View
2
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
SUSTA
ININ
G G
ON
DW
AN
A ISSU
E 9 ● JULY 2008
Working Paper SeriesISSN: 1834-6278
ISSUE 9 ● JULY 2008.
Participative inquiry using acommunity-as-researcher approach:
the Balingup model
ALC
OA
FOU
ND
ATIO
N’S C
ON
SERVA
TION
AN
D SU
STAIN
AB
ILITY FELLOW
SHIP PR
OG
RA
M
ALCOA FOUNDATION’S CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABILITY FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM
PROFESSOR DANIELA STEHLIK DR AMMA BUCKLEY
Working Paper SeriesISSUE 9 ● JULY 2008
Abstract THE INCREASING DEMAND IN THE PAST DECADE TO UNDERTAKE MORE EFFECTIVE COMMUNITY CONSULTATION PROCESSES WITHIN SHORTENED TIMEFRAMES HAS CHALLENGED TRADITIONAL PAR APPROACHES. THIS PAPER DESCRIBES A BREAKTHROUGH TECHNOLOGY – NAMED THE BALINGUP MODEL (AFTER THE COMMUNITY IN WHICH IT WAS FIRST TRAILED) WHICH TAKES UP THIS CHALLENGE. THIS MODEL INCORPORATING LOCAL RESIDENTS AS RESEARCHERS, HAS NOW BEEN TESTED IN A VARIETY OF SETTINGS AND HAS PROVED BOTH RIGOROUS AND EFFECTIVE. WE OUTLINE THE APPROACH DEVELOPED; DESCRIBE FOUR CASES WHERE IT HAS BEEN ADOPTED (TWO IN SMALL RURAL ENVIRONMENTS AND IN TWO IN METROPOLITAN ENVIRONMENTS, WITH AN ETHNIC COMMUNITY AND WITH AN ABORIGINAL COMMUNITY) REFLECT ON LESSONS LEARNED AND STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE MODEL.
Series Editors: Professor Jonathan Majer & Professor Daniela Stehlik
Authors
DANIELA STEHLIK is one of Australia’s leading social scientists working at the intersections of resiliency, human service practice and social cohesion focussing on families and communities in regional/rural Australia. As the inaugural Director of the Alcoa Research Centre for Stronger Communities, she is leading a team in developing, among other indicators, a greater understanding of the ‘social’ indicators associated with sustainability and conservation, specifically focussing on intergenerational change. She is particularly interested in the generative capacity of women’s energy and enthusiasm as an important component of community resiliency and in the inter-relationships between community practitioners and community capacity as an aspect of the Sustaining Gondwana project. She is Foundation Chair in Stronger Communities in the Faculty of Humanities. AMMA BUCKLEY is interested in developing and adapting social methodologies to engage and strengthen community capacity through local participation. Her Foundation Fellowship with the Alcoa Foundation’s Conservation & Sustainability Program is examining community participation in the management of a UNESCO designated Biosphere Reserve in southern Western Australia where her research interests broadly encapsulated the social impacts of the movement of people on various communities/issues of interest. Dr Buckley has conducted research with a range of ‘difficult to reach’ research participants including newly arrived refugee and migrant populations, Indigenous Australians and people in rural and remote communities.
Acknowledgements Our thanks to the many research support staff at the Alcoa Research Centre for Stronger Communities who assisted in the development of the Balingup approach and in particular to Maree Collins who worked on the first Balingup study; Anne Goodall and Melanie Montgomery who helped develop the literature review.
1
Introduction The demand for evidence-informed policy has generated a resurgence of interest in
participatory approaches to research within communities, in particular, with vulnerable
members and often ‘hard to reach’ communities. This is apparent not just in human
services but also in natural resource management and environmental sectors and in
communities with refugee and Indigenous populations. In addition, the increasing
demand for ‘instant’ consultation has put pressure on traditional participatory action
research (PAR) approaches which are based on the time associated with building of
trust between researchers and the community.
The more common approach to this demand remains with adopting the relatively
(now) traditional approach of the establishment of community reference groups as a
component of the methodology. Membership of such groups is then drawn from the
community in question, either by invitation or through a process of semi-volunteering.
