Participatory Research and The Philosophy of Social Science - Beyond The Moral Imperative

Qualitative Inquiry
http://qix.sagepub.com
Participatory Research and the Philosophy of Social Science:

Beyond the Moral Imperative
Mary van der Riet
Qualitative Inquiry 2008; 14; 546
DOI: 10.1177/1077800408314350
The online version of this article can be found at:

http://qix.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/4/546
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Qualitative Inquiry can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://qix.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://qix.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations (this article cites 10 articles hosted on the

SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):
http://qix.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/14/4/546
Downloaded from http://qix.sagepub.com by Roli Talampas on May 31, 2008

© 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
distribution.
Qualitative Inquiry
Volume 14 Number 4
June 2008 546-565
© 2008 Sage Publications
Participatory Research 10.1177/1077800408314350
http://qix.sagepub.com
and the Philosophy hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com
of Social Science
Beyond the Moral Imperative
Mary van der Riet
University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa
Participatory research has a predominantly transformative and social justice

concern. This article goes beyond the moral imperative of participatory
research to address its potential to account for human action, the subject
matter of social science research, through accessing its intentionality and
sociality, and accounting for the complex and interactive nature of behavior.
Two of the core principles of participatory research (participation and accessing
local knowledge) are articulated in relation to dialogism and dialectics. The
interpretive potential of the dialectical relationship between empathy and
distanciation is discussed and illustrated in the novel visualization approaches
in participatory learning and action. The article concludes with a critical
discussion of the conflation of social justice concerns with claims to validity.
It is argued that participatory research approaches enhance validity because
they address the participative, social and relational nature of human action.
Keywords: participatory research; philosophy; human action; visualization
Philosophy of Social Science and

Participatory Research
The practice of participatory research (PR) is usually restricted to social

science research in development economics or agriculture. PR is known for
its inclusivity, democratic ethos, and political and moral imperative. This
article moves beyond the social justice and moral imperative of participa-
tory research to address its philosophical claims. It argues that epistemo-
logically, the PR approach is an appropriate tool for the study of human
action, the subject matter specific to the social sciences. The intentional and
social nature of human action suggests that it may be impossible to study.
However, an examination of participatory learning and action techniques,
546

distribution.
van der Riet / Participatory Research and the Philosophy of Social Science 547
and visual representation in particular, reveals how they enable the study of
human action, making participatory research processes useful for social
science research.
The use of natural scientific methods to study humans has been con-
tested on many levels (Maguire, 1987; Terre Blanche & Durrheim, 1999).
The ontological assumptions of a static, stable and predictable reality have
been challenged by alternative positions which argue that reality is charac-
terized by change and process (Gilbert, 1989). Epistemologically, the posi-
tivist paradigm assumes a knowable reality, with a single, absolute truth
accessible through objective methodology. This framework of inquiry
strives to establish causal relationships between variables so that laws can
be established and predictions made (House, 1991; Rosenberg, 1988).
However, Manicas and Secord (1983, p. 407) argue that the “acts of persons
in life settings are open systemic events that involve an enormous range of
codetermining structures” in which social relationships are not constant. It
is thus extremely difficult to adhere to one of the most fundamental
assumptions of positivist science, that is, to explain behavior by identifying
its lawfully conjoined antecedents (House, 1991; Manicas & Secord, 1983;
Rosenberg, 1988). Although it might seem that humans defy scientific inves-
tigation, House (1991) argues that humans, their relationships. and their
societies have distinct characteristics that require special attention.
The critique of the positivist paradigm has lead to “new paradigm
research” (Reason & Rowan, 1981), or the “new heuristic” (Manicas &
Secord, 1983). The emergence of participatory research approaches has
paralleled this development, providing a radical alternative to knowledge
production in positivist approaches (Maguire, 1987). Following Bhaskar,
this article argues that the historical and conceptual nature of the subject
matter of the social sciences requires the prioritizing of “precision in meaning”
over “accuracy in measurement” (1979, pp. 58–59, as cited in House, 1991,
p. 6). Social science research must focus on “understanding behaviour by
rendering it intelligible [italics added]” (Rosenberg, 1988, p. 14). Uncovering
the meaning or significance of behavior, the process of the interpretation of
human behavior, enables us to understand it. In social science research
there are different approaches to accessing this meaning. One approach is
based on the assumption that meaning resides in the human mind. Another
approach assumes that meaning is embedded in the context. There are
however problems with limiting explanation to intentions, and with relying
solely on insider, contextualized accounts of a phenomenon.
In accessing the meaning of an action, one approach is to ask the actor
(Doyal & Harris, 1986). The assumption is that humans are able to reflect

distribution.
548 Qualitative Inquiry
on their consciousness and use language to express their understanding of

their actions in the form of desires and beliefs. These desires and beliefs are
assumed to reveal the reason for the action. However, although we do indeed
possess intentions and beliefs, Kelly, Parker and Lewis (2001) question
whether we can truly know what it is that motivates us and provide an accurate
account of it. Intentions may be unconscious, we may not be aware of the
reasons why we make certain choices, and we are thus not necessarily in
control of the cause of our actions. Explanation cannot thus be reduced to the
intentions of social actors (Lather, 1986), and the reason for an action is not
carried in the mind of the actor (Kelly et al., 2001).
In addition to this, the notion of individual human action is problematic.
Human action is only to a limited extent crafted in the mind of the individual
actor (Doyal & Harris, 1986; Kelly et al., 2001). Manicas and Secord (1983,
p. 408) argue that social structures, such as language, are the:
medium of motivated human action . . . [they] are reproduced and trans-

