Participatory approach in investigating and generating change in urban and rural areas

Research that the non-positivist orientation had created a context that challenged conventional research, and that the legitimacy of the emerging paradigms should be considered well-established and equal to other approaches. With the development of postmodern society and postmodern concepts, alongside the well-known humanistic or radical non-positivist (or anti-scientistic, cf. Chojnicki 1985) orientations, a new paradigm emerged, referred to as participatory/cooperative (cf. Heron and Reason 1997), the essence of which is action as the direct goal of research. In its assumptions, this paradigm shifts the focus from the results to the research process, and from scientists to local communities who participate in all stages of this process (cf. Cornwall and Jewkes 1995). As R. Chambers (1994a) states, we are dealing with a change in the center of gravity—from the selection of the topic, through the analysis stage, to the beneficiaries, the research focuses on stakeholders. In terms of methodology, the participatory paradigm is open and uses both quantitative methods and those belonging to the domain of non-positivist orientations, modifying them according to its needs. This is facilitated by the increasingly significant ‘blurring of genres’ (Geertz 1993) within humanistic and radical paradigms, where research methodology ceases to be a collection of strict, universally applied rules and constructs.

Although in-depth theoretical and scientific discussions on the emergence of the participatory paradigm are conducted on the basis of postmodernist trends and emerge from the social reality of the postmodern era, the idea originated in the first half of the 20th century in the Frankfurt School, which was based on interdisciplinary social research focused on the critique of capitalist society. The work of K. Lewin (1946), who is considered one of the main fathers of this approach, focused on so-called action research, a cyclical process consisting of planning, action, and factfinding related to social problems and oriented towards change. Calling his approach “democratic” or “participatory” leadership, Lewin emphasized the role of involving representatives of different groups in the decision-making process, while maintaining the important role of the leader. The precursors of the current participatory paradigm also include P. Freire (1970), O. Fals Bord (2006), and J. Heron and P. Reason (1997), who are mentioned in the first paragraph.

While in terms of its ontology, epistemology, ethics, and methodology, participatory research is embedded in the participatory paradigm, its character is diversified when it comes to the level of the participants’ involvement at different stages of the research process – from a ‚cosmetic label’ participatory research usually taking the form of engaging stakeholders or the local community in consultations at the level of analysis or pre-dissemination, over a process that engages participants in projects initiated by research institutions, to projects where researchers are engaged in locally initiated research (cf. Chambers 1994). In its ideal form participatory research is a bottom-up process, focused on locally defined perspectives and priorities, it engages participants from the beginning of the research procedure, i.e. from the stage of building the partnership, and it prioritizes the research process, focusing on action as a final result rather than the knowledge created. What is also crucial, it breaks with the central or centralist position of the researcher to upgrade and empower the participants.

The present book while drawing on the experience of own research carried out within projects that in various ways relate to the process of change of urban and rural areas poses and tries to answer the following questions: To what extent and in what way did the research in the project fit into the participatory paradigm, and how deeply did it implement a participatory approach? What methodological knowledge was gained from this research? Does a participatory approach allow cognitive and practical goals to be achieved in the study of transformation processes?

The projects analyzed differ significantly in terms of scope, research topics, specific methodology, and the participation of specific stakeholder groups. The EU FP7 DIVERCITIES project, which focused on the importance of social diversity in cities for social cohesion, social mobility, and the development of entrepreneurship at the urban level and in neighborhoods 110 characterized by social problems, involved two groups of stakeholders: national experts and local government representatives, and children—middle school students. The stakeholders participated in the research on a fragmentary basis, and the project was carried out as part of conventional research, with some participatory methods included. In the project Sercem Ursynowa – Ulica Miejska (The Heart of Ursynów – the Urban Street), the stakeholders were residents and students. The project was implemented at all stages using a participatory approach (PAR), while also conducting statistical analyses and documentation work characteristic of conventional research. The HEU RUSTIK project adopted the Living Lab approach, which is characteristic for participatory research. The stakeholders were representatives of regional and local government, school principals, local association activists, entrepreneurs, and, at the planning and data collection stage, also residents. Each of the 14 teams coordinating the living laboratory used selected research methods, including both conventional and participatory methods. In the case of LL Mazowieckie, the planning stage was participatory and consisted of focus group meetings. The survey conducted with residents was also participatory, as it was the residents themselves who identified the products and services to be introduced by local entrepreneurs. Conducting surveys with associations and entrepreneurs is part of conventional research, initiated by the LL coordinator, who then analyzed the data. The (practical) experiment phase consists of participatory activities, characteristic of the action stage in participatory research. In addition to conventional research conducted by project partner teams, the DUT CONIFER project uses civic labs as platforms for research and action. The stakeholders in these laboratories are children and young people, as well as teachers and, to some extent, parents. The project uses methods characteristic of conventional research in a conventional way – literature analysis, pilot area analysis, surveys, analysis of political discourse content – and methods that characterize the participatory approach, i.e., workshops using a map-based survey application to collect both quantitative and qualitative opinions and data, as well as the Photovoice method.

