Transcript Glasgow Caledonian University Powerpoint Presentation

Interactive Seminar Critical and Participatory Methods:
Enhancing Knowledge Exchange
with Stakeholders
University College Cork Summer School
Wednesday 20th June 2012
Stephen Sinclair
Glasgow Caledonian University
Participatory and Community Research
• “Nothing About Us Without Us Is For Us”
•
“Poverty will never be truly addressed until those who experience it
first-hand are at the heart of the process” (Poverty Truth
Commission, 2011)
•
Demand for participation by research ‘subjects’
• Policy makers “often view research as the
opposite of action rather than the opposite of
ignorance” (Court, 2004: 16)
•
Social research dismissed as irrelevant and ineffectual
page 2
Participatory and Community Research
•
Two challenges posed to social research:
i.
Generating knowledge: participatory / community research
methods (PCR)
ii.
Disseminating knowledge: effective Knowledge Exchange (KE)
•
Two questions explored in this session:
 who should be involved in researching poverty and social issues?
 how can we translate research results into policy?
•
Are social researchers caught between two challenges?
page 3
page 4
social researchers
policy-makers
community
Participatory and Community Research
Questions of Methodology and Method
•
Who possesses expertise in researching poverty and other social
issues?
•
Can those from outside a community know more about it than its
members?
•
What counts as genuine ‘knowledge’?
•
How does practical experience and ‘know-how’ compare to ‘scientific’
knowledge?
•
Are participatory methods ‘proper’ scientific research?
•
Does participation increase the quality of research and/or effectiveness
of knowledge exchange?
•
If subjects and communities are accepted as experts, what is the role of
social researchers?
•
What are the implications of participatory research for such principles as
objectivity and neutrality?
•
What are the distinctive challenges raised by participatory research, and
can these be overcome?
page 5
Format of this Session
•
More questions than answers? (… typical academic …)
•
The method is the message
•
Deliberative process: interactive discussion
•
Dialogue might not produce clear process nor outcomes
•
Can / should researchers retain control over participatory
processes?
•
Slides and other information available from Summer School
organisers (or me)
page 6
Participatory and Community Research
•
Traditional social research accused of treating communities as
objects (Barr, 2005)
•
Research has been ‘done to’ or on rather than with or by people
•
Recognition of ‘agency’ of research ‘subjects’, i.e. ‘thinking,
striving, doing beings’ (Weber)
•
Research subjects are active not passive
•
Participatory methods can uncover ‘insider’ knowledge and the
lived reality of a situation
•
Origin: disabled peoples’ rights movement
•
Interest in effecting change and improving conditions:
emancipatory research
page 7
Participatory and Community Research
•
Action research (AR):
‘a participatory, democratic process concerned with developing
practical knowing in the pursuit of worthwhile human purposes. It
seeks to bring together action and reflection, theory and practice,
in participation with others, in the pursuit of practical solutions to
issues of pressing concern to people, and more generally the
flourishing of individual persons and their communities’ (Reason
and Bradbury 2000)
•
Scottish Community Development Centre: ‘research that wants to
make a change’
•
PCR challenges the authority of traditional scientific research:
expertise resides in those who experience a situation
•
PCR involves ‘democratic dialogue’ between researchers and
community members
page 8
Participatory and Community Research
•
Participants should be co-researchers or in charge of the research
process
•
PCR demystifies research and empowers community: positive
impact on confidence, skills, political efficacy and social capital
•
PCR can change self-perception and behaviour of those otherwise
marginalised or excluded
•
But how do we do this?
Discussion exercise…
page 9
Discussion Exercise #1
•
Design a participatory / community research project
•
Possible topics:
 Are local leisure and social facilities for young people satisfactory?
 Are local financial services suitable for a deprived community? How
could any service gaps be addressed?
 Is this community deprived? What are residents’ perceptions of the scale
and nature of neighbourhood poverty, or wealth?
 Local liveability: what is the quality of the local environment and what
improvements (if any) are required?
 What are the local material, financial and social resources and assets
available to the community? Could they draw upon these more
effectively?
 Is there a local problem of youth disaffection and low aspirations?
 Suggestions welcome: if you have any research ideas of your own please
propose these
page 10
Discussion Exercise #1
•
Questions to discuss:
 Is this a researchable question? Sir Peter Medawar: ‘research is … the art
of the soluble’
Does it require more precision?
