Building safe, connected spaces in distributed research communities – Reflections from HDR UK and Dr Fabio Fasoli

The challenges of building an inclusive distributed community 

When developing HDR UK’s Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) strategy, we realised that building a truly inclusive community is uniquely challenging in a distributed research institute like ours, where people span multiple universities, sectors and disciplines.  

We wanted to get a clear picture of the diversity and inclusiveness of our whole community but needed to tailor our approach to a distributed context. To do so, we reviewed how other distributed or membership based organisations gather insights on their community and identified many approaches we could learn from, ranging from the use of sector-wide datasets to profile / lived experience surveys.  

Based on these learnings we ran a community-wide survey, which has given us a better understanding of the experience of our community, including how well our onboarding is working, their sense of belonging and their awareness of available support. We have also drawn on research exploring practices that help community members feel supported, connected, and genuinely included.  

We recently invited Dr Fabio Fasoli, social psychologist and chair of the University of Surrey’s Rainbow Network, to discuss his research exploring inclusion practices across academia and beyond, with a particular focus on LGBTQ inclusion in STEM.  Read on for a summary of our conversation.  

What have you learnt about the LGBTQ+ inclusion practices across academia and in STEM?   

The study was motivated by the challenges experienced by LGBTQ+ individuals within STEM fields and the need to reassess institutional practices amid a climate of shifting societal attitudes. We examined what institutions say they are doing and what practices staff were aware of, via an analysis of information available on UK higher education institutions webpages and follow-up survey and interviews with the LGBTQ+ community and EDI colleagues. Several practices were consistently surfaced.  

Anti‑discrimination policies were almost universal, perhaps unsurprising given legal obligations under the Equality Act (2010). Similarly, gender‑neutral facilities were also commonly mentioned, likely reflecting current public debates and pending national guidance. More unexpected, but central to the findings, was the role of LGBTQ+ staff networks.  While widely present, these varied in form, visibility, and influence. Practices that participants reported as less visible included showcasing inclusivity when advertising jobs or outwardly communicating LGBTQ+ inclusion commitments.  

Exploring the theme of support in more detail, what have you learnt about peoples’ experiences of LGBTQ+ inclusion practices?  

Participants shared rich insights about their lived experiences, revealing three core messages: 

• Safe spaces – People want more than policies. They want environments where they can show up authentically in daily interactions.  

• Meaningful engagement – A recurring theme was the disconnect between institutional policies or inclusion commitments and LGBTQ+ staff feeling heard in a meaningful way.  

• Trained, active allies – Training and allyship emerged as crucial. Participants emphasised the importance of colleagues (allies) who understand the issues and actively support inclusion. 

How do your findings, that predominantly focus on academic settings, translate for a distributed community, such as HDR UK, or any organisation working to build a sense of belonging? 

Although my research is based in higher education, the insights translate well to other environments, including distributed research communities like HDR UK.  Visibility and support still matter, even when teams are remote or spread across multiple institutions.   

People need to know where support is and how to access it. This includes when working with stakeholders, collaborators and industry partners. What people are really asking for is support and safe spaces regardless of whether we are in one place or working across different contexts, sectors or spaces. And these spaces don’t have to be physical – they can be virtual or network-based, provided they offer safety and accessibility. Similarly, while our research focused on the LGBTQ+ community, many of our findings would apply across minoritised groups.  

As chair of the Rainbow Network at the University of Surrey, what tips would you share on establishing and supporting a successful LGBTQ+ network? 

Our research confirmed that networks are vitally important to inclusion, but their form varies dramatically. Some institutions have well‑embedded networks with links to executive sponsors, EDI teams and committees. Others are grassroots, volunteer‑led groups, passionate but unsupported, lacking institutional links, resources, or influence. 

Both models have strengths and challenges, but the key difference is ability to influence decision-making. Where networks are empowered to shape policies, training, and community support, engagement feels genuine and impactful.  

In my experience as chair, I would highlight two critical factors. The first is transparent, two‑way communication. I prioritise openness in my role which often acts as the bridge between the institution and the community, sharing decisions and inviting feedback. Secondly, I have recognised that not everyone participates in the same way. Facilitating diverse forms of participation makes networks more accessible. 

In addition, allies play a powerful role, but institutions must balance ally engagement with the protection of LGBTQ+‑only spaces. At Surrey, we have a two‑channel approach – a Rainbow Network for LGBTQ+ staff only and a separate allies’ network. Allies are asked to complete LGBTQ+ awareness training, ensuring they can engage with intention and understanding while preserving the safety and integrity of LGBTQ+ only spaces. 

Finally, role models are important, especially in fields where there is under-representation, such as STEM. However, there is a risk of role modelling becoming performative. Authenticity is key – anyone can be a good role model by demonstrating a genuine, supportive attitude to the LGBTQ+ community in their everyday actions. By working together, we can make inclusion a lived experience, not just a policy. 

You can read more about Dr Fasoli’s research online and follow HDR UK’s progress, as we draw on our community survey findings and wider good practice, to create more inclusive research communities in which everyone, whether part of or collaborating with us, knows where to find guidance, resources and support.