The Health Inequalities Programme (HIP) of the School of Public Health research celebrated their first Symposium on 17 September. The event, a mix of presentations, break out groups, and a panel discussion, covered two themes “Integrating a health equity lens in research” and “Doing co-research in practice”: we summarize key points below.

With presentations from Naoimh McMahon (Lancaster University), Judy Green (Exeter University), Rebecca Mead (Lancaster University) and Viviana Albani (Newcastle University) and break-out discussions, the first
theme explored understandings of and approaches to research in health inequalities, both across the School of Public Health Research and beyond. Key take-away points from this session were:
• Within the SfPHR, projects have focused on some axes of inequality more than others, and on communities living in poverty.
• Inequalities tend to be conceptualized narrowly in terms of unequal access to resources rather than as unequal relations of power.
• In general, there is more research describing health inequalities than exploring causes, drivers and evaluating what works to reduce them.
• A greater engagement with health inequalities concepts and frameworks throughout the research process would help to strengthen an equity lens.
• What works to reduce inequalities does not necessarily mirror what causes health inequalities.
• The importance of understanding how we construct social `problems’, including health inequalities, as this will have implications on our ability to consider alternative solutions.
• We need new language and ideas, from a range of disciplines and methods, to think more deeply about how to effect fundamental change to the arrangements that perpetuate inequality.
• Evaluations could draw on systems approaches, plural methods, and theoretically informed qualitative analysis to ensure they consider: 1) the unintended consequences of interventions that might exacerbate inequalities and 2) dynamics of unequal relations.

The second half of the day hosted a panel discussion with contributions from Steph Ejegi-Memeh (University of Sheffield), David Bussue (SACHMA), Kate Fryer (Deep End Research Alliance), Nadia Bashir (Sheffield Hallam
University), Rebecca Mawson and Josie Reynolds (University of Sheffield). The candid discussion around what it means to do co-research in practice, exploring understandings of co-production and successful and less successful stories of co-production partnership work, highlighted the following messages:
• Co-production is a process, not an event, requiring time, thought commitment and resources.
• It is important to be present in communities and embedded on the ground.
• Engagement with trusted organizations is essential but should not be the only form of engagement with communities. It is important to think through “who is missing?”
• Reflection, an openness to criticism, and being flexible to adapt to different circumstances will greatly impact on the co-production process.
• Consideration should be given to practicing principles of reciprocity by embedding a two-way transfer of knowledge, building research capacity of participants or supporting parallel projects. It is relevant to be able to answer the question “what is in it?” for co-researchers.
• Researchers should be aware that practice of co-research may involve tension and push back with academic collaborators, funders and institutions