Modelling Inclusion: Using Participatory Methods for Equitable Research on Inequalities in Marginalized Groups

Abstract

This paper explores the methodological implications, processes, and opportunities relating to the use of participatory approaches in the study of intersecting inequalities. Within the context of an international, interdisciplinary project (Partnerships for Equality and Inclusion (PEI)), four sub-projects elected to use participatory methodologies to engage with marginalized and excluded communities so that their needs, voices, and knowledge were included in the data collection process and the dissemination of findings at micro (community) and macro (policy) levels. The four project teams in Kenya, Vietnam, Myanmar, and Nigeria engaged with training and research processes so that participants with lived experience could contribute both as peer researchers and in focus groups that contributed study data. In this paper, we bring together the findings and learning from each project about how these methods contributed to equity in the research process. We conclude with insights and recommendations on how participatory methods can enable an intersectional and grounded perspective from people facing multiple inequalities in periods of crisis and political change.

1. Introduction

The concept of inequality has been linked to the exclusion of certain population groups from public services and resources in ways that marginalize and create disadvantage for these groups across multiple areas of their lives [1]. Current research on inequalities provides stark evidence of widespread hardship and lost opportunities faced by millions of individuals worldwide [1,2,3]. Studying and quantifying these inequalities through social and economic frameworks yields valuable insight into the scale of these issues. It is well known, for example, that inadequate healthcare access affects half of the global population [4], that 600 million children lack access to an education [5], and 5.1 billion people are excluded from fair representation in justice systems [6]. However, the complex interactions between these inequalities, leading to even more severe consequences in specific contexts, remain hidden within these statistics [2].

There are gaps in the existing body of literature regarding how these inequalities intersect with one another and affect the lives of individuals and communities [7]. Furthermore, there is limited understanding of how these inequalities can be addressed by public service policy and practice to ameliorate resulting challenges. The current study sought to address this gap by employing a range of contextually driven participatory research methodologies which engage marginalized communities affected by inequality in the research process. Partnerships for Equity and Inclusion (PEI) is a global research collaboration, within which four of the research teams (operating in Myanmar, Nigeria, Kenya, and Vietnam) used and examined the significance of participatory methods in research.

This concept paper serves as an introduction to these four research projects and retrospectively explores the benefits of using participatory methodologies to investigate intersecting inequalities and marginalization. We draw valuable lessons on the use of participatory methods for researching intersectional inequalities and the opportunities these present for future research.

The projects focused on studying how groups are marginalized at different levels, from micro (individual and community) to broader macro (societal and policy) contexts across multiple nations and on how these inequities could be addressed by public service institutions.

In utilizing a participatory approach, the projects followed good practice on including affected individuals and groups [7], giving them a platform to express their views so their voices could be heard and included in our findings and resulting policy suggestions, whilst also recognizing the limitations of the approach. This conceptual paper demonstrates the importance of participatory methods in investigating and contributing to changes that reduce inequalities, highlighting that, without the voices of those affected by inequality, decision-making processes in both research and public services cannot be deemed inclusive, fair, or representative.

1.1. About PEI

PEI included several pilot projects which were conducted as part of an EPSRC-GCRF funded multidisciplinary research cluster. The overall aim of this project was ‘To produce multidisciplinary perspectives and new knowledge on how public services can act as a mechanism to increase the social inclusion of disadvantaged groups in ODA-eligible contexts’ [2]. The international network brought together researchers from five existing international research networks (The Socially Inclusive Cities Network—led by Dr Ghazala Mir at the University of Leeds. The Political Economy of Education Research (PEER) Network—led by Professor Alan Smith at the University of Ulster. Surveys for Urban Equity—led by Dr Helen Elsey at the University of York. Raising Silent Voices—led by Dr Rachel Julian at Leeds Beckett University. Community Experience of Conflict in Haiti—led by Professor Siobhan Wills at the University of Ulster). These networks together agreed on a new set of seven pilot research projects (https://medicinehealth.leeds.ac.uk/directory_record/1366/partnerships_for_equity_and_inclusion#project%20links (accessed on 5 August 2025)), four of which employed participatory research methods in Myanmar, Nigeria, Kenya, and Vietnam. It is the use and impact of this method that is examined in the current paper.

The PEI project brought together academics, policymakers, and public service practitioners who focused on health, violent conflict, education, gender, and youth from seven diverse contexts in Asia, Africa, and the UK [8]. An initial evidence synthesis was produced on how intersectional inequalities are addressed in different contexts [8]; following this, seven pilot studies were selected to test research questions and appropriate methods for exploring intersectional inequalities. The four projects that decided to use participatory methods involved participants from excluded populations in designing and carrying out the research. Their recorded findings included the impact of working directly with beneficiary groups within the research, which is further explored in this paper.

The PEI project produced a synthesis of findings from the seven pilot projects on inequalities linked to public services [2]. This was initially disseminated in the form of a final policy briefing [9]. The conclusions of this synthesis were that policies that are instrumental in maintaining inequalities must be revised and that resources must be redistributed to reduce inequalities. In particular, for the topic of this paper, the synthesis highlighted the need for the participation of affected groups in decision-making systems that generate policies to target inequalities and scale up interventions designed to improve equity [2].

The gaps of inclusion in public service organizations identified in the PEI project analysis highlight the need for public bodies to understand the interconnected nature of inequalities in order to effectively reduce them. The use of participatory methods in these pilot studies provided valuable insight into the benefits of involving members of excluded populations in research to improve the understanding of complex relationships and better inform improvements to a policy that is aiming to mitigate inequalities.

1.2. The Importance of Participation in Research into Inequalities

Research methods generally prioritize expert knowledge and outsider perspectives over the experiences of those primarily affected by the inequalities studied [10,11,12]. As a result, knowledge generated through sharing lived experiences is under-represented in the literature; the research design is more often influenced by government gatekeepers, leaders, and institutions, drawing on institutionally collected and managed data such as audits or censuses to explore challenges such as inequality (ibid). In contrast, participatory methods challenge this approach by actively involving marginalized groups within the research process, resulting in more diverse and contextually relevant insights and locally grounded outcomes. As eloquently stated by Campbell and Vanderhoven [13]:

‘Knowledge of the social world must be deeper and stronger if it is coproduced with actors in that world. Research is more likely to effect change if it is owned by people who have a capacity to effect change’.

