Participatory approaches to research on poverty

What real voice do people with direct experience of poverty have in research and inquiry into poverty? Participatory approaches respect the expertise of people with direct experience of poverty and give them more control over the various stages of the research process. The authors of a recent report on 'participatory' research on poverty in the UK, Fran Bennett and Moraene Roberts, provide an overview of participatory approaches to research on poverty and examine what happens when principle turns into practice.

Why do participatory research on poverty?
What makes participatory approaches work?
What is the state of participatory research on poverty in the UK?
Promise and possibilities, problems and pitfalls
Recommendations

Participatory approaches to research on poverty are not about adding the 'subjective' feelings of people with experience of poverty to the 'objective' findings of the researcher. They are not about just including personal quotes from people living in poverty in a report which remains otherwise unchanged in terms of its content and the way it was produced – although such quotes may well make such a report a more lively read and show up the limitations of 'policy-speak'.

Instead, participatory approaches are about people with direct experience of poverty having more voice in the research process – from defining the issues at stake through to working out how the findings should be used. One example of this kind of approach, which is drawn on in the report, was the Poverty First Hand experiment which was published by CPAG. [Footnote1] Participatory research also attempts to be interactive, instead of being a one-off process which just extracts information from people. Some practitioners describe it as trying to achieve a 'more open and democratic process of knowledge production'. [Footnote 2]

People with experience of poverty are used to telling their story. They are used to bearing witness. In fact, one of the most humiliating experiences of poverty can be the requirement to tell your life story over and over again to the authorities, in order to claim access to services or support. In this way, you are demonstrating your needs – what you do not have. What happens much less often is other people asking those with experience of poverty for their views, their analysis, their diagnosis, their ideas – what they can contribute, rather than what they lack. This is as true in the field of research on poverty as it is in other areas.

Why do participatory research on poverty?

I am telling you that I have a headache and you keep telling me that I have a footache and you want to force me to take medicine for that.

Participant from Chad at a World Bank planning meeting [Footnote 3]

What is the 'added value' of participatory approaches to research on poverty? As the quote above demonstrates, one of the main motivations for trying to adopt participatory ways of conducting research is to improve the research itself. At the most basic level, research in which people with direct experience of poverty have more control is likely to improve co-operation and reduce drop-out rates. Marginalised groups can be contacted by others whom they trust and can, for once, be given the opportunity to give their views as well. Research issues can be refined and questions posed more effectively with the active input of those who are involved as research subjects. Participatory approaches can produce a different kind of message, enriching knowledge about poverty and revealing interconnections between different aspects of the lives of people living in poverty.

If people with experience of poverty have more input into setting the research agenda, they may highlight certain aspects of poverty they see as central and as a result influence the order of priorities of policy makers. In addition, since policies cannot be said to have 'worked' if the perceptions of those directly involved are very different from those of policy makers, participatory forms of monitoring and evaluation can become key elements of evidence-based policy making. A participatory approach may also pick up unintended consequences and changes in criteria for judging outcomes of policy interventions more easily than other evaluation methods whose measures are pre-set.

There can also be gains from participation by those individuals or groups taking part in terms of increased confidence, experience and learning:

…an inclusive research process can contribute to [the] task of strengthening the cultural and political capital of those in poverty. [Footnote 4]

Initiating participatory forms of research can also act as a catalyst to further change in a community, or can include groups who have been excluded before, thus helping to make a community more cohesive.

But what is not recognised so often is that those people involved who are not living in poverty can benefit even more significantly from the exchange, often coming to see it as an opportunity to re-evaluate what they have learned by more traditional methods. The personal experience of meeting and engaging with people living in poverty can also be crucial in changing the perspectives and behaviour of policy makers. [Footnote 5] In addition, the process of working side by side can help forge new relationships and create new networks for promoting positive change in the future.

However, perhaps the strongest arguments for participatory approaches to research on poverty are those which emphasise the principle that people living in poverty have a right to a voice. [Footnote 6] This could be argued in relation to many different groups who are the 'objects' of research. But it is particularly important for groups who tend to have least power in the research relationship, and in other relationships too, and whose contributions are often dismissed. This focus on 'voice' is part of an approach that emphasises issues of status and power, not just material goods, in the definition of poverty, and the rights of people in poverty to influence public images and debates about poverty. [Footnote 7] Participatory research can also enhance people's awareness of their rights and strengthen their claims on society more generally. [Footnote 8]

What makes participatory approaches work?
Basic building blocks to make participatory approaches work include time to allow people to go at their own pace; adequate financial and other forms of support; and opportunities for personal exchange. One of the examples of joint inquiry cited in the report, the Commission on Poverty, Participation and Power, suffered from problems in each of these areas when aspirations to achieve a participatory approach came up, as so often, against the practical constraints of time, resources and human relationships. [Footnote 9]

The relatively short timetable of the Commission militated against a full exploration of all the thorny issues that came up between 'grassroots' members of the Commission with direct experience of poverty and the 'public life' members. The need to operate through a large organisation with its own established procedures meant that it was difficult to give cash to people in advance without a receipt for their travel and other expenses. And the fact that everyone involved had other commitments – as well as the limited budget – meant that there was too little time, especially at the beginning of the process, for trust to be established through opportunities to spend time together in discussion and getting to know one another outside the inquiry process itself:

Participation – full participation – can only take place in an environment which is safe for everyone. This means time, space and resources are needed in order to break down barriers and prejudice before the work can be done.

