The participatory paradigm is not only present in the social sciences, including education but has also become an important principle of public policies and any action aimed at introducing significant social change and transforming reality (Budzanowska, Dańda, 2022). However, “any collective action directed at social change to respond to citizens’ concerns must be based on social science evidence” (Albert et al., 2021).

In a research context, participation can refer to theoretical assumptions, methodology (participatory research), and the use of research results for a specific common purpose, both by the researchers and by the individuals/groups who are the 'subject' of the research. Participatory research refers to the idea of human science assuming a human-centred orientation, in other words - doing research from a human perspective (Ciechowska & Szymańska, 2018; Kubinowski, 2010; Reyes, Haines & Clark/Keefe, 2021). It abolishes the traditional division between the researchers and the researched - the latter become fully-fledged subjects of research. Moreover, all parties involved in the research process take full part in it - they learn from each other, they contribute their knowledge and skills, and the outcome of research activities emerges from dialogue and interaction (Pushor 2008; Bielecka-Prus, 2013). Simultaneously, this does not mean that all participating parties have the same input or perform the same roles (Bielecka-Prus, 2013).

The degree and extent of participation can vary, which is well illustrated by various models of participation, the most well-known of which (the so-called ladder of participation) situates it between two extremes - from minimal participation limited to a “decorative” function (being informed) to the highest level implying full control, i.e. the participation of non-experts on equal terms in all stages and all project activities (Arnstein 1969).

In recent years, it has been argued that participation is insufficient and new conceptualisations or concepts relating to citizen participation not only in research and knowledge production but more generally, in social change, have emerged (Beresford 2019; Blühdorn & Butzlaff, 2020). These include co-creation or responsiveness and are argued to increase the influence of participants on the social changes postulated and implemented as the result of the research process. 

The way participation and the overlapping and related terms (in this case co-creation and responsiveness) are understood, framed and situated in the two European research projects is the subject of the presented analysis. Both projects are participatory, albeit to varying degrees, and implement the inclusion of citizens in the research process.

The main research question is what are the similarities and differences in the theoretical assumptions about participatory approaches in the two projects and what are the implications of these assumptions for (1) the methodological solutions adopted to guide the research process, (2) to the understanding of citizenship not only in the research but in a democratic society in general.

Two European projects are to be the subject of our analysis. (1) The first project, COSI.ed (https://cosied.eu/), aims to create solutions and models of practice in working with young people at risk of social exclusion in various educational settings in five European countries. The concept of co-creation is understood as a prerequisite for an equality-based relationship between young people and educational staff. Its aim is “to create an environment that provides access to and experience of educational codes and situations through building on the students’ strengths and experiences”(Bunting et al., 2021). Thus, it empowers young vulnerable people, increasing their participation and sense of agency. (2) The second project, RESPONSIVE (https://responsive-europe.eu/), focuses on citizen participation in transforming social services and aims to enhance the responsiveness of Europe’s social services to input from diverse citizens. Through this, it wants to increase the impact of citizens’ voices on the approaches, organisation and delivery of three types of social service: child protection and services for youth at risk of exclusion, disability, and mental health. Practically, the project is ambitious in generating specific innovations engaging to a greater extent the voice of vulnerable people and accompanying methodological guidance for achieving citizen-centric social services. The concept of responsiveness highlights that democracy, participation, co-creation and social change are continuous processes that need effort and actions over time (Responsive grant application). The presented paper is based on the desk research and in-depth analysis of: - theoretical and methodological backgrounds and approaches of the above-mentioned projects; - use of good practices’ models in working with youth at risk, with special attention paid to understanding and situating the concepts of co-creation and participation; - methodological and practical co-creative solutions applied in both projects (citizen boards, advisory boards, collaborative groups etc.); - the implications of “youth at risk as citizens” concepts in school and out-of-school environments.

The expected outcome of our analysis is to map and demonstrate the diversity of approaches to the problematisation of concepts such as participation, co-creation, responsiveness and citizenship - their interrelationship and interconnectedness at the theoretical, methodological and practice levels. Particular emphasis will be placed on showing methodological solutions to address the dilemma of how to conduct research on participation/co-creation/responsiveness in an ethical, responsible, methodologically sound and at the same time participatory/responsive way, especially in groups and communities particularly vulnerable to exclusion. Awareness of the various challenges faced by international teams carrying out participatory research will allow to address them at the project conceptualisation stage and may contribute to initiating a dialogue on the often unconscious or unspoken assumptions about the understanding of concepts such as participation, citizenship, co-creation and responsiveness by the various social actors involved in project implementation. Earlier recognition of these assumptions may prevent the possibility of misunderstandings in this area at a later stage of the project implementation. Our analysis will also shed light on the contribution of the new concept of responsiveness in citizenship education and education to democracy added to the earlier elements of co-construction, co-creation and co-production. The results of our analysis might be a valuable source of inspiration for those involved in research on citizenship education, social participation and democratisation of social life.

Albert, A., Balázs, B., Butkevičienė, E., Mayer, K., & Perelló J. (2021). Citizen Social Science: New and Established Approaches to Participation in Social Research In K. Vohland, A. Land-Zandstra, L. Ceccaroni, R. Lemmens, J. Perelló, M. Ponti, ... & K. Wagenknecht, The science of citizen science (p. 529). Springer Nature. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58278-4 Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224. Beresford, P. (2019), Public Participation in Health and Social Care: Exploring the Co-production of Knowledge. Frontiers in Sociology, 3:41. Bielecka-Prus, J. (2013). Paradygmat partycypacyjny w naukach społecznych. Wykorzystywanie danych wytworzonych przez badanych w analizie jakościowej. Rocznik Lubuski, 39(1), 29-50. Blühdorn, I., & Butzlaff, F. (2020). Democratization beyond the post-democratic turn: towards a research agenda on new conceptions of citizen participation. Democratization, 27:3: 369-388. DOI: 10.1080/13510347.2019.1707808 Budzanowska, A. & Dańda, A. (2022). Ustawa 2.0 – paradygmat partycypacyjny w politykach publicznych na przykładzie reformy systemu nauki i szkolnictwa wyższego w Polsce. Nauka 2/2022, 71-92. DOI: 10.24425/nauka.2022.140331 Bunting, M., Mikkelsen, S. H. & Cammack, P. (2021). Socio-cultural learning: students as co-researchers, a key for students' success. In D. T. Gravesen, K. Stuart M. Bunting, S. H.Mikkelsen & P. H. Frostholm (Eds.). Combatting marginalisation by co-creating education: methods, theories and practices from the perspectives of young people. Great debates in higher education. Emerald Publishing, Bingley, pp. 15-28: https://insight.cumbria.ac.uk/id/eprint/6994/ Burgh, G., & Thornton, S. (2021). Teaching democracy in an age of uncertainty: Place-responsive learning. Routledge. Ciechowska, M., & Szymańska, M. (2018). Wybrane metody jakościowe w badaniach pedagogicznych. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Akademii Ignatianum. Dedding, C., Groot, B., Slager, M. & Abma, T. (2022). Building an alternative conceptualization of participation: from shared decision-making to acting and work. Educational Action Research,31(2):1-13. DOI:10.1080/09650792.2022.2035788 Kubinowski, D. (2010). Jakościowe badania pedagogiczne. Filozofia – metodyka – ewaluacja. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, Lublin. Naumiuk, A., Serra, F., Rasell, M., Uggerhoj, L., Pinto. C et al. (2022). Using participation to understand and address the anxieties of European youth about unemployment, future work, and community. In: Nielsen, V. et al. (eds.) Social Work, Social Welfare, Unemployment and Vulnerability Among Youth. Abingdon: Routledge. Pushor, D. (2008). Collaborative Research In The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods, L. M. Given (ed.), Sage, London. Reyes, C. C., Haines, S. J., & Clark, K. (2021). Humanizing methodologies in educational research: Centering non-dominant communities. Teachers College Press.