Darmowy fragment publikacji:
Mariusz Granosik, Anita Gulczyńska, Małgorzata Kostrzyńska – University of Łódź
Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Social Pedagogy
Pomorska 46/48 St., 91-408 Łódź
Brian Littlechild – University of Hertfordshire, United Kingdom
© Copyright by Authors, Łódź–Kraków 2019
© Copyright for this edition by University of Łódź, Łódź–Kraków 2019
© Copyright for this edition by Jagiellonian University Press, Łódź–Kraków 2019
All rights reserved
No part of this book may be reprinted or utilised in any form or by any electronic,
mechanical or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photo-
copying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without
permission in writing from the publishers
Published by Łódź University Press Jagiellonian University Press
First edition, Łódź–Kraków 2019
ISBN 978-83-8142-348-9 – paperback Łódź University Press
ISBN 978-83-233-4599-2 – paperback Jagiellonian University Press
ISBN 978-83-8142-349-6 – electronic version Łódź University Press
ISBN 978-83-233-9951-3 – electronic version Jagiellonian University Press
Łódź University Press
8 Lindleya St., 90-131 Łódź
phone +48 (42) 665 58 63
Distribution outside Poland
Jagiellonian University Press
9/2 Michałowskiego St., 31-126 Kraków
phone +48 (12) 631 01 97, +48 (12) 663 23 81, fax +48 (12) 663 23 83
cell phone: +48 506 006 674, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Bank: PEKAO SA, IBAN PL 80 1240 4722 1111 0000 4856 3325
Mariusz Granosik, Anita Gulczyńska, Małgorzata Kostrzyńska, Brian Littlechild
– Here We Are: Our Journey to Participatory Research .........................................
Part I. Changing Communities through Participatory Practices .......................
Geof Dix, Sue Hollinrake, Sara Spencer – Co-producing Community with
Disabled Researchers and Citizens: the Challenges and Potential for Successful
Witold Mandrysz – Participatory Budgeting: Action Research Procedures in
Community Work .....................................................................................................
Chiara Panciroli, Francesca Corradini – Doing Participatory Research with
Families that Live in Poverty: the Process, Potential and Limitations .....................
Małgorzata Kostrzyńska, Monika Wojtczak – Participatory Response to Needs
of People Who Experience Homelessness: the Example of “Homeful – Homeless”
Box Project ..............................................................................................................
Eliška Černá, Lenka Polánková – Empowering Community: Theatre of the
Oppressed as a Tool of Homeless People’s Emancipation .....................................
Hilaria Soundari – Contemporary Scenario of Participatory Social Work Research
in Rural India ...........................................................................................................
Part II. Issues in Intercultural Participatory Social Work and Research ..........
Rita Bertozzi – Empowering Migrant Youth through Participatory Approach in
Social Work .............................................................................................................
Katarzyna Czarnota – Participatory Research with Romanian Roma Immigrants
Living in Polish Settlements: Methodology, Results and Barriers ............................
Davide Galesi – Ethnopsychological Consultation: a Tool for Strengthening of
Partnerships in Multicultural Social Work ................................................................
Marek Mikulec, Kateřina Glumbíková – Difficulties Faced by Researchers in
Participatory Practices: An Example of Research with Roma People .....................
Part III. Callenges Encountered in Participatory Research and Practice .........
Anna Jarkiewicz – Theory and Practice of Participatory Approach in Schools:
an Example of the Future Youth Schools – a Forums Project .................................
Alice Gojová, Kateřina Glumbíková – Dilemmas in Participatory Approaches to
Social Work .............................................................................................................
Izabela Kamińska-Jatczak – Lines of Activity Addressed to Families: Limiting the
Participatory Approach as with Casework Practitioners ..........................................
Linda Kemp, Di Bailey, Adam Barnard – Doing Participatory Action Research:
Reflections on Criticality and Social Justice from the Researchers’ Perspective ....
