My key reflection from the first workshop was that the workshop felt like other workshops I have facilitated with students in which there is a student / teacher dynamic. I think this is partly to do with the workshop being so structured, for this next workshop I want to raise the following points at the start of the workshop;
Reminder of the PAR process, we are all equal participants in the research. Discuss the above quote with them.
Highlight that I had expectations of what the research would produce and that I had unconsciously outlined the workshops to achieve this. I was not going to structure the following workshops to allow more room for a collaborative inclusive process.
Discuss and decide what it is we collectively want to address and how.
DYNAMICS OF SPACE
‘the significance of circles across world cultures and how they promote a sense of safety, equality, friendship….They dissolve power dynamics, the moment you put people in a circle, something feels different about that experience.’
Talisma, Ivy; Muchenje, Fungisai (2022). Participatory data gathering and co-analysing data with participants using thematic analysis. University of Manchester. Presentation. https://doi.org/10.48420/21065971.v1
In preparation for one of our PG Cert workshops we were asked to look at a series of resources about data collection. I watched the presentation above as it seemed relevant to my research project. In this presentation the presenters discuss the power of the circle form used in group meetings as a way of breaking down power dynamics. Reflecting on workshop 1 were I felt the dynamics were more traditional student/teacher, I realised the spatial format of the workshop was set up like other in curriculum workshops. For workshop 2, I wanted to set up the space in a circular format to see if this changed the dynamic.
We found a plastic bin in the studio space which we designated as a collection point for discarded plastic found in the studio.
Participants were asked to observe the studio space between workshops and collect any plastic they found discarded.
This methodology for collection is random and would depend on students timetables as to what day and time they were in the studio (most of the students are in Y3 so it is likely they would have been collecting materials at the same time.
I would go around the studio at the end of my working day around 6pm to collect any plastic waste I found. My working days are Monday, Tuesday and Thursday.
DATA SET:
DATA CATEGORISATION:
We decided that plastic was the most common material and that actually there were lots of different types of plastic within that category. We tried to categorise the plastic based on what types were there, through this process we learnt as a group what are the different categories for plastic and their scientific names.
DESIGN DISCUSSION:
We thought about what we wanted to think about making with this plastic, we decided it should be something that would benefit all the studio users.
The proposed ideas were:
Rug (woven plastic)
Model people (PET)
Glue (foam)
Drinking Cup
Cleaning Set
Fidget Spinner (sensory toy to reduce stress)
Rulers / T Squares
We decided to vote for what we wanted to make. We discussed whether this should be anonymous, but it was decided that wouldn’t be necessary. Ella had worked in summer camps and suggested that we go through all the options and raise our hands for the objects we were interested in. We would each have 2 choices.
Results:
Rug (woven plastic) 0
Model people (PET) 7
Glue (foam) 0
Drinking Cup 0
Cleaning Set 10
Fidget Spinner (sensory toy to reduce stress) 4
Rulers / T Squares 2
The Cleaning set won the vote. We reflected that this was an interesting choice because it tied in this theme of repair and care for the studio space that we co-habit.
We discussed items which might be included in this ‘cleaning kit’:
Bin / Plastic collector
Dust pan / Brush
Spray Bottle
Dish Brush
Cleaning gloves
NEXT STEPS:
We are each going to propose some designs for the items we identified in the cleaning kit.
We are going to continue to collect waste plastic in the studio.
Joy is going to create 3 bins to collect plastic in the studio.
Donya is going to out a call out to students for plastic collection
Lucy will speak with cleaning / other staff
Next meeting we want to come up with a name and a logo for our group. The group wants to continue beyond the 3rd workshop and keep working on the project.
As a group we tried to categorise this data by putting them in an order of what we thought required the lest to most carbon to produce. See order below.
Clay
Wood
Jute String / PLA
Paper
Fabric
Nylon Rope
Plastic / Perspex
Foam / Wire
FURTHER RESEARCH:
We decided to conduct further research by each selecting a material and diagramming the production process to produce that material in order to gain a better understanding of the carbon required for each material.