formed by action, but they pre-exist for individuals. They enable persons to
become persons and to act (meaningfully and intentionally), yet at the same
time, they are ‘coercive’, limiting the ways we can act. It is thus that action
is social, for, as acquiring the particular skills, competencies, habits and
forms of thought presuppose human capacities, they also presuppose society
in the double sense that in acting we use and we express social structures.
Human action is thus essentially social, and presupposes interrelationships

with others. Our actions follow rules, “socially accepted conventions or
norms which give meaning and expression to different types of social activity”
(Doyal & Harris, 1986, p. 75). It is thus not possible to be completely indi-
vidually agentive. We are constrained by what is imaginatively possible
within a particular context, as Doyal and Harris (1986, p. 80) argue:
The repertoire of actions you perform is . . . the collective possession of the

social group within which those actions are performed . . . the conscious for-
mulation of an intention to perform an action depends upon the prior social
existence of rules in terms of which actions have their justifications. You can
only form an intention to do something that already makes sense to you as
something that might be done.
Individual human intentions, and thus actions, are worked out in a dialectic
relationship with the frameworks of the social structure, practices, rules,
and conventions related to particular contexts, which people reproduce and
transform (House, 1991). The intelligibility of human action resides in this

distribution.
sociality. Understanding human action requires identifying the rules under

which human actions fall, and the role they occupy in the system of which
they are a part (Fay & Moon, 1994), through situated and contextualized
studies of that action.
This leads to a second approach to accessing the meaning of human
action, studying the phenomenon in its context. This approach assumes that
meaning can only be established through “imaginatively re-entering”
the context in which the action was generated (Kelly, 1994, p. 1). This is
embodied in the doctrine of Verstehen and illustrated in the ethnographic
process of immersion (Pearson, 1993), and the phenomenological approach
in psychology. The assumption is that it is only by being in the actor’s posi-
tion, in taking the insider’s perspective, that you can access the reason for
the actor’s action (Martin, 1994). This empathic mode of understanding is,
however, flawed because the meaning of an experience is not solely indexical,
or embedded in the specific situation (Kelly, 1999). Martin (1994) argues
that the Verstehen position is descriptive and part of the context of discovery,
rather than an interpretation of that experience which would be part of the
context of validation.
In response to these criticisms, the outsider and distanciated perspective
is proposed to enable understanding by moving “beyond the subjective
appropriation of reality” (Kelly, 1994, p. 6), into a trans-situational analysis
in which patterns of action might emerge.
This outsider’s perspective highlights the contextual and subjective limits
of understanding. It provides for a view that is not possible within the bounds
of the context in which the action occurs (Kelly, 1999). Bakhtin argues that
this “outsideness” is critical to understanding. Meaning is revealed once it
is in dialogue with another meaning which then “surmounts the closedness
and one-sidedness of these particular meanings” (1986, p. 7, as cited in
Hajdukowski-Ahmed, 1998, p. 653). The methodological implications of
this are that both distanciated and empathic processes are needed to under-
stand and interpret the voices of research participants. Empathy enables the
examination of the intricacies of the subjects’ experience, while the distan-
ciated perspective allows the observer to understand patterns and experi-
ences across time and situations (Kelly, 1999). A dialectical relationship
between the two generates a different way of knowing, based on immediacy
and perspective. Understanding human action therefore requires an approach
that moves beyond the individual mind, and beyond the context, to a
dialogical interaction between the two.
Participatory research deals in a very particular way with the study of
human action. It has the potential to account for the subject matter of social

distribution.
science research through accessing the intentionality and sociality of human

action; and accounting for contextualized and distanciatied perspectives in
the study of human action.
Participatory Research
Participatory research (PR) is an umbrella term for different methods of

participatory inquiry that emerged out of disenchantment with the positivist
research paradigm, and a critique of the role of the researcher in the devel-
oping world (Bhana, 2006; Chambers, 1992; Oakley & Marsden, 1985).
A transformation and social justice concern is fundamental to the partici-
patory research paradigm. Research aims to enable structured transformation,
change in the living conditions of people (Kelly & van der Riet, 2001), and
individual level change through effecting the empowerment of participants
(Lather, 1986). It does this through drawing on critical social theory to
uncover the “mechanisms for producing, maintaining, and legitimising
social inequities and domination” (Paulston, 1979, as cited in Maguire,
1987, p. 16). The process goes beyond the research endeavor, to become a
form of social activism, “a social intervention that is at one and the same time
an idea and an action” (Kelly & van der Riet, 2001, p. 163). Although this
position is commendable, this article goes beyond the political imperative
and moral impulse of PR, to the interpretive epistemological advantages of
the approach illustrated in participatory research techniques.
Participatory Techniques
In this article, reference is made particularly to the techniques of