Mariusz Granosik, Anita Gulczyńska, Anna Jarkiewicz, Małgorzata Kostrzyńska
– Challenges Faced by Social Pedagogy Academics in the Course of Participatory
Action Research with Homeless People and Street Workers as Co-Researchers .....
Part IV. Participatory Issues in the Academic Education ..................................
Doris Böhler – Learning Together: Social Work Students and Service Users
Reflect Critically on Their Diverse Life Experiences ................................................
Creating Links Group – “Creating Links”: The Involvement of Service Users and
Carers in the Provision of Social Work Education in England .................................
Magdalena Sasin – The Project of Artistic Workshops with Students: Achievements
and Challenges of Participatory Practice in University Curriculum..........................
Part V. Participatory Social Work – Current Debates .........................................
Peter Beresford – Radicalising Social Work: Involving Everyone; Including All
Our Knowledges ......................................................................................................
Brian Littlechild – The Potential and Reality for the Inclusion of Service Users in
Social Work .............................................................................................................
Marek Czyżewski – Pitfalls of Participatory Approaches........................................
List of Contributors ...............................................................................................
MARIUSZ GRANOSIK*, ANITA GULCZYŃSKA*,
MAŁGORZATA KOSTRZYŃSKA*, BRIAN LITTLECHILD**
Here We Are:
Our Journey to Participatory Research
The book you are holding has taken a long time to compile, and is
a result of a complex process that has led our thinking about participatory
research in social work to this very place. This process explains to a large
extent the structure of the publication and its diversity, even though we
did not plan for it and it came as a surprise, which is why it is now worth
devoting some introductory pages to it.
We need to start by stating that the history of empowerment of research
participants, usually service users, was in each of our cases different, but
the individual differences mostly arise from the location in two empirical
cultural traditions: Polish and British.
The sources of Polish inspirations for a monograph devoted to
participatory research can be traced back to the activity of the European
Resource Centre for Social Work Research (CERTS). More than ten
years ago, we initiated as part of it, a discussion about more democratic
forms of research in the field of social work, held in a gradually growing
circle of representatives of academic networks from France, Belgium, the
Netherlands, Lithuania, and Poland.1 The initial aim of CERTS and its
* University of Łódź, Poland.
** University of Hertfordshire, United Kingdom.
1 The relationship between the Department of Social Pedagogy represented by the
Polish editors of this volume and the Centre dates back to 2000, when seminars set up by
the CERTS started. Its focus has been the development of epistemological and methodological
seminars was to get to know different perspectives on analysis of broadly
defined social work in member entities; however, at a certain stage of our
search we reached fiercely disputed yet differently understood positions in
each of the member states participatory methodologies.
Today, we can even say that they have allowed us to create an
alternative methodological paradigm, but the beginnings did not go as far as
this. Our original idea was to systematise social work research, taking into
consideration the degree of “theoretical” and “physical” participation. The
first aspect describes to what extent the researcher (academic) assumes
the perspective of the research participant as an epistemological starting
point for empirical conclusions. We extended this continuum from the
scientist’s normative perspective (negligible theoretical participation) to
the understanding interpretive paradigm based on social constructivism. The
other dimension of participation concerned the extent to which the researcher
is physically present in the research participant’s environment. Thus the
defined continuum spreads from quantitative survey research (without any
meeting between a researcher and a research “subject”) to long-lasting
participant observation. It seemed to us that such dimensions would form
a matrix within which nearly all social research methods could be located,
according to the level of service users’ participation in them. At that time,
it was difficult for us to imagine a possibility of co-creation of research by
academics and service users, which is why we reduced the participation of
the latter to the representation of their perspective (theoretical participation).
In consequence, knowledge, even though it was not co-created, was
produced with respect to the service users’ perspective.2
The next stage of development involved adding the third dimension,
meaning discursive participation. The adoption of the service users’
perspective not only enriched the theoretical conclusions of particular studies,
but also changed the scientific discourse in this area, which potentially
might affect public debates over the issue indicated. In other words, we
acknowledged the political representation of the users’ point of view in
academic and public discourses, and the methodological consequences
this entailed (Granosik, 2014).
Despite some interesting examples of studies of our foreign colleagues,
at this stage of collaboration we were unable to treat the participation of
aspects of social work. The seminars, always conducted in the two official languages of
the Centre (French and English), were designed with the intention to create a platform for
experience exchange as well as to consider the idea of building a possible partnership
for future joint research projects. Over a long time of dynamic development of the activity
of this Centre, its president was Ewa Marynowicz-Hetka, Chair of the Department of Social
Pedagogy at the University of Łódź.
2 This stage of work on participatory social work research was documented and
discussed in a collective monograph (Marynowicz-Hetka, Gulczyńska, Granosik, 2011).
Mariusz Granosik, Anita Gulczyńska, Małgorzata Kostrzyńska, Brian Littlechild9
users as the fundamental methodological assumption. The real turning point
in our thinking about participatory research came when the Polish editors
of this volume encountered more radical forms of user participation, which
are indicated by the process of empirically based co-creation of knowledge.
What we mean by that are numerous experiences and publications by such
authors as Peter Beresford (Brunel University, United Kingdom)3, Katherine
Tyson McCrea (Loyola University Chicago School of Social Work, USA)
and Lewis Williams (University of Southern Queensland, Australia), all
showing different variants of participatory research and practice including
considerable participation or even control on the part of service users.
This made us realise how limited the idea of participation had been
in our earlier conceptualisations. Moreover, thanks to these works, we
discovered analogies between action research empowering service users
and the Polish tradition of social pedagogy based on the revival of human
strengths. Even though the original idea of Helena Radlińska – the creator
of social pedagogy in Poland and the first Head of the Department of Social
Pedagogy at the University of Łódź4 – concerned action rather than research,
the direction of changes seemed obvious: to include the interested parties
in the activity that concerned them. In H. Radlińska’s concept of social work,
the notion of “social” “describes the goal of the action (for the community)
and the methods used to undertake this action (through the strengths of
the community)” (Lepalczyk, Marynowicz, 2001: 197). Social work was
understood as “a conscious activity to reconstruct collective life based on
eliciting, multiplying and improving human strengths, and organizing them
to work for the good of people” (Radlińska, 1961: 305). Her social work’s
goal was “to analyse the conditions of a life to emancipate and elicit the
creative potential of individuals, and not solely to adapt them to society”
(Lepalczyk, Marynowicz, 2001: 197). The aim defined in such a way was to be
achieved by the creation of a community: “Its structure is multi-dimensional,
as it concurrently describes the goal of acting (for the community) and the
manner of achieving the goal (using the strengths of the community)”. In
other words, in enhancing social change one cannot limit oneself to the
social worker’s activities “for the community” but also “by the community”
(Lepalczyk, Marynowicz-Hetka, 2001), which clearly validates the idea of
service users’ participation.
The effect of this symbolic intercultural encounter was another joint
monograph on participatory research in social work published in 2014
(Gulczyńska, Granosik, 2014). It was created thanks to, among other
things, the involvement of the already listed researchers as well as our
3 The Author of the chapter: Radicalising Social Work: Involving Everyone; Including All
It is Poland’s first Department of Social Pedagogy which she organized between 1945
Our Knowledges; in this volume.
Here We Are: Our Journey to Participatory Research10
Lithuanian (Social Work Department at Vytautas Magnus University,
Kaunas, Lithuania)5 and our Polish colleagues (Department of Social
Pedagogy, University of Łódź, Poland).6 This time it was a publication
in Polish, so it provided, to a greater extent, academics, practitioners,
and potentially also service users with diverse international experiences
concerning participatory social work action research, within this locality.
The idealised enthusiasm characterising our perception of participatory
approaches at the time was more and more frequently accompanied by
some critical thought, mostly inspired by the post-Foucauldian philosophy.
One could not emphasise enough the inspiring role of Marek Czyżewski
(Institute of Sociology, University of Łódź, Poland)7 and his team, with
whom, over nearly two years, we examined the issues of power in the
research and activity of social pedagogues, and particularly to what extent
they fit within the process of creating neoliberal subjectification through the
educationalisation of social reality.8
In consequence, these meetings gave rise to our discussions of the
contested, ambivalent and tension-laden nature of participatory research
and the ways in which participatory methodologies may become tools for
more subtle and hidden forms of governance. The political significance of
participatory research that manifests itself in this perspective does not require
any lengthy introductions. We even get the impression that participatory
research is one of the most significant forms of social life democratisation
in a knowledge society. It is also hard to ignore the shift in the function of
universities resulting from such research: from knowledge creation to the
creation of mechanisms for knowledge (society) democratisation.
The road leading to participatory research was in some ways different
from, and also in some ways similar to, the perspective of Prof. Brian
Littlechild, the other editor of this collection. In England and the wider UK, the
very first ideas of taking into account service users’ and carers’ views,
the precursor to greater service user participation, were presented in the
5 Jonas Ruškus, Gedas Malinauskas, Natalija Mažeikienė from Social Work Department
in this volume.
at Vytautas Magnus University, Kaunas, Lithuania.
6 Three of them have also contributed to this publication: Małgorzata Kostrzyńska as
the author and co-author of two parts: Challenges Faced by Social Pedagogy Academics in
the Course of Participatory Action Research with Homeless People and Street Workers as
Co-Researchers and Participatory Response to Needs of People Who Experience
Homelessness: the Example of “Homeful – Homeless” Box Project; Anna Jarkiewicz the
author of the chapter: Theory and Practice of Participatory Approach in Schools: an Example
of the Future Youth Schools – a Forums Project, and Izabela Kamińska-Jatczak the author
of the chapter: Lines of Activity Addressed to Families: Limiting the Participatory Approach as
with Casework Practitioners.
7 Marek Czyżewski is the author of the contribution Pitfalls of Participatory Approaches,
8 Some of results of this cooperation were published in the special issue of Societas/
Mariusz Granosik, Anita Gulczyńska, Małgorzata Kostrzyńska, Brian Littlechild11
research of Mayer and Timms in 1970 (Mayer, Timms, 1970). This book,
and its approach/findings, had a major effect on Brian and his understanding
of and motivations in my work – as it did on many other academics and
practitioners. It laid the ground for much of what has happened since in
social work in the UK.
The development of coproduction of services and individual care plans
for service users and carers has been hailed as an important way forward in
relation to diminishing the power imbalance between professionals and how
they view how they should deliver services, and the views and experiences
of service users and carers themselves. There is growing international
recognition that areas of professional jurisdiction should be opened up to
greater public scrutiny, debate and power-sharing (Plotnikov, 2016). This
has been an important area of development in delivery of services in both
health provision and in social work in England, particularly in work with
people with learning disabilities, people with mental health problems, and
children looked after in the public care. However, there have been criticisms
from some service users that coproduction is just a way of getting service
users and carers to take responsibilities for their own disadvantages and
problems, and therefore attention needs to be paid to make it a reality
that this is not the case in relation to challenging oppressive stereotypes,
policies and interventions. In addition, some argue that this is based on
the idea of individual rights, and therefore service users and carers being
involved at this level, but not the highest policy and legislative levels in
relation to societal views and actions. One of the main protagonists of
service user power, Peter Beresford, is both an advocate for coproduction,
but also a critic of some of the ways this is actioned in practice- or not- and
how “lip service” can be paid to it but not really happening in everyday
reality (Beresford, 2013, 2015). The importance of, and some examples of,
recent developments, and reflections on these developments, in the area
of coproduction and collaboration between professionals and service users
and carers are set out in the chapters in this book written by Brian, and the
Creating Links group, from the University of Hertfordshire.
Brian’s personal interest in collaborative coproduction work in the
areas of projects, teaching, policy-making and research came from his
continuing dissatisfaction in ideas and paradigms in these areas that
placed professionals and academics at the apex of a pyramid structure
of how knowledge is seen to be constructed, operationalised, and given
credence. The paradigm of allowing professionals and academics higher
value in terms of their learning, views of the world, and ways of engaging
with service users and carers which did not fully take account of the power
imbalances within these relationships – did not seem to fit with the ideas
of social work values in relation to human rights, participation, and social
justice in relation to how problematic issues are framed, and responded to
Here We Are: Our Journey to Participatory Research12
in a way which fully takes account of these issues, and allow service users
and carers the greatest amount of possibility to be empowered as equal
partners in the construction and dissemination of knowledge. Consequently,
over the last 15 years, Brian has been instrumental in developing the
Creating Links group in its initial phases at the University of Hertfordshire,
and has been involved in a number of research projects, taught modules and
sessions which are co-produced. This interest has been fortunately one
which has been shared with colleagues in the European Research Institute
So, luckily for the further development of our thinking about
participatory research, our paths crossed in the ERIS association with its
seat at the Ostrava University (Czech Republic), which aims to intensify
research activities in the field of social work based on partnership
agreements9 as part of cooperation between partner universities across
Europe. Within this network, not only did we find space for discussions
and planning participatory research projects, but also new contributors
to this publication, who considerably broadened the socio-cultural
context of the experiences presented. These contributors are Doris
Böhler (University of Applied Sciences Vorarlberg, Austria)10; Davide
Galesi (University of Trento, Italy)11; Alice Gojová and Kateřina Glumbíková
(Ostrava University, Czech Republic)12 and Hilaria Soundari (Gandhigram
Rural Institute, Deemed University, India).13
Recognising the significance of tradition and the special interest
in participatory practices at the Department of Social Pedagogy of the
University of Łódź, ERIS gave us a mandate to organise the Participatory
Social Work: Approaches, Barriers, Critique conference, which was held
in Łódź on September 29–30, 2016. This was the event where we met
9 The mission of the Institute is to carry out high-quality funded research projects
involving the Institute’s European partners, and to produce European-funded teaching and
learning materials for social work and social care programmes. For this purpose, it brings
together researchers in the field of social work from more than ten countries, who work on
joint research projects and traditionally meet during the ERIS annual conference organised
by different member academic centres and in the Spring School, which gathers PhD and
MA students (from all over the world) for a few days each April at the Ostrava University in
order to present, support and discuss research projects conducted by students and young
researchers. The president of ERIS is Oldřich Chytil from the Ostrava University. For more
look at: https://eris.osu.eu/.
10 The author of the contribution: Learning Together: Social Work Students and Service
Users Reflect Critically on Their Diverse Life Experiences, in this volume.
11 The author of the contribution: Ethnopsychological Consultation: a Tool for
Strenghtenning of Partnerships in Multicultural Social Work, in this volume.
12 Authors of the contribution: Dilemmas in Participatory Approaches to Social Work, in
13 The author of the contribution: Contemporary Scenario of Participatory Social Work
Research in Rural India, in this volume.
Mariusz Granosik, Anita Gulczyńska, Małgorzata Kostrzyńska, Brian Littlechild13
and encouraged to write a chapter the following persons: Geof Dix, Di
Bailey, Adam Barnard and Linda Kemp (Nottingham Trent University, United
Kingdom)14, Sue Hollinrake, Sara Spencer (University of Suffolk,
United Kingdom)15, Katarzyna Czarnota (University of Adam Mickiewicz,
Poland)16, Witold Mandrysz (University of Silesia, Poland)17, and Magdalena
Sasin (University of Łódź, Poland).18
A wider spectrum of participatory practices was covered thanks to
inviting some special guests. Contributions of Rita Bertozzi (University
of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy)19; Chiara Panciroli and Francesca
Corradini (Catholic University of Milan, Department of Sociology, Italy)20;
Eliška Černá and Lenka Polánková (Ostrava University, Czech Republic)21;
Marek Mikulec and Kateřina Glumbíková (Ostrava University, Czech
Republic)22 and Participants of the Creating Links Group (University of
Hertfordshire, United Kingdom)23 added new perspectives on participatory
solutions to social issues and questions covered in our publication by other
Presenting the story of how we reached the present stage, we are by no
means suggesting that this is a universal evolutionary path of development.
On the contrary, we believe that participation can be understood very
differently, depending on the cultural context and institutional conditions,
and so it can develop in various ways. Moreover, it would be really non-
participatory to impose only one vision and development path on this
The experience that we have jointly created teaches that publishing
texts on participatory research is – from the academic point of view – very
14 Authors of the chapter: Doing Participatory Action Research: Reflections on Criticality
and Social Justice from the Researchers’ Perspective, in this volume.
15 Authors of the chapter: Co-producing Community with Disabled Researchers and
citizens -the challenges and potential for successful collaboration, in this volume.
16 The author of the contribution: Participatory Research with Romanian Roma
Immigrants Living in Polish Settlements: Methodology, Results and Barriers, in this volume.
17 The author of the contribution: Participatory Budgeting: Action Research Procedures
in Community Work, in this volume.
18 The author of the contribution: The Project of Artistic Workshops with Students:
Achievements and Challenges of Participatory Practice in University Curriculum, in this
19 The author of the contribution: Empowering Migrant Youth through Participatory
Approach in Social Work, in this volume.
20 Authors of the contribution: Doing Participatory Research with Families that Live in
Poverty: the Process, Potential and Limitations, in this volume.
21 Authors of the contribution: Empowering Community: Theatre of the Oppressed as
a Tool of Homeless People’s Emancipation, in this volume.
22 Authors of the contribution: Difficulties Faced by Researchers in Participatory
Practices: An Example of Research with Roma People, in this volume.
23 Authors of the contribution: “Creating Links”: The Involvement of Service Users and
Carers in the Provision of Social Work Education in England, in this volume.
Here We Are: Our Journey to Participatory Research14
difficult. One has to accept diverse ways of presenting co-created knowledge,
styles, and even text structures. We have decided that strict adherence to
academic standards would be an effective barrier to knowledge co-creation,
with some of its forms having no chance of getting published.
We hope that this publication represents different perspectives on
participation in very diverse fields of social work. We wanted this publication
to be positive regardless of how critical of themselves can representatives
of different approaches be. Positive, however, does not mean naively
idealising, which is why it also contains chapters that describe the risks and
weaknesses of participatory research.
Have a nice read
Beresford P. (2013), Service-user issues: Rights, needs and expectations, [in:] B. Littlechild,
R. Smith (eds.), A Handbook for Interprofessional Practice in the Human Services:
Learning to work together, pp. 112–135, Pearson Education, Harlow.
Beresford P. (2015), User Involvement: Looking to the future, Research in Practice for Adults,
Available at: https://www.ripfa.org.uk/blog/user-involvement-looking-to-the-future/ (ac-
Granosik M. (2014), Discursive participation of social work research – a critical perspective,
[in:] D. Paturel (ed.), Recherche en travail social: les approaches participatives, Champ
Marynowicz E., Granosik M., Gulczyńska A. (2010) (eds.), Participative Approaches in Social
Work Research/Les approches participatives dans les recherches en travail social, Wyd.
Gulczyńska A., Granosik M. (2014) (eds.), Empowerment w pracy socjalnej: praktyka i badania
partycypacyjne, Nowa Praca Socjalna Series, Centrum Rozwoju Zasobów Ludzkich,
Lepalczyk I., Marynowicz-Hetka E. (2001), Helena, Radlińska (1879–1954) – Poland. A Portrait
of the Person and Researcher, Teacher and Social Activist, “European Journal of Social
Work”, vol. 4, no. 2.
Mayer J.E., Timms N. (1970), The client speaks: Working class impressions of casework,
Atherton, Oxford, England.
Plotnikov M. (2016), Letting go of managing? Struggles over managerial roles in collaborative
governance, “Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies”, vol. 6, pp. 109–128.
Radlińska H. (1961), Pedagogika społeczna, Ossolineum, Wrocław, Warszawa, Kraków.
“Societas/Communitas” (2013), vol. 2, no. 16, M. Czyżewski, E. Marynowicz-Hetka, G. Woro-
niecka (eds.), special issue “Educationalisation of Social Life”.
Mariusz Granosik, Anita Gulczyńska, Małgorzata Kostrzyńska, Brian Littlechild15
CHANGING COMMUNITIES THROUGH
Here We Are: Our Journey to Participatory Research17
GEOF DIX*, SUE HOLLINRAKE**, SARA SPENCER***
Co-producing Community with Disabled
Researchers and Citizens: the Challenges
and Potential for Successful Collaboration
The chapter discusses the development of a collaborative research project, involving a service
user-led Coalition of Disabled People, a local authority and a local university. The collaboration
was set up to inform the Coalition’s strategic planning and to raise awareness of disability
issues locally, mapping assets and resources for/of disabled people, as well as needs and
resource gaps. The initial pilot of this “listening project” is critiqued here. It adopted an inclusive
approach to the differing roles and competences within the project co-ordinating team, whose
members worked together to recruit and train disabled researchers and engage a small
sample of participants. The project drew on ideas from emancipatory disability research to
inform its approach. The discussion evaluates the benefits and challenges of a collaborative
approach to data collection, analysis and dissemination of findings, to achieve meaningful
change locally, critically reflecting on praxis and the project’s effectiveness.
This contribution will critique the development of a collaborative
research project, involving a service user led Coalition of Disabled
People, a local authority and local university within the eastern region
* Suffolk Coalition of Disabled People, United Kingdom.
** University of Suffolk, United Kingdom.
*** Customer Insight and Intelligence Manager, Adult and Community Services, Suffolk
County Council, United Kingdom.
Co-producing Community with Disabled Researchers and...18
of England. The project was set up to inform the Coalition’s strategic
planning and to raise awareness of disability issues locally, mapping
assets and resources for/of disabled people as well as needs and gaps.
The following discussion will look critically at why and how the research
developed as a collaborative project between the Coalition, the university
and the local authority. It will critically explore some of the issues that
arose as the project progressed and in particular will examine the tensions
and benefits of recruiting and training local disabled people to conduct
the research interviews, to be part of the process of analysing the data,
incorporating their contribution as insider researchers and as “experts by
experience”. Findings from the research are considered along with the
importance of acting on these to achieve the desired impact of promoting
Historical context of disability research
Historically, disability research has arisen out of a critique of
mainstream research that was seen to serve the (mainly able-bodied)
researchers more than the disabled people being researched (Oliver,
1992). Mike Oliver offered this critique within a wider discussion and
theorising about the position of disabled people in Western society, in which
a number of disabled scholars were debating the relative significance of
impairment and disability, with some, for example disabled feminists such
as Jenny Morris (1992), placing an emphasis on the personal experience
of impairment, whilst others were exploring the sociological aspects of
disablism (e.g. Oliver, 1996; Barnes, 1998). The interconnectedness
of impairment and disability, and the effects of the one on the other within
social, cultural and material contexts were also theorised (Thomas, 1999).
Goodley (2017) provides a useful summary of the different strands within
the development of disability theory. Disability research, like feminist
research that draws on Feminist Standpoint Theory (Stanley, Wise, 1983;
Ramazanoglu, 2002) has a particular “world view” which is that the central
focus is on disabled people and their concerns, that research should be
done with and not to them, and that the outcomes should be beneficial
for disabled people. The aim is to capture their lived experience, listen
to their stories and influence change, through a “lens” that sees the
social construction of disabled people as oppressive. Again, there is
a parallel with feminist research methodology, with its emphasis often on
the subjective, using a qualitative approach that is flexible, to embrace the
detail of peoples lives.
Geof Dix, Sue Hollinrake, Sara Spencer
Pobierz darmowy fragment