The Futures in Film project was undertaken collaboratively by members of the Whitley community and University of Reading (Reading, United Kingdom [UK]) in 2023. Within the context of rapid film and television studios studio and training developments in the region between 2021 and 2023, the project explored the community’s awareness around emerging industry developments and barriers to accessing opportunities for training and employment. It also developed community-based solutions to facilitate equitable access and greater diversity in the workforce in the future. As a collaborative, community- and film practice-based research project, its outcomes were successful in expressing the talent, skills and aspirations of the community and foregrounding concerns that needed to be addressed to create a brighter creative future for all in the region.

While several participatory and collaborative film projects exist across the world, the Futures in Film project’s emphasis was on improving film education and skills training through an interdisciplinary combination of research methods and multiple levels of community collaboration. The intention of the project was to set forth a vision for shared ownership by academia, industry and community of film and television (TV) developments in the region, with clear recommendations on how to engage historically marginalised communities in decision-making. It also highlighted how community participation can help realise the industry and government’s goals for sustainable creative sector growth through a more locally based, diverse and skilled workforce.

In this article, I discuss the key research questions, methodology, insights and impact of the Futures in Film project, which was supported via the University of Reading’s Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) Impact Accelerator Account (IAA) Impact Project Fund and Teaching & Learning Initiatives fund. Through a discussion of the project’s practice-based outputs, the article makes a case for deeper engagement with communities when designing and implementing creative training and employment initiatives. I propose that community-based models of research and training can lead to sustainable gains for the screen industries, not only by facilitating greater diversity of the workforce and encouraging inclusive and accessible working practices but also to help realise the rights of all citizens to education, employment and creative expression. As the research demonstrates, collaborative engagement with communities can strengthen creative initiatives through decentralised feedback mechanisms and steer ongoing and future investment in industry training and studio development towards the most under-served communities.

This article discusses how the project sought to realise the above-described intentions by first briefly discussing the context, rationale and research questions of the project, before moving on to discuss the practice-based methodology founded on collaborative community participation. I unpack how a bottom-up approach helped us generate awareness about new industry developments in the region, while also reflecting on how these developments could better benefit the community. Significant attention will be given to the two workshop strands that were central to the project’s ultimate practice-based outcomes, which highlight the key insights and solutions recommended by the community for more equitable access to film and TV making in future. Finally, I evaluate the project’s overall impact, identifying pathways for further engagement of stakeholders across industry, community and academia.

In 2021, Shadowbox Studios Shinfield, a film and TV studio owned by US-based Shadowbox Studios, started the construction of 18 sound stages, 9 acres of backlot and over 555 000 square feet of support and office space at the University of Reading’s Thames Valley Science Park. While the construction was completed in 2024, the launch of such a large studio marked a substantial shift in the production space available for large scale film and TV production in the southeastern county of Berkshire. Production and postproduction facilities, educational institutions, training providers and other business and film and TV organisations responded positively to these developments. The University of Reading launched a project to develop a new film and TV ecosystem in Berkshire, which would:

The ScreenSkills Assessment (2021) stated that an anticipated boom in production after the coronavirus pandemic would give rise to high demand for a diverse talent pool across the UK, with nearly 21 000 extra crew needed to support economic growth in the sector. The British Film Institute BFI Skills Review (2022b: 11) also suggested that ‘more comprehensive careers information, profiles and pathways’ were needed to support the development of a talent pipeline that could respond to these demands.

In response to the need for a more readily and locally available skilled and diverse workforce, the BFI launched its National Lottery Skills Cluster programme and invested around £9 million between 2023 and 2026 in seven skills clusters across the UK. One such skills cluster named Screen Berkshire was funded in Berkshire, led by Slough-based CIC Resource Productions and comprising core partners such as University of Reading, Shadowbox Studios Shinfield, Bedlam Productions and Amazon Ascend. The cluster works closely with the Berkshire Film Office, all local councils in Berkshire, Further Education (FE) Colleges and a wide range of businesses and other training providers in the region. It delivers skills training at various levels, connects talent and crew to jobs, supports new entrants as well as existing freelancers to access new opportunities for upskilling and employment and shares best practices to avoid duplication of efforts across partners (BFI 2022a; Screen Berkshire 2025).