Participatory Learning and Action (PLA) which has its roots in Rapid Rural
Appraisal (RRA) and Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA). RRA first
emerged in the 1970s and was practiced in natural resource management,
agriculture, and health (Johnson & Mayoux, 1998). PRA, a “semi-structured
process of learning from, with and by rural people about rural conditions”
(Chambers, 1992, p. 298), has its roots in RRA, activist participatory
research, agriculture, and anthropology. In the contemporary approach of
PLA, research and participation are linked to action and learning. In a PLA
process community members and researchers, together with specialists (for
example in health, engineering, or agriculture), would meet to identify the
research problem. They would then be trained by a facilitator of participatory

distribution.
research processes and the group would decide on what data needs to be
collected and which participatory techniques should be used for this process.
The data collection process is then carried out by this team of insiders and
outsiders, with team members recording the information. The data is then
processed so that it can be presented to the broader community, for example,
maps drawn in the sand are converted to graphics on a sheet of newsprint,
so that they can be displayed in a large forum. The broader community and
researchers then meet to be shown, and to discuss and critically analyze the
data collected from the techniques conducted with them. Further problem
identification, strategizing, and action planning are undertaken in this process.
Participatory research includes a range of techniques with a distinctive
emphasis on novel approaches such as visualized analyses, estimation, and
ranking. Visual representation and diagramming include mapping, modeling,
analytic diagramming, photo-voice methods, time lines, trend analysis, and
seasonal calendars. Estimation scoring and ranking, partly through diagram-
ming include matrix scoring and ranking, well-being and wealth ranking,
and livelihood analysis. More conventional approaches of semi-structured
interviewing, case studies, the analysis of secondary sources, and compilation
of oral histories, are also used (Theis & Grady, 1991). The expression of
knowledge is thus not limited to the written or the spoken word, but includes
active representations of ideas, the use of symbols, drawings, and even direct
activity in the context of study, for example through a transect walk.
The transformative potential of PR is based on three core principles.
First, the participants are actively involved in the research process; second,
there is co-ownership of the research process and outcome; last, any inves-
tigation of a phenomenon builds on what people know, accessing their local
knowledge. Articulating the principles of participation and accessing local
knowledge in relation to dialogism and dialects illustrates their potential to
account for human action.
Dialogism and Dialectics in the

“Participation” of PR
Participation is a key concept in participatory research and the many

ways in which it is enacted lead to different types of participatory research
practices (Rahnema, 1990). The moral and political dimension of the prin-
ciple of participation is reflected in the belief that all people, regardless of
age, gender, or level of education, have a right to participate in decisions that
claim to generate knowledge about them (Heron, 1981, in Lather, 1986;

distribution.
Singer, 1993; Reason & Bradbury, 2001). Several authors have shown the
need for participatory research in achieving sustainable community devel-
opment in developing contexts (Johnson & Mayoux, 1998). From a philo-
sophical stance, the principles underlying participation are based on the
recognition of human subjectivity and the social construction of reality, key
concepts in new paradigm research (Reason & Rowan, 1981).
The concept of objectivity in traditional research requires that the
subject of knowledge be artificially separated from the object of knowledge
(Maguire, 1987). However, Freire comments that, reality consists “not only
of concrete facts and (physical) things, but also includes the ways in which
the people involved with these facts perceive them” (1982, p. 30, as cited in
Reason, 1994, p. 332). This dialectic is evident, as Reason (1994, p. 324)
argues, in “human beings co-creating their reality through participation:
through their experience, their imagination and intuition, their thinking and
their action.” Participation is fundamental to the nature of being human
(Reason & Bradbury, 2001) and human action can thus not be understood
without accounting for the relationship between humans and context.
The participative, reciprocal, and dialogic relationship between the
researcher and the participants in PR processes, where the participants are
not mere providers of data, but involved in the co-construction, the analysis,
and the representation of this data, challenges the traditional relationship
between the objective researcher and the subjective researched and addresses
the dialectical relationship between humans and their context (Maguire,
1987; Hajdukowski-Ahmed, 1998; Kelly & van der Riet, 2001). In this way,
the reality we have constructed as humans can be “re-patterned in partici-
pative inquiry” (Reason & Bradbury, 2001, p. 449).
It could be argued that the dynamics inherent in most research interactions,
social science research processes included, obstruct the process of making
human action intelligible. The democratic ethos of PR and the inference
that interactions in the research process can be dialogic are based on the
assumption of a conversation among equals. Schrijvers (1991) suggests that
research cannot be conducted successfully if the power differentials between
participants are too large. Chambers (1992) argues that the attitudes and
approach of researchers create and maintain the assumption that people are
ignorant, impeding the expression and analysis of knowledge by partici-
pants. He describes this approach as:
wagging the finger, holding the stick, sitting on the chair behind the table; . . .
dominating and overwhelming thought and speech; . . . demanding informa-
tion and answers; . . . believing that we know and they are ignorant, that they

distribution.
are the problem and we are the solution; . . . failing to sit down with respect
and interest and listen and learn. (Chambers, 1992, pp. 289–290)
In addition to this, communities are not homogenous and contain their

own hierarchical structures that influence the research process (Johnson &
Mayoux, 1998; Mansuri & Rao, 2004). Power can be manifest in various
forms such as gender, age, level of education, and the ability to speak the
same language as the researcher. These differences make it easier to involve
elite, rather than marginalized sections of a community in the research
process. The admirable aims of participation and ownership are thus con-
strained by the researchers’ approach to the interaction, and also by the vast
differences in the relative power, capacity, and knowledge of the researcher
and the participants. However, it is precisely these obstacles that the partici-
pative nature of PR processes attempts to address. More individualistic data
collection processes that inherently reinforce the extreme differences in
power between researcher and participant, such as administering a ques-
tionnaire, are minimized (Johnson & Mayoux, 1998). Collective investiga-
tion and joint activity enable “people to express, enhance, share and analyse
their knowledge of life and conditions, to plan and act” (Chambers 1994a,
p. 1253). In this way “people are no longer ‘respondents’. They are players,
performers, presenters, and [they] own their play, performance and presen-
tation” (Chambers, 1992, p. 300). In addition to this, there is active facili-
tation of an inclusive data collection process through the “handing over” of
the stick, or the pen, used in the activity (Chambers, 1992; 1994b). The
processes actively seek to give voice to, and prioritize, the needs of margin-
alized members of groups and communities, what Chambers (1995) refers
to as “putting the last first.” The moral argument for engaging people in
processes of social development are clear; however, there may be other
levels at which the participation of people in the research processes illumi-
nates human action, and works to bring about change.
Local Knowledge and Beyond
Researchers often study phenomena by treating social interactional,

cultural, institutional, and historical contexts as extraneous, nuisance vari-
ables. The new heuristic epitomized a move toward research of the everyday
(Harré & Secord, 1972, as cited in Manicas & Secord, 1983). PR parallels
this focus on the everyday by making local knowledge a pivotal concept in
the participatory framework of inquiry.

