Key Insights

• •

  Participation in research should be viewed as a continuum across different stages and degrees, not a binary or single ladder.

• •

  Arnstein's ladder of participation, while influential, oversimplifies participation by focusing mainly on power transfer and neglecting safety, well-being, and other goals.

• •

  The spiral model of participatory action research adds a temporal dimension emphasizing ongoing reflection and participant feedback throughout the project.

• •

  Meaningful participation requires more than just involving people; it demands trauma-responsiveness, safety, mutuality, compensation, and avoiding tokenism.

• •

  Mapping degrees and sites of participation creates diverse assemblies unique to each research project, highlighting complexity and flexibility.

• •

  Involving people with lived experience as research team members enhances study design, recruitment, data interpretation, and dissemination.

• •

  External academic peer review can exert power that conflicts with participatory research goals, so forming a lived expert review board can rebalance power.

• •

  Metrics quantifying the quantity of participation (e.g., number of sessions or participants) risk misrepresenting the quality and ethics of engagement.

• •

  Longitudinal research with foster youth faces ethical and practical challenges, especially around consent and developmental readiness, often limiting study scope.

• •

  Participation should be considered an ethical commitment, but it must be complemented by care ethics and trauma-informed practices to avoid harm.

Notable Quotes