"Good practice in community research:
Researching from, for and with communities"
Documents from a discussion seminar organised by the community-research group
December 17th, 2003
St. Mary's Hall and Crolly Room, South Campus, NUI Maynooth
The community-research group is an informal group of researchers working in academic, community and voluntary settings. We share an interest in research "from, for and with communities": research driven by the self-identified needs of particular communities, research carried out by or in conjunction with community organisations, and research carried out in participatory rather than top-down ways.
The group exists as an online discussion forum at this address; anyone is welcome to join and send and receive messages (often including job announcements, requests for contacts etc.) in this area. This is a low-volume list, with usually less than one message a day. You may also be interested in the postgraduate research programme that inspired the setting up of this group and the resources available via its homepage.
We initially planned this seminar as a way of clarifying for ourselves what we feel to be best practice in community research and as part of our own interest in perhaps developing an appropriate organisational form to sustain our own work in this field. The level of response so far (over 3 dozen requests for information) was so high and included so much experience in this field that we decided to reorganise the programme in order to enable as broad an exchange of experiences and ideas as possible between participants.
Participants came from ADM Ltd., Ballymun Oral History Project, Combat Poverty Agency, the Community Media Network, COPE Foundation, the Irish Social Forum, the Katherine Howard Foundation, Limerick City Community Forum, Mary Immaculate College Limerick, the National Institute for Regional and Spatial Analysis, NUI Maynooth Dept. of Sociology, the Sustainable Rural Development Dept. of Tipperary Institute, Threshold, the UCC Centre for Co-operative Studies and UCD Dept. of Sociology. All were present in their personal capacity.
Sessions
- Ethics and methodology in engaged research - notes available here
- Inequalities in the community and within the academy - notes available here
- Relevance of research in the community - notes available here
- Organisational and financial practicalities of research - notes available here
Notes from the seminar sessions
Rapporteur: Stella Coffey
Key questions to be considered by the group were:
- What methodologies are appropriate for community-based research?
- What kind of relationship between researchers and communities is best?
- Are the ethical issues different in engaged research?
While the session did not systematically address the questions, the discussion covered most aspects posed by the key and sub-questions. While the questions were not answered in a definitive way, people's knowledge, experience and viewpoints were shared in a manner that is likely to be a useful stepping-stone to greater understanding of community-based research, its features, benefits and problems among the participants. The possibilities, issues, problems or statements described by the group, roughly categorised below, included:
- Issues specified as relevant: agenda, ownership, decisions, top down research and analysis
- Alternatives now exist re who owns research: new institutional models, marginalised communities themselves, more participatory / emancipatory models; social rather than medical models
- Time of intense change; old still alongside new
Methodology & Methods
- It's useful to clarify terms
- 'Methodology' may, besides specific tools, include assumptions, eg, the knowledge is not necessarily with researcher
- Terms 'methodology' and 'methods' are sometimes mis-used: often 'methodology' is used whereas 'method' or tool is meant
- There is no one best methodology
- Keep an open mind on methodology - may need to ask additional questions before deciding which methodology is most appropriate
- There is still a role for quantitative methods
- Where gaps in methodology to build up knowledge of an issue exist, use different approaches to plug the gap - process itself may reveal need for other tools
- There's a tendency (among research commissioners, policy makers, etc) to 'learn a new language' (using jargon such as 'participatory') rather than doing things in new ways.
- Be people-centred: the methodology emerges from the people themselves
- Be careful with language: buzz words can be divisive
- Researcher should 'facilitate' research process
- Some reseach, eg, drug-related deaths, requires researcher to be imaginative in research approach in order to succeed in getting answers
- There's a range of situations that can be created by researcher, participation is one component. There's been a shift to recognising people in communities as being 'experts' that can be learned from.
- (Action) research can change the participants' expectations
- Wider social and policy circumstances often stop participation at community level
- Research in urban working class is very different from that in rural communities
- "How do you do something that takes 2 years in 3 months?"
- Fake participation happens.
- Describing non-particatory research as participatory is misleading
Roles of research
- To affect policy
- To address needs
- Can be simply affirming (eg literacy project), ie, doesn't have to be life changing
Who decides to do research?
- There's often a cultural lag in people's understanding of research
- Negotiation of many issues, academics' own pressure.
- Tipperary Institute in its community development work uses steering groups that are actually representative rather than 'usual voices' and challenge status quo in the community.
Experiences of employing community members in research
- An oral history project constructed participation as a course via a youth programme. However community facilitator was deliberately chosen skilled outsider
- Use existing structures eg, researcher training as CE scheme training.
