stephen sinclair glasgow caledonian university

33
Interactive Seminar - Critical and Participatory Methods: Enhancing Knowledge Exchange with Stakeholders University College Cork Summer School Wednesday 20 th June 2012 Stephen Sinclair Glasgow Caledonian University

Upload: svein

Post on 14-Jan-2016

35 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

Interactive Seminar - Critical and Participatory Methods: Enhancing Knowledge Exchange with Stakeholders University College Cork Summer School Wednesday 20 th June 2012. Stephen Sinclair Glasgow Caledonian University. Participatory and Community Research. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Stephen Sinclair Glasgow Caledonian University

Interactive Seminar -Critical and Participatory Methods: Enhancing Knowledge Exchange with Stakeholders

University College Cork Summer SchoolWednesday 20th June 2012

Stephen Sinclair

Glasgow Caledonian University

Page 2: 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

Page 3: Stephen Sinclair Glasgow Caledonian University

Participatory and Community Research

page 3

• 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 4: Stephen Sinclair Glasgow Caledonian University

Participatory and Community Research

page 4

social researchers

com

mu

nit

y

polic

y-m

akers

Page 5: Stephen Sinclair Glasgow Caledonian University

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

Page 6: Stephen Sinclair Glasgow Caledonian University

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

Page 7: Stephen Sinclair Glasgow Caledonian University

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

Page 8: Stephen Sinclair Glasgow Caledonian University

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

Page 9: Stephen Sinclair Glasgow Caledonian University

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

Page 10: Stephen Sinclair Glasgow Caledonian University

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

Page 11: Stephen Sinclair Glasgow Caledonian University

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

Page 12: Stephen Sinclair Glasgow Caledonian University

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

Page 13: Stephen Sinclair Glasgow Caledonian University

Exercise #1: Discussion and Feedback• Two challenges:

Methodological

Practical

• Conventional criteria used to assess research:

Validity

Reliability

Representativeness

Ethics

page 13

Page 14: Stephen Sinclair Glasgow Caledonian University

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

Page 15: Stephen Sinclair Glasgow Caledonian University

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

Page 16: Stephen Sinclair Glasgow Caledonian University

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

Page 17: Stephen Sinclair Glasgow Caledonian University

Issues of Reliability• PCR projects difficult to replicate and independently test

• Action research is iterative rather than pre-determined:

 

• 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

http://www.aral.com.au/resources/aandr.html

Page 18: Stephen Sinclair Glasgow Caledonian University

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 / user-controlled 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

Page 19: Stephen Sinclair Glasgow Caledonian University

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

Page 20: Stephen Sinclair Glasgow Caledonian University

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

Page 21: Stephen Sinclair Glasgow Caledonian University

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

Page 22: Stephen Sinclair Glasgow Caledonian University

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

Page 23: Stephen Sinclair Glasgow Caledonian University

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

Page 24: Stephen Sinclair Glasgow Caledonian University

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

Page 25: Stephen Sinclair Glasgow Caledonian University

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

Page 26: Stephen Sinclair Glasgow Caledonian University

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

Page 27: Stephen Sinclair Glasgow Caledonian University

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

Page 28: Stephen Sinclair Glasgow Caledonian University

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

Page 29: Stephen Sinclair Glasgow Caledonian University

The End…

page 29

Thank you for your participation

I hope that we have exchanged some knowledge

[email protected]

Page 30: Stephen Sinclair Glasgow Caledonian University

References

page 30

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 31: Stephen Sinclair Glasgow Caledonian University

References

page 31

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 32: Stephen Sinclair Glasgow Caledonian University

References

page 32

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 33: Stephen Sinclair Glasgow Caledonian University

Some Useful Sources

page 33

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.qualitative-research.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-a2d6-e8e6e865319b/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:20282087~menuPK:1278110~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:410306,00.html