Letter from Moira Stanley, grassroots Commissioner, 28 June 2003, with author's original emphasis

But no one left the Commission before the end of the inquiry, despite the difficulties. The process was an invigorating one, which produced powerful statements and a differente 'take' on poverty and policy alike. The 50/50 nature of the Commission made a great difference, both to the personal learning of Commissioners and the way te report was shaped and written. [Footnote 10] And in the end the Commission produced a different kind of report, which attempted to reflect the energy and vibrancy of the exchanges between Commissioners, and made recommendations about how to overcome the barriers which people with direct experience of poverty experience when they try to participate in decision-making processes which affect their lives. These recommendations have subsequently been drawn on explicitly by the Department of Work and Pensions to work out ways of involving people with experience of poverty and their organisations in discussing the shape and priorities of the UK's National Action Plan on social inclusion.

What is the state of participatory research on poverty in the UK?
Participatory practice is not yet fully embedded as a central element of mainstream social research in the UK. But it is expanding, especially at local level. Development organisations and others using participatory approaches adapted from those used in the 'south' of the globe are also starting to influence practice in the UK, both within government and outside. Since devolution, some local level participatory experiments in research and in local governance are now being promoted in the devolved administrations in particular. And several academic institutions and national non-governmental organisations use participatory principles in their research. But major challenges now include finding ways of feeding into national level processes and of engaging with topical policy debates.

Promise and possibilities, problems and pitfalls
'Participation' can be used to evoke almost anything involving people. So its meanings need to be unpacked, to make sense of claims that research is 'participatory'. [Footnote 11] The authors go beyond the case for participatory approaches in principle, to explore what this means in practice. They do not duck the difficult issues which inevitably emerge, in particular about the 'who', 'how' and 'what' of participatory approaches to research and inquiry into poverty.

The first issue is about who takes part in participatory forms of research and inquiry into poverty. First of all, there can be a fundamental difficulty about people identifying themselves as poor, or living in poverty – which has led to practitioners in the 'south' of the globe commonly using words such as 'ill-being' instead. A recent study led by Oxfam, but carried out in the UK, asked people living in a poor area what was involved in being 'ok' or 'not ok' in their community, rather than explicitly mentioning poverty as such. [Footnote 12] Those people who are already actively involved in debates and action to tackle poverty may be more prepared to use the 'p' word, however: [Footnote 13]

When people experiencing poverty are involved in the policy making from the very beginning, it's not poverty that is shameful – it's the existence of poverty that is shameful.

Participant in People's Parliament, organised by Voices for Change Scotland [Footnote14]

But there can still be people who are left out, even within a group defined as living in a poor area or in poverty; so it is important to ensure that a cosy consensus is not assumed and that no voices are silenced. A key question to ask is not about whether the maximum number of people have participated at all stages of the research, but whether clarity about aims, rather than limitations of time and money, was the critical factor guiding choices about degrees of involvement and key stages for participation.

These and other questions about the 'who' of participatory approaches to research on poverty are followed up in the report with discussions about similarly problematic issues about the 'how' and 'what'. In terms of the 'how', involving people with experience of poverty in making sense of the information can be seen as a key part of the process. Involvement of the research 'subjects' in the final stage of research is often crucial, but may also be more difficult to put into effect than, for example, employing them as interviewers. This is often the stage at which the 'objectivity' of research findings is seen as key. But several research traditions would question the supposed 'objectivity' of the researcher; and research is often seen now as a process like any other, in which all the various participants have their own stakes, interests and roles. This may be a more fruitful way of looking at the research process if people with experience of poverty are to be included as full partners alongside others.

Findings from participatory forms of research should be 'triangulated' (cross-checked) with information obtained by other methods. And there is scope for combining methods, so that, for example, the findings from participatory research can be used to inform the questions in a household survey and shed light on its findings. [Footnote 15] Recent participatory research on poverty indicators in the European Union has produced results which may be able to be used in future in quantitative research to measure progress in tackling poverty. [Footnote 16]

Sometimes it can sound as though the purpose of participatory approaches to research is simply to transmit the 'voice' of people with direct experience of poverty without any intervention from the researcher. There are certainly some models for this approach. And in the past, researchers often tried hard to ensure that they were not seen as powerful outsiders with unique knowledge. But a more nuanced understanding is now being developed by some practitioners, to emphasise debate and dialogue, whilst retaining the emphasis on an inclusive process and the recognition of the expertise of those with direct experience of poverty:

These processes offer a valuable corrective to the tendency found in some participatory processes of simply gathering people's views, rather than providing opportunities for exploration, analysis and debate. [Footnote 17]

Some experiments of this kind are now being conducted in the UK.

