Participatory action research: Developing a collaborative approach to modern slavery research with survivors of exploitation

5Citations
Citations of this article
18Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

This paper offers best practice guidance on participatory action research (PAR) methods in modern slavery studies, through sharing the experiences of survivors of modern slavery as active project consultants. By using participatory approaches and engaging in an action learning set model, this paper aims to understand how to meaningfully engage survivors of modern slavery as co-researchers. Inclusion was at the heart of this research study, and thus, this paper was co-produced by survivors of modern slavery. Through their voices, and by engaging in reflexivity, we share the challenges of engaging in meaningful peer research methods, lessons learned as well as the benefits of adopting this approach to provide creative, engaging and empowering opportunities for participation in research and skill development. We share some examples of challenges and successes in our approach to understand what meaningful peer research methods look like, addressing conservative and more liberal views including academic expertise, safeguarding and empowerment. In concluding this paper, we provide some recommendations for best practice, recognising a continual need to reflect and adapt peer research approaches that suits the needs of the peer researchers as well as the subject to be studied. The overwhelming sentiment, is that social science research must look to engage in peer research methods, recognising the expertise of lived experience, and the potential for research to empower others while also creating meaningful change.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Keighley, R., Sanders, T., Saunders, L., & Agg, H. (2023). Participatory action research: Developing a collaborative approach to modern slavery research with survivors of exploitation. Methodological Innovations, 16(3), 393–404. https://doi.org/10.1177/20597991231208441

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free