The purpose of this report is to explore the perspective of the members of an inclusive and participatory research group on the evolution and impact of the same. It is concerned with a small group which is part of a network of inclusive innovation and research groups which have been working for two years on various topics related to the promotion of a greater degree of social and educational inclusion in the city of Pontevedra, Spain[1]. Specifically, the group focused on  this report is called “Against all odds” which has engaged in participatory research on the analysis of academic failure and the functioning of a center for Adult Education in Pontevedra, Spain. Nonetheless, the objective of this study is not centered on the group’s work focus, nor on its specific actions, but rather on the analysis of its presence, on its creation and the challenges it has faced, from the perspective of its participants. 

 The project is within the context of a growing current of thought which states that knowledge production ought to be based on democratic and inclusive values, methods, and relationships. It views inclusive research (Nind, 2014,2017) as the possibility of individuals involved in an activity to conceive and carry out research, which favors the empowerment and representation of their experiences. This work is also in line with the concept of inclusive research put forth by Walmsley and Johnson (2003), who describe it as that which views individuals as research subjects and instigators of ideas, project design, or data analysis. Also is based on  the power of research inside social movements (Della Porta & Diani, 2015), a growing trend in Europe, showning  to be especially useful for recognizing the voices of marginalized or silenced groups when engaging in knowledge-production processes and the encouragement of their empowerment.

These conceptual and epistemological bases are reflected in practice in the following ideas related to inclusively-oriented research:

- The research is based around heterogenous and multi-voiced groups of inquiry, which recognize the legitimacy, authority, and complementarity of its different participants(Parrilla, Susinos, Gallego and Martínez, 2017) 

- The agenda of the research to be carried out is determined by the interests and needs of group members (Anyon, 2009). The research is used in service of addressing everyday issues and challenges and to aid the agents and individuals facing the issues included in the study.

- Group members are involved in the collective construction of knowledge, based on a vision of research as a participatory, collaborative, and deliberative process(Nind, 2014, 2017). 

- The groups commit themselves to the improvement and transformation of the studied practices, with an emphasis on the development of responsible research and innovation (Ravitch, S. (2014; Rip, 2014; ).

In short, in this paper we deal with the following objectives as they relate to the research group “Against all Odds”, exploring the group process on an individual and collective level from the perspective of its members. Methodologically, this means a qualitative study based around the collection and participatory analysis of the audiovisual recordings of the group work, and the various strategies, such as interviews and group discussions, related to the construction and development of the group’s own research identity. 

The results presented are organized into three thematic blocks, identified by the group itself. These are the group’s challenges and potentialities, actions and reflections on the group’s actions and the evolution of the participation of members as researchers within the group. 

[1]National Plan Research Project, “Innovation Networks for Educational and Social Inclusion”, directed by A. Parrilla (University of Vigo), (EDU2015-68617 C4-1-R).

This qualitative study, has been carried out at the Río Lérez EPA (Education for Adults in Spanish) center, which offers basic, secondary, and baccalaureate education. These types of centers found in the Spanish education system receive students who abandoned formal education at some point, and who have decided to try again, and those older than the maximum age, 18, for normal secondary schools. As stated previously, a pluralistic research and innovation group involving different members of the educational community was created at this center, comprised of its director, counselor, a teacher, three students, and two outside researchers from the university. The creation of the group is directly connected to the participatory and inclusive vision of research alluded to previously (Parrilla, Susinos, Gallego and Martínez, 2017). The group met every fifteen days during two school years, analyzing the situation of the center itself, and proposing various measures and improvements to make it more inclusive. The following research strategies and instruments were designed to analyze the group’s trajectory, which is the focus of this paper: 1. Videos: the contents of audio-visual recordings of all group meetings between December 2017 and May 2018 have been analyzed. These sessions include debates on academic failure and the functioning of the center, following a process of dialogue and horizontal communication. The analysis of the contents expressly explored the declarations of participants in relation to group potential and challenges; the evolution of the participation of the students in the group was also examined. 2. Interviews: structured interviews were carried out involving the students of the group and the external researchers (from the university). The objective of this was to identify and examine, in depth, the participants’ perceptions of the group: how the objectives had been established, what each participant got out of the group, how the image of researchers was being constructed by each member, and the challenges arising from participating in a group of its type. As with the videos, the contents were analyzed based on previously defined categories. 3. Discussion group: A discussion group made up of the center’s director, counselor, students, the teacher who participated in the group, and an external university researcher was held, with this then being analyzed. The purpose of this meeting and its subsequent analysis was focused on the evaluation and the beginnings and evolution of the group, the perceived barriers and aid, and their participation within it.

The kind of research developed in this study deal with challenges different from more traditional approaches (Parrilla, Susinos and Gallego, 2014). The opinions of group members, point to the difficulties in getting the process moving. It was especially difficult to get the educational community to participate, as they viewed research as something alien to themselves, thereby doubting their own abilities as researchers and participants in a participatory research process. On the other hand, as has been shown by the group, it did enrich the democratic character of the research (Fielding and Moss, 2014). This represents, nonetheless, a large part of the group’s potential and of inclusive research; this is the fact that it contributes to empowering the participants, who abandon a passive role to become creators, just as their testimonies attest to. Another of the potentialities highly emphasized by the participants is the establishment of horizontal relations with others, previously considered to be superior (their teachers), collective thinking, an increased motivation to continue with their studies. With regards to the actions and reflections in terms of everyday practice, to the degree the group was formed, this was consolidated via information-gathering strategies, idea exchange, or the analysis of the activities which created a shared-knowledge space. This reflection on practical knowledge made it possible to revise the created path, as previously addressed by Nind (2017); it also allowed the participants to construct more empowered identities. Lastly, it has been established that it is necessary to take advantage of the dynamic created inside the group, so that it improves the EPA center. It is also necessary to address its sustainability, creating foundations so that the benefits gained last longer than the group’s existence, therefore creating an inclusive and participatory culture at the institution.

Anyon, J. (2009). Progressive social movements and Educational Equity. Educational Policy, 23,1, 194-215 Della Porta, D. y Diani, M. (2015). The Oxford handbook of Social Movements. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nind, M. (2014).What is inclusive research?. Londres: Bloomsbury Academic. Nind, M. (2017). The practical wisdom of inclusive research.Qualitative Research, 17(3), 278-288. Parrilla, A., Susinos, T. y Gallego, C. (2014). Landscapes of Inclusion: three Research Contributions to a Theory Of Inclusive Practice. Oporto: European Conference on Educational Research. Parrilla, A., Susinos, T., Gallego, V. y Martínez, B.(2017). Revisando críticamente cómo investigamos en educación inclusiva: cuatro proyectos con un enfoque educativo y social.Revista Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 89(31), 145-156. Ravitch, S. (2014). The transformative power of taking and Inquiry stance on practice: practitioners research as narrative counter-narrative. Perspectives on Urban Education, 11,1, 5-10 Rip, A. (2016). The clothes of the emperor. An essay on RRI in and around Brussels, Journal of Responsible Innovation, 3(3), 290-304. Walmsley, J. & Johnson, K.(2003). Inclusive Research with people with learning disabilities: past, present and future. London: Jéssika Kingsley Publishers.