-reach’ group next time.

In the DfES project, the community researchers actually wrote up the findings of their research in individual, stand alone reports, which CLES Consulting pulled together into one comprehensive report. A dissemination workshop was held with the community researchers and ICT projects to feedback the findings from the projects, de-brief the community researchers and allow them the opportunity to talk about their experiences of being involved in the commission. Subsequent presentations to the DfES and Cabinet Office provided the opportunity for the community researchers to be part of the presentation or at least in attendance. An important outcome of their ongoing involvement in the research was the desire for many of the community researchers to be involved in future work on behalf of the DfES and indeed, the DfES, CLES Consulting and some of the community researchers from this project have gone on to work together on other commissions.

CLES Consulting is a not-for-profit research consultancy wholly owned by the Centre for Local Economic Strategies. It undertakes research, specialising in regeneration, economic development and local governance issues, for a variety of clients, including community and voluntary organisations, regeneration partnerships, local authorities and central government departments.

2 The research was undertaken by CLES Consulting, Manchester Council for Community Relations (MCCR) and The Council for Ethnic Minority Voluntary Sector Organisations (CEMVO) for the Department for Education and Skills
Claire Millett is a Consultant at CLES Consulting. Contact: clairemillett@cles.org.uk

The report, “Supporting Access to ICT for BME Groups in Deprived Areas: Approaches to Good Practice” is available on the DfES website. Hard copies are available directly from the DfES priced £4.95. www.dfes.gov.uktop