Participatory methods have become more widely known and different approaches have been developed since the 1990s to encompass a wide variety of community-based, artistic and narrative approaches [14,15]. These involve activities such as discussions, workshops, and performances that are designed collaboratively with affected communities depending on the context and their cultural backgrounds. All participatory methods require adaptation by and for those who are affected by or benefit from the research topic [7]. They are relational and inclusive, typically involving a collaboration of research and civil society organizations. PEI particularly emphasized the incorporation of civil society actors as crucial participants in participatory research, considering them as significant entities representing ‘sites of innovation in social justice’ [16]. The appropriate participatory approach was decided by the team in each place, who were then supported by the PEI project team to develop methods and processes for their context.

1.3. The Fundamental Purpose of Participatory Research

Using participatory research methods enables a wider range of community held forms of knowledge to be included in the research of complex, multi-level issues across a range of contexts. In this case it contrasts with external expert forms of knowledge by introducing knowledge that comes from the experience of living in a community that experiences inequality. The concept of knowledge derived from experience, also known as experiential knowledge, is not novel or only applicable to participatory research methods. Failure to recognize the value of lived experience has been linked to global cognitive injustice that marginalizes the knowledge contained within populations of the Global South [17], particularly the perspectives of socially excluded populations. This approach posits the need to recover and validate epistemological diversity from all parts of the world.

Paolo Freire addresses this issue while also advocating for an educational approach in which individuals learn to recognize the oppression they face, because this understanding might not be evident to them despite being aware of their landlessness and poverty [18]. Experiential knowledge has often been undervalued in research not only due to challenges in collecting data on experience, but also because it represents the insights of some of the most impoverished and marginalized individuals whose voices and perspectives have been historically disregarded.

The PEI research project recognized the importance of having multiple perspectives to reflect the complexity of inequality and the multiple ways different forms of inequalities intersect with one another. Acknowledging the complexity enables us to say that there is no single cause of issues such as poverty, health issues, conflict, or other forms of vulnerability [19]. Considering a single issue in isolation risks oversimplification and the potential to miss many of the underlying factors that influence a fuller comprehension of the issue. Community participation in the research allowed the pilot projects to explore the multiple levels and complexity of many causes that lead to inequalities. For the four pilot projects that selected participatory methodologies, involving the target community in the co-design of the research enabled researchers to explore a more comprehensive and complex picture and gain a greater understanding of how the different forms of inequality intersect in their context [20].

1.4. Empowering Change

As well as generating unique insights and a deeper understanding of inequalities for the research teams, participatory methods can also empower communities to effect change as they learn about the impact of inequalities on their own lives through sharing their experiences. In the field of development studies, evaluations have often not demonstrated that empowerment results in material change but rather that communities which have become involved in the project have been heard in the research process and affected the knowledge that has been produced [21].

Friere’s theory [18] of education as a means for generating consciousness and instigating change is relevant in understanding how communities are empowered through participatory methods by articulating their knowledge and shared experience. The process empowers them to recognize forces of oppression through open discussion and exchanging life stories and challenges. Participatory methods that bring people together to share their experiences with inequality have a direct impact on the participants with the lived experience, enhancing their awareness of how inequality affects them personally. Moreover, through sharing their experiences, they contribute to a broader understanding of their situation and offer insight to others on the complexities of inequality [10], prompting new lines of enquiry.

Another benefit of participatory methods in achieving change is the improved relevance, and therefore efficacy, of policy derived from the research. Those who experience inequality also have insight into what needs to change. In the PEI project, research questions were aimed at examining the existing policy and community-driven solutions. Actively involving affected communities throughout the project played a significant role in shaping the policy recommendations derived from the research, ensuring their relevance to community needs [22,23,24]. The experiences and data collected from communities can be used to influence government policy [25], providing valuable insight into the efficacy and implementation of a given policy. Forms of knowledge gathered in communities through observation, surveys, and interviews can also be combined with external stakeholder perspectives from censuses or government reports. As well as contributing knowledge, community participation can aid with policy implementation by facilitating connections between communities and those who create and implement the policies that need to change.

1.5. Understanding Inequalities Through Lived Experience

Community participatory research is rooted in the notion that groups possess inherent knowledge derived from their lived experiences. These everyday experiences grant them unique perspectives, through which they gain knowledge that is specific to their contexts. Methodological approaches in feminism and gender studies provide examples of how this notion contributes to knowledge production in research. Feminist research has played a significant role in advocating the value of capturing lived experiences to inform a collective understanding of gender inequality. Feminism has also challenged the objectification of people in research, thereby opening new perspectives on the way research is carried out [26]. This approach shares the same inclusive process as participatory methods whereby people are more than objects to be studied and have agency within research projects that are about them. The feminist perspective that the ‘personal is political’ asserts that what matters to individuals in their own lives is directly linked to the political structures in which they live [10]. Feminism contends that the oppression and violence faced by women are not isolated issues but rather manifestations of systemic and cultural oppression. To address power inequalities and exclusion, understanding personal experiences becomes essential to having a full understanding. A feminist approach in this type of research does not simply focus on studying women; it is one which prioritizes an understanding of power and oppression that links to individuals’ personal lives and experiences. It recognizes that individuals have agency within their lives and that their experiences reflect this agency [27,28].

1.6. Designing Participatory Methods

There are limitations in using participatory techniques [29,30]. Participatory research methods can risk excluding populations who may be incorrectly perceived as intentionally self-isolating or ‘hard to reach’ by utilizing research methods that fail to account for structural or cultural barriers. For example, communities may be excluded and deemed unwilling to participate because their social and cultural norms do not align with the researchers’ approach to data collection. They may encounter difficulties completing surveys due to time constraints or literacy levels, or they might not grasp the relevance of data collection methods to their own struggles. The use of participatory methods allows for new and more accessible approaches that can engage excluded populations more effectively. The development of such approaches is incremental, and current methods cannot address every intersection or variation in inequality.

PEI did not prescribe the use of a participatory approach for its seven research projects [2] nor the use of specific methods; at each location, the local research team was tasked with identifying methods appropriate to their own context. In this respect, PEI was both inclusive and agnostic in methodology; however, training and discussion was offered so that teams could select a participatory approach if this was felt to be an appropriate method.

