On Tuesday 3rd November some keen geographers braved the rain and all met at Exeter St David’s station to get the train to Topsham for our first reading group. ‘It’s like going on a teddy bears picnic but only more exciting’ (Powell 2009). So all five of us got on the train and decided to not start our reading on the train as first decided as the whole world were on the 16:20 train to Exmouth. When in Topsham we ended up in The Lighter Pub where we drunk pints of ale and ate crisps. The journal we had chosen to discuss was Pain R (2004), Social Geography: Participatory Research, Progress in Human Geography, Vol 28 No 5 pp652-663. We all had many valid points we wanted to talk about which proved a forum for wide debate and discussion. One of the points we recognised was our positionality. Where do we stand in the wider spectrum of things. We discussed Leyshon 2002’s role as a ‘researcher, youth worker and representative of a voluntary youth organisation’ (Pain 2004;654) all on the same project. We talked about crossing various boundaries, and when do you take one hat off and the other on. This is almost being confused over positionality and where he stands. At what point did the boundaries cross and could you effectively be all three without causing confusion. Participation means at some point you can become too involved and emotions take over thus posing ethical questions. Is your research being rational and from a neutral perspective, which indeed is very hard in the field of participatory geographies.
This also brought about positionality – where do you fit as a researcher? Additionally whose project is it. How far do you let your participants take over, before you take back the steering wheel? How far do you go before it becomes their project and research rather than yours.
Another point to come from Pain’s paper is the idea of being a ’superhero’. In her paper Pain mentions focusing on marginalised groups – these are groups who ultimately are misunderstood or who never get a voice. Sometimes you can be expected to do too much, or rather the group expects too much of you, and with your academic knowledge and power you can change the world. It is very important from the start to find your position and make it clear what you are going to do. This ultimately then does not lead to disappointment. Indeed I mentioned that whilst conducting interviews for her undergraduate dissertation, the elderly people being interviewed expected me to change the village dynamics and solve all their problems.
Indeed through this discussion we found that we could bring into account our own experiences as researchers which ultimately had bearing on how we deal with the participatory geographies method. We all have had a variety of experiences we could discuss with each other, especially Matt’s discussion about his recent fieldwork on Sumggling and the use of participatory geographies with people amongst his village.
Whilst this is a small glimpse of what we talked about, it harboured the point that there is a whole arena for debate manifested within participatory geographies. Indeed when I first heard about it last year I did explain ‘what the hell is that!’ We discussed that people do think of it as almost a short cut getting others to do the research for you, but we realised how crucial this practice is within the geographic field, and is very much a rapidly emerging discourse.
So the final question i want to leave you all with for discussion is what indeed do you think of participatory geographies? What are your thoughts on methods and practice? What can we learn from it?
This was our first pilot group – Thanks to Laure, Keri, Matt and Ruth for attending. It was indeed Matt who managed to organise the busy bunch of people we are and decided a date and meeting point (well done Matt)and asked me to write up our first blog. Our next meeting is on Tuesday 17th November in The Vic. Please keep your eyes peeled for details of the paper going to be read. All are welcome to join, as this is inclusive to all students.
Rachel