Participatory research in sport-for-development:
Complexities, experiences and (missed) opportunities
Ramón Spaaij
a,b,*, Nico Schulenkorf
c, Ruth Jeanes
d, Sarah Oxford
aaSportinSocietyResearchProgram,InstituteofSport,ExerciseandActiveLiving,VictoriaUniversity,Australia
bDepartmentofSociology,UniversityofAmsterdam,TheNetherlands
cUTSBusinessSchool,SportManagement,UniversityofTechnologySydney,Australia
dFacultyofEducation,MonashUniversity,Australia
ARTICLE INFO
Articlehistory:
Received7December2016 Receivedinrevisedform4May2017 Accepted5May2017
Availableonline24May2017
Keywords:
Activistresearch Participatoryresearch Power
Reflexivity
Sport-for-development
ABSTRACT
Inthispaper,theauthorsexaminehowparticipatoryresearchcanbeconceptualizedand fostered in sport-for-development (SfD). The authors offer a conceptualization of participatory research that centers on the interplay between three dimensions:
participation,power,andreflexivity.DrawingonvariegatedexperienceswithSfDresearch acrossdifferentgeographicallocations,theauthorsscrutinizetheconceptualandempirical linkagesbetweenthesedimensions,andhowtheselinkagesareinfluencedbystructuresof authority.FindingssuggestthatmostSfDresearchfallsshortwithregardtothecritical challengeofembracinganddeliveringhighdegreesofparticipation,powershifting,and reflexivity.Morespecifically,SfDresearcherstypicallyfailtorelinquishpowerandcontrol overtheresearchprocess.TheSfDresearchcommunitywouldlikelybenefitfromgreater inclusivityandcollaborationwhendesigningcreativewaystoimprovethisstateofaffairs.
Theauthorsconcludebyreflectingontheimplicationsandbysuggestingwaystopromote participatoryandactivistresearchinSfDcontexts.
©2017TheAuthor(s).PublishedbyElsevierLtdonbehalfofSportManagementAssociation ofAustraliaandNewZealand.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBY-NC-NDlicense (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
1.Introduction
Overthepasttwodecades,thesport-for-development(SfD)sectorhasbeenoneofthefastestgrowingaspectsofthe globalization ofsport(Giulianotti,2016)and amajordriver ofthebeliefthat sporthasthepotentialtocontributeto community development and positive social change (Kidd, 2008; Levermore, 2008; Schulenkorf, 2012).In short, SfD representstheintentional“useofsporttoexertapositiveinfluenceonpublichealth,thesocializationofchildren,youthsand adults, the social inclusion of the disadvantaged,the economic development of regions and states, and on fostering interculturalexchangeandconflictresolution”(Lyras&WeltyPeachey,2011).Thisdefinitionhighlightsthat,fromaSfD perspective,sportis aconduittoachievingwider developmentoutcomesformarginalizedorotherwisedisadvantaged communitiesandtheirindividualmembers,ratherthananendinitself.Assuch,SfDhasatitscenteranambitiontoalter existingsystemsandstructuresofinequity.
Aroundtheworld,beliefinthepotentiallybeneficialoutcomesresultingfromSfDhasledtothecreationofhundredsof development initiatives supported and/or implemented by non-governmental organizations (NGOs), government
*Correspondingauthorat:CollegeofSportandExerciseScience,VictoriaUniversity,P.O.Box14428,Melbourne,Victoria8001,Australia.
E-mailaddress:[email protected](R.Spaaij).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2017.05.003
1441-3523/©2017TheAuthor(s).PublishedbyElsevierLtdonbehalfofSportManagementAssociationofAustraliaandNewZealand.Thisisanopenaccess articleundertheCCBY-NC-NDlicense(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect
Sport Management Review
j o u r n al h o m e p a g e: w w w . el s e v i e r . c o m / l o c at e / s m r
departments,sportassociations,aidagencies,andcorporateactors.1Thepromises,achievements,andpitfallsoftheSfD sectorhavebeensubjecttovigorousacademicdebate(e.g.,inbooksincluding:Schulenkorf&Adair,2014;Young&Okada, 2014).Ontheonehand,scholarsandevaluatorsalikeseektotheorize,identify,test,andmeasuretheimpactsandoutcomes ofSfDinitiatives,aswellastheconditionsandmechanismsthatfacilitateorproducedevelopmentacrossawiderangeof geographicalandprogramcontexts(Coalter,2013;Coalter&Taylor,2010;Cronin,2011;VanEekeren,terHorst,Fictorie, 2013).Ontheotherhand,criticalresearchproblematizescommonly-heldassumptions,discourses,andpracticesinSfD (Darnell,2012;Darnell&Hayhurst,2011;Donnelly,Atkinson,Boyle,&Szto,2011;Spaaij&Jeanes,2013).
MuchofthisdebatehascenteredonthedesignanddeliveryofSfDprogramsandthewiderpolitical,social,cultural,and economiccontextswithinwhichtheyoperate.Farlessattentionhasbeenpaidtothecriticalroleofresearchandevaluation intheseprocesses,despitethefactthat,asKay(2009,2012)notes,researchandevaluationarecentrallyimplicatedinthe power/knowledgenexusinSfD.Specifically,Kay(2009)callsfor“reflexiveformsofresearch[that]provideamechanismfor theexpressionoflocalunderstandingsandknowledgethatarecrucialtotheassessmentofthe‘socialimpact’ofsportin developmentcontexts”(p.1190).Whilesomeoftheseissueshavelongbeenconsideredinotherareasofdevelopmentand healthresearch(e.g.,Cornwall&Jewkes, 1995),todatetheydonotfullyinformresearchandevaluationinthefieldofSfD.For example,arecentreviewofSfDliteratureshowsthatalthoughthemajorityofSfDprogramsarecarriedoutinAfrica,Asia, andLatinAmerica,90percentofSfDauthorsarebasedinNorthAmerica,Europe,andAustralia(Schulenkorf,Sherry,&Rowe, 2016).Only eight percent of SfD studies have contributors from the countriesin which the programs are delivered (Schulenkorfetal.,2016).ItappearsthatSfDresearchhasthusfarfailedtofullyengagewiththewealthanddiversityoflocal knowledge,experience,andexpertise.TheSfDresearchcommunity,weargue,needstobemoreinclusiveandcollaborative indesigningcreativewaystoimprovethisstateofaffairs.
Inthis paper,wearticulateconceptualandmethodologicalfoundationsforalteringthisstatusquo.Inparticular,we recognizethatSfDinitiativesareoftenunderpinnedbysocialjusticeobjectivesand mayseektoalterdominantpower relations.ChallengingthesepowerinequitieshasnotnecessarilybeenacentralfocuswithinSfDresearch,andimportantly, researchapproaches haveoften donelittle totransformexisting powerrelations. Thispaper addressesthe following question:howcanparticipatoryresearchinSfDbeconceptualizedandfostered?Throughbothconceptualandempirical analysisofthisquestion,weseektocontributetothepromotionofhigh-qualityreflexiveresearchonSfD.
Ouranalysisunfoldsasfollows.Inthenextsection,wedevelopanovelconceptualizationofparticipatorySfDresearch centered on the interplay between three key dimensions: participation, power, and reflexivity. We scrutinize these dimensionsbydrawingonourownvariegatedexperienceswithSfDresearchacrossdifferentgeographicallocationsandby relatingtheseexperiencestocurrentdebatesintheSfDliterature.WhileexistingscholarshipinSfDandcommunitysport contextshasaddressedthenotionsofparticipation,power,andreflexivityindividually,wemakeaconceptualcontribution tothisfieldofresearchbylinkingthethreeconcepts,byexploringhowtheyareinfluencedbystructuresandrelationshipsof authority,andbyactualizingtheirlinkagesthroughacritical analysisofresearchconductedbytheauthorsinfiveSfD projects.Finally,wedrawtogetherourmainfindingsandreflectonimplicationsforfutureresearch,policy,andpracticein theSfDsector.
