Participatory and Visual Research with Roma Youth

  • Oana MarcuEmail author
Reference work entry


Drawing from two examples of research carried out with Roma youth, this chapter discusses applications of participatory research, backed up with visual methods and creative group techniques. It describes methods, tools, and strategies which can be used in peer-research with young people belonging to minorities, from migrant backgrounds or marginalized ethnic groups. In the context of ongoing political debate regarding the minority status and migration rights of the Roma in all European countries, knowledge construction processes are particularly sensitive to issues of age, class, gender, and ethnicity, intersecting in transnational processes. The lack of self-representation of the Roma in the public sphere, as a group discriminated against on an ethnic basis, leaves a need for participation in knowledge-making processes, and research can contribute in this direction. While participation addresses some ethical issues in cross-cultural research, by leaving space for participants’ perspectives, it also means having to address competence, class, and power distances that may exist between the researcher and the participants. This goal invites the researchers to use new tools in order to engage young people in creative and reflective explorations. Research strategies such as the participatory design process and choosing specific levels of participation in all stages are discussed. Visual and participatory methods are illustrated here with examples from two research projects: the first one on the representation of drugs and the second one on the migratory experience from a gendered perspective.


Participatory action research Visual research Peer research Migrant and ethnic minority groups Youth 


  1. Arnstein SR. A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Inst Plann. 2004;35(4):216–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Awan F. Young people, identity and the media: A study of conceptions of self identity among youth in Southern England [Unpublished PhD Thesis]. Bournmouth University; 2007.Google Scholar
  3. Baumann G. The multicultural riddle: rethinking national, ethnic and religious identities. New York: Routledge; 1999.Google Scholar
  4. Berger PL, Luckmann T. The social construction of reality: a treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books; 1966.Google Scholar
  5. Bergold J, Thomas S. Participatory research methods: a methodological approach in motion. Forum Qual. Soc. Res. 2012;13(1):30.Google Scholar
  6. Bichi R. L’intervista biografica. Una proposta metodologica. Milano: Vita e Pensiero; 2002.Google Scholar
  7. Bichi R. La conduzione delle interviste nella ricerca sociale. Roma: Carocci; 2007.Google Scholar
  8. Bohnsack R. The interpretation of pictures and the documentary method [64 paragraphs]. Forum Qual. Soc. Res. 2008;9(3):26.
  9. Boog B. The emancipatory character of action research, its history and the present state of the art. J Community Appl Soc Psychol. 2003;13:246–38.Google Scholar
  10. Brydon-Miller M. Education, research and action: theory and methods of participatory action research. In: Tolman D, Brydon-Miller M, editors. From subjects to subjectivities: a handbook of interpretive and participatory methods. New York: New York University Press; 2001. p. 76–89.Google Scholar
  11. Chatterton P, Fuller D, Routledge P. Relating action to activism. In: Kindon S, Pain R, Kesby M, editors. Participatory action research approaches and methods: connecting people, participation and place. London: Routledge; 2007. p. 216–22.Google Scholar
  12. Conrad D, Hogeveen B, Minaker J, Masimira M, Crosby D. Involving children and youth in participatory research. In: Higginbottom G, Liamputtong P, editors. Participatory qualitative research methodologies in health. London: Sage; 2015. p. 109–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Conte M, Marcu O, Rampini A. Giovani rom: Consumi e strategie di affermazione sociale. In: Visconti LM, Napolitano ME, editors. Cross generation marketing. Milan: Egea; 2009. p. 283–302.Google Scholar
  14. Cooke B, Kothari U. Participation: the new tyranny? London: Zed Books; 2001.Google Scholar
  15. Das Gupta M. “what is Indian about you”: a gendered, transnational approach to ethnicity. Gend Soc. 1997;11(5):572–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. De Bono E. Six thinking hats. Westminster: Penguin; 2000.Google Scholar
  17. De Negri B, Thomas E, Ilinigumugabo A, Muvandi I, Lewis G. Empowering communities. Washington, DC: The Academy for Educational Development; 1999.Google Scholar
  18. EMCDDA. Update and complete the analysis of drug use, consequences and correlates amongst minorities. Lisbon: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction; 2002.Google Scholar
  19. EMCDDA. Drugs and vulnerable groups of young people. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2008.Google Scholar
