Participatory engagement and social research: methods toolkit

Annex A

Using participatory methods when face to face methods are not possible

The COVID pandemic limited the use of face to face and group methodologies for a period of time. Alternative options such as online meetings were often necessary, as they were in line with rules and regulations that were in place at the time. It is possible that other events or circumstances in the future also limit the use of face-to-face research. Contractors or researchers should follow whatever rules are in place when designing and delivering methodologies for SEIA.

Key aspects of participatory methods are the building of trust and rapport, encouraging openness, discussion, and collaboration; and the sharing of knowledge, ideas, and lived experience. Restrictions may mean that it is not possible to use methods in-person, but this does not mean that the opportunities to use participatory methods, and the benefits from doing so, are necessarily lost.

Firstly, some methods are already commonly used online or at a distance, for example, surveys and interviews are frequently administered online or by telephone whilst social media analysis, archival research, and secondary data analysis may all be unaffected by face-to-face restrictions.

Secondly, the COVID pandemic has normalised the use of online methods of communication and interaction for many people, for work, schooling, keeping in touch with family and friends, as well as community meetings and interactions. Inviting people to participate in activities online is more likely to be acceptable and familiar for many than before the pandemic.

Thirdly, there may be greater opportunity for participation if methods are being used online, for example, parents with child-care responsibilities do not have to leave the house to attend an online evening meeting, and it may be possible to reach people in dispersed locations who could not have travelled to attend in-person events.

However, using participatory methods during times of restrictions may take more effort. There are a range of online techniques, tools, and software packages available to share images and resources and allow participants to comment or annotate them, but these may be costly, complex to operate, and difficult to understand and interact with for some participants. It may be harder to build rapport through a screen than in-person and take more effort to enthusiastically engage participants.

It is also vital to consider who may be precluded from participating: people in marginalised or vulnerable groups; those who do not have access to reliable Wi-Fi or technology, or who are not sufficiently IT-literate; or those with visual or hearing difficulties, who may struggle to engage in online discussions. It is also important to consider privacy and safety issues for those participating in their homes or places where they may be overheard; and the difficulties that anyone may be facing during times of significant disruption, uncertainty, and upset.

Adaptation and multiple methods

One of the key points in this Toolkit is about the benefits of using multiple methods. Where in-person interactions cannot take place, this may be even more important, using different ways to try and encourage participation, and to generate engagement with the key issues. It is also the case that many participatory methods can be adapted. A significant example of this is Scotland’s Climate Assembly, a citizen’s jury exploring how to address climate change, which was conducted entirely online^[11].

A useful review of the way in which participatory methods have been adapted in a pandemic is by Hall et al (2021)^[12]; and Lupton (2021)^[13] covers a number of important considerations. The ways in which all the methods in this toolkit can be adapted for times when in-person interactions are restricted has been set out in Table A.

Table A Implications of using methods during social restrictions

• Archival research: Most/all resources are likely to be available online; access to libraries and data archives may be limited (but should not involve interactions with others, and social distancing and any hygiene measures can be followed if required).
• Citizens’ Juries: Can be conducted entirely online; requires effort to make digital resources, although can be prepared in advance. Participation easier for some participants, harder for others.
• Community events: Many in-person events (either set up for the SEIA, or existing events at which the SEIA is conducted) will not be possible if there are restrictions. Events could take place outdoors if allowed. Difficult to hold ‘drop-in’ events online.
• Focus groups: Possible to hold online; some interactive tools are more difficult to use, and harder to build rapport than in-person.
• Landscape immersion: Participants can still undertake this method, if there are restrictions prohibiting indoor social activities, as locations are outdoors and local to them. Instructions can be given, and feedback delivered online/by telephone.
• One-to-one interviews: Often undertaken online/by telephone. Harder to interpret non-verbal cues or build rapport.
• Ongoing advisory panel: Can be conducted online, if all participants have IT access. Updates can be shared online.
• Participatory appraisal: Possible to conduct sessions online; some interactive tools are more difficult to use, and harder to develop group discussion and build rapport than in-person.
• Public dialogues: Possible to conduct sessions online; some interactive tools are more difficult to use, and harder to develop group discussion and build rapport than in-person.
• Public meetings: Possible to conduct sessions online; may encourage some attendees who only want to listen; facilitation may be harder online.
• Scenario mapping: Possible to conduct sessions online; some interactive tools are more difficult to use, and harder to develop group discussion and build rapport than in-person.
• Secondary data analysis: Most/all resources are likely to be available online; access to libraries and data archives may be limited (but should not involve interactions with others, and any social distancing and hygiene measures can be followed if required).
• Social media analysis: All available online.
• Structured consensus-building: Possible to conduct sessions online; some interactive tools are more difficult to use, and harder to develop group discussion and build rapport than in-person.
• Surveying: Often already conducted online or by telephone. Face-to-face surveys can be useful in particular locations; information could be given in those places as to how to participate in online versions.
• Tours and field trips: May be difficult to use; possibility that small groups/bubbles may be able to attend during certain restrictions. Otherwise, trying to put communities in touch with each other through other means (sharing information online, chat groups and so on) is still valuable.