Transcription

• Speaker #0

  Civis Waves, surfing through the sounds and diving into the voices of our Civic University Alliance and beyond.

• Speaker #1

  Welcome to Civis Connect, the podcast of the Open Labs of the Civis Alliance, a university network that carries in its heart the citizen engagement. I am Robin Lebrun, coordinator of Civis of the Open Labs of the Libre University of Brussels. We continue our series of podcasts on participatory research and its issues. In this fifth episode, we will welcome Samia Benrajeb, professor at the Polytechnic School of Brussels, architect, director of the AIIA laboratory in the Batière department and academic coordinator of openlab.brussels. Hello and thank you for accepting our invitation.

• Speaker #2

  Thank you, Robin, for this invitation.

• Speaker #1

  So, maybe a word about OpenLab and its specificities. What is OpenLab in fact?

• Speaker #2

  Our Open Lab Brussels is dedicated to the support of participatory research and citizen sciences in Brussels, to which the ULB and the VIB participate. Our objectives are to bring together different types of knowledge, in and outside the university, to build a known knowledge, to create a community of practices, but also to provide transdisciplinary teams with support and co-creation tools. with methodological support, but also dedicated spaces for co-working, meetings, living labs, etc. And besides, we offer the first Serious Game Lidotech from the ULB, dedicated to the Serious Game, for consultation, tests and the creation of serious games for research, mediation and teaching.

• Speaker #1

  Thank you, Samia. You have contributed to the development of many participatory research projects. You have a... Also a more theoretical look at this type of methodology. Before going back to a concrete example, can you tell us in a few words what participatory research is for you?

• Speaker #2

  How do you define it? To be honest, when we try to define participatory research, we quickly see, through an analysis of literature, that it is difficult to find a unique definition. It seems to us, nevertheless, important to distinguish participation. of participatory research. In the absence of questions of research and the need to co-construct knowledge in a context of situational knowledge, we cannot talk about participatory research. It is important to keep in mind that there are a multitude of definitions, of appellations also, variable according to the discipline, the language, etc. But also, there are several typologies of participatory research. This depends on the degree of participation. of co-researchers involved in research activities, but also of the objective that there is on the use of participatory research between a rather passive objective of participation in which we aim first the co-construction of knowledge with, and then an active objective that confers to participatory research a more transformational dimension. To find a common ground, I suggest in general to return to the first objective of any scientific research, which is the viable and objective knowledge production. And therefore, in the context of participatory research, whatever its type, the common and first objective is therefore the production of knowledge with actors and actresses outside the university. whether there is an underlying intention to carry out this transformative action. So, consequently, any participatory research involves participation, but any participation is not participatory research.

• Speaker #1

  Okay, so why do we introduce this participatory dimension in research more and more? What makes us talk so much about participatory research today?

• Speaker #2

  So, we're going to try to give a little historical frame. First, we need to know that the conceptual framework and its theoretical foundations began to be formalized around the 1940s, among others by Kurt Lewin, who was also considered the father of action research, where he defended the idea that to solve social problems, actors and actresses must be involved in the research process. Then, the explicit term of participatory research, participatory research, It started in the early 70s in Tanzania, led by actors like Boudal to describe knowledge produced by and for local communities and among other things, the villagers. In 1976, there was the creation of the International Research Network which institutionalizes the movement worldwide. And then, a year later, the first World Conference on Participatory Action was held. which took place in Colombia. So we can see that the 70s have marked the recognition of participatory research, but it is not really widespread to the general public. This phenomenon was mainly made around the 21st century, with the emergence of what we call citizen science, which is rather focused on the collection of massive data by collaborating with citizens, such as for the observation of biodiversity. In 2013, the signature of the participatory science charter in France gave an official ethical framework to these practices. Today, we have to know that we are facing many phenomena. We are going to talk about increasingly growing complexities, a strong heterogeneity of moral and political positions, and this is seen quite quickly in social media. A society that wants to be more reflective, favoring what we call a dialogical democracy. to a declarative and representative democracy. A society that has expressed its mistrust of institutions and politics. This is a phenomenon that we have seen a lot during the Covid period. A world that must also face strong socio-ecological pressures and rapid digital transition issues. All the debates around generative IA are increasingly growing. So all these elements make it essential to create more bridges between research between the university and non-university, between theoretical knowledge, practical and experiential, to revitalize the social fabric, to prevent or resolve conflicts, by taking into account the individual and contextual specificities to carry out actions in line with the realities of the system. It is therefore for us today to respond to a need for co-construction, un savoir situé anchored in its territory, and in which we assume and explicitly explain our so-called epistemic localization as researchers, eco-researchers and eco-researchers.

