1 / 12

DEVELOPING RESEARCH AIMS, ANALYSIS AND CONCEPTS WITH YOUNG PEOPLE

DEVELOPING RESEARCH AIMS, ANALYSIS AND CONCEPTS WITH YOUNG PEOPLE. YOUNG PEOPLE AS CO-RESEARCHERS SEMINAR 23 rd January 2010 rachel.pain@durham.ac.uk. What stages of research do young people participate in?. Decide on aims – and develop aims Choose the methods Collect the data

keelia
Download Presentation

DEVELOPING RESEARCH AIMS, ANALYSIS AND CONCEPTS WITH YOUNG PEOPLE

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. DEVELOPING RESEARCH AIMS, ANALYSIS AND CONCEPTS WITH YOUNG PEOPLE YOUNG PEOPLE AS CO-RESEARCHERS SEMINAR 23rd January 2010 rachel.pain@durham.ac.uk

  2. What stages of research do young people participate in? • Decide on aims – and develop aims • Choose the methods • Collect the data • Analyse the data • Make sense of findings (conceptualise or theorise) • Write it up • Disseminate - tell other people to influence change

  3. ACtion • …is the most important part of Participatory Action Research… • But where does it come from? • What knowledge is it founded on? • Who shapes this and how? • Kellett (2005) – reports widespread concern about involving young people in developing ethical frames of research • Involvement in analysis and theory much more challenging to conventional researchers • But everyone has the capacity to analyse and theorise…we all do it, all the time!

  4. Participatory art with acane 3 year research relationship with African-run community project in Byker 20+/- young people of African and white British heritage aged 5 – 15 Used discussion groups, diagramming, different forms of art, creative writing, web design, etc

  5. Aims: what is this research about? • Usually driven by a knowledge/action/policy imperative • Alternative: a ground up process where YP think through what research should ask • How can that be facilitated?

  6. Method (1):Discussion groups to brainstorm issues around hope/fear most relevant to them. Several follow ups – iterative analysis - to narrow focus. • Development of research questions and analysis • From a range of local/global concerns... • Iterative analysis by groups of their own and others’ findings on “hope” and “fear” • Prioritisation of certain issues to investigate in depth, e..g bullying, racism • Research questions continued to change: e.g. from difference to connection, from stereotypes about people to stereotypes about places • Method (2) Chose art as a means of exploring and expressing emotions and the final research focus. • Method (3) Young people designed and uploaded content for a website about bullying and racism

  7. Analysis Ruby: Data analysis – I hate it. When doing this part of the project the day just seemed drag. Annissa: It’s just torture that’s all. Caitlin: Why is it torture? Annissa: I don’t know it reminds me of school. Ruby: It’s like to over analyse – Annissa: I think I like to speak and put things out there and not have to think about why I said them. (Caitlin Cahill, with the Fed Up Honeys, 2007)

  8. Conventional analysis • In conventional research analysis is: • A separate phase of the research process • Conducted by experts • Includes abstract and formal tests of validity and cross-questioning of data • Supposedly, accountable… • “Participatory analysis embraces knowledge production as a contested, fraught process. It assumes there is no singular or universal truth” (Cahill 2007)

  9. Analysis IN PAR • Techniques: a range of analytical methods can be applied to data from PAR, as for conventional social research: • E.g. content analysis, qualitative analysis, quantitative analysis, visual analysis, etc • Process: the process of analysis is different. • Collaboration: analysis is undertaken by participants • Classically with participatory methods, analysis is built into their use (e.g. diagramming) • Analysis may also be undertaken by others – e.g. external researcher, other stakeholders

  10. Conventional theorising • Conventional stages of theorisation: • Before any contact with participants: theoretical grounding to suggest research questions • May use elements of grounded theory during fieldwork… (though most often not) • Theorisation is done afterwards, separately, with no input from participants. • If many researchers question people’s ability to analyse data….much bigger concerns about theorising: an elite activity • Who gets to interpret their lives and the world? • And what power does this have?

  11. the fed up honeys: theory • Writing project with young women • “Risky and painful” process: identifying how they had absorbed other people’s stereotypes • Working through differences – not to reach ‘consensus’ but to agree on key themes and findings, and priorities for action • Scaling up: particular linking global/ societal/ neighbourhood/ intimate processes and causation (contextual validity) • How to capture mess and dissonance? – experiment with different voices in outputs.

  12. mrs c. kinpaisby-hill (2010) Participatory praxis and social justice: towards more fully social geographies, in Del Casino V et al A Companion to Social Geography

More Related