{"id":1334,"date":"2024-11-06T14:10:29","date_gmt":"2024-11-06T14:10:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/research.reading.ac.uk\/food-systems-equality\/?p=1334"},"modified":"2024-11-06T15:00:47","modified_gmt":"2024-11-06T15:00:47","slug":"participatory-data-analysis-shazna-and-jessica-find-out-more","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/research.reading.ac.uk\/food-systems-equality\/participatory-data-analysis-shazna-and-jessica-find-out-more\/","title":{"rendered":"Participatory Data Analysis – Shazna and Jessica find out more"},"content":{"rendered":"

Jessica Horne (Research Fellow at the University of Sussex) and Shazna Hussain (Community Researcher at the Women\u2019s Environmental Network) report back on their time spent exploring PDA at a workshop at Durham University.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

On 20th<\/sup> June two members of the Sussex FoodSEqual research team visited Durham University for a one-day workshop on participatory data analysis. The workshop was hosted by Durham University\u2019s Centre for Social Justice and Community Action in collaboration with the UK Participatory Research Network<\/strong>, a group which embraces \u201cthe philosophy, principles, and potentials of participatory research\u201d (UK Participatory Research Network, 2024). Three experienced researchers facilitated the event, all of whom are members of the Participatory Research Network: Professors Sarah Banks (of Durham University), Tina Cook (of Liverpool Hope University), and Jane Springett (of University of Alberta, Canada).<\/p>\n

.\"\"<\/p>\n

Shazna and Jessica in the grounds of Durham University\u2019s Lower Mountjoy campus<\/span><\/p>\n

Shazna and Jessica took the opportunity to attend so that they could explore different approaches to participatory data analysis (PDA). The workshop was free to attend and open to academics, postgraduate researchers, and members of community organisations with \u201cexperience of, or an interest in, participatory research\u201d (Cook et al, 2024).<\/p>\n

Shazna recalls that at the start of the workshop \u201cwe were told that \u2018Participatory Data Analysis\u2019 is always quite hard and not done enough\u201d. We were also reminded about the \u201cimportance of staying with this approach\u201d.<\/p>\n

During the introduction to the workshop, Professor Sarah Banks outlined that there has not been much development in the academic literature on participatory data analysis since Melanie Nind\u2019s (2011) article, \u201cParticipatory Data Analysis \u2013 A step too far?\u201d. Sarah advised that there are no clear definitions of participatory data analysis, which made us curious to learn more.<\/p>\n

We began the day with an introductory exercise which gave us a chance to get to know one another. On our table we met Dr Rashida Bibi who is a Research Associate at University of Sheffield and Sharon Bhorkar, a PhD researcher at Leeds Beckett University. There was a nice combination of researchers and practitioners in attendance at the event, all with varied experiences of undertaking participatory research.<\/p>\n

Thinking about Participatory Data Analysis<\/strong><\/p>\n

During the first part of the workshop we were asked to participate in a Group Level Assessment (GLA). The purpose of this GLA was to help us think about different aspects of participatory data analysis individually, in small groups, and then finally as a whole group. As Shazna recalls, \u201caround the room were 24 flipchart papers with different incomplete sentences for us to walk around and jot down our thoughts about what each one meant to us\u201d.<\/p>\n

Some of the starter sentences encouraged us to think about the reasons for doing PDA (e.g., working to generate shared understandings), key features of PDA (e.g., should be participatory and inclusive) and how to make PDA accessible (e.g., finding a shared language). We were prompted to consider some of the potential misunderstandings of PDA (e.g., it\u2019s not rigorous enough) and concerns about PDA (e.g., it can be performative), as well as the disadvantages of PDA (e.g., it\u2019s time consuming and possibly an extra burden on participants). The starter questions also brought out some of the more \u2018practical considerations\u2019 of doing PDA including time, money, and other resource considerations. Several of the sheets reflected the tensions between rigid university ethical procedures and the need to be responsive to participants\u2019 needs, partly through reflexive collaboration and relationship building.<\/p>\n

Once everyone had responded to the questions on the sheets individually, we were then asked to read the sheets again and put a tick next to statements we agreed with. Each table was then given four sheets to analyse thematically. We had to choose three core themes from the sheets pictured here, before sharing them with the wider group. Reflecting on the analytical steps we took to determine our themes, Shazna said that \u201con our table we had a little debate on what methodology meant. I thought it was the different methods that are used to research, another person mentioned feminism and a third was just telling us how we have misunderstood. Jessica was there to try and defend both sides!\u201d.<\/p>\n

The experience showed us some of the challenges of doing participatory data analysis, which include moving beyond personal experiences to develop a \u2018higher level\u2019 meta-analysis. As Shazna adds, \u201cthe interesting thing here was that feminist\/feminism wasn\u2019t mentioned or written down on the paper therefore the facilitators said we shouldn’t be adding information that has not been collected from research, i.e. not adding our own views\/ideas\/words\u201d. We eventually settled with the following three themes:<\/p>\n