- Training
- Details of training input on oral history research are on web-site
- Essentially involves bringing people through a process at the end of which they have the necessary skills.
Ethics
- Ethical implications of research requests from undergrad students of nursing, social studies, etc.
- Suggested organisation develops protocol / research contracts re research requests
- Research contracts should explicitly address: who owns research; purpose(s) of research; methods to be used; control and distribution of research report.
- Consider that research on specified topics be approved by a research council eg, research on Aborigines must be approved by research council in Australia
- Why are undergrads doing research projects?
- Case for universities limiting their students' research to college boundaries
- Ethics of situation where gate-keepers in a community are people with guns or those who know people with guns
- Abuse of terms like 'participative'
- Does focus on 'marginalised' communities ignore needs of 'mainstream' communities
- Research as public good
Dissemination of research results
- Where / how does 'usual report' link with 'communities'
- What methods make research accessible to those who place little value on the research or its commissioner?
- Example of video presentation of results
- Over time a researcher can build up rapport in a community by being present
- Design dissemination to be appropriate; include in research budget; size of dissemination budget should reflect nature of research and nature of its target(s)
Power from access to information
- Access by researcher to information may be a power issue, eg, if researcher set out to research major consultancy firm or government department its likely they'd be denied access to information necessary for task
- In 'partnership' era researchers can use a new interfact of community and infrastructure as point of access for research
- Lower echelons of public service tend to be willing to cooperate with researchers.
Reluctant researchees
- Some communities are over-researched and under-resourced and therefore resentful / angry
- Some groups don't want to be researched / people are not interested
Evaluation
- Refer to (Re)searching women. Anne Byrne and Ronit Lentin. IPA, 2000.
- In-built evaluation.
- Commissioning bodies and academia invariably have explicit and implicit criteria; may be implicit assumption that research would confirm their own prejudices
- Research report may involve telling what commissioners don't want to hear
- May be case of practice versus theory
Training for researchers
- Research training does not encourage people to make themselves nervous: their defensive mode had a huge impact on their approach to research
- Optimal approach for researcher: be open; find out what they're interested in
- Sensitivity needs to be developed in researchers: train undergraduates (non-psychology) by writing own family histories, etc.
Back to list of sessions
Rapporteur: Karin O'Sullivan
Q. 1. Who defines the problems in research on Social Inequalities?
When the researcher is in the field there can be many other bodies involved in defining the problem. For example, funding bodies on a National or European level. Ruling bodies that base funding on policy areas that are to the fore.
Often broader factors can mask the real issues on the ground that need to be highlighted - not only broader policy issues but also language, its use and place in research and its role in exclusion.
We then talked a bit about community involvement in the research process. In terms of capacity building it was agreed that a participatory approach to research was an effective move forward. Involvement of those working on the ground, and living in communities must be recognized as bringing a body of knowledge to research which is a vital accompaniment to the knowledge of the researchers. An area which was felt could raise problems was around the involvement of local residents in a study where participants in the research feel that their privacy is being jeopardized when personal issues are being conveyed to researchers that live locally.
At the same time this would not be an issue where local people are part of the process of methodology as the research progresses.
Another issues raised was the problem of research being carried out without sound theoretical backing. Many reports are carried out in the Comm/vol sector which are not arising out of strong and well though through methodological beginnings. This research ends up being weak and limited in its scope. Sense out there that a conveyor belt of reports exists.
Need for theoretical thinking and research to be carried out on the ground - something that is felt to be lacking. It was also felt that there is a short coming in the universities with regard to the level of training provided for students where theory and methodology are connected. Are we asking the more fundamental questions that are needed to be asked. This makes research more challenging but also harder to do.
Q 2. What kinds of inequality exist between researchers and the communities they research in?
Question of the researchers class background was brought up for discussion. Some participants felt that it was beneficial for the researcher to be of the same class as the community being researched. Others felt that sound methodological and theoretical foundations should aid any researcher to bridge these differences.
How the researcher uses her/his position in the field was another point addressed. Do researcher come across as patronizing? Do they make people vulnerable? The fact that they are often university educated places them in a sphere very different from those 'being researched'.
A question which was raised was - Would the community sector or local people ask different questions than the funding agencies? Maybe this would be useful as an approach helping to allow research to evolve from the ground, as well as involve a more participatory approach.
Q. 3. What kinds of inequality and conflicts exist within the academy and statutory bodies?
One difficulty would be the labels of hard and soft research which are often applied to quantitative and qualitative research, respectively. This division needs to be challenged a lot more.
Another issue raised was the need to use the findings in research carried out to raise debates in the public domain. There is a huge sense out there - in the com/vol sector and in local communities that research gets done and is then shelved. "Research budgets get spent, results get shelved'. Findings need to be addressed and openly discussed/debated.
