One of the first challenges when conducting developmental research in schools is identifying appropriate institutions to approach. While permission is essential, gaining it can be both time-consuming and difficult (Milnes & Kendal, 2012). For early career researchers, this is often compounded by limited networks or professional standing, which may affect confidence and access (Oates & Riaz, 2016). Schools commonly decline requests due to time constraints, perceived burden, concerns about student wellbeing or a lack of alignment with institutional priorities (Brevik, 2013).

Requests are often ignored when initial contact is made with the wrong staff member, making it vital to identify the appropriate point of contact. This task is complicated by variations in schools and district structures. While permission is typically granted by the headteacher, some schools, specifically in larger districts, require approval from governing bodies (Bonnell et al., 2018). Researchers may also need consent from classroom teachers (Midford et al., 2000). Contacting the wrong member of staff can be seen as a misuse of time and reduce the likelihood of participation (Rice et al., 2007). Navigating this process often involves multiple rounds of communication, delaying timelines, especially when working across multiple sites (Alibali & Nathan, 2010).

The proposed public engagement model within Scout and Girlguiding communities departs from the hierarchical processes typical of the school-based recruitment often seen in psychological, developmental research. Instead, decision-making is centralised in a single group leader with authority to respond. This challenges the assumption, often implicit in developmental research, that access must be negotiated through bureaucratic, institutionally mediated routes (Alibali & Nathan, 2010). Studies involving Scouting and Girlguiding movements report significantly higher participation rates (Ievers-Landis et al., 2005), highlighting the connection between procedural simplicity and research feasibility.

Conducting research in schools also requires caregiver consent, and child assent, a time-consuming process for both researchers and teachers (Bonnel et al., 2018; Lamb et al., 2001; Lonergan & Cumming, 2017; Pincus & Friedman, 2004). Teachers typically become intermediaries to help obtain consent, which can discourage involvement despite safeguarding intentions (Alibali & Nathan, 2010). Researchers may also encounter resistance from caregivers (Edwards et al., 2023), and the need to repeat this process across multiple schools to meet recruitment quotas.

By shifting data collection to public engagement sessions within Scouting and Girlguiding settings for instance, the administrative burden on teachers is therefore removed. Importantly though, this approach does not simply transfer responsibilities to other gatekeepers but gives researchers greater autonomy to liaise directly with parents on ethical matters. Such engagement promotes transparency, builds trust and supports higher consent return rates (see ‘Method’ for procedural detail).

One significant barrier to conducting research in schools is teachers’ hesitancy to participate, often due to growing pressure to deliver intensive curricula and meet performance standards (National Institute of Health Research, 2021). In the UK, national exams occur at key developmental stages – Year 2 (optional), Year 6, Year 11 and Year 13 – which are critical for research but often inaccessible due to exam preparation. These pressures have worsened post-Covid, with learning loss equivalent to one-fifth of a school year, disproportionately affecting children from less-educated families (Engzell et al., 2021). Therefore, research may be viewed as a distraction or additional burden, particularly given teachers’ increasing workloads and the negative impact on their wellbeing (Creagh et al., 2023), making extensive testing or observation appear impractical. Another barrier is the perceived lack of relevance; teachers often see research as misaligned with their priorities, describing it as abstract, unclear or overly complex (Mediha, 2006), with the challenges outweighing any perceived benefits (Midford et al., 2000).

These constraints highlight the value of alternative settings for data collection where participation is framed more positively. By recruiting and collecting data within public engagement sessions, the institutional pressures schools face is removed. Voluntary leaders at Scouting and Girlguiding communities often welcome research, viewing it as enriching and educational. Activities tied to badge progression or programme aims are especially well received, aligning with the ethos of these groups (Asensio-Ramón et al., 2021; Shapiro et al., 2015). Reframing research as added value rather than disruption encourages collaboration and supports more flexible, dialogic engagement.

Even with consent secured, logistical barriers often persist in school-based developmental research. School calendars, filled with exams, assemblies and extracurriculars, complicate planning and limit researcher flexibility (Alibali & Nathan, 2010; Midford et al., 2000). Access to certain groups may be restricted during the school week or term, and coordinating across institutions with differing schedules further disrupts timelines (Harackiewicz & Barron, 2004). While patience is essential, these demands can be difficult to reconcile with grant deadlines and publication cycles.

