The Potential of Participatory Social Economics: A Framework and Feminist Perspective

Abstract

Recurrent economic, ecological and democratic crises provoke opportunities to critically examine previously unquestioned assumptions about economies, an effort which can include those people on which the theory and practice are usually designed and tested. This article claims that there is a role for participatory research (PR) approaches to play for social economists seeking to understand and support local problem-solving, especially in social economy activities and socioecological change processes. The objective of the article is twofold: first, a simple framework for understanding the different manifestations of PR will be presented based on the degree to which a project has (a) scientific or transformative goals, and (b) hierarchical or democratic decision-making. Second, this text will discuss the kind of PR that is ethically and epistemologically compatible with social economic scholarship. This theoretical argument is grounded in feminist, Black and Indigenous principles of (1) highlighting subjective and socially-embedded perspectives, (2) critically interrogating power dynamics within research contexts and processes, and (3) ethically engaging participants in collaborative research. Such an approach aims to dismantle the hierarchical binary between scientific and non-scientific knowledges, with social economists actively contributing to collective problem-solving efforts rather than acting as detached observers and planners.

KEYWORDS : :

• participatory research
• feminist methodologies
• social innovation
• citizen science
• sustainable development

1. Introduction

The interlocking democratic, socioeconomic and ecological crises of our time will, either through mitigation or adaptation, entail extensive socioeconomic restructuring. The Anthropocene is not only a time of emergency, but also of yet to be defined transformation. History shows that crises can lead to a range of outcomes, ranging from societal collapse to ‘systemic reform that can promote well-being or increase democratic participation’ (p. 2) dependent upon the society’s evolving structure and social resilience (Hoyer et al., 2023). Key institutions such as the European Commission (2020a, 2020b) have called for ‘Science with and for Society’, highlighting community engagement and the coproduction of knowledge as means for not only better understanding socioecological transformation but also facilitating it. There is an existential imperative for economists to, inter alia, take ethical positions and become ‘more active in researching how –structurally, institutionally, culturally, and morally –people come to take action, work together, and avoid catastrophe.’ (Nelson, 2016, p. 189). This article argues that social economists are well-placed to play an active role in understanding and facilitating such reforms using participatory research (PR), but should carefully consider how they do so.

The relative importance of both social economic concepts and social economy practices are said to historically correlate with periods of crisis characterised by market failures¹, social alienation and the non-satisfaction of needs (Moulaert & Ailenei, 2005). Challenging predominant knowledge of economies and economics by engaging a broader range of perspectives creates opportunities for ‘prompting new and (perhaps) more harmonious interpretations of reality and enhancing the creativity of groups in identifying useful actions to solve—or dissolve—shared problems.’ (Romaioli & McNamee, 2021, p. 330) Inside perspectives of local institutions, power relationships, social agency and identity representations assist in understanding the challenging or exclusionary dynamics that individuals encounter (Moulaert et al., 2013). Collective recognition of persistent frustrations and dissatisfaction with market and state failures can lead to ‘disruptions’ that create dialogical space for new social processes, ‘projects of economic experimentation’ (Gibson-Graham, 2006) and innovative problem-solving towards solving basic needs (Moulaert & Ailenei, 2005). This means engaging with people not merely as objects of study but as active economic agents who are capable of understanding and changing their economies.

Socially innovative solutions, which often emerge through the social and solidarity economy (SSE), are necessary to mitigate if not adapt to and survive socioecological crises. Social innovation involves intentionally creating new combinations or configurations of social practices that aim to address needs and problems more effectively than established practices (Howaldt & Schwarz, 2010). Social innovations have the potential to build collective capabilities, democratic solidarity and community resilience in the face of complex and interlocking crises (Moralli & Allegrini, 2021). This could include for example sustainable improvements to the way we work, produce, consume, care, save, recycle, share the commons, and participate in sociopolitical life. Since the best social innovations are developed in partnership with people (Howaldt, 2019), inclusive approaches are vital for pursuing socioecological transition and community resilience (Ciampa & Bosone, 2022; Riva et al., 2022).

PR enables researchers to gain access to participants’ extensive and rich insights; their perceptions of strengths and problems, how they experience change, and an internal view of their communities (Kidd & Kral, 2005). Both Participatory Action Research (PAR) (Estensoro, 2015; Moulaert et al., 2013) and Citizen Science (CS) (Butkevičienė et al., 2021) have been identified as avenues for testing and developing social innovations towards sustainable development (Ajaps & Mbah, 2022; Fraisl et al., 2020). In this regard, social innovation refers not only to the outcomes of actions or projects but also to the processes of mobilisation-participation, such as improvements in social relations, power dynamics, governance structures or collective efficacy (Moulaert et al., 2013). PR approaches serve as both a means for facilitating socially innovative solutions, as well as ends themselves in so far as they directly entail capacity building and positive change.

This introduction has contextualised the argument for applying PR based on the need for collective action in the face of crises. The second section will start with an introduction to PR and broadly discuss the predominant forms, PAR and CS. Section 2.2 will then outline a new framework for understanding the manifestations of PR projects based not on terminology or discipline but rather on (a) the PR goals and (b) the degree of democratic decision-making built in to the project. Based on this two-dimensional framework, four broad categories of PR are distinguished—Instrumental, Co-Creative, Agency-Based and Sociotechnical—which can generally be classified as rather Contributory or Activist PR. The third section of this paper then presents a theoretical argument for the adoption of PR within the field of social economics, founded upon feminist, Black feminist and decolonial critiques. More concretely, I argue that the essential principles of feminist objectivity (Haraway, 1988)—(1) valuing subjective and socially-embedded perspectives, (2) critically interrogating power dynamics within research contexts and processes, and (3) ethically engaging in collaborative research—support pursuing PR that is particularly democratic and change-oriented. This form of PR is well-suited to the field of social economics, the study of social and solidarity economies, and to facilitating socioecological transformation.

2. Understanding Participatory Research

2.1. What is PR?

All participatory approaches to research aim to broaden the scope of who, in some degree or form, can do science and thereby redefine the boundaries of what is and is not considered science. PR projects are multifarious and found in many different fields, including public health, social work, medicine, environmental studies, biology, education, organisational development, history, geography and psychology. Such projects may use the often-interchangeable terminology of action research, participatory action research, citizen science, community-based participatory research, community-based research, co-creative research, cooperative inquiry, action science, action inquiry, community action research, community-based monitoring, public participation in scientific research and more.

Participation has become something of an ‘infinitely malleable’ buzzword (Cornwall, 2008), adapted to fit a variety of public engagement contexts and disciplines which often have contrasting if not contradictory characteristics, goals, degrees of participation and (intended) impacts. The fragmentation of PR meanings is mirrored by the various terminologies used, resulting in overlaps, gaps and sometimes contradictory understandings. It has therefore become important to move beyond superficial use of the participation ‘rhetoric’ (Cooke & Kothari, 2001; Cornwall, 2008) towards carefully, explicitly and transparently employing participation strategies aimed towards the project’s intended outcome given the initial context. While confusion about terminology is complicating and undermining effective communication about PR, it is the degree and quality of participation, rather than the fields of practice or research, that meaningfully distinguish PR projects (Shirk et al., 2012).

