Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T01:21:12.513Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Unsettling the Anti-Welfare Commonsense: The Potential in Participatory Research with People Living in Poverty

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2019

RUTH PATRICK
RUTH PATRICK*
Affiliation:
Department of Social Policy and Social Work, University of York, UK email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Drawing on participatory research with people living in poverty, this article details the possibilities inherent in this research tradition and its particular applicability and as yet often unrealised potential for poverty and social security research. The dominant framing of ‘welfare’ and poverty foregrounds elite political and politicised accounts, which place emphasis on individual and behavioural drivers of poverty, and imply that the receipt of ‘welfare’ is necessarily and inevitably problematic. A large body of academic evidence counters this framing, illustrating the extent to which popular characterisations are out of step with lived realities. What is often missing, however, are the voices and expertise of those directly affected by poverty and welfare reform. This article argues that placing experts by experience on poverty at the centre of research efforts is best understood as constituting a direct challenge to the marginalising and silencing of the voices and perspectives of people living in poverty. While this hints at participatory research’s great potential, it is vital also to recognise the inherent challenges of taking a participatory approach. Significantly, though, participatory research can undermine popular characterisations of poverty and welfare and provide opportunities for alternative narratives to emerge, narratives which could contribute to the building of a pro-welfare imaginary over time.

Keywords

participatory researchpovertywelfaresocial securityexperts by experience
Type
Article
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , April 2020 , pp. 251 - 270
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

