“With Us and About Us”: Participatory Methods in Research with “Vulnerable” or Marginalized Groups

  • Jo AldridgeEmail author
Reference work entry


In much health and social scientific research that includes “vulnerable,” “hard-to-reach” or marginalized groups, claims are often made about participatory methods and techniques that enhance participant engagement and “voice.” In many cases, however, the validity of these claims remains unclear – the nature and extent of participant involvement in such studies is not always defined and the value and efficacy, as well as the challenges, of using participatory methods are often misunderstood. In many respects, these oversights can be explained by the lack of cognate and applicable participatory models or frameworks that can help researchers work more effectively with marginalized participants. This chapter explores these issues drawing on the author’s own extensive research with marginalized groups and participatory models of working that both promote and enhance participant engagement and emancipation in research processes. Such approaches see “vulnerable,” marginalized, or socially excluded research participants in transformative roles in research, including as co-researchers, co-analysts, and designers and producers of their own research agendas and projects.


Participatory research Vulnerable groups Participant voice Social exclusion 


  1. Aldridge J. Picture this: the use of participatory photographic research methods with people with learning disabilities. Disabil Soc. 2007;22(1):1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aldridge J. The participation of vulnerable children in photographic research. Vis Stud. 2012a;27(1):48–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aldridge J. Working with vulnerable groups in social research: dilemmas by default and design. Qual Res. 2012b;14(1):112–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aldridge J. Participatory research: working with vulnerable groups in social research. Sage Research Methods Cases. 2014.
  5. Aldridge J. Participatory research: working with vulnerable groups in research and practice. Bristol: The Policy Press; 2015.Google Scholar
  6. Aldridge J, Sharpe D. Pictures of young caring. Loughborough: Young Carers Research Group, Loughborough University; 2007.Google Scholar
  7. Atkinson D. Engaging competent others: a study of the support networks of people with a mental handicap. Br J Soc Work. 1986;16:83–101.Google Scholar
  8. Atkinson D. An auto/biographical approach to learning disability research. Aldershot: Ashgate; 1997.Google Scholar
  9. Biggs S. Resource-poor farmer participation in research: a synthesis of experiences from nine national agricultural research systems. OFCOR (On-Farm Client-Oriented Research) Comparative Study Paper 3. The Hague: International Service for National Agricultural Research; 1989.Google Scholar
  10. Boddy J, Oliver C. Research governance in children’s services: the scope for new advice. London: Thomas Coram Research Unit, Department for Education; 2010.Google Scholar
  11. Bourdieu P. Understanding. Theory Cult Soc. 1996;13(2):17–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Britzman D. Who has the floor? Curriculum teaching and the English student teacher’s struggle for voice. Curric Inq. 1989;19(2):143–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Catalani C, Minkler M. Photovoice: a review of the literature. London: Centre for Narrative Research, University of East London; 2010. Scholar
  14. Chataway C. An examination of the constraints on mutual inquiry in a participatory action research project. J Soc Issues. 1997;53(4):747–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chevalier JM, Buckles DJ. Participatory action research: theory and methods for engaged enquiry. Abingdon: Routledge; 2013.Google Scholar
  16. Cornwall A, Jewkes R. What is participatory research? Soc Sci Med. 1995;41(12):1667–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Department of Health (DH). No secrets: guidance on developing and implementing multi-agency policies and procedures to protect vulnerable adults from abuse. London: DH; 2000.Google Scholar
  18. Department of Health. Research governance framework for health and social care. London: DH; 2005. Scholar
  19. Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). Framework for research ethics [updated September 2012]. 2010.
  20. Fals Borda O. Knowledge and people’s power: lessons with peasants in Nicaragua, Mexico and Colombia. New York: New Horizons Press; 1988.Google Scholar
  21. Flynn M. Independent living for adults with mental handicap: a place of my own. London: Cassell; 1989.Google Scholar
  22. Goodley D, Moore M. Doing disability research: activist lives and the academy. Disabil Soc. 2000;15(6):861–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goodson IF. Developing narrative theory: life histories and personal representation. Abingdon: Routledge; 2013.Google Scholar
  24. Hart RA. Children’s participation from tokenism to citizenship. Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre; 1992. Scholar
  25. Higginbottom G, Liamputtong P, editors. Participatory qualitative research methodologies in health. London: SAGE; 2015.Google Scholar
  26. Hill M, Davis J, Prout A, Tisdall K. Moving the participation agenda forward. Child Soc. 2004;18(2):77–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hurdley R. In the picture or off the wall? Ethical regulation, research habitus and unpeopled ethnography. Qual Inq. 2010;16(6):517–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Joanou JP. The bad and the ugly: ethical concerns in participatory photographic methods with children living and working on the streets of Lima, Peru. Vis Stud. 2009;2(3):214–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Larkin M. Vulnerable groups in health and social care. London: SAGE; 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lewis A, Porter J. Interviewing children and young people with learning disabilities: guidelines for researchers and multi-professional practice. Br J Learn Disabil. 2004;32(4):191–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Liamputtong P. Researching the vulnerable: a guide to sensitive research methods. London: SAGE; 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lieblich A, Tuval-Mashiach R, Zilber T, editors. Narrative research: reading, analysis, and interpretation. London: SAGE; 1998.Google Scholar
  33. McTaggart R, editor. Participatory action research: international contexts and consequences. Albany: State University of New York Press; 1997.Google Scholar
  34. Moore LW, Miller M. Initiating research with doubly vulnerable populations. J Adv Nurs. 1999;30(5):1034–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. O’Neill M, Giddens S, Breatnach P, Bagley C, Bourne D, Judge T. Renewed methodologies for social research: ethno-mimesis as performative praxis. Sociol Rev. 2002;50(1):69–88.Google Scholar
  36. Parrott L, Jacobs G, Roberts D. Stress and resilience factors in parents with mental health problems and their children, Social Care Institute for Excellence Research Briefing, vol. 23. London: Social Care Institute for Excellence; 2008.Google Scholar
  37. Rapoport RN. Three dilemmas in action research. Hum Relat. 1970;26(3):499–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rapport F. The poetry of holocaust survivor testimony: towards a new performative social science. Forum Qual Soc Res. 2008;9(2):1–16. article 28.Google Scholar
  39. Rogers AC. Vulnerability, health and health care. J Adv Nurs. 1997;27:65–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sempik J, Aldridge J, Becker S. Health, well-being and social inclusion: therapeutic horticulture in the UK. Bristol: Policy Press; 2005.Google Scholar
  41. Steel R. Involving marginalised and vulnerable groups in research: a consultation document. Involve. London: NHS; 2001.Google Scholar
  42. Thomson P, editor. Doing visual research with children and young people. London: Routledge; 2008.Google Scholar
  43. Walker R, Schratz B, Egg P. Seeing beyond violence: visual research applied to policy and practice. In: Thomson P, editor. Doing visual research with children and young people. Abingdon: Routledge; 2008. p. 164–74.Google Scholar
  44. Walmsley J, Johnson K. Inclusive research with people with learning disabilities: past, present and futures. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers; 2003.Google Scholar
  45. Whyte WF. Advancing scientific knowledge through participatory action research. Sociol Forum. 1989;4(3):367–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social SciencesLoughborough UniversityLeicestershireUK

Personalised recommendations