Peer-led, community research: developing Partisan's strategy
In our Working in Emergence Series guest spotlight, we return to an interview with Theo, Co-Founder of TRUE Research, to reflect on how Partisan went about creating and evaluating our shifting strategy, built around our 4 Rs: regeneration, repair, relationships and redistribution.
Author: Theo Field-Pellew
As a learning partner and evaluator for the strategy development at Partisan, my role was to observe, reflect, and offer insight into what was working and what wasn't, and to also support and train the peer researchers who were also involved in the developing the strategy too. The process was challenging, innovative, and constantly evolving. It was about finding out if the direction Partisan was heading with their strategy was working for the communities they were aiming to support, especially the young people involved, and if it could be replicated in other contexts.
Strategic Growth and Evolution
The strategy was "growing as it was going along."
At its heart, Partisan was deeply committed to understanding the impact of its work. What was the strategy doing? What was it creating and was it something that would be useful for the communities, for the young people, and for the mental health service overall?
We wanted to see if the strategy would lead to the vision they had for the world.
“Our vision is a future world where help systems centre marginalised and racialised communities, and where power, knowledge and resources are shared as part of a more connected, just and equitable world.”
We aimed to combine different perspectives and expertise. Peer researchers were young people with lived experience from the community too. We invited them, and youth mental health charity, MAC UK to be involved in this work. MAC UK recruited and held the peer researchers, and offered supervision, and resources the researchers needed such as laptops and general training.
My organisation, TRUE Research, focused on training peer researchers on the research side, offering one-one-support, research techniques and reflective space. Alongside them, an academic researcher from Greenwich University provided oversight, focused on the data collection and the final report.
At first glance, it seemed like the perfect combination of academic rigor, community focus, and young people’s voices at the table.
Partisan had assembled what we thought was the "dream team" to develop and evaluate the strategy. Yet, there was a catch.
The approach involved a lot of autonomy and space for the team, which created both positive and negative outcomes. It was positive in a sense that it gave more freedom to think outside the box, but also had challenges because it was a bit too broad.
The vast amount of space to innovate led to great ideas, but also to challenges around focus and consistency. The temptation to revert to established systems was always present.
“You’re trying to be creative in challenging the old ways of doing things, but it was easy to go back to our normal way of working." - Theo Field-Pellow
Shifting from Evaluation to Strategy Development
The project began as an evaluation, but quickly evolved and became about shaping a strategy.
This shift, while necessary in the changing nature of Partisan’s work, wasn’t easy. The research team had to adjust to a less structured, more emergent way of working — one that leaned into creativity and community co-production.
Working closely with the peer researchers was a highlight, however. It deepened our understanding of how geography and community dynamics — particularly in areas like Brixton and Lewisham — shaped young people’s experiences and needs.
But integrating this grassroots approach with traditional academic methods still posed challenges.
“It’s very difficult for a collective to remain in a place of creativity and not revert back to the traditional way of working. Despite the intention, some of the methods of analysis and data-collection used didn’t fully reflect the community-led ethos we were aiming for.”
What Could Have Been Done Differently
Looking back, we’d have benefited from using the early months to really build relationships both with the community and within the research team. We could have explored the ethics more deeply and embraced different skill sets from the start.
We needed to give more space to the creative, to the experiential, and only later bring in the academic lens to give it rigour. I think the early involvement of an academic model may have limited that space.
Likewise, our incredible peer researchers weren’t brought in early or deeply enough to shape the strategy. Their insights were essential as they weren’t just data collectors, they were part of the community, but we could’ve done more to centre them at key stages.
The Role of Peer Research and Community Engagement
Peer research takes a lot of bravery.
You have to let people into your space — and be okay with that. And at Partisan, young people weren’t just helping gather data; they influenced how the strategy was shaped. MAC UK recruited and supported them, while TRUE delivered ethical research training.
But we should have recruited more young people from the specific areas we were focused on. Not all of them were directly from Lewisham, Lambeth or Southwark. Working with young people who are connected to the community itself is always better.
The Value of Community-Led Research
For any organisation considering this kind of work it’s important to ask: How can you serve a community you don’t understand? How can you support people you’re detached from?
My final message here would be: community-led research isn’t the easy route: it takes time, care, and humility, but it’s the one that brings lasting change. When the people closest to the issues are at the heart of the work, the solutions go deeper, and the impact runs longer.
Author: Theo Field-Pellew, Founder of TRUE Research