2.ConceptualizingparticipatoryresearchinSfD
RecentreviewsofSfDresearchforegroundissuesofproblem definition, knowledgegeneration,and knowledgeuse withinbroaderdiscussionsonhowtoimproveresearchqualityandimpact(Cronin,2011;Darnell,Chawanskyetal.,2016;
Darnell,Whitleyetal.,2016).Theseissuesareatthecoreofparticipatoryresearchapproaches.Participatoryresearchis differentiatedfromconventionalresearchmethodologies“notinmethodsbutintheattitudesofresearchers,whichinturn determinehow,byandfor whomresearchis conceptualizedand conducted”(Cornwall&Jewkes,1995).Participatory researchisnotaunifiedapproach,and muchresearchthatclaimstobeparticipatoryfallsshortinpractice.Moreover, conventionalresearchitselfinvolvesvaryingdegreesofparticipation,suchasgainingaccesstothefield.Inthiscontext, Collison, Giulianotti, Howe and Darnell, (2016) stress “the importance of building strong relationships with skilled, experiencedandinformedlocalsinordertocollectaccurateandvaluabledatainunfamiliarlocations”(p.422).Yet,asshown inthefollowingspace,this kindofresearchapproachdoesnotnecessarilyqualifyasparticipatorybecauseittendsto privilegethe interests of researchersand maintain theirprimary controlover problem identification, datacollection, analysis,andinterpretation.
What,then,makesresearchparticipatory?Thealignmentofpowerandcontrolwithintheresearchprocessiscriticalin thisregard.Participatoryresearchfocusesattentiononthekeyissuesofpowerandcontrol,andthusinvolvesmorethan simplytakingpart.AsCornwallandJewkes(1995)note,themoststrikingdifferencebetweenparticipatoryandconventional methodologiesliesin “whodefinesresearchproblemsand whogenerates,analyzes, represents,ownsandactsonthe informationwhichissought”(p.1668).Theseissuesaffectallphasesoftheresearchprocess:fromthedevelopmentof researchquestionsthroughtothecommunicationoftheresultsforaction(Frisby,Reid,Millar,&Hoeber,2005).Participatory researchthuspositionslocalpeople,whomayberecipientsorstakeholdersofSfDprojects,asknowledgeableactors.Inthe
1 SeetheSportandDevelopmentplatform(http://www.sportanddev.org)oftheSwissAcademyforDevelopmentforadetailedoverviewofSfDinitiatives fromaroundtheworld.
wordsofDarnell,Whitley,andMassey(2016),theparticipantsandpresumedbeneficiariesofSfDinitiatives“arenotsubjects tobetestedwithafocusoncollectingpredeterminedoutcomesoroutputs.Rather,theyarepotentialagentsintheresearch processwhopossessskills,knowledge,andexperiencestoofferinsights”intoSfDanditseffects(p.572).
Someconceptualizations ofparticipatory researchextendthis focusonpowerrelationstoprioritizeeducationand politicalactioninordertochangestructuralinequalities.Participatoryresearchiscloselylinkedwith,andanintegralpartof, activistresearch,aformofpoliticallyandmorallyengagedinquiryaimedat“challenginginequalitybyempoweringthe powerless, exposing the inequities of the status quo, and promotingsocial changes that equalizethe distributionof resources”(Cancian,1993).Fromthisperspective,itis“notenoughtosimplyendeavortounderstandanygivenreality.There is a needtotransform it,toadvance thecause of social protest,action,andchange” (Denzin &Giardina, 2012; original emphasis).
Thisactiviststancerevealsthephilosophicalunderpinningsofparticipatoryresearchwhich,incontrasttothepositivist paradigminSfDresearch(Giulianotti,2011),considerallknowledgeaspartial,situated,constructedinpractice,andtiedto powerrelations.Crucially,activistresearchersvaluetheknowledgeofthosewithwhomtheywork,andrecognizethat peoplefromsociallyvulnerablebackgroundshavethecapacitytoanalyzetheirsocialcontextandtodevelopopportunities and strategies tochallenge and transform their circumstances(Spaaij &Jeanes, 2013).In order toachieve this goal, researchersmustalsobepreparedtoconfronttheirownstereotypesandassumptionsaboutthepeoplewithwhomtheyare working.AsLuguettiandOliver(2017)note,“activistresearchisnotonlyabouttryingtotransformsocialstructures‘out there’and‘thepeople’,itisaboutbeingopentotransformourselvesasresearchersandourrelationshipswithothers”(p.4).
DoingsocanhelptopreventthecommonsituationinSfDresearchwhereresearchersreceivemorefromtheresearch processthantheyprovide,evenwhentheyuseprogressiveresearchapproaches(Collisonetal.,2016).Participatoryresearch thusoffersanalternativeparadigmofknowledgeproduction,whichchallengesustoreconceptualize,andcontinuously reflectupon, thequestionsweaskandthemethodsweuse(Nygreen,2006).ParticipatoryandactivistresearchinSfD contextsconfrontsanumberofchallengesandtensionswhich,aswillbeshownbelow,areanimportantpartofthisprocess.
2.1.Athree-dimensionalmodelofparticipatoryresearchinSfD
InthecontextofSfD,weproposethatparticipatoryresearchcanbeconceptualizedalongthreeinter-relateddimensions:
thedegreeoflocalparticipation,thedegreeofpowershifting,andthedegreeofreflexivity.Fig.1visualizesthisthree- dimensionalconceptualizationofSfDresearch.In conjunction,thethreedimensionsbring totheforeepistemological, methodological,andpoliticalissuesinSfDresearch.Whilewedistinguishbetweenthesethreedimensionsforanalytical purposes,inthispaper,wedemonstratehowthethreedimensionsofparticipatoryresearchareinextricablyintertwinedand mutuallyconstitutive,andcanthereforenotbefullygraspedinisolation.Theyalsoneedtobeconsideredinrelationtothe influenceofstructuresofauthority(seeFig.1).
Thefirstdimension,thedegreeofparticipation,referstotheextenttowhichresearchparticipantsareactivelyinvolvedin allphasesoftheresearchprocess.Akeyargumentunderpinningparticipatoryforms ofresearchisthattherelevance, trustworthiness, and usefulness of the dataare enhanced when research participantsare involvedin the knowledge productionprocess(Frisbyetal.,2005).Therearealsoethicalreasonsforconductingparticipatoryresearch;forexample,to makeresearchmoreaccessibletothosewhoarenormallyexcludedfromknowledgeproductionandpolicymaking.Cronin (2011)foundthattherehasbeensomeresistancetoSfDresearchatthegrassrootslevelpartlybecause“researchcanbeseen asesotericandspecialist,andnotaccessibleintermsofparticipatingin,producingorusingtheresearch”(p.13).Inasimilar vein,whileresearchersshouldstrivetomaintainsomedistanceanddetachmentintheserviceofcriticalanalysis(Elias, 1987),theyrisk“alienatinglocalactorswhofeeltheyhavegivenmorethantheygainedfromtheresearchencounter”
Fig.1.Threedimensionsofparticipatoryresearchwithinsurroundingstructuresofauthority.
(Collisonetal.,2016,p.419).Suchexperienceshaveraisedquestionsabouthowresearchmaybeproducedanddisseminated inmoreinclusiveandaccessibleways(e.g.,Darnell,Chawansky,Marchesseault,Holmes,&Hayhurst,2016;Darnell,Whitley etal.,2016;Schulenkorfetal.,2016).
Participationinresearchcanbeassessedintermsofboththelevelandscaleofparticipation,bothofwhichconstitutea seriesofcontinua.Researchinwhichlocalactors,andespeciallygatekeepersandkeyinformants,areengagedinorderto facilitateaccesstothefieldtypicallyoperatesatthelevelofshallowparticipation,whereresearcherscontroltheentire processandlocalactors’participationisconfinedtoconsultationand/ortotakingpartintheenquiries.Withincreasingly deepparticipation,thereisamovementtowardsrelinquishingcontrolanddevolvingownershipoftheresearchprocessto thosewhomitconcerns(Cornwall&Jewkes,1995),suchaslocalstakeholdersincludingthepresumedbeneficiariesofSfD program,theirfamiliesandtheircommunities.Scale,asafurtheraxisofparticipation,referstothebreadthandnumberof peoplewhoareinvolvedintheresearchprocess,whichcanrangefromnarrowtowideparticipation.Theissueofscaleis foregroundedinrecentresearchpublicationsthatreflectonwhosevoicesareprivilegedandwhosevoicesaremarginalized (Nicholls,Giles,&Sethna,2011);forexample;asaresultoftheparticularlevelsandkindsofcooperationandaccessthatare affordedbykeystakeholders(Collisonetal.,2016).
