Expression of Story: Ethical considerations for participatory, community- and arts-based research relationships
Keywords:Participatory, community-based research, arts-based research, meta-research, power dynamics, research ethics
INTRODUCTION: This meta-research article considers the ethics and efficacy of a nonviolent, “braided” methodology used by a research study called “The Recognition Project.” The methodology of The Recognition Project interweaved participatory, community-, and arts- based approaches in an effort to create a cooperative, relationally oriented environment where three distinct communities of interest could contribute respectively—and collaboratively—to the sharing, creation, and public dance performance of stories about self-harm. The three communities of interest were university-based researchers, community-based researchers who had engaged in self-harm, and an artist team of choreographers, a musician, and professional youth dancers. Our article explores some of the experiences, as shared by dancers of the artist team, from narrative interviews following the final dance performance.
METHOD: Data were collected through qualitative interviews conducted with six artist team members. A qualitative thematic analysis approach was used to identify the main themes.
FINDINGS: What emerged was an overriding theme about Story and the power issues that came forward due to the personal and the collective aspects of Story. The power issues were related to individual and collective exercise of power, the use of dialogue to build a positive community, and the transformative potential for the artist collaborators to participate in such a study.
CONCLUSION: While participatory, community- and arts-based projects are often taken up with the intention of facilitating research that will not harm, there are important and additional ethical considerations to be made in community-based collaborations that feature difference across perspective, experience, skill, and knowledge.
Banks, S., Armstrong, A., Carter, K., Graham, H., Hayward, P., Henry, A., ... Strachan, A. (2013). Everyday ethics in community-based participatory research. Contemporary Social Science, 8(3), 263–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/2 1582041.2013.769618
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. In H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds.), APA handbooks in psychology®. APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol. 2. Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (pp. 57–71). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13620-004
Brunner, C. (2016). Knowing suicide terrorism? Tracing epistemic violence across scholarly expertise. Ethiopian Renaissance, 3(1), 3. http://ejol.aau.edu.et/index.php/ ERJSSH/article/view/1701/1206
de Leeuw, S., Cameron, E., & Greenwood, M. (2012). Participatory and community-based research, Indigenous geographies, and the spaces of friendship: A critical engagement. Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe Canadien, 56(2), 180–194. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1541-0064.2012.00434.x
de Leeuw, S. & Hunt, S. (2018). Unsettling decolonizing geographies. Geography Compass, 12(7), e12376. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12376
Denzin, N. K. (2018). The qualitative manifesto: A call to arms. Routledge.
Denzin, N. K. (2019). The death of data in neoliberal times. Qualitative Inquiry, 25(8), 721–724. https://doi. org/10.1177/1077800419847501
Eglinton, K.A., Gubrium, A., & Wexler, L. (2011). Digital storytelling research and practice. In S. N. Hess-Biber (Ed.), Handbook of emergent technologies in social research (pp. 469–491). Oxford University Press.
Flicker, S., O’Campo, P., Monchalin, R., Thistle, J., Worthington, C., Masching, R., ... Thomas, C. (2015). Research done in “a good way”: The importance of indigenous elder involvement in HIV community-based research. American Journal of Public Health, 105(6), 1149–1154. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2014.302522
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (Alan Sheridan, trans.). Random House.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977. Vintage.
Geia, L. K., Hayes, B., & Usher, K. (2013). Yarning/ Aboriginal storytelling: Towards an understanding of an indigenous perspective and its implications for research practice. Contemporary Nurse, 46(1), 13–17. https://doi.org/10.5172/conu.2013.46.1.13
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). Sage.
Gubrium, A., & Turner, K. N. (2011). Digital storytelling as an emergent method for social research and practice. In S. N. Hesse-Biber (Ed.), Handbook of emergent technologies in social research (pp. 469–491). Oxford University Press.
Gutberlet, J., de Oliverira, B. J., & Tremblay, C. (2017). Arts- based and participatory action research with recycling cooperatives. In L. L. Rowell., C. D. Bruce.,
J. M. Shosh., & M. M. Riel (Eds.), The Palgrave international handbook of action research. Palgrave Macmillan.
Held, B. S. (2019). Epistemic violence in psychological science: Can knowledge of, from, and for the (othered) people solve the problem? Theory & Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354319883943
Hill, R. W., Sr., & Coleman, D. (2019). The two row wampum- covenant chain tradition as a guide for indigenous- university research partnerships. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 19(5), 339–359. https://doi. org/10.1177/1532708618809138
Lonczak, H. S., Thomas, L. R., Donovan, D., Austin, L., Sigo, R. L., Lawrence, N., & Tribe, S. (2013). Navigating the tide together: Early collaboration between tribal and academic partners in a CBPR study. Pimatisiwin, 11(3), 395. Retrieved from http://www.pimatisiwin.com/online/ wp-content/uploads/2014/02/05LonczakThomas.pdf
Maguire, M., & Delahunt, B. (2017). Doing a thematic analysis: A practical, step-by-step guide for learning and teaching scholars. All Ireland Journal of Higher Education, 9(3). http://ojs.aishe.org/index.php/aishe-j/ article/view/335
Malott, C. (2010). Policy and research in education: A critical pedagogy for educational leadership (Vol. 4). Peter Lang.