• Speaker #1

  You have participated in many projects, you have put in place quite a few. One that I know that is particularly important to you is the collaborative observatory of heritage in Tunisia, funded by L'UNESCO. It is a project that has already been in place for almost 10 years today. Can you tell us a few words about it?

• Speaker #2

  Well, Robin, I must admit that it's a project that I care about. But the risk is to talk too much about it. But I'm going to try to be as concise as possible. So the main objective of this project is to create an inventory of great importance of the heritage built in a limited time frame, since the project was to last barely a year. And that's divided over the entire Tunisian territory. This project tends to respond to a problem of destruction and in fact of ruin threats of a set of heritage-valued buildings that must absolutely be encoded to be able to preserve the memory of the places and the heritage of knowledge and know-how around these buildings. So it's a project that made a local association collaborate, which is called Edifice et Mémoire, with a local scientific laboratory, PAE3C, specialized in analysis and... prevention of Tunisian heritage and our laboratory, in which we have intervened as a support to the participatory research methodology to put in place to allow this screening. So from this objective, it seemed natural to us to opt for a participatory research typology, which is collaborative research or commonly called citizen science. which was a good way to facilitate, on the one hand, the collection of massive data distributed on a vast territory, and on the other hand, the entry to difficult areas of access for our university researchers. However, this approach has raised several issues that have involved a quarter of the time dedicated only to preparation to better understand these issues. So I'm going to talk about four issues. The first being, we start first with... by tracking collected data. It is indeed about defining the type of data easily collected by our non-university co-researchers, but also to train all these co-researchers in direct contact with the field. This therefore raises the question of the objectivity of the data. This is why we had to quite quickly set up a participatory coding platform, scientific committees, editions and digital support. We also thought about the recruitment profile and the type of data that could be collected by our co-researchers and which represented a real added value for university research. Typically, in the profiles, we did not look for people with a great university career or a direct connection with heritage. we have rather privileged people who are anchored in their communities, who are... very involved in associations and their civil society and their territory. Likewise, we have attached a lot of importance to their perception of heritage, much more than the data that was factual and technical. And so that was part of the discussions that we had already from the start. A second issue was related to the interpretation of data by university researchers. Cela implique... and also to question the credibility and validity of the data that these researchers will have to receive and that they will also have to treat to generate new knowledge. So it was also necessary to specify signs quite quickly to validate these collected data, to verify them, and then a system of monitoring of the encoding of these data via our committees. Another challenge, a third challenge, which is related to the presentation. and to the dissemination of research results once the project is finished. It is therefore a question of guaranteeing scientific validity, but also of taking into account the rights of intellectual property. After all, these co-researchers helped us to collect these data, they took these photos, etc. So, to make our co-researchers visible, to ask themselves the question of remuneration, of indemnities, what place their data place in research and publication, should our dissemination be done? Only in scientific contexts, these were also important questions to think about, to co-construct together and with them. And finally, we are talking here about ethical issues, especially the need to inform the co-researchers of the objective of research, which justifies their participation in a conscientious and rigorous way in this data collection, to avoid a strong feeling of instrumentalization, for example. And besides, we created with them and by them a network of practice communities in Facebook called Win ou le patrimoine, that is, where is the heritage? It is true that in only two months of data collection by our 25 co-researchers, more than 400 buildings of patrimonial value have been reviewed in all Tunisian territory. We have even been surpassed in reality because... Even though we decided to make it visible, only 30% of this survey got the validation label by a scientific committee.