Theseissuesconcerningaccessandinvolvementpointtoaseconddimensionofparticipatoryresearch:thedegreeof powershifting.Asnotedearlier,participatoryresearchconsistsofmodesofresearchwhichnotmerelyinvolveahighlevel and scaleof participation but, fundamentally,seek toaddressissues of powerand control overthe researchprocess (Cornwall&Jewkes,1995).Theshifttoparticipatoryformsofresearchrequiresthereconceptualizationofpowerrelations between researcher(s) and research participants (Frisby et al., 2005). Such a reconceptualization would involve (a) affirmationthat people’sownknowledgeis valuableand that theyare capableofanalyzing theirown situations and designingtheirownsolutions(Nichollsetal.,2011);and(b)arepositioningoftheroleoftheresearcherfromdetached directororevaluatortofacilitatorandcollaborator(Spaaij&Jeanes,2013;Spaaij,Oxford,&Jeanes,2016).Criticalquestionsto beaddressedinclude:forwhomistheresearchfor;whoseknowledgeiscounted;andwhohascontrol,leadership,and responsibilityduringthedifferentstagesoftheresearchprocess?Todate,SfDresearchappearstohavelargelyfailedtofully cometotermswiththesequestions,aslocalactorsarestilllargelycontractedintoprocessesresidingoutsidetheirultimate control(Nichollsetal.,2011).Thisissuehasbeenapointofcontentionincontemporaryacademicdebateonthestateofplay inSfDresearch(e.g.,Darnell,Chawanskyetal.,2016;Darnell,Whitleyetal.,2016;Lindsey&Gratton,2012),andhasrecently sparkedanumberofinnovativemethodstoembracethisresearchorientationincludingdialogue-basedandparticipatory mappingmethodologies(see,forexample,the2016specialissueofQualitativeResearchinSport,ExerciseandHealth,Vol.8, No.5).
TherecentdebateonissuesofpowerandcontrolinSfDresearchsensitizesscholarstoreflexivity,whichconstitutesa thirddimensionofparticipatoryresearch. Theneedfor reflexivityonthepartofresearchersiswellestablishedinSfD research;yet,arecentcriticalreviewindicatesthatreflexivityisoftennotpractisedasconsistentlyanddeeplyasitshould (Darnell, Chawanskyetal., 2016;Darnell,Whitleyet al.,2016).Reflexivitybroadly refersto“an understandingofthe knowledge-makingenterprise, includinga consideration of thesubjective,institutional, social, and political processes wherebyresearchisconductedandknowledgeisproduced”(Alvesson,2007).Therearedifferentvarietiesofreflexivity which“typicallydrawattentiontothecomplexrelationshipbetweenprocessesofknowledgeproductionandthevarious contextsofsuchprocesses,aswellastheinvolvementoftheknowledgeproducer”(Alvesson&Sköldberg,2010).Reflexive researchersrecognizetheirownbiases,beliefs,andassumptionsintheactofsense-making,andsharethesewiththeir audiences. To date, reflexive SfDresearch hasprimarily addressedidentity-based forms of reflexivity, including how researchers’socialpositionsinthefield(e.g.,asWhite,educated,middle-class,andglobalNorthidentitieswithinaglobal Southcontext)mayhaveshapedtheirresearchrelations,datacollection,andinterpretation(Collisonetal.,2016;Forde, 2015).Yet,Darnell,Chawanskyetal.(2016)andDarnell,Whitleyetal.(2016)advocateformoreradicallyreflexiveresearch thatmovesbeyondidentity-basedformsofreflexivitytoreflectonpoweranddifferenceandtheirimpactoninterpersonal and institutional relationships, including how our practices are interwovenwith processes of imperialism and neo- colonialism.
2.2.Structuresofauthority
Asnotedearlier,participatoryresearchfaceschallengesandtensionsreflectedinSfDcontexts.Variouspowerdynamics, institutionalprocesses,logisticalandfundingissues,andsocialdistinctionsinfluencetheabilityofresearcherstoenactthe threedimensionsofparticipatoryresearch.Inthispaper,werefertothesecollectivelyasstructuresofauthority,whichaffect notonlythedegreeofparticipationbutalsothedegreeofpowershiftingandreflexivity.
Afirstbroadchallengeisthat theinstitutionalized relationshipbetweensportand developmenthasa tendencyto reproduceorreinforcepowerrelationsinSfDinitiatives(Darnell&Hayhurst,2011).Whiletheriskofreproducingpower relationsexistsinallresearch(Nygreen,2006),ithasparticularsignificanceinSfDcontexts.Recentresearchshowsthatthe structureandcultureofsportcreatespecifictensionsandchallengesforparticipatoryresearch(Luguetti&Oliver,2017).The structuralhierarchyinsportsituatesprofessionalknowledgeassuperiortoparticipants’knowledge.Forexample,Luguetti andOliver(2017)discusshowtheiractivistresearchinanAssociationfootball(fromhereonsoccer)programinasociallyand economicallydisadvantagedneighborhoodinBrazil“hadtonegotiateanenvironmentofhierarchythatispartofsport culture”(p.9).Therewas“aclearhierarchy”(p.9)presentintheprogramtheyinvestigated:thecoordinatorswerethe
peoplein power,followedbycoaches, andfinally theyoung people.Asa consequence,the coordinators’voices were privileged,followedbycoaches’voices;whereas,inaparticipatoryoractivistapproach,theparticipantsshouldbeatthe center.Moreover,sport’semphasisonwinningandhighperformanceascoreobjectivessitsuneasilywithsocialjustice researchduetothelatter’sfocusonwiderdevelopmentoutcomes(Luguetti&Oliver,2017;Spaaij,Farquharsonetal.,2014;
Spaaij,Magee,&Jeanes,2014).Thesetwofactorsappeartodistinguishsportfromotherareasofparticipatoryandactivist research. Researchers needtobe preparedtofindwaysto negotiatethe structureand culture ofsport iftheyareto successfullyconductparticipatoryresearchinSfDcontexts.
Asecondbroadchallengeconcernstheconflictsbetweenparticipatoryresearchandacademicinstitutions.Participatory research,whichisinherentlyopen-ended,messy,andlong-term,oftenlacksthefullappreciationandsupportofacademic institutions(Cancian,1993)thatarecharacterizedbya“cultureofspeed”(Berg&Seeber,2016).Participatoryresearchers typicallystruggletoholdtheirworkaccountabletobothactivistandacademicstandards.Forexample,theircommitmentto forgingstrongtiesandsharingpowerwithcommunitymemberscanmakeitdifficulttomaintainadequatetiestoacademia, meetacademicandmanagerialisttargets(i.e.,publicationsin“top-tier”journals,externalresearchincome),andhavea successfulacademiccareer(Cancian,1993).Buildingsocialactionintoparticipatoryresearchprojectsfurthercomplicates theresearchandmayantagonizeacademicadministratorsandhumanresearchethicscommittees.Thesesystemicissues andpressureswithinhighereducationsystemsareknowntosimilarlyaffect(participatory)researchintheSfDfield(Welty Peachey&Cohen,2015).Participatoryresearchersmustbepreparedtodevelopstrategiestonegotiatethesechallenges;
buildingonthefindingspresentedinthefollowingsections,intheremainderofthispaper,wewilloffersomespecific suggestionsinthisregard.
Inwhatfollows,weanalyzethethreedimensionsofparticipatoryresearchandthewaytheyareinfluencedbystructures ofauthorityinrelationtoourownexperiencesinconductingSfDresearch.Weaimtomakeaconceptualcontributiontothe fieldofSfDresearchbylinkingthethreedimensionsandsubsequentlyactualizingthemwithacriticalanalysisoffivespecific SfDprojects.Thenextsectiondiscussesthemethodsusedtoelicitnovelinsightsintothisissue.
