Social Innovation Group (SIG)
HomeParticipatory Methods

Participatory Methods

Participatory methods and tools help us to understand study interests and issues by inspiring engagement and involvement. Typically, tools are designed to encourage individuals and/or groups to express their opinions and experiences in relation to whatever is being studied. This type of involvement can support diverse individuals and groups in shaping and (re)defining what is being studied.

Key considerations when designing such tools are how they will be used, where they will be used and with whom. Essentially, participatory methods and tools are most effective when they are designed around a particular study interest, and to suit the people who will use them (person-centred) and the places in which they will be used (place-based). Importantly, both individuals and/or groups applying such methods and tools, and those who will be engaged by them should be considered in the design process. More information about how to build participatory methods and tools in this way can be found in the guide that is included at the bottom of this webpage.

Over the last few years, SIG has co-designed various participatory methods to help communities to talk about what matters to them – see examples below.

  • A Talking Deck to support conversations with individuals experiencing homelessness and to understand what can be done to support them: Talking Deck

    Talking Deck‌
  • A Guided Conversation to help older adults develop innovations and seek support in relation to the challenges of living (ageing) rurally: Healthy Ageing through Innovation in Rural Europe’s (HAIRE’s) Guided Conversation

    A place-based collage used in a Guided Conversation to understand ageing in Goes – the main settlement in a rural region of the Netherlands

Participatory Methods and Social Impact

The information on the rest of this page concentrates on an Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) Impact Accelerator Account (IAA) Knowledge Exchange (KE) project between SIG and Cornwall Wildlife Trust (CWT). M-A-P Digital Projects supported the design work associated with the project. The project developed the UC-SIT 2024 tool, which is summarised below.

SIG’s Shukru Esmene (Knowledge Exchange Fellow) collaborated with CWT staff to co-design a tool to help the organisation assess the social impact of their community engagement work. Here, the challenge was that social impact can be understood in a variety of ways and, due to its subjective elements, definitions of what constitutes social impact can vary. In such circumstances, communities and organisations – like CWT – can come together to define social impact from their perspective. Consequently, a study interest that is difficult to define is given meaning in a particular context and participatory methods can be (co)designed to accommodate that meaning. This process is often called meaning-making. More information about meaning-making can be found in the guide that is included at the bottom of this webpage. 

Through a series of workshops, CWT staff identified six areas that defined the social impact of their work and what they aimed to achieve in relation to social impact. The six areas were categorised as follows:

  1. Care for nature.
  2. Care for people.
  3. Collaboration and co-production.
  4. Catalysing and capacity building.
  5. Diversity, inclusion and accessibility.
  6. Reflection and learning.

Importantly, CWT staff also identified the sorts of achievements and outcomes (within communities) each of the categories above would involve. However, the categories listed above would be difficult to explain to individuals, groups and communities outside of the organisation. This point posed us with the challenge of developing a participatory tool that could help to understand CWT’s social impact, while bringing clarity to what feedback was being sought from communities.
After a series of co-design sessions, a template with six detachable cards was developed. The cards correspond to CWT’s six social impact areas and use icons to represent them – see below.

The icons are designed to represent: 1. Care for nature; 2. Care for people; 3. Collaboration and co-production; 4. Catalysing and capacity building; 5. Diversity, inclusion and accessibility and 6. Reflection and learning

Once the co-designed template is printed, the lines that form the boundaries of each card can be cut using a card perforator – this is essentially a pizza cutter for paper/card – to make the cards detachable if the user of the tool wishes to do so. See the template that was co-designed here: Template 1

Co-designed template.

Note: Before use, please read all of the information below for an overview of how the template can be applied.

The template linked to above has space to record the date and, if relevant, the place and project name that relates to a particular feedback collection session. Space is also provided to record any relevant reflections that the individual(s) applying the method may have at the end of a feedback collection session. Such information is important for when reviewing and/or analysing the feedback that is generated by participatory methods. Guidance on using reflections during analysis can be found in the guide that is linked to at the bottom of this page. You will also notice that there are two versions of the tool in the Template 1 file (above). Two versions were co-designed so that, if required/relevant, participants can provide an overall rating for their opinions and experiences after they have written them down in relation to each social impact area. One version contains a smiley face scale to capture a rating and the other simply asks for a score out of 10. The version that is most appropriate for an audience can be chosen for use.

