Unsettling the Anti-Welfare Commonsense: The Potential in Participatory Research with People Living in Poverty

Abstract

Drawing on participatory research with people living in poverty, this article details the possibilities inherent in this research tradition and its particular applicability and as yet often unrealised potential for poverty and social security research. The dominant framing of ‘welfare’ and poverty foregrounds elite political and politicised accounts, which place emphasis on individual and behavioural drivers of poverty, and imply that the receipt of ‘welfare’ is necessarily and inevitably problematic. A large body of academic evidence counters this framing, illustrating the extent to which popular characterisations are out of step with lived realities. What is often missing, however, are the voices and expertise of those directly affected by poverty and welfare reform. This article argues that placing experts by experience on poverty at the centre of research efforts is best understood as constituting a direct challenge to the marginalising and silencing of the voices and perspectives of people living in poverty. While this hints at participatory research’s great potential, it is vital also to recognise the inherent challenges of taking a participatory approach. Significantly, though, participatory research can undermine popular characterisations of poverty and welfare and provide opportunities for alternative narratives to emerge, narratives which could contribute to the building of a pro-welfare imaginary over time.

Equality Street: Ideology and attitudes towards the purely relative definition of poverty

“…While being Left politically was the only statistically significant predictor in all years, being on out‐of‐work state benefits was also significant in three of the four years. This strong support from benefit claimants perhaps sheds light on why social policy authors (for example, Patrick, 2020) have praised insights from these ‘experts by experience’ while condemning the views of sections of the wider public.…”

“…They have attributed this failure to the impact of the mass media and to their own campaign tactics. Social policy authors and anti‐poverty organisations have long criticised the media (Golding & Middleton, 1982), but the rise of so‐called ‘poverty porn’ television documentaries, which have sometimes portrayed out‐of‐work benefit claimants as work‐shy and living comfortably, is considered particularly harmful to campaigns (Scott Paul, 2016; Shildrick, 2018; Patrick, 2020). The traditional tactic of presenting the public with facts is now widely considered ineffective (Scott Paul, 2016; G. Smith, 2016; Orton, 2019).…”

“…media (Golding & Middleton, 1982), but the rise of so-called 'poverty porn' television documentaries, which have sometimes portrayed out-of-work benefit claimants as work-shy and living comfortably, is considered particularly harmful to campaigns (Scott Paul, 2016;Shildrick, 2018;Patrick, 2020). The traditional tactic of presenting the public with facts is now widely considered ineffective (Scott Paul, 2016;G.…”

Statistics and stereotypes: The taxed and the taxed‐not

“…As noted by Patrick (2020), “the dominant framing of ‘welfare’ and poverty foregrounds elite political and politicised accounts, which place emphasis on individual and behavioural drivers of poverty, and imply that the receipt of ‘welfare’ is necessarily and inevitably problematic” (2019, p. 251). This framing of the taxed and the taxed‐not also problematises welfare, but the statistics are used in characterising half the national population or more, rather than a stigmatised minority.…”

Guiding principles for social security policy: Outcomes from a bottom‐up approach

“…Patrick and Simpson's research draws on what they describe as both ‘top‐down’ and ‘bottom‐up’ perspectives. The interest in a bottom‐up perspective reflects renewed and growing attention being given to what in broad terms can be called participatory research approaches in social policy (Patrick, 2019) and the role of ‘lived experience’ data (McIntosh & Wright, 2019). These sorts of data can provide insights and knowledge which might otherwise be absent in social policy debate (see also Summers & Young, 2020).…”