McTaggart, R., Nixon, R., & Kemmi, S. (2017). Critical participatory action research. In L. L. Rowell., C. D. Bruce., J. M. Shosh., & M. M. Riel (Eds.), The Palgrave international handbook of action research. Palgrave Macmillan.
Ninomiya, M. E. M., & Pollock, N. J. (2017). Reconciling community-based indigenous research and academic practices: Knowing principles is not always enough. Social Science & Medicine, 172, 28–36. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.11.007
Penak, N. (2019). Walking Toronto’s red road: The story pathways of indigenous social workers (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Toronto, ONT. Retrieved from https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/ bitstream/1807/97575/3/Penak_Nicole_201911_PhD_ thesis.pdf
Simonds, V. W., & Christopher, S. (2013). Adapting western research methods to indigenous ways of knowing. American Journal of Public Health, 103(12), 2185–2192. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.301157
Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the subaltern speak? MacMillan.
Stein, C. H., & Faigin, D. A. (2015). Community-based arts initiatives: Exploring the science of the arts. American Journal of Community Psychology, 55, 70–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-014-9698-3
Thompson, N. L., Miller, N. C., & Cameron, A. F. (2016). The indigenization of photovoice methodology: Visioning indigenous head start in Michigan. International Review of Qualitative Research, 9(3), 296–322. https://doi.org/10.1525/irqr.2016.9.3.296
Tuck, E. (2018). Biting the university that feeds us. In M. Spooner & J. McNinch (Eds.), Dissident knowledge in higher education (pp. 21–40). University of Regina Press.
Tucker, C. M., Williams, J. L., Roncoroni, J., & Heesacker, M. (2017). A socially just leadership approach to community-partnered research for reducing health disparities. The Counseling Psychologist, 45(6), 781–809. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000017722213
van der Vaart, G., van Hoven, B., & Huigen, P. P. P. (2018). Creative and arts-based research methods in academic research. Lessons from a participatory research Project in the Netherlands. FQS, 19(2), Article 19.Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/ view/2961
Van Katwyk, T., & Case, R. (2017). From suspicion and accommodation to structural transformation: Enhanced scholarship through enhanced community-university relations. Engaged Scholar Journal, 2(2), 25–43.
Wang, Q., Coemans, S., Siegesmund, R., & Hannes, K. (2017). Arts-based methods in socially engaged research practice: A classification framework. Art/ Research International: A Transdisciplinary Journal, 2(2), 5–39. https://doi.org/10.18432/R26G8P
Watson, A., (2019). Methods braiding: A technique for arts-based and mixed-methods research. Sociological Research Online, 1–18. https://doi. org/10.1177/1360780419849437
Wilson, E., Kenny, A., & Dickson-Swift, V. (2018). Ethical challenges in community-based participatory research: A scoping review. Qualitative Health Research, 28(2), 189–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732317690721
Wood, L. (2017). The ethical implication of community- based research: A call to rethink current review boards requirements. International Journal
of Qualitative Methods, 16, 1–7. https://doi. org/10.1177/1609406917748276
How to Cite
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
By completing the online submission process, you confirm you accept this agreement. The following is the entire agreement between you and the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers (ANZASW) and it may be modified only in writing.
You and any co-authors
If you are completing this agreement on behalf of co-authors, you confirm that you are acting on their behalf with their knowledge.
By submitting the work you are:
- granting the ANZASW the right of first publication of this work;
- confirming that the work is original; and
- confirming that the work has not been published in any other form.
Once published, you are free to use the final, accepted version in any way, as outlined below under Copyright.
You assign copyright in the final, accepted version of your article to the ANZASW. You and any co-authors of the article retain the right to be identified as authors of the work.
The ANZASW will publish the final, accepted manuscript under a Creative Commons Attribution licence (CC BY 4.0). This licence allows anyone – including you – to share, copy, distribute, transmit, adapt and make commercial use of the work without needing additional permission, provided appropriate attribution is made to the original author or source.
A human-readable summary of the licence is available from http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0, which includes a link to the full licence text.
Under this licence you can use the final, published version of the article freely – such as depositing a copy in your institutional research repository, uploading a copy to your profile on an academic networking site or including it in a different publication, such as a collection of articles on a topic or in conference proceedings – provided that original publication in Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work is acknowledged.
This agreement has no effect on any pre-publication versions or elements, which remain entirely yours, and to which we claim no right.
Reviewers hold copyright in their own comments and should not be further copied in any way without their permission.
The copyright of others
If your article includes the copyright material of others (e.g. graphs, diagrams etc.), you confirm that your use either:
- falls within the limits of fair dealing for the purposes of criticism and review or fair use; OR
- that you have gained permission from the rights holder for publication in an open access journal.