The two most prominent approaches in PR literature are known as Participatory Action Research (PAR) and Citizen Science (CS). As will be later discussed, certain PR characteristics appear more often in PAR (democratic and change-oriented participatory processes) and CS (traditional research designs with contributory participation). Despite this, there is in reality such a diversity of PR manifestations that many individual projects, especially Activist CS and Contributory PAR, could conceivably use either term interchangeably. Furthermore, the choice of whether a project is framed as CS or PAR seems to have more to do with geographical, institutional and/or disciplinary path dependencies than with any explicit decision to choose one or the other. For this reason, this article will focus on PR as a whole and, while outlining the important differences between PAR and CS, will focus greater attention on the defining features of (a) scientific or change goals and (b) hierarchical or democratic decision making in PR.

2.1.1. Distinguishing PAR and CS

Action research (AR) is an umbrella term for ‘a family of approaches and practices… [that aim] …to develop practical as well as conceptual contributions by doing research with, rather than on people’ (Bradbury & Reason, 2003, p. 156). It was conceived by Kurt Lewin² (1946) as a critique of the dominant positivist scientific traditions that are based on ideas of neutrality, impartiality, and adopting the practices of natural science in social research (Cordeiro et al., 2017). Lewin cited a need for social sciences to instead engage in action research to address social problems, pursue social development and improve intergroup relations by: (1) addressing practical problems, (2) being participatory and collaborative, (3) following a cyclical process of self-reflective, adaptive and experiential learning, (4) generating knowledge, and (5) engendering and/or prompting a transformation of practices (Cordeiro et al., 2017; Lewin, 1946; O’Leary, 2004). Due to the importance of participation of non-scientists relative to the cyclical research design process, Participatory AR (PAR) has become common terminology. Each of Lewin’s principles are however linked: The knowledge (4) that PAR seeks to uncover or produce is not abstract or disconnected from the other AR goals, but rather directly arises from and further informs the attempts to solve practical problems (1) and the transformation of practices (5) in collaboration with non-scientists (2) throughout iterative cycles of learning (3).

CS has been broadly defined as the ‘generation of any theory or hypothesis, research, scientific data collection, and/or data analysis in which the public (individuals or communities) participates’ (Eitzel et al., 2017, p. 2). It is said to have been first used by both Alan Irwin (1995) and Rick Bonney (1996) with two different but ideally compatible meanings: Irwin’s concept related to fostering a more democratic vision of science reoriented towards the needs and concerns of society, while Bonney referred to a rather contributory participation of people for improving and expanding quantitative data collection (Cooper & Lewenstein, 2016). The definition given by Eitzel et al. (2017) could however arguably be relevant to any research that involves participants, including those using traditional experiments or qualitative methods whereby people contribute information in a one-way manner with little to no decision-making power. Albert et al. (2021) therefore argue that particularly the citizen social sciences should be meaningfully distinguished from the usual voluntary participation in interviews, focus groups or surveys for the purpose of collecting data. CS in reality takes many forms and can involve participants in any and all stages of the research process: defining research questions, collecting and analysing data, monitoring and evaluating policy outcomes, and disseminating scientific findings (Haklay et al., 2020).

To directly address a common confusion regarding PR: Neither PAR nor CS (or any other genuine PR) are research methods per se (McTaggart, 1997), but rather approaches to or strategies for research, guiding the aims and design of the research process but not the means for collecting and analysing information (Denscombe, 2007). Both PAR and CS can employ any number or type of methods in the data collection and analysis phases, depending on the research question(s) to be answered. These can also be decided in cooperation with participants or by professional researchers in advance, again depending on the degree of participation in the planning phases. The inductive nature of PAR and the fact that it often relates to understandings of meaning (Smith, 1997) commonly leads to the use of qualitative methods such as interviews, photo elicitation, storytelling or visualisation (Kidd & Kral, 2005). In some cases however quantitative methods such as statistical or survey data may be more useful for achieving the goals of the project (Loewenson et al., 2014), although these are much more common in contributory CS projects which follow a more traditional research design. The choice of method in PR projects that have a strong democratic focus should be determined in conversation with if not directly by participants. However, as will be discussed in the following sections, the choice of research problem, question, methods of data collection and analysis, and the means of disseminating the results, will depend greatly on the specific goals for participation and the initial context of the research.

2.2. A PR Framework

The purpose of the framework presented here is to help unfamiliar researchers to understand the general orientation of different PR projects. My argument is that any PR project, whether called CS, PAR or any of the other commonly used terms, can be characterised by a wide range of scientific philosophies (from positivist to critical-constructionist) and be found in any discipline across the natural or social sciences. What can be distinguished is the degree to which a given PR project (a) prioritises the goal of generating pure science or radical change (or some combination thereof) and (b) has decisions made in a rather hierarchical or democratic fashion, or a mixture of the two across different research stages. This creates a two-dimensional framework, as displayed in Figure 1, within which any PR project can be located given its core goal(s) on the X-axis, and the degree of hierarchical/democratic decision-making on the Y-axis. This framework aids in understanding the different manifestations of a PR project, despite discipline or terminology, given key decisions regarding the intended outcome(s) and role of participants.

Figure 1. A participatory research framework.

The X axis, based on O’Leary’s (2004) framework of knowledge production goals, denotes a spectrum ranging from Pure Science to Radical Change. Projects located at the far left end prioritise the goal of ‘pure’ or basic knowledge production, which can involve abstract theory that need not be applied to real world situations. Projects located at the far right end of the spectrum prioritise systemic change and emancipation through power redistribution. O’Leary clarifies that is exceptionally rare that any project exist at the far ends of the spectrum, since nearly all scientific investigations must be legitimised by realistic problems or applications, while projects that lack any scientific analysis will be considered pure activism. The Y axis depicts the degree and often, but not necessarily, the quality of participation from Democratic to Hierarchical decision-making processes. The degree of participation is the breadth (the number and diversity of participants) and depth of participation (the duration, intensity or effort of involvement) throughout the entire scientific process, from problem formulation to dissemination (Shirk et al., 2012). The quality of participation is ‘the extent to which a project’s goals and activities align with, respond to, and are relevant to the needs and interests of public participants.’ (p. 4) The degree of participation can be quantitatively measured and compared across projects, while the quality encompasses many sub-indicators of specific subjective and contextual factors such as trust, fairness, responsiveness and agency (see Shirk et al., 2012). The spectrum from rather hierarchical to more democratic participation is therefore a broad, imprecise and continuous categorisation of what participants are involved in, how, in which research phases and how they feel about the participation.

PR projects are not evenly distributed across the four quadrants, and most PR projects will likely land somewhere in the middle of the framework. There are however certain naturally symbiotic and coinciding features in PR, illustrated by the grey areas that pull out to the bottom left and top right corners broadly labelled Contributory and Activist PR. The Contributory PR corner reflects the fact that the prioritisation of a Pure Science objective aligns more naturally with Hierarchical decision-making as it facilitates planning, measuring and controlling factors. The Activist corner highlights the idea that Radical Change goals often incorporate or even fundamentally require Democratic decision-making with participants. Furthermore, while any two projects labelled PAR and CS can exhibit the same goals and characteristics of participation, it is true that CS projects can more often be characterised as Contributory PR, while PAR projects are more often Activist in nature.

