Participatory Research in the Neo-Liberal Context

For this month’s TVRN discussion group we looked at Paul Stewart and Miguel Martínez Lucio’s 2017 paper “Research, participation and the neo-liberal context: The challenges of emergent participatory and emancipatory research approaches”. In this blog post, Jenna Brown takes us through some of the key arguments in the paper and explores their relevance to voice practitioners and researchers.

In their article the authors confront a pressing dilemma for progressive academics: how to reconcile political commitment with scholarly rigour in the face of neoliberal constraints. Their central concern is with participatory action research (PAR), a methodology that promises to democratise knowledge by involving participants as co-researchers. While PAR has radical potential, this paper cautions that it is not inherently emancipatory; its transformative capacity depends on political orientation, context, and the willingness of researchers to engage with conflict and systemic critique.

This framework is strikingly relevant for those of us working in voice research, where participatory practice is increasingly embraced but often risks depoliticisation. Stewart and Martínez Lucio remind us that methodology cannot be separated from politics: the conditions under which research is conducted, the voices that are invited (or excluded), and the institutional structures that shape our work all determine whether our practice-based inquiries support emancipation or inadvertently reproduce hierarchies.

Key Insights

The authors identify three overarching challenges.

1.        They dispute the notion that PAR is inherently radical. Though rooted in traditions of action research and Freirean pedagogy, PAR has often been appropriated as a managerial tool, used to promote consensus rather than transformation.

2.        They challenge the “critical distance problem”: the idea that radical researchers compromise objectivity by aligning too closely with participants. Instead, they argue for transparent partisanship, where political commitments are acknowledged openly while maintaining methodological rigour.

3.        They emphasise that the neoliberal university fundamentally reshapes what is possible. Research is increasingly commodified, driven by evaluation frameworks and commercial imperatives that restrict participatory methods.

Specific barriers that are highlighted in this article include:

·      Neo-liberal institutional restraints that push academics towards commercial outcomes

·      External political interference and positivistic protocols such as the UK’s Research Excellence Framework

·      Time and resource intensity of PAR, which conflicts with a culture of rapid outputs

·      Subordination of co-participants, who themselves live under precarious neoliberal conditions, making sustained activism alongside researchers difficult.

What about voice research and practice?

For those of us working in voice research and practice these insights resonate deeply. Participatory research with singers, whether in choirs, community groups, classrooms, or clinical settings, often celebrates collaboration, yet risks becoming a hollow gesture if stripped of political intent.

Consider the frequent framing of singing projects in terms of “wellbeing” or “community cohesion.” While valuable, such framings can echo the managerial appropriation of PAR identified by Stewart and Martínez Lucio. In this instance participation becomes a tool for social consensus rather than a vehicle for empowerment. A community choir study, for example, may highlight positive health outcomes while ignoring the structural exclusions (such as economic precarity, racialised barriers, and gendered norms) that shape who participates and how their voices are valued.

Equally, the so-called “critical distance problem” is pertinent in voice pedagogy. Voice teachers and researchers are often deeply embedded in the communities they study. They may be the conductor of the choir they research, or the pedagogue whose students are also research participants. Rather than concealing this proximity, Stewart and Martínez Lucio encourage us to embrace it as a strength, provided we remain transparent about our commitments and reflexive about power relations. In practice, this might mean acknowledging the researcher’s dual role as both pedagogue and co-learner, and recognising students or singers as co-intellectuals whose embodied expertise shapes the inquiry.

The authors’ discussion of the neo-liberal academy also has clear analogues in voice research. Universities increasingly demand marketable outcomes such as “employability” for graduates, measurable “impact,” and quantifiable research outputs. For practice-based voice researchers, this can lead to pressure to frame projects in commercially palatable terms, emphasising for instance training for the creative industries rather than supporting experimental, collaborative, or emancipatory work. Participatory voice projects require rehearsal, trust-building, and iterative co-creation; yet such labour rarely fits within the quick-turnaround cycles of grant funding or performance metrics.

Finally, the reminder that co-participants themselves are subject to neoliberal subordination is vital. Freelance singers, community choir members, and students alike are navigating precarious conditions in the gig economy with increasing cultural funding cuts, and systemic exclusion. Asking them to co-create research is not a neutral invitation but one shaped by these pressures. A participatory project with marginalised singers must therefore grapple with structural inequities, not simply document vocal practices.

What might this mean for transformational voice research?

Stewart and Martínez Lucio conclude that participatory methods must be understood not as neutral techniques but as political practices embedded in broader struggles.

For voice pedagogy and singing voice research, this might mean:

* treating singers not as subjects but as co-creators of knowledge

* foregrounding equity, access, and representation in research design

* acknowledging positionality as teachers, performers, or advocates

* resisting institutional pressures that commodify participation

* and embracing participatory voice research as a site of collective transformation

In short, the framework presented in this paper invites us to imagine a radical pedagogy of voice and voice research, one that recognises the politics of participation and insists that practice-based research must not only document voices but amplify them in pursuit of social change.