Participatory approach means taking an approach to teaching that stresses the personal perspectives of learners and the self-construction of knowledge focusing on the learner. It is a reflective approach to teaching and usually the terms “interactive” or “learner-centered” are used when taking this approach (Kucharčíková & Tokarčíková, 2016). Participatory approach focuses on communication in order to encourage critical examination of the variety of views that inform the contemporary debate about different questions and problems relating to the future of our world (Öhman & Öhman 2013, 325).

The main thing being that the learner is given encouragement by the educator or facilitator to learn through their own interest, whether it’s in group-based setting or alone. For educators, participatory approach can mean taking more of a facilitating role, for example creating the plan for the learning activities together with the participants, making group work more flexible overall or creating tasks that encourage additional self-reflection from the participants regarding their learning. For the participants this means that active participation is needed. Rather than just being a passive learner, the participant should actively be participating in decision making related to their learning, collaborating actively with their peers, and focusing on reflection of their own learning during the course. Overall participatory approach comes down to shifting the focus from the educator to the participants. 

Participatory methods: examples from the pilots

Preservation and promotion of intangible cultural heritage has been done in HEART through community-based art education, and participatory approach is a central part of that concept.

In the pilot of University of Eastern Finland we worked with the people from Mujejärvi village. We explained to them the objectives of the project and the things we want to have as outputs and led them as the experts of their own intangible cultural heritage to think about how, what kind of and when intangible cultural heritage has been present in their lives. This was done in workshops that focused on working with old photos; engaging in a dialogue related to them and also pairing the old photos with new, present day photo ideas. This also included thinking of objects and stories that connected to these photo pairs. This was a learning experience for both the participants and the facilitating staff all the while keeping the focus of the process as a whole on the participants. This is one way to use a participatory method in combination with art, discussions and project-based learning to further examine and showcase a an intangible cultural heritage thematic, in this case villagehood and their vast intangible (and tangible) cultural heritage.

In the pilot of Kansalaisfoorumi we used workshops, virtual clinics and a final celebration, all designed to deepen participants' engagement with and understanding of intangible cultural heritage. We used many kinds of participatory activities, ranging from mind map making to different kinds of writing exercises (Sensory writing, music-inspired writing, personifying writing, giving voice to cultural objects, self-describement through trees as a metaphor and more!). In the virtual clinics, the participants were offered a chance to bring their self written text connected with intangible cultural heritage. The participants brought biographical text, new proverbs and poems etc. The facilitator and the other participants offered feedback on everyone's text. The approach was very practical: What is important in this text and what changes could be made to bring it out? This helped the writers to take responsibility of their own text and created a space for peer support. 

In the pilot of Blue Beehive, participants got to freely create ceramic objects with the help of a ceramics art educator. The working was not just about creating objects, but rather getting to know about the importance of ceramics, its benefits for physical and mental health and the creative side involved within it. In a second workshop they carried out two activities: reading and ceramics. A book about the popular culture and traditions of the area (La carabassa Tomasa) was narrated and the contents were commented on. Ceramics was connected by having the participants create a clay pumpkin like the main character of the book.

In the pilot of Asociatia Perseidele we had three days of practical workshops, where the participants discovered an element of intangible heritage from Transylvania, namely the painted furniture in the style of Transylvanian Saxons. With the help of four experienced painters, the participants experimented with wood painting in this traditional style. During the three days, the participants got familiar with not only the practicalities of the art style, but the art educators also informed them on the history and philosophy of the people who created this art. This helped the participants to fully appreciate the traditions, as they understood where the art comes from and what were the sources of inspiration for it.

In the pilot of Oideas Gael, a pre-course 'open night' both served to advertise the programme and to define its scope. The organisers stated the aim of using local folk tales to inform the composition of a new musical piece or performance. It was made clear, however, that neither the specific folk tales nor the exact format of the composition had been finalised at that point. Thus, at the open night and during the early sessions of the course, participants and educators worked together to co-design the work process and final outcome. Our heritage expert recounted a number of traditional tales and participants expressed a particular interest in two stories which demonstrated a connection between two sites of significance in the local area. All participants were encouraged to find or identify musical pieces that were thematically related to the stories, while some participants produced their own compositions. The resulting material was organised, practised and presented at a final public concert.

Approaching intangible cultural heritage from the participants' own starting points

When educating on the topics of intangible cultural heritage, it’s important to note that the topic usually needs to be approached from the participants' own starting points, whether they know nearly nothing or are already an expert on the topic that is being taught, promoted, or preserved.

Starting with a general discussion on intangible cultural heritage, its forms and meanings, is the best way to gauge the participants' knowledge on the matter. This kind of reflection is already a point where learning can happen about one's own intangible cultural heritage or the intangible cultural heritage of others; seemingly normal and daily things for someone might be valuable pieces of intangible cultural heritage for others. Such examples came forth in the HEART pilot cases, where participants started noticing intangible cultural heritage in things that for them were quite usual. This is also where transformative learning can happen.

Below are some comments on the topic from the art educators involved in HEART, and an example of how our participatory methods affected the participants' experience of belonging to a heritage community, or feeling of motivation to safeguard intangible cultural heritage.

Art educator comments related to approaching ICH from the participants' own starting points

• The starting point should always be very open, let the process be creative right from the start. This creates different experiences than pre-planned sessions.
• Don't lead with "This is how we are going to do this..." but rather let everything build up in the discussions and together with the participants
• Encourage people to ask lots of questions, this helps with uncertainty and also promotes discussion between participants (people may have different starting points and knowledge and peer-to-peer discussion promotes reflection)
• Bring forth the things already discussed and known by the participants -> lessen the uncertainty created by "not-knowing" and promote the idea of trusting the process.
• As the facilitator or educator, be open-minded and focus on communicating openly with participants about the process.

Community-based art education and participatory approach: drawing on the knowledge of the participants 

Participatory approach ties into community-based art education as an essential part of it. Butterwick & Roy (2020, 90) believe that artistic and creative expression, thoughtfully carried out, can support forms of speaking and listening across boundaries to differences and lead to understanding of self and others. This has been apparent in all the HEART project pilots in the methods and exercises used for promoting and preserving intangible cultural heritage. You can view all of the exercise examples from the HEART project's art educators by selecting the exercises tag in the toolkit.

In practice, participatory methods can include:

• Implementing art 
• Having active discussions
• Guiding the participants to problem-solving
• Using project-based learning (instructional approach to learning by engaging in projects)
• Utilizing storytelling
• Open-ended questioning during educating
• Peer-to-peer teaching to engage learners

Drawing on the knowledge of the participants and having open-ended discussions in addition to educating on the basics of intangible cultural heritage is central for reflection, so that transformative learning experiences can happen. Taking more of a guiding role as an educator gives the participants the opportunity to be the experts in the room depending on the intangible cultural heritage theme that is being discussed.

In the case of University of Eastern Finland’s pilot where villagehood was the main theme, villagers were treated as the experts of their own intangible cultural heritage from the start, even though at this stage they didn’t yet fully realize their own intangible cultural heritage and the value it holds. This is why more of a community-based and participatory approach was the best way to carry out our goal of promoting and preserving villagehood related themes of intangible cultural heritage. We built an exhibition with stories and photographs with the villagers as both the sources and guidance regarding the contents and structure of the exhibition.

Things that participants see as ordinary can be valuable intangible cultural heritage and this is what drawing on their knowledge can mean; participants of the village were experts of their own heritage, even though they didn’t see all of it as valuable or something that needs to be preserved. By discussing intangible cultural heritage and leading the participants to reflect, this view started to change, and they found that they actually have lots of heritage, that not only is important to preserve but also to promote and safeguard.

References

Kucharčíková, A., & Tokarčíková, E. (2016). Use of participatory methods in teaching at the university. TOJSAT, 6(1), 82–90

Ohman, J., & Ohman, M. (2013). Participatory approach in practice: an analysis of student discussions about climate change. Environmental Education Research, 19(3), 324–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2012.695012

Butterwick, S., & Roy, C. (2020). Finding voice and engaging audiences: The Power of Arts-Based Community Engagement. In Doing Critical and Creative Research in Adult Education (pp. 89-). BRILL. https://doi.org/10.1163/j.ctv2gjwzkt.14