The pilot research projects were studying groups who were marginalized in terms of education, work, healthcare, criminal justice, or governmental systems. To avoid excluding these groups from the research process, four pilot projects developed participatory methods by working with civil society partners to design projects that originated from meaningful engagement with the excluded community. This approach required greater effort, creativity, and engagement on the part of the local research team to develop deeper relationships and a greater sense of trust to encourage community members to engage in the projects [20].

Building collaborative relationships between research teams and communities is not always straightforward, it requires clear communication, trust, and a shared understanding of the aims of the research project and who is involved. The pilot projects using participatory methods often built on existing relationships between researchers and communities. For example, in Myanmar, the researchers and a network to empower women leaders had been working together for several years prior to the PEI project.

1.7. Existing Use of Participatory Methods in the Study of Intersecting Inequality

Development researchers have historically employed participatory methods widely in their work across different contexts [31,32], as have researchers on conflict [33,34]. Similarly, participatory methods have been applied in community health research [35] and research in educational settings [36]. In the field of education, participatory research has been extensively utilized to comprehend both teacher and student experiences. Notably, the journal Educational Action Research is dedicated to this area, and meta studies such as Jacobs [37] often trace the roots of this field back to Lewin as its founder [38].

Warwick-Booth [14] documents the development of participatory methods in health research including the Ottawa Charter [39] and International Collaboration on Participatory Health Research (icphr.org), established in 2009. Mikler and Wallerstein [40] set out to show how participatory research can be used in health research, and now the inclusion of the patient view has become widespread in health promotion and monitoring [41].

Participatory methods used in studying armed conflict [10] draw on work by Pearce, because Pearce’s work emphasizes the significance of including the experiences of violence-affected communities in research. She argues it contributes to ‘better understanding violence, the logics of its reproduction and to generate proposals for security policies that reduce it’ [42] (p. 9). Moreover, participatory approaches recognize that local communities possess unique insights into the threats they face and the potential solutions. Participatory knowledge is used to understand the impact of different forms of violence and to form a more nuanced analysis of the impact of the conflict on their lives and the opportunities to resolve this [12].

In relation to research on the specific topic of inequality, researchers use a range of participatory methods, such as action research, in which the researchers are from within the organization or community that is the focus of the research, for example, someone researching attitudes to diversity policies in their own team [19,43]. Participatory action research [33,34] is similarly developed by those within the group who are the focus of the research by using participatory approaches including the co-design of the project and co-production of knowledge or Community-Based Participatory Research [35,40], where the research focus and methods emerge from and involve the community affected by the issue and where the community members are recognized as an active agent in the research.

1.8. Defining and Introducing Participatory Methods in PEI

The adoption of participatory methods in PEI was driven by the alignment of inclusive values with the project’s overarching goals, as well as its compatibility with an interdisciplinary approach. Additionally, the choice of participatory methods ensured the active involvement of all partners, irrespective of whether they were from academic or practice organizations.

A key innovation of PEI lies in the application of a range of participatory methods used to study multiple forms of inequality. By adopting these methods, our research sought to gain insight into how individuals and communities experienced these multiple forms of inequality. To foster knowledge exchange and mutual support across the diverse study contexts, bi-weekly meetings were conducted throughout the project, enabling Principal Investigators (PIs) in the pilot projects to share their methodologies, learn from one another, and provide support between their contexts.

While pilot projects were expected to ensure that socially excluded groups were able to share their perspectives, study teams were also encouraged to use action research techniques to involve marginalized groups in advocating for policy reform [9,23,24,44]

Warwick-Booth argues that participatory methods all involve ‘the collaboration of community members, organisational representatives, and researchers’ [14] (p. 5) and sets out a list of eight types of participatory research [14] (p. 7). Methods used in PEI were not prescribed, but the approaches advocated most closely resemble ‘participatory action research’ and the following principles:

“It involves participation by non-professional researchers

It engages communities and researchers equally in a cooperative approach

It is a process involving joint learning

It involves local capacity building as well as systems development

It is underpinned by empowerment, enabling participants to take control of their lives

It balances research and action”.

[45] (p. 9)

The particular reasons discussed in PEI for using a participatory methodology were

• To ensure the representation and empowerment of marginalized people by talking and listening to them, because PEI recognizes that social exclusion is a component of inequality and that it plays a key role in how people access public services.
• To privilege the voices and experiences of people from excluded groups, which have historically been ignored, and introduce accountability to them for how the research is conducted. In projects that were able to run stakeholder workshops, the participants were included in the design, data collection, and dissemination of results.
• To recognize that participants have experiential knowledge about the situation being studied. The PEI participatory projects included civil society actors who already connect and engage with excluded groups and used this method to include their knowledge.
• To empower participants to raise issues that are important to them and have their voices heard in research and policy arenas; recognizing that the choice of research method has a direct impact on who, and how, their issues are included.
• To share the power of being a researcher and agreeing the research questions with socially excluded groups. To provide appropriate space for them to contribute to the research questions and finalize jointly agreed upon questions, so their ideas on data collection are included.
• To select data collection approaches that fit the culture and context of the excluded population, such as sharing stories or fun group events. By including people from marginalized groups in the research design and data collection, we are more likely to use approaches that elicit responses with new insights that reflect their real experience [2,24,44,46,47,48].

2. The Participatory Framework

A common participatory research framework incorporating the inclusive principles outlined in our Introduction was used across the four PEI pilot studies on which we focus in this paper. The framework ensured that all studies included

• The representation and empowerment of marginalized people in ways that privileged their voice and experience;
• Engagement through civil society actors to support trust and a safe environment for the priorities of excluded groups to be safely discussed;
• Power sharing and academic researcher accountability to these groups;
• Data collection methods that fit the culture and context of the excluded population involved.

The research projects carried out through PEI were selected through a competitive process in which partners put forward suggested pilot projects that explored how intersections of inequality are understood in each context. All projects are detailed on the PEI website (Partnerships for Equity and Inclusion: participatory research projects https://medicinehealth.leeds.ac.uk/downloads/download/200/participatory_research_projects_in_kenya_myanmar_nigeria_and_vietnam_%E2%80%93_downloads, accessed on 5 August 2025).

