Be aware of certain uncommon Common Sense with Participatory Research

While organising participatory research, one needs to understand that there are four hierarchies that would operate: - (a) Between research and researcher, where researcher would feel uncomfortable deviating from the design which the research team would have developed; (b) Between Research and Researched, where research participants would find many of the information they have not relevant to the research design; and they could do nothing; (c) Between Researcher and Researched, where researcher has a hierarchy based on many things, with one being her knowledge about research objectives would naturally be more than the knowledge of the respondents; and (d) crucially, among the respondents. All these hierarchies would have underlying structural hierarchies related to caste, gender, religion and class, and intersection of these hierarchies, which often produce altogether different kinds of hierarchies.  

What are the indicators that your research has started addressing hierarchies at the Focus Group discussion level, especially those between researcher and respondents? The Term Focus in Focus Group Discussion introduces the hierarchy. Focus on whom or what? Who determined the focus? What if “focus” is too narrow to understand the theme? Hence, by nature, FGD, could be hierarchical; and the hierarchy is exercised by the facilitator. Now, changing the term “focus” is not going to help much. For example, a researcher just by calling oneself a facilitator might just be masking this hierarchy. So, the good idea is to look for some common sense indicators.

Between Researcher and Researched

One, whether the discussion has become discussion and no longer in the form of interview; meaning, when researchers are no longer asking questions, but questions are asked by respondents to each other?

Two, whether the respondents no longer are trying to validate their response from researchers? Many times, after uttering a response, respondents look at the eyes of the researcher to know their reactions. The way researchers react would influence the opinions of the respondents.

Three, whether the respondents remain disinterested or agree with researchers with all the points? In these cases, once, silence of the respondents are often the reflections of unconscious or conscious power exercised by the researcher; or there is no attempt in the facilitation to convert the theme into such explaining that the theme has bearing on everyday lives of the respondents.

Use of Card Sorting and Participatory mapping Tools  

Cards and mapping tools are very political tools with the purpose of democratising the space where information from different locations and opinion makers are shared, analysed and inferred. In that sense, it is important to use these tools in a very informed way. Often, a lot of researchers use these tools mechanically and often would even look forward to a very publication friendly fancy kind of material coming out of the process. So, it is important to understand how card sorting democratises the data collection process: -

First, often in a survey, the respondents talk and facilitators take notes. Facilitators may be well intentioned. But, the problem here is that often respondents would not know that facilitators have actually understood what they are saying; for they do not know what a facilitator is writing. To that extent, a facilitator not taking private notes and display of all information in the public domain- is a democratisation process. Respondents have control over all information that are collected during the process.

Second, there would be certain persons who would generally be repeating the same points again and again. It is often an irritation to others. We have noticed such repeat of same narrations do not occur when we use card sorting. It is because, whatever person has said would find a place in a card. So whenever the person repeats, someone will say that this information has already been recorded. Once the person sees it oneself, one is satisfied that the information has been considered. This, invariably, the repeat of a same argument is result of a feeling of powerlessness by an individual that her views are not being taken into consideration. On the other hand, sometimes a person tends to use the power to say one point repeatedly to ensure that the discussion remains focused into one and not allow it to get into other important points. So, display of power as well as of powerlessness can be addressed through card sorting.

Thirdly, often, card sorting and mapping exercise ends up with categorising and followed by analysis of the information. The power of a researcher is not the information but the control over categorisation of information and the analysis thereof. The participatory mapping tools allow respondents to have a control over categorisation as well as analyses.

Finally, mapping tools are often transformational in nature. It allows individuals to change their opinion. A survey often takes the first spoken information. Participatory tools allow respondents to enable their data to engage with data from other participants and one has to provide rationale for the information. Mapping tools allow encountering of various rationale; and in their process a few respondents might change their opinion. It is here Friere’s conscientization process is significant to understand. The Participatory tools are transformational, only if the facilitator understands the potential of the same.

Pradeep Narayanan

#TheWorkshop2020 is offering a range of #modules from basics of #PRA to #CommunityLedActionResearch. Do join us to amplify your perspectives on community participation. 23 to 30 November, 2020

visit https://theworkshop.in or email at [email protected]