Behavioural Research that listens: Let’s have a proper chat, shall we?

PESI goes beyond simple consultation. It encompasses a spectrum of approaches—from informing the public, to consulting, involving, collaborating, and ultimately empowering communities in decision-making. This spectrum moves beyond the traditional model of research as a one-way transfer of knowledge, towards more dynamic, collaborative, and engaging processes that enable mutual learning and collective knowledge production.

When applied thoughtfully, PESI enhances the scientific and ethical quality of behavioural research. It ensures research questions reflect real-world priorities and align with  different communities’ need and values, and in doing so, improves the design and feasibility of interventions, and promotes uptake of research findings into policy and practice. PESI fosters transparency, accountability, and shared ownership, which are critical for effective implementation and lasting change.

PESI also helps to address a fundamental challenge in behavioural research: understanding the complex social, cultural, political and environmental contexts that shape behaviours. Unless it incorporates diverse perspectives, research risks producing interventions that are poorly tailored, culturally insensitive, or that exacerbate existing inequalities. PESI approaches offer pathways or processes to enable behavioural researchers to ground their work in the realities, aspirations, and insights of diverse publics and stakeholders. By involving stakeholders as active partners rather than passive subjects, behavioural research can become a collaborative process that respects community expertise, builds trust, and fosters socially accountable knowledge production.

Despite the clear benefits of PESI, our review highlighted that many behavioural research projects in the UK still apply PESI approaches superficially or inconsistently. Most behavioural research projects employed un-sustained, and in some ways, ‘extractivist’ forms of engagement such as one-off surveys and consultations, with limited efforts to sustain meaningful collaboration throughout the project or to generate mutually beneficial outcomes. Such limited engagement risks perpetuating extractive research practices, where communities are consulted only at the start or at the end of projects, leaving little space for meaningful public influence.

Barriers to effective PESI are multifaceted. Power imbalances between researchers and communities can limit open dialogue, while complex scientific language and institutional cultures may alienate non-experts. Structural challenges, including limited funding, time constraints, and bureaucratic hurdles, further restrict researchers’ ability to embed engagement meaningfully. Marginalised groups who are often the most affected by behavioural interventions and policies remain underrepresented, compounding exclusion and mistrust.

Going back to our two commuters on the train, their interaction exemplifies how some of these structural barriers such as cramped space, rushed time, and excessive noise can hinder effective communication and meaningful engagement.  Equally, their statements indicate that people have not been consulted in ways that would make behaviour change interventions (i.e. environmentally sustainable solutions) practicable.

Encouragingly, promising innovations are emerging. The review highlights a range of creative engagement methods that disrupt traditional researcher-participant dynamics and foster richer, more authentic interactions. Walking interviews, storytelling, play-based activities, and deliberative workshops exemplify approaches that disrupt traditional researcher-participant hierarchies and create participatory spaces where diverse knowledge forms are valued and power is more evenly shared.

For instance, storytelling enables participants to share their lived experiences in their own terms, fostering empathy and shifting researchers’ roles towards active listening and facilitation. Similarly, play-based activities use tactile and visual metaphors to stimulate reflection and dialogue, enabling collaborative sense-making across diverse groups.

Moreover, deliberative methods, such as citizens’ juries, consensus-building, and co-production workshops, provide structured spaces for deeper engagement on complex or contested issues. In health research for example, these methods have helped communities co-create policy recommendations grounded in their values and priorities. In environmental research, co-production processes have embedded citizen insights into long-term stewardship plans, enhancing both procedural legitimacy and community ownership.

To move beyond isolated success stories, behavioural researchers must consider integrating PESI across all relevant stages of research—from agenda-setting and design to implementation and knowledge mobilisation. Early involvement ensures that research questions reflect community priorities rather than researchers’ assumptions. Continuous collaboration helps tailor interventions to local contexts and enhances feasibility and acceptability. Finally, involving communities in interpreting findings and sharing results supports transparency and sustained impact.

Achieving this requires more than methodological adaptation. It demands cultural and institutional shifts towards valuing community expertise, investing in capacity building, and ensuring long-term engagement that extends beyond project funding cycles.  To do this, researchers need training in PESI approaches, and a deeper understanding and appreciation on the importance of Equality, Diversity, Inclusion, and Intersectionality (EDII) principles in these approaches. Behavioural researchers also need time and resources to build and maintain relationships with communities. Institutions and funders should also play their role by recognising PESI as a core component of rigorous research and providing frameworks, guidance, adequate time, space, and financial support to embed these practices sustainably – from research pre-planning to knowledge mobilisation.

Beyond practical benefits, PESI reflects a broader ethical imperative. Behavioural research that excludes or marginalises communities risks reinforcing inequalities and undermining social justice. To advance equity and empowerment in behavioural research, we need to recognise, acknowledge, and practice inclusive and participatory approaches that treat community members as rights-holders and knowledge co-creators. 

Behavioural research cannot claim to serve the public good while sidelining the very publics it aims to benefit. PESI approaches are not just tools or add-ons. They offer a paradigm shift to produce ethical, relevant, and impactful behavioural research evidence. By embracing PESI as integral to research, behavioural researchers can foster trust, enhance knowledge co-production, contribute to policy creation, and drive interventions that are more responsive to real-world needs and complexities, informed by diverse perspectives. This shift is essential for behavioural research to contribute effectively to impactful change and societal wellbeing.