There are however enough exceptions to break the rule. While PAR projects tend to focus on action goals, they also contribute to theory generation, testing or development (see e.g. O’Neill et al., 2019). PAR researchers can also display a bias towards more familiar and traditional research methods, procedures, and roles which may limit the full involvement and creative potential of community participants (Smith et al., 2010). On the other hand, there are many circumstances in which CS projects have clear activist intentions or impacts³. Perhaps the best-known example is that of the Flint Michigan water crisis, in which citizen scientists were instrumental in building an evidence base and increasing public awareness of dangerous drinking water quality, although not without scientific or ethical dilemma (Roy & Edwards, 2019). Initially, Fischer et al. (2021) differentiated CS from PAR primarily based on the absence of change or action objectives. However, their subsequent findings revealed that genuine personal interests and activist goals did not hinder their CS project, but in fact led to greater success.

The essential point is that key decisions regarding the goals of the research and the participation itself are associated with trade-offs that will ultimately define how the project develops and what it can achieve. A project also need not involve participants in every stage: different forms and degrees of participation can be present (or absent) within a single project at various different stages of the process. Since involving ‘everyone’ is logistically difficult if not impossible and undesirable, Cornwall (2008) suggests that entering into and generating participatory spaces requires strategic decision-making. ‘High-quality participation in the design of a project can be found in projects supporting any degree of participation in the research process, so long as the degree of participation adequately reflects the needs and interests of the public.’ (Shirk et al., 2012, p. 4) A project that is located at any point on the framework can therefore have valid reasons, outcomes and benefits for participants, researchers and society. The balance between scientific and public (individual, community, socioecological) interests will need to be continuously evaluated and negotiated, with deliberate project design based on intended outcomes essential from the beginning (Shirk et al., 2012). The following sections will further elaborate each quadrant with examples and potential impacts discussed.

2.2.1. Contributory PR

Starting on the far left-hand bottom corner of the framework represents Contributory (Cooper & Lewenstein, 2016) PR in which people collect, analyse or generate data towards a predominantly scientific goal, with a greater degree of hierarchical decision-making by scientific project leaders in most or all research phases. This quadrant aligns with an Instrumental conception of participation as a tool or method for increasing the scale of traditional research (Eitzel et al., 2017). Participants act mainly as volunteers who contribute to the collection and processing of (often natural science) data in rather top-down, traditional and pre-planned research processes (Cooper & Lewenstein, 2016), especially prevalent in the fields of astronomy and ornithology (Dickinson et al., 2010). The epitome of a hierarchical and contributory project is Extractivist PR, in which participants are exploited as free labour (Haklay, 2021) to do data monitoring, sensing, collecting and processing, or in a crowdsourcing activity (Chiaravalloti et al., 2022), without any agency, power or benefit through the research. Arnstein (1969) refers to such one-way flows of information without any explicit benefit, negotiation, power or agency as tokenistic forms of (non)participation. A main reason that participants are often only engaged in data collection is the ease of designing and conducting such projects, while co-design may require knowledges, capacities and institutional support that do not yet exist in scientific communities (Turrini et al., 2018). Projects in which participants only contribute to data collection can however reflect their desired level of involvement, while still providing implicit benefits when the project addresses societal concerns, raises public interest and learning, as well as improves long-term relations between participants, scientists and policy-making bodies (Shirk et al., 2012).

Staying on the left but moving up over the X axis into democratic PR, we encounter Co-Creative (Senabre Hidalgo et al., 2021) PR, which still prioritises scientific aims but also includes explicit moments of democratic decision-making, shifting or sharing power away from scientists to participants in one or more stages of the research. Such projects closely follow Irwin’s (1995) democratic, open science or social movement vision of participatory science (Eitzel et al., 2017) that is oriented towards the needs and concerns of society (Cooper & Lewenstein, 2016). Key examples are so-called Collegial (Shirk et al., 2012) or ‘Extreme’ (Haklay, 2013) CS in which scientists mainly act as facilitators (Skarlatidou & Haklay, 2021) by helping people to be involved in the whole scientific process, from problem definition to action (Moustard et al., 2020). Citizen social science can contribute to designing new initiatives by including marginalised communities ‘in the design and/or conduct of social research, including engagement in some or all research processes, such as ideation, research design, data collection, analysis, dissemination, and impact.’ (Albert et al., 2021, p. 120). Hayward et al. (2004) argues that participation should be made not just a means but also the ends of a CS project in so far as participants directly gain from the experience itself through new skills, networking, information or other tangible or intangible benefits.

Turrini et al. (2018) state that such CS projects are however underutilised and that participants most often act as data collectors. Democratic PR has many challenges that may be difficult for researchers to accept including openness, uncertainty and a lack of control in sharing power. They may prefer or require—due to institutional or financial constraints—a particular time schedule or sequence of events that is better achieved with a hierarchical PR design. Contributory PR thus tends towards hierarchical decision-making, as a project with a rather Pure Science objective will usually prioritise scientific legitimacy over democratic engagement. Following traditional scientific requirements, practices and (post-)positivist philosophies, it is likely that a professional scientist will define the research problem, question and how it will be answered, before then deriving who will participate in answering it. These projects generally prioritise the generation of robust data, favour quantitative methods, are more likely to be defined as CS and are often found in the natural science disciplines.

However some proponents of contributory CS now see it as a means towards fulfilling democratic CS, especially in situations where environmental concerns are creating negative socioecological externalities. In these cases the involvement of participants in the collection and communication of data could challenge unjust institutions, structures and relations (Cooper & Lewenstein, 2016). Focused on environmental protection, van Noordwijk et al. (2021) identify six key pathways through which CS can create impact: (1) environmental management, (2) evidence for policy, (3) behaviour change, (4) social network championing, (5) political advocacy and (6) community action. Contributory PR still then has the potential to contribute to broader, long-term sociopolitical changes even if not explicitly cited within the context of the research project. Many CS projects do however explicitly incorporate transformative and action goals, which moves us rightwards along the X-axis from Contributory to Activist PR.

2.2.2. Activist PR

The far right-hand side of the framework covers Activist PR projects, with explicit prioritisation of Radical Change goals such as participant empowerment and the redistribution of resources in response to poverty, exploitation and an unjust status quo (Cancian, 1993). Such projects are more often labelled PAR, with many researchers seeking to generate bottom-up knowledge as a resource (Fine & Barreras, 2001) or means (Kidd & Kral, 2005) for collective action or change through or following the research process (Kemmis et al., 2013), rather than for scientific or theoretical development (Albert et al., 2021; Fischer et al., 2021). Research partners often collaborate strategically to achieve a specific change in practice and/or policy related to so-called ‘wicked’ issues such as poverty (Banks et al., 2017), with participation required to shift the existing structural conditions (Bradbury & Reason, 2003). The intended or actual scope of change in any PR project can occur across three possible levels: (1) the development of individual confidence and critical consciousness (2) the strengthening of an organisation or improvement of living conditions in the local community, and/or; (3) the transformation of power dynamics across the wider society (Cancian, 1993). Cancian adds that it is usually impossible to aim for or achieve all three in any one project, and that most projects can be judged successful if they can reach one or two levels of change. Activist PR which centres greater degrees of democratic participation is critical of traditional academic research, its lack of relevance and responsiveness to, as well as communication with, those disadvantaged people it often studies.