3.Methods
Theempiricalanalysisthatfollowsdrawsonillustrativeexamplesfromfiveseparatestudiesconductedbytheauthorson threecontinentsbetween2008and2015.Allresearchdiscussedinthisarticleisprimarilyqualitative,whichreflectsthe majorityofSfDpublishedresearch(Schulenkorfet al.,2016).Thecase studiesanalyzedwereconductedwithfiveSfD programs:VIDAinColombia,HIV/AIDSeducationinZambia,VencerinBrazil,FootballforPeace(F4P)inIsrael,andAsian- GermanSportExchangeProgram(AGSEP)inSriLanka.Thesecaseswereselectedpurposivelyonthebasisoftwocriteria:
first,theauthors’extensiveresearchexperiencewiththeprograms,inordertopreservearobustunderstandingofthestudy context;and,second,todevelopageographicallyandculturallydiversesampleuponwhichtodrawinthepresentanalysis.
Consistentwithpreviousresearch,casestudydesignswereimplementedbecausewewereseekingrichunderstandings ofthenatureandeffectsoftheSfDprogramswithinparticularcontexts.Thisdesignallowsforanexplorationofviews, experiencesandbehaviorsastheyunfoldinpractice,which,fortheresearcher,providescontextandmeaningtothestudy (Flyvbjerg, 2006; Yin, 2009). More specifically, case studies enable researchers to pay detailed attention to local understandingsandknowledge,andtothevoices,experiencesandmeaning-givingprocessesofthepeoplebeingstudied.
Due to space limitations, the specific researchmethods used in the five studies are merelysummarized in Table 1.
Comprehensivedetailsoftheresearchmethodologiescanbefoundinthelistedreferences.Inordertoprotecttheidentityof theorganizationandinterlocutorsinColombiaandZambia,weusepseudonymsandwithholdidentifyinginformation.
Weassessthefivecase studieswithinasingleanalysisin ordertoaddressthis paper’sguiding question:howcan participatory researchin SfDbeconceptualized and fostered?While methodshavebeendevelopedtoenablesuchan overarchinganalysisthatbringstogetherfindingsfromdifferentqualitativestudies(e.g.,Noblit&Hare,1988;Thomas&
Harden,2008),avitalconcernisthatre-analysismaydetachfindingsfromtheiroriginalcontextandthatthemesorconcepts identifiedinonesettingarenotapplicabletoothers(Kay&Spaaij,2012).Weusedtwostrategiestoovercomethischallenge.
First,weonlyselectedstudieswithwhichwewereintimatelyfamiliar(thatis,studieswehadconducted),withtheaimof preservingarobustunderstandingofcontext.Wediscussedandreflectedonthecontextualityofthestudiesandtheir
Table1
FivestudiesofSfDprograms.
Program Location Methods Reference
VIDA Colombia Participantinterviews(n=60)andparticipantobservation OxfordandSpaaij(2017) HIV/AIDSEducation Zambia Participantinterviewsandfocusgroups(n=82),stakeholderinterviews
(n=22)andparticipantobservation
Jeanes(2013) Vencer Brazil Participantandstakeholderinterviews(n=89)andsurvey(n=157),
participantobservation
Spaaij(2011,2012)
Football4Peace Israel Stakeholderinterviews(n=30),8focusgroups SchulenkorfandSugden(2011)and Schulenkorfetal.(2014)
AGSEP SriLanka Stakeholderinterviews(n=35),2focusgroups,programobservation Schulenkorf(2010)
findingsonseveraloccasionsduringtheanalysisprocesstoensurethatthefindingsremainedsensitivetothecontextin whichtheywereproduced.Thisincludeddiscussionof,forexample,theconditionsunderwhichthestudywasconducted, datawerecollectedandanalyzed,andproductswerewritten.Second,weusedThomasandHarden’s(2008) thematic synthesistechniqueofgeneratinganalyticalthemes.Initially,thisprocessinvolvedacomparativeanalysisoftheoriginal findingsofthestudies.Wethenusedthespecificreviewquestiontointerrogatethedescriptivesynthesesofthesefindings byplacing them withinan external conceptual framework of participatory research. This framework focused onthe analyticaltriadofparticipation,power,andreflexivity,aswellastheinfluenceofstructuresofauthority.
4.Findingsanddiscussion
Buildingonthethree-dimensionalmodelofparticipatoryresearchthatprovidesuswithaconceptualfoundationforan appliedanalysis,wereflectonanddiscussourexperiencesandfindingsfromfiveSfDresearchprojects.Wedosowiththe aimofcriticallyinvestigatingthestatusquoofparticipatoryresearchonSfD,andprovidingrecommendationsforfostering engagementtopromoteculturallyappropriate,high-quality,andhigh-impactresearch.
4.1.Participation
Acriticaldimensionof participatoryresearchis thedegreeandnatureofcommunity participationin theresearch process.Insituationswherethereisahighdegreeofparticipation,theresearcherandlocalparticipantswouldbecommitted totheprocessofmutuallearningandcollaborativelyreachingaspecificgoal,whichmayinvolvelinguisticconsiderations andcrossing culturalboundaries(WeltyPeachey &Cohen,2016).Creating aspace formutual learning demands that researchersbringforwardalevelofsensitivity,vulnerability,andintegritytoengagemeaningfullyandrespectfullywith communitygroupsandindividualsastheynegotiateroles,knowledge,andultimatelyseeksolutions(Frisbyetal.,2005).
Our research highlights the critical need for researchers and community groups to build mutuallybeneficial and respectfulrelationships.Animportantelementinthisprocessistime,whichspecificallyrelatestothelevelofparticipation.
Experiencinglocalcontextsoveraprolongedperiodoftime,andtakinglocalknowledgeandperspectivesseriously,provesa levelofcommitmentfromtheresearchertothecommunity,butalsopermitstheresearchertoexperiencethesettingwhen thenoveltyofbeinganewoutsiderwearsoff.Itisthenthatthemundaneroutinerevealsnewinformationconcerningsocial processes,andinformalmeansofpositivecommunicationcanbefostered.However,timecanalsobeashallowquantifier,as relationshipsdonotalwaysdependontwogroupsofpeoplebeinginthesametimeandspace.Forexample,inourstudiesin Colombia,BrazilandZambia,relationshipswerestrengthenedthroughtextmessagingandonlineconversationsinsocial mediaplatforms,suchasFacebook,wheretheparticipantsmaderegularinformalcontact,discussedtriumphs,andshared storiesaboutseriousissueswithoutthepressureofface-to-faceinteraction.
Ourresearchprovidesconcreteexamplesofauthenticcommunityparticipation.InoneprojectinZambia,forexample, the researchteam worked with peerleaders who were responsible for delivering HIV/AIDS programs in their local communitiesandassistedthemwithdevelopingresearchskillstocollectdatafromparticipants.Theresearchteamco- designedinterviewschedulesandquestionnaireswithyoungpeopletoincorporateknowledgethattheyconsideredtobe importantfor understandingtheimpactofprojectsanditsroleinyoungparticipant’severydaylives.Thisprocesswas consideredmutuallybeneficialbyboththeresearchteamandpeerleaders.Thelattergainedvaluableskillsthatenabled themtocontinuetocollectinformationabouttheirprojectsthattheycouldusetoleveragefurtherfunding,aswellas providing important insights into theirdelivery approaches and how they might better provide and support young communitymembers.Fortheresearchteam,theapproachreduced someof theNorth/Southtensionsinherentinthe researchprocess.Moreover,peerleadersusuallyhadastrongandtrustingrapportwithparticipantsandwerealsoableto undertakeinterviewsinlocallanguage,ifnecessary,leadingtoaricharrayofinformationemergingfromthisdatacollection approach.SimilarexamplescanbedrawnfromAGSEP,VIDA,andVencer,wherestaffmembersdiscussed,added,deleted, and/oreditedinterviewquestionsbeforetheinterviewprocessbegan.Wealsoengagedinmemberchecking,sharingdrafts ofreportsandpapers withcommunitymembersandincorporatingtheirfeedbackintopublications.Inaddition,inthe Vencerstudy,alocalyouthleaderwastrainedasa(formallyemployed)researcherbytheleadresearcher,andthelocalNGO andsubsequentlycontributedtothedesign,implementation,andanalysisofthesurveyandinterviews.
