Epistemology of participatory research

As mentioned in the last post, in this post, I will be discussing the epistemological principles of the participatory approach to conducting research. Epistemology refers to the nature of and scope of knowledge and the extent of what can be known. There are two epistemological positions: positivism vs. anti-positivism.

Positivism which arises from naturalism assumed the presence of an external reality with fixed properties independent of human beliefs and practices. According to this view, if contact with reality is distorted by subjective preference the resulting understanding is relegated to the status of mere belief or opinion, it is not science.

Knowledge Generated

As a result Positivism aimed to generate knowledge which sought to explain and predict what happens in the social world by searching for regularities, causal relationships between its constituent elements.  It assumed an objective reality where its aim was to not understand the phenomena it studied but to provide reliable and valid conclusions about reality. Objectivism was thus the basic conviction that there is or must be some permanent, ahistorical matrix or framework to which we can ultimately appeal in determining the nature of rationality, knowledge, truth, reality, goodness, or rightness. It relied specifically on controlled experimentation in an attempt to secure its strictly objective, value free accounts of human phenomena. This was ensured by the adoption of methods that guaranteed that knowledge of reality was entirely objective, that is; uncontaminated by human wishes, fears, and evaluations became the goal.

Anti-positivism which is adopted by PR on the other hand offers an account of human agency which transcends positivist thinking to propose that knowledge is an interpretation which is continually situated within a living tradition. This means that the social world can only be understood from the point of view of the individuals who are directly involved in the activities which are to be studied. Additionally, it views individuals as continually situated within a specific ‘horizon’ of understanding grounded in cultural and personal presumptions. Therefore, PR rejects the notion of ‘observer’ characterizing positivist epistemology and suggests that any attempt at objectivity and value-free knowledge is misguided and unattainable. It proposes that one can only ‘understand’ by occupying the frame of reference of the participant in action. Additionally, one can only understand from the inside rather than the outside. Furthermore according to this view, despite best efforts at neutrality, cultural values and assumptions always permeate the field. Participatory research therefore provides a critique of existing theory, research and practice and recommends alternative models and methods positioned within a cultural and historical context.

According to PR knowledge is thus uncertain, evolving, contextual, and value laden. It values social theory that not only builds upon understandings but also extends this knowledge toward new insights that can form the basis for social action to improve practices. Additionally, it aims for scholarly publication where knowledge is presumed as being jointly owned with collaborators and hence shared with the community in ‘culturally appropriate modes’.

However, despite the well defined epistemological and ontological structure of participatory research, there are still challenges that the approach faces - these challenges will be discussed in the next post.

Ontology of participatory research

In this post I will be discussing some of the ontological aspects of the participatory research approach. Ontology refers to the nature of reality or existence and what can be known about it .  One can distinguish between two approaches to ontology: realism versus non-realism

Nature of Reality

Realism, which arises from naturalism, has dominated much of scientific research. It proposes that the social world external to individual cognition is a real world made up of hard, tangible and relatively immutable structures. This was a key aspect of a naturalism which involved the 'disenchantment of the world', a process which moved away from the rich appearance of phenomena to regard the world objectively as consisting of inherently meaningless objects which are in causal interaction with one another.

The social world thus for the realist exists independently of an individual’s appreciation of it and the social world has an existence which is as hard and concrete as the natural world. Contrarily, nominalism assumes that the social world external to individual cognition is made of nothing more than names, concepts and labels which are used to structure reality.

Participatory research adopts the nominalist approach and further goes on to suggest that the social world inhabited by people is rather context bound, relational and situated. Participatory research argues that social reality is historically constructed, recognizing that specific interests drive current social practices. Thus social reality is viewed as being constructed through social perceptions making it subjective.

Subsequently, historical and reflective methods are preferred in participatory research as they uncover that social practices are neither natural nor inevitable, that is; society is a human construction to be critiqued and changed on the basis of more-inclusive interests.

While this post is by no means a complete summary of the ontology of participatory research, it is a starting point for those who wish to learn the basics. In the next post, I will be discussing the epistemology of the participatory research approach.

Distanciation in participatory research

In this post I shall be discussing the rather positivist concept of distanciation. While I did argue that positivist research is outdated and inadequate for the purposes of studying human action, there are some aspects, when used in conjunction with more essentially social concepts, that are helpful.

It has been theorized by multiple authors that interpretation of a certain context surpasses the limitations imposed by simply understanding a context. This type of interpretation has been termed the ‘hermeneutical function of distanciation’. The concept of distanciation is important to participatory research as it allows the researcher to find things, such as patterns of behaviour, they could not in a state of subjective empathy.

By adopting the concept of distanciation in their research, the PR practitioner may be able to discover patterns that occur across different contexts that they would not be able to find if they were situated within on particular context; in other words, when the research is subjective and empathizes with one certain community – this is also known as Verstehen. Distanciation also allows the researcher to ask questions and develop perspectives of the ‘bigger picture’ and to gain an understanding as to why intentional actions are performed in the context they are conducting their research in.

