Research into participatory processes: what happened?

Kate Newman and I have been working with the IKM Emergent Research Programme to develop some research into the flow (and use) of information generated by participatory processes, with a particular focus on international development organisations. This is the story of our experience to date…

Our own experience, working in ActionAid on participatory approaches and methods, since then as consultants in other contexts and, in Kate’s case, researching for a PhD on similar issues, we were aware that there are many institutional and cultural blocks to this type of information flowing appropriately, and being used effectively, in large international organisations. Not wanting to focus on the many problems and frustrations that people like us have felt in trying to promote better use of this type of knowledge and information, we set out to identify and explore some case studies of people, teams and organisations attempting to tackle this problem practically.

Participatory processes is a very broad term, encompassing a huge variety of practices in very different contexts so we had to narrow it down to something practicable and useful, while still leaving the research open enough to really pick up and follow up on the concerns of our peers and colleagues in international organisations.  So we began with a literature review, looking at participation and knowledge management, bottom up learning and downward accountability, as well as the history and main critiques of participatory theories and approaches. From this, and our own experience, we set up a few issues we thought may have an impact on the effective flow of information from participatory processes into the planning, analysis, decision making and policy formulation of international organisations.  We shared this, and the basic thrust of the research with networks and peers, and identified a few case studies. We developed some reflection questions and tools, conducted interviews and developed our analysis further.

It was an emergent process, and through it we narrowed down our focus to the flow of information from grassroots engagment / participation into, through and beyond the international development organisations. We shared the process information and outcomes on the IKM wiki-based website, and in particular on a co-created workspace there on Participation, and have written a paper with our analysis and conclusions.  We are now looking into working with the network we have built through this research to develop further opportunities for sharing and exploration of the issues, and in particular, strategies and products which have been, or could be used to improve the flow of infromation generated through engagement with people and groups at the grassroots.  This will probably take the shape of a workshop, and possibly the outcome of that will be more articles and papers, hopefully including  some practical support and ideas.  The good thing is, this is already really linking in to the work of other networks of international development NGOs in the UK, as well as the parallel research done in Kenya.  The research process also supported and influenced the thinking and planning of some of the participants who provided case studies, helping them to reflect on how they could encourage their colleagues to take the information generated by participatory processes more seriously in their own internal processes.

What has happened to your plans?
We have managed to talk to 5 organisations to generate case studies and understand further the ripples. The time period of the research has been longer than we expected because it has taken longer than we anticipated to get participation from different organisations, (and feedback from IKM) but the final product is what we expected.  We were able to narrow the focus and narrow the question so that we could actually bring the case studies together, and have ideas how to take the work forward.  The nice thing about the programme is that we were allowed to expect an evolving and emergent research process, and that is what we got!

What has happened that you did not expect?
The number of people interested was very high – showing that it is obviously a very relevant question; but many were worried about sharing their own organisation’s experience – and had more to say on the problems than the solution(s).  It was harder than we thought to get people to write up their experiences.

The initial meeting in Cambridge in July 2008 was a little confusing (and frustrating?) as it seemed as though Working Group 1 weren’t sure what they wanted. We thought that there would be more participation from the Working Group but it seems that they just wanted us to go away and do it.  It was a bit disappointing not to get more leads and support/ contacts from them.  At the same time, it was good that they had confidence in us and let us get on with it, supported our process etc.

What has happened that you didn’t want?
Using the wiki as a collaboration tool didn’t really work; we had to write up the case studies, had to chase people a lot to actually get participation. Lots of people were interested, thought the questions were important, but didn’t really want to put in the time, while others wanted to contribute but did not have relevant experience instead were more interested in learning from others.

What have you have found of value in the process?
It was good designing the reflection exercises as it help us focus the discussions more and generate relevant info; also hope that orgs reflect further when we’re not there, and go on to think about how they can build on what they’ve identified as positive etc.  I had a small opportunity to meet others conducting resaerch within the IKM programme during the wiki training and that was very valuable – to see the linkages between the different areas of work and how we could strengthen and learn from each others’ work.