Examining Participatory Research As Methodology: Insights on Neutrality, Compliance, Critical Consciousness, Power, Sustainability and Expertise (in Climate Action Research with Sao Paolo's Informal Settlements)

Background:

Participatory Action Research (PAR) and Community Based Participatory Research have gained traction in research in community practice, social work and urban studies, with increasing demands within academia for knowledge production that is democratic and grounded. Yet, ‘participation’ is a loaded and contested concept concerning methodology. In a conceptual framework, Mackenzie and colleagues (2021) introduce five guiding principles for participatory research: (1) openness and compliance (2) building social learning (c) engaging participation (4) time and resource responsiveness and (5) tailoring to the issues. This framework opens up space for and warrants empirical and theoretical introspection as to how these principles unfold on the ground, particularly in participatory projects with precarious communities.

Methods:

We draw from those five principles to conduct a reflective analysis of our participatory research, as employed in a research project with women and LGBTQI+ individuals in three precarious informal settlements (favellas) in São Paulo, Brazil. Working with 24 participants in a series of workshops in Anchieta (n=9), Pantanal (n=8); and Toka (n=7) and grounded in liberatory and emancipatory education traditions (Fals-Borda & Rahman, 1991; Freire, 1970), we sought to understand participants’ experiences, insights and actions on climate issues, while promoting critical consciousness, co-production of knowledge, and action for change. Methodologically, we used varied approaches, including digital organizational meetings to frame the community-grounded approaches to climate knowledge, photovoice, counter-mapping, community timelines, team building, and didactic engagements.

Results:

Five themes overlay upon the five principles of participatory research in Mackenzie et al (2021).

Openness and neutrality: rather than remain neutral objective observers, the research was motivated and informed by the positionalities and political actions of us researchers.

Social learning: via counter-mapping, creating timelines and co-producing educational content, the research process sought not only to teach, but also generate critical analyses of climate issues. Participation: in team building, didactic engagement and data collection, issues of power and reflexivity were salient throughout.

Time and resources: years of deep investment and collaboration with the three communities were punctuated by short-term, cross-sectional engagement.

Tailoring the issues: the maps, photos and timelines were tangible outputs that countered the dominant representation of how informal dwellers experienced and acted upon climate change as a social issue.

Conclusion and Implications:

As a call to action, our findings provide considerations for participatory researchers and practitioners. Theoretically, our findings enrich existing conceptual frameworks on participatory research.

First, we call for problematizing compliance and neutrality as an element of openness in participatory research, as our work centered on resistance rather than compliance, and on politicization rather than neutrality.

Second, we argue for extending social learning to critical consciousness, highlighting the political and transformative aspirations of participatory research.

Third, we expand participation by calling attention to power and reflexivity in the research process.

Fourth, our work seeks to foreground sustainability and reciprocity, pushing against the temporal, administrative and funding limits of research in academic institutions.

Fifth, in tailoring to issues, scientific and technical expertise is questioned, as our work was underpinned and buoyed by local, informal epistemologies.