Participation Unit Techniques

Participative and Deliberative Approaches

Unlike traditional research methodologies, which view participants as a 'subject' for study, participatory techniques see respondents more as agents, actively involved in the research process. This shift in focus, actively incorporating the experiences and knowledge of the subjects of research, offers a more nuanced and subtle way of seeing the world as it appears to respondents.

Examples include:

Peer interviewing:

members of the public are recruited to conduct research with respondents who share many of the same characteristics as themselves — such as age, sex, social class, language of ethnic origin.

Using this technique, participants and peer interviewers are able to develop a more effective and engaging rapport with one another, encouraging open conversation about experience that the interviewer and interviewee might have in common, but which the researcher might not.

Peer interviewing has often been used in work with young people, and Ipsos MORI have made use of this technique when researching drug use and homelessness.

Citizen researchers:

members of the public recruited to conduct primary research, usually amongst their peer group. They enjoy many of the same advantages as peer interviewers, developing a good rapport with the group they wish to study, understanding jargon and helping bring out views which differ from those of professionals. However, Citizen Researchers are often involved in the project at an earlier stage — helping to develop the design and questions to be put to respondents. After the fieldwork is completed, they might also be involved in the process of reporting the results of the research.

Deliberative techniques

involve participants in creating and exploring different options and get them involved in or ultimately responsible for decision making. These approaches are usually used in:

Citizen's juries:

usually take place over one to five days, during which time participants (or jurors) deliberate a certain question or issue. To help with their deliberations, they hear evidence from a variety of 'specialist witnesses', who present arguments on different sides of the debate. Jurors are given the time and space to scrutinise the information given to them, and the experts, as they see fit, before reaching a conclusion.

The strength of the citizens' jury lies in the way in which it directly encourages participants to play an active role in the research process, questioning and interacting with one another and with the experts and challenging this separation between researcher and subject.. The role of the researcher in this model is not so much to directly ask the questions (as in a focus group), but rather as a neutral, facilitating discussion amongst jurors.

Workshops:

an interactive session or sessions, often taking a full day, in which researchers and participants work intensively on an issue or question. The process often combines elements of qualitative research, brainstorming and problem solving. They may involve larger numbers of people than conventional group discussions, and often involve more than one moderator or facilitator.

The fact that workshops often take longer than conventional focus groups or depth interviews adds another level of flexibility to the research design. For example, it is possible to vary the composition of the workshop throughout the day, divide people into subgroups, or to provide time for presentations by the client. The longer time frame also allows moderators to challenge the opinions of participants as the day progresses — for example by introducing various types of information at different points throughout the session, or by allowing time for presentations or question and answer sessions.

Real world exercises:

putting participants into situations which approximate 'real life', encouraging them to balance aims, priorities and preferences in a way that reflects the external world. For example, Ipsos MORI have previously run 'budget setting workshops', where participants are given the role of councillors choosing between different spending priorities. The aim is not simply to gather information about individual preferences, but also to encourage a degree of empathy between participants and decision-makers.

In pre-tasking exercises,

participants are asked to perform a range of tasks for a few days before attending an interview or workshop. A typical example of a pre-tasking exercise would be to keep a diary, or to refrain from an everyday action such as using a particular brand of product.

Pre-tasking is a creative and participant-centred way of getting people engaged with the subject matter and enabling them to contribute effectively to discussions. This method can be useful to 'warm-up' participants before coming to the group, as they have been encouraged to think about the topic before hand and they are already engaged and involved — one of the key objectives of the research. For this reason, comments are likely to be more informed or reflective. Pre-tasking in this way is therefore an effective means of stimulating discussion.