• Speaker #1

  The idea of having you with us today, Samia, is to take a little step back in relation to this type of methodology. By the way, you organize trainings, you participated in a staff week of the Alliance Civis, you help people develop their projects. We saw that the previous episodes of this series... podcast, a series of challenges, we will perhaps return to some of these. But first, why do we actually start in this type of methodology?

• Speaker #2

  Indeed, it seems essential to ask ourselves, as researchers, about our research practices. What will this type of participatory research method bring us in relation to more classic research? Is participatory research a end in itself or a way to achieve a precise objective? In other words, it is indeed a question of examining the transformative function of participatory research, both at the level of the activity itself, than co-production of knowledge. Today, as I said at the very beginning, in the face of the fast social-ecological and digital transition, it is necessary to note that today's society does not expect that there will be advances in research and universities to undertake actions or create knowledge. There is a real opportunity here for co-researchers and researchers to be interested in experiential knowledge that would enable them to enrich or confront theoretical knowledge. in the service of transformational action in line with the realities of the system. So, as researchers confronted with this type of approach, we quickly aim to find a balance between our degree of commitment but also our need for distance in relation to our field of study. So, indeed, in each type of participatory research, there are challenges to overcome, specific challenges. that it is important to understand and take into account when defining a research methodology that aims on the one hand at this notion of co-production of knowledge and on the other hand at a transformative action that is integrated and continuous. The question is no longer whether it is necessary to do participatory research, the question is how to do it without losing the scientific rigor and while offering a return, an apprenticeship, a transformative action pertinent for the co-researchers. By gathering different types of knowledge, participatory research becomes a kind of accelerator for knowledge production. But be careful, it's not just data collection, it's not popularization, it's co-production of situational knowledge. We must also stop thinking that participation in research simplifies knowledge production. On the contrary, it makes it more demanding. We must think of transparency, of protocol clarity, of data collection, of language alignment, of reformulation as one of the objectives. Because we negotiate with other people. To the multiplication of ethical and epistemological issues when we start to produce knowledge with it. And then, try not to systematically standardize, but to be explicit and contextualized. It is also necessary to understand that it is not easy to get started in this type of methodology. Because institutional integration is still slow, and that's why it's important to be part of this community, our community. And among other things, the Civis Alliance, I think it's a great opportunity too.

• Speaker #1

  Another challenge is to keep everyone on board in this type of device, which is not complex. You said that you always have to be in negotiation with the co-researchers. How do we manage to make projects? to last in the long run?

• Speaker #2

  It's a great question, because doing research differently, yes. But there are a few points of attention to try to create, make common and reach what the project exists, continue and continue. So we're going to talk first about this notion of non-instrumentalization. If there's something that stops a project, it's when... Citizens feel instrumentalised in the research process. And how could we do that? By involving them without infantilising them. Often we talk about transforming our language so that they can understand us. I say no, we should try to build a common language. Also by making them participate in the co-construction of the protocol, which is also a real wealth for the researcher and the researcher, who find themselves asking themselves questions. It's important to try to define clearly the roles of each and every one, not only... They and they, but also on the side of researchers, according to their contribution to the project, but also their ability to act on their territory. So, and that, having a clear map of the stakeholders is essential. Then, the priority is also to establish a transparent and iterative process between the different stakeholders of the project. Indeed, this iteration is... important, whether to rethink the question of research or to frame and question even the objectives of transformational action that will be allowed by this research via precisely an approach that is meant to be reflective, involving the profiles concerned by this transformation aimed at. From an epistemological point of view, and I have talked about it in different questions, it also seems essential to question Thank you. Continuously, this proximity report, in which it is not about guaranteeing the interest of a profile, in particular depending on the other profiles concerned by the activities, it is rather about guaranteeing a relationship of reciprocity and interaction in relation with the practices of the co-researchers, actors and actresses of the territory, and the interventions of the co-researchers and researchers on the ground. And so try to... hide this hierarchy that exists between university students and non-university students, often called experts and non-experts. Typically, it's the first thing to abolish in this type of approach.

