Case studies

Real consultations run on comCensus, grouped by the kind of work they supported.

Policy making

Make better-informed and more inclusive policies, by directly consulting entire communities or organizations.

A Local Place Plan in the community’s own words, in weeks rather than months

Stockbridge & Inverleith Community Council, Edinburgh · Autumn 2026

Objective

The City of Edinburgh Council invited the Stockbridge & Inverleith Community Council to submit a Local Place Plan: the community’s own proposals to guide future development in the area.

Problem

Local Place Plans are usually built through long surveys, workshops and public meetings. These take months of work and hear mostly from the residents who have time to attend, so the result does not necessarily reflect what the community actually thinks. As a volunteer body, the council had neither the time nor the resources for such a process.

Approach

Instead, the council put a single question to every resident on comCensus:

In which of these five areas of local life in Stockbridge & Inverleith do we most need to act — protecting what we value, or improving what falls short?

Over a few weeks, residents explained their choices and named the places to protect or improve. They also read, supported and questioned one another’s views, and changed their own when persuaded. The council then used comCensus’s analysis tools to turn the discussion into a community vision and compare it with City Plan 2030 and National Planning Framework 4.

Result

Nine days after the discussion closed, the council submitted a complete Local Place Plan, with very little work on its part.

The plan includes a community vision, an analysis against local and national policy, and a map of proposals. It is a direct expression of the community: every sentence of the vision links back to the residents’ posts it rests on, so councillors and planning officers can check it against what people actually said.

Research and scholarship

Probe the consensus on complex or controversial ideas, by polling conference attendees or samples of experts.

An encyclopedia of research integrity, shaped by its community

Science Integrity Alliance · ATLAS encyclopedia of research integrity

Objective

The Science Integrity Alliance is building ATLAS, a living encyclopedia of research integrity terms. Its definitions should reflect the best knowledge and understanding of the research integrity community.

Problem

The Alliance’s community is growing and diverse, spanning career stages, disciplines and world regions. A small team of authors cannot capture all that expertise. Conventional consultations tend to hear mainly from the most senior or most vocal, and leave no visible record of how a definition was reached.

Approach

The Alliance partnered with comCensus, with an ultimate aim:

An ATLAS written virtually directly by the community itself.

The first entry, Accountability in Research, was drafted by four authors and then opened to every member. Members said how far they agreed with its definition, context and example, and proposed improvements. They then rated and commented on one another’s suggestions, so the strongest could emerge whoever had made them. Contributions were anonymous, so everyone could speak freely, but anyone could add their name to be credited.

Result

Most participants rated the draft as mostly or fully acceptable, yet their suggestions widened it considerably.

  • Accountability now extends to research participants, peer reviewers and society.
  • Openness and reproducibility are integral to it rather than optional.
  • The entry includes equitable access to knowledge in the Global South.

Participants came from every career stage, discipline, world region and role the Alliance had listed. The revised entry is the first in ATLAS shaped by members collectively. It credits 16 contributors, and the whole consultation is public. The Alliance will use the same process for its next entries.

Planning a consultation?

Tell us what you need to find out, and we'll help you design it.