Recommendations
The report suggests that social research funders should consider the realistic requirements of participatory research initiatives, especially in terms of resources and time, and incorporate commitments and guidance covering additional support needs for such initiatives in their guidelines to applicants. Those funders already committed to such approaches could promote them in exchanges with others, and bring together practitioners who have taken part in such initiatives to exchange lessons and views about practical ways forward.

There is nothing like practical experience of engaging in participatory forms of research and inquiry to change people's minds about its value. So more opportunities should be provided for people to experiment with participatory methods and to share their experiences in networks, especially between those working on international development and/or in the 'south' of the globe and those working in the UK. There could also be fruitful exchanges between those involved in participatory practice in research on poverty and those engaged in user involvement/user control in the health and social care fields, emancipatory research in the disabled people's movement and so on. The discussion of research ethics could consider the potential engagement of the research 'subject' at all stages of the process, including agreement on outputs.

And if government is to facilitate participatory approaches in research and evaluation, it will need to become more flexible and open-ended about its agenda, and the questions to be asked of those people affected by government policies. In the longer term, participatory research could – as in some countries in the 'south' – be linked in with national policy-making processes. Last but not least, one government minister has said in the past that Labour should be a 'voice for the voiceless'; but this report argues that 'voice poverty' is a crucial part of the powerlessness of people living in poverty, and that it is essential to increase the support for those organisations which work to strengthen the 'voice' of people in poverty themselves.

Fran Bennett is a senior research fellow at the Department of Social Policy and Social Work, University of Oxford, and also works in a self-employed capacity on social policy issues; she is a former director of CPAG.

Moraene Roberts, who acted as consultant to the project, is an anti-poverty activist with ATD Fourth World who has direct experience of poverty herself.

From Input to Influence: participatory approaches to research and inquiry into poverty by Fran Bennett with Moraene Roberts is published by Joseph Rowntree Foundation. The report and a summary of its findings are available at www.jrf.org.uk

Footnotes
1. P Beresford, D Green, R Lister and K Woodard, Poverty First Hand: poor people speak for themselves, CPAG, 1999 [back to text]
2. K Brock, 'Introduction', in K Brock and R McGee (eds.), Knowing Poverty: critical reflections on participatory research and policy, Earthscan Publications Ltd, 2002 [back to text]
3. Quoted in Commission on Poverty, Participation and Power, Listen Hear: the right to be heard, The Policy Press/UK Coalition against Poverty, 2000. The Commission was supported by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and others to examine barriers to participation in decision-making processes experienced by those in poverty. [back to text]
4. R Lister and P Beresford with D Green and K Woodard, 'Where are 'the Poor' in the Future of Poverty Research?', in J Bradshaw and R Sainsbury, Researching Poverty, Ashgate, 2000, p292 [back to text]
5. R McGee, 'The Self in Participatory Research', in K Brock and R McGee, Knowing Poverty: critical reflections on participatory research and policy, Earthscan Publications Ltd, 2002 [back to text]
6. See note 4 [back to text]
7. R Lister, 'A Politics of Recognition and Respect: involving people with experience of poverty in decision making that affects their lives', Social Policy and Society, Vol 1, Issue 1, 2002 [back to text]
8. Institute of Development Studies, 'Poverty Reduction Strategies: a part for the poor?' IDS Poverty Briefing, Issue 13, 2001 [back to text]
9. S Del Tufo and L Gaster, Evaluation of the Commission on Poverty, Participation and Power, York Publishing Services Ltd for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2002; and Findings 7102, 2002 [back to text]
10. See note 9 [back to text]
11. A Cornwall, Beneficiary, Consumer, Citizen: perspectives on participation for poverty reduction, Sida Studies No 2, Swedish International Development Co-operation Agency, 2000 [back to text]
12. H Buhaenko, C Flower and S Smith (ed. N Van der Gaag), 'Fifty Voices are Better than One': combating social exclusion in Gellideg, in the South Wales Valleys, Gellideg Foundation Group and Oxfam GB, 2003 [back to text]
13. So labelled by Ruth Lister. [back to text]
14. Cited in Listen Hear (see note 3) [back to text]
15. R McGee with A Norton, 'Participation in Poverty Reduction Strategies: a synthesis of experience with participatory approaches to policy design, implementation and monitoring', Working Paper 109, Institute of Development Studies, 2000 [back to text]
16. European Anti-Poverty Network, Network News No 103, 2003 [back to text]
17. A Cornwall and J Gaventa, 'Bridging the Gap: citizenship, participation and accountability', PLA Notes 40, 2001 [back to text]

Poverty 118, Summer 2004