Bruno Tardieu: “Taking seriously the voices of the very poor is essential to understand poverty”

Why is ATD Fourth World involved in collaborations with scientific researchers?

Bruno Tardieu: ATD Fourth World was founded in 1957 by Joseph Wresinski, a catholic priest, in an emergency housing camp built by the public authorities following Abbé Pierre’s call in 1954. The camp had become a slum, inhabited by desperate families. Wresinski was there as chaplain. The first people in charge of ATD realized that reality was being denied: officially, there was no longer any misery in France, there were only social cases, people not suited to progress. To get this reality recognized, a sociologist, Jean Labbens, and a psychologist agreed to carry out in-depth studies in the camp. From the outset, they took seriously the participatory observation reports drawn up by the association’s “permanent volunteer” staff: as they still do today, they wrote down every evening that had happened during the day. They worked from these as well as with open interviews. 

What happened next?

B. T.: With the support of the French Commission for UNESCO, ATD Fourth World organized two symposia at UNESCO headquarters in Paris, in 1961 and 1964, on what were then known as “misfit families”. They helped to establish the notion of social exclusion, to contradict the notion that people were ill adapted to their situation: it was really that outsiders did not understand how they intelligently adapted to impossible situation. The association was also involved in work with historians, writing the family histories of very poor families over several generations, and in research into children’s language development. Researchers at the Columbia University School of Social Work in New York (USA) were soon intrigued by these methods, community organizing that included priority to the poorest and invited ATD to collaborate with them on community development programs in the USA.

Let’s jump ahead in time: in 2023, ATD Fourth World France shared the Participatory Research Prize for the “Croiser les savoirs avec tou.te.s” (merging knowledge with all) project. What was this project?

B. T.: It has to be seen in the context of what I have just explained. Many academics disputed the scientific nature of the work carried out with ATD in the 1960s and 1970s. In 1980, at a conference held at UNESCO, Wresinski countered this view by asserting that, as far as poverty was concerned, academic knowledge was not superior to the knowledge that people themselves had of their condition, or to the knowledge of action acquired by social workers and permanent volunteers. And that people living in poverty must be allowed to formulate their questions and work on them: they can be the driving force behind other forms of research. These ideas led to the development of the merging of knowledge method: we invited academics, people living in poverty and people in action to co-construct knowledge. The work we carried out in this way brought to light epistemological questions, which were formulated in 2015 during a seminar in collaboration with a laboratory at the Conservatoire national des arts et métiers (CNAM). This led in 2017 to the creation of the collaborative space “Croisement des savoirs avec toutes et tou.te.s”, through an agreement between CNAM, CNRS and ATD Fourth World, with the support of the Groupement d’intérêt scientifique “Démocratie et participation” (group of scientific interest “Democracy and participation”). It was the work of this collaborative space that was awarded the prize in 2023.

What was at stake in this work?

B. T.: In France, or in Europe, politicians were interested in the knowledge we were producing together with people living poverty who were themselves members of ATD, because they could see that they could use it practically. But before using it as a basis for policy, they would check with university experts in the field. And there, they didn’t hear the same point of view at all: our knowledge was dismissed as non scientific. This is what forced us to formalize the terms of an alliance.

So, you wanted to forge an alliance with these experts to produce a common knowledge, rather than fight for legitimacy?

B. T.: Yes. And what’s more, this cooperation produces a better quality of knowledge. Academics help us to understand our knowledge using concepts from other fields. For example, the notion of epistemic injustice, which was identified in feminist philosophy by Miranda Fricker, from New-York University, is relevant to poverty studies: what people say is interpreted by concepts that go against what they mean. That is what happened when the poor were called inadapted, and we changed that into socially excluded. Another more recent example, the notion of non-recourse: in France, 30% of those entitled to social benefits do not receive them, and this is called non-recourse (or non take up). But what very poor people who have thought about it say is that it is non-access, rather than non-recourse: in practice, it is very difficult for them to apply for these benefits. And non-recourse imply that people do not even ask for their rights. We need to deconstruct some notions produced by academics alone, who have been blinded by their environment. And it is also necessary to deconstruct notions created by an association like ours, and beliefs that circulate among very poor people. Doing so, we are building new knowledge and ways of thinking together: the various participants in the research realize that they can indeed work together, despite their social, economic or educational differences.

What was the collaborative space’s work program?

B. T.: We explored three issues. First, separation in peer groups: should the different categories of participants to the merging of knowledge always work together, or is it preferable to keep some separate meetings in peer groups as safe spaces? The collaborative space has shown that there are dangers in separating, because essentialism could appear, putting people in boxes. But when conflicts arise over words and meanings, it is very important to meet only with peers, to discuss between people who have the same references, and who trust each other, before talking again with the two other groups. For example, at the start of a project involving philosophers, people experiencing poverty and social workers, we asked each group separately to say what the word “social” meant to them. For the philosophers, it was the emergence of the social question in the 19^th century. For very poor people, it evoked social workers, whom they were afraid would judge them and take away their children. Social workers spoke of social plans, a term fraught with ambiguity. Philosophers had never heard of the fear of placement, and very poor people had never heard of the emergence of the social movement. To work together, it is important to realize that we have very different representations.

What was the second issue?

B. T.: Involving all the players throughout the research process, from formulating the questions to writing the results. We worked on the importance of understanding who is commissioning the research, who is formulating the question – most often questions are imposed on poor people and their questions are not worked on – and going all the way through to writing. Co-writing is one of the most innovative elements of what we did. When it comes to co-writing, you cannot just be polite: a researcher does not want to use such-and-such a word, and the person living in poverty doesn’t want to use another word, because it is humiliating for her. Co-writing step often raises very important questions and allows to go into greater depth.

For instance?

B. T.: In an international research project on the dimensions of poverty that we recently carried out with Oxford University, when writing began, people experiencing poverty insisted on writing that one dimension of poverty was fighting. The researchers said, “You are fighting with ATD Fourth World, that is all very well, but it is not a dimension of poverty.” They had to re-analyze situations together, to understand together that the fight in question is the daily fight against humiliation, against all the barriers that are erected in front of people living in poverty. Ultimately, at the heart of the model built by this research is the struggle, resistance and suffering that are inseparable. The writing created an epistemic friction, which itself produced one of the most interesting results.

So, the work of the collaborative space confirmed the validity of what you were already doing?

B. T.: It also demonstrated the value of activating research results together. From now on, the presentation of results, whether to students, professionals or in working-class neighborhoods, is done by groups of three or four people, representative of the diversity of the collaborative space participants.

And the third issue?

B. T.: What are the validity criteria for participatory research? Most of the time, they are evaluated using the same criteria as conventional research. But in participatory research, for example, there must be ethical criteria. When it comes to poverty, are we really working with the poorest people? Do the results contribute to reducing the violence of poverty? What happens to the participants once the research is over? It is often a very big challenge to have been taken seriously in a research and then go back to a daily life full of testimonial injustice people won’t listen nor believe you. This is not the end of the story: we need to clarify what good participatory research is. And we would also like to use these results to create a training course on how to carry out good participatory research with people in situations of exclusion.

How is this research funded?

B. T.: The CNAM and CNRS each contribute, and ATD Fourth World has obtained funding from the French Development Agency.

Are the people living in poverty who take part in this research paid?

B. T.: That is a painful question. For us, it is fundamental to consider that their time is also valuable: from an ethical point of view, these co-researchers should be paid. But social services are so distrustful of the poor that this is not always possible, as they risk losing some social benefits. When we get guarantee that there will be no negative consequences, yes, people are paid.

What did you gain from the participatory research prize?

B. T.: Firstly, pride and strength for the participants in the collaborative space. Secondly, visibility and credibility. Many researchers still think that what we are doing is not real science. Some permanent volunteers themselves think that it is not really knowledge. Legitimizing a practice that takes the voice of the very poor seriously is extremely important. During the award ceremony, INRAE’s CEO emphasized that, as we face inequalities, environmental degradation and major pandemics, humanity would be wrong not to mobilize all forms of knowledge.

Interview by Luc Allemand