In the far top-right corner we come to the most (direct) democratic form of Emancipatory PR. This so-called ‘Southern’ tradition (Cordeiro et al., 2017) of PAR is associated with scholars such as Fals-Borda and Rahman (1991), who aspire to generate critical consciousness (Freire [1970] 2005), political action and major shifts in power dynamics. Emancipatory PR often focuses on power relations and underprivileged communities, and is primarily oriented towards community groups rather than academics or policy experts (Cancian, 1993). These PAR projects will generally begin with participants’ collective reflection, dialogue and a general idea that an issue is deserving of both investigation and action (Kemmis et al., 2013; McTaggart, 1991) and then, similar to qualitative research in general, seek to induce the answers or potential solutions through exploratory analysis (Ponterotto, 2005). This is an experiential methodology in which research is combined with educational and political actions (Fals-Borda, 1987).

Such participation can require an emergent research design with a degree of adaptability built in, allowing for self-reflexive inquiry, authentic participant input and adaptation (Loewenson et al., 2014). Following Lewin’s framework, action research should have a research design of iterative, non-linear, overlapping and mutually dependent cycles of observation, reflection, planning and action⁴. These steps need not be performed in any particular order and may overlap, since the emergent research design purposefully allows for revision, reorientation, repetition, rethinking or even radical change (Stringer, 2007). The cyclical process, in which the generation of knowledge and the transformation of practice are dialectically intertwined (Cordeiro et al., 2017), entails the continual refinement of theories, methods and practices while converging towards better a understanding of the issue at hand (O’Leary, 2004). Action researchers carefully gather, interpret and analyse evidence (rather than data) (Kemmis et al., 2013) as well as analysing the entire process (rather than the outcome). It is therefore important to keep a research journal of observations and reflections, if not an entire portfolio comprised of different types of evidence from different sources, for the purpose of triangulation (Kemmis et al., 2013) and perhaps reproduction by others in diverse contexts. Adopting such a research design better enables genuine participant agency and adaptation to their inputs based on explicit moments of reflexivity in each phase of the research.

It is however possible if not likely that compromises about the breadth and depth (although hopefully not the quality) of participation will need to be made for pragmatic, logistical or even ethical reasons, moving us downwards in the participatory framework. Moving diagonally inwards towards the centre of the framework, we can encounter other albeit less stringent forms of democratic and change-oriented Agency-Based PR. Moving to less direct or inclusive forms of democratic participation, we come to a rather utilitarian PR in the ‘Northern’ tradition (Cornwall, 2008) that focuses on improving the practices of professionals, practitioners, or community representatives. Such PR is common in organisational problem-solving or institutional change exercises, and generally doesn’t engage the most vulnerable people or challenge the status quo (Cordeiro et al., 2017). This creates questions about the degree of change that is possible given the relative emphasis of democratic grassroots or representative/professionalised forms or participation, and the often blurred line between them (Cornwall, 2008).

By further restricting decision-making power among a few scientific and/or policy experts, we move downwards and cross the X-axis to Sociotechnical (Kagan et al., 2017) PR. Such projects still prioritise change over or in combination with knowledge generation, but exhibit far more concentrated decision-making, referred to as action research that is participatory (O’Leary, 2004) or in a ‘participatory paradigm’ (Banks et al., 2017), which may be particularly prevalent in projects conducted by development institutions in the Global South. This can involve external experts (naively, improperly or self-servingly) applying technocratic solutions (Cooke & Kothari, 2001) or pursuing changes that follow a neoliberal motivation of privatising service provision to citizens (Cornwall, 2008). MacLeod and Emejulu (2014) argue that sometimes development projects employing rhetoric of community empowerment and control actually shift the burden of responsibility for issues such as poverty, inequality and service provision to the public. Such Privatising PR can therefore result in change projects that—intentionally or otherwise—shift responsibility of socioeconomic problems and their amelioration towards already disadvantaged individuals.

It is of course unlikely that a project is designed or framed as Sociotechnical. Rather that, when planned and executed without legitimate participant or community buy-in (quality of participation), it overlooks or enhances systemic inequalities caused by distortive internal power-imbalances, micro-politics or other critical cleavages (Smith et al., 2010). Activist PR with either democratic or hierarchical decision-making can become problematic when it leads to ‘academic tourism’ (Zill, 2022), participant disappointment, fatigue or cynicism, or shifts burden from the state towards already vulnerable citizens (Cornwall, 2008). Projects that are sociotechnical can therefore be beneficial when the decision to restrict participation is made in order to prevent harm and with the participants’ express consent. In this regard, Cornwall (2008) cautions against accepting normative spectrums of less to more participation (such as Arnstein, 1969; Pretty, 1995; White, 1996) at face value, emphasising that the outcomes of any PR project depend heavily upon initial circumstances and context. She states that even the most superficial (Instrumental or Sociotechnical) forms of participation may be constructive if it gives people the opportunity to have more voice that they have had before while avoiding potential negative consequences.

3. Participatory Social Economics

3.1. Current

Before discussing the most appropriate form of PR for social economics, this section will first provide a brief overview of existing studies. While there are numerous instances of PR projects connected to socioeconomic phenomena, such initiatives are rarely undertaken by economists or situated within the field of (social) economics. A notable exception is Pietrykowski’s (2015) community-based participatory research (CBPR) project mapping a diverse range of economic activities in Detroit, USA. Palka (2024) implemented a smaller scale trial or pilot study in teaching and using CBPR to gain insights into socioeconomic issues in Duisburg, Germany. Furthermore, many PR projects directly addressing economic phenomena are found within the fields of development studies and economic geography, especially notable within the Community Economies Research Network (Community Economies Institute 2023c). Following these cases, this section will discuss how PR could be especially useful in the research fields of social economy and ecological economics, and the intersection between them in which socioecological transformation is collectively understood, initiated and developed.

3.1.1. CBPR

Pietrykowski’s (2015) article ‘Participatory Economic Research: Benefits and Challenges of Incorporating Participatory Research into Social Economics’ outlines a CBPR project in Detroit, Michigan and an argument for the epistemological and ethical compatibility of the approach with social economics. The study employed local people as community researchers to conduct surveys about the skills which fellow residents felt they (a) could do best (b) could use to obtain employment (c) were able to teach, and (d) would like to learn. The respondents were found to to possess a wide range of skills and to perform a diversity of economic activities that could be of further use in the community, especially in areas of human provisioning. Everyday, indigenous knowledges contributed not only to building a more complete picture of the local economy but also informed the survey design and implementation. Since a small pool of community researchers participated with the intention to change local understandings and practices, this project can be considered an example of Agency-Based PR. Pietrykowski argues that such an approach is especially compatible with a social economics since it allows explicit engagement with the social embeddedness of economic agents and takes their perspectives as another legitimate interpretation of economic life. He highlights the potential of engaging participants as co-investigators to identify complex socioeconomic problems and to assess existing policy interventions. This may be especially relevant for gathering deeper insights into economic activity that is informal, hidden, uncounted and inseparable from other experiences of socioeconomic precarity. CBPR is consistent with an ethic of redefining power relationships between economists and the communities that they study by actively engaging local people and knowledge in research design and implementation. This, he ultimately argues, has the potential to enhance economic democracy and presents new opportunities for the field of social economics.

