Loading...
Yesterday here at UWE we were privileged to attend a workshop run by Jethro Brice, an environmental and socially engaged artist whose projects include Future Museum, a project that plays with the idea of looking back into the past from a climate-changed future and Some:When, a project about flooding in the Somerset Levels. I won't go into a lot of detail about the workshop here, but there were a few things that I took away from it that are potentially relevant to this project and worth sharing here. Others may already have a much better awareness of these things, but perhaps they will be new for some as they were for me. 

Central to the hydrocitizenship project is the bringing together of 'community' through artistic practice, as well as working across disciplinary boundaries. All of this requires thinking through what it means to engage with others across such boundaries, including finding ways of both making arts practice central to the project and of finding ways to engage publics in this process. In this vein, as Jethro gave us a run-down of various 'socially-engaged' arts projects (making the distinction between this and 'community art' or 'public art'), he alighted upon one which offered a framework for engagement that I found intriguing, and because it has been broken down into simple terms, easy to mentally digest. This was the Helix Arts Organisation

Although I hesitate to single out one of the examples from a list, the Helix Arts example struck me because of their simplified outline of co-working with communities in a participatory arts project. This involved considering both 'relational aesthetics' (art as a way of exploring and experimenting with new relationships with people) and 'dialogic aesthetics' (art as a way of enabling people to communicate and see the world, and themselves, differently). In order to enable arts practitioners to put these principles into practice, the group has designed a self-assessment framework for such projects, which can be viewed here: http://www.helixarts.com/pages/research.html and full version can be read here: http://www.helixarts.com/pdfs/Helix%20Arts%20Quality%20Framework%20full.pdf

I found this interesting not only in the context of an arts and humanities interdisciplinary project and its attendant questions, but also in terms of the Participatory Action Research idea, the academic equivalent perhaps. Importantly, the PAR toolkit also notes that PAR is an approach rather than a method or set of methods, and I am getting the same sense from the Helix Arts Framework. How we translate these processes, and inter-mesh them, is one of the big questions of this project, but recognizing these overlaps in thinking and approach seems a fruitful first step to charting the various journeys of this project. 

Participatory Action Research – concepts and action for hydrocitizenship

 

This blog has been co-written by Katherine Jones, Michael Buser and Owain Jones and is based on a meeting of the Bristol project team.

 

From its inception, the hydrocitizenship project has had the goal of citizen/community participation at its heart. The proposed interdisciplinary, inter-professional and inclusive research project aims to draw upon notions of ‘participatory action research’ (Pain 2004; Kindon et al. 2008) in designing activities, in reflecting upon what is important, and in evaluating the process and outcomes of research. 


PAR has been described as an approach rather than a prescriptive set of methods (PAR toolkit) (Pain et al. 2011) that aims to involve ‘participants’ (i.e. people outside of the project team) as early as possible in the research, and before any crucial decisions have been made about detailed aims methods and direction. Given that some essential decisions about the project, such as the conceptual basis, were determined before the inclusion of project partners, we’ve had to consider carefully the extent to which we can consider ourselves to be taking a fully-fledged PAR approach.


With these things in mind, on Oct 23rd 2014 the Bristol project team gathered to consider what a PAR approach might mean in this project, whether we were able to do this and if so, how? And if we could not consider this project to be truly PAR due to the later involvement of community and other partners, what principles of PAR could we still incorporate and hold at the center of the project that would guide our dealings with others?


Led by Dr. Michael Buser and Katherine Jones, the day was organized as a set of activities around exploring our process and principles of PAR. We started the morning by splitting into two groups (of three and two) to come up with succinct descriptions in response to the question ‘what are we doing and why?’ This simple but provocative question forced us to confront our underlying assumptions that we had perhaps not acknowledged directly for some time, and also to see whether other team members had similar ideas. We then came together to compare these.


One group’s description: ‘a multi-disciplinary arts-based participatory action research project investigating connections between communities and water.  We are doing this in order to foster a greater sense of understandings of the social and ecological relationships and to empower people to take individual and collective action’

 

Another group’s attempt: ‘Imaginatively exploring ideas of community and participation through a lens of water, and vice versa’ and ‘Actively re-framing water relationships and engagements given the perception of limitations in existing knowledge-based paradigms’

 

Following this exercise, Michael gave an example of another Connected Communities project he had worked on which had aimed to use PAR as an approach. In describing the project he reflected on what had worked well and what hadn’t, issues of research ethics, tensions in how research is done with people who may not have the time or inclination to be part of it, and tensions around selecting appropriate methods in collaboration with people as well as with spaces. We reflected on this research and what potential similar issues we could face.


The next step involved looking more carefully at the principles that are considered part of a PAR approach. Michael provided us with sheets with the principles on them and we scored each principle on a Likert scale of strongly disagree to strongly agree. The results were then collated and projected on the screen so that we could discuss these as a team. We were in broad agreement about many of the principles but there were some concerns about some of them – for instance in our role in ‘changing the lives of participants’. The points of contention could in some ways be associated with tensions between a PAR approach and an arts-based approach with research aims about ‘improving’ nature-society , two methodologies that we are aiming to blend in this project.


