“If the funders said to me that I have to dress in orange, I would dress in orange”: findings from qualitative interviews on researchers’ experiences of public involvement

Abstract Background Public involvement is increasingly mandated in health and medical research in the UK. With a push for its implementation from major funding bodies over the past few decades, we aimed to understand its current role in research through the lens of researchers – has it become embedded into their research or is it mostly a tokenistic exercise? In this qualitative interview project, we add to the growing body of literature on this topic by exploring researchers’ experiences with public involvement to better understand their views, motivations and attitudes towards these practices. Methods In 2025, 15 semi-structured online interviews were conducted with biomedical researchers in the NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre about their experiences of public involvement. The interviews were conducted for evaluation purposes and were carried out by undergraduate medical students as part of their research methods training. Thematic and inductive analysis was used to identify key themes across the data. The project was supported by a community partner, who helped in the development of the interview guide and data analysis. Results Funding mandates played a significant role in researchers’ motivations for conducting public involvement and appear to have created a distinction between an imposed model of public involvement, in which it is ‘unreflective’ and ‘box-ticking’, and an organic model in which it is ‘sincere’ and ‘meaningful’. Participants highlighted the discrepancies between funders’ expectations and the realities of academic research, including the limited resources available for public involvement. The feasibility and desirability of public involvement in different research areas was also questioned, especially in non-clinical research. Although researchers frequently reported that doing public involvement made them see the value of it, most of the impacts they identified were intangible rather than tangible. Conclusions Strengthening meaningful public involvement requires further investment from funders and institutions, along with a more tailored approach for different research areas rather than a ‘one-size-fits-all’ orientation. We support calls for an expanded view of impact that treats it as a dialogue between researchers and the public rather than an intervention with measurable effects.