We all know that. At a time when many of us are returning from holiday (or conference), we can reflect on the risks we took, like driving to the airport or eating sea-food.
So it’s no surprise that participatory action research brings risks. Co-researchers may be exposed to the risks that academics frequently anticipate, such as risks arising from lone-working or the emotional impact of data collection and reflection. There are also risks associated with research being carried out by people who have not been trained to the level of an academic, such as confidentiality, informed consent or interviewing techniques.
I’ve been involved in participatory action research at two universities, as well as within the NHS and local government. I’ve been through university ethics and NHS ethics, jumping through hoops as we’ve recruited and trained co-researchers, often re-submitting so we can finally start collecting and analysing data. I’ve also spent a fair amount of time getting to grips with systems for paying co-researchers expenses and honoraria. It’s amazing how complicated getting agreement to give out some supermarket vouchers can be, as both the ethical risks and financial risks are apparently enormous.
For all these projects, risk was removed, reduced or managed through our training and support systems. The training sessions allowed potential co-researchers to build their understanding of what the research involved, giving them an opportunity to opt-out should they choose. The sessions also built open, trusting relationships which, very occasionally, allowed us to identify and counsel people away from the project and signpost them to other opportunities. These relationships were vital during data collection periods. We may have drunk gallons of coffee and eaten far too much cake, but frequent, informal meetings with co-researchers ensured we kept a handle on what was happening in terms of ethics, finance and lone-working.
Consequently, I was a bit thrown when AskFuse - the responsive research and evaluation service run by Fuse - received a query from Pat Watson at Teesside University. Pat’s been commissioned by Sunderland City Council to carry out a piece of participatory action research involving pregnant mums in the design, development and implementation of a project looking at how expectant mums make decisions on how to feed their babies. The university Ethics committee had asked about insurance for co-researchers, and we had to admit that no one in the AskFuse team had any examples of formal arrangements. I also had a slight concern that, given the risk-averse nature of many large organisations, such a requirement might pose an insurmountable barrier for the research proposal. Undeterred, Pat went on the hunt, with a meandering email trail that eventually reached the University’s Deputy Director of Finance and the Liability Underwriter for the University’s insurers, UMAL. To my absolute surprise and delight, they confirmed ‘that the Teesside University Employer Liability/Public Liability/Public Indemnity covers apply to all University authorised research activity’. If Ethics approve participatory action research, then the co-researchers are insured.
It’s a huge relief that we now have a tick to put in the required box, and we have an example to cite should another researcher be asked the same question. I am really impressed with the approach of the insurance company: as their website states, they ‘never shy away from difficult risks’. However, managing risk in participatory action research requires far more than ticking boxes, regardless of how important these boxes may be. An equally important tool for identifying and managing risk is the strong relationships that successful co-research depends on. These relationships require time and investment, going to where people are and being prepared to share their space. They require trust and respect; possibly not asking people to show you a receipt before you pay their bus fare and not assuming that they’ll use their supermarket voucher to buy cider.
I’ve been involved in participatory action research at two universities, as well as within the NHS and local government. I’ve been through university ethics and NHS ethics, jumping through hoops as we’ve recruited and trained co-researchers, often re-submitting so we can finally start collecting and analysing data. I’ve also spent a fair amount of time getting to grips with systems for paying co-researchers expenses and honoraria. It’s amazing how complicated getting agreement to give out some supermarket vouchers can be, as both the ethical risks and financial risks are apparently enormous.
For all these projects, risk was removed, reduced or managed through our training and support systems. The training sessions allowed potential co-researchers to build their understanding of what the research involved, giving them an opportunity to opt-out should they choose. The sessions also built open, trusting relationships which, very occasionally, allowed us to identify and counsel people away from the project and signpost them to other opportunities. These relationships were vital during data collection periods. We may have drunk gallons of coffee and eaten far too much cake, but frequent, informal meetings with co-researchers ensured we kept a handle on what was happening in terms of ethics, finance and lone-working.
Consequently, I was a bit thrown when AskFuse - the responsive research and evaluation service run by Fuse - received a query from Pat Watson at Teesside University. Pat’s been commissioned by Sunderland City Council to carry out a piece of participatory action research involving pregnant mums in the design, development and implementation of a project looking at how expectant mums make decisions on how to feed their babies. The university Ethics committee had asked about insurance for co-researchers, and we had to admit that no one in the AskFuse team had any examples of formal arrangements. I also had a slight concern that, given the risk-averse nature of many large organisations, such a requirement might pose an insurmountable barrier for the research proposal. Undeterred, Pat went on the hunt, with a meandering email trail that eventually reached the University’s Deputy Director of Finance and the Liability Underwriter for the University’s insurers, UMAL. To my absolute surprise and delight, they confirmed ‘that the Teesside University Employer Liability/Public Liability/Public Indemnity covers apply to all University authorised research activity’. If Ethics approve participatory action research, then the co-researchers are insured.
It’s a huge relief that we now have a tick to put in the required box, and we have an example to cite should another researcher be asked the same question. I am really impressed with the approach of the insurance company: as their website states, they ‘never shy away from difficult risks’. However, managing risk in participatory action research requires far more than ticking boxes, regardless of how important these boxes may be. An equally important tool for identifying and managing risk is the strong relationships that successful co-research depends on. These relationships require time and investment, going to where people are and being prepared to share their space. They require trust and respect; possibly not asking people to show you a receipt before you pay their bus fare and not assuming that they’ll use their supermarket voucher to buy cider.
Research tools, data collection and analysis will be different, and often better, when the research process involves or is led by people who share the same standpoint, or even are, the research subjects. Hopefully universities will continue to recognise the benefits of participatory action research, recognise that the relationships it generates are a valuable asset and tool for managing risk, and not shy away from any ‘difficult risks’ it may present.
Image: 'victorian risk assessment cartoon' by John C Bullas BSc MSc PhD MCIHT MIAT via Flickr. Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0):
https://www.flickr.com/photos/johnbullas/7788230372
Image: 'victorian risk assessment cartoon' by John C Bullas BSc MSc PhD MCIHT MIAT via Flickr. Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0):
https://www.flickr.com/photos/johnbullas/7788230372