Do we know what an answer would look like?
Can the key concepts be operationalized?
 Is a participatory research approach either desirable or necessary for this
topic?
What (if anything) might it contribute compared to more conventional
research methods?
 Population: who are the research subjects?
How can they be accessed?
Will members of this community be willing and able to participate in
research?
page 11
Discussion Exercise #1
 Capacity: what skills and other resources might community / lay
researchers require to gather the information required?
How could they be provided with these resources?
 How much control of the research process should the professional
researcher retain, if any?
 Are there any barriers to community participation?
Can these be reduced?
 Practical issues: are there any other distinctive considerations or
requirements which might arise in using participatory research methods?
 Ethical issues: are there any additional or distinctive ethical
considerations raised by participatory research methods?
•
Discuss in groups for 20 minutes, or until we have answers (or get
bored) …
page 12
Exercise #1: Discussion and Feedback
•
Two challenges:
 Methodological
 Practical
•
Conventional criteria used to assess research:
 Validity
 Reliability
 Representativeness
 Ethics
page 13
Issues of Validity
•
Validity: does concept or measure corresponds to social reality?
•
Bourdieu (1972) ‘Public Opinion Does Not Exist’
•
Different forms of knowledge:
 propositional - ideas and theories
 practical - skills and abilities
 experiential - tacit and intuitive
•
Which outcome measures and indicators are most appropriate?
•
Ogilvie et al (2011: 213) tension between professional desire for
criteria, checklists, and scoring systems, and users’ interest in
‘softer’ outcomes
•
Policy makers are uneasy about nebulous indicators and
outcomes: ‘that horrible touchy-feely thing that you don’t want to
go near’ (Davies, 2009: 86)
page 14
Issues of Validity
•
Should we accept community / users’ opinions at face value?
•
Learned expectations and adaptive preferences
•
Viet-Wilson (2002): defining poverty is a collective moral decision, not the
preserve of those who currently experiencing it
•
Runciman (1966): people do not like to be identified as ‘poor’
•
Social construction of ‘common sense’: where do beliefs come from?
(Berger and Luckmann, 1967)
•
Could subjects be systematically ill-informed?
•
Kuhn (1962): scientists’ opinions are shaped by paradigms
•
Example: the positron - physicists failed…
‘to notice the tracks in cloud chambers caused by positrons before the
theoretical postulation of these particles (in 1928) by Paul Dirac. When
particle physicists look back at the experiments conducted in the years
before Dirac’s work they see clear evidence of positrons that seems to have
been completely missed by their predecessors’ (Ladyman, 2001: 12)
page 15
Issues of Validity
•
Randomised controlled trials and Systematic Reviews are required
to check practitioners’ practical and experiential ‘knowledge’:
‘There is a long history of upset being caused by trials… Archie
Cochrane, one of the grandfathers of evidence-based medicine,
once amusingly described how different groups of surgeons were
each earnestly contending that their treatment for cancer was the
most effective… Cochrane went so far as to bring a collection of
them together in a room, so that they could witness each other’s
dogged but conflicting certainty, in his efforts to persuade them of
the need for trials’ (Goldacre, 2008: 43)
•
PCR does not answer precise questions nor provide precise
answers
•
PCR does not provide causal explanations
page 16
Issues of Reliability
•
PCR projects difficult to replicate and independently test
•
Action research is iterative rather than pre-determined:
http://www.aral.com.au/resources/aandr.html
•
PCR projects may not have clear aims nor objectives
•
How do we keep research focused and on track?
•
Researchers might lose critical distance and ‘go native’
page 17
Issues of Representativeness
•
How to avoid the risk that ‘the loudest community members appear
to speak’ for the community? (Harkins and Egan, 2012: 8)
•
Beresford and Hoban (2005): liaise with existing community / usercontrolled organisations for recruitment
•
Active outreach required
•
PCR produces ‘thick’ descriptions and ‘intensive’ rather than
‘extensive’ findings (Savin-Baden and Wimpenny, 2012)
•
Are PCR findings so context-specific that they cannot be
generalised?
