Participatory methods: pitfalls,
paradoxes and promise.
Alison Black and Suanne Gibson
Purpose of paper
 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
Participatory Inclusive (?) research
methodology
 “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 (BlackHawkins and Amrhein 2014)
 Participatory inclusive research? (links to recent methodological
developments in the field).
 co-researchers as well as sample population?
Developing inclusive pedagogy for the retention and
success of ‘non-traditional’ students or ‘students at
risk of exclusion’
 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.
The key points to explore/focus on…
 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.
Strengths
 Paradox? Our PIR methodology resulted
in disruptive agents creating positive
methodological developments
 Rich data, facilitating participants ‘the
researched’ as equals and ‘coresearchers’
or…..
Challenges to solid methodology?
 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
Future secondary schools for diversity:
where are we now, and where could
we be?
 2nd part of doctoral thesis (Did two studies in one)
 Futures studies methodology (5 Ps and a Q)
 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
Why use experts?…
 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).
Strengths
 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
Issues




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?
“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).
Issues




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?
Summary
 Quality in emerging research methods
 Issues of ethics
 IR at an impasse?
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), 261-281
Mertens, D. (2010). Transformative mixed methods research. Qualitative
Inquiry, 16, 469-474
Nind, 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.