Distanciation does not only mean that the researcher places themselves outside of the present context; participatory researchers also make use of temporal-distanciation, which gives us, as it has been stated, “the benefit of hindsight”. This temporal-distanciation allows the PR researcher to view the current context in relation to the historical context of the community. It also allows the researcher to have a better understanding of the causal influences of events and patterns (that these events comprise) and how these patterns could be linked across time.

By distancing themselves from the participants and the context of the research, the participatory researcher has a greater possibility of understanding why participants perform certain actions, such as rituals, ceremonies, and superstitions. As the actor often doesn't know why (as in they do not know the reason for their action) they do the action, as they are merely conforming to conventional practices within their community, asking them directly why they do something is not the surest method of the researcher gaining a true understanding of the participant’s reasoning. Thus, as it has been suggested, distanciation has the ability to reveal the role of convention and tradition in the crafting of action.

Now that a basic theoretical overview on the participatory research approach has been in the last ten or so posts, I shall soon be moving onto a discussion concerning the ontological and epistemological views that are held within the PR approach. Stay tuned for more : }

Praxis: action <-> research

In this post I will be talking about the concept of praxis. In short, praxis means action through research, and research through action (thus, the funny little <-> arrows in the title). This is one of the main ideals of participatory research, and is also underlying to participatory action research - which is PR but with a focus on action. However, that's a somewhat different approach - but the concept is still applicable here. Praxis, as we will see, is closely linked to the concept of conscientization which was discussed previously.

In contrast to mainstream scientific method, which attempts to control the effects of the researcher’s presence (as much as possible to the extent that the research is not there at all), the PR approach views the effects that a researcher has on the research intervention as something that is impossible to deny or overcome, and thus researcher’s effect on the intervention should be taken into account.

Practitioners of the PR approach suggest that just be asking a person questions, there is a possibility to invoke within them different ways to view a specific situation. This type of thinking may have a ‘reflexive effect’ on the research participators; the term reflexive  here is closely linked to the concept of conscientization, in that it refers to the way in which the research process is conducted can have an influence upon the context of the research.

Followers of the participatory research approach also believe that the entire research process is reflexive in that the theories developed and the outcomes of research projects influence our perception of what possible actions are available to take. Similarly, they believe that when participants (either an individual or members of a community) are involved in a research process they develop a self-understanding which has a possibility to affect the actions they may take.

The process involved in an individual or a community attempting to analyze their own problems is seen by practitioners of the PR approach as the beginning of a possible path to action.

Participatory researchers attempt to harness this reflexivity and use it as a vehicle of change. The interactive relationship that exists between research and action is called ‘praxis’. Thus, praxis can be defined as a form of social intervention that is at one and the same time an idea and an action.

It has been suggested that for praxis to be possible, not only must theory illuminate the lived experience of progressive social groups, it must also be illuminated by their struggles. This can be extended to suggest that PR researchers using the concept of praxis should be open-ended, non-dogmatic, informing, grounded in everyday life events, and have a desire to better those some researchers term the ‘dispossessed’.

For persons, as autonomous beings, have a moral right to participate in decisions that claim to generate knowledge about them… such a right protects them… from being managed and manipulated… the moral principle of respect for persons is most fully honoured when power is shared not only in the application… but also in the generation of knowledge. 

In the next post, I will be discussing the concepts of distaciation and empathetic understanding (also known as Verstehen). 

Concept of 'Local Knowledge' in participatory research

In the last post I discussed the concepts of conscientization and control and empowerment; all of these concepts are intricately interrelated, and thus they may seem similar or overlapping at certain points. In this post, I will be talking about the concept and use of local knowledge in participatory research. This is one of the core concepts of this approach, and thus careful consideration should be payed to it.

Local knowledge can be defined as a cumulative body of knowledge, know-how, practices, and presentations maintained and developed by peoples in a specific context”.

One of the central processes in the PR approach to conducting research interventions is accessing a community’s or an individual’s local knowledge, which the participators of the research possess; this knowledge is based on their daily practices and experiences in their own specific context and so knowledge which is essential to their survival in this context.

According to participatory researchers when researchers acknowledge and make use of local knowledge they fulfill two functions:

Firstly, concerning the participation of the research, (i.e. the community or individuals in a community), by using knowledge and resources that they already have and know about, they are less likely to be dependent on and controlled by external agencies, such as resources and knowledge; this also contributes to the success of the research, as well as the sustainability of the intervention.  The significance of this point can be highlighted by looking again at the social orientated approach to viewing human action: this approach holds the view that human action can only be fully understood when the social, historical, and cultural context of the human who performs the action is also understood.

Secondly, by the researchers acknowledging this local knowledge, there is a possibility of shirting the balance of power away from the researcher. By using knowledge that the participants possess as opposed to knowledge possessed by the researchers, the researchers themselves are no longer in possession of the definitive perspective. This shift in the power dynamic has consequences for the outcome of the knowledge produced by the research; the participants are able to voice their own perspectives by proxy of the research publication, as well as influencing the possibility for changes in the future.

Tapping into the community’s local resources is essential if the research interventions aim to be thorough, well grounded, and within the grasp of the communities current abilities and potential abilities.

