By Sat Kartar Kaur Chandan. Published 5 August 2025.
What happens when 21 PhD students come together from across the globe and disciplines, all focused on the intersection of vulnerability and policing? You get a fantastic week of enriching conversations, invaluable collaborations, lasting connections, and a renewed sense of motivation.
This was my experience of the Vulnerability & Policing Futures Research Centre’s International PhD Summer School, held at the University of York in July 2025.
The Vulnerability & Policing Futures Research Centre is a national centre where principles of integration, co-production, and responsible innovation are transforming how vulnerability and policing research inform policy and practice. These issues are inherently complex, associated with social challenges, legal issues, cultural differences, and institutional dysfunctions. Despite this, there is always an opportunity to encourage change and value vulnerable populations.
For many of us, the PhD journey can become isolating and consuming. But like the chapters we write, our PhD experience is only one chapter of a much larger story. The Summer School offered an opportunity to pause and reflect on our progress, acknowledge the challenges we have overcome, and think about what continues to drive us.
Day one: our research
Professor Adam Crawford (Centre Co-Director) opened the Summer School with an important reminder that, “The moral test for any society is how it treats its most vulnerable members.” This grounding message prompted us to consider the ‘why’ behind our work and how it might contribute to society beyond academia.
In the first session, “Policing Vulnerability: A Transdisciplinary Research Agenda”, we explored the intersection of policing and vulnerability in practice. While the intention of policing is to protect and serve, wider social, institutional, and economic pressures leave the police to manage the fallout from underfunded services, complex systems, and isolated protocols. Issues like homelessness, mental health crises, and safeguarding failures cannot be addressed solely by the police, reminding us of the need for transdisciplinary approaches. Vulnerability, after all, does not sit neatly within disciplinary borders, and our research reflects this. As François Taddei insightfully noted, “No discipline knows more than all.”
Later, Professor Nicole Westmarland (Centre Co-Investigator, Durham University) delivered a powerful session on “Academic Activism: Risks and Rewards”. She spoke openly on the ethical and political dimensions of research that seeks to make a difference. From the frustration of not accessing the voices we most want to hear, to the risks we take to prioritise these vulnerable voices, her reflections resonated with many of our experiences. The session sparked some important conversations around responsibility, access, and the real-world influence of our work.
We ended with a workshop on “Making Connections”, involving a fast-paced speed-dating activity facilitated by Dr Laura Bainbridge and Centre Postdoctoral Researchers. As we moved from person to person, we briefly shared a summary of our research, seeking any connections. While a fun exercise, it was purposeful. We discovered many similarities, prompting us to view our work as part of something bigger and interconnected. These connections deepened in the Graffiti Wall exercise, where we visually mapped out our core theories, methods, and philosophies on the walls around the room. Once again, the commonalities were evident, while the differences offered fresh insights and perspectives for us to reflect on. I found myself thinking, “What would that look like in my work?” It also prompted us to consider how we can support, or be supported, by one another.
Day two: power, politics, and practice
While the first day focused on understanding what we were researching, the second day shifted towards how this may be shaped.
Professor Ben Bradford (Centre Co-Investigator, UCL) opened with “The Politics of Engaging Police in Research”, sharing a reflection on how policing research is never neutral. He unpacked how power operates on a macro (structural ideologies), meso (institutional practices), and micro (interpersonal dynamics) level, posing the question of, “Are we conducting research with, to, or for the police?” His honesty about unexpected outcomes, institutional defensiveness, and the discomfort of academic work was valued. It reminded us that encountering tensions within policing research is not a failure; instead, it is a result, and a valid contribution.
These themes were built on in an informative session on anti-racism in policing research with Dr Katy Sian (University of York). Her message was clear and compelling: anti-racism should be embedded into our work from the very beginning and not as an additional consideration. As researchers, we do not want to reproduce harm and inequity through our work. Respect and reciprocity, inclusion and representation, and cultural safety and accountability, as well as transparency and accountability, are core principles of conducting purposeful, ethical, and transformative research.
