Bcaa 241

British Journal of Social Work (2021) 51, 888–906
doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcaa241
Advance Access Publication January 12, 2021
The Political Economy of Peer Research:

Mapping the Possibilities and Precarities
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article/51/3/888/6091146 by guest on 26 September 2023

of Paying People for Lived Experience
1,
Kinnon R. MacKinnon *, Adrian Guta2,
Jijian Voronka , Merrick Pilling3, Charmaine C. Williams4,
2
Carol Strike3, and Lori E. Ross3
1
School of Social Work, York University, Toronto, ON, M3J 1P3, Canada
2
School of Social Work, University of Windsor, Windsor, ON, N9A 0C5, Canada
3
Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, M5T 3M7,
Canada
4
Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, M5S 1V4,
Canada
*Correspondence to Dr K. R. MacKinnon, School of Social Work, York University, 4700

Keele Street, Toronto, ON, M3J 1P3, Canada. E-mail: kinnonmk@yorku.ca
Abstract
Participatory research, or the practice of involving ‘peers’ with lived experience, has
become popular in social work. Peer engagement is lauded for: ‘democratising’ the re-
search process; providing ‘capacity building’ and facilitating opportunities to co-
produce knowledge. Yet, these claims are rarely evaluated by empirical investigations
into the socio-material work conditions of peer researchers. Here we present findings
of a study that examined the experiences of peer researchers, focusing on payment
inequities and social workers’ roles in advocating for economic justice. Together with
peer research assistants, we conducted a participatory constructivist grounded theory
study, interviewing peers (total n ¼ 34) who were compensated to work on studies fo-
cused on the following: racialised communities, communities of people who use
drugs, consumer/psychiatric survivor/ex-patient and mad communities and trans/non-
binary communities. Our findings highlight divergent compensation practices in peer
research work. Whilst some peers were satisfied with their treatment on research
teams and payment received, others discussed challenges associated with precarious
short-term casual work and managing formal income alongside state social assistance
such as disability support. We conclude that in some cases, the peer role is character-
ised by precarious working conditions which compound rather than challenge injustice
within the research enterprise, and we discuss implications for social work.
# The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf

of The British Association of Social Workers.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in
www.basw.co.uk any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
The Political Economy of Peer Research 889
Keywords: Canada, economic justice, marginalised communities, participatory

research, peer research, precarious labour
Accepted: December 2020
Introduction

Arnstein’s (1969) canonical eight-rung ladder of citizen participation
attributes active civic engagement in decision-making with democratic
processes and redistribution of power. On the top rungs of this meta-
phorical ladder, communities hold decision-making power which ostensi-
bly brings about more equitable and inclusive societies. Taken to the
domain of research, public and service user engagements are presented
as solutions to a range of problems in traditional research knowledge
production (Rowland et al., 2020). Community-engaged participatory re-
search, or the practice of collaborating with community members to co-
conduct research, embeds the pursuit of social justice within research. In
participatory research, community members are often engaged as ‘peer
researchers’, or ‘peers’ and they work on tasks such as data collection,
analysis and knowledge dissemination. Peers are typically members of a
‘target population’ who are engaged as ‘co-researchers’, and who are usu-
ally financially compensated for their time (Roche et al., 2010, pp. 3–4).
Both research funders and communities being researched (e.g. people liv-
ing with HIV/AIDS; trans/non-binary communities) recommend or even
require this engagement throughout the research process. In effect, partici-
patory research has become mainstream across several scholarly domains
such as social work, health care and social service research (Branom, 2012;
Guta et al., 2014).
Community-engaged research that involves peer researchers has
grown in popularity. Proponents underscore that partnering with peers
‘democratises’ the research process, providing community members with
opportunities to co-produce knowledge, whilst at the same time being
empowered and building ‘capacity’ (Branom, 2012; Hamilton, 2009;
Roche et al., 2010; Travers et al., 2013). Links are also made between
peer engagement and the production of more accurate or community-
relevant research results (Guta et al., 2014). Other benefits include the
potential for improving health equity and inclusion amongst communi-
ties who have experienced injustice within health systems, such as people
living with HIV/AIDS, and those who identify as mad/consumer/
survivor/ex-patient (Madden and Speed, 2017). Whilst this is only a sum-
mary of claims about participatory research, a core dilemma emerges at
the intersection of peer research and social justice. There is little under-
standing of the socio-material work conditions of peers involved in these
890 K. R. MacKinnon et al.
research practices and little consensus about whether the aspirations of

participatory research are being realised. Our article offers material
accounts of peers’ work experiences—a vastly neglected topic that has
tremendous consequences to peer researchers’ lives.
Given the diverse communities of marginalised people who are likely
to be engaged as peers, social work scholars and practitioners are well-
positioned to advocate for social and economic justice for peers. Beyond

this, participatory research arguably accomplishes some of the central
goals of the social work profession such as social justice, emancipation
and empowerment (Branom, 2012; McElroy, 2020). In the UK, social
workers engaged in research activities have a duty to ensure that re-
search contributes to the development of ‘ethically-based’ policy and
programmes (BASW, 2014). Social workers in Canada are guided by
‘ethical responsibilities in research’ which include educating colleagues
about ‘responsible research practices’ (Canadian Association of Social
Workers [CASW], 2005, pp. 19–20). Responsible research overlain with
social justice professional values serves to bolster transformative partici-
patory research efforts. At the same time, social workers affiliated with
hospital or community organisations may serve as research partners act-
ing as intermediary ‘gatekeepers’—providing research teams access to
service users/potential peers (Clark, 2010). Considering these ethical
obligations, and the dual roles social workers sometimes hold as practi-
tioners and researchers, provides an impetus to understand and respond
to the working conditions of peers.
Scholarship on peer and participatory research with marginalised