distribution.
Local knowledge can be defined as the integrative framework used by

people in a particular setting to make sense of their lives (Van Vlaenderen &
Neves, 2004). It is important to acknowledge that the “community” does not
exist as a united and homogenous group, and might actually be quite frac-
tured. Nevertheless, individuals and groups in the research process, including
the researchers, bring their local knowledge to the research activities.
Accessing and articulating this embedded knowledge is critical because it
consists of decision-making tools and evaluation resources that have formed
the basis of the past and present activities of the community and which are
their means and medium of survival (Kelly & van der Riet, 2001). The expres-
sion and use of these local mediational means in the PR process means that
interventions can be contextually situated, and more effective and sustainable,
potentially reducing dependency on outsiders.
Accessing local knowledge requires that the researcher empathically
understand the community from within, using their language and symbol sys-
tems (Hajdukowski-Ahmed, 1998). Chambers (1992, p. 298) would refer
to this as learning “from, with, and by” people about their conditions in the
medium, and with the means, familiar to the participants. Categories for
investigation are therefore not imposed, but are emic, and elicited particularly
from the less visible and the voiceless groups such as women, children, the
illiterate, or the elderly (Johnson & Mayoux, 1998).
However, although these everyday, insider perspectives are necessary,
they are not sufficient as explanations. Lather (1986, p. 259) comments on
the contradictions “hidden or distorted by everyday understandings” and
the false consciousness embedded in the commonsense ways of looking
at the world. In addition to this, public participation and activity can have
limitations. The more public something is, the more the power structure of
the community dominates the representation of ideas. The plenary and
group processes might draw out the community’s official view of itself and
encourage the expression of consensus, that is, what ought to be, rather than
what is, underplaying differences in views and emphasizing a unitary view
(Mosse, 1994, as cited in Woodhouse, 1998). As Manicas and Secord
(1983, p. 410) argue “all our perceptions, categories and frames of meaning
are mediated and are culturally and historically loaded.” They highlight the
need to move beyond a commonsense explanation to a more critical and
systematic inquiry.
Inherent in participatory techniques is a process of critical reflection that
supersedes the constraints of an empathic perspective and the domination
of an official and unitary view. Chambers (1992) refers to PR enabling the
expression of the participants’ knowledge about life and conditions, and also

distribution.
allowing for the extension, enhancement, and analysis of this knowledge.

The latter step involves a deliberate and conscious process of critical reflec-
tion, which exposes the more unconscious and implicit meanings of the
participants’ actions and allows for a trans-situational and historical perspec-
tive on the issue. PR techniques thus embrace both distantiated and empathic
positions. Herein lies the epistemic value of the participatory process: the
meaning of human action is potentially revealed through this dialogue
between insider and outsider accounts. Reason (1994, p. 328) argues that it
is the subject–subject relationship in PR that allows for a dialectical tension
between the participants’ knowledge and the more theoretical and academic
knowledge of the researcher, producing a “more profound understanding of
the situation.” Kelly (1994) argues that this dialectical interaction between
immediacy and perspective generates a different way of knowing. The
process effectively allows the researcher and the participants to form an
interpretation of the phenomenon, something that is fundamental to the
success of the intervention. In addition to this, through the explication of local
knowledge and the provision of an opportunity for a reflection on this local
knowledge, PR processes facilitate critical social awareness and the ability
to plan and to act. They thus have the potential to generate change on indi-
vidual and group levels.
The visualization processes inherent in many participatory techniques
are of particular importance in understanding the epistemic imperative of
PR. They illustrate the dialectical interaction between empathy and distan-
ciation, and the emergent dialogue between insider and outsider accounts.
Visualisation and Distantiation
Constructing visual representations involves making explicit, and articu-

lating, one’s perspectives and revealing one’s understanding of an issue. The
map or diagram creates a public and shared reference point for discussion, as
illustrated in Figure 1, where a group of women are collectively drawing a
map in the sand to indicate the resources available in their area. The process
of discussion around this artefact is less confrontational than direct question-
ing because it is the diagram or the map, rather than the individual person,
which is “interviewed.” In the process individuals can ideally, point to, dis-
cuss, manipulate, and alter physical objects or representations (Chambers,
1994a). Information is thus built up cumulatively, and it is verified and owned
by the participants (Blackmore & Ison, 1998). Thus the tangibility of a visual
representation potentially creates the space for dialogue.