• Speaker #1

  The idea is that, precisely, we take advantage of everyone's expertise. Everyone has their expertise.

• Speaker #2

  Exactly. And, moreover, the question of valuing these co-researchers becomes important. and also the results they contributed to. We should also think together about the aftermath of the project. How are we going to guarantee its sustainability, this collective learning and also this empowerment once we leave? What's going on? And that's not something that has to be thought about at the end of the project, but already in advance. And often we find ourselves managing different tensions and situations in which it is essential to accept the diversity of points of view. It's not easy. In general, when you're with researchers, it's quite easy, you know more or less what the rules of the game are, but here you have to accept the diversity of points of view. You don't have to try to smooth things out, you have to contextualize it, much more than trying to align everything, privilege the iterations to maintain the commitment and allow co-construction. You also have to find the balance between the scientific rigor and the openness, between the control of the protocol, we know how to do that, but on the other hand, il faut laisser des gens participants to appropriate this protocol. And then this contradiction between the long academic time versus a citizen engagement who wants to have results now. And so all that, these are important elements to manage to be able to create this common and create this sense.

• Speaker #1

  Thank you, Samia. So, as we said, you are the academic representative of openlab.brussels for the ULB. You are well placed to know which places these methodologies take today. Is it widespread at the university and above all,

• Speaker #2

  is it recognized? Well, I think there are several researchers and laboratories who have embarked on the adventure of participatory research. They did not expect the Open Lab to exist to be able to put them in place in their research. Except that it remains isolated initiatives and often no one is aware of what the other is doing right next to it. Today, the main role of the Open Lab Brussels is to put together, to bring together a community of practices, to help to better articulate the individual and the collective in view of a transformative action in a context of transition. It is also about setting our legitimacy, and the legitimacy of this type of research and their place within our universities and our institutions. It should be known that this recognition is not non-existent, but it remains insufficient. And even if this type of research is starting to be answered, and if I can afford to come to fashion, I often say that it is preferable not to participate than to do participatory washing and instrumentalization. So that's why the interest is to disseminate, to make known, to continue to do so, so that it is legitimate to explain the issues, to reveal the levers, but also the brakes in a part linked to our institutions and the way in which they organize themselves.

• Speaker #1

  Thank you very much, Samia Benrajeb, for taking the time to answer our questions. I remind you that you are an architect and professor at the Polytechnic School of Brussels. There is still a lot to say about the subject. But for now, we are going to leave here. This is the end of this first series of podcast Civis Connect dedicated to participatory research. I hope you enjoyed it. In any case, if this episode made you want to start participatory research, know that the Civis Open Labs are intended to establish bridges between university students and society and can help you train. and to build projects beyond borders. Visit civis.eu for more information. This podcast of the Civis Alliance is co-funded by the European Union and Movesia. Produced and co-produced by the Libre University of Brussels, Ex-Marseille University and the University of Lausanne, with Marie Hugeux, Florence Emery, Maria Isabel Soldevi Labrea, Maud Rebibou, Christelle Aubry and Robin Lebrun. Sound production, Yves Coudron.

• Speaker #3

  Did this episode make you want to launch a participatory research? Sachez que les open labs de CIVIS sont destinés à établir des ponts entre les universitaires et la société et peuvent vous aider à vous former et à construire des projets au-delà des frontières. Rendez-vous sur civis.eu pour plus d'informations.