2.1. Ethical Considerations

The ethical review and approval processes took account of the complexity of the PEI project, because it was investigating intersecting inequalities in multiple locations in the Global South with international research teams [49]. Ethical approval for each project was obtained from the University of Leeds Faculty of Medicine and Health Ethics Committee, and local approvals were also obtained in Bangladesh and Nepal. In each case, the ethical review considered the importance of making sure participants were safe and data were anonymized. This was particularly important for participants who lived in precarious situations involving poverty, violence, or an insecure livelihood. The ongoing review of ethical concerns was carried out through regular meetings and training materials which set out the ethical considerations in participatory research, including considerations about power, voice, and decision-making. Informed consent involved both written and verbal participant information where the participatory nature of the research was explained and consent was recorded either on paper or electronically by the teams. Safety and security were key priorities in the research. In Myanmar, this included making sure the identities of peer researchers from excluded communities and research participants remained confidential and that data was written and then sent by photo to avoid the risk of repercussions. University partners and some civil society organizations, such as Change Makers in Nigeria, had established policies already for keeping research participants safe.

In each project, researchers had close ties to the communities they studied, which facilitated access to the participants.

2.2. Training for Pilot Project Researchers

For most researchers in the four projects, it was their first attempt at employing participatory methods. To support their use of this approach, they were provided with training videos (links to YouTube videos. Part 1 https://youtu.be/uSGgB6PjdOc; Part 2 https://youtu.be/SmVPlomyurk; Part 3 https://youtu.be/nLtaOJRbrm4; Part 4 https://youtu.be/7MChbFhUq_I; and Part 5 https://youtu.be/FWymYtf7_TY, all accessed 5 August 2025) and bi-weekly meetings by the PEI network to share challenges, learning, and support. Each project adapted the participatory method on which they were trained to their own context.

PEI training covered various aspects of designing a research project with the participants, ethical considerations when involving marginalized communities, and the selection of appropriate data collection and analysis methods [50]. The training materials consisted of videos and written materials that were translated into local languages by some of the teams, along with guidance questions to aid in the research design.

The instructional videos had four main sections that covered key principles of coproducing knowledge with socially excluded populations. First, they introduced the concept of participatory research and its link to different forms of knowledge, emphasizing collaboration and co-design as foundational principles for involving diverse actors. Secondly, the videos demonstrated how to collaboratively formulate research questions and highlighted the importance of listening to one another to reap the benefits of participation. Thirdly, the training explored diverse data collection methods, such as stories, art, and observation, enabling teams to choose culturally appropriate and accessible approaches and to discuss these within their group. The training emphasized that participatory research can be engaging and enjoyable, while fostering the growth of participants’ skills and competencies in articulating their experiences to achieve positive change. Fourthly, the ethical considerations in participatory research were addressed, encompassing topics like confidentiality, data management, and ensuring the safety of the researchers and participants. Finally, the training delved into different methods for involving participants in disseminating research findings and creating impactful outcomes. This included imaginative and creative ways of presenting data to enable emotional engagement and access for various audiences [51]. The training concluded by discussing the direct benefits participants receive from engaging in participatory research.

Ongoing support to research teams was provided through bi-weekly meetings at which the research teams worked with PEI Principal Investigators (PIs) and Co-Investigators (Co-Is) to discuss questions that arose during the training, the selection of participants, and the challenges of carrying out the research. The bi-weekly meeting enabled South–South and South–North learning and an opportunity for teams to share progress, which contributed to the confidence of team members and the success of the pilot studies.

Following the training, project leads worked with civil society organizations to engage with local and marginalized communities [11] (p. 2). Staff from these organizations already worked with disadvantaged population groups and trained members of these groups to become ‘peer-researchers’. This approach was vital in establishing trust in the research, early engagement, and in capturing the authentic voice of research participants [52]. The context for each project and selection of peer researchers is described below.

3. Methodology Used in Myanmar

3.1. Study Context and Challenges in Myanmar

At the start of the pilot study, Myanmar was an emerging democracy with several bi-lateral peace agreements in place. Many communities are in severe poverty with low education rates, poor health infrastructure, and limited livelihood opportunities. The recent armed conflicts in Myanmar exacerbated the health and education inequalities, resulting in high levels of insecurity, internal displacement, and growing distrust and development issues within communities, particularly for women. Their PEI application explained that

“Myanmar is a place where disadvantage overlaps in every place. Given the violent and undemocratic rule in Myanmar for decades and the failure of military, quasi-military and civilian government to address the grievances of its population, the civilians feel threatened by both state and non-state armed actors. These violence and threats have created exclusion, of mainly ethnic groups in education, health, land ownership.”.

[53]

3.2. Peer Researchers in Myanmar

The NGO Nonviolent Peaceforce has worked for many years to support women within Myanmar to advocate effectively within the peace process, from which they are often actively excluded despite the disproportionate impact of such violence on women [54]. In designing the project, researchers collaborated with an already established women’s peer researcher network, training them in their own language, and together, they formulated contextually relevant research questions. The research was conducted by women peer researchers within their own communities and supported by the staff of the Nonviolent Peaceforce. Ethical concerns related to the safety of peer researchers in this context necessitated the use of secure communication platforms and low-profile data collection by women from trusted members of their communities.

4. Methodology Used in Nigeria

4.1. Study Context and Challenges in Nigeria

In Nigeria, adolescent girls who are not enrolled in education and may experience early marriages face multifaceted disadvantages, and their marginalization could be attributed to various forms of inequality, encompassing cultural, practical, and social dimensions. These circumstances can leave them vulnerable to gender-based violence, yet they often lack access to justice mechanisms.

“A larger percentage of Nigerians are unable to afford the high cost of living in the urban centres, thus most reside in the rural areas and have to cope with poor access to education, health and economic empowerment. Adolescent girls in the rural areas are also constantly victims of sexual and gender-based violence without access to justice and no voice to challenge oppressive structures (WHO, 2018)”.

[48]

4.2. Peer Researchers in Nigeria

In collaboration with Change Makers International, an organization that works with young women, the Nigerian research team made a strategic decision to employ participatory methods and facilitate the development of leadership skills among teenage girls. This approach aimed to explore and understand the educational status of these girls, the various forms of marginalization they encounter, and the socio-cultural factors that contribute to and sustain their marginalization.