•
Realist evaluation - not ‘what works?’, but ‘what works, for whom in
what circumstances?’ (Pawson et al, 2004)
page 18
Ethical Issues
•
PCR is potentially a more ‘invasive procedure’ than other research
approaches
•
Prior consideration of potential effect upon communities required
•
‘First, do no harm’ (Hippocratic Oath)
•
Leave a positive legacy
•
Beresford, 2000: consultation fatigue is a result of ‘being repeatedly
subjected to tokenistic, cynical and unproductive arrangements for
user involvement’
•
Some PCR projects have ‘ignited a powder keg’ of community
agitation (Todhunter, 2001)
page 19
Ethical Issues
•
PCR does not necessarily produce consensus
•
A ‘community’ is not always a homogenous entity
•
The ‘primary’ researcher must learn to negotiate differences
•
Who sets the research agenda?
•
Ideally PCR should be initiated by community rather than by
professional researchers (Savin-Baden and Wimpenny, 2012)
•
Participants should be involved in all activities and stages: setting
questions, gathering data, analysing findings, writing up and
disseminating results
•
What is the purpose of research: neutrality and objectivity or
effecting change?
•
Beresford, 2000: ‘No arrangement for user involvement can be
justified unless there is a commitment to be influenced by it and for
it to lead to change’
page 20
Ethical Issues
•
Savin-Baden and Wimpenny, 2012: 333 - ‘If an action research
project does not make a difference in a specific way for the
participants, then it has failed to achieve its objectives’
•
Questions of value-neutrality: Weber (1918), Gouldner (1962),
Becker (1967)
•
PCR challenges division between research and policy action or
reform
•
Beresford, 2000: the case for participation is essentially political
not intellectual nor professional
page 21
Knowledge Exchange
•
Is it the responsibility of the researcher to see results put to use in
policy?
•
ESRC: Knowledge exchange = dialogue between researchers and
research users to share ideas, evidence, experiences and skills
•
Evely et al, 2012: 15 - the ultimate aim of KE is ‘wisdom’: ‘the
process of putting knowledge into action in ways that are
constructive and for the common good’
•
Simple ‘transfer’ of knowledge or exposing users to information
rarely achieves significant change
•
KE entails building relationships and effective communication
•
Research utilisation depends more on users’ receptiveness than on
attributes of research itself (Mitton et al, 2007: 741)
•
Research receptive capacity can be cultivated and developed
•
Regard knowledge as dualistic and exchange as a two-way process
page 22
Knowledge Exchange
•
‘Stakeholders are not passive groups waiting to be illuminated by
researchers; they have their own agendas, objectives and politics.
Understanding this is key to managing expectations and building
mutually beneficial relationships’ (Prof. Catherina Pharoah)
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/media/brief/impactcase/policy/pages/Pharoah.aspx
•
Remember - different types of knowledge:
 Practical and Experiential: ‘know-how’ and ‘know-who’; i.e. skills
and abilities, implicit procedural and tacit information
 Propositional: ‘know-what’ and ‘know-why’; i.e. declarative and
explicit data, theoretical reflections
•
Craft, professional knowledge and the ‘wisdom of practice’ are
important (Miller and Pasley, 2012)
•
KE includes making practical experience and tacit knowledge
explicit and reflexive; i.e. converting ‘experience’ into ‘expertise’
(Elmore, 2002)
page 23
Discussion Exercise #2
•
Al Gore: ‘We have warehouses of unused information “rotting” while
critical questions are left unanswered and critical problems are left
unresolved’ (Petticrew and Roberts, 2006: 79)
•
Financial exclusion a ‘research-saturated’ topic where knowledge is not
always reflected in policy
•
Project aim: improve research impact by identifying stakeholders’
familiarity with research and reasons for apparent lack of uptake
•
Project objectives:
 Establish what is ‘known’ about financial exclusion in the UK and whether
stakeholders accept research as accurate and legitimate
 Identify genuine knowledge gaps: ‘known unknowns’
 Improve dissemination among stakeholders of what is accepted
 Identify barriers to research uptake and application: ignorance or
resistance?