DATA CATEGORISATION II:
After conducting further research we adjusted our categorisation of materials which we now considered required the least to most carbon to produce.
Clay
Jute String
Wood
Paper
PLA
Nylon Rope
Plastic / Perspex
Wire / Fabric
Foam
REFLECTION:
We decided that for our area of research it might be helpful to categorise the materials by what is currently re-usable/ recyclable in the studio and what we consider waste.
Reflecting on this categorisation, we decided that we would like to focus our research on looking at ways we could re-use or re-purpose materials that are considered waste.
NEXT STEPS: We are going to collect plastic we find in the studio over the next two weeks until the next workshop.
When preparing for the first workshop and thinking about activities around material understanding , repair and re-use. My line manager suggested I get in touch with Dr. Bridget Harvey (www.bridgetharvey.co.uk) who is a tutor on the MA Designer Maker course and is also a researcher in Repair Making: Craft, Narratives, Activism. She has run similar workshop with the students on MA Designer Maker.
I reached out to Bridget with my initial workshop plan and asked if she has any comments of feedback. In the document below my plan is in black text and comments from Bridget in red.
Bridget’s comments were really helpful. I thought asking the students to create a narrative around the objects to help make us think about the lifecycle of the material from raw product to end of life. I think this activity would have been too abstract and required too much time in the 2 hour workshop. I restructured the Observe and Categorise sections of the workshop. See the revised workshop plan below.
Time
Activity
Introduction15 mins
Intro What are we doing Permission forms
Discussion
Group discussion about methods of recoding/evidencing
Collect 10 mins
Ask students to go around the studio and bring back a material. If we have any repeats – go and select again. Are there any materials we think are missing from our selection of materials from the studio? Go and select missing materials.
Categorising10 mins
1_ Most to Least Set up long sheet of paper on the table (leftover from Unit 1) Ask students to arrange the objects on the table from; Past – Most to least processed (from raw material to finished product)
Categorising PAST 30 mins
In groups (2-3) Select 2 materials Draw diagram / storyboard for this material from its raw material to finished material/product, listing out the steps involved. Groups to present their findings. As a large group we will rearrange the object on the table based on our research. We re-categorised the materials based on the research about the making of the material
Categorising PRESENT 10 mins
Draw diagram / storyboard about how you imagine this material came to be in our studio. Who bought it? Where did they buy it? Why did they buy it? What did they use it for?
Categorising FUTURE 10 mins
Draw diagram / storyboard about what you imagine might happen to this material in the future. Who will use it? What will they use it for? How long will it be used for? What will happen after that? And after that?
Observe 20 mins
Review the materials with their timelines. Where can we intervene in this system? How can we intervene? Are some materials more important to prioritise? How can we decide? Carbon footprint factor?
Reflection 10 mins
What did you learn / value from the experience? How can we record this session? How do we pass this knowledge onto our community? Can we make a small exhibition in the studio of our materials with their past/second lives? I would like students to reflect on each workshop session, how would they like to do this? Postcards? Forms? Drawings?
My initial reflection on the workshop was that it went ok. Students were engaged, we covered the areas I had outlined in the workshop plan, made decisions about next steps and how we were going to collect our reflections. I wrote a feedback column alongside the workshop plan immediately after the session. See document below.
After speaking with my tutor, I reflected again on the workshop and how the process has been structured. While initially I thought I was using a loose framework of brief, design and make, which is a structure I have used in a lot of co-design projects, was allowing students/ participants to take ownership of the process. I think however, the first workshop failed to break down the student teacher relationship and rather than being a participatory research project, it felt like any other workshop.
My tutor gave me a useful reading, Participatory Action Research: Towards A More Fruitful Knowledge by Tom Wakeford and Javier Sanchez Rodriguez.