AgeUK. (2015), Care and support [Online]. London: AgeUK. Available: http://www.ageuk.org.uk/professional-resources-home/services-and-practice/care-and-support/experts-by-experience/ [Accessed 2.08.15].Google Scholar
Aldridge, J. (2016), Participatory research: Working with vulnerable groups in research and practice. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Banks, S.et al. (2013), Everyday ethics in community-based participatory research Contemporary Social Science: Journal of the Academy of Social Sciences, 8, (3), 263–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barber, R., Boote, J., Parry, G., Cooper, C. and Yeeles, P. (2012), Evaluating the impact of public involvement on research. In: Barnes, M., and Cotterell, P. (Eds.) Critical perspectives on user involvement. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Barnes, M. and Cotterell, P. (Eds.) (2012), Critical perspectives on user involvement. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Barnes, C. and Mercer, G. (1997), Breaking the Mould? An introduction to doing disability research. In: Barnes, C. and Mercer, G. (Eds.) Doing disability research. Leeds: The Disability Press.Google Scholar
Beatty, C. and Fothergill, S. (2016), The uneven impact of welfare reform: The financial losses to places and people. Sheffield: Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research, Sheffield Hallam University with Oxfam and Joseph Rowntree Foundation.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, S. (1967), Whose side are we on? Social Problems, 14, 239–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, F. and Roberts, M. (2004), From input to influence: Participatory approaches to research and inquiry into poverty. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
Beresford, P. (2016), All our welfare: Towards participatory social policy. Bristol: Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowden, G. (2017), Government confirms yet another universal credit U-turn [Online]. London: Huffington Post. Available: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/universal-credit-housing-benefit-landlords_uk_5a167a2ce4b0cee6c04e4467 [Accessed 28.03.18].Google Scholar
Brady, G. and Brown, G. (2013), Rewarding but let’s talk about the challenges: using arts based methods in research with young mothers, Methodological Innovations Online, 8, 1, 99–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornwall, A. and Gaventa, J. (2000), From users and choosers to makers and shapers: Repositioning participation in social policy, IDS Bulletin, 31, 4, 50–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daly, M. and Kelly, G. (2015), Families and poverty: Everyday life on a low income. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
David, R. and Craig, Y. (1997), Participation begins at home: adapting participatory development approaches from Southern contexts. Gender and Development, 5, 35–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Benedictis, S., Allen, K. and Jensen, T. (2017), Portraying poverty: The economics and ethics of factual welfare television. Cultural Sociology, 11, 337–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durose, C., Beebeejaun, Y., Rees, J., Richardson, J. and Richardson, L. (2012), Towards co-production in research with communities. Swindon: Arts and Humanities Research Council Connected Communities Programme.Google Scholar
Dwyer, P. (2010), Understanding social citizenship, themes and perspectives for policy and practice (2nd edition). Bristol, Policy Press.Google Scholar
Dwyer, P. and Wright, S. (2014), Universal Credit, ubiquitous conditionality and its implications for social citizenship. Journal of Poverty and Social Justice, 22, 27–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzpatrick, S., Bramley, G., Sosenko, F. and Blenkinsopp, J. (2018), Destitution in the UK 2018. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, S., Bramley, G., Sosenko, F., Blenkinsopp, J., Johnsen, S., Little, M., Netto, G. and Watts, B. (2016), Destitution in the UK. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
Frankham, J. (2009), Partnership research: A review of approaches and challenges in conducting research in partnership with service users. Southampton: ESRC National Centre for Research Methods.Google Scholar
Fraser, N. (1997), Justice interruptus: Critical reflections on the ‘Postsocialist’ condition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fraser, N. (2009), Scales of justice: Reimagining political space in a globalizing world. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Garthwaite, K. (2016), Hunger pains: Life inside foodbank Britain. Bristol: Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golding, P. and Middleton, S. (1982), Images of welfare: Press and public attitude to poverty. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hall, S., Mcintosh, K., Neitzert, E., Pottinger, L., Sandhu, K., Stephenson, M., Reed, H. and Taylor, L. (2017), Intersecting Inequalities: The impact of austery on black and minority ethnic women in the UK. London: Women’s Budget Group & Runnymede Trust.Google Scholar
Head, D. (2014), I was ill with hunger, went to prison for stealing food and became homeles [Online]. London: The Guardian. Available: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jul/29/benefits-sanctions-matthew-oakley-report-hunger [Accessed 04.03.15].Google Scholar
Hills, J. (2015), Good times, bad times: The welfare myth of them and us. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Hoggett, P., Wilkinson, H. and Beedell, P. (2013), Fairness and the Politics of Resentment. Journal of Social Policy, 42, 567–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hood, A. and Waters, T. (2017), Living standards, poverty and inequality in the UK: 2017–18 to 2021–22. London: Institute for Fiscal Studies.Google Scholar
Ipsos Mori. (2013), Benefit Cap popular with public, but what impact is it having pre-implementation? [Online]. London: Ipsos MORI. Available: https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3194/Benefit-Cap-popular-with-public-but-what-impact-is-it-having-preimplementation.aspx [Accessed 25.05.16].Google Scholar
Jensen, T. (2014), Welfare commonsense, poverty porn and doxosophy. Sociological Research Online, 19, (3).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, T. and Tyler, I. (2015), ‘Benefits broods’: The cultural and political crafting of anti-welfare commonsense. Critical Social Policy, 35, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, B. (2017), Rethinking poverty: What makes a good society? Bristol: Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Land, E. and Patrick, R. (2014), SAGE research methods cases: The process of using participatory research methods with film-making to disseminate research: Challenges and potential. In: SAGE research methods cases. London: SAGE. doi: 10.4135/978144627305014537226Google Scholar
Lister, R. (2004), Poverty. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Lister, R. (2011), Our social security system must guarantee real welfare. The Guardian, 29th August.Google Scholar
Lister, R. (2015), To count for nothing: poverty beyond the statistics. Journal of the British Academy, 3, 139. doi: 10.5871/jba/003.139Google Scholar
Macdonald, R. (2017), “Impact”, research and slaying Zombies: The pressures and possibilities of the REF. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 37, 696–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maguire, P. (1987), Doing participatory research: A feminist approach. Massachusetts, USA: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Mcintosh, I. and Wright, S. (2018), Exploring what the Notion of ‘Lived Experience’ offers for social policy analysis. Journal of Social Policy, doi: 10.1017/S0047279418000570. First View.Google Scholar
Monaghan, M. and Ingold, J. (2019), Policy practitioners’ accounts of evidence-based policy making: The case of universal credit. Journal of Social Policy, 48 (2), 351–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neale, B. and Hanna, E. (2012), The ethics of researching lives through time. In: Neale, B., and Henwood, K. (Eds.) Timescapes method guide series. Leeds: Timescapes.Google Scholar
North East Child Poverty Commission. (2016), Voices of poverty [Online]. Durham: North East Child Poverty Commission. Available: https://www.nechildpoverty.org.uk/voices-poverty [Accessed 28.03.18].Google Scholar
O’Neill, M. and Stenning, P. (2013), Walking biographies and innovations in visual and participatory methods: Community, politics and resistance in Downtown East Side Vancouver. In: Heinz, C., and Hornung, G. (Eds.) The medialization of auto/biographies: Different forms and their communicative contexts. Hamburg, Germany: UVK.Google Scholar
Pain, R. (2014), Impact: Striking a blow or walking together? ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, 13, 19–23.Google Scholar
Patrick, R. (2013), Work as the primary ‘duty’ of the responsible citizens: A critique of this work-centric approach. People, Place & Policy Online, 6, 5–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patrick, R. (2017), For whose benefit? The everyday realities of welfare reform. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Patrick, R. and Garthwaite, K. (2018), Stigma, poverty and the academy: (re)interrogating research on ‘welfare’, presentation to Stigma, Health, and Inequality Workshop, Cardiff: University of Cardiff, 11–12 January.Google Scholar
Patrick, R., Mbaikaize, M. and Watson, S. (2018), Everyday life on benefits. In: Millar, J. and Sainsbury, R. (Eds.) Understanding social security: Issues for policy and practice. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Pemberton, S., Sutton, E., Fahmy, E. and Bell, K. (2014), Life on a low income in austere times. Bristol: Poverty and Social Exclusion in the UK, PSEUK.Google Scholar
Poverty2solutions. (2018), Employing lived experiences to solve UK poverty [Online]. York: Poverty2Solutions. [Accessed 4.02.19].Google Scholar
Scott Paul, A. (2016), Talking about poverty - time to rethink our approach? [Online]. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Available: https://www.jrf.org.uk/blog/talking-about-poverty-time-rethink-our-approach [Accessed 28.03.18].Google Scholar
Shildrick, T., Macdonald, R., Webster, C. and Garthwaite, K. (2012), Poverty and insecurity: Life in low-pay, no-pay Britain. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Silver, D. (2018), Everyday radicalism and the democratic imagination: Dissensus, rebellion and Utopia. Politics and Governance, 6, 161–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skeggs, B. (2014), Legitimating slow death: A brief but long history of of the use, abuse and demonization of labour by the media [Online]. London: University of Goldsmiths. Available: https://values.doc.gold.ac.uk/blog/17/ [Accessed 6.11.14].Google Scholar
Stewart, A. B. R. and Wright, S. (2018), Final findings: Jobseekers. Welfare conditionality: Sanctions, support & behaviour change - ESRC [Online]. York: University of York. Available: http://www.welfareconditionality.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/40426-Jobseekers-web.pdf [Accessed 22.05.18].Google Scholar
Stone, J. (2016), Tax credits, disability benefit and nine other U-turns from the first year of a Conservative government [Online]. London: The Independent. Available: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-conservative-u-turns-policies-david-cameron-benefit-cuts-junior-doctors-academies-a7018276.html [Accessed 28.03.18].Google Scholar
Timmins, N. (2001), The five giants: A biography of the welfare state. London: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Tyler, I. (2015), Classifactory struggles: Class, culture and inequality in neoliberal times. The Sociological Review, 63, 493–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, R. (2014), The shame of poverty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, S., Mbaikaze, M. and Patrick, R. (2014), New animated film challenges media portrayal of people on benefits [Online]. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Available: https://www.jrf.org.uk/blog/new-animated-film-challenges-media-portrayal-people-benefits [Accessed 28.03.18].Google Scholar
Wynne-Jones, R. (2018), Universal credit claimants want to know why no one listens to them [Online]. London: Daily Mirror. Available: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ros-wynne-jones-universal-credit-13440337 [Accessed 4.02.19].Google Scholar