Mapping the Landscape of Participatory Research

• In Event: At the Crossroads: Enacting Anticolonial Responsibility in Social Studies Scholarship Through Community-Centered Participatory Research

Abstract

I’m a white settler. Although I grew up near a reservation, I learned little about Indigenous experiences in my K-12 education. As a tenured faculty member at a land grant institution, I’m still learning.

When I was a reservation bordertown teacher, I met resistance to adding Indigenous histories and literature to the curriculum. My principal explained that changes needed to be research-based, which meant—according to him—large quantitative studies. None of those studies focused on listening to Indigenous peoples.

In my frustration, I turned to reservation leaders. One elder responded, “If change happens because of research, then I guess you need to do the research.” I had no idea how to “do” research, so I muttered, “I should probably not be the one trying to create change.” I tried to use my position, as a white woman and practicing teacher, to evade difficult work. The elder replied, “Well, now that you know about this, you can’t just do nothing.”

The leaders encouraged me to enroll in a doctoral program and commit to doing research “in a good way.” For my dissertation research, Indigenous leaders identified participants and developed research questions. Participants determined how and what stories to share. We worked together to analyze data.

During one collaborative sense-making session (Archibald, 2008), I became excited about a story that held value (I believed) for (white) teachers of Native students. When I pointed it out, the participant noted, “That story actually wasn’t important. This one, over here, is the one that matters.” I realized—in that single moment—two critical lessons. First, alone, I would’ve interpreted data inaccurately. Second, my failure to see what “matters” is connected to my identity. Even when attempting to do research “in a good way,” I looked for information that reinforced my own understanding.


As Philip, Bang, and Jackson (2018) argue, educational research methodology – the how of research – should be inseparable from “the for what, the for whom, and the with whom of teaching and learning” (p. 85). Unfortunately, since research often focuses more on destinations/products than journeys/relationships, it is frequently colonial and anti-educational. Participatory social studies scholarship resists settler colonial methods.

Participatory research refers to an “epistemological orientation,” rather than a prescribed set of methods (Jacobson & Rugeley, 2007, p. 24). It recognizes community expertise and repositions the “researcher” as part of a partnership instead of a hierarchy (Frauenberger, Good, & Keay-Bright, 2010; Minkler, 2005; Northway, 2010; Schwandt, 2007). Participatory approaches support dynamic and innovative understandings of research processes (Authors; Gristy, 2014).

Despite its importance, there is a dearth of participatory research in AERA and NCSS journals. Academics assume that distance equals objectivity and rigor (Manfra, 2017; Shear & Krutka, 2018; Smith, 2012; Wemigwase & Tuck, 2019). A positivist, settler-colonial orientation remains the “superhighway” in terms of social studies research (Barton, 2006; Crocco, 2006; Shear & Krutka, 2018). Within this dominant orientation, academics are the drivers, theory and practice are confined to separate lanes, and the road bypasses the community.

Author

• Christine Rogers Stanton, Montana State University