Change Makers International was a key part of the research team; researchers from this organization acted as Field Assistants to support and work with six girls, training them to collect data from other adolescent girls who were not attending school, as well as village leaders. Religious discrimination was recognized as a key feature of exclusion in Nigeria, and peer researchers were selected to reflect this aspect of population diversity. The training aimed to enhance the girls’ leadership and research skills, which they developed through gathering and analyzing the qualitative data.

“In the six Area councils AMAC, Kuje, Gwagwalada, Kwali, Abaji and Buari, two communities were identified. For the six area councils, six girls were trained on participatory research and afterwards participated in formulating research questions with which communities were later engaged. Data was collected using Focus Group Discussion with adolescent girls between the age of 9–18 and Key Informant Interviews with Traditional rulers and community members. Communications were done in English, Pidgin, Hausa, Gagara and Gbagi. Consent forms were made available to participants. Pictures of the process were taken by field Assistants, voice recordings and videos were also taken to aid analysis.”.

[48]

5. Methodology Used in Kenya

5.1. Study Context and Challenges in Kenya

In Kenya, when COVID-19 forced the government to implement lockdowns, all education stopped for the children of Kibera, the largest informal settlement of Nairobi. This significantly disrupted learning, and the effects were exacerbated by household poverty and poor living environments.

To investigate these multiple forms of disadvantage, the research team collaborated with Haki Africa, an organization running projects in Kibera, Nairobi. The research began at the community level, involving agencies working with the communities, and later connected to the policy level.

5.2. Peer Researchers in Kenya

Recognizing the links between interrupted education and other forms of inequality, the research team sought to use peer researchers to obtain data on the perspectives of the young people themselves. Staff at Haki Afrika advised that creative ways of capturing young peoples’ perspectives were needed, given the lack of access to formal education within this population. Hence, they trained 24 young people from all five wards of Kibera as peer researchers and utilized filmmaking, poetry, song, and photography to collect stories and evidence on how various experiences of inequality impacted education and employment opportunities. Haki Afrika’s previous work with young people facilitated the use of these methods.

6. Methodology Used in Vietnam

6.1. Study Context and Challengebs in Vietnam

In Vietnam, the research aimed to examine the impact of COVID-19 on migrant workers, a group not adequately represented by Labour Unions and who face additional income and social inequalities.

6.2. Peer Researchers in Vietnam

The research recognized the necessity of hearing the voices of migrant workers in both research and policymaking to mitigate the consequences they face from policy and institutional exclusion.

Academic researchers at Hanoi University of Public Health obtained permission to conduct research in the Phúc Sơn industrialized zone, Ninh Binh province, a representative industrialized area in Vietnam. Researchers worked with Labour Unions to engage migrant workers to understand the inequalities they faced within their unique contexts and explore potential solutions. The research team also closely engaged policymakers in order to achieve an impact from the study.

Employing participatory methods allowed the researchers to directly hear from the migrant workers themselves, bypassing the sole reliance on Unions to articulate the concerns of these workers. A safe setting was created by the research team in which the workers were supported to participate in nine in-depth interviews and two focus group discussions. Following this, they were also supported to voice their concerns to urban planners and Labour Unions through a workshop that brought together all stakeholders to discuss the concerns of migrant workers.

7. Impact of Participatory Methods on Inclusive Research

The use of participatory methods in the projects was seen as empowering and able to include people who were excluded from decision-making process that affected them. Each project involved the participants in understanding the problem, their role in finding solutions, and the benefit of participating in the research project. Despite being pilot projects, most of the study teams held dissemination workshops aiming to ultimately influence policy.

7.1. Project 1: Impact in Myanmar

With the aim of increasing women’s involvement in the peace process, the NGO Nonviolent Peaceforce (NP) collaborated with community organizations to support ‘emerging women leaders’. These leaders were exposed to the advocacy cycle, learning to identify and communicate their needs. Moreover, they were mentored by women already engaged in the peace process. The central research question focused on understanding how inequality impacted their communities. Through research training, the women were empowered to lead their own research, collect data, and share it with policymakers, thereby establishing credibility and amplifying their voices, increasing the likelihood of being included and heard.

Considering the context of performing participatory research under a military coup highlights the intricate connection between research, community, politics, and power. As members of the majority religious group, emerging women leaders were less vulnerable to being targeted by military forces than minority ethnic and religious groups; however, as women and peace activists, they were more vulnerable than others within their communities. NP was unable to operate openly within Myanmar following the coup, and communication with women leaders used platforms such as Signal to maintain their security and privacy. Not all of the women’s groups trained in participatory methods were able to continue to gather data for the project.

Analyzing the results from one group provided intriguing insights into the challenges of the study of inequality. The training involved local researchers translating PEI videos and worksheets into local languages and conducting virtual workshops during the COVID-19 pandemic. The women were taught about the significance of selecting a specific research question relevant to their community. They chose questions such as ‘How can customary law and practices that discriminate against women be changed?’ and ‘How can we increase women’s participation in decision making process and politics?’ [46].

The selection of these questions offers new perspectives to outsider researchers, as they might have focused on factors such as health infrastructure, education gaps, or exclusion from democratic and peace processes. However, the women identified different legal and law systems as central to understanding the role of inequality in their lives.

“The women explained to group leaders that method and approach was empowering to them. They not only learnt about research, but through this process they learnt why they are marginalised. They wanted to understand. It is not just about counting the women, but making women count.

In Kachin the focus was on understanding why women were not involved in the political processes.

In Chin state the EWL were focused on the impact of customary law”.

[46] (p. 10)

“Participants from Kachin identified several advantages resulting from women’s involvement such as a gender perspective in local policies and decisions that could respond to women’s needs, change structures of discrimination against women and mediate to resolve conflicts. The voice of women was seen as essential to achieving inclusive and detailed solutions at the level of both society and communities, starting at a local level and reflecting this nationwide”.

[46] (p. 15)

“Increasing women’s participation at a local level is critical not only because it is their right to participate but also because they have a valuable contribution to make towards improving education, increasing facilities for health-care or infrastructure that really targets the needs of the communities”.

[46] (p. 19)

Even before the military coup, travel restrictions were in place for non-Myanmar citizens travelling to rural areas, and numerous local languages necessitated that the women collect data themselves. They did so by taking notes during conversations held in their local areas, capturing a diverse range of views and opinions. The women explained that this approach empowered them, because they learned about research and gained insights into why they faced marginalization. Their goal was not merely to be counted but to make their voices heard and acknowledged.