These reference groups are rarely, if ever, evaluated as to their success in relation to
the overall research project, leaving the community involved often dissatisfied with their
involvement and contribution. Increasingly, due to demands on time and resources, they
tend to consist of the more vocal, often in paid employment and therefore ‘better
connected’, more powerful members of the community. In other words, it is our
experience that such reference groups do not strengthen or capacity-build as part of the
process, despite often being stated as doing so. There is also much anecdotal
information that poorly managed reference groups have the potential to undermine the
research findings as well as then making it more difficult for any future research teams
to establish trust-based relationships with a disaffected community.
The Alcoa Research Centre for Stronger Communities (the Centre), established in
2004 in Western Australia with a ‘building capacity through research’ agenda has been
trialling an alternative methodology, framed within a participatory empowerment model,
which takes up the challenge of civic responsibility as an essential component of the
relationship between the research team and the community in which they are working.
Our research suggests that this civic responsibility rests with both the research team
and the community. Our approach actively draws members of the community into the
research process through an establishment, development/learning, action and feedback
2
phase, which then acts to enable the capacity of those involved, allows rich data to
emerge and has lasting impacts beyond just those individuals involved into the broader
community.
Our approach – which we have named the ‘Balingup model’ after the community
where it was first trialled – has now been utilised in four sites in Western Australia, with
four very different geographic and interest communities. We have drawn on PAR, action
research and feminist traditions in developing the Balingup approach. Our experience
has confirmed the robustness and rigour of the model, as well as raising issues
associated with other more ‘traditional’ community methods. This paper reports on the
model, its development, and its strengths and limitations in a contribution to evidence
based policy. We begin with a brief analysis of the methodological context to which the
Balingup model contributes.
The context
The PAR tradition has now well established the principle of researching with people,
rather than on, for or about them (Maguire, 1987; McTaggart, 1997; Heron, 2001;
Dullea, 2005; Wadsworth, 2005). For Maguire and others, participatory action research
(PAR) is also a philosophy of social action ‘… not merely to describe and interpret social
reality, but to radically change it’ (Maguire, 1987, p. 28). PAR is often conceptualised as
a process involving investigation, education and action (Maguire, 1987; Hall, 1981).
The traditional, more positivistic approach to social research tends to work against
the understanding of ‘community strengths’. In addition, it has been suggested that PAR
may be a good approach for research seeking solutions to social problems because
interventions may be more readily accepted and sustainable if they come from
community residents (Suarez-Balcazar, Martinez & Casas-Byots, 2005, p. 153). The
educative component of PAR aims to aid participants to better understand their
situation, such awareness then empowering them to take action to improve their lives
(Hall, 1981; Heron & Reason, 2001). It is this component of learning and development
(which we would interpret as: capacity building) which forms the foundational principle
of the social research framework at the Centre. As a Centre for Stronger Communities,
3
we needed to be seen to be doing active PAR, not just talking about it. Our experience
has confirmed Small’s findings (1995, p. 994) that participation in the process does
generate a greater sense of community ownership of the research, which in turn results
in a greater commitment to utilization of the findings.
Our research has also confirmed what has previously been suggested, that PAR is
an appropriate model to use in communities where outside researchers are viewed with
suspicion or distrust (Cameron & Gibson, 2005, p. 2; Teufel-Shone, Siyuja,
Watahomigie & Irwin, 2006, p. 1627). As Maguire (1987) suggests, the participatory
process has a valuable capacity building opportunity that allows for community
members to develop their skills and sense of self efficacy.
In the case of Maguire, for example, her PAR approach bordered on the
ethnographic, as she spent much time ‘embedded’ in her community of interest and as
a result, needed much time to be successful. Our approach is different. As many of our
research grants are linked to evidence-informed policy and practice outcomes and often
have relatively short time frames, our challenge became to develop an approach which
linked evidence with method without compromising the integrity of PAR but which was
immediate and could deliver results in short time frames. It was at this point that we
began to consider utilising the strengths inherent within communities to actively enable
a research endeavour.
Utilising the community-as-researchers – an overview
A brief review of the literature highlights the diversity associated in utilising
community strengths into research activities. Our review of the literature identified five
‘case studies’ as discussed further below. However, in each case, while there are some
similarities with the ‘Balingup’ approach – there are also crucial differences. These are
now discussed further.
The first case study as documented by Atkinson (2005) involved people with learning
disabilities in an oral history project in the UK. One project was comprised of regular
group meetings where participants were encouraged to talk about themselves and their
experiences. The other project involved informal qualitative interviewing and, in addition,
4
researchers and participants jointly undertook searches for biographical information in
records offices, hospitals and archives to reconstruct participants’ life histories. Atkinson
calls these participants ‘co-researchers’ and considers how they were ‘researching their
own lives … reflecting, sharing, finding out of each other’s lives; and looking into where
their experiences fit into a wider historical picture’ (Atkinson, 2005, p. 429). This
interesting project was a ‘one on one’ relationship between the researcher and the
community participant.