distribution.
Figure 1
Rural women collectively generate a map of their resources
using a stick in the sand. There was minimal researcher
intervention in this activity
Photograph by author.
The visual mode of engagement also potentially facilitates the participa-

tion of less articulate and less literate participants because contributing to
the representation is not dependent on the individual having to speak publi-
cally. For example, a participant can place a stone in a ranking matrix to
indicate his or her viewpoint (see Figure 2.). The creation of the visual repre-
sentations also moves beyond the data collection process as the researcher
and the participants collaboratively analyze these diagrams. In Figure 3, the
participants and researchers discuss the implications of patterns of expen-
diture represented in the pie-chart diagram on the floor. In a dialogic inter-
action, the participants and researchers discuss the visual image, building a
situated interpretation of the diagram.
The visualization processes in PR involve the mapping of reality and a
reflection on this reality. Kelly (2006, p. 352) argues that this is essentially
a process of distanciation:
By creating images of their history, the structure of their community, the

resources they have available to them, and so on, the community is brought

distribution.
Figure 2
Participants place stones in a ranking matrix to
indicate their viewpoints
Image courtesy Masters in Research Psychology class, School of Psychology, UKZN, 2006.
through the epistemological function of distanciation to see their reality in

different ways, which may represent previously unrecognized perspectives
and needs.
Strohm Kitchener’s (1983) elucidation of levels of cognitive functioning

provides some insight into why this process of visualization may lead to
distantiation and why this, in turn may result in the ability to critically
appraise a situation. In her model of cognition, meta-cognition includes
the abilities to evaluate and monitor the task and the appropriateness of its
solution. Epistemic thinking involves the interpretation of the nature of the
problem and whether it is solvable. Our powers of pictorial representation
enable us to monitor and evaluate our performance (House, 1991). In the
PR process, creating visual, pictorial representations of local knowledge
enhances meta- and epistemic cognition and enables the monitoring of, and
reflection on, that knowledge. Hall (2006, p. 23, citing Edwards, 2001, p. 38)
argues that the visual mode allows us to “see how things exist in space and
how the parts go together to make up the whole.” Visualization and dialogic
interaction are thus a catalyst for distanciation and critical reflection.

distribution.
Figure 3
Community members and researchers discuss a pie-chart
using symbols to represent expenditure on religious
activities, food, schooling, and so forth
Photograph by author.

distribution.
Validity in Participatory Research
Concerns with validity in any research process are epistemic concerns.

They are concerns about the value of that knowledge and the extent to which
it can claim to be a “truthful” representation of reality. New paradigm
researchers have argued that scientific measurements of rigor are reduction-
ist and misrepresent much of the complexity and diversity of system inter-
relationships (Bradbury & Reason, 2001; Kvale, 1996; McTaggart, 1998;
Reason & Rowan, 1981). PR has drawn on the more conventional approaches
to validity, for example Kvale’s (1996) issues of correspondence, coherence,
and pragmatic validity and on an alternative framing of validity concerns.
There are many subtle claims in participatory research about its ability
to “increase” validity. PR processes might indeed lead to an increase in valid-
ity for some of the more conventional reasons attached to validity claims in
social science research; however, there seems to be a conflation of social
justice concerns with claims to validity. In a discussion of action and partici-
patory research processes, Bradbury and Reason (2001, p. 447) argue for
the need to broaden the bandwidth of what constitutes good knowledge
research from a search for the truth to a “concern for engagement, dialogue,
pragmatic outcomes and an emergent, reflexive sense of what is important.”
The quality of the research thus becomes dependent on how it engages in
significant, socially valuable work, and its enduring consequence, such as
how it generates institutional and individual change (Bradbury & Reason,
2001). This is a concern particularly with the motivation for the research
and validity is broadened to incorporate the socially conscious and emanci-
patory discourse of PR. It could, however, be argued that, to a certain extent,
PR processes go beyond the criterion proposed for validity claims in social
science research. In addressing the participative, relational, and social nature
of human action, PR processes enhance validity by enabling social science
researchers to understand and interpret human action.
Many of the validity claims are related directly to the issues of social
justice, transformation, and ownership. For example, a respectful and trusting
rapport between researchers and participants is assumed to make accounts
more truthful, and therefore provide more accurate data. Another key
assumption is that co-ownership leads to vested interest in the process, and
therefore participants are unlikely to give false or misleading judgments.
This might be why participatory social mapping has been shown to correlate
well with formal census surveys, and to be more discriminating and more
detailed (Chambers, 1994a). This concern with “better” or more “accurate”

distribution.
data can be seen as an issue of correspondence, the positivist concern with

knowledge corresponding to the objective world and being a reflection of
reality (Kvale, 1996). However, knowledge is a social construction of reality,
not a direct reflection of, or correspondence to, an objective reality (Kvale,
1996), and thus claims based on the idea of correspondence are not neces-
sarily useful in understanding validity and PR processes. It is argued that
PR processes contain several characteristics that increase the validity of
the knowledge produced because they potentially account for this social
construction.
The dialogic nature of PR processes is one of the mechanisms that poten-
tially accounts for the social construction of knowledge about that reality.
As argued above, human beings are always acting in the world and in relation
to others, and human action is fundamentally social. This notion of validity
is thus based on “intersubjectively valid knowledge which is beyond the
limitations of one truth” (Reason & Rowan, 1981, p. 242). The collective
nature of the PR activity also encourages “a social validation of ‘objective’
data that cannot be obtained through the orthodox processes of survey and
fieldwork” (Reason, 1994, p. 329). Despite the fact that the consensus-
building nature of PRA can restrict “the expression of difference and hence
the scope for triangulation” (Woodhouse, 1998, p. 145), the participatory
and inclusive nature of the participatory processes means that there is the
potential for multiple voices and perspectives on an issue to be voiced, thus
accessing what Hajdukowski-Ahmed (1998) refers to as the multiplicity of
ways of knowing and uttering. Constructions of reality are thus not just
those of the individual mind, but manifest through the “reflective action of
persons and communities” (Reason, 1994, p. 333). There is thus the possi-
bility that the knowledge produced corresponds to the complexity of social
interaction (Hajdukowski-Ahmed, 1998). The validity of PR thus resides in
its collaborative and experiential nature and how it addresses the participative,
relational, and social nature of human action.
Another major claim to validity in PR is the fact that the phenomenon is
contextualized through accessing local ways of perceiving and understanding
the phenomenon, that is, local knowledge. For example, the more simple
and rapid ranking and scoring processes access local classifications relevant
to the particular context of the research, rather than being based on the
researcher’s categorizations. Although this is related to the criterion of
correspondence, and to the criterion of coherence—the internal logic and
consistency of the knowledge produced (Kvale, 1996)—it is meant in a slightly
different sense. Bradbury and Reason (2001) refer to this as the criterion of

