Learning how to be participatory: An emergent research agenda

Abstract

The central theme for this article arises from conversation on how agricultural scientists can move from technology transfer to complementing development. Researchers may be willing to embrace developmental concerns while lacking enabling skills and perspectives. Agricultural researchers often choose agendas based on cost, efficiency and appropriate controlled input use. This is problematic for small-scale commercial agriculture in traditionally managed rural situations because it does not include the issues of authority, power and complexity found in situated contexts. This article describes researcher learning arising from participatory farmer–researcher activity that determined a mutually beneficial research agenda. The participatory nature of the research was determined by how relationships were developed and managed. Researchers came to understand that attitude, environment and relevant issues, not specific tools, achieved participation.

A scoping review: The utility of participatory research approaches in psychology

“…A few forensic psychology projects described being guided by community-university research teams (e.g., Brown, Varcoe, & Calam, 2011;Fields, González, Hentz, Rhee, & White, 2008) or community advisory boards (e.g., Hatton & Fisher, 2011;Lorway et al, 2014), or including research participants in the study design in other ways (e.g., Livingston et al, 2014;Varcoe, 2006;Viswanathan et al, 2004). As well, some industrial/organizational studies described research questions as emerging from the participants' communities (e.g., Beardwood, Kirsh, & Clark, 2005;Beck, Lengnick-Hall, & Lengnick-Hall, 2008;Bridges & Meyer, 2007;Brow et al, 1983;Burns, Hyde, Killett, Poland, & Gray, 2014;Caister, Green, & Worth, 2012;Gouin, Cocq, & McGavin, 2011), as did some projects with children and youth (Christiansen, 2010;Dyrness, 2008;Guishard et al, 2005;Johnson-Burel, Drame, & Frattura, 2014;Sangalang et al, 2015;Schinke et al, 2010), and with Indigenous Peoples (e.g., Brown et al, 2011;Brussoni, Olsen, & Joshi, 2012).…”

Harnessing Implementation Science and Self-Determination Theory in Participatory Research to Advance Global Legume Productivity

“…Bradford and Burke, 2005). Transdisciplinary research appears appropriate to meet the challenge of creating the conditions for meaningful and successful collaboration between researchers and stakeholders (Wicks and Reason, 2009;Caister et al, 2012), and is therefore clearly compatible with SDT and implementation science ("what works, for whom and under what circumstances").…”

The co-conspiring methodology: An invitational approach to action research

“…Even when pursued with the best of intentions, projects can fall into the ''paradox of participation'' (Ospina et al, 2004) where action researchers meaning to use participatory and democratic approaches instead ''unintentionally impose participatory methods upon partners who are either unwilling or unable to act as researchers'' (Arieli, Friedman, & Agbaria, 2009, p. 275). In these cases, power remains unbalanced (Caister, Green, & Worth, 2012;Mohan, 2007), complex communities are assumed to be homogenous and harmonious (Cleaver, 1999;Mohan, 2007), and participation is treated as universal without considerations made about culture and context (Wamba, 2016). Participatory approaches may also assume that only researchers are in the position to change things about the research process and the complex community problems that research seeks to address (Mohan, 2007).…”

“…Participatory approaches may also assume that only researchers are in the position to change things about the research process and the complex community problems that research seeks to address (Mohan, 2007). In order for participatory approaches to overcome some of these challenges in action research, it is important that participation in knowledge production is coupled with action (Stoecker, 2009), that we recognize participation is a political issue (Caister et al, 2012), and that we practice reflexivity throughout the process (Cooke & Kothari, 2007).…”