Ignoring the thread and dealing with the link within...
> Authentic participatory methods require a shift in power to the individuals and groups who have the most at stake yet the least-heard voice. Doing so is ethical and more effective, as people without institutional power hold essential knowledge that more “objective” stakeholders do not possess.
This seems to me like a good blueprint for activism but anathema to the idea of 'research'. Someone's degree of victimization does not determine the truth value of their statements.
> For example, in a participatory project on policing, the people who are policed—not the police—are the experts to include.
How does shutting out the voices of those determined to possess power (itself a subjective judgment...) help develop an inclusive and comprehensive understanding of any phenomenon?
The paper ostensibly comes out against 'objectivity' and 'rigor' but really seems to rewrite their definitions such that objectivity = the "essential-ness" of your subjects' knowledge, and rigor = how systematically you follow the participatory method rather than the scientific method.
> Authentic participatory methods require a shift in power to the individuals and groups who have the most at stake yet the least-heard voice. Doing so is ethical and more effective, as people without institutional power hold essential knowledge that more “objective” stakeholders do not possess.
This seems to me like a good blueprint for activism but anathema to the idea of 'research'. Someone's degree of victimization does not determine the truth value of their statements.
> For example, in a participatory project on policing, the people who are policed—not the police—are the experts to include.
How does shutting out the voices of those determined to possess power (itself a subjective judgment...) help develop an inclusive and comprehensive understanding of any phenomenon?
The paper ostensibly comes out against 'objectivity' and 'rigor' but really seems to rewrite their definitions such that objectivity = the "essential-ness" of your subjects' knowledge, and rigor = how systematically you follow the participatory method rather than the scientific method.