Palka (2024) employed a PR approach to develop a research cooperation between university students and local community practitioners concerning hidden migrant labour in an already stigmatised community. The aim of the course was to enrich a small group of master’s students understanding of informal migrant labour in Duisburg Marxloh through dialogue, collaboration and active learning. Practitioners discussed the socioeconomic exclusion that migrants face due to informal and precarious working conditions, low wages, housing insecurity and limited sociolegal protections, as well as the initiatives established to meet these challenges and fill social welfare gaps. The students prepared research proposals for the practitioners as a basis for future possible CBPR projects, providing fresh ideas and interesting concepts that allowed them to understand the situation in a new light. The course represents a small-scale, imperfect attempt at PR that, despite the challenges, provided learning and praxis value for students and practitioners alike. It is also an example of how a somewhat sociotechnical PR project can honestly communicate the limited space for participant decision-making, given the context of conducting a one-semester seminar during the Covid-19 pandemic. Such an experimentation should however be considered just one phase of an ongoing partnership between the University of Duisburg-Essen and its local community towards positive long-term change.

3.1.2. CERN

Diverse economies research is a scientific body of work that originated with Katherine Gibson and Julie Graham co-authoring publications under the pen name J.K. Gibson-Graham (1996, 2006, 2013; 2020), growing with and beyond them in the Community Economies Research Network (CERN) (Community Economies Institute, 2023a). CERN is an international collection of approximately 350 researchers seeking ‘to bring about more sustainable and equitable forms of development by cultivating and acting on new ways of thinking about economies and politics.’ (Community Economies Institute, 2023b) A community economy is viewed as a space in which people negotiate ethically-informed decisions about collective survival, redistributing surplus, conducting transactions, consuming, using the commons and investing for the future (Community Economies Institute 2023 b; Gibson-Graham et al., 2013). Gordon (2018) discusses how this ontology enables researchers to adopt methodologies which are viewed as ongoing, co-creative and ethical processes of understanding diverse economic and socioecological interdependencies. The core strategies of ‘Action Research for Diverse Economies’ involve (a) the politics of language, that is discovering how economic practices are described, how this shapes what is considered (in)feasible and what a new economic language could enable; (b) the politics of subjectivity, in which people recognise their multiple subjectivities in relation to diverse economic practices; and (c) the politics of collective action, which emerges through the joint exploration of language and subjectivity (Cameron & Gibson, 2020). Some of these PR projects involve professional groups and firms interested in environmentally sustainable and just transitions in for example the manufacturing sector. Community-based CERN studies around the world are explicitly ethical, political and change-oriented, often engaging small-scale PR as an alternative approach to local economic development.

3.2. Potential

The second half of this article will discuss how PR underpinned by feminist, intersectional and decolonial principles is appropriate for the field of social economics, especially in studies of the SSE. This kind PR is particularly suited to engaging actors in the SSE due to its espousal of similar ethical values, focus on bringing forth previously hidden understandings of diverse economic practices, and aim to contribute to social change. The social economy, or third sector, encompasses organisations that combine economic and social objectives in neither the private nor the public sectors. The solidarity economy is a broader concept that further incorporates informal community-based, activist and collective self-help practices. This is especially relevant for Indigenous, Black and other marginalised communities who are systemically disadvantaged within or excluded from the mainstream economy (Hossein & Pearson, 2023). In this section, I will discuss how PR that is underpinned by an intersectional and decolonial feminist methodology can serve as a strategy for conducting agency-based, power-sensitive and ethical research collaborations in order to better understand and support the SSE. The section will conclude with a brief discussion of PR’s potential contributions to transdisciplinary studies focusing on socioecological transition, in which the SSE and social economists themselves can play a pivotal role.

3.2.1. Feminist PR in the SSE

Feminist scholars are critical of supposedly objective science⁵ and how the privileging of objectivity has created a hierarchical binary between the researcher-researched, excluding subjective knowledge from examination (Epstein Jayaratne & Stewart, 1995). The feminist methodological critique is not that economics is too objective, but rather that it is not objective enough insofar as many uncritically accept, apply and teach core theoretical and epistemelogical ideas as universal and impartial (Ferber & Nelson, 1993), thereby defining what is and is not acceptable economic knowledge (Nelson, 1995). In her seminal article ‘Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective’ Haraway (1988) criticises the supposed detachment of mainstream science, instead calling for a feminist objectivity which acknowledges: (1) the situatedness and partiality of knowledge, (2) power relations, (3) ethics, and (4) collaboration across disciplines, social movements and non-scientific sectors in research endeavours. The following sections will use Haraway’s framework to support pursuing situated, power-sensitive, and ethical PR partnerships in social economics, and especially in studies of the SSE. Feminist research has itself however been criticised for overlooking the intersectional experiences of people with multiple social identities (Crenshaw, 1989; Hill Collins, 1999; hooks [1984] 2015). PR for social economics is therefore enhanced by incorporating intersectional and decolonial critiques, especially for those researchers working with(in) disadvantaged communities (as either outsiders or insiders) and collaborating with structurally marginalised people.

3.2.1.1. The Socially-Embedded Subject

Feminist researchers are critical of traditional scientific objectivity ‘in part because of the suspicion that an ‘object’ of knowledge is a passive and inert thing’ (p. 591) with no agency; they are only resources for the human knower to use in their production of knowledge (Haraway, 1988). A feminist methodology therefore engages ‘place-based practices of subjectivity’ which reject the separation of the subject and object of inquiry (Peake, 2016, p. 835). Diskin (2013) highlights economic subjectivity as an entry point for understanding economic practices, capacity and agency in order to ultimately transform them. Since social economists assume that what people believe about the economy influences their economic behaviour (Davis & Dolfsma, 2008), participants’ subjectivity can act as an essential site of transforming economic ideas, roles, behaviours and activities (Gibson-Graham, 2006). In this regard, economic subjectivity is both produced through a subject’s interactions with their human and non-human ecosystem, and productive in the sense that it generates effects within the economy, such as wealth or other value (Read, 2011). Interrogating our economic subjectivity means understanding how we are shaped by the numerous economic activities that we engage in, how we feel about these experiences, and perhaps how we are able to change them (Diskin, 2013). Drawing on Heidegger’s approach to subjectivity, Mehta (2008) argues for economists to adopt a reflexive ‘willingness to engage in the cooperative and dialogical production of a discourse about the economy, that is, to enter into a partnership with the Other of the inquiry and thereby to share out authority in the research process’ (p. 89).

The situated viewpoint or subject position⁶, is inextricably embedded or situated within specific social, historical and material contexts, and can therefore only ever be partial, that is, incomplete and imperfect (Haraway, 1988). Following a substantive definition of the economic as a process of interaction with(in) the social and ecological (Polanyi, 2011), the economy is understood by many feminist and social economic scholars as an essentially socially-embedded and -constructed institution of social provisioning (Barker & Kuiper, 2003; Bergeron, 2023; Davis & Dolfsma, 2008; Nelson, 1993; Power, 2004). That is, as ‘an inherently social activity that concerns how people in society organize themselves to produce and consume the requirements of life’ (Davis & Dolfsma, 2008, p. 3). Rejecting the need for detached objectivity, researchers can rather views themselves, the knowledge they produce and other participants in the knowledge production process as inextricably embedded within a social context which both shapes the research process and can in turn be influenced by it.

