Participation action research 1 introduction to par one-day training course

1. Participation actionresearch 1introduction to parone-day training course 21st February 2014 rachel.pain@durham.ac.uk

2. The centre for social justice and community action A research centre based at Durham University, made up of academic researches from a number of departments and community partners. University-public engagement as a two-way dialogue. It’s aim is to: • Promote and develop research, teaching, public/community engagement and staff development around the board theme of social justice • Provide a centre of excellence for theoretically informed participatory and community-based research; do not see ‘thinking’ or ‘theory’ as separate from ‘practice’, or Universities as the only place where thinking of theory happen. • Provide a locus for good practice in this type of research and associated initiatives in teaching, training, engagement and staff development.

3. What does participation mean?

4. Participatory research: a brief history • Participatory research has evolved from: • Action research approaches from 1940s onwards, e.g. Lewin • Radical pedagogy, e.g, Freire • Development practice, especially in lower income countries • It developed in reaction to exploitative and extractive research processes • Acronyms are multiplying… • (and their content and meaning: what processes, ownership, political intent?) • PR, PA, PAR, PRA, PLA, RRA, RA, CBR, CBPR, FPAR, TPAR…… 

5. Orlandofals-border • “Do not monopolize your knowledge nor impose arrogantly your techniques but respect and combine your skills with the knowledge of the researched or grassroots communities, taking them as full partners and co-researchers.” • “Do not trust elitist versions of history and science which respond to dominant interests, but be receptive to counter-narratives and try to recapture them.” • “Do not depend solely on your culture to interpret facts, but recover local values, traits, beliefs, and arts for action by and with the research organizations.” • “Do not impose your own ponderous scientific style for communicating results, but diffuse and share what you have learned together with the people, in a manner, that is wholly understandable and even literary and pleasant, for science should not be necessarily a mystery nor a monopoly of experts and intellectuals.”

6. Mainstreaming • Originally grass roots activity, participatory approaches have become “institutionalised” – taken up by large organisations • Danger where ‘participation’ becomes a buzzword and original intent is lost • “The new tyranny” (Cooke and Kothari 2001) Researchers often add Participatory to Action Research in order to signal a political commitment, collaborative processes and participatory worldview (Reason and Bradbury 2006).

7. When to use participatory research • Helpful in many research contexts • Especially for groups of people who are often excluded (from society / from research) • Problem-solving orientation • Has some limitations and dangers.

8. What is participatory action research? “a collaborative process of research, education and action explicitly oriented towards social transformation” (Kindon et al 2007) “a radical challenge to the traditions of science… it deliberately inverts who constructs research questions, designs, methods, interpretations and products… researchers from the bottom of social hierarchies reposition as the architects of critical inquiry, contesting hierarchy and the distribution of resources, oppurtunities and the right to produce knowledge”

9. Principles of par • Ownership of research by groups and communities traditional can be seen as the ‘subjects’ • Benefits of research for all of those involved • Collaboration between researchers and participants, roles shared in problem definition, choice of methods, data analysis, use of findings. • Democratic basis – embodies democratic ideals and principles • “Empowerment” – through constructing and using our own knowledge • Wholeness – worldview of ‘feel-thinkers’ (Ospina 2008) Inevitably there are tensions and conflicts between realising different goals – producing knowledge; social empowerment; participant involvement, etc

10. Approach vs method Doing research in a participatory way can mean two things: • As a METHOD: Techniques of data collection and analysis • The best known is diagramming 2. As an APPROACH: All participants are involved in the whole research process • They share in deciding on questions, collecting data, doing analysis, interpreting findings, deciding on follow up action

11. Today, PAR is both 1. methods and 2. approaches • more challenging if taken both as method and approach • Many researchers adopt 1. without 2. • The importance of clarity and honesty • Fierce critiques of participatory research exist, and it is important to be aware of the dangers / drawbacks

12. Examples: par in river managment (Rachel Pain, David Milledge, Geoff Whitman, Lune River trust) • Growing demands in European and UK catchment legislation, for ‘participation’ • But inclusion of local people in river management tends to be superficial, tokenistic • In general – physical science lots of catching up to do with social science in this area Funder: ESRC (RELU programme) Research questions: developed jointly by all participants once the research had started Methodology: A Participatory Action Research project with Lune Rivers Trust and 3 academics, using participatory mapping, diagramming, discussion groups, modelling, statical analysis

13. R5 Well I find it with you know, with academics, they know, they’ve been to university, they’ve got their degrees, they’ve read this, they’ve studied that… and I just thought to come on something like this and not be patronised… R6 They’ll come from, these people will come along from the Environment Agency and this, that and other, and they’ll say you do that, they haven’t a bloody, nor practical idea whatsoever. R5 No. R6 They won’t listen to you, they’ve read it in books and that’s what we come across and that comes regular and that’s what’s wrong with the country they don’t listen to the people enough.