Thescaleofparticipationwasakeyconsiderationineachofthefivestudies.Throughoutourresearch,wesoughtto engageintheresearchprocessawiderangeofpeoplewhowereinvolvedinorimpactedbytheSfDprograms.Afirststepin thisprocesswastypicallyacommunitymappingexercisetoidentifyandmapallrelevantstakeholders.Thiswasfollowedby consultationsandconversationswithamyriadofstakeholders,includingparticipantsandtheirfamilies,localresidents,SfD organizations,donors,communityleaders representingdifferentsegmentsof thecommunitiesinwhich theprograms operated(takingintoconsiderationaxesofdifferencesuchasgender,class,age/generation,religionandrace/ethnicity), localNGOs,schools,localgovernmentofficials,localpoliticalleaders,andsoforth.Thisconsultationprocesswasdynamic andflexible.Forexample,inZambia,changesweremadeafterreflectionanddiscussionwithSfDparticipants.Inaproject focusingonexperiencesofparticipationinsoccer,girlsandyoungwomenhighlightedthattogainafullunderstandingof theirinvolvementinthegame,itwasnecessarytospeaktotheirfamilymembers,particularlytheirmothers,grandmothers, andoldersiblings.WhiletheresearcherhadintendedtointervieworganizationalstakeholdersthatpolicymakersandSfD practitionersconsideredbeingresponsiblefordevelopingthefemalegame,theparticipantsstressedthehiddenworkmany
of theirfamily membershad undertakenin establishing competitivefemale footballopportunities.Working withthe researcher, theyco-constructedaninterviewscheduleand thenconductedinterviews withtheirfamilies toelicitthis knowledge.
Thisexampleindicatesthatthedifferentdimensionsofparticipatoryresearch,andparticularlyparticipationandpower shifting,areinextricablyintertwinedandmutuallyconstitutive.Itistothedegreeofpowershiftingthatwenowturn.
4.2.Powershifting
Theseconddimensionofparticipatoryresearchrelatestothedegreeofpowershiftingandassociatedaspectsofcontrol betweenresearchersandresearchparticipants.Withoutaproactivecommitmenttoaparticipatoryresearchapproachthat allowsfortheresearchertobeflexibleinallstagesofresearch,researchers’abilitytorelinquishtheirinherentpoweris limited(Frisbyetal.,2005).Atoneendofthespectrum,wherepowerremainsexclusivelyinthehandsoftheresearcher, local participantsare merelyseen assubjectswho areusedtogain information. Here,thepowerdifferencebetween researchersand participantsremainssignificant, ascan beseenin so-calledfly-in-fly-outorhelicopterapproaches to researchandevaluation(Giulianotti,Hognestad,&Spaaij,2016;Schulenkorf&Adair,2014).Anumberofresearchprojects conductedaroundtheFootballforPeace(F4P)programinIsraelprovideexamplesofinitiativesinwhichmorefocuscould havebeenplacedonsharingorshiftingpower.Forinstance,differentempiricalstudiesconductedintheNorthernGalilee regionin2009yieldedimportantinsightsintotheverytopicofcommunityengagementandempowerment;however,little considerationwasgiventolocalsinsharingpowerintheresearchprocess,letalonetothemco-designingorleadingresearch andevaluation(Hippold,2009;Schulenkorf&Sugden,2011).Instead,internationalresearchersdesigned,conducted,and analyzedtheirresearchprojectsalmostindependently.Uponreflection,itseemsthatimportantopportunitieswerelost:
first,local(researchandcultural)knowledgewasignored,andsecond,thelocalcommunityneverexperiencedownershipof F4P’sresearchelements,which resultedinalackofsustainableresearchpracticesonawiderscale(see alsoWallis&
Lambert,2014for furtherdetail). Interestingly,averycontrastingpictureunfolded intheplanning,management,and implementationoftheF4Pprogramontheground.Here,theengagementbetweeninternationalandlocaladministrators andcoacheshadgrownsteadilyformorethan15years,withcontrolandresponsibilitiesgraduallybeingtransferredtolocal communitiesandsupportingauthorities(Schulenkorf,Sugden,&Burdsey,2014).
Attheotherendofthespectrum,wherepowershiftinginresearchoccursinadedicatedandcognizantway,external investigatorsunderstandthatpeople’slocalknowledgeisnotonlyvaluablebutindeedcriticalforachievingatrulyinformed understandingofSfDincontext.Hence,participantsareempoweredtoanalyzetheirownsituationsandtodesigntheirown solutions(Kay,2009;Nichollsetal.,2011).Forexample,empiricalfieldworkfordifferentSfDresearchprojectsinruralSri Lankawasstructuredinawaythatfacilitatedempowermentandindependentdecision-makingbythelocalcommunity (Schulenkorf, 2010). Importantly, the inclusion of local people and the subsequent shift of power did not happen automatically;rather,itwasadedicatedco-constructedprocessthatrequiredtheexternalresearchertorelinquishcontrol overtime,changingherorhisrolefromevaluatortofacilitatorandeventuallyobserver(seealsoSpaaij&Jeanes,2013;Spaaij etal.,2016).Here,theopportunityoftheresearchertospendseveralmonthswiththelocalcommunityaheadoftheofficial fieldworksupportedtheprocessofidentifying,engagingwith,andempoweringspecificcommunityrepresentativesfor researchpurposes.Asaconsequence,localmembersofthecommunitywereabletoco-owntheunfoldingresearch:they were in charge of co-identifying suitable participants; determining relevant researchapproaches and questions; and establishingmeaningfulresearchcontexts(bothphysicalandsocial).
In adifferentexample,it wastheengagingdiscussions aroundthemostsuitableresearchmethodsthat sparkeda subsequentshiftofpowerduringtheresearchprocess.IntheVencerstudyinBrazil(Spaaij,2011,2012,2013),youngresearch participantssuggestedthatinsteadofrelyingexclusivelyonface-to-facedatacollection,moreuseshouldbemadeofsocial mediaasadatacollectionmethodinwhichtheycouldexercisegreatercontrolovertheresearchprocess.Theyoungpeople helpedtoaddanonlineresearchcomponentdesignedaroundOrkut(Facebook)andMSN,bothofwhichwerepopular amongthelocalyouthparticipatinginVencer.Althoughmostoftheyoungpeopledidnotownapersonalcomputeror laptop,theyhadatleastirregularaccesstotheInternetincybercafésorincomputerroomsatlocalNGOs.Aconsiderable advantageofthismethodwasthatitwaslessconstrainedbytimeandtravelonthepartofboththeresearcherandresearch participants.Moreover,itallowedparticipantstocrafttheirsolicitedandunsolicitedcommunicationswiththeresearcherin waysthattheydeemedappropriate,atapacethatsuitedthem,andusingasocialmediaplatformthatwasembeddedintheir dailylives.
Astheseparticularexamplesindicate,changestowardsco-constructionandco-designofresearchprojectscangreatly benefittheintegrity,quality,andappropriatenessoftheresearchandpotentiallycontributetoashiftinpowerwherelocal participantscancometoco-owntheresearch.Co-ownershipasadesiredstateisimportanthere,asacompleteshiftof powerandan entirewithdrawalof theexternalresearcheroftenseemsimprobableandunrealistic intheshortterm, especiallywhenconsideringthespecificexpectationsofGlobalNorthfundingbodiesandassociatedresearchinstitutions.
4.3.Reflexivity
Powershiftingandreflexivityareinextricablyintertwined.AsDarnell,Chawanskyetal.(2016)andDarnell,Whitleyetal.
(2016)note,foregroundinga“reflexivesenseofhumility”(p.12)encouragesresearcherstoprobemoredeeplyintotheir
objectivesinSfDresearchandthemethodologicalandtheoreticalapproachestheytake.Itisonlythroughsuchaprocessthat difficultquestionsarebeingraisedandreflectedupon,suchaswhyweareundertakingtheresearchandtowhosebenefit andpurpose.Whilsttherehasbeensomeconsiderationofhowresearcheridentityinfluencestheresearchprocess,few researchers(e.g.,Chawansky,2015;Forde,2015;Hayhurst,2015)explicitlydiscussreflexiveinsightsthatcriticallyconsider broadersocio-politicalinfluencesandhowtheseimpactonthewaysinwhichSfDresearchisundertakenandknowledge produced.Forexample,inacritiqueofherowneffortstoimplementapostcolonialfeministethnographicstudy,Hayhurst (2015)beginsbychallengingtheconceptofethnography,encouragingresearcherstorecognizeitscolonialoriginsandthe invasionofspaceitrequiresasresearchersbecomeembeddedand establishedin the“customs,culturesand habitsof anotherhumangroup”(p.427).InacriticalSfDdiscoursewhereshort-term,fly-in-fly-outresearchisconsideredtoreinforce colonialrelations,ethnographicresearchis oftenadvocated (Kay,2012).Therefore,Hayhurst’s(2015)reflexiveaccount providesavaluablereminderoftheimportanceofresearcherscontinuallyconsideringtheinfluencesandvalueswoven withintheirworkevenwhenstrivingtouseseeminglygood-practiceapproaches.
Withinallofourresearch,wehavecontinuallygrappledwiththeoftendiscussedissueofbeingWhite,middleclass, GlobalNorth researchersworking in marginalized and attimes highlyimpoverishedareas. Wehave experiencedthe challengesthisbringsinunderstandingcultural,social,andpoliticalrealitiesoftheindividualsinvolvedintheresearchand thetypesofknowledgewecanexpecttoillicit fromparticipants.There are,however,additional layersofcomplexity regardingreflexivityinSfDresearch.InZambia,GlobalNorth/SouthdynamicshavebeencontinuallypresentinSfDresearch but,in addition, much ofour researchhasinvolvedworking withyoung peopleadding furtherconsiderationsas we attemptedtominimizeadult/childpowerdynamicswithinaculturalcontextwhereyoungpeoplehavelimitedstatusand authority(Jeanes&Kay,2013).Another levelofcomplexityin ourZambianresearchwasthat itinvolvedundertaking externallyfundedevaluations.Youngpeopleunderstandablystruggletodifferentiatebetweensharingtheirviewsthatwill influencethecontinuationofaprogram,anddiscussingoranalyzingtheireverydaylivedrealities.Inotherwords,aswould beexpectedinexploringyoungpeople’sexperiencesofSfDprojectsinvolvingHIV/AIDSeducation,werecognizethatweare oftenpresentedwithaversionofwhattheyoungpersonbelievesweneedtohearandwhattheyconsiderwillmostlylikely influenceprogramcontinuation.
AlargeproportionofSfDresearchisundertakeninpartnershipwithNGOsthathaveadirectinterestintheresearch.Their staffmembersoftenactasgatekeeperstowhosevoiceisheardwithintheresearch.Theirfacilitationoftheresearchprocess, intermsofguidingresearcherstoparticularcommunities,establishingcontactsandsettingupfocusgroupsandinterviews hasbeenanessentialpartofthelogisticsofmuchoftheresearchthatwehavecarriedoutinSfDcontexts.Asillustrated earlier,thisinevitablyshapeswithwhomwehavetheopportunitytospeakandwhattheyarelikelyorwillingtosay(Jeanes
&Lindsey,2014).Inthespecificcaseofsport-for-reconciliationprojectsinSriLankaandIsrael,thedelicatesocio-political contextrequiredtheresearcherstoconsider–andconstantlyreflecton–theethnicbackgroundandpoliticalaffiliationof theinterviewees,andtoensureabalancedrepresentationofpeoplefromlargelyopposingpoliticalparties.Thisalsomeant thepurposefulinclusionofcommunitymemberswhowerenotpartoftheSfDprogram—eitherbychoiceorduetolackof vacancy.Gainingaccesstonon-participantscanbedifficult;however,theirvoicesareimmenselyimportantifargumentsare tobemaderegardingcommunitybuy-in,widercommunityimpacts,andthepotentialofmaximizingprogrambenefits beyondthesportingground(Schulenkorf,2012;Spaaij&Schulenkorf,2014).
Todate,fewresearchershaveconsideredthefullspectrumofinfluencesthataffecttheproductionofknowledgewithin SfDcontexts;yet,eventhiscursoryoverviewprovidesinsightintothenuancesofwhosevoicesareprivilegedandwhat versionofknowledgeisproducedandcommunicatedwithinSfDresearch.Forexample,Colombiacontinuestobeshapedby colonialism,theCatholicChurch,and thelegaciesof internalarmedconflict.Moreover,thegovernment-enforcedclass systemimpactsonwhereColombianslive,work,andwithwhomandwheretheysocialize.Tounderstandlivedexperience and everyday social pressures, voices were sought from residents (especially women) with lower socio-economic backgrounds.And,tobetterunderstandthemacro-social relations,interviewswerealsosoughtwithpeopleoccupying diversepositionsofpowerinsideandoutsideoftheVIDAcommunity.Thediversityofinterlocutorsandtheirstoriesteased outhowintersectionalinstitutionalelementscoupledwithpersonalcharacteristics(e.g.,race,gender,sexualorientation) shapesagency. The researcher, who existed outside of Colombia’sclass system (butwas socially elevated becauseof Whitenessandeducation,amongotherfactors),waslargelyunaffectedbysocialstigmaandthusabletotravelbetween neighborhoods and groups of people in a relatively uninhibited manner. Local leaders assisted the researcher in understandinglocalsocialdynamics.Thisprocessencouragedleaders,whohadbeeninterviewedpreviously,toreflecton theirresponsesandre-engagewiththeresearch,buttheprocessrequiredcreativity,flexibility,andpatiencefromboth parties. By incorporating reflexive practices with local leaders and seeking voices from marginalized interlocutors, a platformwascreated wherebyrarely-heardperspectiveswerenotonlyvoiced, butsituated withinthebroadersocio- culturalcontext(Oxford&Spaaij,2017).
Overall, we propose that the connections betweenthe degree of participation, power sharing and reflexivityare importantforrealizingculturallyappropriate,highqualityandhighimpactSfDresearch.Inseveraloftheevaluationprojects inZambia,theresearchersworkedclosely withNGOstaff,peerleadersandyoung participantstodesign theresearch approach,methods, and contexts, and tosupportNGOstaff, inparticular, tocontrol theresearchprocess andcollect informationthatwasmostrelevantandvaluabletothem.Socio-politicaldynamicsnonethelessremainheavilyembedded withintheresearchprocess.InZambia,whereresearchwasconductedoverseveralyears,arelativelytrustingrelationship wasdevelopedbetweenresearchersandlocalparticipants.However,someyoungpeopleremainedconcernedaboutsharing
knowledgewiththeresearchersbecausetheyfelttheirinputmightinfluenceongoingdonorfundingarrangements.As researcherswebecameasourceofguidanceforlocalstaffandparticipantswithregardtowhatdonoragencieswithinthe GlobalNorthwantedorexpectedinrelationtoresearchknowledge.Ourattemptsatbeingparticipatory,therefore,didnot necessarilyleadtotheproductionofknowledgethatwasanylessinfluencedbyNorth/Southpowerdynamics.Suchacritical interrogationfurtherhighlightsthecomplexitiesofwhatparticipationandcollaborationactuallymeanand,importantly, whatlocalknowledge(includingsubjugatedknowledge)actuallyisandhowitcanbeaccessed.Darnell,Chawanskyetal.
(2016)andDarnell,Whitleyetal.(2016)emphasisontheneedforSfDresearcherstoreflexivelyconsiderinstitutional relationshipsandtheirinfluenceontheresearchprocessisparticularlypertinentinthiscontext.Weexplorethisissue furtherbelowinrelationtostructuresofauthority.
4.4.Structuresofauthorityasmoderatinginfluences
Asdiscussedearlier,participatoryresearchinSfDcontextsisrifewithtensionsandcomplicationsthatemanatefrom institutionalstructuresandrelationships.Ourdataindicatethatthedegreeofparticipation,powershifting,andreflexivity areallaffectedbythesemoderatinginfluenceswhichprovideinsightintothesocio-politicaldynamicsthatgovernthe researchprocessinSfDcontexts.
Asthelikelyprojectinitiatorandtheprimarydisseminatorofknowledge,theresearcherisoftensupportedbyandbound toherorhisacademicinstitutionandthustheprocessesandpressuresoftheacademicsystem.Theseinstitutionsand processesinfluenceresearchfunding,theresearcher’sresources,andtheamountoftimeallottedtotheproject–factorsthat mayimpactontheresearcher’swillingnessandabilitytoseeklocalparticipationandincorporatelocalknowledgeand,in turn,researchparticipants’accesstotheresearchprocess(Frisbyetal.,2005).Rudimentaryprojectlogistics,suchaspre- organizedtimelinesandbudgetedfunds,furtherimpactallstagesofresearch,andtendtobeheavilyinfluencedbyWestern, linearmethodsofcollectingandproducingknowledge.ConductingparticipatoryresearchinSfDcommunities,however, requirestimetobuildrelationshipsandastrongcommitmenttolearninglocalprocessesandvaluinglocalknowledge.For thisreason,eventhoughthemajorityofSfDresearchtodatehasbeenqualitativebydesign,ithasbeenrestrictedinboth levelandscaleofparticipationandpowershifting(Schulenkorfetal.,2016).Moreover,asinourownresearch,ithasfailedto fullyengagewithactivistresearchanditsinclusionofpoliticalaction(Cancian,1993).