Many social science PAR studies are explicitly feminist (e.g. Cahill et al., 2010; Fine et al., 2003; Maguire, 1987) in their focus on women’s subjective experiences (Frisby et al., 2009). PR could be still more useful in uncovering the lived experiences of people who are materially and discursively marginalised in the mainstream economy, especially Black, Indigenous and racialised people in the SSE (Hossein, 2019). Banks (2020) details how Black women and their significant economic contributions have been and still are overlooked in economics. She describes how, by placing Black women’s economic subjectivity in the centre of analysis, we can better understand their essential role in unpaid, non-market community work and thus the reproduction of the SSE. Many of these activities have so far been unrecorded but are central to understanding the Black social economy, for example work done monitoring local health issues, collecting and sharing information, publicising issues, pooling funds, and producing goods and services to achieve collective social objectives (Banks, 2020; Wright Austin, 2023). PR provides a means for ethically accessing and cooperatively documenting the unseen work that Black women and other marginalised groups around the world perform in their communities. As Banks cites, this is especially relevant in the context of economic, public health and natural crises, during which Black women’s unpaid community work increases in the face of reduced employment and social protections.

While there is no one best way to initiate and conduct PR, it is essential for social economists to situate efforts to engage participants within the given context and to clarify how subjectivity is recognised. Contextualisation is particularly important when collaborating with Indigenous or other traditionally marginalised communities, since even Activist approaches to PR are essentially derived from western epistemological paradigms (Ajaps & Mbah, 2022) and can reflect Eurocentric ideas about people, societies and reality that are inappropriate for Black and Indigenous communities (Hossein, 2019; Tuhiwai Smith, 2022). Following a genuine partnership-based approach instead opens new potential for adopting the knowledges and theories that are the most relevant to the participants’ experiences of the local social economy: ‘Let us draw on the ideas that the people we study are listening to…. on their own cultural histories, politics, agency, and philosophies.’ (Hossein, 2019, p. 221, 225) PAR scholars argue that an explicit focus on contextually specific, practical and ‘wicked’ (Banks et al., 2017) problems can only be developed in partnership and by working with people, their personal experiences and motivations (Bradbury & Reason, 2003).

Agency-Based PR can serve as a means by which individuals recognise the nature of their economic roles and actions, begin to take responsibility for them, and collectively think about the ways in which they can be changed with ethical concerns in mind (Gibson-Graham et al., 2013). Emancipatory PR in particular reflects Freire’s ([1970] 2005) notion of co-creating knowledge by fostering ‘critical consciousness’, a state in which people are able to ‘perceive social, political and economic contradictions, and to take action against the oppressive elements of reality’ (Freire [1970] 2005, p. 35, translator’s note). Situated PR is therefore underpinned by a feminist engagement not with women or identities per se, but with subjects and places through research processes that reflect the political potential for individual and collective transformation (Gibson-Graham, 2006). How subjectivity is specifically engaged within a project will then largely depend on the initial research context, the goals of participation, and the compromises and adaptions that are collectively decided throughout the process.

3.2.1.2. Power in Research and Place

All feminist scholarship is essentially grounded in critiques of power relations and the reproduction of inequalities, particularly those of a gendered nature but also the diversity of marginalised experiences more broadly (Beetham & Demetriades, 2007). A critical feminist methodology seeks to deconstruct not only male/female power differentials, but also the unequal and strict separation between subject/object, theory/method, scientific/other knowledges (Peake, 2016), qualitative/quantitative methods (Strassmann, 1997), hard/soft economics (Nelson, 1995), and the local/global spheres (Gibson-Graham, 2002). PR itself can be a means for critically interrogating and redefining power relations by centering the viewpoints of those otherwise excluded from or hidden within the dominant discourse of the (social) economy, as well as pursuing long-term social change.

Decolonial critiques of economics highlight Eurocentricism as a systemic process that maintains its dominance by preventing its own study and the adoption of alternative approaches, which has only been entrenched in recent decades by a further narrowing of acceptable theories and methods (Kvangraven & Kesar, 2023). ‘These practices determine what counts as legitimate research and who count as legitimate researchers.’ (Tuhiwai Smith, 2022, p. 64). A research practice informed by decolonial theories will however (1) employ critical reflexivity, (2) emphasise reciprocity with and self-determination of participants throughout the process, (3) meaningfully incorporate other(ed) knowledges, and (4) entail a transformation of praxis (Thambinathan & Kinsella, 2021). PAR has already been described as a means for decolonising knowledge production by incorporating those people who are otherwise the objects of research, valuing diverse knowledges, adopting critical reflexivity, and ultimately generating transformations of theory, values and practices (Ajaps & Mbah, 2022; Boni & Walker, 2020). Decolonial critiques thus strengthen a feminist approach to PR by centring voices that are otherwise dismissed, marginalised or co-opted within science, including Indigenous and other non-European theories and epistemologies. 

Hierarchical forms of PR (such as Instrumental and Sociotechnical) which minimise or ignore power dynamics within the research process and context risk reproducing or worsening existing inequalities. While CS may be emerging as an umbrella term for a wide range of PR approaches (Haklay et al., 2021), such attention to power is less discussed in CS literature (see Eleta et al., 2019 for an exception). This is highlighted as a serious blindspot by the criticisms that CS marginalises non-citizens within the rhetoric, emphasises contributory rather than community projects, and generally abandons preceding terms such as PAR (Cooper & Lewenstein, 2016). While all labels come with certain caveats and issues, the usage of the term ‘citizen’ in particular may disregard, further marginalise or aggrieve those who are structurally excluded from citizenship, its associated sociolegal protections and economic opportunities. The term may furthermore be entirely inappropriate for Indigenous peoples who do not identify with their legal nationality, or who reject it entirely (Cooper & Lewenstein, 2016; Eitzel et al., 2017; Liebenberg et al., 2021). The colonial problems associated with ‘Citizen’ Science are discussed in detail by Liebenberg et al. (2021), who suggest that the now entrenched term be reconsidered if not slowly replaced⁷.

I would suggest that every project be defined in terms of the given context and community, with terminology discussed and explicitly agreed upon, since careful attention to terminology reveals whose knowledge is and is not included (Eitzel et al., 2017). Situating research within social settings and power relations does not, as Harding (1995) states, ‘introduce political assumptions, values and interests into research fields that are otherwise value-neutral; it identifies the ones that are already there.’ A feminist PR project should employ critical reflexivity from start to finish; analysing the relationship among all research subjects, including the researcher, and carefully examining the power dynamics which shape the context in which the research unfolds. Before initiating and at each stage of the PR process, social economists should look for opportunities in which decision-making power can be shared with or redistributed towards participants. There may be stages of the research in which this is not possible, desirable or even ethical given the circumstances of the participants and the project. The important point is that power is identified and honestly accounted for before, during and after the PR process.

3.2.1.3. Ethical Collaboration

Haraway advocates for collaboration as a means of linking situated and partial perspectives together in order to produce more comprehensive and answerable accounts of reality. In this way, collaboration is seen by feminist scholars to be a methodological tool for furthering theory through dialogue (Peake, 2016) as well as dismantling the strict hierarchical separation of theory from praxis, academic from activist, and research outcomes from processes (Lock & Strong, 2012). It allows for the translation of partial knowledges between ‘very different—and power-differentiated—communities’, furthering deconstruction, contestation and connective knowledge networks that enhance the potential for transformation (Haraway, 1988). In feminist PR, this means working in partnership with non-scientists in a way that necessarily embodies continuous, critical consideration of the research context, participants, process and potential effects.