•
Exercise: design a KE project to meet these objectives
page 24
Exercise #2: Discussion and Feedback
•
Scottish Poverty Information Unit project for Friends Provident
Foundation (Sinclair et al, 2009) - 4 research activities:
 Rapid Systematic Reviews of financial inclusion research (banking,
credit, insurance, savings and assets, money advice, financial
capability)
 Evidence Review Forums with stakeholders: central / local
government and regulators, advice services, private sector,
voluntary sector / social enterprises, marginalised service users
 Deliberative Knowledge Exchange conference
 Online Discussion Forum
page 25
Knowledge Exchange
•
How does policy and practice change come about?
•
What would be required to make you change your opinion on an
important policy issue?
•
PCR rejects ‘hypodermic syringe’ model of change (Philo, 2001)
•
Research evidence is filtered through belief systems
•
Credibility and legitimacy are crucial
•
Townsend, 1976: ‘bureaucracies have vested interests in defining
problems for which they are responsible in forms which show that
these problems are of “manageable” proportions’
•
Manning (1985): ‘a major influence on the emergence of a
successful social problem is the availability of a promising solution
for it - in many cases the solution determines the problem rather
than vice versa’
page 26
Knowledge Exchange
•
Complexity Theory:
 no necessary proportionality between inputs and outcomes
 outcomes are contingent and context dependent
 complex systems ‘defy the standards of the positivist canons of
prediction and explanation’ (Reed and Harvey, 1996)
•
Different forms research influence:
 Identification
 Enlightenment
 Re-conceptualisation
 Diffusion
 Mobilisation
page 27
Knowledge Exchange
•
Direct instrumental use of research is relatively rare
•
Policy changes often more diffuse: through absorption of
information, changes of outlook, shifts in beliefs, etc.
•
Effective communication is often more important than research
quality
•
KE is an interactive social process
•
KE involves long-term relationship management
•
Greatest impact achieved by developing effective relationships with
key opinion-formers
•
Questions and discussion…?
page 28
The End…
Thank you for your participation
I hope that we have exchanged some knowledge
[email protected]
page 29
References
Barr, A. (2005). ‘The Contribution Of Research To Community Development.’ Community Development Journal.
40 (4). 453-458
Becker H. S. (1967) ‘Whose Side Are We On?’ Social Problems. 14 (3). 239-247
Beresford, P. (2000). ‘User Involvement In Social Policy research And Analysis: Part Two’. SPA News. Oct / Nov.
21-22
Beresford, P. and Hoban, M. (2005) Participation In Anti-Poverty And Regeneration Work And Research:
Overcoming Barriers And Creating Opportunities Joseph Rowntree Foundation
Berger, P. and Luckmann, T. (1967). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise In The Sociology Of
Knowledge. London: Allen Lane
Bourdieu, P. (1979). 'Public Opinion Does Not Exist'. In Mattelart, A. and Sugelaub, S. (eds). Communication And
Class Struggle, Vol. 1. New York: International General (original 1972)
Court, J. (2004). ‘The Political Context In Developing Countries’ in Overseas Development Institute. Research
And Policy In Development: Does Evidence Matter? London: Overseas Development Institute
Davies, J. S. (2009). ‘The Limits Of Joined-Up Government: Towards A Political Analysis.’ Public Administration.
87 (1). 80-96
Elmore, R. (2002) Bridging The Gap Between Standards And Achievement: The Imperative For Professional
Development In Education. Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute.
Evely, A. C. et al (2012). ‘Developing Knowledge Exchange For Resilience: How People View and Construct
Knowledge Matters.’ Sustainable Learning Working Paper, no’ 2.
Goldacre, B. (2008). Bad Science. London: Fourth Estate
Gouldner, A.V. (1973). ’Anti-Minotaur: The Myth Of A Value Free Sociology’ in For Sociology. London: Allen
Lane (original 1962)
page 30
References
Harkins, C and Egan, J. (2012). The Role Of Participatory Budgeting In Promoting Localism And Mobilising
Community Assets. Glasgow: Centre for Population Health
Kuhn, T. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago : University of Chicago Press
Ladyman, J. (2001). Understanding The Philosophy Of Science. London: Routledge
Manning, N. (1985). Social Problems And Welfare Ideology. Aldershot: Gower.