These developments speak to the overall boom in investment and interest to boost the UK creative industries between 2021 and 2025, whether in the form of funding for targeted skills training, industry research or large film and TV studio development. The Department for Business and Trade and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, UK, released the Creative Industries Sector Plan (Nandy 2025), setting a framework for the growth of the sector by 2035. The plan expressed an intention to increase annual investment in the creative industries from £17 billion to £31 billion over the next decade and includes a £75 million ‘Screen Growth Package’. The COVID-19 pandemic in 2020–2021 and the strikes by Screen Actors Guild–American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) and Writers Guild of America (WGA) in 2023 had substantial impacts on production and business in the industry, leading to subsequent challenges in retaining skilled freelancers (Purse, Philip & Byrne 2025). Despite these challenges, the Creative Industries Sector plan and the Culture, Media and Sport (CMS) Committee on British film and high-end TV have put forth ambitious agendas and timely recommendations to increase support and investment for the British film and TV industry and its workforce (House of Commons 2024; Nandy 2025).

The Futures in Film project started after the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020–2021 and before the WGA and SAG-AFTRA strikes in 2023. At the time of its inception in 2022, the Screen Berkshire cluster was yet to come into existence. Within that context, the project aimed to understand to what extent local communities were engaging in and benefitting from the rapidly growing film and TV studio developments in Berkshire. The Futures in Film project sought to put local and marginalised communities at the heart of a rapidly changing environment of infrastructural and economic development as well as skills training and education. It intended to assess if and how increased investment and opportunities for training, education and employment at their doorstep were reaching them. Additionally, while clusters such as Screen Berkshire have been crucial and impactful given the strength of all the core partners, the project invited meaningful and engaged feedback from the community that could help reflect on and make changes, where necessary, to strengthen initiatives. As the following sections will demonstrate, the project successfully highlighted how collaborative and creative forms of community-based research can enable citizen participation in planning and policymaking, while also providing avenues for creative expression and skills training.

The project worked in partnership with residents of Whitley, a ward in South Reading. The Whitley ward profile (Reading Borough Council [RBC] 2018) indicates that Whitley is the most deprived out of the 16 wards in Reading. It also goes on to state that:

While much has changed for the community over the last decade of funding for development initiatives, there is still a long way to go before the community is able to fully realise its right to food, healthcare, education, employment, leisure and creative expression. There is a keen sense of community within the area and a desire to challenge negative stereotypes and demonstrate the skills, talent and aspiration in Whitley.

A big part of developing a sense of community and challenging stereotypes has been the Whitley Community Development Association (WCDA). The WCDA equips members to better identify local needs, enhance skills and take action to make Whitley a better place to live through community development methodologies. The WCDA was formed initially in 2012 to steer the spending of £1 million Big Local National Lottery Funding secured for local development. However, the organisation has grown over the years and has a positive presence in South Reading Community Centre. Of particular note is the WCDA’s Whitley Cafe and Social Club, where a range of initiatives are run to support the community. Some of these include information and advice on healthcare and benefits, affordable food at subsidised prices at the cafe, groceries via the food surplus and, most crucially, a social space where community workers and members interact, share concerns and support each other.

The formation of the ‘Whitley Researchers’ (WRs) (a participatory research network of Whitley residents, community organisations, Big Local representatives, Northumberland Training Academy and staff and students at the University of Reading) was a key outcome of Big Local funding. The WRs identified where and how the funding could be allocated and went on to undertake several research projects, the findings of which have been crucial to define the scope and research focus of the Futures in Film project.

While the project certainly intended to work with WRs, questions related to awareness, aspiration and the development of ‘talent pipelines’ and ‘workforce diversity’ made it necessary to invite the perspectives of young people from the community as well. In the Whitley for Real report, WRs Brown and Ryall (2017:n.p.) point towards ‘intergenerational poverty as one of the main barriers, which adds to the stigma and stereotypes of the area that need to be dispelled’ and a ‘lack of careers advice from a young age, with both students and parents often being unaware of the opportunities available’. Furthermore, in the Aspiration in Whitley report, WRs Ashcroft et al. (2018) state that:

Thus, the Futures in Film project engaged with adults as well as young people in Whitley to explore creative aspirations and barriers. By looking at questions of awareness and access to information about creative careers from both perspectives and pathways to education, training, reskilling, upskilling and employment, the project aimed to develop community-led solutions. Even though many other communities and wards had geographical proximity to the studio developments, Whitley was a perfect fit for this research project given its history of deprivation, its openness to using creative research methods and a strong interest in having a voice in regional developments, accessing new experiences and prospective career opportunities. The workshop process, participant cohorts and interlinkages between the two workshops have been discussed in upcoming sections.

