Art - Participatory Research Methods A Methodological Approach in Motion

FORUM: QUALITATIVE SOCIAL RESEARCH SOZIALFORSCHUNG
Participatory Research Methods: A Methodological Approach in Motion

Jarg Bergold & Stefan Thomas
Key words: academic re%uirements& ethical norms& focus group& degrees of participation& %uality criteria& intervie"& marginali?ation& participatory research methods& refleDivity& sub ectivity& safe space
Colume *,! Ao. *! Art. ,< 8anuary +<*+
Abstract: This article serves as an introduction to the FQS special issue "Participatory Qualitative Research." In recent years there has been a resurgence of interest in participatory research strategies. The articles in this special issue come from different disciplines. Against the background of concrete empirical research pro ects! they address numerous conceptual considerations and methodological approaches. After reading the contributions! and engaging "ith the authors# arguments! "e "ere prompted to focus in particular on those areas in "hich further "ork needs to be done. They include! on the one hand! fundamental principles of participatory research! such as democratic$theory considerations! the concept of "safe space!" participation issues! and ethical %uestions. And! on the other hand! "e focus on practical research considerations regarding the role and tasks of the various participants& specific methodological approaches& and %uality criteria' understood here in the sense of arguments ustifying a participatory approach. (ur aim is to stimulate a broad discussion that does not focus only on participatory research in the narro"er sense. )ecause participatory methodology poses certain kno"ledge$ and research$related %uestions in a radical "ay! it has the potential to dra" attention to hitherto neglected areas in %ualitative methodology and to stimulate their further development. Table of Contents *. Introduction +. Participatory Research and Action Research ,. -undamental Principles of Participatory Research ,.* .emocracy as a precondition for participatory research ,.+ The need for a "safe space" ,., /ho participates0 1o" is "the community" defined0 ,.2 .ifferent degrees of participation 2. .istinctive -eatures of the Participatory Research 3ethodology 2.* 3aterial prere%uisites 2.+ 4hallenges and tasks facing all the research partners 2., The importance of reflection 2.2 .istinctive features of the production and analysis of the "data" 2.5 .istinctive features of the representation of findings 2.6 Academic re%uirements and funding conditions for participatory research 2.7 8ustification of participatory research pro ects 2.9 :thical aspects of participatory research Ackno"ledgment References Authors 4itation
; +<*+ -Q= http:>>""".%ualitative$research.net> -orum Qualitative =o?ialforschung > -orum: Qualitative =ocial Research @I==A *2,9$56+7B
FQS *,@*B! Art. ,<! 8arg )ergold & =tefan Thomas: Participatory Research 3ethods: A 3ethodological Approach in 3otion
1. Introduction
Participatory research methods are geared to"ards planning and conducting the research process with those people "hose life$"orld and meaningful actions are under study. 4onse%uently! this means that the aim of the in%uiry and the research %uestions develop out of the convergence of t"o perspectives'that of science and of practice. In the best case! both sides benefit from the research process. :veryday practices! "hich have long since established themselves as a sub ect of in%uiry! introduce their o"n perspective! namely! the "ay people deal "ith the eDistential challenges of everyday life. The participatory research process enables co$researchers to step back cognitively from familiar routines! forms of interaction! and po"er relationships in order to fundamentally %uestion and rethink established interpretations of situations and strategies. 1o"ever! the convergence of the perspectives of science and practice does not come about simply by deciding to conduct participatory research. Rather! it is a very demanding process that evolves "hen t"o spheres of action'science and practice'meet! interact! and develop an understanding for each other. E*F )y participatory methodology "e mean a research style! "an orientation to in%uiry" @R:A=(A G )RA.)HRI! +<<9a! p.*B. The unity and ustification of participatory research are to be found not so much on the level of concrete research methods. Rather! participatory research can be regarded as a methodology that argues in favor of the possibility! the significance! and the usefulness of involving research partners in the kno"ledge$production process @):RJ(K.! +<<7B. Participatory approaches are not fundamentally distinct from other empirical social research procedures. (n the contrary! there are numerous links! especially to %ualitative methodologies and methods. E+F In practice! the participatory research style manifests itself in numerous participatory research strategies. )ecause of the individuality and self$ determination of the research partners in the participatory research process! these strategies cannot be canoni?ed in the form of a single! cohesive methodological approach! such as! for eDample! the narrative intervie" or %ualitative content analysis. The dictum of process orientation and the appropriateness of the method to the sub ect under study @-KI4L! +<<MB is even more important in participatory research than in other approaches to %ualitative research. In our vie"! in order to gain a deeper insight into the conteDtual structuredness of meaning and the dynamism inherent in social action! it is "orth"hile considering the inclusion of participatory research elements in research designs. 3oreover! "e believe that'precisely because the participation of all research partners is the fundamental guiding principle for this research approach'a methodological design that can be classified as a participatory design process in the narro"er sense! represents an attractive and fruitful kno"ledge$generating option "hen it comes to researching the social "orld in the sense of habituali?ed practice @):RJ(K.! +<<7B. E,F In order to place the articles compiled in this special issue of FQS in an overarching conteDt! "e shall first provide a some"hat detailed introduction to
; +<*+ -Q= http:>>""".%ualitative$research.net>
participatory research. After reading the contributions! "e "ere prompted to engage productively "ith the characteristics! aspirations! and desiderata of participatory research. In the follo"ing sections "e focus! in particular! on those areas in "hich further "ork needs to be done'or in "hich "ork has not yet commenced. This "ill also help to identify the untapped kno"ledge$creating potential of %ualitative methodologies. )ecause participatory methodology poses certain %uestions about kno"ledge and research in a radical "ay! it has the potential to dra" attention to hitherto neglected areas in %ualitative methodology and to stimulate their further development. E2F
. Participatory Research and Action Research

In :nglish$speaking countries! in particular! participatory research has gained increasing importance as a research strategy "ithin %ualitative social research @):RJ(K.! +<<7& ):RJ(K. G T1(3A=! +<*<B. :specially in the debate on action research! systematic reference is made to participatory research strategies. Although there are numerous points of convergence bet"een action research and participatory research! "e believe that by identifying the differences bet"een the t"o approaches one can more accurately define the distinctive features of participatory research @cf. ):KK et al.! +<<2B. Another good reason to undertake this differentiation is that a systematic discussion about a participatory methodology in the narro"er sense is only ust beginning. E5F (f particular relevance in the present conteDt is the fact that "ithin the debate on action research there is a strong movement "hich describes itself "ith increasing self$assurance as "participative in%uiry and practice"'the subtitle of the =age 1andbook of Action Research @R:A=(A G )RA.)HRI! +<<9bB. Aumerous discussion strands! in "hich the participation of research partners is conceptuali?ed in different "ays! converge in the action research paradigm. The clear reference to participatory methodology is also reflected in the labeling of various action research approaches! for eDample participatory action research @PAR& L:33I= G 3cTAJJART! +<<5B! co$operative in%uiry @1:R(A! *MM6B! participatory rural appraisal @PRAB! participatory learning and action @PKAB! and participatory learning research @overvie" in 41A3):R=! +<<9B! etc. The common aim of these approaches is to change social reality on the basis of insights into everyday practices that are obtained by means of participatory research'that is! collaborative research on the part of scientists! practitioners! service users! etc. E6F The articles in this special issue also differ in terms of thematic focus. The pupils# research pro ect "ith "hich Ceronika /N1R:R and )ernhard 1N41:R illustrate the challenges of involving secondary school pupils in social science research perceives itself as PAR in the classical sense. A stronger accentuation of the participatory side can be observed in 1ella v. HAJ:R#s contribution. =he eDplores on the basis of community$based participatory research @4)PRB the preventive healthcare opportunities opened up by involving members of the researched community in the research. Taking a research pro ect in the area of home treatment for people eDperiencing mental health crisis as an eDample! 3arit
)(RJ! )engt LARK==(A! 1esook =u?ie LI3! and )rendan 3c4(R3A4L identify processes that enhance the motivation for participatory "ork in professional treatment teams and create communicative spaces. In her contribution! Tina 4((L reflects on the problems that occurred "hen conducting t"o participatory studies "hich focused not only on the participation of patients>service users of psychiatric institutions! but also on oint reflection on! and the development of! shared understanding about the specific characteristics of the participants# life situation. Against the background of eDperiences in research "ith young people! the contributions by Audrey 3. .:ATIT1! Kynda 3:A=(R! and 3ichael P. (#3AKK:I! and by 4laire 3c4ARTAA! .irk =41H)(TO! and 8onathan 3HRP1I! focus on the possibilities and challenges of overcoming established po"er structures in participatory pro ects. 8ean RAT1 presents a participatory approach aimed at eDtending the possibilities of co$ constructing eDperiences and meanings. =he crafts poems from intervie" transcripts. As part of a "layered teDt!" these poems provide access to the many meanings eDplicitly and implicitly eDpressed in the intervie"s "ith the research partners. =tephanie J(:L: and .agmar LH)AA=LI propose that participatory research in the area of disability research in the Jerman$speaking countries be eDtended to include emancipatory! inclusive! and trans$disciplinary approaches. 3oreover'like 8asna RH==('they effectively argue in favor of a radicali?ation of participatory research. All three authors contend that responsibility for research should be assumed by the persons concerned'in J(:L: and LH)AA=LI#s paper! by the persons affected by disability! and in RH==(#s contribution! by "survivors!" that is! people "ho have eDperienced psychiatric treatment. Against the background of democracy theory! 3onika JNT=41! =abine LKIAJ:R and Andreas T1I:=:A reflect on the re%uirements that arise in the course of the reali?ation of a participatory research pro ect. And finally! in her article on the development of participatory pro ects after the collapse of the military dictatorship in Argentina! =ylvia K:AO demonstrates the importance of democracy as a conteDt for participatory research. E7F The combination of practice change and collaborative research'as in the case of PAR'is possible and makes good sense. Aonetheless! action research and participatory research are also conducted separately! or applied "ith different emphases in one research pro ect. As L:33I= and 3cTAJJART @+<<5! p.56,B point out: "Aot all theorists of action research place this emphasis on collaboration." Participatory research! in particular! shifts the emphasis from action and change to collaborative research activities. :specially in health research! even research funders no" recogni?e that the involvement of service users in the research process makes good sense. In her article! 4((L @+<*+B sho"s that! in the Hnited Lingdom at least! public and patient involvement @PPIB in research is sometimes even eDplicitly re%uired by funding bodies. In this frame"ork! the primary aim is not to change practice in the course of research. Rather! the aim is to produce kno"ledge in collaboration bet"een scientists and practitioners. E9F Therefore! some representatives of the participatory research paradigm stress that! besides the mere participation of co$researchers in the in%uiry! participatory
research involves a oint process of kno"ledge$production that leads to ne" insights on the part of both scientists and practitioners. -rom an action research vie"point! reflection is not "ithout conse%uences for people#s everyday practices. -rom a scientific perspective! ho"ever! producers of kno"ledge "ould be "ell advised initially to evade demands for pragmatic utility. Therefore! the follo"ing elaboration of distinctive features of participatory research is intended as an invitation to the %ualitative community to make greater use of participatory research elements'especially if they do not share the aspirations for change that are characteristic of action research. As the articles in this special issue reveal! participatory methods open up ne" and broader perspectives for the research of everyday practices! especially "here the methodology and self$concept of %ualitative social research are concerned. These find eDpression in the basic principles of openness! communication! and the appropriateness of the method to the sub ect under study. EMF
!. "unda#ental Principles of Participatory Research

