Search results

EPDF and EPUB available Open Access under CC-BY-NC-ND licence. This book brings together reflections, knowledge and learning about the experiences of religious minorities. It showcases the participatory methodologies implemented by its contributors and highlights the importance of using non-extractive methods for engaging with participants.

Since 2008, Lisbon has been the first European capital to adopt a Participatory Budget (PB) process at a municipal scale to involve its inhabitants in the elaboration and ranking of the proposals to be included in a predetermined slice of the city council's budget. Lisbon's process has become a benchmark for various similar experiences, both in Portugal and abroad. It brought innovative elements into the international debate, such as the use of new technologies to present and rank proposals, and therefore it sought to focus on the construction of a more "European" model of PB. One of the innovative features of the Lisbon PB (Lx-PB) process - among the first to be more than merely advisory, unlike most previous experiences in Portugal - is its evolutional nature. It allowed to capitalize and increase, over its various editions, a more inclusive matrix through enhanced dialogue with citizens and a gradual improvement of the deliberative quality, derived from various learning experiences related to errors and limits observed throughout the participatory path. This article - paying special attention to the incremental and evolutional nature of the experiment - aims to highlight some peculiarities of the first five years of life of the Lx-PB, stressing the limits and changes over time. ; Dès 2008, Lisbonne a été la première capitale européenne à mettre en place un processus de Budget Participatif (BP) à l'échelle municipale, impliquant les habitants dans l'élaboration et la hiérarchisation de propositions à inclure pour une partie prédéterminée du budget municipal. Le processus lisboète est devenu la référence majeure pour diverses expériences similaires, aussi bien au Portugal que dans d'autres pays. Il a apporté des éléments innovants au débat international, par exemple, l'utilisation des nouvelles technologies informatiques pour présenter et classer les propositions, et a aussi visé à la construction d'un modèle de BP plus « européen ». L'une des caractéristiques novatrices du BP de Lisbonne (OP-Lx), en plus de n'être pas uniquement consultatif (contrairement à la majeure partie des expériences précédentes au Portugal), est sa nature évolutive. Celle-ci a permis de tirer partie d'une participation de plus en plus importante au fil des années par le biais d'un renforcement du dialogue avec les citoyens et d'une amélioration progressive de la nature délibérative grâce aux enseignements tirés des erreurs et aux limites observées tout au long du parcours participatif. Le présent article, axé sur le caractère évolutif et incrémental de l'expérimentation, vise à mettre en évidence certaines particularités constatées au cours des cinq premières années du BP de Lisbonne, en soulignant ses limites et ses évolutions. ; Lisboa es, desde 2008, la primera capital europea que adoptó un procedimiento de Presupuesto Participativo (OP) a escala municipal, con objetivo de implicar a los habitantes en la construcción y jerarquización de propuestas a incluir en una parte predeterminada del presupuesto municipal. El procedimiento lisboeta se convirtió en una referencia importante para varios procesos afines, tanto en Portugal como en otros países. Aportó elementos innovadores al debate internacional, como el uso de las nuevas tecnologías de información para presentar y jerarquizar propuestas, y también trató de incidir en la construcción de un modelo más "europeo" de OP. Una de las características innovadoras del OP de Lisboa (OP-Lx) —además de ser uno de los primeros que dejó de ser sólo consultivo como la mayoría de las experiencias anteriores en Portugal— es su naturaleza evolutiva. Permitió capitalizar e incrementar una matriz más inclusiva a lo largo de sus varias ediciones, a través del refuerzo del diálogo con los ciudadanos y una mejora gradual de la calidad deliberativa, derivada de varias enseñanzas asociadas a errores y límites observados en el proceso participativo. El presente artículo — reservando una especial atención al carácter evolutivo e incremental de la experiencia— pretende poner de manifiesto algunas peculiaridades de los primeros cinco años de vida del OP-Lx, subrayando los límites y modificaciones a lo largo del tiempo.