However, it must be mentioned that the communities which are the target of the research intervention are not the only entities which possess local knowledge. The researchers themselves also possess their own; a type of local knowledge that makes them competent in their own context. Practitioners of the PR approach are required to understand that their ways of doing and understand things are not more intrinsically correct that those belonging to the communities they are working with.

Concepts of conscientization and control and empowerment

In this post I will be discussing the concepts of (a) conscientization and (b) control and empowerment and how they are used within the participatory research process.

Conscientization

Conscientization, or critical consciousness, is a concept developed by Paulo Freire and is grounded in Marxist critical theory. Freire wrote about various ways in which people respond to cultural deprivation and oppression. To Freire, conscientization is the antithesis to oppression. The concept of conscientization within the community context focuses on the community members achieving an in-depth understanding of the world, which would allow them a greater awareness of their sociocultural realities and are able to critically engage in socio-cultural analysis, and cultural re-development and transformation.

Thus, in the opinion of the practitioners of the participatory research approach, conscientization, or the raising or critical awareness, or self reflexivity, is an essential component in any research project or intervention that has the aim of being sustainable and effective in being an agent of liberation. Furthermore, placing focus on the concept of conscientization means adopting the view and stance that people are active agents in the research process. The desired practical outcome of the concept within the PR approach is that if people are involved in an analysis of their own realities, they have a chance to develop their understanding and a capacity to act to improve that reality.

Control and Empowerment

The term empowerment is often misunderstood by those who see it, if they ever do: a literature review conducted on articles which focus on empowerment resulted in no clear definition of the concept, and the definitions found were often narrow and limited to one field. Participatory researchers assert that empowerment is a complex and multifaceted concept and that it is a process that challenged our assumptions about the way things are can be, it challenges our basic assumptions about power, helping, and achieving.

Generally, participatory research is used when there is a motivation or need to bring about some form of cooperative action, usually between a certain community and an external (as in outside of that community) agent, which could be a service or resources, with the primary intention of improving the conditions in the community. It is not surprise then that empowerment is intricately linked with participation, just as participation is closely connected to the concept of conscientization and reflexivity.

The PR research stands between external agents, such as the governments and NGO’s, on the one side, and the community they are working with on the other side. Through the participatory research process, communities are able to move themselves from a position of marginalization to a position of greater power.

Practitioners of the PR approach believe one of their main tasks is to discover what skills and resources the community possess; in other words, the capacity of the community. They also believe that is it their responsibility in working with the community to enhance these skills and resources to benefit the community. Combined, this process is called capacity-building, and it can take many forms; however, simply put, capacity building can be defined as a process that ‘enables’ people to participate actively in development processes and usually entails some form of skills enhancement.

Thus, having knowledge about an existing, possibly oppressive, reality and being part of the process of knowledge production can, according to the PR approach, result in empowerment; when people participate in determining their own future, they are empowered – at least to some extent.

In the next post I will be discussing the concept of local knowledge. This concept gets a post of its own because it is vital to participatory research.

Participatory Research

Finally, we are able to discuss the actual topic of this blog – the participatory research approach. In the previous posts, I have discussed the theory that has led up to this point; the inadequacy of the positivistic approach, and the essentially social nature of human activity. However, before a discussion on what participatory research is, a definition of what participation is must be established.

There are many definitions of ‘participation’ to be found, but for the purpose of this report, participation shall be defined as “people’s involvement in decision making about what should be done and how, in implementation of the project, in sharing in the benefits of a project, and in evaluation of the project”.

Participatory research has emerged as an alternative to positivistic systems of knowledge production by challenging some of the core values of the traditional, mainstream, social science research methodology. The core values that participatory challenges are the belief in researchers must be neutral, objective, and value-free. Rather, the practitioners of the participatory research approach recognise average people as researchers themselves; researchers in pursuit of answers to the questions of their daily lives, and their own problems. In addition, research projects and strategies which place emphasis on participation are gaining increasing respect and attention, primarily in health research, in both developed and developing nations. In traditional research, such as that conducted within the positivistic domain, it is too often the case that the conclusions and recommendations made have been inappropriate to the context; the main cause of this is the failure to take into account the local priorities, processes and perspectives.  In stark contrast, the participatory approach places emphasis on a ‘bottom-up’ approach where there is a focus on locally defined priorities and local perspectives. This involvement of local people as participants in the research process has been shown to enhance the effectiveness of the research as well as to save money and time in the long term.

As participatory research places such an emphasis on the ‘local’, it is no surprise that the methods used in participatory research are designed to bring the researcher to understand the specific qualities of a given context or person and the experiences, issues, and problems that are unique to that context or person. What is meant by the term ‘understand’ in the previous statement is that the researcher gains knowledge of an individual’s life, or even a situation in specific community, so that the researcher’s perspectives, in a sense, becomes that of the research participants. In other words, the methods designed for, and used in, participatory research attempt to maximise the empathy of the researcher.

Practitioners of the participatory research approach make use of some core concepts, such as, but not limited to: conscientization, control and empowerment, local knowledge, praxis (research as action) and context. The next posts will encompass some of these core concepts and will discuss how they are useful and essential to participatory research.