Live intervention scenarios
Below are common live public engagement scenarios informed by real practitioner experiences, paired with scripts you can use and adapt immediately.
For each scenario, you will have 2 options of facilitation:
- Option 1 is low-confrontation and tailored for junior or precariously employed facilitators.
- Option 2 enforces direct boundaries. It is a formal, assertive hard stop for facilitators with seniority.
Scenario A: "What-about-ism" in focus groups
The situation: During a workshop on health equity, a participant interrupts a Global Majority contributor, arguing that focusing on race excludes white working-class struggles.
Why is it harmful? The specific concern about racial equity is diluted and invalidated, leaving the racialised participant isolated.
|
|---|
Possible responses to scenario A:
Option 1:
"Thank you for raising class inequalities—they are deeply important. In today's session, we are specifically examining how race intersects with these systems. Let's return to the point raised by [Name] regarding racial barriers in health access."
Option 2:
"We have explicitly established this session to focus on racial equity. Shifting the focus away from racial harm undermines the purpose of our agreed space. We will re-centre [Name]'s point now."
⚠️Backlash warning: Setting firm boundaries around scope may cause participants to accuse the team of being "divisive." Ensure co-facilitators are ready to support group management. |
|---|
Scenario B: Invalidation of lived experience
The situation: A senior academic dismisses a community member's account of institutional racism as "anecdotal" and demands "rigorous statistical proof."
Why is it harmful? Demanding quantitative data to validate personal or community accounts of racism enforces epistemic injustice and academic gatekeeping. It delegitimises community expertise, treats systemic harm as mere "opinion," and creates an unequal hierarchy where only university-sanctioned metrics are granted authority. This invalidates minoritised contributors and protects the institution from accountability by setting unattainable evidential thresholds for lived realities.
|
|---|
Possible responses to scenario B:
Option 1:
"In this project, community lived experience is recognised as expert evidence alongside quantitative data. Both are necessary to understand systemic barriers."
Option 2:
"Our framework explicitly rejects treating community expertise as secondary or 'subjective.' We treat lived experience accounts as valid empirical evidence for institutional change."
⚠️Backlash warning: Refusing to allow tone-policing or defending lived experience as empirical evidence may prompt defensive reactions, accusations of "bias," or claims that academic rigour is being compromised. Be prepared to re-anchor the discussion in agreed project research governance and trauma-informed ground rules. |
|---|
Scenario C: Assumptions of (in)competence
The situation: During a public panel or Q&A, an audience member or fellow speaker expresses surprise at a racialised expert's credentials or authority, or makes patronising comments.
Why is it harmful? It undermines the authority, expertise, and dignity of racialised experts in front of an audience.
|
|---|
Possible responses to scenario C:
Option 1:
"To be clear, [Name] is leading this research because of their extensive expertise in [Field]. Let's make sure our questions focus directly on their findings."
Option 2:
"That question seems to assume who holds knowledge in this space. In our project, community expertise and academic expertise hold equal importance."
⚠️Backlash warning: Correcting patronising comments or asserting a minoritised expert's authority publicly can trigger subtle defensiveness, passive resistance, or post-session complaints regarding "facilitator hostility". Ensure co-facilitators validate the speaker's standing immediately and log any audience pushback. |
|---|
Scenario D: Explicit hostility or racist remarks from the audience
The situation: During a public event or open Q&A, an attendee makes explicitly racist, anti-immigrant, or hateful comments.
Why is it harmful? The space becomes unsafe for minoritised attendees and staff.
|
|---|
Possible responses to scenario D:
Option 1:
"Our priority is to keep this space safe for everyone present. If you cannot engage respectfully with our ground rules, I will ask you to step out of this session."
Option 2:
"I am stepping in as facilitator. That comment violates our ground rules. We do not permit discriminatory or hostile language in this space. I am pausing the session."
⚠️Backlash warning: Executing an immediate hard stop or removing a hostile attendee can trigger verbal escalation, claims of "censorship" or "violating free speech," or post-event complaints to university leadership. Alert campus security and venue staff beforehand, and complete a formal incident log immediately. |
|---|
Scenario E: Senior leadership panic and political backlash
The situation: Following public pushback, social media controversy, or fear of a negative news headline, university leadership panics. Senior management pressures junior Public Engagement Professionals to suddenly "tone down," censor, or abandon co-created racially equitable public engagement activities mid-project.
Why is it harmful? Low-seniority practitioners are held to impossibly high institutional standards to deliver "massive culture change." Still, they are left completely exposed, unsupported, and expected to absorb public and community harm on their own.
|
|---|
Possible responses to scenario E:
Option 1:
"I understand leadership's concern regarding external visibility. However, pulling back or censoring this activity midway breaks our ethical trust with community partners and causes serious institutional harm. Let's look at our institutional Public Sector Equality Duty commitments and agree on an executive communications strategy that shields staff from public exposure."
Option 2:
"The burden of managing national political friction or institutional reputational risk is collective. If senior leadership wishes to modify this public engagement project, that decision and its rationale must be communicated directly by senior management to community partners, rather than expecting junior staff to absorb that fallout."
⚠️Backlash warning: Pushing back against executive pressure or demanding that senior management communicate cancellations directly can create institutional tension, career friction, or administrative isolation. Engage local trade union representatives and senior institutional backers to protect junior staff. |
|---|
Scenario F: Performative gatekeeping and internal exclusion
The situation: During a project planning session, live panel, or team meeting, a majority practitioner who has built a career around "inclusive engagement" cornered the market on racial equity, but actively undermines, speaks over, or dismisses a racialised colleague.
Why is it harmful? Racial equity terminology is used for individual career advancement, while racialised minority staff are discriminated against, tokenised, or pushed out.
|
|---|
Possible responses to scenario F:
Option 1:
"I want to pause us here. Racial Equity in public engagement is a collective practice, not an individual niche or career asset. [Colleague’s Name] brings critical expertise and lived experience to this topic, and we need to ensure their voice directly shapes this project's direction."
Option 2:
"Doing racial equity work means taking it to heart in our daily interactions with colleagues, not just using it in grant proposals. Let's step back and ensure our internal team dynamics reflect the equity and respect we claim to practice publicly."
⚠️Backlash warning: Calling out internal gatekeeping or performative allyship in team settings can provoke defensive personal attacks, professional alienation, or accusations of "ruining team harmony". Maintain clear written records of team decisions and escalate recurring gatekeeping to department heads. |
|---|
Scenario G: Defensive invalidation in meetings
The situation: During a project meeting or steering committee, a racialised participant or practitioner highlights structural barriers or historical institutional harm. A senior colleague responds defensively ("I feel that you are overly critical of our work”, "That wasn't my intention" or "We shouldn't bring politics into scientific work"), shifting the group's focus away from systemic harm toward managing the senior colleague's emotional distress.
Why is it an institutional failure? Defensive derailment centres white emotional comfort, weaponises professional norms to silence critical feedback, and forces racialised participants into uncompensated emotional labour while structural inequities remain unaddressed.
|
|---|
Strategic responses to scenario G:
Option 1:
"We understand that everyone means well, but we need to focus on the real structural issues at hand. Just because someone didn't intend to cause harm doesn't change the effect on our partners or the project. Let's get back to discussing the specific procedural problem we need to fix.
Option 2:
"Decentring institutional harm by labelling it 'political' or 'aggressive' prevents us from doing rigorous work. Scientific institutions and public engagement don't exist outside history. Addressing structural exclusion is a matter of academic integrity and institutional compliance, not personal conflict. Highlighting institutional failures in this room requires significant energy. Rather than expecting our community contributor to rephrase their lived experience for our comfort, let's step up and focus on how our department will address the issue raised."
⚠️Backlash warning: Refusing to manage or prioritise a senior colleague's emotional distress can lead to claims of "unprofessionalism" or formal grievances. Re-anchor all responses in institutional PSED, REF Research Culture, and Health & Safety compliance duties. |
|---|
Scenario H: Defensive invalidation in online meetings
- The situation: During a hybrid consultation, participants in the Zoom chat leave comments regarding a community presenter's background, while online raised hands are repeatedly ignored in favour of in-person attendees.
- Why is it an institutional failure? When chat goes unmoderated or virtual raised hands are ignored, it signals that online contributors matter less. This often affects community partners who join remotely because of travel, health, or caregiving needs. Treating their participation as an afterthought reinforces the idea that digital presence is just for show and lets institutions keep power instead of sharing it.
|
|---|
Strategic responses to scenario H:
Option 1:
"A reminder to all participants that our chat moderation guidelines apply equally online and in-person. I am pausing in-person comments to take two questions directly from our online Zoom participants."
Option 2:
"We have disabled the chat temporarily due to comments that violate our community ground rules. Online contributors hold equal standing in this project, and we will not proceed until chat etiquette is restored."
⚠️Backlash warning: Disabling chat or correcting online behaviour may lead to attendees leaving the call or complaining of "censorship." Document the incident in your event post-debrief. |
|---|
