Working ?with? not working ?on?: the 
theory and practice of collaborative 
community research programmes  
Margaret Greenfields 
Research Director IDRICS 
m.greenfields@bucks.ac.uk 
 
Presentation Outline 
? To consider philosophical and political background to 
collaborative research 
? Examine the types of ?partnership? and ?participatory? 
research which exist  
? Consider why they may be appropriate for ?hard to reach? 
groups 
? Explore examples from funded research with Refugee 
Women and Gypsies/Traveller/Roma 
? Challenges and Benefits to using  PAR/Collaborative 
Research 
? PAR and the Institutional setting ? forward planning for 
success 
 
 
5/29/2013 margaret.greenfields@bucks.ac.uk 
Participatory Research Approaches 
? Largely concerned with social action/justice 
? Large body of Participatory Action Research ? 
influenced by work of  Paulo Friere (1921-1997) 
the community educator /critical pedagogist  and 
Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937) political theorist.                     
 
 
? Friere ? critical pedagogy which 
challenges concept of passive recipients 
of education/learning (1970) 
? For Gramsci, all people are intellectuals 
and philosophers. "Organic intellectuals" 
who take their local knowledge from life 
experiences, and use that knowledge to 
address changes and problems in society. 
(Gramsci, 1971) 
? By placing such pedagogic models within 
a research paradigm  it is possible to 
devise ?translational research?. 
5/29/2013 margaret.greenfields@bucks.ac.uk 
? Friere (1982): actors create research 
within a dynamic model  
? Thus PAR researchers are co-
 learners/researchers with others (including 
academic professionals) who are part of 
the research process 
? Classical PAR theory proposes repeated 
cycles similar to the policy making cycle ? 
typically however a shorter-term single-
 cycle model ? shared planning, action and 
evaluation. 
Research as Politics 
? Participatory Research is an explicitly 
socio-political mode of research.  
? Embedded within the model is the 
principle that: 
? participants practice critical reflexivity, 
? seek to democratise research and  
? focus on processes; knowledge development 
and skills enhancement of the team  
? not just outcomes  
(see further McNiff and Whitehead, 2009) 
? How such research is ?performed? is also 
an active statement of political and policy 
ideals: 
 
? 3 core types of participatory research: 
? Consultation 
? Participatory 
? Partnership 
 
 
 
Sherry Arnstein?s (1969) Ladder 
of Participation 
? Projects outlined below sought to practice 
full partnership/citizen controlled research 
? in practice (funding constraints, technical 
requirements such as use of complex data 
manipulation and relatively tight 
timetables) they became nearer to the far 
end of participatory research rather than 
Partnership/Co-Production 
? Nb: shifting awareness of the degree of 
practical engagement in the UK (policy 
and public reactions to the Cambridge 
GTAA in 2005-6) 
CASE STUDY 1: Cambridge GTAA 
? The first study in the UK to engage with Gypsies and Travellers as 
PAR team members (Home & Greenfields, 2006). 
? Methodology ? multi-level and mixed methods. Development of 
questionnaire on housing/public service need + training of 
community interviewers from Gypsy/Traveller populations. Input into 
questionnaire + identification of sample frame + feed-in to topic 
guide for focus groups. 313 interviews undertaken + series of focus 
groups.  
? Challenges ? untested model + lack of statistical evidence + 
resistance to project 
? Outcomes ? agreed report (community + politicians + academic 
team) 
? Development of on-going community forum for Gypsies/Travellers 
and politicians/local agency staff to meet in ?safe space? and debate 
key issues; planning needs etc. Upskilling of interviewers (all of 
whom went onto further interviewing/community project 
employment). Acceptance of model as viable and accepted as ?best 
practice? in Government advice + replicated elsewhere in the UK  
 
CASE STUDY 2:  Traveller Economic Inclusion 
Project 
? Background: First economic inclusion study in Europe on the mechanisms 
and change drivers experienced by Gypsies, Traveller and Roma over 
recent decades (Ryder & Greenfields, 2010). Set out to explore reasons for 
economic/employment marginalisation and the routes to success of 
financially stable members of the populations. 
? Challenges: as above re: accommodation issues coupled with cultural 
resistance to discussion of income generation and financial affairs. Elite 
community members reluctant to disclose ethnicity for fear of racism and 
loss of employment opportunities. All of England included in sample ? 
devising sampling frame to include different ethnic groups and regions of 
country + gender/socio-economic stratification. 
? Methods: smaller group of experienced community interviewers involved in 
depth interviewing + development of questionnaire + covering larger areas. 
One-to-one feedback for participants as required + through community 
projects. Dissemination of findings via report + pod-casts + conferences 
? Outcomes ? Department of Work and Pensions some take up of specific 
recommendations. Funding obtained for number of community groups to 
provide training on tax, book-keeping and project development as identified 
as key drivers of economic success for those involved in forms of 
?traditional? employment practice. Funding for single- gendered groups re 
community development project upskilling for women and manual skills 
training for young men. On-going monitoring by funding bodies re: success 
and longitudinal change ? impacted now by austerity budgets/funding cuts. 
CASE STUDY 3: Refugee and Asylum Seeking 
Womens Project (2012-13) 
 ? Background: refugee and asylum seeking women are often exceptionally vulnerable or traumatised and face repeat victimisation whilst in the UK. (e.g. sexual violence; 
mental health issues; homelessness and exploitation by legal advisors). Project aims 
to train RASW to train health and legal professionals on their experiences in seeking 
services with the intent of improving care and services whilst upskilling women to 
become community advocates. 
 
? Challenges: diverse linguistic/literacy skills; recruiting women with time/energy and 
stability (dispersal practices) to participate. Shame/stigma re a number of issues; fear 
of complaining/challenging legal and health care professionals. Legal status of 
women may be precarious. 
 
? Methods: IDRICS advised/co-wrote funding application. Recruitment of women 
through diverse organisations/advice groups. Interviewing for vulnerability of potential 
PARs + linguistic skills. Identification of mixture of ethnicities, religions and 
backgrounds. Ethics and skills training. IDRICS/MG involvement in key areas of 
project e.g. Development of training materials for IARS and PAR. Delivery of training 
sessions re thematic identification of topics and supporting women with analysis and 
development of recommendations for training programmes for delivery by RASW to 
health/legal professionals .    
 
? ONGOING ? report to be developed and piloted with RASW. Training materials to be 
planned and devised in differing formats ? e.g DVD/face-to-face delivery/VLE etc. 
? Outcomes to date:  Guidance on interviewing/PAR for RASW (see below under 
associated reading). Generation of presentation of programme by women for 
professionals, conclusion of analysis and identification of key aspects of programme 
to be delivered to professionals by the PAR/community advocates in training. 
Challenges and Benefits of PAR 
? Challenges/ 
arguments against 
PAR 
? Competing aims/ 
potential conflict 
? Resistance from 
funders/academy 
? Unclear lines of 
accountability 
? Reduced ownership 
of analysis for 
academic- challenges 
to the hierarchy 
? Quality of data 
? Academic overly 
? Benefits 
? Process allows 
traditionally 
marginalised voices 
to be heard 
? Competing claims for 
the research agenda 
can be made 
? Academic voice does 
not drown out others 
during analysis ? 
?subjects? are not 
misinterpreted or 
misquoted 
? Community members 
 i d   
PAR and the Institutional Setting 
Planning for Success 
? An academic team?s home institution can help or 
hinder engagement in PAR 
? Need  
? top-down commitment to flexibility    
? to ensure that community members are able to 
engage in research teams on equal terms 
?  practical ways of ensuring community members 
aren?t discriminated against (accidentally or on 
purpose)  
?  methods that mean community expertise is 
respected, and individual circumstances and 
knowledge capital are taken into account  
Examples: 
? Ethics Clearance:  - academics are bound by ethics ? but shouldn?t 
be ?hide-bound?. 
? PAR community team members are fully competent and discerning 
in recognising ethical dilemmas and appropriate behaviours 
? Don?t create difficulties where none need exist and be aware of 
power-differentials without being unduly paternalistic 
? Barriers to payment of community members ? hugely and unduly 
complex in the UK. Creaking, suspicious bureaucracies can lead to 
loss of engagement in PAR. Avoid multiple forms and consider 
appropriate methods of oral reporting and witnessing. 
? Institutional support for academic researchers under pressure 
from commissioners or external agencies ? e.g. media. ? stand 
up for your team against ?doubters? and vested interests.  Devise 
strategies re: likely outcomes. 
? Listen to PAR community members ? 
academics and bureaucracies don?t 
always know best. 
? Design for the worst, hope for the best and 
plan ahead for success 
? ?Its [PAR] strength lies in its focus on generating 
solutions to practical problems and its ability to 
empower practitioners ? getting them to engage 
with research and subsequent development??. 
(Meyer, 2004, 454).  
? ?Co-producing research entails tussling with the 
dialectic between unity and difference, 
sovereignty and interdependence, the self and 
the other.  Co-producing research holds the 
potential for creative coalitions but also the 
possibility of the clash of civilizations?. (Orr & 
Bennett, 2010, 202)  
Suggested Further Reading 
? Arnstein, S (1969) A Ladder of Citizen Participation, Journal of the American Institute 
of Planners, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 216-224 
? Blackburn, H., Hanley, B & Staley, K (2010) Turning the pyramid upside down: 
examples of public involvement in social care research Eastleigh: INVOLVE/NIHR 
? Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum Publishing 
Company. 
? Freire, P. (1982). Creating alternative research methods. Learning to do it by doing it. 
In B. Hall, A. Gillette & R. Tandon (Eds.), Creating knowledge: A monopoly (pp. 29-
 37). Toronto: International Council for Adult Education 
? Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks. London: Lawrence and 
Wishart.  
? Greenfields, M (2013)  Action research with Refugee women: good practice and 
solutions to community participation London/High Wycombe: IARS/IDRICS                                                                                             
available at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/125286265/Action-Research-With-Refugee-
 Women-Good-Practice-and-Solutions-to-Community-Participation 
? Greenfields, M & Home, R (2006) Romani Studies - Assessing Gypsies? and 
Travellers? needs: Partnership working and ?The Cambridge Project? Romani 
Studies,16(2), pp105-131 
? McNiff, J. and Whitehead, D. (2009). Doing and Writing Action Research. London: 
Sage Publications 
? Meyer, J (2004) What is Action Research in Seal, C (ed), Social Research Methods: 
A Reader, Oxford, Routledge 
? Orr, K & Bennett, M (2010) Editorial, Public Money and Management, 30 (4), pp199-
 203 
? Ryder, A & Greenfields M (2010) Roads to Success: routes to economic and social 
inclusion for Gypsies and Travellers; London, ITMB available at: 
http://www.irishtraveller.org.uk/images/roads_to_success.pdf