From the analysis it is clear that community participants were neither involved in the
research design and methodology nor in the analysis. The ethical framework for this
involvement was very important, as were the confidentiality issues.
Our second case study involved a group of university researchers in New Zealand
who invited local service agencies to participate in a study of ‘family well-being’
(Munford, Sanders & Andrews, 2003). A team was established consisting of a school
principal, workers from a local community centre, university researchers and social work
students. This team collaboratively agreed on the purpose of the research. Highlighted
from this case study were the efforts made to involve all these participants in decision
making about the project, to avoid ‘disrupting the work’ of the local community centre. It
therefore does appear that most of the actual research tasks were undertaken by
researchers with their social work students. Judging by the detail provided in the article,
participation in the research was also limited to staff of service organisations. However,
the authors recognised that because ‘families and young people had expertise about
their own lives’ they were afforded opportunities to ‘express their views on the research
questions’ (Munford et al., 2003, p. 101). In some cases data collection tools were
modified to suit respondents’ preferred mode of expression. For example, some young
people used computers, art, poetry or song if they were not comfortable with verbal
expression.
In an article entitled ‘Women shaping participatory research to their own needs’
Dullea (2005) provides an account of a project with Indigenous women in Canada which
aimed to identify long-term support services better suited to community needs. The
work began with collaboration on a childcare project. The research then evolved into a
‘women’s sharing circle’ in response to what the author describes as the women’s need
5
for a ‘space to talk and be heard’ (Dullea 2005, p. 67). Dullea claims that in these
sharing circles ‘women were researching their own realities and needs’ (p. 72). In her
reflections on the research process the author concludes that, in order to make sense,
PAR ‘must be shaped by those involved’ and that ‘community development practice that
prefers a dialogic and participatory research approach cannot be streamlined nor can
practitioners come in with assumptions about what will occur’ (p. 72). Further, Dullea
highlights the importance of trust building to effect positive PAR and the importance for
the researcher to recognize the cultural ‘limits’ of PAR when working within Indigenous
settings (p.70).
In their work with a disadvantaged community in the Latrobe Valley, Victoria,
Cameron and Gibson (2005) engaged community researchers in a planning study. The
research focused on building community and economic development initiatives and
employed three community researchers; a young person, an older unemployed person
and a single parent. The rationale for this choice was ‘because of their likely ability to
connect and build relationships with others in a similar situation’ (Cameron & Gibson,
2005, p. 321). This project was designed in three stages: documenting the current
situation; contextualizing the situation; and working for change (Cameron & Gibson,
2005, p. 312). In the first stage, the community researchers prepared photo essays to
tell the story of their valley. These were then used to initiate discussion with other
community residents about common representations of the community and from this
enabling the building of a picture of their ideal community. The project then involved an
action component where participants initiated projects that aimed to improve life in the
community. This case study highlights a number of important aspects of the PAR
experience: briefly, these are identity and representation; language and politics. Our
experiences in developing the Balingup approach have highlighted all three of these
important aspects – as our analysis further describes.
The final case study was also undertaken in Australia and auspiced through the
Desert Knowledge Cooperative Research Centre (DK-CRC) and the Tangentyere
Community Council – an Aboriginal owned and controlled organisation in central
Australia. The ‘population estimation and mobility in town camps1’ study was a
collaborative research effort conducted in line with the DK-CRC Board’s commitment to
6
approve only projects which ‘involve the full and equitable participation of end-users in
their determination, control, design, execution and implementation’ (Holcombe 2006, p.
2). This project has yet to be published in peer reviewed literature, but a recent
conference report highlighted that the Community Council identified the need for the
project where the researchers were made up of town camp residents. These community
researchers undertook a two week training session to develop questions for the survey
and plan for implementation. Town camp residents were responsible for collecting and
entering all data and some of the analysis. While a full methodological description of this
project has also yet to be sighted, the approach of using PAR as a training tool is one
that resonates with our Balingup approach.
