What partnership participants say about trust, expectations and power

Updated Sep 07, 2026

Updated, 7 September 2026: We checked the complete paper and separated participants’ accounts from causal claims. The proposed trust matrix is a conceptual interpretation, not an evaluated intervention or a measure of how quickly trust improves.

What the study examined

Catherine McConnell, Susan Smith, Kevwe Olomu, Elizabeth King, Oindrilla Ghosh and Claire Hamshire examine student-staff partnership experiences at four UK universities. Eight trained student researchers conducted narrative interviews with 22 staff and 19 students who had participated in partnership work.

Participants volunteered through institutional invitations. Interviews were one-off accounts lasting 30–60 minutes, with no fixed question schedule. Student and staff researchers compared themes across institutions and reflected on their own positions within them.

The authors propose six connected components around trust: realistic expectations, power dynamics, impact, empathy, inclusivity and authenticity. Accounts include disappointment when roles differed from recruitment expectations, difficulties around workload, and the value participants placed on being heard and seeing contributions used.

These findings concern a small, self-selecting group already involved in partnerships. The paper does not measure the effect of a particular agreement, action log or staff training programme. Its conceptual matrix should not become a checklist that certifies trust or proves that power differences have disappeared.

Questions for partnership teams

Our suggested starting point is to compare the invitation with the work students actually do. Are the responsibilities, time demands and decision boundaries clear? Can participants raise a mismatch without feeling that their place is at risk?

Make room for disagreement about both the process and the outcome. An account of being heard is valuable, but it does not establish that all participants had equal influence or that people who declined the role would have felt included.

If a team changes its arrangements, ask participants about the result and retain critical accounts as well as positive ones. The governance checklist can support planning for responsibilities and reporting. These are our local review suggestions. The study does not establish that more comment analysis or visible action alone builds trust faster.

Reference

McConnell, C., Smith, S., Olomu, K., King, E., Ghosh, O. and Hamshire, C. (2025). ‘My input was actually being listened to and could lead to real change’: Developing trust through student voice in student-staff partnerships. Student Engagement in Higher Education Journal, 7(1). Open paper.