This book discusses a wide and rich range of participatory methods. The first part of the book focuses on Reflect and the Internal Learning System (ILS). Reflect began as a tool for group work to develop literacy and critical reflection, while ILS was designed to provide information for programme evaluation at the same time as supporting community members to reflect on and change their lives. Both have evolved considerably over a number of years. In the second part of the book, the authors reflect on what enables and constrains creativity, adaptation, and innovation, using examples of many different methodologies to illustrate their discussions. These reflections come from two broad perspectives: from innovators who have all worked principally as independent development consultants and advisors, and from researchers. These two common positions in the world of development and aid give rise to different challenges in creating and using participatory methodologies.

This essay concludes the special issue on the intersections between qualitative and rhetorical inquiry by responding to each of the essays. We highlight the productive tensions between rhetorical and qualitative inquiry, examine the benefits that qualitative inquiry brings to rhetorical fieldwork while also revealing how rhetorical inquiry can contribute to qualitative inquiry. We ultimately argue that rhetorical fieldwork is form of transdisciplinary research that resists replicating rhetorical and qualitative research by subsuming one approach under the other and instead creates a new form of hybrid research that adopts and adapts both research lineages.

"The paper analyzes the construction of a pedagogical-investigative
method, which has as its key element the development of strategies for
overcoming inequalities in Latin American societies. Paulo Freire and
Orlando Fals Borda, among others, provide elements for understanding
the origins of a method which, in research, has a close relation to the
educational dimension and, in education, integrates the investigative
dimension as a part of the process of developing active subjects in their
communities. The paper refers to research projects that were developed
using participatory methodologies, attempting to identify some recent
developments, advances and limits. Among these projects, special
attention is paid to those that show the role of pedagogical mediations in
participatory social processes in South Brazil (state of Rio Grande do Sul),
particularly the activities of a garbage recyclying association and the
implementation of the participatory budget in a municipality in South
Brazil." (author's abstract)

Stakeholder engagement in research projects can take a number of forms according to the scope of the project and the purpose of the interaction. L4.2. has focused on comparing different approaches to stakeholder engagement in collaborative projects. This report presents a synthesis of the experiences and lessons learnt through the stakeholder engagement activities of LiveM researchers within MACSUR, within an Italian (Oristano) case study, and within the SOLID (Sustainable, Organic and Low Input Dairying) project. An overview of these examples, and some of the lessons drawn from them, can also be found in the MACSUR paper on stakeholder engagement methods being developed by researchers from all three MACSUR themes (Koenig et al. under production). The first part of this report describes the stakeholder engagement strategy within the SOLID project. Stakeholder engagement methods are analysed through observations of activities and using semi-structured interviews with researchers and stakeholders. Two aspects of the SOLID approach are described – the stakeholder panel and the Future Dairying workshop. Transcripts of the workshop and the contribution of the stakeholder panel to the SOLID annual meeting in Helsinki are included (Appendices 1 and 2), as a contribution to the analysis of workshop outcomes being undertaken within the SOLID project. As part of a wider suite of stakeholder engagement activities, the SOLID stakeholder panel provided an example of how ongoing oversight of scientific outputs and direction by stakeholders can be effective in identifying weaknesses in approach and communication, and in suggesting relevant and effective directions for research activities. The stakeholder workshop demonstrated a useful structure for the exploration of stakeholder concerns, their view of ideal states and their solutions for reaching them. Low participation levels demonstrated the need to understand the motivations that drive stakeholders to engage in such projects, and highlighted the value of developing long-term relationships between stakeholders and researchers that allow scientific research to become an accepted part of practical problem-solving. The second part of the report describes stakeholder engagement activities carried out in the context of one of the MACSUR regional pilot studies (Oristanese case study in Sardinia, Italy). The Oristanese case study demonstrates the potentialities and constraints of participatory methodologies in relation to the different categories of stakeholder involved. It highlights the importance of creating new spaces for dialogue between farmers, researchers and policy makers in order to promote the generation of "hybrid knowledge" (Nguyen et al. 2013) for the emergence of more sustainable and longer-lasting strategies to adapt to CC. This would require the promotion of open knowledge generation platforms where multiple stakeholders are encouraged to participate and make their views heard. These approaches are designed in order to overcome the misalignment between scientists' suggestions and policy implementation. In the third part of the report, the outcomes of a "learning event" held in Sassari (MACSUR mid-term meeting) with decision makers from different EU countries, are discussed. Finally, some reflections are presented on the importance of involving local stakeholders and decision makers in research projects, of sharing views and knowledge between scientists and stakeholders, and on the pros and cons of different methodologies at the different scales of stakeholder engagement, drawing on all three examples of practice. The research approach analysed includes two important components, which are represented by "transdisciplinarity" (to be included in the macro area of "scientific knowledge") and "local knowledge", as fundamental elements to fill the Science and Policy Gap.