The principles of feminist PR are fundamentally compatible with the values ingrained within many SSE initiatives, providing common ground for growing a research partnership. Cooperatives and other SSE organisations are often created by and for those who are excluded from the capitalist economy (Gordon-Nembhard, 2023), with ethics of democratic participation, advocacy, self-management and problem-solving at their core (Gordon-Nembhard & Nzinga Ifateyo, 2023). PR is a then means of pursuing research about and with people from these organisations in a way that naturally aligns with their values and goals: ‘The group/community creates its economic reality instead of being assaulted and robbed on the road of life, waiting for crumbs or handouts from others. Praxis is important: economic solidarity and cooperation must be developed, engaged with, and practiced.’ (Gordon-Nembhard, 2023, p. 527) In this way, PR offers opportunities for researchers to ethically collaborate with non-researchers towards understanding, practicing and developing the solidarity economy. For people who are racially excluded from the private and public sectors, this inherently involves subverting, challenging and transforming the status quo (Hossein & Pearson, 2023). Ethical collaboration with these communities can then mean explicit engagement with issues of power, efforts to ameliorate social injustices, as well as the centring of local knowledges as essential sources of expertise.

Practical and ethical concerns can mean that the full and active involvement of participants in every stage of the research process is rarely realised (Cahill, 2007). However, in some cases, maximum participant self-determination could be a prerequisite for engaging a community. Ajaps and Mbah (2022) discuss Community-Based Research as a means for engaging with the relational, collective and oral traditions of knowing and knowledge transfer within Indigenous communities. They define collaboration as ‘joint participation and equal authority among community members and researchers who are all co-participants of the research project –there is no hegemony of knowledge, language or communication.’ (Ajaps & Mbah, 2022, p. 69) In any case, feminist PR project should exhibit clear attempts to choose or at least confirm the research problems, theories, objectives, methods and means for disseminating results in collaboration with participants. When and how these decisions are made should be clearly communicated, with transparent accounts of situations in which participation was not possible, desirable or beneficial.

Contributory PR generally incorporates participants into a standard research approach in order to better answer scientific questions, while the ethical principles that guide the exchange have in the past been less intrinsic and explicit. In this regard, clear attempts have now been made to distinguish CS as an ethical PR approach (see e.g. Rasmussen & Cooper, 2019), with the European Citizen Science Association (ECSA) defining ten ‘good-practice principles’ to promote CS as an open and inclusive approach⁸ (ECSA 2015). For example, the principle of mutual benefit has become a core principle of most CS projects, often provided through learning opportunities and collective conservation efforts. Eleta et al. (2019) cite CS as involving a ‘promise’ to the public in which all stakeholders should clearly understand their role and level of commitment throughout the process, as well as explicitly defining the outcomes that they expect to occur. They propose ten steps for designing ethical PR with transparent communication and accountability toward the researchers, participants and organisations that are involved in and affected by the research. These steps provide a useful framework for planning and evaluating a PR project that centres ethical collaboration with participants.

Following feminist principles, social economists can adopt an ethical orientation in their research as well as a sense of responsibility to contribute to collective actions that materially improve the socioecological well-being of current and future generations (Nelson, 2018). Social economists assert that economic concepts and studies cannot in fact be separated from questions of social philosophy, ethics and human dignity (The Association for Social Economics, 2021). The field embraces normative frameworks and value-driven approaches to identifying and solving social problems through ameliorative action in a form of explicitly ‘human’ or ‘welfare’ economics (Lutz, 1990a, Lutz, 1990b). Social economists conducting PR should be aware of the political dynamics and ethical implications of their work, demonstrating a sense of accountability to the communities and environments they study and collaborate with and employing critical reflexivity at each stage of the research endeavour. This can sometimes involve drastic changes, or even abandoning a project entirely if it avoids harm to participants or other vulnerable stakeholders. Ultimately, as Shirk et al. (2012) stress, high quality participation can be present in projects with any degree or form of collaboration, so long as it accurately reflects the interests, needs and capacities of the participants to contribute to if not lead the research.

3.2.2. Socioecological PR

This section will briefly outline some potential areas in which social economists could contribute to collaborative PR projects that aim to understand and facilitate socioecological transitions. Many natural CS projects incorporate the PAR principle of social change or improvement through the gathering of evidence that is needed to articulate problems publicly and influence decision-makers (Eitzel et al., 2017). Policy impact, community action, social mobilisation and advocacy aims are inherent within for example biological conservation (Theobald et al., 2015), marine conservation (Kelly et al., 2019) and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (European Commission 2018, p. 20; Fraisl et al., 2020; Skarlatidou et al., 2022) CS projects. These studies combine the co-creation of knowledges with scientific objectives (Pecl et al., 2019), with active engagement highlighted in not just the data collection phases but also in ongoing social and political processes.

Considering some specific socioeconomic and socioecological factors that could be measured using PR, Fraisl et al. (2020) identify the five SDG indicators that are currently being measured with CS and a further 76 which could be monitored effectively in cooperation with participants⁹. They also cite some existing PR projects that could, but do not currently, contribute to monitoring the SDGs. One example is the Dollar Street Project (2024-01-25), in which people around the world contribute information and pictures of themselves, their families, homes and belongings in order to create a ranking of low to high incomes. This is an Instrumental PR project that Fraisl et al. identify as appropriate for contributing to the measurement of indicator 1.1.1 ‘Proportion of population below the international poverty line, by sex, age, employment status and geographical location (urban/rural)’. From the long list of indicators that Fraisl et al. identify as amenable to PR (see Table S1: Final Mapping Results in the electronic supplementary material), I have extracted some of those which are directly economic in nature in order to develop an initial idea of the potential for socioeconomic PR:

• poverty (indicators 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.2.2),

• social welfare protections, economic rights and access to basic services (1.3.1, 1.4.1, 1.4.2),

• economic losses following disasters (1.5.2),

• agricultural productivity, income and sustainability (2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.4.1),

• household income growth and expenditure on health (10.1.1, 3.8.2),

• youth education, vocational training and workforce development (3.c.1, 4.1.1, 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.3.1, 4.4.1, 4.5.1, 4.6.1, 8.6.1, 8.b.1),

• women’s unpaid work, participation, rights and access to economic resources (5.4.1, 5.5.1, 5.5.2, 5.6.1, 5.a.1, 5.a.2),

• energy access, consumption and sustainable investment (7.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.3.1, 7.a.1, 7.b.),

• per capita material footprint, consumption, waste management and sustainability education (4.7.1, 8.4.1, 8.4.2, 12.1.1, 12.2.1, 12.2.2, 12.3.1, 12.4.1, 12.5.1, 12.8.1),

• informal employment, child labour, workplace injuries, labour rights, and full employment and decent work for all (8.3.1, 8.5.1, 8.5.2, 8.7.1, 8.8.1, 8.8.2),

• sustainable tourism and industrialisation, associated employment and small-scale industries (8.9.1, 8.9.2, 9.2.1, 9.2.2, 9.3.1, 9.3.2),

• financial institutions, infrastructure, technology and communications development and access (8.10.1, 8.10.2, 9.a.1, 9.b.1, 9.c.1),

• intersectional poverty, discrimination and equality (10.2.1, 10.3.1, 10.4.1)

Most if not all of these indicators are within the scope of social and/or ecological economics, with vast potential for PR to contribute to monitoring, understanding and facilitating progress towards the SDGs. The above-listed indicators amenable to PR studies are especially common in SDG1 No Poverty, SDG4 Good Health and Wellbeing, SDG7 Affordable and Clean Energy, SDG8 Decent Work and Economic Growth, SDG9 Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure, and SDG12 Responsible Consumption and Production. Those indicators that involve experiences of poverty, access to economic resources and services, women’s unpaid work, informal employment and intersectional discrimination are key examples of specific SSE attributes that PR could be used to study. Another example of a relevant PR study from the literature is Booth, Pollard and Pulker’s (2022) project which aims to support citizens’ active and democratic participation in understanding and transforming the production, consumption and importantly the policies of the food system towards Agenda 2030. They state that CS approaches are underutilised but have potential for citizens to understand themselves as active change agents (rather than just consumers) and to collaborate with local government and city planners to transform local foods systems (Booth et al., 2022). This list is therefore just a brief indication of the potential for future social economic PR to contribute to understanding and enhancing the SSE, sustainable development and socioecological change.

4. Conclusion

From this theoretical framework it can be assumed that a feminist approach to PR for social economics leans more naturally towards problem-solving through democratic and change-oriented participatory approaches. This fits within the scope of social economics research that is explicitly problem-oriented, value-directed and transdisciplinary with goals of ultimately amending socioeconomic wrongs (Dugger, 1977). While this may suggest assigning a PAR rather than CS label, this article has argued that such terminological distinctions are at best redundant given the wide variety of PR projects that manifest in reality. The PR framework presented demonstrates that decisions about how decision-making power is shared and the balance of scientific with societal goals reveal much more about a PR project than terminology alone. How PR manifests will greatly depend on the circumstances and initial context of the project, as well as the purpose of the participation itself. What kind of knowledge(s) are you seeking to uncover, test or develop? Why are participants involved in which phases of the research? To what extent will they directly influence the research, in so far as it is adaptable to their input? What are the intended benefits for participants? What are the ultimate goals for science and/or transformation? Who makes these decisions, how and why? Researchers engaging in PR for social economics should ensure that the balance of decision-making power and the appropriate terminology is clearly discussed, defined and communicated to ensure transparency, accountability, informed consent and trust (Eleta et al., 2019).

Centering local knowledge, democratic cooperation, and social change, PR which concerns the SSE is inclined to adopt an Agency-Based, if not Emancipatory, approach. This usually requires a long-term view to change, relationship-building, and developing (or already possessing) an in-depth understanding of the research context, as well as flexibility to allow the research to develop in a truly participatory and collaborative manner. The degree to which participants exercise decision-making power is however not only an ethical but also a logistical dilemma in initiating a PR project: how does one decide what will be researched without knowing who will be doing the research, or decide who will be target group for participation without knowing what they will research (Kemmis et al., 2013). It can for example be difficult to bring together a group of participants interested in and motivated by a topic without first defining the topic as a basis for initiating dialogue. On the other hand, it is unlikely that a cohesive, ‘ready-made’ group of people with a research idea are easily found (Klocker, 2012; Maguire, 1987) and connected with a researcher or research team with the appropriate skills, knowledge and resources to support their investigation. In most cases, researchers will then have a greater degree of decision-making power in the research project through the need to first decide either what to study or who to engage.

The open and emergent design of highly democratic PR processes make it difficult not only to initiate but also to assess or replicate successful problem-solving or transformation. The features which make PAR effective in leading to social change—the involvement of many different actors, a blurring between the researcher and the researched, the use of iterative phases and emergent approaches, and the potential for micro-level empowerment—also make it difficult to predict, identify or replicate the causes of specific changes (Banks et al., 2017). The means and standards for assessing research impacts are often based on traditional, linear research designs that produce one final result or ‘event’ and are too narrowly defined or inappropriate for action research processes (Pain et al., 2015). There is also a danger of overestimating or overstating both the degree of change possible and its legitimacy within a given PR project, especially when for example institutional and financial restrictions dictate who can participate, how they participate, to what extent and for how long (Cordeiro et al., 2017; Cornwall, 2008). Those who choose to pursue PR will need to reflect on these questions and many more unforeseeable challenges as they arise throughout the research. They may find it difficult to share power in slower, more dynamic and complicated research processes, as well as to be accepted by colleagues and journals in their fields (Cancian, 1993; Herr & Anderson, 2015; Smith et al., 2010). Klocker (2012) claims however that these challenges have often been overstated, and could be remedied by raising awareness of the methodology’s scientific legitimacy, improving institutional support, as well as providing more opportunities to learn about and practice PR.

There is then great potential for PR to contribute to understandings of the SSE and socioecological change, given careful attention to social context and subjectivity, power dynamics, and creating ethical partnerships. Participatory social economic research should be meaningfully contextualised and engage with participant’s subjective worldview, agency and capacity to understand and change their economic behaviour. Researchers must engage in thoughtful reflection on the influence of power in both the research context and process. This includes openly communicating decisions regarding optimal forms and levels of participation in every phase of the research journey—from idea formulation to the distribution of the results. Finally, it is essential to carefully consider the ethical dimensions of the collaboration, encompassing not only the anticipated value for participants but also a commitment to avoiding potential harm. With an emphasis on long-term learning and problem-solving processes, even imperfect, small-scale PR can yield valuable insights and induce unforeseen changes for all involved. Pursuing PR in social economics holds the potential to deepen our comprehension of the SSE, facilitate social innovations and foster interdisciplinary research collaborations towards socioecological transformation. PR therefore emerges as a means for social economists to ethically and proactively contribute to addressing the intricate and interconnected crises of our era.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

Stiftung Mercator

Notes

1 This is akin to Polanyi’s ([1944] 2001) concept of the “double movement” in which society will inevitably mobilise to protect itself from economic shocks once the burden of excessive market liberalism becomes too great.

2 See Rowell et al. (2017) for a detailed account of the history of action research.

3 Looking to the natural science literature we see the co-creation of knowledges, policy impact, community action and advocacy aims inherent within many environmental, climate change and sustainable development CS projects (e.g. European Commission 2018; Fraisl et al., 2020; Kelly et al., 2019; Pecl et al. 2019; Skarlatidou et al., 2022; Theobald et al., 2015; van Noordwijk et al., 2021).

4 This process is differently structured and described by various authors, for example: planning, executing and evaluating (Lewin, 1946); look, think, act (Stringer, 2007); plan, act, observe, reflect (Kemmis et al., 2013), and; observe, reflect, plan and act (O’Leary, 2004).

5 Which has often been sexist in intent or outcome, and therefore not objective.

6 Which may involve a physical location, but rather refers to a knowing subject who is always relative to others, multiple and mobile, and therefore not specifically located anywhere (Katz, 2001).

7 They propose the term “Tracking Science” as a universal human metaphor for observing, recognising, following and monitoring (“keeping track of”), based on the “hypothetico-deductive reasoning and experimentation that form the core of modern science” (p. 9). The question of whether this definition is applicable to other forms of reasoning, and interpretative social sciences in particular, highlights the problem with trying to determine universal terms in the first place.

8 These are: (1) citizen scientists performing varied but meaningful roles, (2) projects focused on a “genuine scientific outcome”, (3) mutual benefit, (4) options for participation in multiple research phases, (5) citizen scientists are informed of the results and how their data is used,(6) “citizen science provides opportunity for greater public engagement and democratisation of science”, (7) where possible and appropriate, project data is made publicly available and published as open access, (8) “Citizen scientists are acknowledged in project results and publications”, (9) CS projects are assessed based on their scientific quality, participant experience and wider societal impact, and (10) legal and ethical issues are carefully considered.

9 Most of the existing PR projects that track progress on SDG indicators relate to environmental monitoring and especially marine conservation.