‘Rather than simply observing and studying, PAR tries to make sense of the world through collective efforts to transform it ‘
I found this sentence particularly helpful in adjusting my expectations from the process. I think I was perhaps too focussed on the output, what we would co-create, what we would show for our work, would it transform how we use the studio. What we are really trying to achieve in this PAR, is just to make a small change in our studio – what that is, almost doesn’t matter. It is the process which counts.
I think this is something I struggle with in general, particularly in academic style research. A lot of my work is action and results based, I quantify success based on results and fail to see the value in the process.
This may seem obvious but has revealed how I value myself in the world around me, I quantify success based on results and fail to see the value in the process. In doing this I not only limit myself, but prevent myself from the freedom to explore, make mistakes and actively engage due to fear of failure. This is something I often see in students and try to correct, it is funny that we sometimes cannot practice what we preach.
In the text, they outline 4 guidelines and 15 practical questions for researchers engaging in PAR. I am going to apply these to my project in the hope that they might inform how I can adapt my approach to the workshops.
Guidelines:
i) Do not monopolise your knowledge nor impose arrogantly your techniques, but respect and combine your skills with the knowledge of the researched or grassroots communities, taking them as full partners and co-researchers.
ii) Do not trust elitist versions of history and science which respond to dominant interests, but be receptive to counter-narratives and try to recapture them.
iii) Do not depend solely on your culture to interpret facts, but recover local values, traits, beliefs, and arts for action by and with the research organisations.
iv) Do not impose your own ponderous scientific style for communicating results, but diffuse and share what you have learned together with the people, in a manner that is wholly
understandable and even literary and pleasant, for science should not be necessarily a mystery nor a monopoly of experts and intellectuals.
15 practical questions for institutionally-based researchers considering participatory and transdisciplinary approaches:
Where can I find a mentor in my use of participatory approaches who is trusted by those in the communities with whom I would like to work and, preferably, by sympathetic colleagues in the university?
I have my tutor from PGCert, my tutor group and my course leader. I also approached a collegue, Bridget Harvey, who has a practice based PhD in Repair-Making: Craft, Narratives, Activism, and runs workshops around materiality with students. In terms of those with experience in PAR, my tutor is my only source of direct advice.
Who is ‘I’ or ‘we’ that is undertaking the participatory research?
I suppose this project is operating on two levels. I, who is undertaking this project as part of my ARP for the PG Cert. The ‘I’ is me creating a framework for these workshops and will be evaluating them for my ARP.
We, is self-selected students from the BA ISD course and myself. We are 15 in total. The ‘we’ part of this project is engaging in the three workshops which respond to the research question.
Have those who have traditionally been excluded from research been included at the earliest possible stage?
Unlike many of the examples of PAR, I would say students as part of an academic institution are not traditionally excluded from research. Their involvement in the project is important because the research question relates to the space they inhabit as students. They are the users, hence why I think it makes sense for them to be co-researchers.
4. Can I persuade those with power over me to let me resist applying off-the-shelf research
methods and instead use creative forms such as visual arts, dance, performance, Theatre of the Oppressed, and folklorica?
I think the person with power over me, is me. We have been actively encouraged to explore other research methods. I think the problem is my own lack of understanding about what counts as research and being unable to guide the students in this, we seem to fall back to the methods we know. Perhaps I should find 5 examples of unconventional research methods, which I can show to the students in our next session.
Standing back from the detail above, our activities resonate with the wider field of creative research methods, which often aim for “combining both verbal, textual and visual” in “an integrated way” (Mannay, 2016, p. 3). Across our journey, we variously gathered, made, and used a range of creative materials including objects, personal stories and memories, hand-drawn sketches, artifact assemblages, video and audio recordings, photographic images, reflective fieldnotes, and interview transcripts. Collaborative acts of gathering, making, and displaying these materials—with each other and participants—were both prompts for facilitating, and outcomes arising from, the research process. These materials, and the acts of jointly crafting them, prompted people to discuss what and what not to keep from material and digital profusion and the kinds of futures selections were oriented toward. Our experience chimes with that of anthropologists Lupton and Watson (2022), who similarly found value in using arts-based methods to inspire conversation and communication of practices in relation to future-orientated “speculative imaginaires” (p. 754) or “people’s everyday experiences of and feelings about futures” (p. 755).