communities
A growing body of research has considered some of the limits of peer

research in several geographical jurisdictions and community practice
areas. Whilst the identities of peers are rarely homogenous, investiga-
tions into participatory research with discrete ‘communities’ exist. For
those working in mental health fields of England, reflections on the
methods, outcomes and praxis of research co-production have emerged
(Sweeney et al., 2013; Carr, 2019; Rose, 2019). To clarify the ethics and
to improve community-engaged research with people who use drugs, a
scoping review of studies largely carried out in Canada, the USA, the
UK and Australia is available (Souleymanov et al., 2016). A Canadian
study notes that broadly including racialised peers without attending to
cultural difference may dilute the cultural needs and benefits experi-
enced by project members (van der Velde et al., 2009). Finally, participa-
tory research with trans/non-binary communities yields critical
discussions on the topics of community control and dimensions of power
in the knowledge production process in Canada (Travers et al., 2013),
and acknowledgement of the need for ‘meaningful engagement’ of trans

people globally to mitigate social and economic disparities experienced
by this community (Reisner et al., 2016).
Across disparate domains of peer research, individuals with ‘lived ex-
perience’ are invited as representatives of communities traditionally ab-
sent in knowledge production to co-produce knowledge alongside
researchers (Guta et al., 2014). Still, this terminology homogenises and

arguably objectifies ‘people with lived experience’—assembling distinct
persons into potentially uneasy shared group identity categories
(Voronka, 2017). Madden and Speed (2017) interrogate the extent to
which ‘patient and public’ engagement actually democratises health re-
search, suggesting instead that these practices may be tokenistic.
Similarly, processes of community engagement may implicate research-
ers and patients alike in power relations, which could magnify, rather
than ameliorate, the unjust conditions experienced by marginal groups
(Guta et al., 2014). On a different yet relevant thread, Sapouna (2020)
points out that to engage service user narratives in social work, margin-
alised individuals are often unpaid and their stories of resilience co-
opted, underscoring some of the pitfalls of service user inclusion. Linked
closely with these critical debates, the following section provides more
context within which our empirical study was carried out.
Context: participatory research practiced within precarious

economies
Despite promises associated with participatory research (and many

thorny problems), empirical investigations into peer researchers’ socio-
material work conditions are rare. This article draws from interview data
collected between 2018 and 2019 for the Peers Examining Experiential
Research Study (PEERS) project. PEERS was conducted in Toronto,
Canada. As a participatory research hub, Toronto provides access to
participatory research activities happening across university, hospital and
community settings. Building on early studies of peer research, which of-
fered guidance for meaningful engagement (Greene et al., 2009) and
identified tensions between social justice goals and formal research cul-
tures (e.g. where teams are accountable to funders) (Guta et al., 2013),
we examined peer research work happening on the ground.
We locate our analyses within the context of a decades long project of
neo-liberal reform, which has eroded the welfare state and promoted
market logics throughout all domains of life from business to health and
social provision (Navarro, 2007). Following the 2008 global recession
and resulting austerity measures felt in countries like Canada, the USA
and the UK, a dominant mode of governing individuals through precar-
ity and insecurity has emerged (Lorey, 2015; Schram, 2013). Economic
precarity refers to fragmentation in the labour market, such as unem-

ployment, underemployment and the patching together of multiple
short-term contracts (Worth, 2019). This trend is of great interest to so-
cial work, given precarity in the labour market, which creates income,
food, housing and other forms of insecurity (Raphael et al., 2008).
Although we understand community-engaged research to be the result
of advocacy and demands for inclusion, the approach is also relatively

well embraced by state institutions because of its alignment and exten-
sion of the neo-liberal goals of human capital development, accountabil-
ity and evidence-based practice (McKenzie, 2020). In this article, we will
explore how these broad effects intersect and trickle down to impact
peers who are some of the most marginalised workers at the nexus cre-
ated by community-engaged participatory research.
Paying peers for their time, experiences and the knowledge they bring
is essential to achieve social and economic justice in participatory re-
search. Monetary payment is one approach to balance power relations
between peer and academic researchers, as it would be ‘unreasonable
and unfair’ to ask people with lived experience to work for free when
other members of a research team are paid (Hamilton, 2009, p. 214).
Efforts have been made by research institutions and by researchers
themselves to clarify, through guidelines and policy statements, equitable
peer researcher payment practices (Hamilton, 2009; Ibá~ nez-Carrasco
et al., 2019; CIHR, 2020). Yet, whether policies guiding peer research
produce the intended consequences in practice remains unclear (Madden
and Morley, 2016). Without regulatory governance, these guidelines and
recommendations largely pay lip service to pay equity. In parallel,
requesting unpaid (or underpaid) labour may perpetuate the marginal-
ised socio-economic conditions experienced by many peers (Soklaridis
et al., 2020). Still, compensating peer researchers fairly is complex. The
decision on which form of payment to use may depend on a combina-
tion of factors including institutional policies, research budgets, stipula-
tions made by external funding sources and peer researcher preferences.
For instance, Travers et al. (2013) note challenges in compensating
trans/non-binary peer researchers, suggesting that granting agencies im-
pose limitations on whether community members are engaged as paid
staff or unpaid co-investigators. The latter having more decision-making
power within the project, whilst the former being more fairly compen-
sated for their time.
Methods
To understand critically and materially the experiences of peers, we con-
ducted the PEERS project. Applying techniques of constructivist
grounded theory, we explicated how peers’ socio-material work
conditions are shaped by, and intersect with, structural processes

(Charmaz, 2014). We selected constructivist grounded theory because it
enables ‘researchers to concentrate on what is happening in the research
field, acknowledge that they are part of it, remain flexible, follow empir-
ical events, attend to language and meaning, and take on moral respon-
sibilities arising through their research’ (Charmaz, 2020, p. 165). Thus,
constructivist grounded theory was an optimal approach to allow for the-