!.1 $e#ocracy as a precondition for participatory research :very type of research calls for social conditions that are conducive to the topic and to the epistemological approach in %uestion. In contrast to nomothetic research! "hich can be carried out under almost any social conditions! participatory research re%uires a democratic social and political conteDt. The participation of under$privileged demographic groups! and the social commitment demanded of the researchers! are possible only if there is a political frame"ork that allo"s it. The connection bet"een democracy and participatory research can be clearly seen in Katin America! for eDample! "here! after the collapse of dictatorships! a general increase in participation on the part of the population has been observed! and'linked to that'an ups"ing in both academically$driven and practitioner$driven participatory research @K:AO! +<*+B. To put it pointedly: The possibility of conducting participatory research can be regarded as a litmus test for a society#s democratic self$concept. E*<F JNT=41 et al. @+<*+B argue that in concrete research pro ects! too! the concepts of democracy held the participants shapes the design and the research process. The authors point out that a society#s understanding of democracy'as consensus democracy or ma oritarian democracy'has conse%uences for the eDtent of participation! the research %uestions and aims! and the research results. E**F !. The need for a %safe space% Participatory research re%uires a great "illingness on the part of participants to disclose their personal vie"s of the situation! their o"n opinions and eDperiences. In everyday life! such openness is displayed to"ards good and trusted friends! but hardly in institutional settings or to"ards strangers. The fear of being attacked for saying something "rong prevents people from eDpressing their vie"s and opinions! especially "hen they appear to contradict "hat the others think. 1o"ever! participatory research specifically seeks these dissenting vie"s& they
are essential for the process of kno"ledge production because they promise a ne" and different take on the sub ect under study! and thereby enable the discovery of ne" aspects. E*+F In order to facilitate sufficient openness! a "safe space" is needed! in "hich the participants can be confident that their utterances "ill not be used against them! and that they "ill not suffer any disadvantages if they eDpress critical or dissenting opinions. It is not a %uestion of creating a conflict$free space! but rather of ensuring that the conflicts that are revealed can be ointly discussed& that they can either be solved or! at least! accepted as different positions& and that a certain level of conflict tolerance is achieved. E*,F )uilding on L:33I= @+<<*B! /I4L= and R:A=(A @+<<MB dra" on 1A):R3A=#s deliberations about "domination$free" discourse to develop the concept of "communicative space"'a transition ?one bet"een system and life$"orld'"hich! in their vie"! participatory research must open. The authors demonstrate ho" such communicative space must be produced ane" in the various phases of the research process. They distinguish three phases in the process of participatory research: the "inclusion phase!" the "control phase!" and the "intimacy phase." In each phase! three problem areas'"emotional issues!" "task issues!" and "organi?ational issues"'must be addressed. E*2F The authors also point out that the "practices of developing such communicative spaces are necessarily paradoDical and contradictory!" "ith the result that negotiation processes must be continually engaged in. Therefore! the research contract& the boundaries of the communicative space& the type of participation& leadership& opportunities to eDpress anDiety& and the balance bet"een order and chaos must be continually negotiated. The outcome of this negotiation process is a symbolic space in "hich! in the best case! the participants can trust each other and! thus! eDpress their vie"s on the sub ect under study. E*5F 4oncepts such as "communicative space!" "the counter public" @.:ATIT1 et al.! +<*+B! or "discursive approach" @4((L! +<*+B! "hich are encountered in participatory methodology! underline the fact that the challenge of participation lies in achieving understanding about the sub ect under study by means of communication. Although they dra" on different concepts! authors continually stress ho" important it is that the research process open up spaces that facilitate communication. They argue that it is decisive for research that a safe space be created in "hich openness! differences of opinion! conflicts! etc. are permitted. E*6F !.! &ho participates' (ow is %the co##unity% defined' /ith the acceptance of participatory research approaches by various funding bodies @for eDample! the .epartment of 1ealth in :ngland and the /orld )ankB! there are a gro"ing number of programs that stipulate the use of participatory research strategies in the funded pro ects. 1o"ever! "participation" is understood more as the involvement of any groups of people "ho are not professional
researchers. As a result! the concept "participatory research" loses its clear contours. E*7F A fundamental dichotomy can be observed in participatory research. (n the one hand! there are a large number of studies in "hich academic researchers and professional practitioners collaborate& the practitioners are either involved in the research or carry it out themselves "ith the support of professional researchers. Prototypes of this kind of research in :nglish$speaking countries include participatory action research @PARB! co$operative in%uiry! and participatory evaluation& eDamples in Jerman$speaking countries are action research and practice research @1:IA:R! *M99B. E*9F (n the other hand! participatory research is conducted directly "ith the immediately affected persons& the aim is the reconstruction of their kno"ledge and ability in a process of understanding and empo"erment. In the ma ority of cases! these co$researchers are marginali?ed groups "hose vie"s are seldom sought! and "hose voices are rarely heard. Aormally! these groups have little opportunity to articulate! ustify! and assert their interests. This is eDpressed succinctly by -AK=$)(R.A and RA13AA @*MM*! p.viif.B! "ho define PAR as the "enlightenment and a"akening of common peoples!" among other things. E*MF The basic dilemma revealed here is that these marginali?ed communities are in a very poor position to participate in participatory research pro ects! or to initiate such a pro ect themselves. This can be observed clearly in t"o problem areas that are represented in contributions to this special issue! namely "psychiatric disorders" and "disabilities." Traditionally! research in these t"o areas has been conducted as research about the people in %uestion and their problems! rather than with these people @RH==(! +<*+& J(:L: G LH)AA=LI! +<*+B. This has led to the development of theories and practices that may "ell be considered helpful by those affected! but may also be perceived as hegemonial kno"ledge. E+<F 3oreover! research is classified into different theoretical models depending on the labels used to describe the research partners'and this happens "ithout eDplicit discussion @see 4((L! +<*+ and RH==(! +<*+B. This! too! can be clearly observed in the psychiatric area. The label "service user" denotes an eDtremely heterogeneous group that might also include the family! friends! and neighbors of the patient! in other "ords! everyone "ho is affected directly or indirectly by a certain service offering. )y using the term "consumer!" research is classified into the economic market model& the term "patient" assigns it to the medical model& and! finally! the term "survivors" @of psychiatric treatmentB classifies it into an alternative model of affected persons. E+*F :specially in :ngland! psychiatric "survivors" stress the need for alternative models of psychiatric problems and "ays of dealing "ith them'models that are not shaped by the medical model and thus by the economic interests of the medical profession and the pharmaceutical industry. 3oreover! they argue that the development of such alternative models calls for independent research that is completely controlled by the survivors themselves. E++F
/hen research is conducted together "ith the affected persons! the methodological %uestion arises as to "hich persons! or groups of persons! should! or must! be involved. This %uestion must be addressed! especially in vie" of the fact that different groups have developed different kno"ledge in the area under study. -urthermore! it is the declared aim of participatory research to access and harness these different types of kno"ledge. Therefore! it is important to determine eDactly "hich groups "ill contribute their kno"ledge to the oint research results. (nly by so doing! can the different types of kno"ledge be related to each other! and a possible practical use be outlined. E+,F It is generally argued that those persons! groups! and institutions "ho are affected by the research theme and the eDpected outcomes must be involved. 1o"ever! criticism is voiced that! "hen it comes to sampling! participatory approaches fre%uently rely on the utterances of the local participants or the client and that the sample is inade%uate or faulty as a result @see v. HAJ:R! +<*+& 4A=PARI! +<<6! p.,75B. E+2F (verall! "hat is lacking is a systematic procedure. 1o"ever! there are various pragmatic strategies "ith "hich the groups to be included can be determined more eDactly. -or eDample! v. HAJ:R @+<*+B presents a solution "ith "hich diverse groups such as users and their organi?ations! community leaders! citi?ens! clubs and societies! professional practitioners! professional societies! etc. are involved. This can be carried out "ithin the frame"ork of a sno"ball system via those "ho are already included! and can take place step by step during the research process. E+5F The methodological problem lies in a distortion of the research process and outcomes if relevant actors are not prepared to get involved in the participatory research process! or if some field participants are %uasi invisible. These "invisible" field members can be groups "ho have been eDcluded by other actors! or "ho! for "hatever reason! have not received information about the pro ect. 3oreover! it "ould appear plausible that the professional researchers cannot rely on the utterances of the field participants alone! because numerous eDclusionary processes may occur in the field! and involvement in a participatory research pro ect may represent a privilege and a distinction for "hich people compete. E+6F In the area of evaluation! JH)A and KIA4(KA @*M9M! p.2<f.B developed the stakeholder approach! in "hich attention is also dra"n to the victims'that is! to those "ho suffer disadvantages because of the pro ect and the changes it brings! but "ho are unable to participate in decisions. 1o"ever! these authors! too! do not go beyond a pragmatic list of groups of persons "ho may be disadvantaged by the procedure in %uestion. E+7F A systematic solution could be achieved only by a structural theory about the particular area under study. 1o"ever! such a theory is fre%uently not available& nor can it be developed "ithin the frame"ork of individual pro ects. The social location of those people "ho are affected by the researched problem! "ho share a material or socio$psychological milieu! and have a common eDperiential
background must be precisely identified. This common background "ill'at least in theory'facilitate communication and oint action. E+9F !.) $ifferent degrees of participation (nce it has been clarified "ho should be involved in the research pro ect! further decisions must be made. /hich activities the co$researchers should'or can' participate in! and "hether there should be different degrees of participation for different groups! are %uestions that are discussed in very different "ays in the literature. )oth v. HAJ:R @+<*+B and 4((L @+<*+B offer an overvie" of the concepts that have emerged from this discussion. The most "ell$kno"n model of participation is the "ladder" proposed by ARA=T:IA @*M6MB. Although developed "ith reference to citi?en participation! it has been applied in various attempts to develop an overvie" of types of participation in research pro ects @see account in v. HAJ:R! +<*+B. E+MF To determine "hether a pro ect fulfills the basic criterion for classification as participatory research! one must ask "ho controls the research in "hich phase of the pro ect @see 4((L! +<*+& RH==(& J(:L: G LH)AA=LI! +<*+B& "hether control is eDercised by the research partners& or "hether they have at least the same rights as the professional researchers "hen it comes to making decisions. These %uestions have been posed mainly by research participants'for eDample persons "ith eDperience of psychiatric institutions! or persons "ith learning difficulties'"ho have traditionally been regarded as ob ects of research! and "ho have only recently spoken out. E,<F -rom this perspective! the proposal of ladder models that allo" those on the lo"er rungs no control over research decisions! does little to clarify matters. Hnless people are involved in decisions'and! therefore! research partners! or @co$Bresearchers'it is not participatory research. Kadder models suggest the eDistence of a continuum! and thereby blur basic differences @4((L! +<*+B. /hether the affected persons are merely intervie"ed! or "hether they participate directly in research decisions! possibly implies completely different social$policy and professional$policy backgrounds and underlying philosophical positions. E,*F =o$called "early" forms of participation! such as the briefing of professional researchers by those "ho are affected by the problem under study! can! at most! be described as preparatory oint activities that may facilitate participation in the research pro ect at a later date. 1o"ever! the problem "ith these forms of participation is that they may constitute "pseudo participation." J(:L: G LH)AA=LI @+<*+B critici?e the pseudo$participation of people "ith disabilities! "hile 4A=PARI @+<<6B identifies pseudo$participation in the area of development co$operation. The phenomenon can also be observed in many other research fields! "here such "early" forms of participation are abused in order to motivate the affected persons to co$operate and to disclose personal information by giving them the false impression that they have a say in the research process. E,+F
To distinguish the various types of participation! "e consider it more appropriate to specify the decision$making situations in the research process! and the groups of participants! and to disclose "ho! "ith "hat rights! at "hat point in time! and "ith regard to "hat theme! can participate in decisions. =uch a procedure is presented in the present special issue by v. HAJ:R @+<*+B. The situation is %uite different in the case of research pro ects controlled by the affected persons themselves'for eDample! "survivor$controlled research" @R(==(! +<*+B. 1ere! by definition! the persons "ho are directly affected participate in all decisions. 1o"ever! even in this case! it "ould appear necessary to specify "ho! or "hich group! participates in "hich decisions! because! here too! there are positions of po"er and competition bet"een individuals or groups. E,,F
). $istincti*e "eatures of the Participatory Research Methodology

