Advertisement

Engaging: The Choice and Use of Participatory Methods

  • Tineke Abma
  • Sarah Banks
  • Tina Cook
  • Sónia Dias
  • Wendy Madsen
  • Jane Springett
  • Michael T. Wright
Chapter

Chapter Summary

Abstract

The process of engaging people in the research of their lives or work involves a participatory approach to data collection, or what is often understood in participatory research as “data generation.” Engaging people in data collection or generation requires the creation of “communicative space”, and the use of methods that facilitate learning and mutual understanding. Such a process is often non-linear and messy, which is not a threat but a natural part of the process. Reasons for a participatory approach to data collection and/or data generation are set out and examples are given. Data generation evolves through storytelling, questioning and dialogue and critical reflection on action among those participating.

Purpose

Most people know about more conventional research methods, methods such as surveys, interviews, focus groups. There are many good text books that will help you with this. This chapter will help you think about the notion of “method”, what the purpose of method is, and in what ways we might collect and generate data in line with the values of a participatory approach.

Central Question

How to facilitate the process of engaging people in data collection and/or data generation as inquiry into their own lives and work?

Keywords

Data Collection and Generation Communicative Space Engagement Method Messiness 

Further Reading and Sources of Inspiration

  1. Barone, T., & Eisner, E. W. (2011). Arts based research. London/Los Angeles: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  2. Munn-Giddings, C., & Cook, T. (2016) Editorial. Concluding thoughts: Virtual issue on the theme of “creative expression” in action research. Educational Action Research http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/pdf/EARJ-VSI-Editorial.pdfGoogle Scholar

References

  1. Abma, T. A. (1998). Storytelling as inquiry in a mental hospital. Qualitative Health Research, 8(6), 821–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abma, T. A. (2001). Opening thoughts. In T.A. Abma (Eds.), Dialogue in evaluation. Evaluation, 7(2): 155–163.Google Scholar
  3. Abma, T. A. (2005). Responsive evaluation: Its meaning and special contribution to health promotion. Evaluation and Program Planning, 28, 279–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Abma, T. A. (2018) Dialogue and deliberation, new approaches to the inclusion of patients in research agenda setting, action research. Feb 26, 2018. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1476750318757850
  5. Abma, T. A., & Widdershoven, G. A. M. (2005). Sharing stories: Narrative and dialogue in responsive nursing evaluation. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 28(1), 90–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Abma, T.A., Leyerzapf, H., & Landeweer, E. (2016), Responsive evaluation in the Interferencezone between system and lifeworld. American Journal of Evaluation, 1–14, DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214016667211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boal, A. (2000). Theatre of the oppressed (3rd ed.). London: Pluto.Google Scholar
  8. Clough, P. (2002). Narratives and fictions in educational research. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cook, T. (1998). The importance of mess in action research. Educational Action Research, 6(1), 93–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cook, T. (2009). The purpose of mess in action research: Building rigour through a messy turn. Educational Action Research, 17(2), 277–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cook, T. (2011). Towards Inclusive Living: A case study of the impact of inclusive practice in neurorehabilitation/neuro-psychiatry services. DoH Policy Programme Long Term Neurological Conditions http://www.ltnc.org.uk/research_files/impact_inclusive.html
  12. Cook, T., & Hess, E. (2007). What the camera sees and from whose perspective? Fun: methodologies for engaging children in enlightening adults. Childhood, 14(1), 29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fals-Borda, O. (1997). Participatory action research in Colombia: Some personal feelings. In R. McTaggart (Ed.), Participatory action research: International contexts and consequences (pp. 107–112). Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  14. Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against method: Outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge. 1978 ed. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  15. Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  16. Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  18. Habermas, J. (2003). Truth and justification. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. International Collaboration for Participatory Health Research (ICPHR). (2013). Position Paper 1: What is Participatory Health Research? Editorial Group: Michael T. Wright, Germany (lead); Irma Brito, Portugal; Tina Cook, UK; D Janet Harris, UK; Maria Elisabeth Kleba, Brazil; Wendy Madsen, Australia; Jane Springett, Canada; Tom Wakeford, UK www.icphr.orgGoogle Scholar
  20. Kamberelis, G., & Dimitriadis, G. (2011). Focus groups. Contingent articulations of pedagogy, politics and inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 545–561). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  21. Madriz, E. (2000). Focus groups in feminist research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 835–850). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  22. McKie, L. (2003). Rhetorical spaces: Participation and pragmatism in the evaluation of community health work. Evaluation, 9(3), 307–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McNiff, J. (2007). My story is my living educational theory. In D. J. Clandinin (Ed.), Handbook of narrative inquiry: Mapping a methodology (pp. 308–329). Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Muhammad, M., Wallerstein, N., Sussman, A., Avila, M., & Belone, L. Reflections on Researcher Identity and Power: The Impact of Positionality on Community Based Participatory Research (CBPR) Processes and Outcomes, Critical Sociology, published first online 30 May 2014, DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920513516025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Munn-Giddings, C., & Cook, T. (2016) Editorial. Concluding thoughts: Virtual issue on the theme of “creative expression” in action research. Educational Action Research http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/pdf/EARJ-VSI-Editorial.pdfGoogle Scholar
  26. Nierse, C., Schipper, K., van Zadelhoff, E., van de Griendt, J., & Abma, T. A. (2012). Collaboration and co-ownership in research. Dynamics and dialogues between patient research partners and professional researchers in a research team. Health Expectations, 15(3), 242–254.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2011.00661.x/abstract.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pushor, D., & Clandinin, D. J. (2009). The interconnections between narrative inquiry and action research. In S. Noffke & B. Somekh (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of educational action research (pp. 290–300). London: Sage Publications Limited.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Solnit, R. (2017). The mother of all questions. Chicago: HaymarketBooks.Google Scholar
  29. Somekh, B. (2002). Inhabiting each other’s castles: Towards knowledge and mutual growth through collaboration. In C. Day, J. Elliott, B. Somekh, & R. Winter (Eds.), Theory and practice in action research: Some international perspectives (pp. 79–104). Oxford: Symposium Books.Google Scholar
  30. Sumara, D. J., & Luce-Kapler, R. (1993). Action research as a writerly text: Locating co-labouring in collaboration. Education Action Research, 1(3), 387–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wallerstein, N., & Auerbach, E. (2004). Problem-posing at work: Popular educators guide. Edmonton: Grass Roots Press.Google Scholar
  32. Wallerstein, N., & Duran, B. (2006). Using community based participatory research to address health disparities. Health Promotion Practice, 7(3), 312–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tineke Abma
    • 1
  • Sarah Banks
    • 2
  • Tina Cook
    • 3
  • Sónia Dias
    • 4
  • Wendy Madsen
    • 5
  • Jane Springett
    • 6
  • Michael T. Wright
    • 7
  1. 1.Amsterdam Public Health Research InstituteVU University Medical CentreAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of SociologyDurham UniversityDurhamUK
  3. 3.Department of Disability and EducationLiverpool Hope UniversityLiverpoolUK
  4. 4.National School of Public HealthUniversidade Nova LisboaLisbonPortugal
  5. 5.School of Health, Medical & Applied SciencesCentral Queensland UniversityRockhamptonAustralia
  6. 6.Centre for Healthy Communities, School of Public HealthUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  7. 7.Institute for Social HealthCatholic University of Applied SciencesBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations