Coursework Coversheet

Department of Social Sciences - Masters Coursework

Important: Do not write your name anywhere on this form or on your coursework.

Candidate no. RYKB7

Full time/ Part time/ Full time
Modular Flexible
Module Title Research Engagement, Participation, and Impact

Essay Title Assessing stakeholder involvement in a PAR study by

undergraduate women in STEM at the University of Cincinnati
Date of submission 02/02/2022

Have you been formally diagnosed as having dyslexia? NO (delete as appropriate).

Do you have any other documented disability that may affect the presentation of your
coursework? If yes, please give details here. NO (delete as appropriate).

Please complete the following declaration:

I have not written my name anywhere on this form or my coursework,
including the file name;
I have included my word count and my essay falls within the required word
length;
This is my first submission for this module; OR

This is my resubmission for this module;

I have read the guidelines on plagiarism and this is entirely my own work.

Declaration: I confirm that I have read the Institute of Education’s guidelines on

plagiarism. This assignment is entirely my own work and has not been copied, or
paraphrased from any published or unpublished material. It is written in my own
words throughout. I understand that my work will be stored in the ‘Turnitin’ database
and may be compared against work submitted from this or any other departments
within this or any other institutions using the service.
 Assessing stakeholder involvement in a PAR study on undergraduate women in STEM
at the University of Cincinnati
Introduction
Traditionally, research has had the tendency to exclude rather than engage those who
are most affected by it (Stewart and Liabo, 2012). However, the rise of inclusive research has
begun to enable the public to participate in the research process as more than merely a source
of data collection (Nind, 2014). While the success of research used to revolve around
scientific discovery and seeking universal truths, the development towards a second mode of
knowledge production has provided researchers with the opportunity to seek actionable
research that can create change with the people who need it most, rather than just as
information to publish in an academic journal (Coghlan and Brydon-Miller, 2014). This essay
will evaluate the impact of using inclusive research methods in a Participatory Action
Research (PAR) study by undergraduate women in STEM (Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics) fields at the University of Cincinnati.
As women, and especially women of colour, are consistently underrepresented in the
fields of STEM, this study was conducted with the aim of creating change through the lens of
the women themselves. The essay will first provide an overview of the study and evaluate the
participatory methods that were used. The essay will then seek to critically analyse whether
the study was able to support a diverse range of stakeholders using several frameworks for
evaluating involvement. Ultimately, this essay argues that co-researcher group POWER
(Participatory Opportunity for Women Emerging Researchers) conducted a PAR study which
successfully demonstrated the use of participatory methods to gain a better understanding of
the experiences of women in STEM, however, lacked the necessary level of stakeholder
involvement to provide the expertise needed for greater impact.
POWER’s Plan
As a group of six undergraduate women co-researchers at the University of
Cincinnati, POWER was formed through a shared goal to create change at the university
level to help overcome the barriers that women in STEM face and promote their success.
POWER members participated as co-researchers through the entire process and chose to
bring in additional participants only when conducting the research methods. POWER selected
several participatory methods for which they engaged the participation of 17 undergraduate
women in STEM at the university.
POWER first held a Group-Level Assessment (GLA) to gather preliminary data, and
then the GLA participants were provided with a mixed methods self-study based off the GLA
findings as well as from the personal experiences of the co-researchers. The self-study
consisted of ‘Future Creating Workshop’, defined as a critical utopian action research method
to scrutinise a problem through deconstructing and reconstructing it, ‘Photovoice Study’, an
arts-based research method involving taking photographs in response to a prompt, and
‘Collage Inquiry’, where participants analysed collages created by co-researchers. POWER,
after conducting a participatory data analysis among co-researchers, then used the findings to
determine their next steps of action, which included communicating their findings to the
public and reaching out to key stakeholders.
The POWER of PAR?
Participatory Action Research (PAR) is a bottom-up approach that has been praised
for empowering marginalised groups by seeing them as change agents and overcoming the
traditional power dynamics of research and is an ideal approach for working with a
subordinated group of women like in POWER’s study (Nind, 2014). Using PAR enabled
POWER co-researchers to illuminate a shared understanding through multiple lived
experiences, which may have otherwise remained hidden, and provided participants with the
opportunity to recognise their lived experiences as important and impactful (Reid et al.,
2006). On one hand, PAR allowed POWER members, as undergraduate women co-
researchers, the opportunity to use their own insider experience to help identify relevant
topics and questions (Stewart and Liabo, 2012). On the other hand, however, having peer
researchers conducting research has been criticised for having the potential to perpetuate
power imbalances by providing students with power over other students (Arnstein, 1969).
Additionally, while inclusive research is praised for giving voice, critics have argued that it
does not actually change any important issues for powerless groups and providing socially
excluded individuals with the authority to conduct research is not a form of empowerment
(Nind, 2014).
However, PAR is not a well-defined approach, but rather a general collaborative
method that simultaneously aims to understand the world and change it for the better, which
can cover many various theories and approaches (Chevalier and Buckles, 2019). While
referenced but not specifically stated in their report, POWER’s study adheres to a Feminist
Participatory Action Research (FPAR) approach, by aiming to understand and create
solutions to problems of importance for a community of women (Reid et al., 2006). The
FPAR framework “blends participatory action research and critical feminist theory by
advocating that women must be involved in all stages of the research process” (Reid et al.,
2006, p.316), and supports the use of qualitative participatory methods to highlight how
social structures constrain women’s lives through the women themselves describing their
experiences and the changes that they are in need of. By viewing POWER’s study through an
FPAR lens, engaging a group of stigmatised women to challenge the system is empowering
in itself (Reid et al., 2006).
Evaluating Involvement
POWER’s report did not utilise a specific process to analyse involvement, therefore,
Oliver et al.’s (2015) framework, Nind and Vinha’s (2012) guidelines, and the INVOLVE
(2016) standards will be used to evaluate stakeholder involvement in this study. Using
Oliver’s (2015) framework, the drivers of involvement are reflected through the coordination
between women co-researchers aiming to create change in STEM fields at the University of
Cincinnati (Guy et al., 2020). According to the framework, having researchers who are
motivated and blend their skills with personal experience facilitates involvement (Oliver et
al., 2015). However, the framework also identifies public expertise as an important factor to
produce relevant research, as including a diverse range of stakeholders can lead to a more
viable plan of action (Oliver et al., 2015). For example, an influential PAR study on homeless
women, which is referenced upon in POWER’s report, included a collaboration with
homeless women, feminist researchers, facilitators from a women’s programme, artists, social
service agency workers, and a feminist adult educator (Clover, 2011). POWER co-
researchers therefore may have been able to act as greater agents of change if they had chosen
to include more of the university community and reached out to key stakeholders, such as
social justice enthusiasts or feminist advocate groups, to provide the resources and expertise
needed when planning research (Oliver et al., 2015).
In terms of the processes of involvement, POWER specifically selected undergraduate
women in STEM at the University of Cincinnati to participate in their research tasks,
adhering to the framework’s notion that collaboration is more likely to happen through
encouraging debate among similar people (Oliver et al., 2015). Moreover, the decision to use
focus groups combined with arts-based collaborative methods promotes inclusion by
providing participants who might be uncomfortable in group discussion with a platform and
enabling coordination between the researchers’ and the participants’ agendas (Conolly,
2005). However, the framework posits that involvement methods should enable outsiders to
contribute to debates and influence decision-making (Oliver et al., 2015). POWER members
may have been strengthened their study by involving stakeholders that could uncover action
steps that would be beneficial not only for women in STEM, but also for the public and for
those implementing the policy (Stewart and Liabo, 2012).
 Evidence from feminist participatory action research (FPAR) has also identified the
need for additional outsider expertise in workshops, as studies conducted by women
highlighted that they felt unable to accomplish the intended goals alone and would have
benefitted from having an outside expert come to the research meetings to “have people at the
meetings who are knowledgeable and can help us, because we can make recommendations
but they are just like air” (Reid et al., 2006, p.323). POWER justified their decision not to
have faculty mentorship as a forced result due to lack of funding and interest, however, they
could have still improved the diversity of outsider participation throughout the research
process, for example, by inviting STEM department leaders to share their thoughts on why
women continue to face barriers to STEM or asking decision-makers to explain what plan of
action would be best to eliminate these barriers feasibly, in order to further POWER’s
capacity to enact change.
Along with the lack of outsider inclusion, Oliver et al (2015) identified several other
barriers to impacts of involvement that are demonstrated within POWER’s study, such as the
shortage of sufficient time for research and difficulties reaching out to stakeholders who lack
interest and are resistant to change. Conolly (2008) argues that the success of participatory
research is dependent on a certain level of commitment, which cannot be assumed for many
excluded young women as their lives tend to be fragmented. This is demonstrated through
POWER’s difficulties in maintaining engagement, with the group members unable to commit
to regular meetings or recruit more group members due to the heavy burden of commitments
already placed on undergraduate women in STEM (Guy et al, 2020). While POWER’s
decision to avoid creating conflict with participants and co-researchers, such as by forcing
meetings or participation, was ethically sound, POWER may have benefitted from providing
an incentive to attend meetings. For example, the previously mentioned study on homeless
women successfully promoted involvement through providing food and beverages, and
hosted ‘drop in sessions’ which allowed the women to show up at their own convenience
(Clover, 2011).
Another method for analysing public involvement, the National Institute for Health
Research’s (2016) INVOLVE standards, additionally highlights these areas which POWER
could have improved upon. The first standard, inclusive opportunities, involves “offering
public involvement opportunities that are accessible and that reach people and groups
according to research needs” (INVOLVE, n.d.). POWER’s study did not reveal how
participants were selected, and despite their acknowledgement of the greater struggles that
women of colour faced in STEM, there was no mention of whether women of colour were
included in the study. Ensuring a diverse group of participants is important for research to
produce a shared understanding through differing experiences of women in STEM, and avoid
solely projecting a white, middle-class experience (Nind, 2014).
POWER’s choice of research methods promote inclusion, as the use of creative, arts-
based methods has been shown to actively facilitate engagement and disrupt dominant voices
(Cornwall and Jewkes, 1995). FPAR also advocates for the focus group method to encourage
conversation between women with shared experiences (Reid et al., 2006). Additionally,
studies have shown that knowledge sharing in group discussions complement visual methods
by helping to explore differences in perceptions (Cornwall and Jewkes, 1995)). However,
according to Nind (2014), methods and approaches “should fit the question and not just be
used because they are participatory, creative, or innovative” (p.80). POWER’s decision to use
an out-of-the-box method such as ‘Future Creating Workshop’, may have been unnecessary,
as the report did not specify how the method had any relevance to the research.
INVOLVE’S second, fourth, and fifth standard, working together, communications,
and impact were well met by POWER’s study, with the co-researchers working together with
a shared purpose and presenting their findings to the public to share their learning and
promote further impact. However, the third standard, support and learning, may have been
improved upon if the research participants were offered support and learning to enable their
further participation in the study. Additionally, POWER fell short on meeting the sixth
standard, governance, by failing to provide “visible leadership and clear lines of
responsibility” (INVOLVE, n.d.). Lacking coordination between the co-researcher group in
combination with neglecting to involve key stakeholders with more experience may have
contributed to the lack of public interest and further research impact.
Nind and Vinha’s (2012) guidelines and expectations for researchers can be used to
further analyse the level of involvement in POWER’s study, through three main areas for
consideration: quality, teamwork, and ethics. In terms of quality and teamwork, the POWER
study brought participants and co-researchers together in a meaningful way to produce
important knowledge on the barriers and success factors that women in STEM face at the
University of Cincinnati, findings which may have otherwise remained hidden (Guy et al.,
2020). While any long-term benefits of the research remain unclear, POWER members took
action to inform future program development for women in STEM, promoting their findings
through website creation and reaching out to key stakeholders through meetings, university
presentations, and an art show (Guy et al., 2020). Moreover, these dissemination efforts led to
a connection with the Office of Undergraduate Research, which they hoped would help them
create support programs for undergraduate women researchers in STEM in the future.
These action steps may have been improved through additional skill sharing and
agenda setting with outsiders, however, evidence from FPAR has found that taking riskier
actions could end up causing more harm than good to groups of marginalized women
engaging in collective action, especially within traditionally male dominated spaces that were
designed to exclude them (Reid et al., 2006). For example, if they had chosen to use their
findings to challenge the university and demand change, it is possible that participants could
have gotten into trouble or been berated by other students. POWER raises this ethical
challenge in their report, pointing to a prior FPAR project where there were concerns over
welfare workers becoming aware of the participation of low-income women in the study. It
can therefore be argued that POWER co-researchers, who found themselves struggling to
choose between an ideal version of action and what they could feasibly accomplish, made the
right choice to constrict the level of outsider involvement and reduce the potential harm to
participants (Guy et al., 2020).
Nind and Vinha’s (2012) guidelines further highlight the ethical concerns of
POWER’s study, such as the overburdening of researchers and participants. Moreover, while
advocates of PAR focus on its implementation as deconstructing the traditional power
dynamics of research, some have questioned whether all participants are still empowered
even if they do not have the power to act as the researchers in the research process (Nind,
2014). However, according to Nind (2014), feminist research recognises that “knowledge that
can be used to emancipate women’s lives does not always require a particular methodological
approach to achieve political objectives” (p.78) and POWER co-researchers were already
limited in their ability to enable involvement by studying participants who were overwhelmed
with other commitments.
Impact
While POWER’s aim to utilize the findings of this study to create change at the
university was not reached, POWER took action to increase the visibility of their findings
through multiple venues which led to a connection with the Office of Undergraduate
Research. POWER also recruited a PhD student to help coordinate projects and promote the
sustainability of the group. The inclusion of these key stakeholders will hopefully influence
POWER’s next PAR cycle and allow for the enaction of viable action steps.
However, POWER’s lack of focus on the FPAR framework, which considers that
influential action in FPAR studies can even simply involve “speaking to validate oneself and
one’s experiences in the world” (Reid et al., 2006, p.317), may have negatively affected the
outcomes of their study. Referencing the framework could have encouraged the group to
realise the importance of even the smallest actions that they were able to take, and its
contribution to a larger social change agenda, and studies have also shown that analysing how
action research may contribute to feminist and other agendas both inspires and leads to better-
informed collective action (Reid et al., 2006). Moreover, paying additional attention to
feminist participatory action research would have provided POWER with essential
knowledge on what tools could have been used to better engage key stakeholders and secure
additional resources.
Ultimately, POWER’s study empowered both co-researchers and participants by
bringing women together to create a sense of community and enabling the women themselves
to speak on their experience and articulate the changes that they feel need to be addressed
within patriarchal structures that continue to constrain them (Reid et al., 2006). In addition,
they reported feeling confident that the dissemination efforts they took would bring forth
further action steps, such as engaging key stakeholders, and these steps were taken without
causing any potential harm to participants (Guy et al., 2020). According to Nind (2014), there
are many rich reports of inclusive research but they often “lack detail on how participation
was optimised, and critical self-reflection and shared reflection are needed” (p.85). POWER’s
report, by openly reflecting on their struggles and concerns, is an influential source for the
advancement of participatory research.
Word Count: 2763
Bibliography:
Arnstein R, S. (1969) A Ladder of Citizen Participation, Journal of the American
Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216-224, doi: 10.1080/01944366908977225
Chevalier, J. and Buckles, D (2019). Participatory Action Research: Theory and
Methods for Engaged Inquiry (2nd ed), Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781351033268
Clover, D. (2011) Successes and challenges of feminist arts-based participatory
methodologies with homeless/street-involved women in Victoria. Action Research, 9(1),
p.12-26. doi: 10.1177/1476750310396950
Coghlan, D. and Brydon-Miller, M. (2014) Mode 1 and Mode 2 Knowledge
Production, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Action Research, vol 2, doi: 10.4135/9781446294406
Conolly, A. (2008) Challenges of Generating Qualitative Data with Socially Excluded
Young People, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11(3), 201-214, doi:
10.1080/13645570701401446
 Cornwall, A. and Jewkes, R. (1995) What is participatory research? Social Science
and Medicine, 41(12), p.1667-1679. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(95)00127-S
Guy, B., Feldman, T., Cain, C., Leesman, L., Hood, C. (2020). Defining and
navigating ‘action’ in a Participatory Action Research project, Educational Action Research,
28:1, 142-153, doi: 10.1080/09650792.2019.1675524
INVOLVE (n.d.) Inclusive Opportunities. The UK Public Involvement Standards
Development Partnership. Accessed 2 Feb 2022 from, https://sites.google.com/nihr.ac.uk/pi-
standards/home?authuser=0
Nind, M. (2014). Inclusive research defined. In What is inclusive research? (pp. 1–
14). London: Bloomsbury Academic. Accessed 13 Jan 2022 from,
http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781849668149.ch-001
Nind, M. and Vinha, H. (2012) Doing Research Inclusively, Doing Research Well?
Report of the Study: Quality and Capacity in Inclusive Research with People with Learning
Disabilities. Southampton: University of Southampton. Accessed 13 Jan from,
http://www.southampton.ac.uk/education/research/projects/quality_and_capacity_in_inclusiv
e_research_with_learning_disabilities.page
Oliver S, Liabo K, Stewart R, Rees R. (2015) Public involvement in research: making
sense of the diversity. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 20(1), 45-51.
doi:10.1177/1355819614551848
Reid, C., Tom, A., Frisby, W. (2006). Finding the ‘action’ in feminist participatory
action research. Action Research. 4 (3), 315 – 332, doi: 0.1177/1476750306066804