After the meeting, Michael drafted a set of principles based on our discussions (see below). This has been distributed to the team for discussion and is a working document that we will re-visit as we go along. It should be noted that this is something we are working on as a team in the context of our project and we would encourage other teams to do similar exercises rather than simply accept what we’ve come up with.  


The above exercises were extremely helpful to us as a group in considering what it is that we are aiming to do and why. In a project like this, with its underlying concern with making a tangible difference in the world in terms of social and socio-ecological relationships, it is important to give thought to how we might envision such a shift and what implications this has for our own behavior as project researchers and creative consultants.


Overall the day was very engaging and fruitful and allowed a reflective consideration of PAR in relation to our project approach. Though we decided that because key players have not been involved from the beginning that this could never be truly considered a PAR project in the strictest sense, unpicking our assumptions and leanings towards principles of PAR allowed us to take steps towards ensuring that as we move forward in our engagements with our local advisory group, with community partners, with community enablers and indeed, with people in the communities, that we are aware of the principles of participation and the ethical and power-relation dimensions involved.

As we move forward we are in a position now to continually reflect on whether we are being true to the principles that we started out with, and to refine these as we come into contact with new issues and conditions. In at least one sense, that of being reflective and considered about our process and approach, we are aiming to be true to PAR. 


 

DRAFT ENGAGEMENT PRINCIPLES FOR DISCUSSION

These are working principles.  They are based on our discussion but have not been thoroughly interrogated or debated.  Comments are very welcome. Please send comments to the Bristol team care of  Katherine Jones Katherine12.Jones@uwe.ac.uk


Our approach?


Recognizes community as an important yet contested concept through which to conduct engaged research.  For our research, the word ‘community’ signals an interest in the relationships between and among both human and non-human parts of the world (including relations of correspondence as well as conflict).  Further, we note that ‘community’ reflects an entanglement of material and immaterial elements which produces particular notions of identity as well as a shared sense of fate (e.g. a shared interest in the social and ecological health of the world).  As such, community is a fluid, open and multi-faceted concept of the future.


Builds on community strengths, resources and opportunities. The research will identify, support and build upon social structures, processes and knowledge already existing in the community (human and non-human) .  Our partners and participants are reservoirs of knowledge and can contribute to the project by drawing upon their existing strengths and resources.  However, we also seek to introduce and co-construct new knowledge by making connections beyond pre-existing, local assets.  Further, we recognize that this is not a static process and are aware that knowledge exchange will flow in multiple directions. 

 

Maximizes opportunities for meaningful engagement and collaborative partnerships. We hold an ethos of maximizing participation throughout the project which acknowledges variability and flexibility. This means facilitating dialogue between the multiple networks of local community partners and other non-aligned individuals while recognizing a non-linear, horizontal approach to the project.  Further, we see our work as an opportunity to add richness to existing local activities.       

 

Integrates knowledge and action for those involved in the project.  We commit to an action-orientated programme and accept that there will be multiple beneficiaries and multiple forms of benefit across the team, project partners, and individuals. At the same time we recognize that there might be some possible tradeoffs or tensions  between these.

 

Promotes a co-learning process that attends both to social and environmental inequalities.  We recognize the inherent inequalities between marginalized communities and researchers and will attempt to address these power issues by maximizing opportunities to share information, resources and decision-making power with community members.  Further, the research seeks to expand beyond conventional understandings of the social and modernist perspectives on ‘problem solving’ in order to engage with the wider inequalities expressed within eco-social communities.

 

Involves a cyclical and iterative process.  This research should involve trust-building, partnership development and maintenance in all phases of the research.  The time frame of the project offers some promise in this regard but the resources required are proving challenging.

 

Disseminates findings and knowledge gained to all partners.  This research should disseminate information gained in a respectful and understandable language that acknowledges all participant contributions and ownership of the knowledge production.

 

Emphasises the production of non-academic outputs. This includes outputs such as community reports, newsletters, presentations, websites, video, drama productions, art exhibitions, training packages, etc.  We also recognize the multiplicity of project outputs will include more conventional academic works such as journal articles, books and conference presentations.

 

Facilitates responsiveness to partners and project participants. This includes facilitating regular dialogue between the research team and those engaged in the project as well as enabling meaningful opportunities for review and critique. 

 

 

References

Kindon, S., Pain, R. & Kesby, M., 2008. Participatory action research. International encyclopaedia of human geography., pp.90–95.

Pain, R., 2004. Social geography: participatory research. Progress in human geography, 28, pp.652–663.

Pain, R. et al., 2011. Participatory Action Research Toolkit: An Introduction to using PAR as an Approach to Learning, Research and Action, Durham: Durham University.

 

Blogs

All hydrocitizens members can keep their own blog. You can share your research process and practice and anything else that you think might be of interest to other community members.

All blog entries appear together chronologically as part of the Hydrocitizens blog. If you would like to view just your own entries, or those of another community member, then you can access these on member profile pages under the blog tab.

Adding tags (words that capture the main subject or theme of your post) will help people to find your blog more easily.

Latest Activity

posted a new blog entry CLASSIC ROMANCE planns for wedding.
17 hours ago
posted a new blog entry Acentria Tech ! Web Design Company.
5 days ago
posted a new blog entry Hello.
9 days ago
posted a new blog entry Hello.
10 days ago

Share