The above context of new film and TV developments in the region and questions around access to opportunities gave rise to the following research questions. These were discussed and refined further by community participants during project workshops:

These research questions were explored by two participant cohorts and workshop strands between March and December 2023, which resulted in two practice-based outputs. One set of workshops involved adult residents above 18; two participants named Emmaleigh Williams and Vandy Butcher were WRs working with the WCDA at the time. In total, they participated in eight workshop days and additional shoot days between March 2023 and December 2023. The practice-based output developed was a short documentary of approximately 18 min responding to the research questions. A snapshot of the WRs engaged in the workshop and shoot process can be seen in Figure 1.

A second set of workshops involved young residents under 18 – three participants either aged 11–14 or with special needs and disabilities (SEND). They participated in a 5-day workshop series between 29 August 2023 and 02 September 2023. Participant names have been withheld, and they are referred to as Young Community Participants or YCPs throughout this article. The practice-based output developed with YCPs was a short fiction film of 3 min 39 s exploring the research themes (see Figure 2).

As the lead filmmaker-researcher, I (Shweta Ghosh) led the workshop series supported by two student filmmaker-researchers who were studying at the Department of Film, Theatre & Television, University of Reading at the time. The students were Kyle Johnson, an undergraduate student and Mrinal Rajeev, a postgraduate student, and their contributions to the research as well as future teaching and learning outcomes are discussed in this article as well.

Community participants, as well as members of the university staff and student research team, belonged to a diverse range of contexts and identities, be it gender, ethnicity, class, disability, nationality, age, educational background, employment experience and childcare commitments. The research project was not only enriched by the mix of intersectional identities in ‘content’ of practice-based outcomes but also in process, as various experiences and needs had to be taken into consideration to design a creative space that was as accessible and open as possible.

The project combined ethnographic methods and participatory filmmaking approaches to develop a community-based model for film practice-based research. Ethnographic methods included visual elicitation, creative interviewing and participatory filmmaking, which are used widely in the field of visual anthropology (Irving et al. 2021; Telo 2013).

Film practice-based research refers to research where filmmaking is the method to explore questions and present insights. Filmmaking has indeed been used in community-oriented ways in film practice-based research before (Cooke 2020; Jones 2017; Sowa, Sowa & Widdess 2022; Sudbury 2017). However, the Futures in Film project was distinct in its use of a practice-based research model to connect communities directly to research, practice and policymaking around current screen industry developments and government skills and employment priorities.

Manuel and Vigar (2021) discuss the value of creative approaches to community engagement for policy planning and community development:

The Futures in Film project also drew inspiration from a range of participatory filmmaking, public access television and community programming projects. Many offered excellent models of engagement with marginalised and under-served communities, facilitation of media making and contribution to civil society initiatives and government policy.

Early participatory film programmes such as Challenge for Change (eds. Waugh, Baker & Winton 2012), initiated by the National Film Board of Canada in 1967, marked a shift from making films about people to making films with them. In contemporary times, participatory projects such as Mapping Memories (2011) by Elizabeth Miller and Gender Chip Project (2005) by Helen de Michiel have used a range of visual participatory methods such as cartography and creation of ‘memory-scapes’, art and music-making as well as photography and collaborative filmmaking for documentaries. In Global South contexts such as India, a wide range of initiatives have brought the perspectives of marginalised communities to the forefront. Some of these include citizen journalism projects such as Khabar Lahariya and Children As Media Producers (CAMP), collaborative films such as Tanko Bole Chhe/The Stitches Speak (2010) by filmmaker Nina Sabnani and Jadui Macchi (2013) by the Ektara Collective (2013) and participatory video projects such as Dalit Camera (Mohammed 2021) and Drishti Media. These projects vary greatly, but each engages actively with questions of agency and collaboration and demonstrates the long-recognised strengths of participatory filmmaking for advocacy, activism and social change (Irving et al. 2021; Lunch & Roberts 2006; Shaw & Robertson 1997).

