What we’re learning about long‑term public engagement impact
Since 2012, the Centre for Public Engagement (CPE) has awarded over 350 grants to enable our staff, students and researchers to engage with the public in a multitude of ways – from community-curated exhibitions and participatory performances to citizen science projects and interactive games. We've been taking a step back to reflect on what happens after CPE funding ends.
Since 2012, the Centre for Public Engagement (CPE) has awarded over 350 grants to enable our staff, students and researchers to engage with the public in a multitude of ways – from community-curated exhibitions and participatory performances to citizen science projects and interactive games.
Over the past few months, we’ve been taking a step back to reflect on what happens after CPE funding ends. Looking across recent and past projects has helped us better understand how public engagement work develops over time, and the kinds of impact it can support.
Drawing on reflections reported by colleagues who have received CPE funding over the years, we can see how relatively small awards often play an outsized role – not just in delivering individual activities, but in shaping ways of working, building relationships and opening up future opportunities.
Starting relationships that last
One of the strongest themes that has come through is the importance of relationships. Many colleagues told us that CPE funding gave them the time and space to work with external partners in more meaningful ways, whether that was with community organisations, charities, cultural institutions, patient groups, local authorities or policymakers.
For example for the ‘Translate Myeloma’ project led by Stephen Hibbs (Wolfson Institute of Population Health), a CPE Small Grant enabled early PPI activity with Bengali and Sylheti-speaking patients, that helped to build credibility and partnerships that later expanded into large-scale research, policy engagement and ongoing collaboration with community organisations. As a result of the research that followed the initial PPI activity, Cancer Research UK and the UK SACT (Systemic Anti-Cancer Therapy) Board have agreed to host the English/Bengali interlinear consent form; and the work was presented at the All Party Parliamentary Group for Modern Languages. As Stephen reflected: “The PPI grant was the first grant we got for this whole process and was critical in building momentum and credibility.”
Around three quarters of CPE- funded projects since 2012 have enabled new collaborations, and over two thirds helped create or sustain networks beyond the University, with people describing relationships that continued well beyond the life of a single project.
Building foundations for future funding
We have also heard repeatedly that small pots of public engagement funding often serve as a starting point rather than an endpoint. Nearly two‑thirds of projects went on to secure further funding, either to extend the original work or to develop new, related projects.
This follow-on support came from a wide range of sources – including research councils, Arts Council England, charities and international funders. For many people, a CPE grant was their first opportunity to lead public engagement or PPIE activity, helping them build confidence, evidence and partnerships that later strengthened larger funding applications.
For Alison May Berner (Wolfson Institute of Population Health), a series of CPE Small Grants supported early co-production work that later underpinned successful project grants (totaling £365,000) and a major NIHR fellowship. And for Nadia Valman (School of English and Drama), running engagement activities including walking tours, creating a collaborative short film, and live podcast events has led to AHRC Follow-on Funding for Impact and Engagement and an AHRC Research Grant (totalling over £427,000). Nadia reflected: “[These] grants enabled me to experiment with various creative forms of public engagement including walking tours and podcasts.”
Shaping research, not just sharing it
Another important reflection is how engagement work feeds back into research itself. For many funded projects, engagement wasn’t about dissemination at the end, but about shaping questions, methods and priorities from the outset.
Nearly 80% of projects generated ideas or insights that informed future research. Colleagues described workshops, focus groups, co‑design activities and creative approaches influencing study design, ethics processes and the direction of subsequent work – particularly in health, disability, neurodiversity and community‑led arts contexts.
In ‘Bridging the gap: Enhancing mental health support for neurodivergent young people by centering lived experience’, led by Giorgia Michelini (School of Biological and Behavioural Sciences), co-production with the neurodivergent community shaped research questions and supported the development of a large, shortlisted NIHR application. “The project has allowed us to involve members of the neurodivergent community and healthcare professionals in a new participatory study.” Giorgia reflected that the project has also enhanced their collaboration with charity partner Autistica.
Outputs that live on
CPE‑funded work has also produced a wide variety of outputs that continue to have a life beyond the initial project. Around 70% of projects created creative outputs such as films, podcasts, exhibitions or performances, while more than 60% developed digital or online resources.
Many of these outputs are still being used – in teaching, festivals, in policy work, community settings or partner organisations – and in some cases they now contribute to REF impact case studies.
Education resources created through the ‘ATLAS Open Data in Schools Environment and Beyond’ project led by Seth Zenz (School of Physical and Chemical Sciences) in 2020-2021 are used annually in schools outreach, and will help to underpin a potential future REF impact case study. “This funding supported new material … which continues to be used annually as a core part of the outreach strategy.”
Seeing longer‑term impacts
Most colleagues were also able to point to longer‑term social, cultural, health or environmental impacts linked to their initial public engagement activity. These included stronger community connections, improved patient and public voice in research, greater visibility for under‑represented histories and experiences, and influence on policy or professional practice.
In some cases, the most meaningful outcome was seeing participants take ownership of activities and continue them independently - a sign that engagement had supported capacity‑building as well as individual projects.
A project supported by a CPE Small Grant in the Wolfson Institute of Population Health and led by Andreas Papamichail saw MSc student projects informing policy briefs taken forward by Newham Council, and has achieved sustained collaboration which is now embedded in teaching programmes: “The funding has helped us solidify the relationship with Newham's public health team, and we learned a great deal from the pilot of the collaboration with them.”
Looking ahead: what this tells us about public engagement
Overall, these reflections help us see the value of public engagement not just as a set of activities, but as a way of working. Colleagues have noted that CPE funding has created the space to try approaches that centre relationships, lived experience and collaboration.
What stands out is how often this work continues to ripple outwards. Engagement activity shapes research questions, supports new partnerships, produces enduring outputs, and creates foundations for future funding and impact. In many cases, its influence unfolds gradually, over years rather than months. As one project lead reflected: “The funding for this project was vital in supporting public engagement with work that has had a legacy beyond the immediate moment of production.”
For us in the CPE, this reinforces the importance of making space for engagement that is exploratory, relational and co‑produced. Small grants can have a big effect when they give people permission to work differently – to listen, to collaborate and to build trust.
As we continue to support public engagement across Queen Mary, these insights and reflections remind us that when engagement is treated as integral to research and practice, it can open up new possibilities and ways of working that last well beyond a single project.
Thank you to everyone who shared their insights for this piece.