Exploring Racially Equitable Choices through case studies

From arrival, structural barriers and hostile dynamics created an environment of exclusion:

• Surveillance and profiling: University security officers closely monitored and followed the youth group through corridors.
• Corridor gatekeeping: Academic staff repeatedly interrupted families with questions like, "Are you lost?" or "Can I help you?", implicitly signalling that they did not belong.
• Exclusive representation: Corridors and halls were lined exclusively with historical portraits and sculptures celebrating white, Western, male academic figures.

During the afternoon workshop, a parent raised concerns about the heavy security presence and feeling scrutinised. Rather than validate the concern, the white academic facilitator responded defensively and remained silent: "Security is just standard procedure for everyone’s safety." 

Later, when a participant noted how scientific disciplines' historical ties to colonial extraction affected trust, another contributor deflected by listing other forms of deprivation. The facilitator remained silent, leaving the racialised minority participant isolated and exhausted.

In post-event reflection sessions, community organisers tried to discuss the emotional and psychological toll on families. The public engagement team interrupted to maintain their structured evaluation agenda, insisting participants complete quantitative surveys to meet funder KPIs. The university team logged the event as a "diversity success" based solely on attendance. Exhausted by surveillance, uncompensated administrative work, and invalidation, the community centre withdrew before the final phase.

Months later, the academic team published a peer-reviewed paper analysing "low retention and engagement barriers in hard-to-reach minoritised communities," turning community harm into academic publication capital while leaving community trust shattered.

Is there anything that you are currently doing that in any way, shape, or form resembles this example? 

Take a few moments to reflect on how these institutional patterns show up in your own work.

The cooperation began by taking off "academic hats" and entering community spaces to listen to the community's research questions and agree on air quality. The partnership adopted an asset-based framework, starting with local history, lived experience, Elders' knowledge, and existing community assets; it co-created agendas and meeting structures in open, flexible spaces driven by community priorities. When defining grant proposals, academic partners refused to sanitise language: they explicitly wrote anti-racism, structural equity, and community autonomy into project charters, anchoring institutional commitments in policy.

To prevent resources from getting trapped in university bureaucracies, the collective secured core operational funding routed directly to the community organisation's bank accounts. This granted the community group full operational autonomy to create paid youth leadership and peer researcher positions. Academic collaborators took on redistributive labour—absorbing behind-the-scenes administrative tasks such as room booking logistics, formal compliance paperwork, diary coordination, and grant application drafting—ensuring community leaders were not exploited or overburdened by institutional bureaucracy.

Activities took place in trusted local venues—such as community centres, boxing clubs, and GP surgeries—rather than expecting families to navigate university campus barriers. Hands-on maker sessions brought Elders, youth, and professional scientists together to explore topics ranging from artificial intelligence to local environmental health.

During facilitation, academic partners acted from a position of active solidarity:

• Systematic intervention: When microaggressions or deflections occurred during group discussions, facilitators intervened immediately to validate the affected participant and recenter racial equity as a structural responsibility.
• “Safe spaces” for practitioners and public: The collective established explicit trauma-informed guidelines and boundaries, protecting racialised facilitators and community contributors from uncompensated emotional labour or public backlash.
• Anonymous input: The partnership integrated tools like anonymous post-it Q&As and visual prompts into sessions, allowing participants to guide discussions without fear of judgment.

Evaluation focused on community-determined impact: building long-term community financial capacity, fostering youth agency, and establishing psychological safety. Feedback collection moved away from standard paper forms to creative, community-preferred methods, such as storytelling circles and visual charters. The community co-owned knowledge and research outputs: community leaders were credited as primary authors on public reports, and the community retained access to all data for local advocacy. Youth Researcher at the final event: "We didn't just learn how air sensors work; we built a monitor network that proved to the local council why our street has high asthma rates. This data belongs to our community."

The initiative established a permanent Community Research Advisory Group and a Community Engagement Charter. This structure ensures institutional accountability and sustained relationships that extend beyond short-term grant cycles.

Use these questions to evaluate your practice:

1. Asset-based framing and epistemic humility: How can you shift your public engagement design from addressing “community deficits” (what communities lack) to recognising, valuing, and resourcing existing community wealth, cultural knowledge, and expertise?
    
2. Redistributive labour: What administrative, financial, or bureaucratic burdens (e.g., scheduling, room bookings, ethics forms, report writing) can you absorb in your institutional role to protect racialised community partners from uncompensated labour?
    
3. Financial autonomy and structural power: What changes would be required in your department or institution to transfer real financial control—such as direct core funding or participatory budgeting—to community partners?