Historically, community-led film and TV making has had significant impact in the UK through public access television initiatives. Community filmmaking and programming developments were particularly significant between the 1970s and 1980s, with funding and support from major institutions like the BFI and Channel 4. Some of the best-known examples include the BBC’s Open Door Programme (1973–1983), Channel 4’s People to People series (1983–1989) (which followed Open Door) as well as the Birmingham Film and Video Workshop (BFVW) (1979–1989).

Set up in 1972, the BBC’s Community Programming Unit (CPU) provided the required technology and infrastructure to individuals and communities so that they could make their own programmes and voice previously marginalised or unexpressed concerns and opinions. Not only did this serve to demystify an otherwise opaque production process behind making TV, but it also made space for communities to access the skills to express themselves politically and creatively. Sainsbury (2023) states it was indeed:

The BFVW facilitated a range of interesting films that were broadcast by Channel 4 and distributed theatrically by the workshop (Franklin n.d.; Shannon n.d). Among these was Jonnie Turpie’s work with the Dead Honest Soul Searchers (DHSS), which made space for young people to express their frustration and creative aspirations about ‘youth unemployment, home taping, and other issues of direct concern to them’. Stoneman (2021) discusses how Channel 4’s People to People series was aimed at inviting a diverse range of programmes, makers and creative styles to push boundaries of the form by ‘working with individual filmmakers, groups and co-operatives within an ethos of radical pluralism’. The work done via these initiatives with community groups was groundbreaking not only in terms of the pathways they created for creative confidence, community cohesion and advocacy but also in terms of experimentation with form and style.

Such an approach, albeit at a smaller scale, was adopted for the Futures in Film project, where participants were invited to express their ideas and concerns in creative ways that felt organic, even if unconventional. It is worth noting, however, that the decades since the closure of these initiatives have seen shifting landscapes in terms of funding and support. Community filmmaking projects and public access television initiatives have become more fragmented, and while a distinction between ‘high-end’ and ‘community-based’ film and TV has always been made, few mainstream channels and cinemas now provide a platform for community voices. Oral evidence provided to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee on British film and high-end TV by producer Dominique Unsworth MBE and filmmaker Myriam Raja (House of Commons 2024) also highlights how lower stakes projects enable learning, build confidence and creative aspiration and facilitate entry of underrepresented communities into commercial forms of film and TV making. Resources to fund such pathways have dwindled in the last few decades alongside the reduction in community filmmaking projects, although a recommendation in the Report by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee on British film and high-end TV states that funding for short film programmes must be increased (House of Commons 2024:61–62), with an aim to enhance creative access, independent projects and workforce diversity.

Public access television, community filmmaking and more funding for smaller independent projects have historically made the means of production more available. One could argue that these are more readily available than ever before in the current digital age, and people can access media making more easily to share their opinions and stories. However, access to resources and digital literacy continue to remain unevenly distributed, leading to inequalities in accessing creative opportunities. Even if a community does take on the task of self-representation or exploring information on digital and social media, this does not necessarily mean that they are able to access the right information or build a sustainable creative career in the industry, which has an impact on workforce diversity and retention. Malik, Chapain and Comunian also highlight the strong connections between participatory and community filmmaking and cultural diversity outcomes. Malik, Chapain and Comunian (2017) state that:

The examples of public access television and community filmmaking discussed above engage with communities in film and TV making in useful ways and demonstrate mechanisms to foreground stories and concerns via mainstream and community platforms. However significant though, there is a need to think about how similar outcomes of access, advocacy and equitable participation can be achieved in the new, changed scenarios of funding and distributing creative work. Similarly, in terms of participatory filmmaking and action research projects, there remains an untapped opportunity to find ways that harness their potential for community consciousness, activism and advocacy in response to new screen industry developments such as film and TV studios and skills clusters; these are here to stay and will have direct consequences on community access to education and employment.

The Futures in Film project was unique in addressing these urgent needs and opportunities, examining who benefits from new developments and advocating for community participation in new creative developments and initiatives. Film practice-based research undertaken in collaboration with communities was an effective methodology to ask and answer questions about film and TV training and jobs and evidence the extent of community access (or lack thereof) to creative opportunities, while also developing creative skills and confidence.

