Partnerships: Questions and Challenges

I hope this document will help you think about your research partnership. It is addressed to those who have decided to initiate a partnership research project. It is intended to be used alongside the documents What is partnership research? Key Ideas and Is Partnership Research Better Research? which outline why it might be a good idea to carry out research in partnership.

Every partnership is different, of course, and every context within which a research partnership is working will also be different from all others. This means there can be no rules or ‘blueprints’ for making a partnership successful and what works in one partnership may not work in another. This means you will have to try to resolve the challenges you face as you go along and by ‘trial and error’. However, I hope you will find this document helpful because it acknowledges the complexities of partnership working. I also hope it is reassuring to know that other people have faced challenges in their desire to do research in partnership.

What is a ‘partnership’? Who says this is a ‘partnership’?
Of course, it is usually the party (or parties) who are employed and funded to do research who initiate research partnerships although, obviously, as more people participate in research there will be more people initiating research partnerships. However, it is still the case that it is mostly those with funding who invite others to participate in research projects and set up initial meetings, manage the budget, and so on. Inevitably, then, these parties have certain forms of power which other people do not have. Of course it is possible, over time, to try to redress power imbalances within a group, and no doubt you will want to share control and decision-making. However, a 'partnership' has to be made or built, over time, it is not something you can decide will come about. There is also an inherent contradiction in one party (or parties) deciding that they will form a partnership with others. Over time, this may become a joint endeavour. As Fisher (2002) says, much 'partnership' work still involves "users being asked to join a process where the research issue and the methods have largely been defined beforehand, and where the outcome remains under the control of researchers." (p.306) There are all sorts of reasons why this may be the case (not least because in order to generate funds, organisations are usually required to pre-specify methods and outcomes). I think it is a good idea to be aware of these contradictions and to discuss them with the people you are working with. This may help, over time, to build a partnership which may operate on less unequal terms.

It is also the case, if you are committed to working in this way, that funding bodies, and other interested parties, will need to be educated as to the implications of partnership working. You may need to spend time working with them on developing this understanding.

For a discussion of related challenges associated with the idea of ‘empowerment’, see: McLaren, P. L. and Giarelli, J. M. (1995) ‘Afterword: Some Reflections on ‘Empowerment’ in McLaren, P. L. and Giarelli, J. M. (Eds) (1995) Critical Theory and Educational Research. (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press)

Does everyone in a ‘research partnership’ have to do everything together?
Some people believe that if you are going to do research ‘in partnership’ then everything has to be carried out together – all decision-making, all planning, all fieldwork, all analysis, all writing. In some situations this may be a good idea and possible, and it is not my intention to deter you if that is what you want to do. However, I do want to discuss some of the consequences of trying to work in this way and to raise some of the challenges and compromises that may ensue.

You will find that working in this way takes a lot of time and this means you will probably achieve less (in some ways) than if you were working alone. Of course, one of the objectives for working in a ‘partnership’ may be to encourage and prepare others to do research independently and these outcomes may be much more important than other, more obvious, outcomes. It may also be the case that the research is better research because it has been conducted in partnership, so the scale of the study is not important. However, be prepared for other people to ask why working in this way is so time-consuming and why progress seems so slow. If you are bidding for project funds in order to support a partnership project you will need to think carefully about how much time you will need and how to ‘write in’ the flexibility you will need if you intend to work in partnership.

Obviously, if you are working in partnership with others you will want everyone to have their say and to be able to influence the course of the project (more on this subject, below). What is sometimes insufficiently acknowledged, however, is that there may be disagreements and tensions between research partners (as well as agreement and productive collaboration). The word ‘partnership’ implies we will all ‘get along’ but, of course, that is not necessarily the case. Hopefully, the tensions and disagreements will ultimately lead to new insights and will also be productive in the longer term. However, in the short term you may find that difficult relationships take up lots of energy and lead to frustrations with the work.

It is my experience that doing everything in partnership sometimes results in uncomfortable compromises. This is because ‘partnership working’ in itself may have an impact, for example, on the order in which you do things. If you are working alone, you can sometimes do lots of different things simultaneously and make decisions about different interconnecting elements of the work as you proceed. However, if you have decided to make all decisions in partnership you may have to delay doing certain things and do other things sooner than you want to, because the logistics of the partnership require this. Related to this, decisions made jointly may be ‘good’ decisions, because they fulfil a commitment to the partnership, but they may not be ‘good’ decisions in respect of the research. This is because good decision-making is often informed by many things beyond the immediately obvious and members of a group may be drawing on very limited knowledge and understanding in respect of some issues. Democracy is not a guarantee of ‘good sense’.

As implied above, decision-making in research partnerships is generally a lot more complicated than is generally acknowledged (whether or not there are actual disagreements!). People will bring different sorts of knowledge, experience and skills to the partnership and, I believe, some people will be better at some things than others. This is not meant to imply that we cannot and do not develop as we take advantage of opportunities to learn. However, the idea that all elements of the work should be conducted in partnership implies a sort of equality of expertise which may not exist, certainly in the early stages of a project. I have seen this sort of situation result in some unfortunate outcomes. Firstly, those with more power in the relationship may appear to take seriously the suggestions of others but will then find ways of ignoring them. Secondly, those with less experience may be invited to participate only where their contributions have little real impact on the research. Third, partners in research will agree with all suggestions (whether they think them good or bad) because they do not want to be seen to disagree or suggest they ‘know better’. This can result in unfortunate consequences for the research itself and is not the basis for an honest partnership. Although this response may be born out of a desire to respect others, it can lead to deeply patronising behaviour. It is also the case that some participants may not want to join in all activities and will feel considerable pressure if they are expected to.