What can I learn from the history of the past use of research in this area and of participatory approaches in particular?
I am finding it difficult to find ARP projects that are of a similar scale to mine. The case studies I have read about are much larger projects involving larger numbers of participants.
Are the sources for this history inclusive of all relevant voices or just of elites?
I have been reading about a current exhibition about a shift in attitude towards repair rather than creation of new designs. It has been a source of inspiration for the workshops. Part of this exhibition highlights the lack of attention given to the voices of those who manage our waste, such as cleaners. In this project, I have included the students as users of the studio space, however there are other users of the space. Should they be included in this research?
If the latter, how can I help widen the range of voices that can be heard?
In the next workshop, I might suggest that we identify all the studio users and think about how we might include them in this research project? Can we have a suggestion box for both other students, academic staff, technical staff and cleaning staff?
Could there be a retelling of the history, this time highlighting the stories of the people who were previously excluded?
I’m not sure this question relates to my project so I am going to skip it.
9. How can I remain accountable to, and guided by ethical processes devised with
diverse members of popular movements and other communities, whilst also fulfilling any obligations I may have to my institution?
The community involved in this PAR are already part of the university community.
10. Who will own the data produced by the research (Colston et al. 2015)?
The university.
11. Who decides what are the products of the research? Is there a commitment to there being products:
for and by movements?
for transforming how researchers think about expertise and knowledge?
I don’t imagine we will be doing anything ground-breaking, that has not already been done.
12. Whose language is being relied upon?
The language commonly used in a teaching setting.
13. Who gets the money and credit associated with the project?
No one.
14. Who may be vulnerable and how can they be protected?
Students and myself. Covered in Ethics Form.
15. How can the participatory approach influence structural change, such through shifts in public policy, whilst still maintaining its humility as just one part of wider struggles?
Perhaps too big a question for this short ARP!
Reflection:
How has this informed my approach the next 2 workshops of the ARP. I think it is interesting to think about including other voices from our community. I think also finding examples of research outputs might help guide what we expect from this project.
Participatory research and a community of practice are two distinct concepts that involve collaboration and knowledge sharing within a community or group, but they serve different purposes and have different characteristics.
Purpose:
Participatory Research: Participatory research is a research approach that involves active participation and collaboration between researchers and the community or stakeholders being studied. The primary purpose is to conduct research, gather data, and create knowledge through the involvement of the community in the research process. The focus is on generating insights, solving problems, and producing new knowledge.
Community of Practice: A community of practice is a group of people who share a common interest or expertise in a particular domain. The primary purpose is to facilitate learning, knowledge sharing, and the development of expertise within the community. It is not necessarily focused on formal research but on informal knowledge exchange and collaborative learning.
Structure:
Participatory Research: In participatory research, there is often a more formal structure, with designated roles for researchers and community members. Researchers typically lead the research process and may collaborate with community members in various research activities.
Community of Practice: Communities of practice are typically less formal in structure. They are self-organizing groups of individuals who come together to share knowledge, learn from each other, and collaborate on topics of mutual interest. There may not be a clear distinction between leaders and participants.
Knowledge Generation:
Participatory Research: The primary outcome of participatory research is the generation of research findings, data, and insights. It aims to produce actionable knowledge that can address specific research questions or societal issues.
Community of Practice: The primary outcome of a community of practice is the sharing of practical knowledge, experiences, and best practices among its members. It focuses on learning and skill development within a particular domain.
Ownership and Control:
Participatory Research: Researchers often have a significant role in designing and controlling the research process. However, community members play an active role and have a say in the research design and implementation.
Community of Practice: Members of a community of practice have more control over their activities and discussions. There may not be a central authority or researcher guiding the group.