The world of research is small and researchers are seen to be 'only as good as their last job'. It is a somewhat fragile business.
Back to list of sessions
Rapporteur: Fiona O'Connor
- How much difference does research actually make?
- How relevant do community groups see research as being?
- Who actually uses research and for what?
Discussion summary
Research is often perceived as irrelevant
Suggestions to avoid this perception were forthcoming from the group.
- Clearly state objectives at the beginning of the research/project
- Ensure that research is seen to provide something:
- More information e.g. for policy formation
- Evaluation of a service
- Addressing an identified issue
- Follow a policy of inclusion
In the discussion it was agreed that decision makers need information to identify needs and that needs analysis must include the community. A cautionary note was sounded, in that it is important to recognise that while the researcher will have a very specific focus often the community members will have a number of issues that are relevant to their context.
Research that is seen to address community-identified needs is perceived as being more relevant.
An example in relation to social housing was given.
- Research into how to make council housing estates work was instrumental in causing councils to change facets of their approach.
A counter example was also given in the area of urban renewal where the preliminary work for a community led area development plan generated local interest and a 'buzz'. The project was then abandoned in favour of a public-private partnership approach and this resulted in disappointment in the area. The community felt let down and the perception of research as a top-down process was reinforced. This has a knock on effect of making it harder for subsequent researchers to gain access and/or interest. There is also an element of disempowerment in that consultation does not lead to action.
The discussion then turned to the dissemination of research findings and the following issues were identified:
- Different dissemination formats are required for different target groups
- Report for academic/corporate
- conferences for wider research community
- short bulleted letters for participants/stakeholders
- video formats where appropriate
- Guidelines on implementation should possibly be included in a final report (where appropriate).
- There is not enough emphasis on dissemination to stakeholders
- There is a need for the system to be overhauled to take account of participatory models of research.
Back to list of sessions
Rapporteur: Laurence Cox
Q. How do power and money impact on community research?
- Conflicts between funders and community groups over research
- Ultimate power often but not always lies with funders. Communities often find ways to do the research they want to do. There's a question of how well communities can "play the game".
- How often do communities initiate research? They're often more reactive than proactive in this area.
- Sometimes the intention comes from the community but statutory bodies do the legwork.
- "Safe issues" for research include culture and "issues" but not power relations.
-
- How could we get funding to research the big questions?
- There are possibilities (eg dormant accounts) but we need to be very on the ball.
- Other partners, e.g. the media
- Need for an organisation to deal with the problems?
Q. What is the possibility of co-operative / non-hierarchical research organisation?
- Need to identify goals: is it a business? Does it need a business structure related to that? Or is it more an informal network?
- One well-known centre isn't a co-op because it doesn't generate an income.
- Advantages: legal entity, limited liability, chance to raise capital, decision-making structure, democratic, etc.
- The best co-ops are a solution to a problem, designed for use.
- The existing situation is that you have to register with the Registrar of Friendly Societies etc.
- What funders are interested in is "additionality": something which is more than the sum of its parts. Hence it could be useful to show multiple institutional links
- One well-known network is a co-op which tenders for research
- A structure is only as strong as the members in it
- There's a need for like-minded people to support each other: a team working together. But this would need lots of hard work and clear parameters
- Would we work for Fianna Fail? (Much heated discussion!)
- What about research being "parked"?
- Ability to cross-subsidise non-funded research?
Q. Is there real scope for non-profit research outside the universities?
- Foundations such as Katherine Howard, Joseph Rowntree, etc.
- Private entities such as Atlantic Philanthropy
- CREATE / CAFE funding handbook
- Funders' Forum
- Networking
- Culture of expertise
- Need to build in "pro bono" idea.
- What are benefits for academics?
- Focus on university criteria etc.?
- Example of links between Co-op Studies centre and League of Credit Unions
- Would need good links with communities - feedback etc.
- We have to make research happen for ourselves!
- Need commitment to an idea, principles
- What are funders' goals?
- Funders see a bank of expertise
- We should organise in dialogue with communities from the start
- Discussion with funders needed about research standards
- Organise across the country
- "Take the money and run" approach to research?
- With good relations between researcher and community it's possible for community groups to affect research
- We should get clear over what's riding on the research
- How about an ISO for community research?
Back to list of sessions
Contact information
To join the community-research forum please go to this address.
For other queries please contact:
Dr Laurence Cox
Dept. of Sociology
National University of Ireland, Maynooth
Co. Kildare
Tel. (01) 708 3985
email:
Back to main Tools for Change pages