What a community research link worker is
A community expert with a research remit
The role defined: its five aims, what it is not, and where it sits on the ladder of participation.
Definition
A community research link worker is a paid member of a research team who comes from the community the study serves. They use their community standing and knowledge to shape, reach and explain the research. They do not need a research qualification. They are trained, supported and supervised.
The five aims of the role
The IBISES paper sets five aims. Read them as the test of whether a post is a link worker post or something wearing the name.
Aims
- Increase awareness of research opportunities inside under-served communities.
- Empower community members to take an active role in research and in their community's health.
- Increase research participation by co-designing research that fits the culture.
- Co-create long-term, reciprocal relationships between academic teams and communities.
- Increase the representation of marginalised communities in research teams through capacity building.
What the role is not
Four near neighbours, and the difference
- Not a participant. Taking part in a study is not involvement. A link worker is on the team.
- Not a public involvement representative on a committee. That role advises at set points. A link worker does the work: recruiting, collecting, analysing.
- Not an unpaid volunteer. The role is paid in cash, at a rate agreed in writing, for hours agreed in writing.
- Not a junior academic. The role brings community expertise. It does not require a research qualification, and it does not carry an academic grade.
Why the name matters
Similar roles exist under other names: community researcher, peer researcher, community champion, lived experience research link worker. The IBISES team chose "community research link worker" deliberately. The name marks a distinction between community researchers and academic researchers, so that expectations stay realistic. It also avoids a false hierarchy. The community role is not a stepping stone version of the academic one. It is a different expertise.
Other terms travel better in some settings. In aphasia and mental health research, "lived experience research link worker" is used for a person with lived experience of the condition who joins the team. The method is the same. Only the community of origin changes.
Where the role sits on the ladder of participation
Arnstein's ladder of citizen participation, adapted for research, runs from manipulation at the bottom to citizen control at the top. The middle rungs are informing, consultation and placation: the community is told, asked, or softened. Partnership and delegated power sit above them.
Three tests that show where a post really sits
- Who sets the question? If the community cannot change the research question, the post is below partnership.
- Who decides how the protocol runs in the community? If the link worker has real influence over recruitment, adaptation and interpretation, the post is above consultation.
- Who is in the room when the decision is made? If the link worker hears about decisions after they are taken, the post is informing.
A post that fails all three is a community engagement post with a research title. Say so, kindly, before you accept it.
The role in practice
Across four studies, link workers did the following work.
- Recruitment. Using faith networks, community organisations, word of mouth and existing relationships to invite people.
- Co-design. Shaping questions, adapting language, choosing venues, arranging culturally appropriate food, advising on timing.
- Data collection. Co-facilitating focus groups, running sessions, providing language support, helping with devices and forms.
- Support. One-to-one help with tasks such as taking photographs, writing captions, using technology and meeting a deadline.
- Analysis. Naming themes, explaining cultural meaning, challenging an interpretation that would misread the community.
- Dissemination. Presenting at conferences, curating exhibitions, speaking to policymakers, feeding results back to the community.
What the team owes you
Non-negotiables
- A written agreement: role, hours, rate, period, supervisor, and what happens if the study changes.
- Training before the first task, not after it.
- A named person who answers your questions within a working week.
- Regular supervision, including a private space to raise a conflict between community interests and study requirements.
- Payment in cash, not vouchers, unless you ask otherwise.
- Feedback on what your contribution changed.
- Credit where credit is due: authorship, acknowledgement, or a presentation in your own name.
If any of these is missing, the role is not ready. Raise it before you start. The page Pay, time and agreements gives the detail.
The evidence behind this page
The definition, the five aims, the naming rationale and the ladder argument come from Fryer and colleagues (2025), the IBISES model paper in Research Involvement and Engagement. The lived experience variant comes from the Brown CGM-SMI programme development grant, which adapted CRLW materials for people with severe mental illness. Both sources are in the reference library.