The project also tapped into the potential of universities as large institutions with resources and partnerships to facilitate connections and pathways between community and industry, especially given the limited support for community access initiatives. Universities hold many resources through lecturers and students, libraries and research expertise, industry networks, state-of-the-art production spaces and equipment. Furthermore, research-intensive universities are in a particularly strong position to engage with a strategic and critical lens with skills training and industry employment initiatives in the region, providing insightful knowledge and information at a granular level. By facilitating stakeholder understanding and connections, universities can demystify industry pathways and offer inroads for marginalised communities, while also reaping long-term benefits by realising their widening participation and outreach goals.

The research project therefore adopted a community- and film practice-based research methodology to facilitate connections between university staff and students, industry partners and the local community. It also aimed to build frameworks that could sustain these relationships through future teaching and learning activities, which is discussed in the Impact and Ways Forward section later in this article.

The project deployed variations of the ‘interview-workshop’ method devised during my PhD film practice-based research project We Make Film (Ghosh 2021). This approach brings together ethnographic methods (e.g. visual elicitation and creative interviewing) with reflexive and participatory filmmaking. While the application of the interview method has varied between the We Make Film and Futures in Film projects, both have involved a series of workshops, where interviews and filmmaking activities are undertaken in response to participant requirements and research questions. Workshops are designed flexibly and are either undertaken across consecutive days of a week or on scheduled days across several months. This section provides a brief overview of the different parts of the method, before describing how the method was adapted for each participant cohort.

Part 1 entails a visual elicitation-led interview process. Pauwels (2015) describes this as a method where a participant is presented with pre-selected visual materials, which elicit a response about what is observable or noticeable. Responses, however, are not limited to factual observations only. Interview questions can also be used to understand the participant’s experience or ‘interior’ perspective more deeply. This method can ‘elicit or trigger deeper, more abstract perceptions and values of respondents as individuals who are involved in the depicted world’ (Pauwels 2015:97), particularly if the visual stimulus has elements that refer to their sociocultural contexts, creative and aesthetic approach and positionality. The process also initiates a state of reflection and opens participants up to discussion, curiosity and ‘play’, which inform the filmmaking activities undertaken in the next set of workshops.

Part 2 involves a filmmaking-led creative interview process where participants are given a prompt or keywords based on the research questions and invited to develop a film idea, script and/or a storyboard for a short audio-visual project. The story and the form of the project is decided by the participants (usually a choice between documentary, short fiction, fiction-nonfiction hybrid or stop motion animation), and the final output often draws on both autobiographical and fictional elements. As is common in creative interviewing methods, the researcher asks questions during the act of developing creative outputs (Mason & Dale 2010). Insights from this process shed light through and about the creative process. The participant shares the contexts and intentions behind the themes, narrative decisions and aesthetic choices made by the participant.

Depending on available time and intended research outcomes, some time may be dedicated to delivering required technical training to participants in filmmaking. For first time filmmakers, this usually entails basic storytelling (structure and script), camerawork and sound recording training, although working with filmmakers with advanced skills often involves much higher levels of training, discussion and exchange.

Part 3 involves participants presenting their idea, script or storyboard to other workshop attendees and facilitators, highlighting specific approaches to narrative, visuals and/or sound design. At the end of the presentations, participants and facilitators reflect on emerging creative and thematic elements, what they have found significant about the creative experience and identify specific insights and findings (from the process or product), which can answer and explore the research questions.

The last few workshops or hours in this part of the interview-workshop method are reserved for discussing editing choices and the desired ‘narrative elements’ and research insights that they would like to communicate through the final film.

As one might guess, the data elicited via the interview workshop method can be quite detailed and complex. Data usually takes the form of responses to visual elicitation materials and follow-up questions, creative interview questions as well as reflections on aesthetic and narrative intentions for the final practice-based output (all of which are video recorded). There is also data available within the script, storyboard and/or treatment documents and the final practice-based output, which can be unpacked through methods such as close analysis and discourse analysis. These data are supplemented, where necessary, with the researcher’s written notes made during the workshop process, so that research insights drawn are credible and reliable. The types of data and analysis methods for interview-workshops with each set of community participants have been discussed in the sections corresponding to each participant cohort.

As the research outputs demonstrate, the project has been successful in achieving its intended objectives and goals. It has foregrounded the barriers to employment, education and training and identified community-based solutions to enhance access to creative opportunities.