When in use, the printed template is accompanied by a crib sheet. The crib sheet is a document that explains the feedback that is being sought and how individuals and/or groups can use the template to give their feedback. The two examples (Word documents) below show how a crib sheet might be adapted to make the participatory tool relevant to an audience.

  • Example Crib sheet 1 – For use during a project that aimed to understand the influences of conservation work on an individual’s wellbeing: Crib sheet 1
  • Example Crib sheet 2 – For use during a project that engaged children in marine conservation activities (to be used alongside templates that include the smiley scale): Crib sheet 2

Note: Crib sheets are edited and used to bring clarity to what feedback is being sought and how. Some audiences may require added support – such as someone to sit with a group and to explain what is being asked for in relation to the tool’s icons. This approach would help applying Crib sheet 2. On the other hand, it may be appropriate to hand out the crib sheets and let individuals and/or groups use the tool without any other support.

To further help the tool’s use in a variety of ways, two more templates were co-designed. These additional templates are linked to below. The first file linked to below is a version of the tool that can be given to individuals to complete in their own time. The second version includes the icons that represent CWT’s social impact areas as standalone A5 pages. This version will allow feedback to be captured in relation to each social impact area as a standalone exercise - in some cases, all of CWT’s social impact areas might not be relevant to a specific activity, project and/or piece of community engagement work.‌

  • Alternative version 1 – for use by individual participants: Template 2
  • Alternative version 2 – for feedback on particular action areas: Template 3

Standalone template example

Encouragingly, during testing (the tool), CWT staff mentioned that the tool’s templates intrigued participants and they were curious about using them. This feedback demonstrates the value of creating materials that spark interest and imagination. The participants’ interest in using the tool also translated to generating wide-ranging responses. In a post-testing session, CWT staff discussed how they were not used to eliciting such high volumes of feedback. On the whole, the increase in feedback that was achieved is positive. However, a challenge is posed here too. Afterall, organisations using such tools will need to deal with this higher volume of feedback. Therefore, it is important to plan when it is best to apply such tools. For example, CWT can use this tool at key moments during their projects and/or activity programmes. End-of-project events and/or quarterly progress evaluation meetings were some examples put forward as appropriate sessions for the tool’s use.

Note: If applied at a wide scale, we are aware that this tool might use a lot of paper/card. A more sustainable approach would be to print out the templates and laminate them. With the laminated versions, responses can be wiped out at the end of a session and templates can be reused (as long as a suitable type of pen is used). Photographs of responses can be taken to ensure that all feedback is captured. A drawback of this way of using the method is that the cards will not be detachable and shareable – unless the individual A5 versions are used. Consequently, the experience of using the method will be less interactive.

Future use

The method described above can be adapted for use by other organisations. Where relevant/appropriate, the icons included in the templates can be given different meanings that are relevant to an organisation’s/group’s work. Crib sheets can then be used, as shown above, to explain the feedback that is being sought from individuals, groups and/or communities.

Finally, a key strength of this tool is that feedback can be grouped (by grouping the cards relevant to a particular action) across various activities and/or projects. Therefore, a group and/or organisation – like CWT – can get a sense of what is working and what needs improving across all of its activities and/or projects. More guidance on using the feedback (and analysis) that is generated by this tool and similar tools can be found in the guide that is linked to at the bottom of this webpage.

Any interest, comments and/or queries around participatory methods can be directed at Shukru Esmene – s.esmene@exeter.ac.uk

We thank Emma Whiting, Katie Bellman, Amy Gosney, Andy Nelson and Mat Bateman from the Cornwall Wildlife Trust, and James Moore from M-A-P Digital Projects for their work on this project.

Resource

A design thinking guide to participatory methods: COMING SOON!