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