Arelatedchallengethatoriginatedfromourpositionswithinandrelationshipstohighereducationsystemsconcerned howresearchsuccesswasdefined.Thischallengerelatesspecificallytotheissueofreflexivity.Thegoalsofthefivestudies werevariegated,butinvariablyincludedusingourresearchtomake(modest)contributionstoprogramimprovementsand developmentinordertohelpadvancesocialdevelopmentoutcomes.Thisgoal,underpinnedbysocialjustice,waspartlyat odds withtheuniversity’sperformance-drivengoalofpublishingintop-tierjournalsand books(Cancian,1993; Welty Peachey&Cohen,2015).Throughoutourstudies,wesoughttobalancethesetwogoals:topublishourworkinprestigious outletswhilealsoworkingwithSfDorganizationsandstakeholderstotranslateourresearchintopolicyandpractice.As discussedintheprevioussection,thisraisesimportantquestionsthatrequirereflexivityonthepartofbothresearchersand theinstitutionswheretheywork,especiallywithregardtowhichformsofknowledgeproductionanddisseminationare valued and pursued. For example, we have long been concerned that by publishing primarily in English-language, subscription-basedjournals,weareexcludingmanyofthecommunitiesthathavebeeninvolvedin,ormightbenefitfrom, ourworkfromhavingaccesstoit.Inordertocounteractthisbarrier,wehavesoughttomakeourresearchavailabletoa wideraudienceinavarietyofwaysincluding:usingopen-accessjournalsandrepositories;sharingauthorcopieswith participantsand organizations,and publishingthemonourprivate and institutionalwebsites;and disseminatingthe findings and recommendations in alternative formats (e.g., local languages, plain-language summaries, reports, and infographics).
Researchers’abilitytofostercommunityparticipationandtransformpowerrelationsisadditionallyinfluencedby local authorities and gatekeepers. All five research projects discussed in this paper worked with marginalized or disadvantagedpopulations,butasFrisbyetal.(2005)discuss,factorssuchastheresearchparticipantsnotconsidering themselves marginalizedand the gatekeeperrestrictingaccess, may impact the degree of participantinvolvement.
Moreover,theinterlocutor’slimitedavailability,coupledwiththeresearcher’slackofaccesstolocalparticipants,may hinderlocalparticipationandthuslocalinvestmentintheproject.Forexample,theVIDAandVencerstudiesrevealed highlevels ofpublicviolencein theneighborhoodswheretheSfDinitiatives operate(Oxford&Spaaij,2017;Spaaij, 2011).Publicviolencecombinedwithtightcontrolsmaintainedbylocalgangsandparamilitarygroupsrestrictedthe researchers’accesstopublicandprivatespaceswherelocalyoungpeopleandtheirfamiliescouldbeengaged.InVIDA, thisissuesimilarlylimitedtheresearcher’sabilitytointeractwithspecificgroupsona regularbasis.Forexample,in onelocation,itwasdifficulttointerviewyoungwomenwithchildrennotparticipatingintheSfDprogrambecausethey frequentlyremainedintheirhomesduetoculturalnormsandsecurity;inaddition,middle-agedemployedmenwhose children were in the program worked outside the neighborhood during the hours the researcher could conduct interviews.InbothVencerandVIDA,localauthorityandprotocolsconstrainedlocalvoicesfrombeingeasilyheardand requiredtheresearcherstobemorecreativeandlessstrictwiththenotionoflocalparticipation.Forexample,toreach young motherswith noassociation toVIDA,theresearcher participated in a youngmother’sgrouporganized bya local socialworker.Althoughinterviewswiththisspecificdemographicweredifficulttoarrange,spendingtimeina settingwherestorytellingwascommonprovidedtheresearcherwithinsightintotheirlives.However,theresearcher
excludedthevoiceofmiddle-agedmenemployedoutsidetheneighborhoodassecurityconstraintstotallyprohibited interaction.
Furtherexamplesdisplayinghowauthority(bothinstitutionalandlocal)impactedonourabilitytoconductparticipatory researchcanbedrawnfromVIDA.Consciousoftheresearcher’ssecuritywithintheresearchcontext,theresearcher’s universityandthedirectoroftheorganizationcreatedstrictsecurityprotocolsandguidelines,suchastheresearchernot residingintheresearchneighborhood,specificaccessdaysandhours,andconstantaccompanimentbyalocalguide.These restrictionslimited withwhomtheresearcher spokeand what was observed; italso createda distancebetweenthe researcherandparticipants.Infact,afewfieldofficeemployeesandmanyinterlocutorsvoicedthattheseconstraintswere superfluousandreflectiveofthecommonplacestigmatizationplaceduponpeoplelivinginthecommunitybythosein power.
NumerousfieldnoteentriesfromcaselocationsinColombiaandBrazilrevealedinterlocutorsaskingtheresearcher,
“Wheredoyoulive?”and“Whydon’tyoulivehere?”Thesequestionswerenotmerelyoutofcuriosity;theyexposedthe researcher’ssocialpositioningwithinthecountries’classandracialsystems.Thisisnottoarguethattheinterlocutorsfelt theirlives werenotencumbered bylocal authoritiesthemselves orthattheyfelt theresearcher’ssecurity wasnot a concern;rather,itistonotethattheyrecognizedtheresearcherwasnotexperiencingtheeverydaystressorsthatare linkedtotheirinsecurityandsocialclass.EventheSfDemployeeswhodidnotresideintheneighborhood–yetshareda commongoalwithlocalparticipantsandactivelyemployedahorizontalpowerstructureintheoffice–wereconsidered outsidersbymanyparticipants.ThisexamplerevealsthatinbothVIDAandVencer,thelocalparticipants’identityand senseofbelongingwithinthesocialhierarchywasasensitiveissue,andnormativeacademicprotocolsmayhaveaffected theresearcher-participantrelationshipandconsequentlymayhave impactedthe degreeof localparticipationin the researchprocess.
Overall,theabilityofresearcherstodesignandconductparticipatoryresearchisinfluencedbytheaforementioned structuresofauthority,aswellasbythetrust andrelationshipsbetweenbothpartiesthatallowforcollaborationand knowledgeco-creationinallstagesoftheresearch.Logisticallyandinstitutionallythisisachallengingendeavourandthus farfewstudiesinSfDcontextshavefullyembracedthischallenge(Luguetti&Oliver,2017).
5.Conclusionandimplications
Research is centrally implicated in the dynamics of knowledge production in SfD. In this paper, we argue that participatoryand activist researchapproachesfacilitatereflexive,inclusive,and transformativeinvestigationsintoSfD processesandoutcomes.Theconceptualcontributionofthispaperistoframeparticipatoryresearchattheintersectionsof thethreedimensionsofparticipation,powershifting,andreflexivity,andtoidentifyhowstructuresofauthorityinfluenceall threedimensions.Inordertoaddresseachdimension,researchersneedtoaskfundamentalquestionsregardingwhoholds powerwithinparticularSfDcontexts,what powerrelationsparticipatoryresearchisseekingtoaddress,andhowSfD participantsaretobeengaged.Understandingthevariouslayersof participationand powerwill hopefullyencourage researcherstobecriticallyawareofhowtheyarefacilitatinginvolvementandtowhatdegreeparticipantsaregenuinelyco- constructersoftheprocess.Afurtherissuethatrequiresconsiderationbyresearchersishowtheknowledgeproducedwillbe relatedbacktoSfDstakeholdersandparticipants.Doingsoinaformthatisaccessible,meaningful,andvaluableiscritical andshouldbediscussedattheoutsetoftheresearchprocessandconstantlyreflecteduponthroughouttheresearch.