Dr Dominika Butler (University of York) then introduced us to the 3-Minute Thesis competition, which we would participate in at the end of the week. The idea of condensing years of thought, reading, and fieldwork into just three minutes initially felt daunting, but still exciting. It forced us to rethink how we communicate, decide what really matters, and consider how we introduce creativity into our presentations to captivate the audience. With two days to go, preparations for the competition began.
Day three: researcher wellbeing and dissemination
Day three brought the focus to us, who we are, and how we feel doing this work.
Dr Laura Bainbridge (Centre Co-Investigator, University of Leeds) led a necessary session on researcher wellbeing in the context of sensitive research subjects. There is a constant emotional labour in our work when listening to accounts of trauma, injustice, and institutional failure, while also juggling the everyday stressors of developing a thesis, regular deadlines, teaching, and balancing a personal life. Through reflective “I” poems and open discussions of dealing with stress, imposter syndrome, and research setbacks, we collectively explored how to better manage our own wellbeing during a PhD and future academic research. By this point, we were not just peers, we had become a support system.
Later, Dr Chris Devany and Dr Öznur Yardımcı (Centre Postdoctoral Researchers) introduced us to Q methodology, a creative tool used to explore perspectives. In research on the viewpoints on vulnerability as a focus for policing and public services, the session encouraged conversations on the problematic framing of police as social workers, how vulnerable people are poorly served, and the practical aspects of labelling vulnerability. Learning about the methodology and its application was insightful, and many of us saw potential for its use in future projects.
The day ended with a workshop on publishing, led by Tom Sutton (Routledge) and Professor Antonios Roumpakis (Journal Editor, University of York). Publishing for the first time can be an overwhelming, lengthy process, with the possibility of rejection. But this session brought great clarity, with both speakers demystifying the publishing process and sharing some invaluable advice that will stay with us through our academic careers. From writing with a specific audience in mind, to shaping a monograph, to maintaining ownership over our narratives, these insights were extremely useful to our progression.
Day four: from research to impact
As the week ended, we continued to explore the future of our work.
Danny Shaw (former BBC correspondent) and Nathan Capstick (Centre Communications and Engagement Officer) led an engaging workshop on “Dissemination and Media Engagement”. Whether navigating journalist contact, or shaping narratives that speak to the public, the session helped us to consider the clarity of communication and methods needed to engage wider audiences. Such detailed insights on dissemination were beyond insightful, emphasising the importance of engaging the public.
This flowed seamlessly into the next workshop by Juliet Jopson (Public Policy Engagement Manager, Policy Leeds) on impact. She prompted us to think about “What change would you like to see because of our work, and who might benefit or lose out from that change?” This grounding question reminded us to remain aligned with the wider purpose and ethical responsibility associated with conducting research, particularly involving vulnerabilities and their consequences.
We closed the week with our informal 3-minute thesis presentations. This extended beyond a simple showcase, instead it was a celebration of our time together. In just three minutes, each presentation offered insight into our powerful work. Whether starting with a dialogue in a different language, or an emotive family photograph of a victim, the talks were fantastic. They were also received with the greatest support, having spent a week building trust, sharing our own vulnerabilities, and reflecting together on our endeavours towards a more compassionate world.
Final reflections: a shared purpose
As researchers focusing on vulnerabilities, we are not truly outside what we critique. We are part of the same systems shaped by power, politics, and practices. But we have the responsibility and opportunity to advocate for change.
The Vulnerability and Policing PhD Summer School was not just about the literature or methods; it was about people, creating bonds, and building a community. From a riverboat cruise to speed dating, a ghost walk to presenting, and the quiet in between, conversations about our lives and our work never stopped.
We came together as individuals from different countries, disciplines, and contexts. We left as friends, willing to care for one another’s wellbeing, offer academic support and advice, and co-create knowledge that helps the most vulnerable members of society.