).1 Material prere+uisites The fundamental decision not to treat the research partners as objects of research! but rather as co$researchers and knowing subjects "ith the same rights as the professional researchers! gives rise to a number of %uestions about the material resources needed for participation. As a rule! professional researchers receive a salary for their "ork'although! in academically$driven research! this remuneration is often %uite lo". Aormally! the co$researchers receive'if anything 'eDpenses! and they are eDpected to make their kno"ledge available free of charge. E,2F The taken$for$grantedness of this situation must be called into %uestion because co$researchers fre%uently belong to lo"er social classes or marginali?ed groups and have limited material resources at their disposal. This means that such resources must be guaranteed during their participation in the pro ect. .irect remuneration is addressed in a number of articles in the present issue that describe pro ects in "hich young people are involved as research partners @/N1R:R G 1N41:R! +<*+& 3c4ARTAA et al.! +<*+& =41H)(TO G 3HRP1I! +<*+B. E,5F The necessity of material support is not limited to the remuneration of direct co$ operation in the research process. Rather! people from marginali?ed! lo"$income groups also need other forms of material support. J(:L: and LH)AA=LI @+<*+B point out that! besides paying an independence$enhancing research fee! the "illingness of persons "ith disabilities to participate in research pro ects can be increased by the provision of assistance on site! and barrier$free access. There is no rule about "hat material resources should be made available to research partners. It depends on the group in %uestion. Resources provided could include travel eDpenses! childcare costs! food for participants "ith special dietary needs! compensation for loss of earnings! etc. E,6F =uch support for research partners has! of course! advantages and disadvantages. (n the do"nside! "paid" participation can become a ob like any other and can cause people to distance themselves from! or compete "ith! other
community members. 1o"ever! "hat is decisive is that remuneration signali?es social recognition of the value of the individual#s contribution to research. If participatory research genuinely aims to put the relationship "ith research partners on an e%ual footing! then the socially dominant form of recognition must be used. It should be noted that financial resources for the co$researchers must be allo"ed for "hen planning participatory research pro ects! and that funding bodies must be re%uested to accept the inclusion of such resources in the financial plan. E,7F ). Challenges and tas,s facing all the research partners In the classical research setting! the relationship bet"een researchers and researched seems to be clearly defined. )asically! it is a non$relationship in "hich the researcher is! as far as possible! neutral or invisible. Anything else is considered to lead to the distortion of the results or to threaten the internal validity. E,9F This situation changes radically "hen the relationship bet"een the participants is put on a participatory footing. In this case! the perspectives of the various partners and their differences of opinion are important for the process of discovery& ob ectivity and neutrality must be replaced by reflective sub ectivity. E,MF This calls for "illingness on the part of the research partners from the life$"orld under study to enter into the research process! and the necessary kno"ledge and ability to participate productively. An apparent dilemma inherent in participatory research becomes visible here. (n the one hand! participatory research aims! in particular! to involve marginali?ed groups in the production of kno"ledge and! by so doing! to foster empo"erment. (n the other hand! these are the very demographic groups "ho are characteri?ed by a lack of competencies and social capital @cf. )(HR.I:H! *M9,B. -or this reason! they are deemed also to be lacking the competencies necessary to participate in the research process. E2<F The only "ay out of this dilemma is to ask "ho defines these deficits and from "hat perspective. The ans"er is obvious: They are defined by representatives of the dominant social group'in this case scientists'"ho specify the necessary kno"ledge and ability against the background of their familiar "orldvie" and their methodological re%uirements. In this "ay! research becomes a very demanding task that calls for many competencies. E2*F )y contrast! the primary aim of participatory research is to give members of marginali?ed groups a voice! or to enable them to make their voices heard. /hat counts is that they bring their eDperiences! their everyday kno"ledge! and their ability into the research process and thereby gain ne" perspectives and insights @RH==(! +<*+B. The difference bet"een the academic "orldvie" and that of the research partners from the field is actually an asset "hich must be eDploited in the eDploration process. Therefore! mutual curiosity about the kno"ledge and ability of those on the "other side" and "hat one can learn from them is so
important. It enables all participants to ac%uire ne" roles and tasks that differ clearly from those of "classical" research. E2+F This means that all participants must change considerably in the course of the participatory research process'both on a personal and on a cognitive level. And yet! the importance of the individual participant and his or her personal competencies! motivation! etc. is seldom addressed in the literature. 1o"ever! :CAA= and 8(A:= @+<<2! p.5B clearly formulate the importance of the participants# life eDperiences:
"(ne of the strands of argument running through this paper is that biography! one#s personal eDperience! is of significance for research! "hether one is the sub ect of research! the researcher! or the research reader. It shapes ho" "e respond "ithin and to the research process. If "e have control! it also shapes the research process itself." E2,F
In participatory research pro ects! professional researchers ac%uire ne" and unfamiliar roles'this is especially evident in the case of user$controlled research. /ith regard to academically trained researchers! :CAA= and 8(A:= @p.MB note: "The role here! ho"ever! is to be an ally! an advisor! an enabler! and maybe a partner! to users undertaking research ... ." E22F 1o"ever! role distribution in participatory research is not static. Rather! it is sub ect to continual change. This is due not least to the relatively long duration of participatory research pro ects. 3onths! or even years! can elapse bet"een the beginning and the end of a pro ect. .uring this time! various developments occur in the group of research partners that shape the "ay they relate to each other. =uch changes in the role structure have long been familiar to us from ethnological studies! in "hich researchers spend a long time in the field. E25F 1::J @*MM6B attempted to capture the temporal se%uence of %ualitative procedures by using the metaphor of the curriculum vitae. The different stages he describes can be adapted to participatory research as follo"s: At first! the professional researchers enter the field as "foreigners"& as time goes by they assume the role of "mobili?er!" "service provider!" "provider of information!" and "ally"& eventually they become "patrons"& and! in the best case! they finally become "mentors." E26F /ithin the frame"ork of participatory research there are also other challenges that researchers must face. The research themes! and the biographies and social background of the research partners! call for very intensive contact. 1o"ever! collaborative research "ith people "ho have a history of marginali?ation is possible only on the basis of trust @RAT1! +<*+B. This trust must be allo"ed to develop& it builds on long$term! honest relationships that are characteri?ed by closeness! empathy! and emotional involvement. The balance bet"een closeness and distance in participatory research is described very clearly by .:ATIT1 et al. @+<*+B! "ho "orked "ith research partners "ho had suffered traumatic! taboo eDperiences. 1ere it is important that researchers sho" their o"n emotional
reactions. If they "ere to "ithhold such reactions and remain silent about the occurrences! they could possibly contribute to the re$traumati?ation of the research participant @RAT1! +<*+& .:ATIT1 et al.! +<*+B. E27F The academic re%uirements described in detail in =ubsection 2.6 belo" pose a further challenge to academic researchers. At the present point in time! one can safely say that! in a number of disciplines! scientists "ho pursue a participatory research pro ect'"ithin the frame"ork of a %ualification process! for eDample' become outsiders in the academic community. This calls for considerable courage and "illingness to s"im against the current! and! possibly! to put up "ith disadvantages. The diversity of re%uirements and roles demands from the researcher very different competencies and skills! and a high degree of fleDibility and refleDivity'things that are not ac%uired in the course of conventional university education. E29F In a similar "ay to the professional researchers! the roles of the non$professional research partners! and the "ay they perceive participation! change over time. At first! they may vie" the research pro ect "ith anDiety! distrust! and detachment! and see themselves as outsiders "ho are eDpected to furnish information as in conventional research processes. This changes in the course of participation if and "hen the participants find that they are taken seriously as co$researchers& that they ac%uire more and more research competencies& and that they can develop standpoints of their o"n "hich differ from those of the professional researchers @JNT=41! LKIAJ:R G T1I:=:A! +<*+B. At the same time! they are personally empo"ered and develop dispositions such as self$confidence! self$ assurance! and a feeling of belonging. * E2MF 1o"ever! participation in participatory research also calls for specific kno"ledge and skills'in other "ords! competencies! "hich the participants must gradually ac%uire. These include! for eDample! linguistic competencies! the ability to proceed systematically in the research process! communicative skills in dealing "ith groups! etc. Professional researchers should offer training courses and "orkshops on these thematic areas @see "capacity building" in v. HAJ:R! +<*+B and impart these skills in their everyday dealings "ith the co$researchers. A key task in this regard is to design training units and choose methodological approaches in such a "ay that they build on the initial state of kno"ledge of the participants and develop it further. E5<F The development of different roles is not "ithout conflict. In the various phases! the relationships'and all other aspects of the research'must be continually reflected upon! and emerging conflicts must be dealt "ith ointly. As elaborated! for eDample! by 3AR=1AKK G R:A=(A @+<<7B! continual self$reflection and reflective dialog become a necessity and a %uality indicator for participatory research. E5*F
ARCI.==(A et al. @+<<9B! for eDample! found such dispositions in young people "ith slight disabilities "ho participated in social activities. As far as "e are a"are! no studies have yet been conducted on changes in disposition in the course of participatory research pro ects.
).! The i#portance of reflection In participatory research! all participants are involved as kno"ing sub ects "ho bring their perspectives into the kno"ledge$production process. The potential of the individual sub ects to ac%uire kno"ledge is shaped by their biological makeup! their personal and social biography! and their social status.+ In order to reach mutual understanding in collaborative research action! individuals must! to some eDtent at least! disclose to their fello" researchers the background to their epistemological perspective. (n this basis! different perceptions can then be negotiated and related to each other @.:ATIT1 et al.! +<*+& v. HAJ:R! +<*+B. This calls for a high degree of refleDivity in the sense of self$refleDivity and reflection on the research situation and the research process. , In their article in the present issue! )(RJ et al. @+<*+B note:
"RefleDivity re%uires the researcher to be a"are of themselves as the instrument of research. This is a particularly important issue for action researchers "ho are intimately involved "ith the sub ect of the research! the conteDt in "hich it takes place! and others "ho may be stakeholders in that conteDt." E5+F
This re%uires! on the one hand! a safe space "ith open communication'a "communicative space" @see =ubsection ,.+ aboveB. (n the other hand! it calls for numerous types of support on the part of both the professional researchers and the co$researchers. Therefore! the ability to be responsive to the needs of others! to give them time and space for reflection! etc. are decisive prere%uisites for collaboration. E5,F Reflection can be focused on different things. )(RJ et al. @+<*+B distinguish bet"een personal and epistemological refleDivity. Personal refleDivity focuses on personal assumptions! values! eDperiences! etc. that shape the research& epistemological refleDivity re%uires the researcher to recogni?e the limits of the research that are determined by the basic research decisions such as research %uestion! methodology! method of analysis! etc. E52F /e suggest distinguishing four focuses or types of reflection from "hich techni%ues and instruments can be derived that can facilitate refleDivity on the part of participants. E55F . !eflection on personal and biographical attributes and dispositions The potential closeness of the research participants! and the type of research theme @socially taboo issues such as seDual abuse! eDperiences in psychiatric institutions! poverty! etc.B may elicit very personal reactions that can foster! or hinder! the process of kno"ledge production. /riting from a psycho$analytic perspective! Jeorges .:C:R:HP @*M76B "as one of the first to point out that reflection on such personal "ays of reacting can be used as a source of
+ , =ee )R:H:R @+<<MB! "ho analy?ed the relationship bet"een sub ectivity! perspectivity! and self$>refleDivity "ithin the research process in grounded theory. =ee also 3RH4L! R(T1 and )R:H:R @+<<+B& R(T1! )R:H:R and 3RH4L @+<<,B.
kno"ledge. /hether a psycho$analytic theory background is needed for this type of reflection is! of course! debatable. E56F 1o"ever! "hat is undisputed! in our vie"! is the fact that! in a participatory research conteDt! it is necessary to disclose such personal dispositions'at least to the eDtent that they impact collaborative "ork on the ob ect of research. 4onditions conducive to such openness can be created in group settings'for eDample! in the "idely used focus groups'in "hich an accepting attitude is fostered @)(RJ et al.! +<*+& .:ATIT1 et al.! +<*+& 3c4ARTAA et al.! +<*+B. 1o"ever! there appear to be inade%uacies in the "ay such groups are run in practice. Ideas for improvement could perhaps be gleaned from the various therapeutic and consultation group concepts available. E57F ". !eflection on social relationships among the research partners As "e pointed out earlier! the different interests of the participants inevitably lead to conflicts in the research group from time to time. This means that the relationships bet"een the group members must also be regularly reflected upon in order to shed light on such conflicts and! if possible! to defuse them. As far as "e are a"are! there has been little discussion in the literature about the "ay in "hich such group conflicts can be reflected upon and moderated. This is surprising "hen one considers that there is a rich body of literature on group dynamics. The concept of "theme$centered interaction" @T4IB proposed by Ruth 4(1A @*M75B can be considered an eDample of an attempt to foster social learning and personality development in a group setting. /hen applying T4I! an effort is made to keep all the elements'the theme in %uestion! the conflict in the group! the individual participants! and the political! ecological! and cultural conteDt @the "globe"B'in vie" at all times and to reflect upon them. E59F #. Structural reflection on the social field of the research project -ollo"ing Pierre )(HR.I:H#s concept of sociological self$reflection @*MM,! +<<+B! the social determination of the participating kno"ing sub ects! and of the participatory pro ect! must also be reflected upon. The focus here is on the social conditions of possibility and the limits of the individual sub ects and the participatory research pro ect as a collective kno"ing sub ect. It is a %uestion of reflecting on the political! economic! and social conteDt conditions in "hich the research theme and the research pro ect are embedded. The aforementioned limits are dealt "ith eDplicitly in a number of contributions to the present special issue @4((L! +<*+& .:ATIT1 et al.! +<*+! 3:A=(R G (#3AKK:I! +<*+& J(:L: G LH)AA=LI! +<*+& JNT=41 et al.! +<*+& RH==(! +<*+B. In fact! structural reflection is undertaken in all the articles. Therefore! it is all the more important that it be recogni?ed as a separate type'and an essential element'of reflective practice in participatory research. E5MF