distribution.
conceptual–theoretical integrity. The soundness of the research resides in

anchoring the theorizing of the phenomenon in peoples’ experiences, reality,
and system of meanings. An understanding of the phenomenon, that is, ren-
dering it intelligible, is possible because it is contextualized. There is of
course the need to be aware of the relative truth of a local perspective and
to go beyond the participants’ accounts of their intentions through the process
of distanciation. Bradbury and Reason (2001) argue that conceptual–
theoretical integrity resides in a dialectical interaction between local and
theoretical accounts, which in turn enables a “more profound understanding
of the situation” (Reason, 1994, p. 328). Validity thus resides in the situat-
edness of the research process, the way it accesses different ways of knowing
the phenomenon, and the way a critical perspective on the phenomena is
generated.
Accessing local accounts links directly to a key criterion for validity
used in both qualitative and action-oriented research paradigms, the concept
of pragmatic validity, where the relative truth of a knowledge statement lies
in its practical applicability in a particular context (Kvale, 1996; Maguire,
1987). This is what underpins the more interventionist stance of PR
processes, where models of social behavior are validated through action.
The criteria for validity judgments are not external but are based on their
pragmatic usefulness in the context of the research (Hajdukowski-Ahmed,
1998). Although this form of validity is related directly to the social justice
orientation of PR, it also makes the epistemic claim that knowledge is not
possible unless it is proven through action (Singer, 1993). New theoretical
knowledge emerges as a result of the dialectical interaction between theory
and action, what Reason and Bradbury (2001) refer to as praxis.
This concern with action and change relates directly to another major
criterion of validity, the transformatory potential of participatory research
processes for individuals, institutions, and social contexts (Bradbury &
Reason, 2001). This emancipatory intent of research is captured by Lather
(1986, p. 272) in the notion of catalytic validity, the degree to which “the
research process reorients, focuses, and energizes participants toward know-
ing reality in order to transform it.” The assumption here is that research
processes are valid if they conscientize participants by enabling them to see
things differently and therefore act differently in the world. On one level
this is again reflective of the social and transformatory perspective of PR.
It can also be understood in more philosophical terms. A research process
that contains processes of critical reflection will bring about a different way
of seeing (both for the participants and for the researcher), and will thus

distribution.
strengthen the validity of the research. As outlined above, the process of

critical reflection is brought about, methodologically, through a process of
distanciation. It is this process that might lead to change in individuals, and
to the generation of different conceptual knowledge. The critical issue would
then be whether the methodology allows for the process of distanciation so
that critical reflection is enabled. Kelly (1999) argues that the researchers’ role
is pivotal in facilitating this process of critical reflection through a move-
ment between immersion in the world of the participants, and then distanc-
ing themselves from their context. This “critical subjectivity” is achieved
through praxis, the movement between reflection and action (Reason, 1994,
p. 327). The researcher thus needs to actively intervene, deal with discrep-
ancies, and observe and monitor the process of analysis (Chambers, 1994a).
Poorly trained facilitators who focus on products, as artifacts, cannot access
the interpretive value of the visual representations, especially if they are not
contextualized in the sense of asking who produced them and what was said
about them (Woodhouse, 1998). Reason (1994, p. 335) argues that very
particular skills are required for participative research including “personal
skills of self-awareness and self-reflexiveness, facilitative skills in interper-
sonal and group settings, political skills, intellectual skills, and data man-
agement skills.” If Kvale (1996) argues that the quality of the research is
dependent on the craftsmanship of the researcher, one could argue that PR
is only as good as the PR practitioner.
PR processes clearly contribute to the validity of social science research
beyond the concerns of social justice. They address the participative, rela-
tional, and social nature of human action, enhancing validity because of the
way in which they enable social science researchers to understand and
interpret human action. The dialectical interaction and dialogic relationships
in PR provide for intersubjectively valid knowledge. Collective activity
allows for the multiplicity of ways of knowing and facilitates the social vali-
dation of data. Human action is rendered intelligible because it is contextu-
alized, and because of the dialectical interaction between empathy and
distanciation.
Although new paradigm research is interpretive and concerned with
making sense of human experience from within the context and perspective
of human experience, there are key mechanisms in the PR process that go
beyond this. By grasping the participants’ vision of the world, their meanings,
understandings, interests, and motivations; and facilitating distanciation, the
mechanisms of PR function to uncover the significance of human action,
enabling us to interpret it, and render it intelligible.