In summary, the case studies highlight the complexities and complications associated
with utilising a ‘community as researcher’ approach, as well as the differences in
method and language such an approach generates. Drawn from these case studies,
and relevant to the Balingup PAR model are issues associated with: ethics and
confidentiality; the power dynamics of the researcher as ‘expert’; the need for the
establishment of trust in the process; the time taken to develop such trust; the language
associated with working within a community setting; the ‘learning exchange’ that occurs
as the researcher becomes more intimately involved with local people; the flexibility
essential in regard to data collection tools and finally, the need to understand cultural
differences and prepare for these. These will be discussed in detail further below.
The Balingup model – an introduction
In 2004, a group of interested community representatives from the small rural
community of Balingup (some 350kms. south of Perth) approached the Centre with a
request to undertake a whole of community research project aimed to determine the
needs and aspirations of the community in regard to its elderly residents now and into
the future. The project – Towards Ageing in Place – was undertaken between May and
August 2004 and due to a combination of necessary short time frame; interested and
available volunteers and a pressure on available financial resources – the Centre
7
proposed an approach which utilised the strengths of the community as well as those of
the Centre in a combined (but modest) research activity. Since then, this methodological
approach has been utilised with further development on three different occasions with
different ‘communities of interest’ – two in metropolitan settings and one in another
(different) rural community.
In the first instance, the Balingup prototype was used within a northern Perth location
to measure parenting knowledge and attitudes. A specific ‘community of interest’
identified by a particular community organisation was culturally and linguistically diverse
(CALD) groups, including recently arrived refugees and migrants as well as the local
Indigenous population.
The model’s acknowledged success in engaging ‘hard to reach’ sections of the
community, resulted in an additional project, this time in a southern Perth suburb. With
similar context parameters, namely knowledge and attitudes towards parenting, the
research sample was confined to a statistically significant Indigenous population.
Finally, the third and most recent application of the model was within an
environmental context in a rural area surrounding a significant nature reserve on the
south coast of Western Australia. The focus of the study was local residents’ attitudes
and knowledge towards nature conservation and management.
The next section of the paper provides a broad outline of the approach and the
following section highlights the strengths and limitations of the methodology and tools
utilised on reflection as they have emerged from each of our trialled ‘case studies’. The
model broadly comprises a two-stage consultation process. The first step establishes
two community-based workshops involving the participation of community members
during which the survey instrument is designed and tested. The second stage then
enables these volunteers to undertake a survey of either households or individuals
depending on the research questions. Data collected by the research volunteers are
then analysed by the Centre and results are provided to the whole community in an
informal or formal setting – again depending on the circumstances and context.
8
Important to the success of this approach is the ethical framework in which the model
operates. Prior to the commencement of the research, the Centre is required to obtain
ethical approval from the University’s Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC).
Confidentiality and anonymity are maintained throughout the project. Ethical
considerations are discussed with the community researchers and every effort is made
to ensure that confidentiality is not breached. The importance of ethical conduct in
undertaking their survey is outlined during the community workshops with the volunteer
researchers who later administered the survey. This is important in ensuring both co-
researchers and survey participants understand the ethical and confidential
requirements of research and the Centre’s duty under the University’s ethical approval
process. This is particularly important in relation to consent of survey respondents, with
the ethics process stipulating that ‘active’ consent be obtained, requiring a signed and
returned consent form prior to completing the survey.
To further assist this process and ensure consistency in the content of information
provided to survey respondents, the survey contains standardised information, including
an introductory statement in which respondents are briefed on the background,
purpose, timing, and funding of the survey. Each volunteer researcher is also provided
with a checklist of items to consider when undertaking this survey.
Establishing the process and timeframes
Aside from the larger contractual discussions, community research projects using
the Balingup model have spanned four months, from commencement of the project –
the establishment of project tasks and timelines – through to the production of the
research report. This process has been broken down into 12 steps and tasks outlined
below.
1. Establishment – setting up the group; developing project design; negotiating
timelines, sites, ethics etc.
2. Community profiling – Collecting and analysing broad data, including
demographic data; local resources including previous surveys and reports; and
9
literature relevance to the research site and the research focus. This material
provides baseline information for the first workshop, informs the survey design as
well as the literature review in the final report.
3. Ethics approval – Completing and submitting the requisite ethics application and
supporting documentation for ethics approval.
4. Local Facilitator – Appointing a local person (either in-house or local champion)
to manage the day to day aspects of the project. This person’s local knowledge
and connections has proved invaluable across all case sites.
5. Community participation – Advertising and interviewing potential volunteers
including awareness of and the necessity to commit to the timeframe of project.
