Using Interactive and Participant Methods: A Postmodern Shift in Political Science Research?


  • Georgeta Ghebrea University of Bucharest



interactive methods, participant methods, political science, post-positivism, methodological shift


This paper aims to discuss the main participant and interactive methods and their usefulness for the political science. These methods could provide a profound knowledge of social and political issues. Different target groups and experts hold this knowledge but it becomes accessible to researchers by involving persons belonging to those relevant groups in the scientific research. Therefore, it is not just the involvement of the researcher in the stakeholders‟ life, as in the case of the co-participant observation, but also the involvement of stakeholders in research. In addition to the potential increase in knowledge, these methods produce, as well, political, epistemological, and ethical mutations. Both researchers and other participants suffer a process of transformation, as not only levels and content of knowledge but also concerning their political attitudes and behaviours. Empathy is no longer an obstacle to science but an advantage. Thus, science is no longer a neutral, objective, and external approach to human beings, an approach accessible only to a restricted category (the researchers). The object of the study - i.e. people who are not necessarily scholars - also participates in the production of scientific knowledge. On the other hand, researchers have no longer the privileged position of those who know more and who remain unobserved observers. Scientific research becomes a mutual learning process. Hence, an important distinction of "traditional" epistemology, that of object and subject, is blurred or even erased. Consequently, participant methods are also democratic, eliminating the unequal distribution of power and authority between the two poles involved in scientific research (researchers and human “subjects”). However, there is a strong challenge to these methods, with both indisputable strengths and weaknesses. We will evaluate these issues through examples of using interactive and participant methods in the social research.

Author Biography

Georgeta Ghebrea, University of Bucharest

Faculty of Political Science professor, PhD


Akambi, L. (1998). La méthode active de recherche et de planification participatives [The active method of participatory research and planning]. Cotonou, Benin: FAO.

Aron, R. (2005). Le spectateur engagé [The committed observer]. Paris, France: Editions de Fallois.

Barba-Lata, I. (2015). Topology and object formation. In: R. van Assche, K.

Duineveld & M. Cham (Eds.), Evolutionary governance theory: Theory and applications (pp. 155 – 165). New York, USA: Springer.

Becker, H. (1963). The Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York, USA: Free Press.

Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York, USA: Doubleday & Company.

Bourdieu, P. (1980). Questions de sociologie [Sociology in question]. Paris, France: Éditions de Minuit.

Butler, J. (1988). Performative acts and gender constitution: An essay in phenomenology and feminist theory. Theatre Journal, 40(4), 519-553. Doi:10.2307/3207893

Carter, J. (1998). Postmodernity and the fragmentation of welfare. London, UK: Routledge.

Charmaz, K. (2008). Grounded Theory as an emergent method. In: S. N. HesseBiber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods (pp. 155-172). New York, USA: The Guilford Press.

Community Research and Information Services (CORDIS). (1997). European awareness scenario workshops. Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg: European Commission. Retrieved from:

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, USA: Sage.

Dür, A. (2008). Measuring interest group influence in the EU. European Union Politics, 9(4), 559-576. Doi:10.1177/1465116508095151

Fischer, F., & Gottweis, H. (2012). The argumentative turn revisited. Public policy as communicative practice. Durham, England: Duke University Press.

Foucault, M. (1975). Surveiller et punir. Naissance de la prison [Discipline and punish. Birth of the prison]. Paris, France: Gallimard.

Gaffney, M. (2008). Participatory action research. An overview. What makes it tick? KAIRARANGA, 9, 8 - 15. Retrieved from:

Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall.

Gjelstrup, G., & Sørensen, E. (2007). Method and methodology: Pragmatism, interactive research and narratives: Introduction. In: G. Gjelstrup & E. Sørensen (Eds.), Public administration in transition: Theory, practice, methodology (pp. 295-298). Copenhagen, Denmark: Djøf Forlag.

Goffman, E. (1962). Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. Chicago, USA: Aldine.

Grix, J. (2001). Demystifying postgraduate research. Birmingham, UK: University of Birmingham Press.

Hall, P. A. (2013). Brother, can you paradigm? Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 26(4), 189–192. Doi:10.1111/gove.12031

Iancu, Ş. (2016). Între prohibiţia şi legalizarea drogurilor: Limitele abordării empirice a politicilor privind reglementarea substanţelor psihoactive. Bucharest, Romania: University of Bucharest.

Jackson, R., & Sørenson, G. (2015). Introduction to international relations: Theories and approaches. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1992). The action research planner. Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press.

Konaté, M. K, & Sidibé, A. (2006). Extraits de guides pour la recherche qualitative [Extracts from guides for qualitative research]. Bamako, Mali: Centre d‟Appui à la Recherche et à la Formation (CAREF).

Krastanova, R. (2016). Nouveaux mouvements sociaux et nouvelle politique. Le mouvement vert en Bulgarie [New social innovation and new politics. The green movement in Bulgaria]. Paris, France: Presses Académiques Francophones.

Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. New York, USA: Oxford University Press.

Lévi-Strauss, C. (1983). Le regard eloigné [The distant gaze]. Paris, France: Plon.

Lodge, D. (2011). Think. Glasgow, Scotland: Harvill Secker.

Mackenzie, N., & Knipe, S. (2006). Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and methodology. Issues In Educational Research, 16(2), 193-205. Retrieved from:

March, J., & Olsen, J. P. (1989). Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics. NewYork, USA: Free Press.

Marshall, G. S. & Buske, D. (2007). Framing network style interactions in local governance: Three narratives. In: G. Gjelstrup & E. Sørensen (Eds.), Public Administration in transition: Theory, practice, methodology (pp. 233 - 246). Copenhagen, Denmark: Djøf Forlag.

Meyer, J. W., & Scott W. R. (1992).Organisational environments: Ritual and rationality. Newbury Park, USA: Sage.

Neuman, M. (2006). Quelques exemples de méthodes participatives [Some examples of participatory methods]. Paris, France: Centre National de Recherche Scientifique.

Richardson, D. (2000). Constructing sexual citizenship: Theorizing sexual rights. Critical Social Policy, 20(1), 105 -135. Doi:10.1177/026101830002000105

Sandu, A., & Unguru, E. (2017). Several conceptual clarifications on the distinction between constructivism and social constructivism. Postmodern Openings, 8(2), 51-61. Doi:10.18662/po/2017.0802.04

Saritas, O. (2010). Systemic foresight methodology. In: A. Curaj (Ed.), The For-Uni Blueprint (pp. 21-31). Bucharest, Romania: Editura Academiei Române.

Schmidt, V. A. (2010). Taking ideas and discourse seriously: Explaining change through discursive institutionalism as the fourth 'new institutionalism. European Political Science Review, 2(1), 1-25, doi:10.1017/S175577390999021X.

Sow, C., & Hazgui, M. (2011). Catalogue des outils et techniques d’animation participative [Catalog of tools and techniques of participatory animation]. Bègles, France: Conseils & Etudes Sociologiques.

Tickner, J. A. (2006). Feminism meets international relations: Some methodological issues. In: B. Ackerly, M. Stern & J. True (Eds.), Feminist methodologies for international relations (pp. 19 – 41). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Van Dijk, T. (1985). Handbook of discourse analysis. London, UK: Academic Press.

Vasilikie, D. & Texler Segal, M. (Eds.). (2017). Gender panic, gender policy. Bingley, England: Emerald Publishing.

Wagenaar, H. (2011). Interpretation and dialogue in policy analysis. London, UK: Routledge.

Wildemuth, B. M. (2016). Applications of social research methods to questions in information and library science. (2nd ed.). Westport, Ireland: Libraries Unlimited.




How to Cite

Ghebrea, G. (2018). Using Interactive and Participant Methods: A Postmodern Shift in Political Science Research?. Postmodern Openings, 9(4), 1-15.



Theoretical articles

Publish your work at the Scientific Publishing House LUMEN

It easy with us: publish now your work, novel, research, proceeding at Lumen Scientific Publishing House

Send your manuscript right now