Citizen research panel has exceeded researchers’ expectations

We reviewed the first six months of the citizen research panel from the researchers’ perspective. Researchers initially approached the panel activities with modest expectations, but collaboration with citizens proved to be a positive surprise. Panelists showed genuine interest in the research topics and were eager to share their views. The collaboration has produced a range of positive outcomes.

“Citizens’ perspectives are a key part of ethical, socially impactful and high-quality research,” says Asta Heikkilä, Clinical Lecturer at the Department of Nursing Science, who worked with the panel in February 2026.

During the first six months, seven panel tasks were carried out, and half of the faculties at the University of Turku made use of the panel. In January 2026, the Science belongs to everyone! project interviewed researchers who had worked with the panel during 2025. Experiences were consistently positive, and participants were described as enthusiastic, well-prepared and constructive contributors.

“Working with the citizen science panel was rewarding and purposeful. Participants had familiarised themselves carefully with the preparatory materials, and the discussion was active and constructive,” Heikkilä explains.

Working with the panel offers an opportunity to develop research from new perspectives. Researchers particularly appreciated the opportunity to hear from people of different ages through the panel.

The panel was also seen as an easy and efficient way to involve citizens in the research process. The panel tasks carried out have covered different stages of the research process, from defining research topics to communicating results.

Heikkilä describes how a group assembled from the panel provided feedback on the Western Finland cooperation area’s nursing science research programme for 2026–2030:

“Feedback was sought on the clarity, comprehensibility and relevance of the updated research programme, as well as on how the client and patient perspective is reflected in it.”

Heikkilä describes the impact of the collaboration as positive:

“Based on the points raised in the discussion, certain sections and concepts in the research programme will be clarified and refined. In addition, the importance of organising the implementation of the programme and monitoring its progress will be highlighted in the feedback to the steering group.”

The interviewed researchers also reported highly positive experiences overall. The collaboration had, for example, generated new understanding and perspectives on the research topic and research ethics, provided new ideas and concrete suggestions for developing the research, and helped improve research communication.

The enthusiasm of the participants also made researchers more aware of public interest in their topics, encouraging them to consider further use of the panel and other forms of interaction with citizens. There was also hope that the wider research community would be inspired to make use of the panel.