The women’s focus in Myanmar lay in improving family and community outcomes, addressing issues related to custody, inheritance, divorce, and marriage through legal reforms. They emphasized the need for enhanced access to education to improve economic opportunities and increased protection against gender violence.

While it is obvious that women experienced discrimination in Myanmar, the participatory research approach helped reveal the priorities of women themselves and the frameworks they used to explore and explain the effect of discrimination on their lives.

7.2. Project 2: Impact in Kenya

Twenty-four young people from Kibera, Nairobi, participated in the research, sharing their stories through artistic methods such as film, song, and photography. The research team ensured that the young people had control over what and how they shared their stories. Haki Africa, an organization working in Kibera, Nairobi, was involved in the research team.

The methodology was used because of the following:

“Participatory research can involve action as well as inquiry. People can not only discuss their problems, they can also think about possible solutions to them and actions which need to be taken. The aim was to influence decision-making processes and impact peoples’ lives locally and nationally. The challenge is that the views of the most marginalized people are by definition largely absent in public forums, which further excludes them and in turn amplifies the perspectives of the more dominant groups. Bringing these people and perspectives into policy processes is an arduous task”.

[47] (p. 11)

The participants’ reporting includes stories, poems, and photos and excerpts such as the following:

“So, currently, I have no [football] team to train because there is no other pitch we can move to. While stopping the children to train looks like a good solution to an immediate problem, the result of being idle at home is that the young people get distracted and even engage in crime and other acts of violence”.

Oscar [47] (p. 13)

“I wanted to do something about it. So, I talked to the sub-county administrator and our member of county assembly to help alleviate this problem. However, I have neither received any positive feedback nor action. The fact is that the Government can avoid all these implications if they take things seriously and act on our request before things get worse. Finally, I wish to plead with the Government and Civil Society Organizations to intervene in this matter because one of the kids could be the Michael Olunga of tomorrow”.

Oscar [47] (p. 13)

“Since March of 2020, we have lost many young people for flimsy reasons. Most of us lost our jobs during the pandemic and therefore became idle. As the saying goes, ‘an idle mind is the devil’s workshop.’ The COVID-19 containment measures like curfews also became a source of death for young people who would be found outside for either good or bad reasons. The police have been recorded to have beaten and injured people in Kibera and beyond. My question is why and what did the young generation do to the government?”.

Francis [47] (p. 14)

“I wish to call the government to create more jobs for the youths to avoid losing our young generation since they are the ones building the nation at large”.

Francis [47] (p. 14)

“Due to the congestion of buildings in Kibra, the drainage systems pass very near or sometimes right through our houses. This has caused a lot of harm. When they are functional, the smell is awry and when they block or break, they cause a lot of harm in terms of diseases. The sad thing is that, it takes months to rectify blocked or broken drainage systems in Kibra but a faulty sewage in the Highrise Estate must be repaired the same day, unless it is a weekend. It makes me wonder whether some people are more special than others”.

Andrew [47] (p. 15)

“The small job I had is now gone and the little surplus I had is already spent. At one time, I was arrested past curfew time because I left the casual work I got from the day that was one kilometre away. I was harassed and beaten up. The police even demanded money from me, and forcefully took the 200 shillings I had earned from that day’s work. I could not go to work the next day since I was nursing my injuries and as a result, I lost the job”.

Johnson [47] (p. 17)

The situation for disadvantaged children living in poverty-stricken informal settlements worsened during COVID-19-related restrictions, as their schools (both public and low-end private) closed with no opportunities for remote learning. In contrast, students attending prestigious private schools continued their education, exacerbating the existing gap for those already facing inequality due to inadequate housing and facilities. The intersection of these inequalities increased the likelihood of these children being involved in crime, either as victims or perpetrators, further deepening their vulnerability in society [2,47]. By gathering stories and data from other young people, the participants highlighted the stark disparities they observed. They pointed out how nearby affluent areas had adequate waste collection and clean water, while they lived amidst rotting waste and open drains. The peer researchers explored issues related to employment, education, poverty (food and shelter), and how these factors increased the risk of involvement in crime and violence.

Gathering data on such lived experiences was a vital precursor to the NGO and young people’s efforts to influence policymakers and public service practitioners in their locality:

“The research findings made several contributions. First, they generated knowledge on marginalization in the area of education, health, gender, housing and other inequalities in the informal settlement during the COVID-19 pandemic. They also opened dialogue between the Kibra community and key government and non-state stakeholders. The study gave useful information for initiating and scaling up similar studies by the Commission, other government agencies and scholars by using the unique methodologies and the policy proposals developed”.

[47]

7.3. Project 3: Impact in Vietnam

The participatory training for academic researchers in Vietnam was a mechanism for empowering the migrant workers to advocate for their needs within urban planning and Labour Unions. These Unions did not themselves advocate for migrant workers with policymakers and could replicate the exclusion migrant workers faced from government authorities. Participatory research engagement offered opportunities for migrant workers to collaborate with policymakers in areas such as health, education, and local government, enabling them to negotiate solutions for the problems they experienced.

“Our pilot project aims to explores the main stakeholders and key facilitators or barriers that could support migrant workers to raise their voice within urban planning. In addition, potential solutions are raised that would enable migrant workers to be empowered enough to include themselves within planning processes that could improve their access to health and social services in Vietnam”.

[44]

The findings of the research highlighted that the impact of COVID-19 on migrant workers had not been adequately recognized. The study enabled the migrant workers to explain how their precarious employment and low wages had negatively affected their access to housing, healthcare, and education. Moreover, they articulated the barriers they encountered when policies restricted their access to essential public services. They perceived the challenges that lie in the top-down decision-making processes adopted by District and Provincial Urban Planning, meant the voices of marginalized groups like migrant workers were often excluded, leading to an overlooking of their needs.

The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated the vulnerabilities of migrant workers, limiting their access to healthcare and education services, thus increasing their exposure to economic and livelihood crises. Workers expressed their feelings of being unheard and unrepresented by the Unions and having their needs unmet, emphasizing the importance of amplifying their voices [44]. As participants in the Focus group said,

“If I could suggest, I would like that in times of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Labour union should sometimes come down and support or organise workshops like what we have today. We could talk what we need and suggest what is good for us”.