14. Identifying the research focus • Ripping up the research proposal… • A ground-up process • Used participatory diagramming to brainstorm, rank, prioritise and decide focus • Took 4 meetings • Needs steel nerves • But then, lift off…. all the ins/outs had been discussed, everyone was engaged and ready to go

15. Methodology • Participatory diagramming to frame, organise and make collective decisions • For research on slurry risk – vegetation surveys, modelling and mapping • Using different skills and competencies of the members, and learning • Fieldwork and ‘ground-truthing’ • Critique and re-orienting model parameters

16. The Sharing of expertise • Knowledge production as a negotiated process – both between academics and local people and between local people (contesting each others’ knowledges) • The scientific models became a product of the multiple knowledges of the group. • From this work, we questioned the terms ‘Expert/experts’ or redistributing expertise’ • Because its underlying assumption is always that the academic/ scientist/ policymaker is the active partner who is benevolent and able to ‘empower’ local knowledge. • With a desire and the conditions in place for real collaboration, this happens on both sides: knowledge circulates

17. Participatory techniques A wide range of techniques may be used in participatory research, including • Interviewing • Observation • Community surveys • Diagramming • Mapping • Arts techniques, such as video, photovoice, drama, storytelling

18. Why participatory diagramming • An engaging method that encourages participation, inclusive of all abilities • Excellent for identifying and developing initial issues, or final solutions • Or as part of a long reflective/iterative process • Or even used rapidly = large numbers of people • Can be used with individuals or groups • Often stimulates education, information exchange, debate, understanding

19. Developing participatory diagrams Types of diagram “Brainstorms” to raise issues and/or possible solutions Maps showing who lives where, location of important local features and resources, movements in space Flow diagrams to indicate linkages, sequences, causes, effects, problems and solutions Timelines or calendars showing how activities, resources, workloads, health, wages, well-being etc vary during the day/year Matrices or grids, scored with sticky dots, counters, or post-its, to compare things, showing how conditions have changed over time, or make decisions There are many more… see handout, reading list and websites!

20. Using of participatory diagrams • Paper, coloured pens, sticky dots, post-its etc, used to work through a sequence of tools • With guidance of facilitator, group moves through a process: looking at current situation, identifying issues and problems, raising solutions • Emphasis on participants’ knowledge, ideas, contributions – direction of session • Observations, interviewing the diagram’, notes of group discussion = also data • Participants involves in verification and analysis, and acting on findings

21. Trying the diagrams In your group, choose a question …may be linked to your research interests, or a current issue Work through a diagram format chose from the examples on the handout.

22. Diagramming as research method Advantages…. Route to a community view Effective for accessing ‘hard to reach’ groups Potentially wide coverage of population Participants choose level of involvement Group work is inclusive, and promotes information sharing and education Limitations…. Romanticisation of ‘community’ Produces certain types of information Information may be brief and superficial Relationship with researcher may be very brief Presence of others affects personal accounts

23. Research is emergent and reflects people’s own priorities and interests Can tailor tools to participants Participants as experts in problem definition and solutions Collective solutions emerge organically Information may not address goals of research Selective involvement of participants in verification and analysis Unequal power and representation amongst participants, and between participants and researchers Social and political factors can affect change to the detriment of the participants Pain and Francis (2003)

24. Participation: the new tyranny? The critique: Rather than empowering communities, participatory approaches often have negative effects • Producing participants as requiring research • Whose idea was this research? Did you ask them? • Producing disciplined subjects as participants, expected to perform appropriately • This is a ground up process… you are local people… so get to it!! • Retaining researchers’ control whilst presenting themselves as benign • Ignore me, I’m just the vehicle through which the research passes

25. Romanticising “local knowledge” • You’re the experts… all we need to do is to tell the rest of the world • Reinforcing power hierarchies in communities • Who’s going to volunteer to collate/represent/disseminate this? • Legitimising neo-liberal programmes and institutions • Trust me, I’m from Durham University! (Kindon et al, 2007)

26. Final thoughts… • Participatory approaches are now widely used, and abused, in research • Too many “pollyanna” accounts of happy, successful, fulfilled participation, and neat models that are applied no matter what the context! • Participation does not depend on using a particular method, but is a process • Participation (and diagramming) did not evolve as a research method, but a means for education and action • Participatory Action Research emphasis ‘the action bit’ • Participation always works out differently (and unexpectedly), influanced by context, place, people, politics, personalities, desires • Developing participatory ethics… • Accountability, reciprocity, reflexivity, representation, dialogue • Participants’ desires and views about the choice and governance of approach • See PAR 2:”Embedding participation in research practice (21st March)