In return for attending all workshops and surveying a specified number of
individuals or households, volunteers receive an honorarium payment (see
further below), a letter of reference and a certificate of participation.
6. Workshop 1 – Conduct the first half-day workshop providing orientation to the
project and the research component, followed by focussed discussions on the
local context and developing the survey instrument.
7. Survey development – A draft survey instrument is finalised between workshops
in collaboration with the contracting client or agency.
8. Workshop 2 – Conduct the second half-day session which ‘road tests’ the draft
survey instrument, with volunteer researchers interviewing each other. This is
then followed by discussions about ethical conduct of research, informed consent
and research protocols.
9. Survey kit – Preparing and distributing kits to volunteer researchers (by the
Centre). Kits contain multiple copies of the surveys/answer sheets, consent
forms and project information.
10. Surveying the local community – Volunteer researchers undertake surveying
during a specified period (2-3 weeks) with support from the Local Facilitator who
also monitors the progress of surveying. On return of completed surveys, there is
a debriefing session with volunteer researchers conducted by either the Local
10
Facilitator or the Centre researchers. Further, community researchers complete a
formal evaluation of their involvement in the project.
11. Data analysis and report writing – Returned surveys are collected and analysed
by the Centre researchers and a research report is then prepared and provided
to the client/agency in draft form for comment before the report is finalised.
12. Public event – Volunteer researchers and the general public are then invited to a
celebration that includes the release of key findings. This provides the
opportunity to publicly acknowledge the volunteers’ participation and present
them with their certificates. It also provides an important event to give the
community involved the information gathered and analysed.
Negotiating this process and establishing the timeframe from the outset generates
greater clarity and autonomy around the tasks, roles and responsibilities for all parties
involved. A necessary principle established from the outset of each project is that the
Centre researcher remains ‘the guardian of the process’ therefore ensuring that the
integrity of the model and its associated ethical considerations are not compromised.
Given that the original model has now been used in three subsequent research
projects, we have been able to utilise each opportunity to test and re-test the
established framework with relatively minor adjustments. Our experience has been that
each application of the model has required some flexibly to accommodate divergent
‘communities of interest’ and the nuances of place. For the project involving the CALD
community, for example, the project challenges focused on recruitment, access and
language. In order to gain access to newly arrived migrants and refugees to Australia
who resided in the project area, potential volunteer researchers were not only required
to be members of identified ethnic communities but also be proficient in the verbal and
written English necessary to undertake survey design and delivery. Recruitment of
volunteers for this project was largely achieved through networking with the local
migrant community centre and gaining access to their pool of bi-lingual workers. It was
at this organization’s suggestion that their office became the hub for the project
coordination due to its familiarity with both community researchers and the general
CALD community. Therefore an important, and initially, unintended, outcome of this
11
process was the strengthening of relations between the contracting agency and the
CALD community in the project area.
With the Indigenous research project, access to this ‘community of interest’ was
assisted by the contracting agency’s previous long term engagement with this section of
the community. However, what proved to be a stumbling block was the general
perception by this Indigenous community that Indigenous Australians were negative
portrayed in research generally resulting in an initial unwillingness to be involved in
further research activity. Following extensive negotiations, an Indigenous reference
group was formed to monitor and provide cultural and contextual input into the survey
design and the interpretation of findings. These measures ensured the ongoing support
of both the volunteer researchers and the Indigenous community in the broader initiative
and this proved very successful. In our third project, another issue emerged, which
while not as large as that experienced in the previous community, was equally critical to
the researchers attempting to engage with a ‘close-knit’ rural community. The issue at
stake became one of perceived confidentiality about the demographic data to be
collected, particularly the self-assessed quality of life questions. This issue was resolved
by negotiating with the volunteer researchers to use individual envelopes for each
survey they completed, which were then sealed before being returned to the Centre for
analysis.