(FGD with migrant workers)

“We use Zalo and/or Facebook group to comment but this is not officially communication channel. Nobody guarantees that our complaints from these groups will come to the managers. I think, official channels are yearly meeting or suggestion survey”.

(FGD with migrant workers) [44]

7.4. Project 4: Impact in Nigeria

The research design and implementation of participatory methods provided an empowering platform for the girls to voice their perspectives and foster leadership skills in Nigeria and facilitated the exchange of experiences among girls with similar backgrounds. During the participatory sessions, the girls highlighted the lack of accessible secondary schools, leading to increased costs associated with pursuing secondary education, such as transportation and accommodation expenses. These added barriers made it difficult for them to attain secondary education, especially considering the prevailing gender norms where families tend to prioritize investing in education for boys, as girls are often expected to discontinue their education upon marriage.

“It is important to note that participatory methods of research were a new phenomenon in all the communities with which we engaged. This innovation is mainly because of the high participation of the adolescent girls themselves. The confidence it roused in them was very significant.

As a result of the research some of the girls became interested in going back to school or become more serious about learning a trade so they could build on the relevance that they experienced in the few months of engaging in this study. This method of engaging adolescent girls exposes them to new knowledge and skills that support their development and impact in their communities. The findings support participatory engagement methods in projects involving girls, such as a current World Bank project with Adolescent Girls in Secondary Schools in seven States in Nigeria on which some research team members are currently working. One of the of the World Bank project is to attract more girls from specific communities into Secondary Schools. Participatory research methods would support girls to develop their voice in this process and their confidence to discuss issues relevant to going back to school”.

[48]

“… a participatory research project that involved training six girls aged 9–18 from the six Area Councils of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja as peer researchers. These young people then collected data from adolescent girls currently missing from the radar of education development as well as from village leaders. The aim of the project was to help such girls develop leadership skills and have a voice in decisions that affect them”.

[23]

“Participants thus recognised the links between community and political dynamics—the ability of an adolescent girl to participate in decision making at the family and community level had implications for future participation in political and leadership roles, particularly in areas that affected their lives. This community level dynamic thus links to the skewed conditions in Nigerian politics where women are not adequately represented”.

[55]

The participants’ solution-focused approach demonstrated their understanding of the necessary actions. They proposed initiatives such as community-based management committees and a public service orientation towards addressing issues concerning women and violence, which are linked to social sustainability and economic development [8].

The project in Nigeria yielded tangible outcomes following a workshop with high-level policy actors, during which the young women peer researchers used the skills they had acquired to present their findings in order to effect positive changes in their own lives.

8. What Did We Learn About Using Participatory Methods?

The four pilot projects that employed participatory methods, some for the first time, were enthusiastic about the approach and shared the following lessons that demonstrated common themes across diverse contexts and some divergence in local experiences:

8.1. Specific Training and Support to Use This Method Is Necessary

There were shared developments in knowledge that benefitted project members during and after the research. A flexible approach to the training delivery was vital: in Myanmar, the training was conducted virtually, employing phone communication and sharing translated materials. The training from PEI facilitated both synchronous and asynchronous interactions, enabling access and safety for women peer researchers to ask questions, comprehend the research activity, and actively participate in deciding the research question about inequality in their community.

In Kenya, the young participants had relatively greater access to the training videos and received support from the research team. The Principal Investigator (PI) and Co-Investigators (Co-Is) attended bi-weekly international meetings on Zoom, allowing them to exchange experiences and adjust their research plans in response to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Including costs for NGO staff to access the internet was recognized as essential to their inclusion in the study, because it can be costly for those living in poverty.

In Vietnam, the university-based research team had fewer barriers to attending the Zoom training meetings, and their ease of access reflected the higher levels of resources for academic partners compared to NGOs. The social status of a university also made it relatively easy for academics to share their research plans with government authorities and seek support for engaging with migrant workers outside of formal systems. There was, however, no opportunity to train migrant workers themselves as peer researchers within these government-approved structures.

In Nigeria, a Co-Investigator from the NGO was able to access the training more easily than in Kenya or Myanmar, and this reflected the more stable political context in Nigeria, as well as the fact that the NGO staff belonged to the ethnic and religious majority group, which was better resourced than the religious minorities, as in all contexts. NGO staff utilized PEI videos to train girls from excluded Muslim populations as peer researchers. Subsequently, the girls were themselves empowered to determine the research questions and conduct focus group discussions with girls who were excluded from education.

Sharing experiences on using the research approach across the four projects helped research staff involved in the initial training support each other, and the bi-weekly meetings helped research capacity building. The meetings provided a platform through which trainers with considerable experience with the methods, as well as Principal Investigators (PIs) and Co-Investigators (Co-Is) involved in the pilot projects, could pool ideas for addressing specific challenges encountered during the research projects.

8.2. Ethical Issues, Including Participant Safety, Must Be Built into the Project Design

The importance of considering participant safety and data protection from the outset was emphasized by the NGOs, particularly in Myanmar and Kenya, where participants were particularly vulnerable to structural violence [8]. As peer researchers gathered personal information within their own communities, this necessitated clear protocols on data handling and ensuring participant safety for those who were marginalized and working in insecure locations. These protocols were developed as part of the project design and were included in applications for ethical approval. Ethics were thoroughly discussed early in the research design phase, with a focus on collaborative problem-solving over the course of the projects.

8.3. External Events Can Have Profound Impacts on Research Projects

External events had a profound impact on the projects and their participants, notably evident in the case of Myanmar, which was subjected to a military coup, although the COVID-19 pandemic also significantly influenced all projects. Further details on these effects have been published elsewhere [2]. A key lesson was that the study context could significantly constrain research participant involvement—for example, digital exclusion during COVID-19 of Vietnam’s migrant workers limited their ability to take part in participatory activities, and the coup in Myanmar drastically altered the ability of women peer researchers to gather data in safety, as NGOs were targeted if they were perceived to be critical of the new regime.

Beyond data collection and analysis, it was evident in each context that empowered participants had a crucial role in implementing the research recommendations. Feedback on the feelings of empowerment by peer researchers demonstrated the value of involving community members in the research process in terms of longer-term change in each of their contexts.

