Participatory methods: pitfalls, paradoxes and promise.

Alison Black and Suanne Gibson

Examine the strengths and positives of participatory methods,

discuss the pitfalls and tensions that may affect the quality and credibility of research findings

Raise key considerations with regard to methodological rigour

Purpose of paper

“involve a range of stakeholders as participants in the planning and conduct of research, and in the knowledge development that arises from those shared processes” (Braye & McDonald, 2013, p. 268).

An emerging qualitative paradigm? (debateable) An evolving qualitative paradigm? (our experience) Connecting participatory research to Inclusive research

(Black-Hawkins and Amrhein 2014) Participatory inclusive research? (links to recent

methodological developments in the field). co-researchers as well as sample population?

Participatory Inclusive (?) research methodology

HEA Professor Sir Ron Cooke International Scholarships –Awarded Easter 2013

Developing a inclusive pedagogy for the retention and success of ‘students at risk of exclusion’.

Background and questions to consider- complexities and uncertainties of ‘Inclusion’ and student diversity.

Faculty of Education undergraduate courses in six international centres.

A mixed method was used- a quantitative online questionnaire and 4 focus groups at each centre.

Participatory, then participatory-inclusive research methodology was used.

Developing inclusive pedagogy for the retention and success of ‘non-traditional’ students or ‘students at risk of exclusion’

Focus group participants became co-creators of knowledge with academic facilitators.

FG dialogue and follow up email on ‘thematic data analysis’.

Academic facilitators supported the ‘sharing of themes’ activity.

We held 2 further FGs to aide discussion and debate around themes.

All 6 centres had commonality in three themes agreeing ‘emotions and feelings’ as most pertinent.

The key points to explore/focus on…

Paradox? Our PIR methodology resulted in disruptive agents creating positive methodological developments

Rich data, facilitating participants ‘the researched’ as equals and ‘co-researchers’

or…..

Strengths

Paradox? Our PIR methodology resulted in disruptive agents upsetting what is considered solid methodological approaches.

Questionable quality of analysis by ‘novice’ analysts? (Nind 2014)

Or quality analysis by indigenous voices Cook-Sather 2012; Fine 2007; Hall 2014;

Welikala and Atkin 2014

Challenges to solid methodology?

2nd part of doctoral thesis (Did two studies in one)

Futures studies methodology (5 Ps and a Q)

Future secondary schools for diversity: where are we now, and where could we

be?

Started with a problem Looked at ways that problem

could be resolved Presented those ideas to focus

groups Focus groups did a SWOT

analysis Ideas refined and

reconstructed in light of critique

Use of panels of experts to evaluate and extend the model

Why? Who? (n=72)

“anyone can make a forecast, sketch out a handful of scenarios, argue for what ought to

be done, and identify some new trend. It takes special skills however to see the big picture – and to continually reformulate what is seen”

(Marien, 2002, p. 272).

Why use experts?…

Expertise of participants Their participation and evaluation

integral to process By participating in the process, the

experts were required and equipped to question/reflect and develop ideas about education

Strengths

SWOT analysis as a tool Limitations of language and current

constructs Limitations of experts A true reflection of aspirational practice, or

empty rhetoric “What next” But is it participatory?

Issues

“when talking about education…we all carry around so much baggage about the ways in which education is currently organised and delivered in our society. It is very hard to

break away from this to think more radically and imaginatively…

So if I talk about markets in education, people always put them in the context of schools and teachers and all the rest. And

this always raises many objections in people’s minds to markets in education”

(Tooley, 2000, p. 21).

SWOT analysis as a tool Limitations of language and current

constructs Limitations of experts A true reflection of aspirational practice, or

empty rhetoric “What next” But is it participatory?

Issues

Quality in emerging research methods Issues of ethics IR at an impasse?

Summary

Börjeson, L., Höjer, M., Dreborg, K., Ekvall, T., & Finnveden, G. (2006). Scenario types and techniques: towards a user's guide. Futures, 38, 723-739.

Braye, S. and McDonnell, L. (2013), Balancing powers: university researchers thinking critically about participatory research with young fathers, Qualitative Research, 13, 3, 265-284

Bryman, A. (2012) Social research methods (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press

Cook-Sather, A. (2012). Translating learners, researchers, and qualitative approaches through investigations of students’ experiences in school. Qualitative Research, 13,3 352–367

Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). (2011). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th ed.). London: Sage.

Fine M, Torre ME, Burns A, et al. (2007) Youth research/ participatory methods for reform. In: Thiessen D and Cook-Sather A (eds) International Handbook of Student Experience in Elementary and Secondary School. Dordrecht: Springer

Kosow, H., & Gaßner, R. (2008). Methods of future and scenario analysis: overview, assessment, and selection criteria. Bonn: German Development Institute.

Lamentowicz, W. (2008). Ways of thinking about the future: strategic implications. In A. Gąsior-Niemiec, A. Kukliński & W. Lamentowicz (Eds.), Faces of the 21st Century (pp. 73-82). Pruszków: Rewasz Publishing House.

Hall, L. 2014. ‘With’ Not ‘About’ – Emerging Paradigms for Research in a Cross-Cultural Space. International Journal of Research & Method in Education 37, 4, 376 – 389.Marien, M. (2002). Futures studies in the 21st Century: a reality based view. Futures, 34(3), 261-281Mertens, D. (2010). Transformative mixed methods research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16, 469-474Nind, M. (2011). Participatory data analysis: a step too far?. Qualitative Research, 11(4), 349-363.Patomäki, H. (2006). Realist ontology for Futures Studies. Journal of Critical Realism, 5(1), 1-31. Seale, J., Nind, M., & Parsons, S. (2014). Inclusive research in education: contributions to method and debate. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 37(4), 347-356.

Selin, C. (2006). Trust and the illusive force of scenarios. Futures, 38(1), 1-14.

Silverman, D. (2005). Doing qualitative research (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications Limited

Tooley, J. (2000). Reclaiming education. London: Cassell.

Welikala, T., & Atkin, C. (2014). Student Co-inquirers: The Challenges and Benefits of Inclusive Research. International Journal of Research & Method in Education 37, 4, 390 – 406.