ory-building—guided by our social justice aims.
We recruited peer researcher participants (total n ¼ 34) who received fi-
nancial compensation to work on studies in four domains where participa-
tory research is common: research with racialised communities,
communities of people who use drugs, consumer/psychiatric survivor/ex-
patient and mad communities, and trans/non-binary communities. All par-
ticipants included in this study provided written informed consent, and
ethics approval was granted by the University of Toronto research ethics
board. Study participants worked in academic, hospital and community
settings. We focused our study on peers’ experiences of working on proj-
ects in these domains because of the volume of participatory research in
these areas, and the research team’s collective combination of lived expe-
riences and research expertise. Following the participatory study design,
we hired five research assistants based on their lived experiences conduct-
ing research as a peer within one or more of these communities. Peer
researchers on our team brought experiences of working on previous re-
search projects (including conducting research interviews), and they were
paid an hourly rate on par with non-peer research assistants doing analo-
gous work, within the standard pay range set by the University of
Toronto. Peer research assistants identified their training needs in accor-
dance with their past research experience, and part of the training pro-
vided to peers included qualitative data collection and analysis workshops.
Data were collected in the form of in-person, semi-structured individual
interviews conducted between April 2018 and August 2019. Interviews
ranged between 60 and 120 min, and they covered the following topics: (i)
the nature of the participant’s involvement and their role in the research
project; (ii) their overall experience of research involvement, including
aspects they perceive to be positive and/or negative; (iii) any benefits and/
or harms they experienced as a result of their research involvement and
(iv) any recommendations they have to optimise peer research work.
Interviews were co-conducted collaboratively by pairs of academic re-
search team members and peers. Each pair consisted of a peer and an ac-
ademic researcher who made decisions about how to share the interview
questions, supporting one another through the co-interviewing process.
Overall, efforts were taken to ensure concordance between interviewers’
and participants’ lived experiences to promote rapport and deeper under-
standing (e.g. trans-identified study team members interviewed partici-
pants who had worked as a trans peers). All interviews were transcribed
verbatim, coded and analysed using data analysis software, NVivo. Of

note, as part of our on-going research, our team is currently working on
analysing and reporting our own peer research practices.
Consistent with grounded theory methodology, data analysis occurred it-
eratively alongside data collection. Our constructivist grounded theory ap-
proach was adapted to suit the participatory nature of the study by
incorporating the Dynamic reading (e.g. review of a subset of raw tran-

scripts), Engaged codebook development, Participatory coding, Inclusive
reviewing and summarising of categories, Collaborative analysing and
Translating (e.g. creating and executing a dissemination plan) (DEPICT)
model for participatory qualitative analysis, which engages community-
based co-researchers (Flicker and Nixon, 2015). In our case, peers collabo-
rated in the processes of DEPICT. Together with the peers, we established
a code book of research findings relevant across the four communities,
which were applied to analyse interview data. Drawing from these analyses,
the following section presents results on some of the socio-material work
conditions experienced by peer researchers in Ontario, Canada.
Results
Our analyses indicate significant divergence in the work experiences of
peers across studies. Many participants interviewed had experiences of
working as a peer researcher on multiple projects, and in some cases,
across substantially different content areas, which reflect intersecting
community identities. We uncovered a range of compensation strategies
and wide variation in the payment received, as well as differing levels of
satisfaction with work conditions. For example, one participant recalled
a long-term working relationship with an academic researcher:
Started with a [participatory] project about 5 or 6 years ago. . . I believe
[researcher] was involved, and we’ve worked together since then. I enjoy
doing the work and I gather I do a good job. So she contacts me
whenever one is coming up and then I can apply. . . Yeah, I enjoy doing
it very much. Participant #19
Whilst some participants offered positive accounts of their work as
peers, as demonstrated above, the theme of economic precarity was sa-
lient in interviews. Some interviewees noted being compensated with
honoraria, others were provided short-term casual contracts and, al-
though rare, one participant reported full-time employment.
Precarious peer work conditions
Although some participants felt they were adequately compensated for

their work, others experienced their compensation as inequitable relative
to non-peer members of the research team. For instance, participants

discussed how institutional hierarchies and academic credentialisation
shape and constrain opportunities for advancement in research in com-
parison with non-peer team members. One participant struggled to rec-
oncile feelings of ‘being used’ despite being referred to as ‘an expert’ on
the project, at the same time recognising she could only ‘move so far’
within the research enterprise:

It’s that institutional hierarchy that a lot of us peers are under and they
only let us move so far and then there’s a control thing going on and it
needs to stop. Cause we’re - it’s like being used - ‘okay, you’re here,
you’re an expert, we recognise your expertise on this, this, and this.’
And then it’s ‘oh, but you can’t come up here’. . . We were getting paid,
I think it’s $20 an hour, which is pretty good. . .
[But] it wasn’t steady, it’s very precarious. Few hours here and there. . .
Participant #1
Here, the participant implied that the ‘expert’ peer researcher status is
primarily rhetorical and is misaligned with their material work condi-
tions or treatment on the research team and opportunities for advance-
ment into more secure employment. Although the rate of pay at $20/h
was appreciated, this participant also flagged the ‘precarity’ of working
only a ‘few hours here and there’.
Similarly, most of the participants identified challenges specific to work-
ing on a precarious part-time or casual basis compounded by involvement
in highly demanding and complex projects. One participant recounted an
experience of being challenged in performing all the required tasks in
only two days per week, and being met with resistance when working
more hours than were originally allotted by the project budget:
My contracts were part time. . .I was hired for 15 weeks, 15 hours a week.
So that was 2 days a week to do what was an insane amount of work. I
had to design everything I had to create the 6 week program, I had to do
all of the advertising, all of the outreach, I had to interview and screen
the people that were going to be a part of the group. I had to create all
the curriculum in the groups, and then I had to do the groups. And then,
I had to design a survey to speak to each of the members of the group
about each of their experiences. And then compile all of that and write a
report, and I did all of that in 15 weeks.
Interviewer: So did you work way more hours than you got paid for
then?
I believe I ended up billing for an extra 7 hours. And they were like
‘this is not in the budget’. And I was like ‘well, I did it, so, make it
work.’ And all of the other projects were also part time. None of it was
ever a full-time contract. -Participant #3
Performing a variety of tasks in a limited time frame, two days per
week was described as difficult. Ultimately when the participant was
unable to complete everything within the terms of the contract, he had

to self-advocate to receive compensation for an additional ‘seven hours’.
We also found that some individuals were engaged with their peer re-
search work alongside additional full- or part-time work in other areas.
This was noted as a potentially complicated issue when considering in-
come taxes for people who had multiple jobs. One participant discussed
their income tax management strategy whilst noting the ‘privilege’ of

having another full-time job:
So there’s a few peer researchers who have the option of getting paid [$
per interview conducted] and then they claim it later. Whereas I just
prefer they give me a pay stub. . . So that way I don’t have to worry
about anything at tax time. . . They take off taxes and [standard state
required deductions]. . . I have to let them know I worked on this thing
for two hours this week or whatever. So then I usually get paid every
two weeks. . . I think it’s about 21 dollars an hour. . .The [other] job at
the [Community Organization] is full-time. Thank god for that. . . I have
the privilege of having the other job. If I didn’t have that other job it
would be a lot harder. Participant #15
Other participants discussed supplementing peer research work along-
side government income assistance and the value of being compensated
in cash that would not result in their income support cheque being
clawed-back. For context, those living in Ontario receiving disability-
related income supports or welfare payments are allowed to earn $200/
month before clawbacks: every dollar earned after this threshold reduces
the state income support by 50 per cent (Ontario Ministry of Children,
Community and Social Services, 2020a,b). These participants tended to
be accessing provincial disability income supports or other forms of gov-
ernment social welfare programmes, as was elaborated:
Because I’m on ODSP [disability support] as well, so they take half my
money. So I mean I know maybe it’s illegal, but it’s nice to get money,
cash. So the other couple of [projects] were cash, after that. . .
Participant #19
This participant noted formal labour market income triggered a dis-
ability support clawback, which resulted in ‘half’ of her earnings being
withheld. This account further reflects the wide spectrum of payment
mechanisms used across projects and the personal consequences of these
payment methods.
Honoraria and wide variation in compensation rates for peer

research work
In the landscape of financial remuneration, we found significant varia-

tion in compensation received for peer work on discrete studies. Many
participants discussed being paid through honoraria and other incentives

(e.g. informal compensation such as cash, gift cards, food and transit
tokens). Whereas some participants reported receiving compensation
above the provincial minimum wage (e.g. $20/h), we were able to calcu-
late that others—particularly those receiving honoraria—were paid be-
low minimum wage (e.g. $9.38/h). For context, Ontario’s minimum wage
was $11.60/h in 2017 and $14/h in 2018–2019 (Government of Canada,

2020). To perform this calculation, the total honorarium paid was de-
rived by dividing the hours worked. Importantly, several participants
had the advantage of being able to draw comparisons between multiple
studies to discuss fairly substantial pay discrepancies. For example:
Respondent: 8 hours. Two 4-hour shifts.
Interviewer: Ok and what about for the [organisation] how many hours
a week do you think you worked?
Respondent: I guess about the same.
Interviewer: How much did you get paid on these projects?
Respondent: Ok [laughs] I guess $75 for [community study 1], I got um
at [university study 2] they gave me $50.
Interviewer: $50 a shift or total?
Respondent: Total. Yeah.
Interviewer 2: Were those honorariums?
Respondent: Yes, honorariums. They didn’t pay us by the hour they
gave us, for the 4 hour they gave us a flat rate.
Participant #13
Reflecting on payment experiences on two different studies, this par-
ticipant notes being paid, not ‘by the hour’, but instead through ‘flat
rate’ honoraria—valued at $75 for 8 hours of work on one study and $50
for 8 hours of work on another study. Based on this participant’s descrip-
tion of financial remuneration, we calculated that he earned in the first
example approximately $9.38/h and $6.25/h in the latter.
Illustrating further relatively low compensation and compensation var-
iation associated with honoraria payments, another participant shared
details of his ‘work contract’:
During the research training part, it was two hours per week, food was
included. There was dinner and tokens as well. However later during the
administration part of the survey we received $50 dollars per shift, so
each shift was around. . .. So 4-5 hours let’s say if I did one day, one day
I did 11-7 but that would be two shifts. I would get $100. . . During the
[community event] it was 11-3. So, $50 dollars as well, in addition if we
did extra time because of, like if you arrived early or not, the
honorarium would be increased to $60. For example, during one day we
extended the time to 8pm and so we received $10 dollars extra. So that
was the work contract primarily. Participant #18
Given that this participant explained that ‘dinner and tokens’ were in-
cluded as incentives during the training period, this excerpt reveals more
than simply another example of pay variation for peer research work.
First, this participant’s ‘work contract’ was decidedly informal given that
payment was provided via honoraria, transit tokens and food. Although
the provision of transit tokens and food is a common component of re-
muneration within peer work, it also reflects significant precarity and

the potential economic vulnerability of the population recruited to per-
form this work. On the one hand, this participant’s peer work involved
travel to a community event, so transit tokens enabled the coverage of
work-related travel costs. On the other hand, compensation did not in-
clude paid travel time, despite a significant component of their work re-
quired travelling to events to administer a survey.
In participatory research, peers are often involved in projects of deep
personal and community significance, which we found intersects with
issues of payment equity. At the heart of many of these projects is the
pursuit of social justice and transformation. Whilst this could engender
team members—including peers—feeling valued and included in the
work, there is equally the risk of exploiting people’s labour when not
coupled with equitable compensation practices. For example, some par-
ticipants expressed gratitude for the opportunity to contribute and
explained that they would engage in the work for ‘no compensation’:
Respondent: Yeah, [the projects] were honorarium-based. For each ses-
sion you[peers] were given an honorarium. . . Some days we were out for
a half a day or so, but I’d say at least 6 to 12 hours a week. Interviewer
1: Did you feel like you were compensated fairly? Respondent: Oh,
yeah. . . Yeah. I would’ve done those with no compensation, but it was
nice to have the compensation, you know? (Participant #8)
Although this participant did not disclose the dollar value of the hon-
orarium, we highlight the implications that some peers are willing to
work for ‘half the day’ or ‘6–12 hours per week’ for ‘no compensation’.
Whilst this participant felt that the honorarium was fair, this may reflect
their personal economic stability, whereas others who struggled to meet
basic needs did not express the same sentiment. We further note the
overarching tendency to undervalue economically marginalised people’s
time and labour (e.g. when social service agencies request service users
volunteer to ‘give back’ to the same agency; and welfare-to-work/
workfare policies).
Discussion
Although involving peers is said to promote democracy and social justice
in knowledge production, our analyses explicate that in many cases the
peer researcher role is characterised by precarious working conditions,
which amplify rather than challenge injustice. Participants interviewed

for our study drew from their work experiences across an array of par-
ticipatory projects that studied racialised communities, communities of
people who use drugs, consumer/psychiatric survivor/ex-patient and mad
communities and trans/non-binary communities. Previous research shows
that people from these groups confront significant socio-economic dis-
parities, and barriers to the formal labour market. In one Ontario study

of trans people, 71 per cent of the sample had college or university edu-
cation, yet 15 per cent worked part-time, 20 per cent were unemployed
or on disability and approximately 50 per cent reported annual earnings
below the poverty line (Bauer et al., 2011). In another Canadian exam-
ple that compared racialised and non-racialised workers, racialised work-
ers more actively looked for work, yet 9.2 per cent were unemployed
versus 7.3 per cent of non-racialised workers (Block et al., 2019).
Systemic employment barriers and discrimination may be impacting the
working conditions of peer researchers, despite the inclusive goals of
participatory research. When marginalised communities face socio-
economic discrimination in the formal labour market, it is unsurprising
that ‘lived experiences’ are often similarly undervalued economically
and otherwise within participatory research. These findings extend con-
clusions that peers’ labour is engaged through the rhetorical ‘experts by
experience’, their identities commodified, all the while being precari-
ously employed by neo-liberal mental health systems that emphasise the
cost–effectiveness of peer labour (Voronka, 2017).
Improving payment practices in peer research: recommendations
Our findings provide evidence in support of bolstering and increasing

transparency in payments made to peers. Whilst we acknowledge that
with new solutions emerge new problems, informal cash honoraria in
particular obscures the actual hourly rate paid for peer research work.
Wherever possible honoraria should be replaced with less ambiguous
compensation methods associated with the formal labour market (e.g.
contracts; institutional payroll). Important to point out though, compen-
sation rates for non-peer research staff are often similarly opaque on
project teams. In Canada, the average hourly rate of pay for research
assistants is approximately $20.19, yet this varies considerably across
teams, institutional settings and provinces (Indeed, 2020). Thus, how
(and how much) peers are paid relative to non-peer team members en-
gaged in similar roles on the same team may be the most crucial take-
away point. Peers hired to work on projects should also have access to
the same benefits as other paid research staff. Hamilton (2009) adds that
participatory research practices ought to adhere to state employment
standards and that peers are entitled to some of the same employment
benefits as other employees such as minimum wage and sick pay.
Still, there are circumstances wherein this approach may not achieve
the intended outcome of economic and social justice for peer research-
ers. The practice of paying peers who are often economically marginal-
ised is complex and must be done with attention to context, population-
specific needs, equity and justice (Roche et al., 2010). Some participants

in our study who were receiving income supports explained the value of
cash honoraria for peer research work, over formal employment income
due to government assistance clawbacks. These accounts are consistent
with Collins et al.’s (2017) conclusion that cash and time-sensitive pay-
ments may constitute more equitable practice when paying people who
use drugs for research participation. Cash compensation provided at the
end of the month has a greater impact for individuals who rely on gov-
ernment income supports. Whilst cash alternatives such as gift cards
have been noted as patronising (Hamilton, 2009), this method may war-
rant consideration when peers need to balance government income assis-
tance and cash payments are not a viable option (e.g. due to
institutional policy). In this case, we stress the urgency of amending
these institutional policies to include cash payments, and in the interim
peers be given decision-making authority over the type of gift card (e.g.
grocery store or fast-food restaurant). At the same time, however, we
underscore problematic government policy that produces the conditions
requiring time-sensitive, cash payments. We instead recommend that
state income assistance programmes provide financial supports that
would allow recipients to earn additional income in the formal labour
market without triggering clawbacks, or be replaced with alternative in-
come support programmes that are not means-tested (e.g. universal basic
income). On this note, we now address implications for social work
specifically.
Social work implications
Much has already been written about the growing precarity of social
services in terms of their availability, the workforce (the decline of full-
time work and erosion of salaries) and relations with clients (Baines
et al., 2014; Cunningham et al., 2017). For this reason, we focus attention
to the context of participatory research—social work scholarship set
within the research enterprise, and social workers’ roles in practice set-
tings. In particular, we underscore the pursuit of social justice that con-
tinues to organise the profession internationally (Postan-Aizik et al.,
2020), and that a key ethical principle of social work includes advocating
when resources are inadequate and practices harmful or unfair (BASW,
2014). We believe such professional obligations extend also to the re-

search and knowledge production process itself.
Our social work scholarship implications must be overlain with
broader labour market trends, which seep into the research landscape,
directing what is and is not possible in participatory research. Social
work scholars and other researchers working in ‘publish or perish’ envi-
ronments also confront precarious work cultures, fewer tenured positions

and increased short-term contract labour without benefits or job security
(Heffernan, 2018; Ivancheva et al., 2019). Even more, social work schol-
ars who lead research projects must balance overburdened schedules,
strained budgets and standardised institutional performance evaluation—
all of which are challenged by time and resource demanding participa-
tory research, limiting meaningful collaboration with peers in turn.
Participatory research demands time; time that traditional metrics do
not account for or deem valuable. Indeed, peer research adds an addi-
tional layer of resource management complexity to an already challeng-
ing process of securing and managing grant funding and carrying out
research (Hamilton, 2009; Soklaridis et al., 2020). Still, despite an imper-
fect process, partnering with communities is of critical importance to in-
clusive knowledge production and is imperative for future service
development.
Strained grant funding for participatory research, together with
broader labour market forces, has real consequences for peers, often
materialising as precarious labour. Said differently, there exists structural
barriers with research grants, which limit the full involvement of peers
before funds are awarded, and after the project has concluded. As a di-
rect example, our own project budget was reduced by approximately
one-third its original proposal submitted to the funding agency, which
limited the scope of peer involvement in paid co-writing and other end
of grant activities. Likewise, Soklaridis et al. (2020) note often being left
with limited grant funds at the end of projects, which resulted in
peer team members going unpaid for co-manuscript writing. Although
some peers may want to volunteer time towards co-authorship to
leverage movement into future research-related employment, this phe-
nomenon speaks to structural problems with how grants are organised.
Social work scholars, as well as practitioners who serve as community re-
search partners, could advocate for more fulsome grants from funding
agencies to support participatory research. On the same thread, they
could work directly with non-peers to ensure that project budgets in-
clude adequate and equitable payment (e.g. pay and benefits parity
with non-peer staff), and about ‘padding the budget’ to plan for contin-
gencies that may arise. Due to ethical values underpinning the profes-
sion, social workers are positioned to advocate for the re-organisation of
research grant funding, which is crucial to improve working conditions
for peers.
Social workers in practice settings may also serve as gate-keepers to

service users interested in peer work. In this scenario, social workers
have a professional obligation to assess peer research opportunities for
potential exploitation of clients’ lived experiences and labour. Given
that we found wide discrepancies in peers’ work experiences—from peo-
ple willing to work for no compensation, to others who discussed self-
advocating to be paid for overtime hours—social workers also have a

role in assuring that peer researchers clearly understand their roles and
responsibilities on projects. Previous scholarship highlights that peers ex-
cluded from the traditional labour market often struggle to manage
expectations in corporate and otherwise professionalised research envi-
ronments (Guta et al., 2013) and may not have all the experiences to ful-
fil partnership expectations (Logie et al., 2012). Transparency and open
communication are therefore key to identify peer researchers’ training
and capacity-building needs, and to prevent peers from unknowingly or
unwillingly engaging in unpaid labour.
On the issue of fair compensation, social workers could discuss with
potential peers the work that is being asked of them and the financial
remuneration offered (ideally, the hourly rate for number of hours).
Ibá~
nez-Carrasco et al. (2019) stress the importance of transparent pay-
ment and compensation structures, urging non-peer researchers to in-
clude peer researchers in project financial planning from the beginning.
This may also help to facilitate democracy, empowerment and capacity
building in peer research. That said, it is not always possible to adjust or
re-negotiate payment for peer research work after budgets are set.
Furthermore, social workers also need to be aware of the parameters
surrounding formal labour market income and government income assis-
tance clawbacks, discussing this with non-peer researchers as well as ser-
vice users considering peer research work.
Limitations and conclusion
Finally, we note several methodological limitations. First, study inclusion

criteria stipulated that peer researchers could draw from their experien-
ces of working in peer research over a ten-year period, which creates
the risk of recall bias. Secondly, we did not survey quantitatively the
dollar value or method of payment received for peer work, nor did we
ask that participants provide ‘proof’ of what they earned. We relied in-
stead on participants’ numerous accounts of compensation to conclude
that peer researchers’ financial compensation is divergent and that peer
work is precarious labour. Thirdly, participants in our study worked as
peers in a wide range of participatory projects led primarily by non-
social work researchers, yet we note the relevance of our findings to so-
cial work scholars and practitioners. Whilst our study team comprises
peer and non-peer researchers from a variety of disciplinary and com-

munity perspectives, four co-investigators are social work scholars and
have a vested commitment to advancing social work knowledge and
practice in participatory research, and others have worked closely with
social workers on their projects and recognise their contributions.
Our findings on pay discrepancies and precarity in participatory re-
search provide a litmus test coloured by broader labour market dimen-

sions permeating research institutions in academic, hospital and
community settings. Overall, our article demonstrates a 2-fold need for:
pay equity across participatory projects to achieve better working condi-
tions for peer researchers; and for social workers to engage in advocacy
efforts to achieve social and economic justice for peers. When imple-
mented, the recommendations based on our study findings—together
with our discussion on the implications for social work—hold the poten-
tial to improve peers’ working conditions.
Acknowledgements
We wish to first acknowledge and thank our PEERS project colleagues
(in alphabetical order): Arlette Martinez-Parra, Carole King, Chandrashi
Pal, Florence Heung, Kendra-Ann Pitt, Liz McLean and Yogendra
Shakya. We additionally thank our research participants who provided
critical insights into their experiences of what is actually happening on
the ground in participatory research. Finally, we sincerely appreciate the
reviewers’ time and their thoughtful feedback on an earlier draft of this
article.
Funding
This study was funded by Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council: Insight grant #435–2017-0374.
Conflict of interest statement: None declared.
References
Arnstein, S. R. (1969) ‘A ladder of citizen participation’, Journal of the American
Institute of Planners, 35(4), pp. 216–24.
Baines, D., Cunningham, I., Campey, J. and Shields, J. (2014) ‘Not profiting from pre-
carity: The work of nonprofit service delivery and the creation of precariousness’,
Just Labour, 22.
Bauer, G., Nussbaum, N., Travers, R., Munro, L., Pyne, J and Redman, N. (2011).
We’ve got work to do: Workplace discrimination and employment challenges for
trans people in Ontario. Tans Pulse E-Bulletin 30, available online at http://trans
pulseproject.ca/research/workplace-discrimination-and-employment-challenges-for-
trans-people-in-ontario/ (accessed May 13, 2020).
British Association of Social Workers (2014) ‘The code of ethics’, available online at
https://www.basw.co.uk/about-basw/code-ethics (accessed June 9, 2020).
Block, S., Galabuzi, G. E. and Tranjan, R. (2019). ‘Canada’s colour coded income in-
equality’. Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. December 2019, pp.1–26, avail-
able online at https://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/reports/canadas-
colour-coded-income-inequality#::text¼This%20report%20uses%202016

%20Census,little%20change%20between%202006%2D16 (accessed June 17, 2020).
Branom, C. (2012) ‘Community-based participatory research as a social work research
and intervention approach’, Journal of Community Practice, 20(3), pp. 260–73.
Canadian Association of Social Workers (CASW) (2005) ‘Guidelines for Ethical
Practice’, available online at https://www.caswacts.ca/sites/default/files/attache
ments/casw_guidelines_for_ethical_practice.pdf (accessed June 19, 2020).
Canadian Institutes for Health Research (2020). ‘Considerations when paying patient
partners in research’, available online at: https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/51466.html
(accessed May 4, 2020).
Carr, S. (2019) ‘“I am not your nutter”: A personal reflection on commodification
and comradeship in service user and survivor research’, Disability & Society,
34(7–8), pp. 1140–53.
Charmaz, K. (2020) ‘“With constructivist grounded theory you can’t hide”: Social jus-
tice research and critical inquiry in the public sphere’, Qualitative Inquiry, 26(2),
pp. 165–76.
Charmaz, K. (2014) Constructing Grounded Theory, 2nd edn, Thousand Oaks, CA,
Sage.
Clark, T. (2010) ‘Gaining and maintaining access: Exploring the mechanisms that sup-
port and challenge the relationship between gatekeepers and researchers’,
Qualitative Social Work, 10(4), pp. 485–502.
Collins, A. B., Strike, C., Guta, A., Baltzer Turje, R., McDougall, P., Parashar, S. and
McNeil, R. (2017) ‘“We’re giving you something so we get something in return”:
Perspectives on research participation and compensation among people living with
HIV who use drugs’, International Journal of Drug Policy, 39, 92–8.
Cunningham, I., Baines, D. and Shields, J. (2017) ‘“You’ve Just Cursed Us”:
Precarity, austerity and worker’s participation in the non-profit social services’,
Relations Industrielles, 72(2), pp. 370–93.
Flicker, S. and Nixon, S. A. (2015) ‘The DEPICT model for participatory qualitative
health promotion research analysis piloted in Canada, Zambia and South Africa’,
Health Promotion International, 30(3), pp. 616–24.
Government of Canada (2020). ‘Historical minimum wage rates in Canada’. https://
open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/390ee890-59bb-4f34-a37c-9732781ef8a0 (accessed
April 11, 2020).
Greene, S., Ahluwalia, A., Watson, J., Tucker, R., Rourke, S. B., Koornstra, J.,
Sobota, M., Monette, L. and Byers, S. S. (2009) ‘Between skepticism and empow-
erment: The experiences of peer research assistants in HIV/AIDS, housing and
homelessness community-based research’, International Journal of Social Research
Methodology, 12(4), pp. 361–73.
Guta, A., Flicker, S. and Roche, B. (2013) ‘Governing through community allegiance:
A qualitative examination of peer research in community-based participatory re-
search’, Critical Public Health, 23(4), pp. 432–51.
Guta, A., Strike, C., Flicker, S. J., Murray, S., Upshur, R. and Myers, T. (2014)
‘Governing through community-based research: Lessons from the Canadian HIV
research sector’, Social Science & Medicine (1982), 123, 250–61.
Hamilton, S. (2009) ‘Money’, in Wallcraft, J., Schrank, B. and Amering, M. (eds),
Handbook of Service User Involvement in Mental Health Research, New York,
John Wiley & Sons, pp. 213–26.
Heffernan, T. A. (2018) ‘Approaches to career development and support for sessional
academics in higher education’, International Journal for Academic Development,

23(4), pp. 312–23.
Ibá~
nez-Carrasco, F., Watson, J. R. and Tavares, J. (2019) ‘Supporting peer research-
ers: Recommendations from our lived experience/expertise in community-based
research in Canada’, Harm Reduction Journal, 16(1), pp. 1–5.
Indeed (2020) ‘Research assistant salaries in Canada’, available online at https://ca.
indeed.com/salaries/research-assistant-Salaries (accessed May 13, 2020).
Ivancheva, M., Lynch, K. and Keating, K. (2019) ‘Precarity, gender and care in the
neoliberal academy’, Gender, Work & Organization, 26(4), pp. 448–62.
Logie, C., James, L., Tharao, W. and Loutfy, M. R. (2012) ‘Opportunities, ethical
challenges, and lessons learned from working with peer research assistants in a
multi-method HIV community-based research study in Ontario, Canada’, Journal
of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 7(4), pp. 10–9.
Lorey, I. (2015) State of Insecurity: Government of the Precarious, London, Verso
Books.
McKenzie, C. (2020) ‘LGBTQ þ community organizations under neoliberalism in
Ontario, Canada: Contradictions and disconnects’, Journal of Gay & Lesbian
Social Services, 32(2), pp. 240–60.
Madden, M. and Speed, E. (2017) ‘Beware zombies and unicorns: Toward critical pa-
tient and public involvement in health research in a neoliberal context’, Frontiers
in Sociology, 2(7), pp. 7.
Madden, M. and Morley, R. (2016) ‘Exploring the challenge of health research prior-
ity setting in partnership: Reflections on the methodology used by the James Lind
Alliance Pressure Ulcer Priority Setting Partnership’, Research Involvement and
Engagement, 2(1), pp. 1–20.
McElroy, M. (2020) ‘Participatory social work: Research, practice, education (book
review)’, The British Journal of Social Work, 50(3), pp. 982–3.
Navarro, V. (2007) Neoliberalism, Globalization, and Inequalities: Consequences for
Health and Quality of Life, Amityville, NY, Baywood Publishing.
Ontario Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services (2020a) ‘Ontario
disability supports program’, available online at www.mcss.gov.on.ca/en/mcss/pro
grams/social/odsp/info_sheets/employment_supports.aspx#::text¼You%20can%20
earn%20up%20to,from%20your%20income%20support%20payment (accessed June
9, 2020).
Ontario Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services. (2020b). ‘As an
Ontario works client: When you earn money’, available online at https://www.
mcss.gov.on.ca/en/mcss/programs/social/ow/client/earning_money.aspx (accessed
June 17, 2020).
Postan-Aizik, D., Shdaimah, C. S. and Strier, R. (2020) ‘Positioning social justice:
Reclaiming social work’s organizing value’, The British Journal of Social Work,
50(6), pp. 1652–68.
Raphael, D., Curry-Stevens, A. and Bryant, T. T. (2008) ‘Barriers to addressing the

social determinants of health: Insights from the Canadian experience’, Health
Policy, 88(2–3), pp. 222–35.
Reisner, S., Keatley, J. and Baral, S. (2016) ‘Transgender community voices: A partic-
ipatory population perspective’, The Lancet, 388(10042), pp. 327–30.
Roche, B., Guta, A. and Flicker, S. A. (2010) Peer research in action I: Models of
practice, Toronto, The Wellesley Institute.
Rose, D. (2019) ‘Navigating an insider / outsider identity in exclusive academic

spaces: How far can boundaries be pushed?’, Journal of Ethics in Mental Health,
10, 1–18.
Rowland, P., MacKinnon, K. R. and McNaughton, N. (2020) ‘Patient involvement in
medical education: To what problem is engagement the solution?’, Medical
Education, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02615479.2020.1730316?
scroll¼top&needAccess¼true.
Souleymanov, R., Kuzmanovic, D., Marshall, Z., Scheim, A. I., Mikiki, M.,
Worthington, C. and Millson, M. (2016) ‘The ethics of community-based research
with people who use drugs: Results of a scoping review’, BMC Medical Ethics,
17(1), p. 25.
Sweeney, A., Greenwood, K. E., Williams, S., Wykes, T. and Rose, D. (2013)
‘Hearing the voices of service user researchers in collaborative qualitative data
analysis: The case for multiple coding’, Health Expectations, 16(4), pp. e89–99.
Schram, S. F. (2013) ‘Occupy precarity’, Theory & Event, 16(1), available online at
https://muse.jhu.edu (accessed 3 February 2015).
Sapouna, L. (2020) ‘Service-user narratives in social work education; Co-production
or co-option?’, Social Work Education, doi: 10.1080/02615479.2020.1730316.
Soklaridis, S., de Bie, A., Cooper, R. B., McCullough, K., McGovern, B., Beder, M.,
Bellisimo, G., Gordon, T., Berkhout, S., Fefergrad, M., Johnson, A., Kalocsai, C.,
Kidd, S., McNaughton, N., Ringsted, C., Wiljer, D. and Agrawal, S. (2020)
‘Co-producing psychiatric education with service user educators: A collective auto-
biographical case study of the meaning, ethics, and importance of payment’,
Academic Psychiatry, 44(2), pp. 159–67.
Travers, R., Pyne, J., Bauer, G., Munro, L., Giambrone, B., Hammond, R. and
Scanlon, K. (2013) ‘Community control’ in CBPR: Challenges experienced and
raised from the trans PULSE project’, Action Research, 11(4), pp. 403–22.
van der Velde, J., Williamson, D. L. and Ogilvie, L. D. (2009) ‘Participatory action
research: Practical strategies for actively engaging and maintaining participation in
immigrant and refugee communities’, Qualitative Health Research, 19(9), pp.
1293–302.
Voronka, J. (2017) ‘Turning mad knowledge into affective labor: The case of the
peer support worker’, American Quarterly, 69(2), pp. 333–8.
Worth, N. (2019) ‘Making sense of precarity: Talking about economic insecurity with
millennials in Canada’, Journal of Cultural Economy, 12(5), pp. 441–7.
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2039-6746Kinnon R.
MacKinnon,,
School of Social Work, York University, Toronto, ON, M3J 1P3, Canada
Adrian Guta,

Bcaa 241

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bcaa 241

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

British Journal of Social Work (2021) 51, 888–906

The Political Economy of Peer Research:

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article/51/3/888/6091146 by guest on 26 September 2023

Carol Strike3, and Lori E. Ross3

*Correspondence to Dr K. R. MacKinnon, School of Social Work, York University, 4700

# The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf

Keywords: Canada, economic justice, marginalised communities, participatory

Accepted: December 2020

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article/51/3/888/6091146 by guest on 26 September 2023

research practices and little consensus about whether the aspirations of

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article/51/3/888/6091146 by guest on 26 September 2023

Scholarship on peer and participatory research with marginalised

A growing body of research has considered some of the limits of peer

and acknowledgement of the need for ‘meaningful engagement’ of trans

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article/51/3/888/6091146 by guest on 26 September 2023

Context: participatory research practiced within precarious

Despite promises associated with participatory research (and many

precarity refers to fragmentation in the labour market, such as unem-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article/51/3/888/6091146 by guest on 26 September 2023

conditions are shaped by, and intersect with, structural processes

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article/51/3/888/6091146 by guest on 26 September 2023

verbatim, coded and analysed using data analysis software, NVivo. Of

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article/51/3/888/6091146 by guest on 26 September 2023

Precarious peer work conditions

Although some participants felt they were adequately compensated for

to non-peer members of the research team. For instance, participants

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article/51/3/888/6091146 by guest on 26 September 2023

unable to complete everything within the terms of the contract, he had

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article/51/3/888/6091146 by guest on 26 September 2023

Honoraria and wide variation in compensation rates for peer

In the landscape of financial remuneration, we found significant varia-

participants discussed being paid through honoraria and other incentives

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article/51/3/888/6091146 by guest on 26 September 2023

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article/51/3/888/6091146 by guest on 26 September 2023

which amplify rather than challenge injustice. Participants interviewed

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article/51/3/888/6091146 by guest on 26 September 2023

Improving payment practices in peer research: recommendations

Our findings provide evidence in support of bolstering and increasing

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article/51/3/888/6091146 by guest on 26 September 2023

Social work implications

2014). We believe such professional obligations extend also to the re-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article/51/3/888/6091146 by guest on 26 September 2023

Social workers in practice settings may also serve as gate-keepers to

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article/51/3/888/6091146 by guest on 26 September 2023

Limitations and conclusion

Finally, we note several methodological limitations. First, study inclusion

peer and non-peer researchers from a variety of disciplinary and com-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article/51/3/888/6091146 by guest on 26 September 2023

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article/51/3/888/6091146 by guest on 26 September 2023

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article/51/3/888/6091146 by guest on 26 September 2023

Raphael, D., Curry-Stevens, A. and Bryant, T. T. (2008) ‘Barriers to addressing the

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article/51/3/888/6091146 by guest on 26 September 2023

You might also like