Recognition of Respondents
There has been a long tradition in research of payments of various kinds for
respondents. In the case of the Balingup model, an ‘honorary’ payment provided to
volunteers in each project can be seen from various perspectives. First, such payment
served as an acknowledgement of volunteers’ contribution and commitment. It also
represented an acknowledgment of the contribution of their expertise about the local
context and the sharing of this expertise with the research team. Indeed, advice
originally sought from the Australian Taxation Office (2006) confirmed that a non-
income payment (honoraria) is allowable as a reward for voluntary services or a fee for
professional/expert services voluntarily given, provided that expenses related to the
services are not claimed as a tax deduction. Our experience has highlighted that the
12
coverage of their expenses related to required research activities, in addition to the
honorarium, has been increasingly raised as a concern by volunteers. More specifically,
in our second rural example, there was a necessity for some volunteers to travel
significant distances to undertake surveys – in some cases the round trip to administer
two surveys was 100 km. These costs have been compounded by spiralling fuel prices
at the time of the survey delivery. Subsequent feedback given to the contracting agency
highlighted the ongoing importance of reimbursing participants for expenses incurred in
delivering the survey in isolated contexts. This learning experience has now become an
additional consideration in subsequent projects undertaken within the Centre.
Data and analysis
Once surveying was completed, the responsibility for data input and data analysis
rested with the researchers at the Centre. An important ethical consideration relating to
the model is that of confidentiality and secure storage of completed surveys in
accordance with University ethical standards. As part of our contractual arrangements,
this data also remains the property of the Centre. Analysis of largely closed ended
responses was undertaking using the quantitative software package SPSS. Although
open ended responses were kept to a minimum, where they did occurred SPSS for
Surveys was useful for categorizing responses. The client in each case received a copy
of the analysed data as part of the report and findings.
Learning experiences from volunteer researchers and survey respondents Volunteer researchers
Individual debriefing sessions following the return of surveys were insightful in
gaining both immediate feedback from volunteer researchers about their involvement in
the process and in highlighting survey respondents reactions and comments about the
survey and the project at large. In addition to this informal feedback, the volunteer
research process was the subject of a separate formal evaluation. A brief survey
13
included questions about how they got involved; what they understood the project to be
about; their reasons for participating; the importance of remuneration; rating the
workshops; delivering the survey and the design of the survey instrument; and finally a
summary of the process. Overall, the feedback indicated that volunteer researchers felt
largely equipped for the task, reporting the process as ‘a positive learning experience’.
While being paid for their contribution was seen as important for the majority of
volunteers across the four separate projects. Yet in a related question, all volunteer
researchers indicated that they would have still participated had they been unpaid. Of
interest, orientation to the research topic and research methods left community
researchers with a desire to engage further with the topic and develop a better
understanding of research.
An amalgam of demographic profiles of volunteer researchers across the four
projects, points to the process attracting more females than males, however age
representation was reasonably distributed across all groups. In some projects,
representation became an important issue in recruiting co-researchers. For example in
the second rural project, the study site was broken up into eight divisions and
community researchers were actively sought to provide representation in each division.
Survey respondents
Respondents were clearly interested in the outcome of the survey and the ways
that results would improve circumstances in their community. In each project, a
significant number of survey respondents attended public events for the release of the
research findings (and asked searching questions). Notations in the margins of returned
surveys, capturing some insightful assessments, often related to structural concerns.
Reflections on the model
Positives
All volunteer researchers returned the requisite number of completed surveys,
with a small number returning additional surveys, indicating a highly desirable return
14
rate. While there was an element of disquiet about ‘hassling people that you know’, the
majority of volunteers reported that being acquainted lead to a greater participation. A
strong positive theme across all of the projects was that volunteer researchers were
often pleasantly surprised about the high levels of awareness about the topic. This was
particularly evident in the environmental study. In the Indigenous case, it was reported
that the survey findings corresponded with anecdotal assessments of this particular
community in terms of parenting. The survey results formalized this information.
Challenges
The time consuming nature of conducting research was commonly identified. In
fleshing out this issue, volunteer researchers making this comment explained that it was
not simple a matter of administering the instrument, but the time taken to contact
people, set up appointments, travel to and from appointment as well as the surveying
itself. Finding a creative way to resolve this issue, may be to suggest that one research
volunteer administer the surveys at a community event, e.g. recreational or social,
minimizing many of these onerous aspects. Regardless, the length of time to
administer the survey was not solely due to its design as one volunteer commented
‘each survey took between 30 minutes and 3 hours … it was a good conversation
starter’.
As researchers: our learnings can be highlighted around two key issues: the
demands we as researchers place on the communities we are engaged with; and
secondly, the return on investment. In relation to the first issue, our experience (now
over many years) is that university researchers have an expectation that the community
will ‘welcome them with open arms’ and include their demands and time frames without
15
complaint into their already busy lives. In fact, we are finding that many communities
certainly feel over-researched (a regular complaint from Indigenous communities); while
many are seriously suspicious of yet another ‘expert’ knocking on the door (taking their
local knowledge with no identifiable returns to the community). If we can offer a truly
reciprocal relationship as part of the research process, and a method that ‘gives
something back’ to those people who give their time freely; then we are more likely to
succeed in overcoming such natural reservations.
