PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY The article analyses the process of securing permissions for members of the public (we refer to them as "research partners") and academics involved in a qualitative study of public involvement in research (PIR) across eight health sciences projects in England and Wales. All researchers, including research partners, need to obtain a "research passport" from UK NHS trusts where they intend to carry out research. The article presents the experiences and observations of the authors, who all went through the process.Research partners encountered many challenges, as the overall bureaucratic procedures proved burdensome. The effects were felt by the academics too who had to manage the whole process. This influenced the way research partners and academics built social and personal relationships required for the successful conduct of the project. We also discuss the tensions that emerged around the issue of whether research partners should be treated as a professional category on their own, and other issues that influenced the PIR processes.In the concluding section, we make a number of practical recommendations. Project teams should allow enough time to go through all the hurdles and steps required for institutional permissions, and should plan in advance for the right amount of time and capacity needed from project leaders and administrators. Bureaucratic and organisational processes involved in PIR can sometimes produce unanticipated and unwanted negative effects on research partners. Our final recommendation to policy makers is to focus their efforts on making PIR bureaucracy more inclusive and ultimately more democratic. ABSTRACT Background In the growing literature on public involvement in research (PIR), very few works analyse PIR organizational and institutional dimensions in depth. We explore the complex interactions of PIR with institutions and bureaucratic procedures, with a focus on the process of securing institutional permissions for members of the public (we refer to them as "research partners") and academics involved in health research. Methods We employ a collaborative autoethnographic approach to describe the process of validating "research passports" required by UK NHS trusts, and the individual experiences of the authors who went through this journey - research partners and academics involved in a qualitative study of PIR across eight health sciences projects in England and Wales. Results Our findings show that research partners encountered many challenges, as the overall bureaucratic procedures and the emotional work required to deal with them proved burdensome. The effects were felt by the academics too who had to manage the whole process at an early stage of team building in the project. Our thematic discussion focuses on two additional themes: the emerging tensions around professionalisation of research partners, and the reflexive effects on PIR processes. Conclusions In the concluding section, we make a number of practical recommendations. Project teams should allow enough time to go through all the hurdles and steps required for institutional permissions, and should plan in advance for the right amount of time and capacity needed from project leaders and administrators. Our findings are a reminder that the bureaucratic and organisational structures involved in PIR can sometimes produce unanticipated and unwanted negative effects on research partners, hence affecting the overall quality and effectiveness of PIR. Our final recommendation to policy makers is to focus their efforts on making PIR bureaucracy more inclusive and ultimately more democratic.

中文翻译：

---

“研究护照”里有什么？公众参与研究的机构批准的协作式自我民族志。

简明的英语摘要 本文分析了为公众（我们将他们称为“研究合作伙伴”）和参与对英格兰八个健康科学项目的公众参与研究 (PIR) 进行定性研究的学者获得许可的过程，以及威尔士。所有研究人员，包括研究合作伙伴，都需要从他们打算进行研究的英国 NHS 信托机构获得“研究护照”。本文介绍了作者的经验和观察，他们都经历了这个过程。研究合作伙伴遇到了许多挑战，因为整个官僚程序被证明是繁重的。必须管理整个过程的学者也感受到了这种影响。这影响了研究合作伙伴和学者建立成功实施该项目所需的社会和个人关系的方式。我们还讨论了围绕研究合作伙伴是否应该被视为一个专业类别以及影响 PIR 过程的其他问题而出现的紧张局势。在结束部分，我们提出了一些实用的建议。项目团队应留出足够的时间来完成机构许可所需的所有障碍和步骤，并应提前计划项目领导和管理人员所需的适当时间和能力。PIR 中涉及的官僚和组织流程有时会对研究合作伙伴产生意想不到的负面影响。我们对政策制定者的最后建议是集中精力使 PIR 官僚机构更具包容性并最终更加民主。抽象背景 在越来越多的关于公众参与研究（PIR）的文献中，很少有作品深入分析 PIR 的组织和制度维度。我们探讨 PIR 与机构和官僚程序的复杂互动，重点是为公众（我们将其称为“研究合作伙伴”）和参与健康研究的学者获得机构许可的过程。方法 我们采用协作的自我民族志方法来描述验证英国 NHS 信托要求的“研究护照”的过程，以及经历此旅程的作者的个人经历 - 研究合作伙伴和学者参与了英格兰和威尔士八个健康科学项目的 PIR 定性研究。结果我们的研究结果表明，研究合作伙伴遇到了许多挑战，因为整体官僚程序和处理这些问题所需的情感工作被证明是繁重的。学者们也感受到了这种影响，他们必须在项目团队建设的早期阶段管理整个过程。我们的专题讨论侧重于两个额外的主题：围绕研究合作伙伴专业化的新兴紧张局势，以及对 PIR 过程的反思效应。结论 在结论部分，我们提出了一些实用的建议。项目团队应留出足够的时间来完成机构许可所需的所有障碍和步骤，并应提前计划项目领导和管理人员所需的适当时间和能力。我们的研究结果提醒我们，PIR 中涉及的官僚和组织结构有时会对研究合作伙伴产生意想不到的负面影响，从而影响 PIR 的整体质量和有效性。我们对政策制定者的最后建议是集中精力使 PIR 官僚机构更具包容性并最终更加民主。我们的研究结果提醒我们，PIR 中涉及的官僚和组织结构有时会对研究合作伙伴产生意想不到的负面影响，从而影响 PIR 的整体质量和有效性。我们对政策制定者的最后建议是集中精力使 PIR 官僚机构更具包容性并最终更加民主。我们的研究结果提醒我们，PIR 中涉及的官僚和组织结构有时会对研究合作伙伴产生意想不到的负面影响，从而影响 PIR 的整体质量和有效性。我们对政策制定者的最后建议是集中精力使 PIR 官僚机构更具包容性并最终更加民主。