Timeline:
Participatory Research: Participatory research projects are often time-bound and structured around specific research goals and objectives.
Community of Practice: Communities of practice are ongoing and can exist for an extended period. They evolve over time as members continue to engage and share knowledge.
In summary, participatory research is a research method that involves collaboration between researchers and a community to generate research-based knowledge, while a community of practice is a more informal group of individuals who come together to share knowledge and learn from each other within a specific domain or interest area. They serve different purposes, have distinct structures, and produce different outcomes.
RSVP Cycles (Retrieval, Variation, Selection, and Preservation) is a comprehensive framework for understanding and nurturing creativity and innovation, highlighting the iterative nature of the creative process and the role of external factors and collaboration in supporting creative endeavors. It consists of 4 stages;
Retrieval: In the first stage, individuals draw from their existing knowledge and experiences to retrieve relevant information. This can involve recalling past experiences, researching, or accessing existing knowledge and ideas.
Variation: During the variation stage, individuals generate new ideas by modifying or combining the retrieved information. This process involves creativity and divergent thinking, where a wide range of possibilities is explored.
Selection: In the selection stage, individuals evaluate the generated ideas and select the most promising ones. This involves convergent thinking and critical analysis to identify ideas with the most potential.
Preservation: The preservation stage involves documenting and storing the selected ideas to ensure they are not lost. This can include recording ideas, creating prototypes, or formalizing concepts for future development.
The book emphasizes the importance of the external environment in facilitating creativity. Creative individuals often work in environments that support and encourage the RSVP Cycles. The authors highlight the collaborative aspect of creativity, emphasizing that interactions with others can enrich and refine the ideas generated in the RSVP Cycles. Group dynamics, feedback, and social networks play a crucial role in creative processes.
Harrison and Kuhn suggest that by understanding the RSVP Cycles, individuals and organizations can foster creativity and innovation more effectively. They propose strategies for managing and optimizing the creative process in both personal and professional settings.
My ARP action involves setting up a ‘micro’ live project working collaboratively with participants to research. This type of research seems to fall under participatory research – which I have been trying to understand via various online sources which I have summarised below;
Participatory research, also known as participatory action research (PAR), is an approach to conducting research that actively involves the individuals or communities being studied in the research process. It is a collaborative and inclusive method of research that aims to empower and engage participants, promote social change, and address issues from their perspective. Participatory research is often used in fields such as social sciences, community development, education, public health, and environmental studies.
Key characteristics of participatory research include:
Collaboration: Researchers work closely with the individuals or communities they are studying, treating them as equal partners in the research process. This collaborative approach helps ensure that research is more relevant and responsive to the needs and concerns of those directly affected.
Empowerment: Participatory research seeks to empower participants by involving them in problem identification, data collection, analysis, and decision-making. This can lead to increased community or individual agency and a sense of ownership over the research outcomes.
Action-oriented: The primary goal of participatory research is to bring about positive social change or address real-world problems. Researchers and participants work together to develop and implement strategies to effect change based on the research findings.
Local knowledge and context: Participatory research values the local knowledge and expertise of participants. It recognizes that individuals and communities have unique insights into their own situations, which can inform research questions and solutions.
Ethical considerations: Ethical considerations in participatory research are crucial. Researchers must respect the rights and dignity of participants, maintain transparency, and obtain informed consent. Ethical guidelines are particularly important in research involving vulnerable populations.
Multiple methods: Participatory research can involve a variety of data collection methods, including surveys, interviews, focus groups, participatory mapping, and storytelling. The methods used are often tailored to the specific context and research goals.
Flexibility: Participatory research is adaptable and flexible. It may evolve over time as researchers and participants engage in an ongoing dialogue, adapting the research process as needed.
Participatory research is often used in situations where traditional, top-down research methods may not capture the full complexity of the issues being studied or may not adequately engage the people most affected by those issues. By involving the community or individuals in the research process, participatory research can lead to more relevant, actionable, and empowering outcomes.