$. !eflection on the research process This type of reflection is largely consistent "ith the concept of "epistemological refleDivity" employed by )(RJ @+<*+B. )y no"! it is accepted also as a %uality criterion in %ualitative research'especially in ethnology. A considerable number of methodological proposals as to ho" such reflection can be fostered have already been made. They range from research diaries and research "orkshops to research supervision @see! for eDample 3RH4L G 3:I! *MM9B. E6<F ).) $istincti*e features of the production and analysis of the %data% To a certain eDtent! research "ith partners to "hom the rituals of academic research are alien and unfamiliar'"hich is fre%uently the case in participatory research'calls for ne" methods of data collection. The %uestion of the "appropriateness of the method to the participants" is particularly relevant here. E6*F -rom a methodological perspective! the involvement of field partners as co$ researchers in the data collection process has various advantages and disadvantages! each of "hich must be carefully considered. (ne ma or advantage is that the co$researchers have first$hand kno"ledge of the field. Therefore! they understand the "ay people think and may be able to obtain better and faster access to the desired informants. -or eDample! 3c4ARTAA et al. @+<*+B observed that young people in the role of co$researchers had greater empathy and understanding for their peers in the field than the adult researchers did. This facilitates the discovery of "natural codes"'in the grounded theory sense of the "ord. J(:L: and LH)AA=LI @+<*+B eDpress a similar vie" "ith regard to research "ith people "ith disabilities. E6+F 3ethods of data collection should therefore build on the participants# everyday eDperiences. This makes it easier for them to understand the concrete procedures. 1o"ever! it means that ne" methods of data collection must be developed that are appropriate to the concrete research situation and the research partners. An eDample of the possible range of methods can be found in 4((L @+<*+! Q++B! "ho notes: "The methods chosen by the group for their research included intervie"s and focus groups! but also incorporated a %uestionnaire! photography pro ects! blogs! diaries and mapping processes as "ays of generating data." E6,F The range of methods to be found in the literature is very broad and depends greatly on the research field and the research partners in %uestion. In our vie"! therefore! it makes little sense to standardi?e methods of data collection. Rather! it is necessary to follo" the Jlaserian dictum: "All is data" @JKA=:R +<<*! p.*25B. It should also be remembered that! "hile many people from marginali?ed groups may have limited verbal communication skills! they have developed other communication strategies. In recent years! the many possibilities of using visual and performative methods of data collection and representation have been discussed in %ualitative social research. These procedures have been documented! for eDample! in three thematic issues of FQS devoted to *.
"Performative =ocial =cience!" "hich "as edited by 8(A:= et al. @+<<9B& +. "Cisual 3ethods!" edited by LA()KAH41 et el. @+<<9B& and ,. "Cisualising 3igration and =ocial .ivision: Insights from =ocial =ciences and the Cisual Arts!" edited by )AKK and JIKKIJAA @+<*<B. It is therefore not necessary to go into detail here. 1o"ever! "e "ould stress the point made by RAT1 @+<*+B that! "hen choosing methods! the previous eDperiences of the research partners should be specifically addressed. E62F It can be difficult for people "ho have never had anything to do "ith research to understand the various methodological procedures. Therefore! special training programs are needed to enable them to carry out the procedures applied "ithin the frame"ork of the pro ect. 1ella von HAJ:R @+<*+B reports! for eDample! that capacity building on the part of research partners represents a core aim in community$based participatory research. It is interesting that! in this "ay! the participants develop not only speciali?ed competencies re%uired for participation in the research process! but also more general competencies! all of "hich contribute to personal development. 3c4ARTAA et al. @+<*+B observed that the self$confidence of the young peer researchers gre" in the course of the training sessions and that they took on a more proactive role as result. E65F .espite the aforementioned diversity of data collection methods in participatory research! t"o procedures appear to be applied very fre%uently! namely intervie"s and focus groups. /e shall no" address certain aspects of these t"o procedures that are particularly visible in the participative approach but are not often mentioned in discussions on %ualitative methods. E66F The intervie"s conducted "ithin the frame"ork of participatory research are normally semi$structured'a type fre%uently used in %ualitative research. :Dperience has sho"n that! after appropriate training! the various research partners are "ell able to conduct these intervie"s'generally in teams of t"o. In the participatory research situation! it can be clearly seen that the outcome of an intervie" must be perceived as a situation$dependent co$construction on the part of the intervie" partners @see 3c4ARTAA et al.! +<*+B. This has already been discussed in the %ualitative research literature. 1o"ever! another aspect is also revealed! one that "as demonstrated many years ago by =:KCIAI PAKAOO(KI @*M92B on the basis of a systems$theory$based communication theory. The author does not perceive communication bet"een t"o partners as a dyad! but rather as part of a much larger system of communication. =he adapts 1aley#s system of communication as follo"s: "*. I @the senderB! +. say something @a messageB! ,. to you @the apparent receiverB and inevitably and simultaneously @parallel circuitB! 2. to him>her>them @simultaneous co$receiversB! 5. in this situation @conteDtB" @p.+7,& our translationB. E67F In our vie"! these considerations are of considerable relevance to participatory research because! here! the virtual presence of the participating community must al"ays be borne in mind. RAT1 @+<*+B incorporates this notion into her study! although she derives it from a different theoretical background. In vie" of the
imagined listeners! she contends that an intervie" is not purely a private conversation bet"een the intervie" partners! but that it is! in a sense! public. E69F The second instrument that is fre%uently used "ithin the frame"ork of participatory research is the focus group. This label stands for a lot of different procedures. The common denominator is that a group of different types of research participants is formed! and that these participants are given the opportunity to enter into conversation "ith each other in a safe setting and to deal "ith aspects of the pro ect. It can be said that the focus group is one of the key instruments for the creation of a "communicative space" @see =ubsection ,.+ aboveB. In the best case! all relevant issues are discussed. This open dialog becomes the central starting point for the entire participatory research enterprise. E6MF 1o"ever! focus groups can also assume other tasks. -or eDample! if participants do not hail from the same conteDt! focus groups offer them an opportunity to get to kno" each other @RH==(! +<*+B. 3oreover! together "ith other methods of data collection! focus groups can make a taboo theme kno"n in the community and "get things moving" there @v. HAJ:R! +<*+! Q27B. In teams of professionals! they can facilitate frank eDchanges bet"een the team members @)(RJ et al.! +<*+B. They also fre%uently serve to collect data because in the open and' ideally'relaDed atmosphere! it is easier to address taboo themes @v. HAJ:R! +<*+& .:ATIT1 et al.& +<*+ 3:A=(R G (#3AKK:I! +<*+& 4((L! +<*+B. This succeeds also in the case of young research partners "hen the focus groups are run by peer researchers @3c4ARTAA et al.! +<*+B. E7<F As far back as *M67! JKA=:R G =TRAH== @*M67B stressed the desirability of conducting data analysis in groups that include lay people. This applies particularly to participatory research because it ensures that the various perspectives flo" into the interpretation during the data analysis process and that the research partners gain an insight into the background to their o"n vie"points and that of the other members. It is not surprising! therefore! that a number of authors in the present special issue report that data "ere analy?ed in focus groups together "ith the research partners @)(RJ et al.! +<*+& J(:L: G LH)AA=LI! +<*+& 3c4ARTAA et al.! +<*+& v. HAJ:R! +<*+& /N1R:R G 1N41:R! +<*+B. E7*F -or similar reasons! the research findings are also discussed in focus groups. RH==( @+<*+B points out that it is possible to validate findings communicatively in focus groups and that other effects can be observed at the same time: "-ocus groups in survivor$controlled research set off a collective process "hereby participants start to take o"nership of the research." 1ere the author is referring to a central process that participatory research aims to foster. 1ence focus groups can be considered as an instrument that encourages this process of appropriation. E7+F
).- $istincti*e features of the representation of findings The representation of participatory research findings also has a number of distinctive features. Above all! the multi$perspectivity and multivocality must be preserved in the representation of the results @v. HAJ:R! +<*+& 4((L! +<*+& RH==(! +<*+B. E7,F In traditional academic "riting! authors stay in the background. It is considered some"hat unscientific to "rite a teDt in the first person. Indeed! in some cases! authors consistently refer to themselves in the third person. The re%uired distance is symboli?ed by this third person! and the impression is given that the statements made are "ob ective." They have been cleansed of the personality of the scientist! so to speak. As a rule! the teDts aspire to be une%uivocal and to follo" scientific logic. E72F In participatory research! by contrast! the various contributions to the results must be clearly visible. RI:4L:A et al. @+<<2B call for an ":thics of Coice" in participatory action research. In their publication! all participants in the study "ere given a chance to voice their opinions and positions. In a report about a study accompanying a psychosis seminar! 1:R3AAA et al. @+<<2B eDperimented "ith various teDts in order to identify the contributions of the participants! "ho commented on the scientist#s deliberations from the perspective of the persons affected. In the present issue! RAT1 @+<*+B takes a more radical step. =he uses poetry to make "the emotional" visible& to highlight the constructed nature of teDts& and to challenge the conviction that kno"ledge derived from academic teDts is "certain." The research partners'"omen training to be rape crisis counselors' "ere amenable to this procedure because there is a tradition in the area of seDual abuse of using poetry to articulate traumatic eDperiences. E75F 1o"ever! the representation of the results of participatory research cannot be limited to teDts. In order to render the findings understandable to affected persons! to give them a basis for further discussion! and to reach a "ide audience! other forms of representation are needed. /hen discussing data collection @=ubsection 2.2 aboveB! mention "as made of the use of visual and performative methods. The application of such procedures in the representation stage! too! can make the research findings easier to understand. E76F ).. Acade#ic re+uire#ents and funding conditions for participatory research Ao"adays! participatory research strategies are accepted'or even desired'in many practice conteDts. In academia! by contrast! participatory research en oys much less recognition as a fully fledged research method. If at all! it is perceived as a strategy in the "conteDt of discovery." E77F
The follo"ing are some of the criticisms leveled against participatory research:
Participatory researchers do not formulate hypotheses that can subse%uently be tested! and even the research %uestions emerge only gradually during the process of engagement "ith the research partners. The closeness bet"een the research partners prevents scientific distance on the part of the academic researchers! "ho are so entangled "ith the researched persons that it is not possible to separate the researchers# contribution to the collected data from that of the researched& hence the %uality criterion of ob ectivity cannot be fulfilled. :Dact planning is not possible because the negotiation of the various decisions during the research process prevents the estimation of the duration of the pro ect and the eDpected findings. And! above all: /hen "classical" %uality criteria are applied! the research is not acceptable because it is neither ob ective! nor reliable! nor is it valid. E79F
-rom the perspective of a methodology that invokes the normative theory of science! these arguments are by all means accurate. Although the standpoint outlined above is more "idespread in some disciplines than in others! it dominates the science sector both in the universities! "hen it comes to assessing theses! dissertations! etc.! and in the ma or funding organi?ations! "hen applications for research funding are being revie"ed. E7MF This problem is faced by %ualitative research in general. 1o"ever! one outcome of the long$standing debate bet"een the "eDact" sciences and the humanities about the "ob ect of science" is that interpretivist methods are increasingly being accepted as a basis for concrete research. This can be seen! for eDample! from the fact that %ualitative approaches en oy greater acceptance in certain disciplines! for eDample sociology and ethnology. That said! the aforementioned closeness bet"een research partners in participatory research'and the skepticism that this provokes from some %uarters'means that it has not been able to benefit as much from the increased acceptance as "conventional" %ualitative research has done. E9<F The dissolution of the sub ect$ob ect relationship bet"een the researchers and the researched is a further grave problem for the academic recognition of participatory research. In participatory research pro ects! the role of active researcher'and kno"ing sub ect'is not held by the academic researchers alone but by all the participants! "ith all the conse%uences that this brings for data collection! analysis! interpretation! and the publication of the findings. E9*F This leads to considerable acceptance problems "hen it comes to research funding. These problems start "ith the tendering period! "hich is often %uite short. As a result! it is not possible to develop the research proposal collaboratively because negotiation processes "ith affected persons take much longer. 4((L @+<*+B and 3c4ARTAA et al. @+<*+B point to the problems that arise even "hen submitting the funding bid& they demonstrate ho" difficult'or