The project outcomes and impact were evaluated via relevant methods during and after the project. For young community participants, an age and level-appropriate questionnaire with Likert questions and open-ended questions was designed and used to understand their workshop experience and overall project experience. Young community participants were encouraged to share feedback anonymously to evaluate which aspects worked well and which aspects could be developed differently next time. Overall, they agreed that the workshop had helped them learn more about roles in the film and TV industries, develop creative ideas, learn about and operate filmmaking equipment and share their thoughts and concerns about the creative industries. In freeform comments, young community participants mentioned that they enjoyed learning most about different roles and skills such as camerawork, editing and prop making. Participants also mentioned that the workshop was pitched at the right level, but could have been much shorter in duration, and this important feedback will be considered when planning similar projects in future.

For the WRs, feedback was collected in an ongoing manner via verbal debriefs at the end of each workshop or shoot. However, evaluation of the overall process was undertaken via a group reflection at the end of the last edit consultation, when the final cut of the film was agreed. This was video-documented by the WRs and university staff and student team, and excerpts of this reflection session can be seen towards the conclusion of the WRs’ film. Overall, the WRs described the process as engaging and interesting. They reported increased confidence in their creative abilities and awareness of local film and TV developments and filmmaking roles. They also shared that the project had remained inclusive and accessible throughout and that they hoped the film would open minds and hearts to the talent available in Whitley. The WRs already came with strong experience of community-based and participatory research methodologies. However, this project had added a new set of film practice-based research skills to their repertoire.

In addition to the above forms of evaluation, a celebratory showcase was organised to screen the project’s film-based outputs for a range of academic, industry and government stakeholders, share research insights via a community panel discussion and initiate an impact pathway. An image of the showcase can be seen in Figure 6.

The aim of the showcase was to invite those who would benefit from a deeper understanding of the Whitley communities’ needs and concerns and could incorporate the research insights within their planning of new and existing opportunities. Showcase attendees included relevant industry, academia and government stakeholders such as Bedlam Productions (the production company behind the Oscar-winning film The King’s Speech), Reading’s Economy & Destination Agency (REDA), RBC, Wokingham Borough Council (WBC), New Directions College (an adult education wing of RBC based in Whitley), Activate Learning at Reading College and University of Reading staff from the Department of Film, Theatre & Television, Community Engagement team, Research Development and Impact teams and Communications team. As evident from the attendee list, the showcase made space for community concerns and solutions to be prioritised and heard by those with significant power and influence within a supportive environment.

Most significantly, several members of the Whitley community were present at the showcase. Crucial points of positive feedback from the WRs (also seen in the film’s conclusion) were reiterated during the panel discussion; they expressed that the process had been inclusive and responsive to accommodate access needs, childcare, family and that this had been crucial in developing confidence to make a film and feel like there was hope in the industry. Other community members who attended also expressed pride and joy about belonging to the Whitley community and spoke of an increased sense of confidence in their ability to take on creative projects and pursue careers in the creative industries. Supporting the sentiments expressed by Dr. Trisha Bennett above, several members also shared how important it was for more people that know the many wonderful stories from Whitley and how this could lead to much needed change in how the community was perceived and represented in the media. The screenings, panel discussion and audience Q&A were video-recorded for impact evaluation purposes and demonstrate how the showcase successfully facilitated dialogue between perspectives across industry, community, government and academia. Robust critical discussion around the films’ themes continued into post-event drinks to celebrate the project’s participants and outcomes. Those present expressed that they were keen to take on board the community-based solutions proposed by the WRs and create stronger pathways for the Whitley community to enter film and TV. Attendees also expressed curiosity and enthusiasm about filmmaking projects the community filmmakers would develop in future. Recommendations from the project are expected to be shared with stakeholders in 2026 to enable the incorporation of research insights into the evaluation of ongoing initiatives for skills training and placemaking and planning of upcoming ones.

