17 March 2026
Godwyns Onwuchekwa, Principal Consultant, Global Tapestry Consulting
In an age of open research, relentless metrics and accelerating artificial intelligence, it is tempting to believe that better data will lead to better decisions. Yet anyone working in the knowledge industry knows this is not true. Data may tell us what is happening, but it rarely tells us why. The most consequential insights often sit quietly between the data points: in lived experience, context, history and voices that are rarely captured in spreadsheets or dashboards.
Much of today’s debate focuses on technology — particularly AI — and whether it will replace human labour. I do not think it will. What it will do, nevertheless, is magnify human choices, assumptions and biases. Technology only works as well as the values and contexts we embed within it. Without listening effectively and openly to people, even the most sophisticated systems risk reproducing the worst, not the best, of us.
This is where community engagement matters. It is not a “nice to have” alongside data-driven decision-making; it is the mechanism through which data becomes meaningful. In other words, what lies between the data points is the complimenting and qualifying aspect of quantitative data.
When we collect data, we gather what is measurable: how many, how often, where and when. But much remains unseen. Numbers rarely capture cultural context, historical disadvantage, informal practices, emotional realities or structural inequities. They cannot explain why people behave the way they do, why services are not used, or why policies fall flat on their faces. These are the hidden points between the data: qualitative insights, power dynamics and local knowledge. Ignoring these can lead to superficial or even harmful conclusions.
Addressing this gap requires moving beyond data extraction towards dialogue. Community engagement is about building relationships and trust with a target audience, especially those affected by the concerned activity – research, policy, systems, business models, etc. – to formulate shared interests, values and address needs. To achieve this, there must be an intentionality towards that involvement, and an openness towards co-creating and shaping the questions, interpreting the findings and defining what success looks like. It reframes the ecosystem from transactional to equal partnership, one that demands humility and a willingness to share power.
The value of this approach is well documented. Community engagement improves relevance and decision-making by grounding data in lived reality. For example, in one of Open Data Manchester’s workshops, a local councillor realised that residents’ complaints about bike theft far exceeded police reports, meaning official statistics suggested the problem was minor. Only through dialogue did the gap between recorded data and lived experience become visible, and shed a light on the why. Similarly,public health bodies increasingly recognise that outcomes cannot be understood without accounting for structural factors such as racism, gender inequality and historical exclusion.
Genuine engagement builds trust and legitimacy. People are more likely to accept and support decisions when they feel heard and involved. Policies done to communities often fail; those done with them stand a far better chance. Studies consistently show that trust grows when organisations meet people where they are, act transparently and share decision-making rather than merely consulting at the margins.
Crucially, engagement improves sustainability. Projects informed by local knowledge tend to reflect and address real needs, adapt to constraints and avoid unintended consequences. They last because communities have a stake in them.
The evidence supports this. Researchers overwhelmingly report that involving multiple perspectives is one of the greatest benefits of community-engaged work. Citizen science initiatives show that participation not only widens engagement but improves data quality over time. Organisations that actively engage communities see gains in reputation, legitimacy and impact. These outcomes are not just statistics; they demonstrate what happens when hidden voices are brought into the open.
How do we uncover what lies between the data points?
We should
- Engage at the very early stage and continuously, not after decisions are already made.
- Use mixed methods: pair statistics with interviews, focus groups and storytelling.
- Contextualise data historically and culturally, and explicitly seek, and give room to identify what is missing and whose assumptions are embedded.
- Involve communities directly in collecting and interpreting data.
- Use accessible and familiar language and visuals, rather than opaque technical formats and statistics.
- Close the loop by sharing findings back and showing what changed as a result.
- And above all, avoid assumption — particularly the belief that proximity to academia automatically equals understanding.
These practices are not without challenges. Community engagement takes time, resources and sustained effort. Power imbalances and distrust must be addressed honestly. Marginalised voices do not surface by accident; they require deliberate inclusion and genuine involvement. Otherwise, the cost of not engaging is often higher: wasted resources, failed initiatives, deepened inequities and entrenched distrust
Within scholarly communication, the lesson is particularly clear. Initiatives such aseLife’s Community Ambassador Programme have shown how engaging early-career researchers can surface barriers that metrics alone miss, leading to more inclusive peer-review practices. Creative engagement such as the University of Essex open-access escape rooms has exposed misunderstandings that traditional training fails to address. In each case, listening between the lines transformed outcomes.
Looking ahead, this mindset has profound implications. PREreview’s Inclusive peer review contributing to decolonising scholarly communication has helped researchers see how their work is interpreted across diverse contexts, and by communities often excluded from traditional evaluation
Academic libraries must move beyond service provision and embrace their role as community hubs of knowledge, ensuring research is accessible, interpretable and meaningful beyond academia.
The call to action is simple but demanding. Start now. Engage communities early. Invest in listening as seriously as measurement. Build capacity for interpretation and feedback. And make sure not to confuse community engagement with marketing! Be reflective and regularly ask, what are we not seeing, who isn’t represented? And whose voices are missing? And most importantly, ensure that findings lead to actions.
Data points are powerful. But it is what lies between them: the unspoken, unseen and unheard, that carries substance and determines whether our frameworks, business models, interventions and policies succeed or fail. By engaging communities, we illuminate those hidden points, deepen trust and create more equitable, more relevant, lasting solutions that genuinely serve our scholarly community and society at large.