By contrast, our approach shifts research into afterschool clubs such as Scout and Girlguiding groups, which operate on regular weekly schedules, typically in early evenings. Free from national assessments and rigid term structures, these settings allow advanced planning without disrupting core activities. This consistency enables adaptable scheduling, repeated contact and multi-site delivery. Organised youth groups offer distinct logistical advantages, making them a more feasible context for developmental research (Mahoney et al., 2005).

Public engagement events provide a compelling alternative to school-based research, offering not only logistical advantages but also broader social value. They support inclusive participation, promote diversity in research and encourage researchers to engage meaningfully with the wider community (Devonshire & Hathway, 2014). While still an emerging method, successful examples exist. McDonald et al. (2023), for instance, describe ‘Summer Scientist Week’ at the University of Nottingham, where research with children aged 4–11 is integrated into interactive science activities.

These events benefit participants as well. Children involved in public engagement report increased enthusiasm, curiosity and understanding of science (Blaxland et al., 2021; Idema & Patrick, 2019; Jensen & Buckley, 2014; Young et al., 2017). Indirect evidence also suggests long-term academic benefits, including enhanced retention (McLaughlin et al., 2018). Public engagement may also support long-term aspirations in underrepresented groups; McDonald et al. (2023) and Kiernan et al. (2023) highlight its role in encouraging young girls to pursue STEM education.

Institutions also benefit. Public engagement strengthens community trust, supports societal impact agendas and aids in recruiting students and staff (Beere et al., 2011; Devonshire & Hathway, 2014). It promotes a scientifically informed public and helps ensure that research remains grounded in real-world needs, all with minimal institutional risk.

Ethical approval was sought for both public engagement activities and experimental research through one ethics application, granted by the University of Nottingham, School of Psychology Ethics Committee (Reference: F1563). Gatekeeper consent was obtained from Scouting and Guiding leaders. Prior to the event, a researcher visited each group to conduct a short talk to families explaining the nature of the session and when it would be held, allowing them to ask questions and opt out by choosing not to attend the night of science. Opt-in parental consent was then obtained for data collection via a Qualtrics form sent to parents. Finally, opt-out consent was used for public engagement activities. Young people for whom we did not have written parental consent could therefore still take part in the outreach programme, but their data was not collected. This approach respects autonomy and inclusivity, ensuring that participation in educational activities is not contingent on data contribution, while still upholding ethical standards of informed consent and transparency. Importantly, using this method, parental consent was approximately 70 per cent for participation within the full session, which, in addition to giving consent for the young people to have their data recorded during the session, also included questions regarding demographic information such as age, sex, Index of Multiple Deprivation (obtained through postcodes), the AQ-child (Auyeung et al., 2008) and the SWAN (Swanson et al., 2012).

Recruitment for the sessions was completed largely through word of mouth and online advertising via social media platforms, with Scout and Girlguiding groups opting into the sessions, rather than being approached by researchers. This method has led to extremely positive leader engagement, both in communications prior to the sessions and in leaders’ engagement during sessions.

We propose an outreach programme, similar in structure to that proposed by McDonald et al. (2023), to facilitate data collection with such organisations. Throughout the course of their normal Scouting and Girlguiding evening, children rotate through multiple activity bases designed to be both engaging and educational. The programme aims to boost research participation while also offering a fun learning experience. Each activity base is designed to encourage engagement and interest in science and to align with badge requirements. These bases consist of 1) a gamified research study; 2) a scientific learning activity; and 3) a science-based conversation.

Young people rotate between these three bases during the session, lasting approximately 20 minutes, and catering to groups of approximately 30 young people (10 young people per base). The structure of these sessions can be adapted based on the age of the group, duration of sessions, the research being conducted and the expertise of the researchers. For example, in groups that meet for only one hour, it may be appropriate to have only two bases; and for groups with small numbers of participants, some components may be combined as a whole-group activity. In the instances where spare time is left, researchers can run a group game to mirror the normal structure of Scouting and Girlguiding evenings. This flexibility allows for delivery across a wide range of ages and group sizes. Furthermore, once the initial research project has been completed, the outreach programme activities and experiment can be adapted allowing researchers to return to groups on multiple occasions, without repetition of activities.