  20. Espiritu YL. “we don’t sleep around like white girls do”: family, culture, and gender in Filipina American lives. Signs. 2001;26(2):415–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Földes ME, Covaci A. Research on Roma health and access to healthcare: state of the art and future challenges. Int J Public Health. 2011;57(1):37–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fondazione Casa della carità “Angelo Abriani”. EU inclusive. Rapporto nazionale sull’inclusione lavorativa e sociale dei rom in Italia. 2012.
  23. Frisina A. Metodi visuali e trasformazioni socio-culturali. Torino: Utet; 2013.Google Scholar
  24. Fundacion Secretariado Gitano. Health of the Roma population, analysis of the situation in Europe. In: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Greece, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain. Madrid: Fundacion Secretariado Gitano; 2009.Google Scholar
  25. Gauntlett D. Creative explorations: new approaches to identities and audiences. Oxford: Routledge; 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Grady J. Visual research at the crossroads [74 paragraphs]. Forum Qual. Soc. Res. 2008;9(3):38.
  27. Harper D. Reimagining visual methods: Galileo to Neuromancer. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, editors. The sage handbook of qualitative research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2000. p. 717–33.Google Scholar
  28. Higginbottom G, Liamputtong P, editors. Participatory qualitative research methodologies in health. London: Sage; 2015.Google Scholar
  29. Ivanov I. Reflections on the access of Roma to health care. 2004. Retrieved 24 Nov 2010, from Sito di ERRC – European Roma Rights Centre.
  30. Kennedy G. Involving students in participatory research on fatherhood: a case study. Fam Relat. 1989;38:363–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kindon S, Pain R, Kesby M. Participatory action research: origins, approaches and methods. In: Kindon S, Pain R, Kesby M, editors. Participatory action research approaches and methods: connecting people, participation and place. Abingdon: Routledge; 2007. p. 9–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lakoff G, Johnson M. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1980.Google Scholar
  33. Marcu O. Malizie di strada. Una ricerca azione con giovani rom romeni migranti. Milano: Franco Angeli; 2014.Google Scholar
  34. Marcu O. Using participatory, visual and biographical methods with Roma youth. Forum Qual. Soc. Res. 2015;17(1):5.Google Scholar
  35. Marcu O, Bacigalupo A. Money needs to move: financial literacy and educational opportunities for Roma and Sinti in Bologna and Piacenza. 2013. Retrieved 29 Mar 2016, from
  36. Matras Y. Roma and health. Paper presented at Roma populations & Health Inequalities workshop. Liverpool: University of Liverpool, Institute of Psychology, Health and Society; 2016.Google Scholar
  37. May WT. Teachers as researchers or action research: what is it, and what good is it for art education. Stud Art Educ. 1993;34(2):114–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nairn K, Smith A. Young people as researchers in schools: the possibilities of peer-research. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago; 2003.Google Scholar
  39. Novak JD, Cañas AJ. The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct them. Technical Report IHMC CmapTools 2006–01. Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition. 2006. Available at:
  40. Pain R, Francis P. Reflections on participatory research. Area. 2003;35(1):46–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Piasere L. I rom d’Europa. Una storia moderna. Bari-Roma: Laterza; 2004.Google Scholar
  42. Price N, Hawkings K. Researching sexual and reproductive behaviour: the peer ethnographic approach. Soc Sci Med. 2002;55:1325–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Reavey P. Visual methods in psychology: using and interpreting images in qualitative research. Hove: Psychology Press; 2011.Google Scholar
  44. Schmitt R. Systematic metaphor analysis as a method of qualitative research. Qual Rep. 2005;10(2):358–94.Google Scholar
  45. Seidl B. Candid thoughts on the not-so-candid camera: how video documentation radically alters development projects. In: White SA, editor. Participatory video: images that transform and empower. New Delhi: Sage; 2003. p. 157–49.Google Scholar
  46. Sigona N. Political participation and media representation of Roma and Sinti in Italy. 2006. Retrieved 23 Sept 2014, from Osservazione. Centro di ricerca azione contro la discriminazione di rom e sinti.
  47. Wang C, Burris MA. Photovoice: concept, methodology, and use for participatory needs assessment. Health Educ Behav. 1997;24(3):357–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Waringo K. Gypsies, tramps and thieves: the portrayal of Romani people in the media. 2005. Retrieved 23 Sept 2014, from Europäisches Zentrum für Antiziganismusforschung.
  49. White SA. Participatory video: a process that transforms self and others. In: White SA, editor. Participatory video: images that transform and empower. New Delhi: Sage; 2003. p. 63–101.Google Scholar
  50. Youth Peer Education Network. Standards for peer education programs. New York: Family Health International; 2005.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Università Cattolica del Sacro CuoreMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations