PCER Fund

• Who the fund is for

• Available funds
• Key dates

Who the fund is for

Any researcher or public engagement professional at the University of Oxford from any discipline or research area can apply as Principal Investigator (PI). PIs are accountable for the project.

As PI, you can submit applications with co-applicants. Co-applicants may be other staff members (e.g., researchers, DPhil students, teaching staff, public engagement professionals, museum staff) or external partners (e.g. representatives from patient and community groups, teachers, etc).

Both newcomers and those experienced in public engagement with research are encouraged to apply.

Eligibility requirements:

• A University cost centre is required to host an award. College-based activities are possible, but funds must be managed through a faculty or department.
• At least one applicant (either the PI or a co-applicant) must be a researcher at the University of Oxford.
• DPhils are welcome to apply but will need the support of their supervisor/PI who will need to hold the budget. Please contact publicengagement@admin.ox.ac.uk if you are a DPhil wishing to submit an application

Available funds 

There is a total of £100,000 available for the 2024/2025 academic year. You can apply for up to £6,000 for your project. 

We aim to fund a balanced portfolio of projects from across the university. To manage this across the termly application deadlines, we reserve the right to hold funding in anticipation of receiving applications from a currently under-represented division.

Funds must be spent before the end of June in the financial year they are received. See ‘Key dates’ section for details of application and spending deadlines.

Key dates 

Applications can be submitted at any time while the fund is open, and will be reviewed in three termly application review windows.   

*We aim to share budget codes with successful applicants within 6-8 weeks of announcing funding decisions. However, we cannot guarantee budget code timeframes as this process is not managed by the PCER Team. If there are any delays in getting your budget codes to you and your project is likely to suffer as a result, you may need to speak to your department about underwriting costs. This is particularly relevant to applicants applying in the Trinity term 2025 deadline who intend to spend funds in August and September 2025, ahead of the next financial year's budget codes being confirmed. The PCER Team will support PIs in liaising with departmental finance teams to plan for and manage spending during this period.

• What costs we’ll cover
• Application support
• How applications are assessed

What costs we’ll cover 

All funds requested should be spent on the development, delivery and evaluation of your project and justified in the budget section of your application.

The kinds of costs that can be applied for may include (but are not limited to):

• Equipment and materials costs*
• Reasonable travel costs in line with the University’s travel policy
• Venue and catering costs (e.g. for engagement workshops)
• Recognising and rewarding community contributors for their time and expenses
• Promoting or advertising engagement opportunities

*The University has equipment available to hire (free of charge) for engagement activities through the PERShare website, from cameras and microphones to gazebos and tables. We recommend exploring what is available before including costs for equipment in your application.

Application support 

When preparing your application, the following resources may be helpful:

• Frequently Asked Questions – ask a question and find answers
• Responsible Engagement and Knowledge Exchange Framework
• Participatory Research Oxford resources
• Further resources for planning public engagement with research activities on the PCER Fund padlet.

For support in planning your project and preparing your application, we suggest speaking to the Public Engagement Lead in your division:

• Humanities: Dr Victoria McGuinness (Head of Public Engagement)
• Mathematical, Physical and Life Sciences: Dr Michaela Livingstone-Banks (Head of Public and Community Engagement with Research)
• Medical Sciences: Naomi Gibson (Public and Policy Engagement Facilitator)
• Social Sciences: Aileen Marshall-Brown (Head of Engagement)
• Gardens, Libraries and Museums (GLAM): Dr Harriet Warburton (Head of Research and Impact Management)

How applications are assessed

Assessment criteria

Panels reviewing applications will consider whether a project:

1. Is meeting a need that is important to the groups involved, and is connected to applicant’s broader research (Q3 of application form)

Reviewers will consider questions like:

• Why is this project needed?
• Is the project addressing an important issue for the group(s) involved?
• Is this connected to the applicant’s broader research?

2. Could make a positive difference to the engaged group(s), the research and/or researchers  (Q4, 5, 6)  

Reviewers will consider questions like:  

• Is the project activity likely to improve the research?
• Will it make a positive difference for the group(s) involved, like learning new things, getting better at something, or changing how they think or act?
• Could this project help researchers gain more knowledge or skills?

3. Uses methods that are relevant and appropriate to the difference(s) the project aims to make and the engaged group(s) (Q7, 8)  

Reviewers will consider questions like:  

• Do the planned activities seem suitable for the group(s) involved?
• Is it clear how the activities could lead to the difference(s) the project aims to make?
• Do activities seem well planned, and achievable in the timeframe?
• Are engaged groups consulted throughout the project?
• Does the choice of engaged group(s) make sense to the project's difference(s) the project aims to make?

4. Is engaging responsibly with the group(s) involved (Q7, 8, 9)  

Reviewers will consider questions like:  

• Where applicable, does the applicant already know the group(s) involved? Have they talked to them to make sure they support the activity?
• Will applicants work ethically with group(s)? For example, will they explain what will happen with the information or data given by participants? Are they aware of any risks to participants and handling these carefully?
• Will the group(s) be paid or rewarded for their time, contributions, and expenses?
• Are the project activities inclusive and accessible, from recruitment to communication with the group(s)?
• Does the applicant consider equity and diversity?
• Does the applicant show respect for the group(s)’ specific context, culture, and power dynamics?

5. Will be able to know if they have made the difference(s) they aim to (Q10)  

Reviewers will consider questions like:  

• Do applicants have a plan to find out if they have made the difference(s) they aim to?
• Will they involve engaged group(s) in any evaluation of the activities and/or difference(s) made?

6. Could make a long-term difference on the engaged group(s) and/or research (Q11)  

Reviewers will consider questions like:  

• Could the project have a long-term effect on the engaged group(s)? Is there a plan to stay in touch with them about this work?
• Are there any materials from the activities, like resources or videos, that can be used in the future?
• Is there a chance the activities could continue after the funding ends?

7. Is achieving good value for money (Q12) 

The review panels 

Applications will be assessed against the criteria by members of two separate groups of reviewers, who will come together at a final recommendation meeting to help reach a decision on which projects to fund. These groups are: 

• Public & Community (P&C) Panel: community members external to the University who have experience engaging with research (more details about this panel and its activity on page 9 of PCER Fund call). 
• Internal reviewers: public engagement professionals across the University, including divisional PCER leads, Public Engagement Facilitators and researchers. 

You’ll hear from our team on the outcome of your application by email five weeks after the application deadline.

PCER Fund Awardees: Michaelmas Term 2024 

We’re delighted to announce the awardees of the PCER Fund’s Michaelmas term round.

We received a number of high-quality applications to carry out a wide variety of public and community engagement with research activities. Applications spanned divisions and disciplines, with planned activities taking place here in Oxford, across the UK and internationally. We were pleased to receive applications from researchers and public engagement professionals with varying levels of experience.

Many thanks to everyone who applied and to our reviewers – both internal to the University and members of our external Public & Community Panel – who helped assess applications to decide the final projects to be funded.

You can read summaries of the funded projects below. Feeling inspired? Learn more about the PCER Fund and apply to one of our termly funding rounds!

Funded projects 

Developing resources to involve PPI representatives in research on communication in medical care: A co-design project

PI: Rebecca Anderson-Kittow 

This project aims to co-design training and guidelines to enable patient and public involvement (PPI) in research on communication in medical care.

 

Conversation analysis (CA) is a well-established research method that uses recordings of real medical encounters to study communication with an equal focus on input from clinicians, patients and any accompanying family members or friends. A common practice in CA is holding closed group ‘data sessions’ in which researchers are provided with detailed transcripts and played brief pseudonymised clips from the recordings that illustrate the research problem, and invited to share their observations. Although the nature of these observations are very technical, attending data sessions allows non-experts to gradually learn through experience and if organised appropriately, can provide a platform to support meaningful contributions from individuals with a range of expertise and experience.

 

We will:

1. Recruit people with lived experience of seeking medical care for themselves or others to co-design training to enable PPI contributors to take part in data sessions
2. Identify the barriers and co-design guidance for researchers wanting to involve PPI contributors in their data sessions
3. Gather feedback on this training and guidance
4. Work with PPI contributors to disseminate the training and guidance

Arabic in Spanish: Thinking, Knowing, and Belonging at the Edges of Europe.

PI: Erica Feild-Marchello 

Echoing multilingual poetry of twelfth-century al-Andalus (Arabic for Iberia, now Spain and Portugal), today many musicians in Spain mix regional varieties of Spanish and Arabic in popular music, from rap to flamenco (Reynolds 2021). They draw connections between contemporary and medieval practices to voice claims about history, identities, borders, and belonging (Calderwood 2023). However, research also shows that today in Spain ideas about Arabic frequently associate its speakers with religious, cultural, and racial difference and engage Islamophobic discourse (Ready 2018). This can inform political decisions (McDonald 2021).

This project contends that knowledge of historical relationships between Arabic and Spanish helps us understand the stakes of multilingual practices today, and vice versa. Uniting analysis of medieval and early modern uses and discussions of Arabic in Spain (Perceval 1986; Menocal 1987; García-Arenal and Rodríguez Mediano 2017) with meetings of Arabic and Spanish in nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty-first century cultural productions, we aim to:

A. Center engagements with Arabic and Spanish as sites of socio-political work

B. Co-create events and didactic materials (city-walk guides) foregrounding Arabic’s significance in Spanish culture and discourse

C. Facilitate public-facing conversations about ideas regarding Arabic and belonging in Spain

D. Collaborate with local organizations, develop future research agendas

Oxford’s South Asian community engagement programme

PI: Shona Forster 

Our project aims to build a sustained and mutually beneficial relationship between Oxford’s dementia and mental health researchers in Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre (OH BRC) and our local South Asian community. Following productive initial meetings with community leaders from the Asian Cultural Centre, Oxford City Council and Oxford Community Action designed to foster engagement and trust, we have begun social get-togethers around a theme of brain health.

We believe this project differs in two important ways from most attempts at relationships with minority ethnic communities. Firstly, we are a large collaboration of researchers and PPIE professionals, enabling us to share the significant workload associated with such initiatives. Secondly, we have the breadth of collaborators required to bring benefits to the community in terms of signposting services and assisting with access.

Regular get-togethers provide an informal forum for researchers to engage people in their work and nurture interest in involvement, or participation, in research studies.

Making it personal: using theatre to explore the implications of genomics for pregnancy planning after having a child with a serious genetic condition.

PI: Alison Kay

‘Making it personal’ uses theatre as a creative medium for engagement to explore the implications (benefits, limitations, perceptions) of a new genomic test aiming to personalize pregnancy recurrence risks for parents of children with serious genetic conditions. Theatre creates a unique opportunity to “set the scene” on a personal level, depicting individual experiences and combining emotional with rational responses. This is particularly useful for talking about perceptions of risk because we know these differ greatly between people. This participatory theatre project aims to generate new knowledge and inform best practice in clinical conversations.

We propose a three-stage approach. We will start by co-producing a script about a couple considering their reproductive options and whether to take a test. This could be reassuring about their future risk but would reveal one of them was the parent-of-origin of the genetic cause of their child’s condition. In stage two, we will stage the script as live theatre (c.40 minutes) to an audience of c.30 participants, followed by an open audience discussion to workshop alternative conversations to those presented in the play. In stage 3, the post-performance group discussion will be analyzed by the engagement team and findings shared in a reflective journal article.

Research to Action: Engaging with men and boys for gender equality

PI: Jennifer Roest 

In recent years there has been increased acknowledgment of the importance of engaging with young men and boys to tackle male violence and gender inequality in the UK. My research suggests a need for improved engagement between researchers, frontline practitioners, and young people to better understand and address challenges inhibiting progress in this area. Issues such as how to counter the onslaught of online misogyny and culture of misinformation experienced by young people, and how to approach work with young men with compassion and empathy whilst also protecting the interests of those most harmed by gender inequality and violence. In collaboration with Beyond Equality (B.E.) – an NGO engaging with boys and men for gender equality, and Milly Farrell – Public Engagement Manager (Ethox), this project will provide an online platform bringing together researchers and frontline practitioners (e.g. youth workers, social workers, youth offending officers, health practitioners, teachers, and coaches) to exchange knowledge on the topics of online misogyny, misinformation, and compassionate approaches in work with men/ boys. We will establish a lasting community of practice between stakeholders involved. We will also hold a participatory workshop with young people to ensure priorities and approaches in research and practice for addressing these issues with boys/ young men reflect views and experiences of young people themselves. 

Engaging the Black Radical Imagination: A creative exploration of reparative educational futures in Easton, Bristol

PI: Annabel Wilson 

This project develops culturally relevant innovative methodologies that meaningfully engage historically marginalised Black Bristolians in research. It invites former pupils of Easton primary schools to creatively reimagine a just education system in their city, producing a short film documenting participants' visions and the research process.

Bristol’s long history of racial and class-based inequality has produced unequal experiences of schooling for people in Easton - one of Bristol’s most ethnically diverse and economically deprived wards (Runnymede, 2017).

Often used as a site of extractive research and government intervention, deficit narratives of a community ‘needing to be fixed’ have been perpetuated. Inspired by French et al’s, (2020) Framework of Radical Healing in Communities of Color, this project aims to develop a deeply participatory approach, that counters extractive research practice, through centring conviviality methodologically.

Working alongside a local poet and filmmaker, we will facilitate a series of creative, joyful and communal workshops in which difficult memories of educational inequality are transformed into new visions for educational futures. Through these participatory workshops, we hope to engage more deeply with communities who are often labelled by academia and policy as ‘hard to reach’ but are in fact active, imaginative and knowledgeable in making their educational futures.

Community Co-creation for Food and Climate Digital Interactive with Manchester Museum (part of the larger SHIFT project, Sustainable and Healthy Interventions to the Food System, which runs until October 2026)

PI: Lucy Yates 

We are facing an unprecedented climate crisis. The food system contributes c.25% - 30% to global GHG emissions. Recent research has shown foods which cause the largest negative environmental impacts are also associated with increased risks of some cancers and cardiovascular disease. Those in the lowest SES groups are disproportionately likely to be affected by dietary-related health inequalities and the negative impacts of climate change. However, public understanding and mobilisation around the impact of what we eat on the climate and our health is still lacking.

Working with Manchester Museum, we will develop a digital interactive to engage their audiences in playful and interesting ways to understand the environmental impact of their diets and how food systems research might play a part in moving the UK towards more healthy and sustainable diets. Using their innovative Top Floor (an environmental action and social justice hub), we’re applying for funding to run an initial consultation and a workshop to share our research and co-create content and engaging approaches for the digital interactive with under-reached communities.

This project will empower communities with information and tools to make better informed choices about personal consumption, whilst also promoting an understanding of food systems change.