"ell$nigh impossible'it is to dra" up funding bids in collaboration "ith the research partners. E9+F In most cases! a revie"er#s assessment of the %uality of a pro ect is based on the aforementioned nomothetic science model. 1o"ever! as a result! re%uirements are imposed that either cannot be fulfilled by participatory research! or that lead to nonsensical restrictions. This starts "ith the said research %uestions! "hich can be formulated only vaguely or in general terms before the pro ect begins. (ther characteristics of participatory research also hamper acceptance. It is scarcely possible to produce an eDact timetable because the duration of the negotiation processes among the research partners cannot be accurately forecast. All that is clear is that the overall life$span of such a research pro ect fre%uently eDceeds the normally eDpected timeframe for funded pro ects @see 4((L! +<*+B. 4ertain items in the finance plan also meet "ith re ection by funding bodies. In =ubsection 2.* above! "e pointed out that there are good reasons for financially supporting the research partners. 1o"ever! such items in the finance plan are fre%uently re ected by the funders. E9,F The situation is similar at the universities! "here it is very difficult for a young scientist to submit a thesis or dissertation that employs participatory research strategies. 1ere! too! the above$mentioned classical %uality criteria are applied "hen revie"ing research proposals and assessing the completed "orks @see J(:L: G LH)AA=LI! +<*+& 4((L! +<*+B. 3oreover! it is scarcely possible to produce the eDact timetables re%uired by universities. In addition! the number of revie"ers "ho are in a position to assess such "orks is limited. This depends! once again! on the discipline in %uestion. At the present point in time! it is almost impossible to gain a doctorate in psychology in Jermany "ith a thesis based on participatory methodology. E92F The problem of forging an academic career is further aggravated by the fact that pro ects "ith research partners "ho are practitioners or affected persons is much more time$consuming because eDtensive discussions must be conducted "ith them. This means that the production of scientific "orks lasts much longer and! as a result! the researcher#s list of publications is shorter. 3oreover! for the reasons stated above! fe" scholarly ournals accept participatory "orks. -urthermore! marginali?ed groups are studied more fre%uently in participatory research pro ects! and these groups are not the focus of interest of "normal science." This has an effect on the fre%uency "ith "hich the publication in %uestion is cited. And because the =cience 4itation IndeD serves as an important indicator of scientific %ualification! authors "ho apply participatory methods are disadvantaged. E95F (verall! it can be noted that the current scientific structure is eDtremely unfavorable for participatory research pro ects. In saying that! it cannot be disputed that it is sometimes very difficult to assess the %uality and rigor of participatory pro ects. -or these reasons! it "ill be very important for the future of participatory research to develop criteria that facilitate the assessment of such pro ects. (n a more pragmatic level! 4((L @+<*+B suggests! for eDample! that
standardi?ed application forms be developed. A checklist developed by JR::A et al. @+<<,B to facilitate the assessment of participatory research pro ects in the healthcare sector represents another pragmatic effort. 1o"ever! there is undoubtedly considerable need for further development in this regard'and a more intense discussion of %uality criteria "ill be of central importance. E96F )./ 0ustification of participatory research pro1ects The problem of %uality criteria for participatory research is regularly raised by a diverse range of stakeholders: by the clients'be they institutions or the affected persons themselves! "ho are interested in obtaining empirically sound findings& by the potential funders& by academia! "hen participatory research strategies are employed in empirical theses! dissertations! and publications& and in scientific discussions. E97F In %ualitative research! the %uestion of appropriate %uality criteria has been discussed at length! and various concepts have been proposed. They include! for eDample! adaptations of the classical! %uantitatively oriented! %uality criteria' ob ectivity! reliability! and validity'to %ualitative research& and %uality criteria developed specially for %ualitative research @see! for eDample! KIA4(KA G JH)A! *M95& =T:IAL: *MMMB. This discussion "ill not be pursued here. 1o"ever! in our opinion! the %uestion of %uality criteria for participatory research reveals a number of underlying fundamental %uestions that are also of relevance to %ualitative research in general. E99F If one proceeds from the assumption that! in participatory research! all the perspectives and voices of the participants should be granted e%ual rights of eDpression! and that each group possesses %ualitatively different kno"ledge about the social "orld under study! then it is to be eDpected that the participants "ill also have different vie"s on the %uality of the research process and its results. E9MF In our opinion! the %uestion of "hat constitutes "good" research findings is ans"ered very differently by the various research participants! and also by those "ho revie"! assess! use! or read these findings. This response depends on the system of values and norms to "hich the particular stakeholders subscribe& on their individual interests& and on the discourse that takes place in the conteDt in %uestion. Therefore! "hen asked by a stakeholder "hether! and to "hat eDtent! a concrete pro ect corresponds to its values and interests! the researchers must furnish convincing arguments derived from that stakeholder#s o"n discursive conteDt. The fact that diverse groups address the %uality criteria %uestion highlights the need for a more conteDt$specific analysis of "hat is understood by "%uality" in the sense of a good participatory research pro ect. In other "ords! this %uestion cannot be ans"ered in an apparently general "ay or evaded "ith reference to the difference bet"een "intra$scientific" and "eDtra$scientific" standards @see )R:H:R G R:I41:RTO! +<<*B. EM<F
-rom the perspective of social constructivism'"hich can be dra"n on here as a meta$theoretical approach @J:RJ:R! *M95B'the concept of "%uality" in the social constructivist sense is a socially defined concept. /:=T3:I:R @+<<<! p.,,& our translationB defines such concepts as follo"s:
"=ocially defined concepts are constructions by groups of persons "ho have been commissioned! for eDample! by social institutions or organi?ations of international! national! public! or private provenance! and have been vested "ith the necessary po"ers of definition. The constructions that arise in this "ay are then binding "ithin the sphere of influence of these institutions or organi?ations until such time as they are revised." EM*F
/ithin the frame"ork of the present Introduction! "e shall briefly demonstrate ho" this perspective can offer a starting point for tackling the problem of %uality criteria in participatory research. EM+F To begin "ith! one must identify the various institutions and groups of participants to "hom the participatory research pro ect is accountable. A revie" of the literature reveals that one can roughly state that participatory research pro ects are confronted "ith the task of demonstrating the %uality of their "ork to such diverse social institutions as: science! politics! public administration! the system of psycho$social practice! medicine! and! above all! the users or user groups. In the course of the history of the "estern "orld! science has established itself as the social subsystem that udges "hether something is "true!" in the sense of correct kno"ledge. 1o"ever! participatory research is accountable to many social institutions for "hom the criterion of "truth" in the scientific sense of the "ord is of only secondary importance. Therefore! from no" on "e shall not refer to "%uality criteria!" but rather to ustificatory arguments employed in the institutional or conteDtual discourses in %uestion. /e argue that! in the course of social development in the various social spheres of activity! different systems of communication and action "ith different ustificatory norms have evolved.2 :ach social institution has developed its o"n values and argumentative structures! and it uses all the po"ers at its disposal to enforce them. Therefore! the arguments used by researchers to ustify a participatory research pro ect and its findings must correspond to these structures because! other"ise! they "ill not be accepted. EM,F In everyday research practice! these diverse ustificatory re%uirements lead to considerable difficulties because their systematic dissimilarity is not recogni?ed. Rather! they are eDperienced as incompatible demands that can scarcely be ade%uately responded to at the one time. This can be clearly seen in a number of contributions to the present special issue. (n the basis of four eDamples derived from these articles! "e shall outline the conse%uences that such diverse! subsystem$specific ustificatory structures have. EM2F
In a similar "ay! )R:H:R and R:I41:RTO @+<<*B provide an overvie" of the areas and levels of the discussion on %uality criteria.
=everal authors @4((L! +<*+& J(:L: G LH)AA=LI! +<*+& .:ATIT1 et al.! +<*+B bemoan the lack of academic recognition'a problem that "e have already addressed here. It should be borne in mind that the participatory pro ects presented to scientific committees have been developed against the background of ustificatory arguments and! above all! values that come from social conteDts that differ greatly from the science "orld. The resulting ustificatory arguments do not correspond to the "classical" %uality criteria that can be considered to be a conteDt$specific ustificatory argument "ithin the science system. Therefore! compatibility of the ustificatory argument structures in the various discursive conteDts can be eDpected in the long term only if efforts to eDtend the academic code are successful. The debate on the acceptance of %ualitative research methods could be considered an eDample of such efforts. EM5F The importance of the political system becomes very clear in the article by =ylvia K:AO @+<*+B! "ho highlights the incompatibility bet"een dictatorship and participatory research. There can be no ustificatory arguments for this particular political conteDt "ithout fundamentally denying the participatory research approach. This is an eDtreme eDample! but even in the history of the -ederal Republic of Jermany and other "estern countries there have been political constellations in "hich the ustificatory arguments for participatory research have encountered acceptance problems because of their incompatibility "ith political policy programs. -or eDample! the ustificatory arguments of research pro ects are accepted by state research funding programs only if they fit in "ith the prevailing political values. EM6F Another social sphere discussed in the present special issue is that of conventional medicine. 1ere! too! the conse%uences of incompatible ustificatory arguments are highlighted. In the articles by 8asna RH==( @+<*+B and Tina 4((L @+<*+B! "hich focus on "psychiatry!" and in J(:L: and LH)AA=LI#s @+<*+B article on "people "ith disabilities!" it can be clearly seen ho" difficult it is to conduct genuinely participatory research'that is! research "ith or by the affected persons and from their perspective. Research by people "ho have eDperienced psychiatric treatment @"survivor research"B! for eDample! eDplicitly aims at the development of an alternative to the dominant biomedical model of mental "illnesses" @RH==(! +<*+B. As the alternative model is based on personal eDperiences! the ustificatory arguments are not compatible "ith the biomedical model. =uch research is fre%uently dismissed as "unscientific" and "sub ective" by conventional medicine! and its findings are not incorporated into the canon of kno"ledge of the discipline. EM7F The economic system is defined by the allocation or non$allocation of resources in the form of money. Aumerous contributions to this special issue address problems of obtaining funding& they dra" attention to the inhibiting influence that various funding conditions have on participatory research @4((L! +<*+& J(:L: G LH)AA=LI! +<*+& 3c4ARTAA et al.! +<*+& RH==(! +<*+& /N1R:R G 1N41:R! +<*+B. This is particularly striking in the case of psychiatric research funded by the pharmaceutical industry'an eDample furnished by RH==( @+<*+B. This research aims at the development of marketable pharmaceutical products.
The author notes that the massive funding of research by the pharmaceutical industry has led to the dominance of the biomedical model of mental illness. )y contrast! the development of alternative models from the perspective of the affected persons is hampered by lack of funding due to the fact that the ustificatory arguments advanced do not comply "ith the central goal of the economic market model espoused by the pharmaceutical industry'that is! profit maDimi?ation. Therefore! the ans"er to the %uestion of "ho funds or re ects a research pro ect! and "hat interests are behind the decision! must also be part of the statements on the %uality of a research pro ect. EM9F The considerations presented here are in line "ith the current debate on %uality research. -KI4L @+<**B also argues that the %uality criteria in %ualitative research should be conteDt$specific. 1o"ever! the conteDts that he has in mind differ from those used here. In his opinion! the relevant conteDts are "on the one hand theoretical and methodological schools!" and "on the other hand! in recent years! the differentiation of the various fields of application of %ualitative research" @p.2<,f.& our translationB. EMMF )R:H:R and R:I41:RTO @+<<*! Q,7& our translationB identify eight %uality criteria areas and levels that have been discussed since around the *M7<s. They note that the "relevant discursive conteDts ... have become more numerous and! often! more differentiated." And they point out that there has been a distinct shift a"ay from intra$scientific discourse about %uality criteria to"ards an eDternal discourse determined by industry! politics! and the media. The authors propose a strategy of clarification that entails ackno"ledging and developing the broad range of arguments and eDamining the importance of the social and scientific conteDts for scientific activities. E*<<F In our vie"! it "ould also be "orth"hile to analy?e the re%uirements of ustification of the various social institutions more closely in the manner described above in order to achieve a systematic conceptuali?ation of these re%uirements and a more specific assessment of the eDtent to "hich individual %ualitative and participatory pro ects must be ustified in the conteDt of specific social institutions. Against the background of such considerations! ustificatory arguments such as usefulness! authenticity! credibility! refleDivity! and sustainability should be discussed. E*<*F ).2 3thical aspects of participatory research Participatory researchers are particularly called upon to address ethical %uestions. The closeness to the research partners during participatory pro ects repeatedly re%uires ethically sound decisions about the norms and rules that should apply in social dealings among the participants& about ho" data should be collected! documented! and interpreted in such a "ay that they do not harm the participants and that their privacy is assured& and about the reliability! duration! and timeframe of the professional researchers# availability! etc. E*<+F
The necessity for an ethical basis for such decisions becomes clear against the background of the fact'reported in various articles in this issue'that participatory research is al"ays in danger of being used by very different parties for purposes that contradict its postulated fundamental concept. E*<,F (n the one hand! the offer of involvement and participation in decisions can be used to entice people "ho normally do not have such possibilities to "ork in research pro ects. This is considered to be a "ay of gaining easier access to groups "ho have a critical vie" of research. The danger of misuse of participatory methods eDists in evaluation research! for eDample. 4A=PARI @+<<6! p.,77B describes the instrumentali?ation of the concept of participatory methods in international development pro ects! "hich leads to "participatory concepts being reduced to individual data collection methods! their combination! and application" @our translationB. E*<2F (n the other hand! trust! and the closeness it engenders! facilitate access to deeper! and perhaps taboo! layers'both in the minds of the participants and in the life$"orld. 1ere the danger of transgression and! therefore! of serious damage is al"ays acute. 1ence the need for clear ethical standpoints! "hich should not be abstract! but must refer to the concrete situation @/N1R:R G 1N41:R! +<*+B. E*<5F It is especially those "ho have years of eDperience of research! and "ho perceive it as being directed partly against their interests! "ho "ill insist that ethical norms be adhered to. In the area of survivor research! there are guidelines entitled "The :thics of =urvivor Research" @-AHKLA:R! +<<2B! in "hich the main points of ethical behavior in research are presented clearly and understandably @see RH==(! +<*+B. E*<6F As far back as *MM9! /A.=/(RT1 @*MM9! p.5B dre" attention to the fact that researchers conducting participatory research must be a"are that research is inevitably value$driven and that its action effects must be assessed. These action effects include:

"the effects of raising some %uestions and not others& the effects of involving some people in the process ... and not others& the effects of observing some phenomena and not others& the effects of making this sense of it and not alternative senses& the effects of deciding to take this action ... rather than any other action." E*<7F
.ifferent value preferences "ith regard to these decisions also lead to conflicts and confrontation bet"een the research partners and "ithin the community under study. -or eDample! even the decision to actively participate in a research pro ect about a taboo theme can lead to alienation and to mistrust on the part of the other community members vis$R$vis the participants in the research team @v. HAJ:R! +<*+B. E*<9F
The research pro ect and the publication of the results can have considerable negative conse%uences for the research participants. This is demonstrated by .:ATIT1 et al. @+<*+B in their contribution. They describe ho" the )ritish tabloid press used government reports of research findings about teenage pregnancy to publish sensationalist reports. Aeither the researchers nor the research funders can eDercise sufficient control over the "ay findings are reported. Therefore! it is al"ays necessary to reflect "ith the affected persons about "hat can happen "hen hitherto invisible! taboo problems are made public. 1o"ever! the concrete conse%uences can scarcely be foreseen. This gives rise to the dilemma of having to choose "hether to defer the publication of problems that are in urgent need of public discussion or to publish them for that very reason. If the latter option is chosen! counter$strategies must be developed "ith the research partners. E*<MF /e "ould like to conclude "ith a %uotation from .:ATIT1 et al. @+<*+B that "e consider to be a fitting description of the fundamental ob ective of ethical norms for participatory research:
"Insofar as one of the primary purposes of in%uiry is to heal the alienations that characteri?e modern consciousness! participation provides a through"ay to relationality and healing that ob ectivist and 4artesian methods necessarily reinscribe via the distance and fragmentation that they evoke." E**<F
Ac,nowledg#ent
/e "ould like to thank our translator! 3iriam J:(J1:JAA! "ho did a "onderful ob. The cooperation "ith her "as most pleasant. =he helped to transform our typical Jerman "riting into understandable :nglish. /orking "ith her "as a real participative eDperience. -rom the translator: I "ould like to eDpress my heartfelt thanks to my co$ translators 8arg ):RJ(K. and =tefan T1(3A= for their collaboration.
References
Arnstein! =herry @*M6MB. A ladder of citi?en participation. Journal of the %merican &lanning %ssociation! #'@2B! +*6$++2. Arvidsson! Patrik& Jranlund! 3ats G Thyberg! 3ikael @+<<9B. -actors related to self$rated participation in adolescents and adults "ith mild intellectual disability'A systematic literature revie". Journal of %pplied !esearch in (ntellectual )isabilities ! " ! +77$+M*. )all! =usan G Jilligan! 4hris @:ds.B @+<*<B. Cisualising migration and social division: Insights from social sciences and the visual arts. Forum Qualitati*e So+ialforschung , Forum- Qualitati*e Social !esearch! @+B! http:>>""".%ualitative$research.net>indeD.php>f%s>issue>vie">,2 E.ate of access: .ecember +7! +<**F. )ell! 8ohn& 4heney! Jail& 1oots! 4indy& Lohrman! :laine& =chubert! 8esse& =tidham! Kisa G Traynor! =cott @+<<2B. .omparati*e similarities and differences between action research/ participati*e research/ and participatory action research! http:>>""".arlecchino.org>ildottore>m"sd>group+final$comparison.pdf E.ate of access: 8anuary +<! +<*+F. )ergold! 8arg @+<<7B. Participatory strategies in community psychology research'a short survey. In A. )oks?c?anin @:d.B! &oland welcomes community psychology- &roceedings from the 0th 1uropean .onference on .ommunity &sychology @pp.57$66B. (pole: (pole Hniversity Press.
)ergold! 8arg G Thomas! =tefan @+<*<B. Parti?ipative -orschung. In JSnter 3ey G Lat a 3ruck @:ds.B! 2andbuch Qualitati*e Forschung in der &sychologie @pp.,,,$,22B. /iesbaden: C= Cerlag. )org! 3arit! Larlsson! )engt& Lim& 1esook =u?ie G 3c4ormack! )rendan @+<*+B. (pening up for many voices in kno"ledge construction. Forum Qualitati*e So+ialforschung , Forum- Qualitati*e Social !esearch! #@*B! Art. *! http:>>nbn$resolving.de>urn:nbn:de:<**2$f%s*+<**7. )ourdieu! Pierre @*M9,B. Nkonomisches Lapital! kulturelles Lapital! so?iales Lapital. In Reinhard Lreckel @:d.B! So+iale 3ngleichheiten. Sonderband " der so+ialen 4elt @pp.*9,$*M9B. JTttingen: =ch"art?. )ourdieu! Pierre @*MM,B. Aar?iUtische RefleDivitVt und "issenschaftliche RefleDivitVt. In :berhard -. )erg G 3artin -uchs @:ds.B! 5ultur/ so+iale &ra6is/ Te6t. )ie 5rise der ethnographischen !epr7senation @pp.,65$,72B. -rankfurt>3.: =uhrkamp. )ourdieu! Pierre @+<<+B. 1in so+iologischer Selbst*ersuch. -rankfurt>3.: =uhrkamp. )reuer! -ran? @+<<MB. =ub ektivitVt! PerspektivitVt und =elbst$>RefleDivitVt. In -ran? )reuer! !efle6i*e 8rounded Theory. 1ine 1inf9hrung in die Forschungspra6is @pp.**5$*2*B. /iesbaden: C= Cerlag. )reuer! -ran? G Reichert?! 8o @+<<*B. =tandards of social research. Forum Qualitati*e So+ialforschung , Forum- Qualitati*e Social !esearch ! "@,B! Art. +2! http:>>nbn$ resolving.de>urn:nbn:de:<**2$f%s<*<,+25 E.ate of access: .ecember +7! +<**F. 4aspari! AleDandra @+<<6B. Parti?ipative :valuationsmethoden'?ur :ntmystifi?ierung eines )egriffs in der :nt"icklungs?usammenarbeit. In H"e -lick @:d.B! Qualitati*e 1*aluationsforschung. 5on+epte/ :ethoden/ 3mset+ungen @pp.,65$,92B. Reinbek: Ro"ohlt. 4hambers! Robert @+<<9B. PRA! PKA and pluralism: Practice and theory. In Peter Reason G 1ilary )radbury @:ds.B! The Sage handbook of action research. &articipati*e in;uiry and practice @+nd ed.! pp.+M7$,*9B. Kondon: =age. 4ohn! Ruth 4. @*M75B. <on der &sychoanalyse +ur themen+entrierten (nteraktion. <on der Behandlung ein+elner +u einer &7dagogik f9r alle. =tuttgart: Llett$4otta. 4ook! Tina @+<*+B. /here participatory approaches meet pragmatism in funded @healthB research: The challenge of finding meaningful spaces. Forum Qualitati*e So+ialforschung , ForumQualitati*e Social !esearch! #@*B! Art. *9! http:>>nbn$resolving.de>urn:nbn:de:<**2$f%s*+<**97. .entith! Audrey 3.& 3easor! Kynda G (#3alley! 3ichael P. @+<*+B. The research imagination amid dilemmas of engaging young people in critical participatory "ork. Forum Qualitati*e So+ialforschung , Forum- Qualitati*e Social !esearch ! #@*B! Art. *7! http:>>nbn$ resolving.de>urn:nbn:de:<**2$f%s*+<**76. .evereuD! Jeorges @*M76B. %ngst und :ethode in den <erhaltenswissenschaften. -rankfurt>3.: Hllstein. :vans! 4laire G 8ones! Ray @+<<2B. :ngagement and empo"erment! research and relevance: 4omments on user$controlled research. !esearch &olicy and &lanning! ""@+B! 5$*,! http:>>eprints.kingston.ac.uk>2<2M> E.ate of access: 7 .ecember +<**F. -als$)orda! (rlando G Rahman! 3ohammad A. @*MM*B Preface. In (rlando -als$)orda! G 3ohammad A. Rahman @:ds.B! %ction and knowledge- Breaking the monopoly with participatory action research @pp.vii$viiiB. Ae" Iork: .oubleday. -aulkner! Alison @+<<2B. The ethics of sur*i*or research. 8uidelines for the ethical conduct of research carried out by mental health ser*ice users and sur*i*ors . )ristol: The Policy Press! http:>>""". rf.org.uk>publications>bro"se>category>uWuser$involvement E.ate of access: .ecember +7! +<**F -lick! H"e @+<<MB. An Introduction to Qualitati*e !esearch @2th ed.B. Kondon: =age. -lick! H"e @+<*<B. JStekriterien %ualitativer -orschung. In JSnter 3ey G Lat a 3ruck @:ds.B! 2andbuch Qualitati*e Forschung in der &sychologie @pp.,M5$2<7B. /iesbaden: C= Cerlag. Jergen! Lenneth @*M95B. The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. %merican &sychologist! $=@,B! +66$+75. Jlaser! )arney J. @+<<*B. The grounded theory perspecti*e. .onceptuali+ation contrasted with description. 3ill Calley! 4A: =ociology Press. Jlaser! )arney J. G =trauss! Anselm! K. @*M67B. The dico*ery of grounded theory. 4hicago: Aldine. Joeke! =tephanie G Lubanski! .agmar @+<*+B. 3enschen mit )ehinderungen als Jren?gVngerInnen im akademischen Raum'4hancen parti?ipatorischer -orschung. Forum