Return on investment: this goes well beyond the time that it takes to set up a
Balingup model relationship. On all of the projects, we have had ‘return business’; we
are continuing to keep in touch with the communities that we have been involved in; we
have heard that in the case of the refugee community, our certificates of appreciation
have been used to support individual CVs in their search for employment; a number of
volunteers have embarked on further studies, and in the case of the Indigenous
community, the on-going relationship with the agency who funded the project has been
strengthened and remains strong.
Discussion
We would recommend the approach in environments that are highly integrated,
geographically tight and spatially manageable. The approach would not be
recommended in sites that are very diverse, fragmented or are geographically diffuse.
We have found the model ‘works’ in both metropolitan and rural environments; with
different socio-economic groups and with groups whose first language is not English. It
has also been successful in environments that are relatively complex, and where the
issues are hotly contested. In other words, we have ‘tested’ the approach in various
settings and found it rigorous and sound. While undertaking and developing the
Balingup model has raised ethical and confidentiality issues, our experience has taught
us that they can be resolved, and more importantly, they teach us, as researchers, to
remain ever vigilant but at the same time open to negotiating around community
concerns.
16
Over the four projects that have now utilized the Balingup model as the primary
source of data collection, it has become clearer to us how valuable this methodology
can be in certain circumstances. While the efforts of maintaining reciprocal relationships
do take time, the outcome is more positive than our previous experiences with
community reference groups. Such reference groups also take the time of volunteer
community members, but their direct impact is less apparent; whereas in relation to
resource commitment on the part of the volunteer researchers (their
time/energy/commitment) the return overall is much higher. What we have noticed is
that the model taps into people who are interested in their community and in the broader
issues but are not necessarily at the forefront of community activity. This approach
offers a new way to capitalize on this interest in reciprocal ways.
In conclusion, we continue to explore alternative, break-through methodologies to
meet the changing needs within communities of interest and of place, and we anticipate
that our continued use of the Balingup approach will generate interest and enable us to
provide our communities with highly relevant, detailed and rich data for their future
needs. Note
1. Town camps are located on the periphery of larger settlements in Central Australia, and are characterised by a shifting population as residents move from camp to camp, or from the town settlements to the inner desert regions.
17
References
Atkinson, D. (2005). Research as Social Work: Participatory research in learning disability. British Journal of Social Work, 35, 425-434.
Australian Taxation Office (2006). Volunteers and tax. Retrieved 5 February. 2007, from http://www.ato.gov.au/nonprofit/content.asp?doc=/content/8729.htm&page=3&H3
Cameron, J., & Gibson, K. (2005). Participatory action research in poststructuralist vein. Geoforum, 36(3), 315-331.
Dullea, K. (2005). Women shaping participatory research to their own needs. Community Development Journal, 41(1), 65–74.
Hall, B. L. (1981). Participatory Research, Popular Knowledge and Power: A Personal Reflection. Convergence, 14 (13), 6-19.
Heron, J., & Reason, P. (2001). The practice of co-operative inquiry: Research 'with' rather than 'on' people. In J. Heron & P. Reason (eds.), Handbook of action research: participative inquiry and practice, 179-188. London: Sage.
Holcombe, S. (2006). A developing framework for community engagement, knowledge management and ethics. Paper presented at the DK-CRC Conference, Alice Springs. Retrieved 18 January 2007, from http://www.desertknowledgecrc.com.au/publications/
Maguire, P. (1987). Doing participatory research: A feminist approach. Amherst: University of Massachusetts.
McTaggart, R. (1997). Participatory Action Research: International Contexts and Consequences. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Munford, R., Sanders, J., & Andrew, A. (2003). Community development - action research in community settings. Social Work Education, 22(1), 95-105.
Small, S. A. (1995). Action-oriented research: Models and methods. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57(4), 941-955.
Suarez-Balcazar, Y., Martinez, L. I., & Casas-Byots, C. (2005). A participatory action research approach for identifying health service needs of Hispanic immigrants: Implications for Occupational Therapy. Occupational Therapy in Health Care 19(1/2), 145-163.