OurfindingssuggestthatmostSfDresearch–includingourown–fallsshortwhenitcomestothecriticalchallengeof embracing and delivering high degrees of participation, power shifting and reflexivity. While existing SfD research incorporateselements of participatory research, it has yet toengagefully with thecomplexities and possibilities of participatoryresearchacrossallthreedimensions.Moreover,thereisadearthofactivistresearchinthiscontext,which reflectsscarcityofactivistresearchinsportmorebroadly(Luguetti&Oliver,2017).Termslikeparticipationandreflexivity arespokenof frequentlyas thingsSfDresearchersshoulddo, butthe complexitiesand requirementsof participatory researchhaverarelybeenconsciouslyandexplicitlydiscussed.Nevertheless,theneedtofosterlocalparticipationandinput inresearchand evaluationisincreasinglyrecognizedin theSfDsector.Practicalstrategies includethedevelopmentof relationshipsandrapportwithlocalstakeholders,andactiveinvolvementofcommunitymembersinrecruitment,data collection,andanalysis.
Thefindingssuggestthatsuchpracticalresearchstrategiesalonedonotconstituteparticipatoryresearchinthetrue meaningofthetermbecausetheytypicallyfailtorelinquishpowerandcontrolovertheresearchprocess.Toalargeextent, controlovertheresearchprocess–fromtheformulationoftheresearchproblemandpurposethroughtothedissemination ofresearchresults–remainsfirmlyinthehandsofresearchers.Theseresearchersaretypicallybasedoutsidethecountries wheretheSfDprogramsaredelivered,andoverall,littlecooperationexistsbetweenresearchersfromtheGlobalNorthand South.Aswehaveshown,thisissueiscomplexandrequiresongoingreflexivityregardingthemicro-dynamicsofsocial inclusionandexclusion,suchaswhosevoicesarebeingheardandwhat(critical)perspectivesarebeingsubjugatedbecause oftheparticularrelationshipsandformsofaccessnegotiatedintheresearch.Theseconsiderationsechothebroadercritique thatalternative,subalternwaysofthinkingandknowingaremarginalizedinthesocialsciencesatlarge(Connell,2007),and insportcontextsinparticular(Spaaij,2011;Spaaij,Farquharsonetal.,2014;Spaaij,Mageeetal.,2014).Itisimperativethat SfDresearchersdevelopaheightenedawarenessofwhattypesofknowledgearedominatinginSfDandwhattypesof perspectivesandunderstandingsarebeingprivileged,aswellasbetterunderstandtheirlimitations,biases,andpartialities.
Putdifferently,itisnecessarytoconductSfDresearch“witheyesphilosophicallywideopen”(Blaikie&Priest,2017).This involvescriticalexplorationofresearchmethodologiesandtheirunderlyingphilosophicalassumptionsaboutthenatureof realityandknowledgeproduction,andaboutthepurposeofresearch.RecognizingthatallSfDknowledgehasadistinct position,andthatitcanbemobilizedforsocialjusticepurposes,canopenupspaceforalternativeandcriticalperspectives andexperiences.
5.1.Limitationsandfutureresearch
Whileaspectsofourownresearchandthatofotherscholarscanbelocatedwithinaparticipatoryresearchframework, werecognizethatourresearchdoesnotyetfullyembodytheparticipatoryprinciplesweareadvocating.Wehavebeen necessarilyselectiveintheaccountswehaveprovidedfromourstudiestoensuretheyprovidespecificexamplesofeach elementofourframework.However,weacknowledgethatnooneprojectprovidesanexemplarapproachthatreflectsall dimensionsofourframework.Wehaveengagedwiththethreedimensionstodifferentdegreesineachcountrycontext.
Withineachoftheprojectswehavebeenlimitedastohowfullywehavebeenabletoembraceparticipatoryresearch.Our researchinZambia,forexample,satwithinthecontextofinternationallyfundedevaluationworkthatplacedconstraintson howparticipatory theresearcherswereabletobe.Similarly, inColombia,restrictionsplacedontheresearcherbyher universityandethicscommitteelimitedsomeelementsoftheparticipatoryapproach.Ourexperiencesthushighlightthe needtoaddressinstitutionalrelationshipsinordertorealizethepotentialthatparticipatoryandactivistresearchholdsfor SfD.Wehopetheframeworkandempiricalevidencepresentedinthispaperwillencourageresearcherstodevelopgreater awareness ofwhat a participatory researchprocesswould require ofthe researcher, aswellas strategiestonavigate institutionalrelationships.
In this paper, we have identified examples of good practice in current SfD research, including instances where researchershaveembracedformsoflocalknowledgeandrelinquishedatleastsomeoftheownershipovertheresearch process toparticipants. Severalimplicationsfor futureresearchin thefieldofSfDcan thus beformulated.Wenote, however,thatparticipatoryresearchisnotanon-the-shelfsolutiontotransforminginequitiesandpowerdynamicsinSfD.
As the illustrativeexamples in thispaper highlight, thereis noone-size-fits-all prescriptionfor whatparticipatory researchunfolds tobe,andtensionswillinevitablyremainpresent.Thewayparticipatory researchisdevelopedand carriedoutishighlycontextual,andresearchers(andtheinstitutionstheyrepresent)mustbeflexibleinallstagesofthe researchprocess.
Furtherresearchisrequiredtoenhancetheunderstandingofwaystopromoteparticipatoryandactivistresearchand,in particular,ofhowtotransformpowerinequitieswithinboththeresearchprocessandinstitutionalrelationships.Greater dialogue and collaboration among SfD researchers, and between researchers and SfD organizations, can assist in demystifyingsomeofthechallengesassociatedwithparticipatoryandactivistresearchandcontributetomakingitsuse morecommonplaceandmoreeffectiveinSfDresearch.Transformingpowerrelationsintheresearchprocessdemandsa mutual willingnesstoexperiment,for instancewithnewmethodologies(seeDarnell,Chawanskyetal.,2016;Darnell, Whitleyetal.,2016).Moreover,itchallengestraditionalstandardsandconventionssetbyacademicinstitutionsinsofaras theyoftenconstrainthepossibilitiesforparticipation,powershiftingandflexibility.WeconcurwithFrisbyetal.(2005)that takingonthischallengemaynotbefeasibleforyoungandemergingscholarswhoconductPhDresearchprojectsthatare guided byrigidinstitutional frameworksand protocols. Instead,we arguethat senior scholarswithmore established projectsandsecurefundingareinabetterpositiontochangethestatusquo,aswellastotrain,mentor,andsupportjunior scholarswhowishtoconductparticipatoryoractivistresearch(seealsoLuguetti&Oliver,2017).Collectively,theyarealsoin abetterpositiontonavigatedualaccountabilitytoactivistcommunityorganizationsandacademicinstitutions(Cancian, 1993).
OurfindingsalsohaveimplicationsforSfDpolicyandpractice.Inadditiontotheidentifiedneedforcriticalawarenesson thepartofSfDpolicymakersandpractitionersconcerningthedynamicsofknowledgeproduction,thequalityandimpactof participatoryresearchinthefieldofSfDwouldbeaidedbyfundingbodies(donors)andSfDorganizationsthatactively supportlocalactors.Thisexplicitlyincludesstreet-levelpractitionersandparticipants,whowouldthenbeabletoinput morefullyinto,andhelpshape,theresearchprocess.Moreover,fundingbodiesareencouragedtosupportparticipatory researchthroughoutSfDprograms,insteadofthetypicalpost-hocassessmentthatmerelyaimstodetermineprogram impactsretrospectively.Here,again,theconnectionsbetweenparticipation,powersharing,andreflexivitybecomevisible throughtheunequalpowerrelations thathavebeenat playbetweendonors,SfDorganizations,researchers,and local participants.ParticipatoryandactivistresearchinvitesallSfDactorstohelpreconfigurehow,by,andforwhomSfDresearch isconceptualizedandconducted,withthesharedgoalofchallenginginequalityandpromotingsocialchange.TheSfDfield– andtheresearchcommunityespecially–willneedtovalueandembracethecomplexitiesofparticipation,powerand reflexivityifthisgoalistobeachieved.
Acknowledgements
Wegratefullyacknowledgetheeditor-in-chiefandtheanonymousreviewersfortheirexcellentandgenerousfeedback onearlierversionsofthispaper.