Qualitati*e So+ialforschung , Forum- Qualitati*e Social !esearch ! #@*B! Art. 6! http:>>nbn$resolving.de>urn:nbn:de:<**2$f%s*+<*6+. JTtsch! 3onika& Llinger! =abine G Thiesen! Andreas @+<**B. "=tars in der 3anege0" .emokratietheoretische Xberlegungen ?ur .ynamik parti?ipativer -orschung. Forum Qualitati*e So+ialforschung , Forum- Qualitati*e Social !esearch ! #@*B! Art. 2! http:>>nbn$ resolving.de>urn:nbn:de:<**2$f%s*+<*2<. Jreen! Ka"rence /.& Jeorge! 3. Anne& 3ark! .aniel& -rankish! 4. 8ames& 1erbert! 4arol P.& )o"ie! /illiam R. et al. @+<<,B. Juidelines for participatory research in health promotion. In 3eredith 3inkler G Aina /allerstein @:ds.B! .ommunity>based participatory research for health @pp.2*M$2+9B. =an -rancisco! 4A: 8ossey$)ass! http:>>lgreen.net>guidelines.html E.ate of access: .ecember +7! +<**F. Juba! :gon J. G Kincoln! Ivonna =. @*M9MB. Fourth generation e*aluation. =an -rancisco: 8ossey$ )ass. 1eeg! Paul @*MM6B. Informative -orschungsinteraktionen. In -ran? )reuer @:d.B! Qualitati*e &sychologie. 8rundlagen/ :ethoden und %nwendungen eines Forschungsstils @pp.2*$6<B. (pladen: /estdeutscher Cerlag. 1einer! 3aya @:d.B @*M99B. &ra6isforschung in der so+ialen %rbeit. -reiburg: Kambertus. 1ermann! An a& Partenfelder! -rank& Raabe! =abine& Riedel! )Vrbel G Rus?et?ki! Rolf @+<<2B. "3iteinander statt Sbereinander": :rgebnisse einer )egleitstudie ?um /eddinger Psychoseseminar und :rfahrungen mit der -orschungsparti?ipation von Psychoseerfahrenen. Journal f9r &sychologie! "! +M5$,+5! http:>>nbn$resolving.de>urn:nbn:de:<*69$ssoar$*7+96 E.ate of access: .ecember +7! +<**F. 1eron! 8ohn @*MM6B. .o>operati*e in;uiry- !esearch into the human condition. Kondon: =age. 8ones! Lip& Jergen! 3ary& Juiney Iallop! 8ohn 8.& Kope? de Calle o! Irene& Roberts! )rian G /right! Peter @:ds.B @+<<9B. Performative social science. Forum Qualitati*e So+ialforschung , ForumQualitati*e Social !esearch! ?@+B! http:>>""".%ualitative$research.net>indeD.php>f%s>issue>vie">*< E.ate of access: .ecember +7! +<**F. Lemmis! =tephen @+<<*B. :Dploring the relevance of critical theory for action research: :mancipatory action research in the footsteps of 8Srgen 1abermas. In Peter Reason G 1ilary )radbury @:ds.B! 2andbook of action research- &articipati*e in;uiry and practice @pp.M*$*<+B. Kondon: =age. Lemmis! =tephen G 3cTaggart! Robin @+<<5B. Participatory action research. 4ommunicative action and the public sphere. In Aorman L. .en?in G Ivonna =. Kincoln @:ds.B! 2andbook of ;ualitati*e research @,rd ed.! pp.55M$6<,B. Thousand (aks! 4A: =age. Lnoblauch! 1ubert& )aer! Ale andro& Kaurier! :ric& Petschke! =abine G =chnettler! )ernt @:ds.B @+<<9B. Cisual methods. Forum Qualitati*e So+ialforschung , Forum- Qualitati*e Social !esearch ! ?@,B! http:>>""".%ualitative$research.net>indeD.php>f%s>issue>vie">** E.ate of access: .ecember +7! +<**F. Ken?! =ylvia @+<*+B. InvestigaciYn participativa en Argentina: tres eDperiencias del campo educativo en el conteDto de la restituciYn de la democracia. Forum Qualitati*e So+ialforschung , ForumQualitati*e Social !esearch! #@*B! Art. ,! http:>>nbn$resolving.de>urn:nbn:de:<**2$f%s*+<*,,. Kincoln! Ivonna =. G Juba! :gon J. @*M95B. @aturalistic in;uiry. Kondon: =age. 3arshall! 8udi G Reason! Peter @+<<7B. Quality in research as "taking an attitude of in%uiry". :agement !esearch @ews! #=! ,69$,9<. 3c4artan! 4laire& =chubot?! .irk G 3urphy! 8onathan @+<*+B. The self$conscious researcher' Post$modern perspectives of participatory research "ith young people. Forum Qualitati*e So+ialforschung , Forum- Qualitati*e Social !esearch ! #@*B! Art. M! http:>>nbn$ resolving.de>urn:nbn:de:<**2$f%s*+<*M+. 3ruck! Lat a G 3ey! JSnther @*MM9B. =elbstrefleDivitVt und =ub ektivitVt im Aus"ertungspro?eU biographischer 3aterialien'?um Lon?ept einer "Pro ekt"erkstatt %ualitativen Arbeitens" ?"ischen 4ollo%uium! =upervision und Interpretationsgemeinschaft. In Jerd 8Sttemann G 1ans Thomae @:ds.B! Biographische :ethoden in den 2umanwissenschaften @pp.,92$,<6B. /einheim: )elt?! PCH. 3ruck! Lat a& Roth! /olff$3ichael G )reuer! -ran? @:ds.B @+<<+B. =ub ectivity and refleDivity in %ualitative research I. Forum Qualitati*e So+ialforschung , Forum- Qualitati*e Social !esearch ! #@,B! http:>>""".%ualitative$research.net>indeD.php>f%s>issue>vie">+* E.ate of access: .ecember +7! +<**F.
Rath! 8ean @+<*+B. Poetry and participation: =cripting a meaningful research teDt "ith rape crisis "orkers. Forum Qualitati*e So+ialforschung , Forum- Qualitati*e Social !esearch ! #@*B! Art. ++! http:>>nbn$resolving.de>urn:nbn:de:<**2$f%s*+<*++2. Reason! Peter G )radbury! 1ilary @+<<9aB. Introduction. In Peter Reason G 1ilary )radbury @:ds.B! The Sage handbook of action research. &articipati*e in;uiry and practice @+nd ed.! pp.*$*<B. Kondon: =age. Reason! Peter G )radbury! 1ilary @:ds.B @+<<9bB. The Sage handbook of action research. &articipati*e (n;uiry and &ractice @+nd ed.B. Kondon: =age. Riecken! Ted& =trong$/ilson! Teresa& 4onibear! -rank& 3ichel! 4orrine G Riecken! 8anet @+<<2B. 4onnecting! speaking! listening: To"ard an ethics of voice "ith>in participatory action research. Forum Qualitati*e So+ialforschung , Forum- Qualitati*e Social !esearch ! 0@*B! Art. +5! http:>>nbn$ resolving.de>urn:nbn:de:<**2$f%s<5<*+6< E.ate of access: .ecember +7! +<**F. Roth! /olff$3ichael& )reuer! -ran? G 3ruck! Lat a @:ds.B @+<<,B. =ub ectivity and refleDivity in %ualitative research II. Forum Qualitati*e So+ialforschung , Forum- Qualitati*e Social !esearch ! 2@+B! http:>>""".%ualitative$research.net>indeD.php>f%s>issue>vie">*9 E.ate of access: .ecember +7! +<**F. Russo! 8asna @+<*+B. =urvivor$controlled research: A ne" foundation for thinking about psychiatry and mental health. Forum Qualitati*e So+ialforschung , Forum- Qualitati*e Social !esearch ! #@*B! Art. 9! http:>>nbn$resolving.de>urn:nbn:de:<**2$f%s*+<*97. =elvini Pala??oli! 3ara& Anolli! K.! .i )lasio! P.! Jiossi! K.! Pisano! 8.! Ricci! 4.! et al. @*M92B. 2inter den 5ulissen der Arganisation. =tuttgart: Llett$4otta. =teinke! Ines @*MMMB. 5riterien ;ualitati*er Forschung. %ns7t+e +ur Bewertung ;ualitati*>empirischer So+ialforschung. /einheim: 8uventa. von Hnger! 1ella @+<*+B. Parti?ipative Jesundheitsforschung: /er parti?ipiert "oran0. Forum Qualitati*e So+ialforschung , Forum- Qualitati*e Social !esearch ! #@*B! Art. 7! http:>>nbn$resolving.de>urn:nbn:de:<**2$f%s*+<*76. /ads"orth! Iolanda @*MM9B. /hat is participatory action research0 %ction !esearch (nternational! &aper "! http:>>""".scu.edu.au>schools>gcm>ar>ari>p$y"ads"orthM9.html E.ate of access: .ecember +7! +<**F. /estmeyer! 1ans @+<<<B. /issenschaftstheoretische Aspekte. In 8Srgen 3argraf @eds.B! Behrbuch der <erhaltenstherapie. 8rundlagenC)iagnostikC<erfahrenC!ahmenbedingungen @+nd! completely revised and eDtended ed.! pp.,*$27B. )erlin: =pringer. /icks! Patricia JayZ G Reason! Peter @+<<MB. Initiating action research: 4hallenges and paradoDes of opening communicative space. %ction !esearch! D@,B +2,$+6,! http:>>""".peterreason.eu>Papers[list.html E.ate of access: .ecember +7! +<**F. /Threr! Ceronika G 1Tcher! )ernhard @+<*+B. Tricks of the trade'Aegotiations and dealings bet"een researchers! teachers and students. Forum Qualitati*e So+ialforschung , ForumQualitati*e Social !esearch! #@*B! Art. *6! http:>>nbn$resolving.de>urn:nbn:de:<**2$f%s*+<**62.
Authors
Professor em. .r. Jarg B1!8AB) studied la" and psychology in =aarbrScken and -reiburg. 1e "orked as a clinical psychologist and behavioral therapist in 3unich! Kondon! and )ern! and has been a Professor of 4linical Psychology and 4ommunity Psychology at the .epartment of :ducation and Psychology of the -reie HniversitVt )erlin since *M72. 1is current research activities are "ithin the frame"ork of a participatory research pro ect "ith the members of the =t. Hrsula 1omeless =helter in (ffenburg and a pro ect on the "4reativity of Cisual Artists in (ld Age." 4ontact: 8arg )ergold To be contacted via FQS. :$mail: arg.bergold\fu$berlin.de
.r. Stefan T2A:%S studied psychology at the -reie HniversitVt )erlin! "here he also did his Ph.. 4urrently a Cisiting Professor of Qualitative =ocial Research at the Alice =alomon Hniversity of Applied =ciences in )erlin! he has recently been appointed Professor of :mpirical =ocial Research and =ocial /ork at Potsdam Hniversity @=ocial /ork -acultyB.
4ontact: =tefan Thomas Potsdam Hniversity of Applied =ciences -)*: =o?ial"esen -riedrich$:bert$=tr. 2 *2267 Potsdam! Jermany :$mail: stefan.thomas\fh$potsdam.de
Citation
)ergold! 8arg G Thomas! =tefan @+<*+B. Participatory Research 3ethods: A 3ethodological Approach in 3otion E**< paragraphsF. -orum Qualitati*e So+ialforschung , Forum- Qualitati*e Social !esearch/ *, @*B. Art. ,<! http:>>nbn$resolving.de>urn:nbn:de:<**2$f%s*+<*,<2.

