The use of participatory research: implications for my study

There were various reasons that contributed to selection of PR as a prime research methodology in my study. The planning and development of a shared pedagogic space itself was inspired by the democratic methodology of PR. PR has the capacity to engage individuals as co-researchers, especially the ones who have personal experiences of the research topic (Funk, et al., 2013). All participating students were enrolled either into undergraduate or post graduate ECS programmes, giving them a common grounding of

114

the academic subject; and also a common understanding of the basic needs and purposes of early childhood resources and research. Belonging to the same subject area also gave them common institutional and disciplinary reference points to draw upon, which assisted in establishing rapport between participants, both students and staff (Maunders, et al., 2013). The common status of ECS students, therefore, became the first and foremost reason to select PR as a research methodology. This mutual status gave them a personal experience of the research topic; and a shared grounding in the subject area, which helped in the facilitation and generation of meaningful discussions (Maunders, et al., 2013; Funk, et al., 2013).

The second reason for adopting a participatory methodology was due to its claim to be a democratic framework built upon the notion of researching ‘with’ and ‘for’ subjects rather than ‘on’ subjects (Lancaster University, n.d.). As the main aim of my study was to create a shared pedagogical space using methods that respected meaningful partnership between the researcher and participants (Dewey, 1938; Freire, 1970, 1973;

Goins, et al., 2011; Wegerif, 2013a, 2013b), PR seemed the most appropriate methodology. PR is different from traditional research in not being directed by an outside researcher and seeks to engage the subjects in getting their voices heard (Dold and Chapman, 2012). It is however important to note that many methods used in PR are drawn from mainstream disciplines and conventional research, but with varying degrees of participation (Cornwall and Jewekes, 1995). The use of various participatory methods, therefore, enabled engagement and listening to students’ views, as well as establishing a partnership environment amongst all participants.

The third reason for selecting PR as a methodology was its suitability in giving opportunity to local knowledge and perspectives to form a basis for research and planning (Cornwall and Jewekes, 1995). Treating research subjects as partners and respecting their knowledge and capabilities is regarded as one of the fundamental principles of PR (Participatory Methods, n.d.). Participatory Research, in this case, helped to take into account the views of the students who came from diverse educational, practice and work backgrounds, as discussed in Chapter Two, above. Their knowledge and understanding of early years subjects and practice ranged from that of novice ECS

115

students to that of experienced early years employers and practitioners. The use of PR and its approaches, therefore, helped to take into account students’ local knowledge and perspectives, which when combined with that of staff, was anticipated to generate rich data. The local co-researchers, therefore, contributed their newly formed and expert knowledge, drawn from everyday experiences (Dewey, 1938; Rodríguez and Brown, 2009), either as practitioners or as ECS students, in forming the pedagogic environment of an ECRR Room.

The fourth reason for choosing PR methodology was due to its consideration towards power issues between the researcher and the researched. As my study involved working

‘together’ of students and staff, a methodology that provided a basis for meaningful partnership was needed. This partnership could only be effective if the methods adopted would allow for distribution of power between the researcher and the participants. It is this location of power between the researcher and the research subjects that distinguishes PR from other conventional research methodologies, making PR a methodology of relationships and equitable power (Cornwall and Jewekes, 1995; Participatory Methods, n.d.). These parallel power relations, in my research, were realised in the form of shared decision making activities between all participants, through carefully chosen participatory methods in working group and research group meetings, as discussed above in section 5.8

It is these distinguishing features of PR that made it different from other conventional research methodologies, helping me to reject other research methods and approaches, in favour of PR. The working group and research group meetings were therefore facilitated within the framework of PR, whilst being cautious of various inherent issues and challenges of PR (as discussed in Chapter Three, section 3.6, above).

Conclusion

The chapter presented a methodological account of theoretical perspectives through the adoption of participatory research approach. A case is argued for the inclusion of PR in educational contexts, by taking example from my study. I have argued that PR

116

can create openings for a full engagement between different participants, hence creating a democratic space for multiple interests and methods to inform HE pedagogy.

The use of participatory group meetings in the form of working and research groups has been discussed and justified for knowledge co-construction purposes; as well as to shift the power inherent in traditional approaches of learning and teaching. The positioning and relationships between different research participants, including that of a researcher is examined, with regards to developing capacities amongst students to work as co- researchers. A description of working and research group is included in the chapter only to give a brief summary of the research design to the reader. The actual details of the working of the WG and RG are described in the next chapter, Chapter Six. The chapter, overall, discussed the application of PR with students studying on the ECS programmes, arguing for the development of a partnership approach of working collaboratively between students, staff and an administrator.

117 Chapter 6: The implementation of the project

In Chapter Five, I discussed the ideological and methodological position of PR and its application in a pedagogical context, taking examples from my project. To support the validity of the research, the next step was to select appropriate methods to listen to participants’ views about the ECRR Room. Due to the participatory nature of the work, a dialogic approach towards understanding student voice was chosen (Freire, 1970, 1973; Fielding, 2011; Wegerif, 2013b, 2015, 2016). An open ended approach, of participatory group meetings, was selected to allow participants to exchange dialogues within a democratic environment (Dewey, 1897, 1908; Englund, 2000; Fielding, 2011;

Wegerif, 2013b, 2015, 2016); and respect each other’s previous and current knowledge and experiences (Dewey, 1938; Freire, 1970, 1973; Cornwall and Jewekes, 1995;

Krishnaswamy, 2004; Pant, 2008). The participatory group meetings were designed to give all participants, including myself as the lead researcher, a fuller insight into understanding each other’s views and meaning making processes (Bryman, 2012).

This chapter extends the discussion and provides further details of participatory group meetings. The meetings were organised into working and research groups, as explained in Chapter Five, with opportunities for parallel participation from students and staff.

Three different phases of research, which ranged from recruitment of participants to WGMs, to data analysis in RGMs (see table 5.3, a summary of participatory group meetings, in Chapter Five), are discussed. The chapter is, principally, a descriptive account of the implementation of the project, to provide transparency of the processes for the reader. I also provide theoretical reasoning for selecting working and research group meetings as the primary approach for listening to the views of students.