The project also had a positive impact on the student experience at the University of Reading through the student filmmaker-researcher team’s participation and feedback. While some feedback was gathered via post-workshop debriefs during the project, a reflection on their overall experience was solicited at the end of the project via a feedback questionnaire (with Likert questions and open-ended questions) and a written report with research and reflective components. Student researchers reported that the project had been very interesting, helped apply existing filmmaking and workshop facilitation skills and develop new knowledge about community-engaged forms of film practice-based research. In their written reports and feedback submitted in January 2024, student filmmaker-researchers expressed the following:

As demonstrated by the feedback above, the project encouraged a sense of place and belonging among the student filmmaker-researchers and encouraged active engagement with questions of access and inclusion in the film and TV industry. The abovementioned reports and feedback forms were used to design and launch a new module titled Commercial and Community Filmmaking at the Department of Film, Theatre & Television in September 2024, to engage students similarly with communities via filmmaking projects. After its first iteration, the module has already raised the department’s profile in terms of community-led filmmaking, research and teaching, and an upcoming teaching and learning-focused publication outlines the module’s strengths. It also discusses how modules based on filmmaking and community engagement can enhance student and staff collaboration with a range of local community groups and provide much needed support via university resources to raise critical issues, find local solutions and support marginalised voices and democratic values.

Finally, it is also important to note that the project also supported all participants and filmmaker-researchers to develop new or strengthen existing filmmaking and research expertise. Key skills developed include ideation, scripting, directing, interviewing, camerawork, sound recording, voiceover recording, set design, costumes and prop design, many of which directly addressed film and TV skills gaps identified in Berkshire region. Smaller scale film projects such as this can facilitate film skills in ‘lower stakes’ contexts. They not only serve as stepping stones for participants towards their film and TV aspirations but also create a connected pool of filmmakers with the knowledge of filmmaking roles and processes, making them easier to train further for specific skills gaps in the industry.

The UK government’s Creative Industries Sector Plan 2025 promises to increase investment and sets out four major areas of activity to boost growth, one of which is to ‘Build a resilient, skilled and diverse workforce fit for the future’ (Nandy 2025:42). Based on the findings of the Futures in Film research project, it can be concluded that community-based approaches are well placed to support and realise the vision for a locally based, resilient and diverse workforce and must be incorporated into future planning of skills training initiatives. Other communities and academic institutions across the UK can partner and fund similar grassroots research, particularly within the context of upcoming investment by the UK government in skills clusters and training.

One example of a way forward is to incorporate community- and practice-based research to strengthen the BFI Skills Cluster programme. Community-led research could be used to evaluate the success of the programme across clusters, and insights could inform future planning, delivery and implementation. One could argue that organisations that already have a long and strong history of community engagement have already successfully facilitated the diversification of the film and TV industry through cluster activities. However, such priorities and outcomes are often achieved when cluster partners have existing histories of community engagement and are committed to reaching the most marginalised. To ensure that benefits reach under-served communities consistently across clusters, structural mechanisms of accountability through community-based research and community feedback must be incorporated. This can then minimise the risk of outcomes that vary widely based on cluster partners’ priorities and set initiatives up to reach the most under-served beneficiaries.

Community- and film practice-based research can be an excellent methodology to equip communities with the tools to create awareness about available skills training initiatives and increase participation and engagement. At the same time, this combination can also provide a powerful way to align different priorities and advocate for the community as an equal stakeholder, alongside industry, government and academia, in shaping future initiatives.

The interview-workshop method discussed in this article can serve as a great starting point to create equitable access to the screen industries. The method is flexible, integrates reflexivity, creativity and collaboration and enables filmmaker-researchers and community members to mutually shape the research process. Most crucially, it creates a sense of ownership of both process and product for everyone involved, which facilitates sharing of ideas, concerns, skills and knowledge, as well as dialogue and organic change. More broadly, engagement of communities via film practice-based research can create timely and useful knowledge and grassroots evidence, while also harnessing the impactful possibilities of filmmaking.

The article has also outlined how universities can play a significant role in fostering connections between industry and community around these initiatives. By using available resources of staff, students, equipment and space, universities are in a unique position to bridge gaps in funding and skills, facilitate lower stakes filmmaking opportunities and make screen industry pathways more accessible, while also delivering on goals of high-quality teaching and learning, widening participation and outreach.

Future initiatives must consider the priorities and perspectives of the communities they seek to benefit, assess local awareness about the industry and address barriers to entry, which can be done with community involvement at the preliminary stages of planning. Initiatives that are top-down or assess need primarily from the industry’s perspective will continue to be limited in their reach unless alignment between industry, academic and community priorities is achieved.