Art - Participatory Research Methods A Methodological Approach in Motion

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Art - Participatory Research Methods A Methodological Approach in Motion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FORUM: QUALITATIVE SOCIAL RESEARCH SOZIALFORSCHUNG

Participatory Research Methods: A Methodological Approach in Motion

Colume ,! Ao. ! Art. ,< 8anuary +<*+

. Participatory Research and Action Research

!. "unda#ental Principles of Participatory Research

; +<*+ -Q= http:>>""".%ualitative$research.net>

). $istincti*e "eatures of the Participatory Research Methodology

; +<*+ -Q= http:>>""".%ualitative$research.net>

; +<*+ -Q= http:>>""".%ualitative$research.net>

; +<*+ -Q= http:>>""".%ualitative$research.net>

; +<*+ -Q= http:>>""".%ualitative$research.net>

; +<*+ -Q= http:>>""".%ualitative$research.net>

; +<*+ -Q= http:>>""".%ualitative$research.net>

; +<*+ -Q= http:>>""".%ualitative$research.net>

; +<*+ -Q= http:>>""".%ualitative$research.net>

; +<*+ -Q= http:>>""".%ualitative$research.net>

; +<*+ -Q= http:>>""".%ualitative$research.net>

; +<*+ -Q= http:>>""".%ualitative$research.net>

You might also like