distribution.
References
Bhana, A. (2006). Participatory action research: A practical guide for realistic radicals. In
M. Terre Blanche, K. Durrheim, & D. Painter (Eds.), Research in practice: Applied methods
for the social sciences (2nded., pp. 429–442). Cape Town: UCT Press.
Blackmore, C., & Ison, R. (1988). Boundaries for thinking and action. In A. Thomas,
J. Chataway, & M. Wuyts (Eds.), Finding out fast: Investigative skills for policy and develop-
ment (pp. 41–66). London: Sage.
Bradbury, H., & Reason, P. (2001). Conclusion: Broadening the bandwidth of validity: Issues
and choice-points for improving the quality of action research. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury
(Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 447–455).
London: Sage.
Chambers, R. (1992). Rapid but relaxed and participatory rural appraisal: Towards applica-
tions in health and nutrition. In N. S. Scrimshaw & G. R. Gleason (Eds.), RAP: Rapid
assessment procedures: Qualitative methodologies for planning and evaluation of health
related programmes (pp. 295-305). Boston, MA: International Nutrition Foundation for
Developing Countries.
———. (1994a). Participatory rural appraisal (PRA): Analysis of experience. World
Development, 22, 1253–1268.
———. (1994b). The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal. World Development,
22, 953–969.
———. (1995). Putting the last first. Essex, England: Longman Group Ltd.
Doyal, L., & Harris, R. (1986). Empiricism, explanation and rationality: An introduction to
the philosophy of the social sciences. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Fay, B., & Moon, J. D. (1994). What would an adequate philosophy of the social science look
like? In M. Martin & L. C. McIntyre (Eds.), Readings in the philosophy of the social sciences
(pp. 21–35). Cambridge, MA: MIT Bradford.
Gilbert, A. (1989). Things fall apart: Psychological theory in times of rapid social change.
South African Journal of Psychology, 19, 91–100.
Hajdukowski-Ahmed, M. (1998). Bakhtin without borders: Participatory action research in the
social sciences. South Atlantic Quarterly, 97, 643–668.
Hall, L. (2006). The transformative potential of visual language, with special reference to
DWEBA’s use of drawing as a participatory training methodology in the development
facilitation context. Unpublished masters of fine arts dissertation, University of KwaZulu-
Natal, South Africa.
House, E. R. (1991). Realism in research. Educational Researcher, August-September, 2–9.
Johnson, H., & Mayoux, L. (1998). Investigation as empowerment: Using participatory methods.
In A. Thomas, J. Chataway, & M. Wuyts (Eds.), Finding out fast: Investigative skills for
policy and development (pp. 147–171). London: Sage.
Kelly, K. (1994). The hermeneutical function of distanciation. Paper presented at the HSRC
Conference: Knowledge, method and the public good, July 18–22, Pretoria, South Africa.
———. (1999). Hermeneutics in action: Empathy and interpretation in qualitative research.
In M. Terre Blanche & K. Durrheim (Eds.), Research in practice: Applied methods for the
social sciences (pp. 398–420). Cape Town: UCT Press.
———. (2006). Lived experience and interpretation: The balancing act in qualitative analysis.
In M. Terre Blanche, K. Durrheim, & D. Painter (Eds.), Research in practice: Applied
methods for the social sciences (2nd ed.) (pp. 345–369). Cape Town: UCT Press.

distribution.
Kelly, K., Parker, W., & Lewis, G. (2001). Reconceptualising behaviour change in the HIV/AIDS
context. In C. R. Stones (Ed.), Socio-political and psychological perspectives on South
Africa (pp. 251–275). New York: Nova Science.
Kelly, K., & van der Riet, M. (2001). Participatory research in community settings: Processes,
methods and challenges. In M. Seedat, N. Duncan, & S. Lazarus (Eds.), Community psycho-
logy: Theory, method and practice. South African and other perspectives (pp. 159–188).
Cape Town: Oxford University Press.
Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. London: Sage.
Lather, P. (1986). Research as praxis. Harvard Educational Review, 56, 257–277.
Maguire, P. (1987). Doing participatory research: A feminist approach. Amherst, MA: Centre
for International Education.
Manicas, P. T., & Secord, P. F. (1983). Implications for psychology of the new philosophy of
science. American Psychologist, April, 399–413.
Mansuri, G., & Rao, V. (2004). Community-based and -driven development: A critical review.
The World Bank Research Observer, 19, 1–39.
Martin, J. R. (1994). Another look at the doctrine of Verstehen. In M. Martin & L. C. McIntyre
(Eds.), Readings in the philosophy of the social sciences (pp. 247–258). Cambridge, MA:
MIT Bradford.
McTaggart, R. (1998). Is validity really an issue for participatory action research? Studies
in Cultures, Organisations and Societies, 4, 211–236.
Oakley, P., & Marsden, D. (1985). Approaches to participation in rural development.
Geneva: ILO.
Pearson, G. (1993). Foreword. Talking a good fight: Authenticity and distance in the ethno-
grapher’s craft. In D. Hobbs & T. May (Eds.), Interpreting the field: Accounts of ethnography
(pp. vii-xx). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rahnema, M. (1990). Participatory action research: The “last temptation of saint development.”
Alternatives, 15, 199–226.
Reason, P. (1994). Three approaches to participative inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln
(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.) (pp. 324–339). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2001). Introduction: Inquiry and participation in search of a world
worthy of human aspiration. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action
research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 1–14). London: Sage.
Reason, P., & Rowan, J. (1981). Issues of validity in new paradigm research. In P. Reason &
J. Rowan (Eds.), Human Inquiry (pp. 239–250). Chichester: John Wiley.
Rosenberg, A. (1988). Philosophy of social science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schrijvers, J. (1991). Dialectics of a dialogical ideal: Studying down, studying sideways and
studying up. In L. Nencel & P. Pels (Eds.), Constructing knowledge: Authority and critique
in social science (pp. 162–179). London: Sage
Singer, M. (1993). Knowledge for use: Anthropology and community-centred substance abuse
research. Social Science and Medicine, 37, 15–26.
Strohm Kitchener, K. (1983). Cognition, metacognition and epistemic cognition: A three-level
model of cognitive processing. Human Development, 26, 222–232.
Terre Blanche, M., & Durrheim, K. (1999). Histories of the present: Social science research in
context. In M. Terre Blanche & K. Durrheim (Eds.), Research in practice: Applied methods
for the social sciences (pp. 1–16). Cape Town: UCT Press.
Theis, J., & Grady, H. M. (1991). Participatory rapid appraisal for community development:
A training manual based on experiences in the Middle East and North Africa. London:
Save the Children Federation and IIED.

