Send message to Contributor

Contribution short abstract

I carried out my fieldwork in a context of structural violence and participation fatigue. Therefore, I adapted my data generation methods to avoid replicating extractive dynamics that fail to generate meaningful outcomes for participants who have suffered historical marginalisation.

Contribution long abstract

I found a fieldwork context marked by participation fatigue, in which people had been consulted numerous times and seen nothing meaningful happen as a result. The residents of Chaparral, my fieldwork site in rural Colombia, shifted from interacting with the state primarily through the National Army to experiencing extensive intervention by social and political actors. Following the signing of the Peace Agreement between the Colombian government and the FARC-EP guerrilla army, the communities in Chaparral regularly encountered civil servants from different government agencies, academics, NGOs, civil society organisations and cooperation agencies in their territories. During the interventions organised by these actors, people spent time and money that could have been invested in their families and work, yet nothing changed significantly.

In this context, applying my originally planned participatory methods risked reproducing extractive dynamics. Therefore, I moved promptly to the participatory action research (PAR) stage of my research process and relied more on participant observation and in-depth interviews to obtain richer details of the participants' experiences and knowledge, without requiring them to engage in lengthy research processes from scratch. During the PAR phase, I facilitated a workshop where we collectively designed a community project on food security and reducing the environmental impact of chemical fertilisers. The group drafted a project proposing home gardens and greenhouses to protect crops during harsh winters, and the production of organic fertilisers from food waste and harvest residues. In this presentation, I will explore how I adapted my pre-fieldwork plans to the context of Chaparral.

Send message to Contributor

Contribution short abstract

This work responds to calls to decentralize the global communication research agenda, shifting focus from geographic to moral. Drawing on field notes from my ethnographic immersion in Filipino fisherfolk communities, I explore six themes to advance more dialogic, participatory, and human research.

Contribution long abstract

Within communication scholarship, there is a growing call to decentralize the global research agenda from centers to peripheries. As a development communication scholar from the Global South, I argue that such decentralization must occur not only geographically, but also morally, with the aim of reorienting scholarship toward core humanist ideals. During my PhD dissertation, in which I engaged fisherfolk in island and coastal communities in the Philippines through storytelling activities on the realities of climate change, I produced extensive field notes documenting reflexive insights into the nature and significance of dialogue in research. Although these reflections were ultimately excluded from the dissertation manuscript, I contend that they offer a meaningful contribution to this broader call for decentralization.

In this proposed panel contribution, I share reflexive insights on dialogue in research, organized around six themes that emerged from my ethnographic field notes. First, research entails an ongoing negotiation of entry into communities and, by extension, power. Second, research participants actively mobilize spatial cues and temporal rhythms, rendering them material conditions of dialogue. Third, non-verbal and affective forms of dialogue foreground the embodied, performative dimensions of participation. Fourth, reflexivity sustains both analytical distance and dialogic openness. Fifth, reentry into the research community functions as a continuation of dialogue and an exercise of accountability. Sixth, reciprocity enacted through symbolically meaningful gestures matters not as closure, but as a surrender of power and authorship.

Through these reflections, I seek to contribute to a shift toward more dialogic, participatory, and, above all, fundamentally human research.

Send message to Contributor

Contribution short abstract

Field narratives from the slums of Kolkata show how participatory development occurs amidst uncertainty, changes in power dynamics, and collaborative actions in daily interactions between researchers and local communities.

Contribution long abstract

• This paper aims to explore participatory research as a dynamic and contested practice within the slums of Kolkata, emphasizing field narratives that uncover the complexities of power, agency, and performativity in the context of everyday development work. Drawing on extended engagement in informal settlements influenced by redevelopment initiatives, welfare programs, and political interactions, the papers focus on fieldnotes, discussions, and encounters that are ambiguous, incomplete, and context-dependent. Participation is seen not as a fixed method but as a process that is enacted and negotiated through daily exchanges among researchers, community members, intermediaries, and government representatives.

• Local stories from Kolkata’s slums—pertaining to housing eligibility, infrastructure access, fears of displacement, and daily survival—illustrate how agency manifests through compliance, resistance, and selective silence. Fieldnotes reveal how community members engage in participation to fulfill institutional expectations, while researchers wrestle with ethical challenges, trust issues, and evolving roles. Participatory approaches such as interviews, focus groups, mapping, and informal discussions are highlighted as relational practices shaped by uneven power dynamics and unpredictable timelines.

• In line with the panel’s focus on uncertainty, collaboration, and vulnerability, this paper reflects on instances where participation redistributes authority and where it may also reinforce tokenism. By prioritizing field narratives from Kolkata, the paper reconceptualizes development practice as a continual process of listening, adapting, and reflective engagement, attentive to the politics surrounding knowledge.