8.4. There Were Limitations on the Use of Participatory Methods

The inclusion of civil society groups in Nigeria, Kenya, and Myanmar resulted in locally determined participatory action research methods being deemed appropriate in those contexts. In contrast, the absence of an organization that advocated for migrants in Vietnam is likely to have led to an approach using semi-structured interviews rather than peer researchers. The final workshop involving all stakeholders in Vietnam did, however, introduce participatory methods through the coproduction of a facilitated workshop. The discussions enabled migrant workers’ perspectives to be heard; however, there was less support for migrant workers to articulate their priorities, as the Labour Union was one of the organizations from which they felt excluded. In other contexts, NGO partners took the lead in producing final reports for the projects, and the input of peer researchers to these varied from being highly involved (Kenya) to highly reliant on the local academic research team (Nigeria).

The precarious and dangerous context in Myanmar was a limiting factor for data collection and issues of peer researcher and NGO safety in that context were a key concern. To a lesser extent, but also important for project findings, the precarious nature of employment for migrant workers in Vietnam and the vulnerability of young people in Kenya and Nigeria created tension for the extent to which their concerns could be profiled without creating negative consequences for them after the research had ended. These concerns for participant safety and community perceptions following the project’s end involved restrictions on the extent to which participatory methods could be utilized in dissemination and policy engagement.

9. Participatory Research and Social Inclusion

Across all four pilot projects, the integration of participatory methodologies and collaboration with civil society organizations facilitated the engagement and involvement of individuals who were previously marginalized and excluded from social policies and institutional practices. The research underscored the importance of incorporating the voices of disadvantaged groups for policy institutions and services to enact meaningful change to reduce inequalities [2,8]. Our findings demonstrate the importance of participatory methods in terms of coproducing knowledge on inequity in collaboration with those who have lived experiences of injustice. Not only does such coproduction strengthen and deepen the knowledge produced [13], but this approach ensured that our research on addressing inequity itself modelled the social inclusion that it aimed to promote within public services. In order to effectively involve socially excluded populations within the research process, it was necessary to adapt the process to these populations [7] and to involve trusted organizations as well as experienced academic researchers. The involvement of these stakeholder groups enabled a supportive and mutually beneficial environment in which stakeholders could pool expertise, learn from each other about how social justice might be achieved, and present findings to policy actors from a shared platform [16].

Coproduction required additional effort, creativity, and flexibility on the part of academics to avoid replicating the political and social exclusion that those with lived experience routinely encountered in other arenas [10,20,32]. Confirming feminist coproduction approaches that challenge the systemic and cultural oppression through which inequalities are created and maintained, the personal experiences of those within excluded groups was essential to understanding how their communities might be empowered. This approach was particularly important for communities that experienced violence in terms of understanding how violence operates and how it can be reduced [42], as well as for challenging common stereotypes about violence within excluded groups [2].

Combining the expertise of those with the lived experience of exclusion with the capacity-building approach of training in participatory methods further enabled us to use education as a mechanism for change. The projects implemented a common framework that supported peer researchers to develop increased awareness of the factors that maintained inequity in their communities, and the knowledge they coproduced was of vital importance in their efforts to influence public service policies and practices. PEI thus demonstrated that participatory methods can strongly empower disadvantaged communities and instigate immediate change through the research method itself [18,25].

Participatory methods provided a model for the visibility, representation, and contribution to decision-making needed to address inequalities in public services, the lack of which are the root causes of social exclusion for marginalized groups. In Myanmar, rural women who lacked representation in formal peace agreements and faced language barriers were able to articulate the impact of limited access to fair justice on their lives. In Kenya, young people were trained in research skills and worked with their peers to understand and communicate to policymakers and other key stakeholders how educational inadequacies and institutional failures affected them. In Vietnam, migrant workers participated in developing recommendations for migrant worker policies based on their firsthand experiences. In Nigeria, girls were trained as peer researchers, equipped with leadership skills, and gathered information outside formal systems from their counterparts whose needs were often overlooked.

Our research also showed that groups which are typically considered inaccessible to research due to factors such as workplace non-representation, language differences, or exclusion from formal systems can be effectively included and represented, especially in the investigation of complex and intersecting disadvantages like those addressed in PEI. In each case, the participants felt excluded from the public institutions that should have been attempting to address inequality. Participants felt that these institutions did not fully comprehend the situations of marginalized communities, which were not involved in decision-making processes or even in service delivery roles. The research design effectively addressed this exclusion by facilitating routes through which experiential knowledge could be shared with policymakers, as seen, in particular, in Vietnam, Nigeria, and Kenya.

While these projects were conducted as small-scale studies, at an international level, they jointly demonstrate the potential for larger projects to build upon these findings. Through participatory research, the compounded nature of multiple inequalities, often hidden or disregarded by public organizations and institutions, was revealed. The studies’ results, which are not typically captured through conventional monitoring and reporting methods, were crucial for developing recommendations that promoted greater equity in public services [2]. Through sharing their experiences of simultaneous exclusion from key public institutions and the impact of intersectional disadvantages, peer researchers and research participants contributed key insights on the complexities affecting those with the lived experience of inequality [10]. An understanding of this complexity is fundamental to the creation of more equitable public services, both in terms of building on knowledge frameworks that recognize racialized–gendered systems and in terms of fusing theoretical and practical knowledge to inform transformation activity [56]. Our projects also highlighted the need to recognize and address religiously based systems, which are routinely neglected within such frameworks [2].

10. Conclusions

With knowledge about the inequity that is produced in collaboration with those who have lived experiences of injustice, trusted advocacy organizations and experienced academic researchers are more likely to reveal the compounded and intersectional nature of inequity within public services than conventional monitoring and reporting methods. Participatory approaches are well suited to such collaboration; however, they require additional effort, creativity, and flexibility to ensure that research processes do not replicate social exclusion for marginalized groups. Capacity building and empowerment can be achieved for such groups through training in participatory methods and the practical application of such education as a mechanism for change. Our approach fused theoretical and academic knowledge with the practical and experiential knowledge of those with lived experience and advocacy organizations. This approach was key to investigating complex social scenarios and developing recommendations that could potentially transform racialized, gendered, and religiously based public services.

At the same time, a number of limitations relating to contextual influences on this method were identified. Future research to further explore the adaptability and flexibility of participatory methods in different social contexts would be valuable, with particular attention paid to the impact of ethical concerns on the research process.