Participatory Visual Methodologies: Social Change, Community, and Policy by Claudia Mitchell, Naydene De Lange, and Relebohile Moletsane (2017) offers practitioners a thorough synopsis of participatory visual methods of research and provides an abundance of useful information on how to effectively expand the field. The book provides figures, examples, and case studies to illustrate ways achieve these goals. It dissects various methods of participatory visual research, as well as how to use such methods to influence greater systems. It is a valuable guide for experienced researchers seeking to extend the influence of their participatory research in relation to social change, community impact, and policy dialogue. In this review, I will offer reflections about the material through my unique lens as both a family therapist and novice to participatory visual research.

"This paper aims to promote reflection on the viability and applicability of
participatory methodologies, particularly action research, in the area of
health. First it shows the human action which is socially conditioned and
encompasses many different aspects is the main source of knowledge in
action research. Then the paper discusses the objectivity and the scientific
nature of this methodology, and its relevance to restoring the human dimension
to health care. The conversion of biological and medical facts
into collective actions is another issue highlighted by providing examples
of how sanitary harmful consequences in terms of environmental or epidemiological
issues can be reversed into social mobilisation and actions
like education, prevention, health promotion and empowerment. It also
intends to show how the use of this methodology in the university context
through teaching activities, continuing educational, research projects and
community based programs. Finally it concludes that action research
offers special importance to build transformative actions and to make
improvements on living conditions and health, as well as it is necessary to
deal with health system failures." (author's abstract)

Participatory approaches to research and development have had relatively little academic or practitioner critique, resulting in a mythologising of the power of participatory methodologies to accomplish problem solving, emancipation or empowerment. Participation is also presented as evidence of social inclusion and is fostered as a strategy to counteract social exclusion. The purpose of this article therefore is to challenge and critique a range of definitions and perspectives of participation in terms of theory and practice. The paper focuses on two issues arising from the participatory literature and our own research experiences with communication technology projects based in rural and remote Queensland, Australia. We propose that non‐participation and peripheral participation are valid and legitimate choices exercised by community members that can be seen to be as individually empowering as participation. We also support the view of participation as both the means and the ends of development, a position that reflects the reality of participatory practice as fluid and variable over time. The paper concludes that both theoreticians and practitioners need to recognise and challenge the assumptions that underpin many participatory development projects.

Whilst there is research around men and masculinities as they relate to practices of caring in the ecological crisis, less is written about methodologies that can address intersectional challenges, and ways of engagement that can support behaviour change. A process-based workshop methodology is discussed for researching the male-gendered and material performances of environmental caring related to personal food protein consumption practices. It works creatively to address relational inequalities in status both between different masculine positionalities and different food proteins. It contributes to more-than-human participatory methodologies by exploring male-gender – food protein relations, via positioning and inviting practical-engagement with foodstuff as a process for destabilising social and cultural hierarchies attached to thinking about, as well as preparing, cooking and eating, different food proteins. We argue that novel research findings can emerge around individual, collective and community responses to the ecological crisis through the careful methodological attention to masculine inequalities.

Obstinate memory is an insistent resource for communities. Migrant Media advocates the methodology of a "documentary of force" as a research tool for filmmakers and academics. As a U.K.-based collective of filmmaker-activists involved in community struggles, Migrant Media's resistance-based work uses cameras and screens to challenge racism and police violence. Drawing on film documentary history from figures as diverse as Dziga Vertov, Jean-Luc Godard, Black Audio Film Collective, and Third Cinema, the Migrant Media story is revealed through attempts to ban the 2001 film Injustice and a more recent series filmed with nurses during the coronavirus pandemic. We suggest some directions for further research at the end.

The feminist goal of challenging inequality requires distinctive methods such as combining social action with research and using participatory approaches. These methods strengthen scientific standards of good evidence and open debate, but they conflict with elitism and careerism in academia and hence are rarely used. Nonhierarchical structures must be created.