Medawar, P. (1967). The Art of the Soluble. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Miller, B. and Pasley, J. (2012). ‘What Do We Know And How Well Do We Know It? Identifying Practice-Based
Insights In Education.’ Evidence & Policy. 8 (2). 193-212
Mitton, C. et al (2007). ‘Knowledge Transfer And Exchange: review And Synthesis Of The Literature.’ The
Milbank Quarterly. 85 (4). 729-768
Ogilvie, D. et al. (2011). ‘Assessing the Evaluability of Complex Public Health Interventions: Five Questions for
Researchers, Funders, and Policymakers’. The Milbank Quarterly. 89 (2). 206-225
Pawson, R. et al. (2004) Realist Synthesis: An Introduction. ESRC Research Methods Programme
Petticrew, M. and Roberts, H. (2006) Systematic Reviews In The Social Sciences: A Practical Guide. (2nd edition).
Oxford: Blackwell
Philo, G. (2001). ‘Media Effects And The Active Audience’. Sociology Review. 10 (3). 26-29
Poverty Truth Commission (2011). Nothing About Us Without Us Is For Us. Glasgow: Poverty Truth
Commission. http://www.povertytruthcommission.org/
Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (2001). ‘Inquiry and Participation In Search Of A World Worthy Of Human
Aspiration’. Reason P. and Bradbury, H. (eds). Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry
and Practice . London: Sage
page 31
References
Reed, M. and Harvey, D.L. (1996). ‘Social Science As The Study Of Complex Systems.’ in Kiel, L.D. and Elliott, E.
(eds), Chaos Theory In The Social Sciences. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Runciman, W.G. (1972). Relative Deprivation And Social Justice. Harmondsworth: Penguin (original 1966 )
Savin-Baden, M. and Wimpenny, K. (2012). ‘Exploring and Implementing Participatory Action Research’. Journal
of Geography in Higher Education. 31 (2): 331-343
Scottish Community Development Centre - Action Research By, In And For Communities: A Practical Guide To
Community-Led Action Research. http://www.scdc.org.uk/what/community-led-action-research/ARC
Sinclair, S. et al (2009). Understanding Financial Inclusion: Using Action Research And A Knowledge Exchange
Review To Establish What Is Agreed, And What Remains Contested. Dorking: Friends Provident
Foundation. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/31/45/44109352.pdf
Todhunter, C. (2001). ‘Undertaking Action Research: Negotiating the Road Ahead’. Social Research Update 23. http://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/SRU34.html
Townsend, P. (1976). Sociology And Social Policy. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Viet-Wilson , J (2002). ‘Researching Poverty And The Poor.’ Journal Of Social Policy. 31 (3): 537-544
Weber, M. (1948). ‘Science as a Vocation’ in From Max Weber: Essays In Sociology. (Translated & Edited by
Gerth, H.H. & Mills, C.W). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul (original 1918)
page 32
Some Useful Sources
Bennet, F. and Roberts, M. (2004). From Input To Influence: Participatory Approaches To Research And Inquiry Into
Poverty. Joseph Rowntree Foundation - http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/participatory-approaches-research-poverty
Bergold , J. and Thomas, S. (2012). ‘Participatory Research Methods: A Methodological Approach in Motion’. Forum
Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 13 (1) - http://www.qualitativeresearch.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1801/3335
Centre for Citizen Participation - http://www.brunel.ac.uk/shssc/research/ccp
Falkingham, J. (2009). Partnership Research: A Review Of Approaches And Challenges In Conducting Research In
Partnership With Service Users. Discussion Paper. NCRM. - http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/778/
Institute for Community Research - http://www.incommunityresearch.org/
Involve (2005). People and Participation: How To Put Citizens At The Heart Of Decision-Making:
http://www.involve.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/People-and-Participation.pdf
O'leary, T. Burkett I. and Braithwaite, K. (2011). Appreciating Assets. International Association for Community
Development / Carnegie UK Trust - http://www.carnegieuktrust.org.uk/getattachment/aedb15fb-a64a-4d71-a2d6e8e6e865319b/Appreciating-Assets.aspx
People and Participation - http://www.peopleandparticipation.net/display/Involve/Home
Public Money & Management, 2010. 30 (4) special issue on ‘Co-production of social research’.
Word Bank, Participation and Civic Engagement resources http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTSOCIALDEVELOPMENT/EXTPCENG/0,,contentMDK:20282
087~menuPK:1278110~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:410306,00.html
page 33