PPI Shared Learning Group for PhD Research 27/02/2026

Aim of the session: A masterclass in what not to do when facilitating a workshop. We began with a five-minute mock PPI workshop that deliberately showcased poor facilitation and some common pitfalls. Afterwards, we reflected as a group on what went wrong and discussed practical ways to improve facilitation.

Not all advice here should be taken as fact- these notes simply reflect the advice and shared learnings within the group. For more advice, please refer to https://ppinetwork.ie/ or email ppi@ucc.ie or your local PPI Ignite office.

Mock Workshop

• After the mock workshop, participants of the SLG were asked how it felt watching the interaction.
  • Disconcerting, tense, painful, awkward
• The group was then asked to identify features of poor facilitation

Features of poor facilitation showcased in the mock workshop

• Not welcoming the group or thanking them for their time
• No time given for introductions or building rapport
• Launching straight into a jargon-heavy research presentation and not explaining it when asked: “you don’t need to know that”
  • It was suggested that this would deter people from asking any more questions
  • Advice given: don’t expect PPI contributors to have detailed knowledge of the research area, “meet them where they’re at”
  • Try not to make assumptions about knowledge level, as oftentimes, PPI contributors can be anxious coming into a research space and sharing their opinions
• No preparatory material was sent to PPI contributors ahead of time to bring them up to speed on the area
• No clear roles were defined for the PPI contributors:
  • It was suggested that before a session/at the beginning of a session, PPI contributors would like to the following: who the researchers are, why PPI contributors are here, what’s needed from them, is it okay for them to contribute, what are the goals of the conversation?
• Facilitator talking over PPI contributors
• Not respecting the limits or the boundaries of the group- no effort to address discomfort or work around the time commitments of PPI contributors
• Inappropriate body language – facilitator was on her phone, not listening actively
• Not bringing ideas and people together (disagreements)
  • One PPI contributor was overbearing, and the facilitator did not encourage a balanced view
• Not encouraging input
• Poor time management
• No thank you, no closure at the end, not checking in to see how everyone felt at the end
• Conversation was very one-sided

• Question asked: How to deal with challenging personalities? Those who may be overbearing, intimidating etc.
  • Advice given: The facilitator can reflect on the theme in question aloud and then specifically opening the floor up to others to encourage input from other people. Body language can help with this, for example, looking around the room to encourage other voices
  • Make it clear that you’d like to hear form those who may not have gotten a chance to share yet
  • Set a time limit for each agenda item and try and stick to it
  • Addressing issues with people during short breaks in private or after the meeting
  • Suggest breaks if the situation escalates
  • Remind people that you may only have a short time for discussion and that it is important to hear from everyone

• Question asked: How to address the power imbalances? People feeling alienated because they don’t know the “research lingo”
  • One researcher writes research terms in plain English on a flipchart, like a glossary, and constantly updates it for PPI contributors to refer to when needed