Teufel-Shone, N., Siyuja, T., Watahomigie, H. J., & Irwin, S. (2006). Community-based participatory research: Conducting a formative assessment of factors that influence youth wellness in the Hualapai community. American Journal of Public Health, 96(9), 1623-1628.
Wadsworth, Y. (2005). How can professionals help people to inquire using their own action research? Retrieved 18 January 2007, from http://www.alarpm.org.au/files/ARCSNo1Wadsworth2005.pdf
WORKING PAPERS SERIES
1. ALCOA FOUNDATION PARTICIPANT CONTRIBUTES TO FOURTH BRAZILIAN TREE CANOPY COURSE, HELD IN THE ATLANTIC RAINFOREST. (J. D. Majer & S. Pontes Ribeiro).
2. WHOSE SEA CHANGE? SOME REFLECTIONS ON TRANSFORMATIONS IN THE CITY OF ALBANY, W.A. (D.Stehlik).
3. THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF ECOMIMICRY. (A. Marshall). 4. BEYOND CONCEPTUAL ELEGANCE: LOCAL PARTICIPATION AND
THE ‘MODEL’ FITZGERALD BIOSPHERE RESERVE. (A. Buckley). 5. THE POTENTIAL OF GROUNDWATER RECHARGE PLANTATIONS IN
THE LAKE WARDEN CATCHMENT, ESPERANCE, TO ENCOURAGE DIVERSITY OF INVERTEBRATES AND BIRDS.(M.E. Paula De Souza, J.D. Majer, M.J.De Sousa-Majer & F.M. O’Connor).
6. INFLUENCE OF FARMLAND REVEGETATION ON THE ABUNDANCE AND DIVERSITY OF SURFACE-ACTIVE INVERTEBRATES: A CASE STUDY FOR THE GONDWANA LINK INITIATIVE. (J.D. Majer, M.E. Paula De Souza & M.J. De Sousa-Majer).
7. INTERDISCIPLINARY TECHNOLOGIES CONTRIBUTE TO A NEW MODEL OF URBANISATION FOR THE SOUTH COAST OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA. (A.Dunn).
8. TOWARDS A WESTERN AUSTRALIAN MODEL: BUILDING INNOVATION AND CAPACITY IN THE DESIGN AND CRAFT INDUSTRY THROUGH THE DESIGNING FUTURES CLUSTER PROGRAM. (M.Lommerse, R. Eggleston & K. Brakovic).
9. PARTICIPATORY INQUIRY USING A COMMUNITY-AS-RESEARCHER APPROACH: THE BALINGUP MODEL. (D.Stehlik & A.Buckley).
10. CLIMATE VARIABILITY AND SOCIAL VULNERABILITY: A BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES. (D.Stehlik & D. Costello).
ALCOA FOUNDATION’S CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABILTY PROGRAM
Working Paper SeriesISSUE 9 ● JULY 2008
Sustaining Gondwana is a strategic initiative of Curtin University of Technology that has been funded by the Alcoa Foundation’s Conservation and Sustainability Fellowship Program and by the University. Its aim is to research conservation and sustainability issues along the south coast of Western Australia, from Walpole to just east of Esperance. The vegetation and fauna of this area is so diverse that it is considered to be one of the world’s bio-diversity hotspots. The five year program, which is connected internationally with other Universities and Sustainability Institutes, was launched in November 2005. The initiative is co-ordinated by three cabinet members, Professors Daniela Stehlik, Jonathan Majer, and Fiona Haslam McKenzie. Six postdoctoral fellows have been appointed to work on issues related to this region, and their research will be augmented by activities of the cabinet members themselves as well as their graduate students. It is anticipated that the findings will be published in journals, conference proceedings and books. However, there is a need to communicate early findings, data sets and activities of group members in a timely manner so that stakeholders can benefit from outputs as soon as they become available. This is the aim of the Sustaining Gondwana Working Papers Series, which is being produced on an occasional basis over the life of the initiative. The papers are not subject to peer review, but are edited by cabinet members in order to maintain standards and accuracy. Contributions from researchers and practitioners who are active in the region of focus can also be considered for publication in this series.
ALCOA FOUNDATION’S CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABILTY PROGRAM
For further information about Sustaining Gondwana or the program Working Paper Series, please contact: strongercommunities@curtin.edu.au or visit http://strongercommunities.curtin.edu.au For the global program see: http://www.alcoa.com/global/en/community/info_page/Foundation.asp
ISSN: 1834-6278
Recommended