“All research projects should have a Tony”: Peer research reflections on the Socio-Legal Studies Association Conference 2026
Over the past eighteen months, Revolving Doors members have been undertaking joint interviews as peer researchers alongside academic researchers from the Institute for Crime and Justice Policy (ICPR) at Birkbeck, University of London, as part of their ‘Lived Experience of the Law’ project. This project aimed to understand the experiences of individuals who have been through either Crown, Magistrates or Family Court proceedings.
On 31 March 2026, peer researcher Tony attended the Socio-Legal Studies Association (SLSA) conference in Brighton alongside two senior research fellows at ICPR. There, he co-presented two sessions – one about the research methods used in Lived Experience of the Law, and the other about the main research findings. The room was filled with seasoned socio-legal scholars, and international experts. They presented data from the project, our methodology and outcomes and sat on a panel alongside researchers who had delivered presentations on two other projects for a Q&A panel. Here are Tony’s reflections on the day and on the impact of lived experience involvement in research:
I think that there is a particular magic to presenting at a conference like the SLSA – I’m not sure how else to describe the feelings I had before or at the event. We had prepared our slides, had meetings to rehearse our key messages and our timings, so by the time we presented, all angles were covered and I for one felt quite relaxed and confident. However, despite the confidence that comes with all the preparation I still felt some nervousness at the prospect of the inevitable “challenging questions” which came thick and fast and sometimes wrapped up in indecipherable academic language. I was particularly glad to be in the presence of two very experienced individuals at this stage who recognised when things were getting overly technical and jumped in to rescue me! Surprisingly, quite a few of the questions we directed specifically to me for some reason. I think this was because it was the first time the audience had even considered the benefits of co-production as a research method.
Something unexpected happened during the Q&A. A researcher from Sweden raised her hand. She was curious and seemed slightly hesitant when she said, “Your research outcomes are fascinating. But what struck me most is your process. I have to be honest, academics back in Sweden just don’t do joint research with lived experience researchers. After listening to your presentations, I am going to change that”.
From the questions it seems clear to me that among the many people who study legal inequality, access to justice and systemic failure for a living, peer researchers really don’t get considered. The very people at the heart of the systems are absent from the research tables and project teams. It isn’t malicious. It isn’t even conscious exclusion. I think it’s simply tradition. The person who has actually lived the problem is often reduced to a case study, a voice in a transcript which is anonymised and analysed from a distance.
In closing the afternoon session, the host concluded that “All research projects should have a Tony” – not meaning me! Meaning that peer researchers should be the norm and not the exception.
To sum up how I felt after the event, I am reminded of the final question that was asked during the Q&A by a visiting professor from America (or was it Canada?). He was interested to know about how I felt being part of the research team.
In the moment, my answer was that it had been a lot of really hard work in preparing to join the team. Firstly, qualifying as a peer researcher with the support of the Revolving Doors, and then stepping into the curious and unfamiliar world of academic research. However, all the hard work has paid off. I’m looking forward the next phase of the project and I’m really proud to be helping, along with other Revolving Doors members, to hopefully initiate and be part of the changes that will ultimately benefit everyone. A week after the conference as I am writing this blog and reflecting on the event, I think that my hurried response is still valid.
It seems clear to me that the question can no longer be “Should we include lived experience?” but “Why haven’t we included lived experience already?” The Swedish academic’s honesty revealed to me and to all the people gathered in the conference room a recognition that historically, researchers have been studying communities without truly sitting beside them.
The really good news is that there’s a small but growing shift. Organisations like Revolving Doors and places like the ICPR recognise the benefits that peer researchers can add to projects. This really matters because the people who’ve lived through something are very often the closest to the solutions. When you bring in this kind of experience, you’re not just being inclusive, you’re actually making the work smarter, more authentic and more likely to stick. That’s why co-production is so important.