The projects were analyzed and assessed according to the level of participation, methodological innovativeness, transferability of approaches and methods applied, as well as the level of impact of the research. The overall level of ‘participation’ in the research undertaken in the projects implemented was analyzed referring to the assumptions adopted in the model by Vaughn and Jacquez (2020), which presents five levels of participation adopted on the basis of the Spectrum of Public Participation: informing, consulting, involving, collaborating, and empowering, as well as six stages of the research process: partnership building, design/shaping/planning, data collection, analysis, dissemination, and action. It is assumed that a significant degree of research participation is achieved when, at each (or most) of the six stages, we are dealing with at least level 3 of the spectrum, i.e., involvement. It is worth recalling here that of the three forms of participation in scientific research referred to by Chambers (1994a), only the third fits into the so-called participatory paradigm, as it refers to the process of empowering and strengthening local communities, which, with the help of scientific actors, take over the management of the process. In this case, researchers participate in ‘their’ projects, which directly serve local goals. By modifying the assumptions of the Vaughn and Jacquez model (ibid), according to which the level of participation should suggest the choice of research methods and tools, the level and scope of ‘participation’ in the projects implemented was determined by the forms and methods adopted in them and the implementation of the research process.

The projects analyzed differ significantly in terms of their level of participation. This is primarily due to the generally accepted assumptions regarding their concept and research methodology. Three of the cases presented are projects that adopted a participatory approach as their leading approach, while in the fourth (EU FP7 DIVERCITIES), methods characteristic of participatory research were used as part of conventional research. It is also characteristic that in three projects there is a significant variation in the level of participation, with the greatest variation in the Urban Street project, in which the data collection stage was characterized by the lowest level of participation, while in the other stages a fourth level of cooperation on a five-point scale was achieved. A relatively even level of participation characterizes the CONIFER project, which involves engagement and cooperation at all stages, in line with the participatory approach, with the highest level (5) assumed for the participation of children at the action stage. A similar approach was adopted in the case of the Urban Street project, but the project was never implemented in practice. Consistently, at all stages, the study conducted as part of LL Mazowieckie in the HEU RUSTIK project is characterized by a high level of participation, with the highest level being achieved at the data collection and action stages. In the first case, it is the residents who become the subject of the study, in the second, it’s the entrepreneurs implementing specific services. It is estimated that the lowest level of participation was achieved at the data dissemination stage, as not all groups from among the wide range of stakeholders have fully participated in this process. In the EU FP7 DIVERCITIES project, on the other hand, the stakeholder group for the Policy Platform was so narrow that a higher level of participation – cooperation, was achieved only at the dissemination stage. In the Educational Program children were involved in the dissemination process by creating artwork reflecting the phenomenon of diversity and the transformation of their neighborhoods into places friendly to social diversity, and the artwork was shared with other students, teachers, and parents by creating a school exhibition.

A preliminary analysis of methods applied in the projects discussed indicates a moderate level of innovation. This is due to the fact that the introduction of methodological innovations poses a significant challenge in the implementation of research, especially that conducted within the framework of international projects. The most advanced framework in this respect is the living lab approach in the RUSTIK project, due to the fact that a concept popular in urban research has been transferred to a rural setting which is a very interesting space for this form, given the challenge of building bridging social capital that is less developed than in cities. When assessing the transferability of the participatory methods and frameworks, it has been found that it is rather the ideology behind projects that hampers their replicability in other cultural contexts than the methods themselves. Both the LL approach in its RUSTIK form, or the Policy Platform of the DIVERCITIES project could become a method accompanying any project whose goal is to translate research into policy and practice. This applies to both rural and urban areas, as well as to different cultural contexts, with the latter potentially determining the composition and competences of these platforms. The educational problem on the other hand could meet with local resistance.

A comparison of the studies in the projects presented indicates considerable variation in terms of impact, both between as well as within a given project. As an example, the DIVERCITIES project highlights the differences between its two participatory methods – the Policy Platform and the Educational Program – in terms of collective impact, which is significant in the case of the PP Platform, while in the case of the Educational Program it is definitely small, and the participatory impact, where the situation is reversed – while the Educational Program resulted in significant changes in attitudes, emotions, and ways of thinking, the impact of the PP on these indicators should be assessed as small. Interestingly, there is no apparent relationship between the level of participation and participatory “impact” in this regard. The present study also analyses the limitations and challenges of participatory research including the time and resources needed to complete specific tasks, or the stakeholder attitudes.

The Author concludes that based on completed and ongoing studies, the participatory approach is characterized by a wide variety of forms and methods, and provides many opportunities that are limited in conventional research processes. The key issue is the participation of stakeholders from the very beginning of the research process. The research objective and problem originate in the space they concern, and researchers consciously limit their role in favor of empowering local communities, drawing knowledge and inspiration from their needs, experiences, and values, because, as Guba and Lincoln (2005, p. 196) point out, the primacy of practical knowledge, living and critical subjectivity is recognized. The participatory approach seems particularly appropriate when studying communities or social groups that are difficult to reach by other methods, or when real results from the tasks performed are expected. Also, in the context of social disintegration, which is progressing in both urban and rural areas, participatory research can help to create bonds around common goals and support local initiatives and organizations. The participatory approach is particularly effective in transdisciplinary research, as its framework complements and enriches scientific knowledge with other types of knowledge and ways of learning (cf. Brown et al., 2010). Getting closer to the subject allows for a more complete understanding than is possible with the conventional distancing of the researcher. However, the researcher must possess certain skills, such as emotional competence and a democratic personality, i.e., one that is open to discourse, diversity, and differing opinions (cf. Guba and Lincoln ibid, p. 196). Given the above arguments, it can be expected that the participatory approach will consolidate its position in scientific research, including research on transformation processes, as an alternative or parallel source of knowledge.