None of this is to suggest that you should not aspire to carrying out all elements of the research in partnership. It is designed to encourage you to think carefully about your expectations and to proceed honestly in acknowledgement of the complexities involved.

For further discussion see:

Truman, C. and Raine, P. (2002) ‘Experience and meaning of user involvement: Some explorations from a community mental health project’, Health and Social Care in the Community, 10, 3, p.136-143.

Walmsley, J. and Johnson, K. (2003) Inclusive Research with People with Learning Disabilities: Past, Present and Future. London: Jessica Kingsley.

How do you ‘build’ a partnership?
As I've already said, there is no one way of working in partnership and many challenges you face will be particular to your project and the people involved. However, it may be useful to point out that doing research in partnership will require you, in a way, to do research on that partnership as you proceed. For example, you will need to be a very good listener if you want to work in partnership. Because of power differences, for example, some people will find it difficult to be explicit about their feelings about the research or their role in it. Over time, no doubt, they will give you clues and cues, however, about their thoughts and feelings. Hopefully you will feel able to sensitively explore these ideas just as you would in a research interview. In this way you will build up knowledge and understanding of your co-researchers and, hopefully, begin to develop a trusting relationship with them.

Similarly, you will probably want to think about lots of different ways of encouraging people to participate, beyond just asking people questions and inviting opinions. It may be useful to keep asking yourself what experiences you are drawing on to help you make decisions. You may be hoping your co-researchers will contribute to decision-making as if they were both experienced in research and well informed about the context. We often assume that because of 'personal experience' people have special resources to contribute to research and will automatically understand others' (different but related) experiences. This 'personal experience' is no guarantee, of course, of being an open-minded researcher. Some people are quite dogmatic because they feel they 'know' a situation because they have experienced it. It may be a good idea to think carefully about all the different ways in which you can provide opportunities for people to gain experience which will inform their thinking, as well as expecting them to have 'answers' at their fingertips. In the same vein, it may be a good idea to build in lots of time for talking about how certain activities went and how everyone felt, so that concerns, anxieties (and pleasures!) can be aired.

Whenever you talk to people about developing research in partnership, they come back to the question of TIME. In relation to building a partnership, time is an issue because it takes time to develop trust; if you intend to work towards genuine participation for all parties, people will need to be convinced that you are genuine in that desire. It may be that one concern of participants will be how you will react to their contributions. This will particularly be the case if they want to disagree with you (one of the most difficult things for them to do) or come up with ideas they think you might not like. This uncertainty about how you will react can only be addressed over time and will require you to think carefully about responding very sensitively, and honestly, to people's suggestions. You will also need to think carefully about how other people can gradually take control of aspects of the work, in ways which avoid you being in charge of the negotiations. This will require you to confront the challenging idea of giving up power and ceding control to others. This may be difficult both personally, and in terms of the direction of the project. If you genuinely mean to work in partnership with people, you cannot know in advance what will happen, and this sort of uncertainty may feel incompatible with other demands upon you.

For further discussion see:

Barton, L. and Oliver, M. (Eds) (1997) Disability Studies: Past, Present and Future . Leeds : The Disability Press.

Walmsley, J. (2001) 'Normalisation, Emancipatory Research and Inclusive Research in Learning Disability, Disability and Society, 16, 2, p.187-205.

Do you formalise ‘partnership’ arrangements or do you work in ways which allow forms of working to develop?
As with so much in this field, there are advantages to drawing up a formal contract with your research partners near the beginning of a project and there are disadvantages. And, as described above, there may be an inherent contradiction in you deciding this is a good idea when you are supposed to be making decisions together. However, you may decide that a contract is one way of actually addressing power differences and, if so, you will need to think carefully about how you will negotiate this contract. A contract can be one way of formalising expectations, understandings and expected outcomes rather than assuming that all parties feel comfortable with the status quo. It is also the case that a contract can signal appropriate acknowledgement of the contribution of all parties. A contract may recognise (for example) that if people are not getting paid, there are other ways in which they can be rewarded for their contributions (see Legal Issues - Benefits and payments)

One disadvantage associated with formalising arrangements in this way, is that roles, responsibilities and rewards are seen to have been defined and, perhaps, cannot be redefined. It may, then, be a good idea to build into your contract, the idea that it will be revisited and can be renegotiated. This dilemma is related to some of the dilemmas raised in Politics and ethics of partnership research – key issues. For example, it can appear that drawing up a formal agreement at the beginning of a project addresses questions of ethics. However, if research is genuinely to develop according to understandings gained as you proceed then it is likely that unforeseen ethical dilemmas will arise. The presence of a formal agreement may lull some parties into the belief that ethics can be addressed on a once-and-for-all basis, whereas they will probably need to be revisited as you proceed.

Good luck with all your plans and projects and do get in touch if you’d like to comment on this piece or any other element of the website.

References

Fisher, M. (2002) The Role of Service-Users in Problem Formulation and Technical Aspects of Social Research, Social Work Education, 21, 3, p305-312.