Participatory research approaches hold potential to better understand society through valuing lived experience. Formula feeding babies is routinely stigmatised in the UK, despite inadequate support to facilitate breastfeeding. Our community science project investigated the safety of powdered infant formula preparation in the home through the completion of an at-home experiment and a research diary with closed and open questions ( n = 151). To add validity to the interpretation of open text data in research diaries, a community analysis group of five formula-feeding mothers was established. The community analysts undertook inductive thematic analysis through a series of analysis group meetings focused around data extracts, contributed to the study’s empirical outputs and this methodological output, meeting 23 times over a nine-month period. Detailed notes were taken during meetings and the methodological elements of these were thematically analysed with the community analysts to produce this article, with extracts from the academic researchers’ field notes added where relevant. The overarching themes, presenting both positive experiences and areas for improvement, focused on: (i) clarity of expectations and the impact this had on community analysts’ confidence, (ii) the stigmatising topic area and how this was managed by the facilitators, and (iii) feeling valued, in relation to honoraria, inclusion in outputs and community analysts coming to recognise their own expertise. Furthermore, the community analysts co-produced recommendations for including community analysts in future research. It provides guidance on how this can be appropriately costed for and supported by funding bodies and research teams, as well as providing guidance on recruitment and chairing meetings. We hope that this article can provide valuable input into how to involve the community more inclusively as research partners in qualitative analysis related to stigmatised topics.

中文翻译：

---

与污名化社区成员一起分析数据：寻找公式社区分析小组的经验、反思和最佳实践建议

参与式研究方法有潜力通过重视生活经验来更好地了解社会。在英国，尽管母乳喂养的支持不足，但配方奶喂养的婴儿经常受到侮辱。我们的社区科学项目通过完成家庭实验和包含封闭式和开放式问题的研究日记（n = 151），调查了在家中制备婴儿配方奶粉的安全性。为了增加对研究日记中开放文本数据的解释的有效性，成立了一个由五名配方奶喂养母亲组成的社区分析小组。社区分析师通过一系列以数据提取为重点的分析小组会议进行归纳主题分析，为研究的实证输出和方法论输出做出了贡献，在 9 个月的时间内召开了 23 次会议。在会议期间进行了详细的记录，并与社区分析师一起对这些记录的方法要素进行了主题分析，以撰写本文，并在相关的地方添加了学术研究人员现场记录的摘录。总体主题提出了积极的经验和需要改进的领域，重点关注：(i) 期望的明确性及其对社区分析师信心的影响，(ii) 污名化的主题领域以及协调员如何处理这一问题，以及(iii) 在酬金、纳入产出以及社区分析师认识到自己的专业知识方面感到受到重视。此外，社区分析师共同提出了将社区分析师纳入未来研究的建议。它就如何适当计算资助机构和研究团队的成本并提供支持提供了指导，并提供了有关招聘和主持会议的指导。我们希望本文能够为如何让社区作为研究伙伴更包容地参与与污名化主题相关的定性分析提供宝贵的意见。