distribution.
Van Vlaenderen, H., & Neves, D. (2004). Participatory action research and local knowledge in
community contexts. In D. Hook, N. J. Mkhize, P. Kiguwa, & A. Collins (Eds.), Critical
psychology (pp. 445–464). Cape Town: UCT Press.
Woodhouse, P. (1998). People as informants. Investigation as empowerment: Using participatory
methods. In A. Thomas, J. Chataway, & M. Wuyts (Eds.), Finding out fast: Investigative
skills for policy and development (pp. 127–146). London: Sage.
Mary van der Riet is a senior lecturer in the School of Psychology, University of KwaZulu-
Natal, South Africa. Her research interests include sociocultural approaches in psychology,
community psychology, methodology, and intervention research. Her involvement in research
processes in rural, underdeveloped, areas in South Africa has led to her interest in participatory
research.

distribution.

Participatory Research and The Philosophy of Social Science - Beyond The Moral Imperative

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Participatory Research and The Philosophy of Social Science - Beyond The Moral Imperative

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Qualitative Inquiry

Participatory Research and the Philosophy of Social Science:

The online version of this article can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://qix.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Citations (this article cites 10 articles hosted on the

Downloaded from http://qix.sagepub.com by Roli Talampas on May 31, 2008

Participatory research has a predominantly transformative and social justice

Keywords: participatory research; philosophy; human action; visualization

Philosophy of Social Science and

The practice of participatory research (PR) is usually restricted to social

Downloaded from http://qix.sagepub.com by Roli Talampas on May 31, 2008

Downloaded from http://qix.sagepub.com by Roli Talampas on May 31, 2008

on their consciousness and use language to express their understanding of

medium of motivated human action . . . [they] are reproduced and trans-

Human action is thus essentially social, and presupposes interrelationships

The repertoire of actions you perform is . . . the collective possession of the

Downloaded from http://qix.sagepub.com by Roli Talampas on May 31, 2008

sociality. Understanding human action requires identifying the rules under

Downloaded from http://qix.sagepub.com by Roli Talampas on May 31, 2008

science research through accessing the intentionality and sociality of human

Participatory research (PR) is an umbrella term for different methods of

In this article, reference is made particularly to the techniques of

Downloaded from http://qix.sagepub.com by Roli Talampas on May 31, 2008

Dialogism and Dialectics in the

Participation is a key concept in participatory research and the many

Downloaded from http://qix.sagepub.com by Roli Talampas on May 31, 2008

Downloaded from http://qix.sagepub.com by Roli Talampas on May 31, 2008

In addition to this, communities are not homogenous and contain their

Local Knowledge and Beyond

Researchers often study phenomena by treating social interactional,

Downloaded from http://qix.sagepub.com by Roli Talampas on May 31, 2008

Local knowledge can be defined as the integrative framework used by

Downloaded from http://qix.sagepub.com by Roli Talampas on May 31, 2008

allowing for the extension, enhancement, and analysis of this knowledge.

Visualisation and Distantiation

Constructing visual representations involves making explicit, and articu-

Downloaded from http://qix.sagepub.com by Roli Talampas on May 31, 2008

The visual mode of engagement also potentially facilitates the participa-

By creating images of their history, the structure of their community, the

Downloaded from http://qix.sagepub.com by Roli Talampas on May 31, 2008

through the epistemological function of distanciation to see their reality in

Strohm Kitchener’s (1983) elucidation of levels of cognitive functioning

Downloaded from http://qix.sagepub.com by Roli Talampas on May 31, 2008

Downloaded from http://qix.sagepub.com by Roli Talampas on May 31, 2008

Validity in Participatory Research

Concerns with validity in any research process are epistemic concerns.

Downloaded from http://qix.sagepub.com by Roli Talampas on May 31, 2008

data can be seen as an issue of correspondence, the positivist concern with

Downloaded from http://qix.sagepub.com by Roli Talampas on May 31, 2008

conceptual–theoretical integrity. The soundness of the research resides in

Downloaded from http://qix.sagepub.com by Roli Talampas on May 31, 2008

strengthen the validity of the research. As outlined above, the process of

Downloaded from http://qix.sagepub.com by Roli Talampas on May 31, 2008

Downloaded from http://qix.sagepub.com by Roli Talampas on May 31, 2008

Downloaded from http://qix.sagepub.com by Roli Talampas on May 31, 2008

Downloaded from http://qix.sagepub.com by Roli Talampas on May 31, 2008

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen