Participatory Methodologies as People-Centered Social Innovation: Listening to Voices of People in Policy Practice

Abstract

Participatory methodology is an important methodological paradigm to understand the diversity and plurality of people’s knowledge. Through a policy study, this article explores the creativity and dynamism of participatory methodology to center people and their voices, and conceptualises the same as people-centered social innovation (PCSI). The process of engagement elucidated in the article is not only a new way of performing research but also a process of co-creating tangible outcomes of the research in the form of a policy which affects the life and livelihood of the community in question. The empirical evidence is drawn from the study referred to here, ‘Compensation Policy and its Implementation Plan for Project Affected Fisherfolk of Mumbai Coastal Road Project (South)’. The article highlights the use of an optimal mix of different participatory tools and the nature of community engagement as social innovation in understanding the experiences of the fisherfolk and their lives and livelihoods and how it was impacted by the said project, subsequently co-creating a compensation policy for the affected communities. The approach adopted in the study attempts to reimagine empirical studies with a social innovation frame as ‘doing’ people-centered social innovation, which gives voice and visibility to the project-affected fishing communities in particular and marginalised actors in general in policy and practice in claiming their rights and entitlements. Through this process of co-production of knowledge, the study captured the multi-faceted impact of the project on the lives and livelihoods of various actors in the value chain, thereby paving the way for individualized compensation rather than household compensation, as is the case with many compensation policies in vogue.

1. Introduction

The micro-contexts of people’s lives are shaped by complex and intersecting power relations embedded in the realities of their daily lives. The context of this situated lifeworld is a site of experiential knowledge that is often unrecognised and undervalued within the mainstream ideas of knowledge production. Listening to this intersectional local knowledges is a commitment to people-centeredness and is a way of acknowledging and assigning values to the hopes, dreams and aspirations of local communities. Contemporary literature on social innovations recognises ‘the need to combine ideas of the centrality of people and the social-relational dimensions of social innovations in an organic way’ [1]. These conceptualisations, while recognising the centrality of people and their knowledge, recognise that prevalent power relations operate as barriers to social change. A people-centered approach both in methodology and in the practice of social innovation is, therefore, a powerful way to address the multidimensional concerns that confront us today worldwide [2] and is recognised as a way to co-produce knowledge with local people and communities. Such complexities of marginalities call for approaches and pedagogies that respond to and capture people’s voices that are embedded in their everyday realities.

Participatory methodologies offer a dynamic and creative shift in approaching studies aimed at capturing the above complexities not only as a method of enquiry but also as a tool for community mobilising, resulting in informed participation and collective action for a desired change. It is about pro-poor professionalism and learning about and from people [3]. As participatory methodologies are rooted in the construction and reconstruction of power, the methodology advances a pathway in research and practice to grasp the contextual experiences and knowledge and evokes participation of local communities in developing co-created solutions. Visual tools and participatory approaches enable local communities to express and analyse complex patterns of power relations, comparisons, estimates, valuations, and causality across an astonishing range of topics, from social and census maps of communities to causal and linkage diagrams of causes and effects of poverty, to seasonal analyses of work, income, debt, expenditures, and much more [3].

This article highlights the relevance of participatory methodology as an alternative methodological and ideological approach to social innovation, drawing from a policy study in the city of Mumbai. Here, social innovation is referred to as a process of addressing social challenges in three major areas such as (i) efforts to satisfy human needs, (ii) empowering individuals and groups, and (iii) contributing to change in social relations [4]. Thus, the attempt is to juxtapose the centrality of people in participatory methodologies of inquiry over the ideas of social innovation as a strategic approach to address social and economic marginalities.

The study referred to here was undertaken by the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) at the invitation of Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), which is the local self-government institution governing the city of Mumbai, to assess the impact on the livelihoods of the fisherfolk engaged in fishing activities in the areas covered under a mega development project called Mumbai Coastal Road Project (MCRP) undertaken by the municipal corporation. The Mumbai Coastal Road Project is one of the important projects in the city’s ongoing efforts to address traffic concerns and enhance connectivity in the city. The Coastal Road is expected to reduce travel time between South Mumbai and the Western Suburbs of the city from nearly two hours to forty minutes with a 4+4 lane freeway. The entire Mumbai Coastal Road Project is divided into two parts, i.e., south and north of the existing Bandra Worli Sea link. The BMC has undertaken construction of the southern part of MCRP, stretching 10.58 km. The operational work of the project was started in 2018 and was expected to be completed by the end of 2023. However, for various operational reasons, only a part of MCRP (South) was opened to the public on 11 March 2024. The remaining work is expected to be completed before the end of 2024.

The project covers locations where several active fishing communities engage in fishing activities as their traditional means of livelihood. Since the project is being constructed on the coastline in these locations, it has obstructed access to the fishing sites both on the intertidal areas of the coast where shallow water fishing is being practised by the local fishing community and the sea by fishing boats. In addition to this, the fisherfolk have claimed that the reclamation and construction work has led to a significant reduction of the catch in the area. Against this backdrop, a multidisciplinary team was constituted to undertake a comprehensive study of the fishing community engaged in livelihood activities in the project sites, primarily operating in two specific locations, Worli Koliwada and Lotus Jetty near Haji Ali Dargah. The team consisted of three senior researchers from TISS with expertise in community development, gender and livelihoods and economic analysis and supported by a team of field researchers. A comprehensive study was designed to explore the lifeworld of fisherfolk in the context of disruptions in livelihoods for the traditional fishing communities affected by the project.

The primary goal was to develop a compensation policy that suggests an appropriate compensation package based on a thorough assessment of the impact of the work related to the project on the lives and livelihoods of the fisherfolk affected by the project. Additionally, the study aimed to identify mechanisms for ensuring future livelihood security and capacity development, considering the existing skills, knowledge, and aspirations of the community. The proposed compensation package co-created through this study is intended to improve the current conditions of work and livelihood engagement for the affected fishing community, in addition to the compensation for lost opportunities. By actively engaging with the project-affected fisherfolk (PAF), this process contributes to pursuing sustainable development approaches. Moreover, an attempt has been made to align the process with the IFAD’s sustainable livelihoods framework and UN Sustainable Development Goals.

The empirical evidence of this article is drawn from the study referred to here, “Compensation Policy and its Implementation Plan for Project Affected Fisherfolk of Mumbai Coastal Road Project (South)”. Data were collected from the different actors along the fishing value chain to include all actors from two project-affected sites, i.e., Lotus Jetty and Worli Koliwada. This article is primarily based on the qualitative empirical data collected from 109 value chain actors and actor groups along the fishing value chain using participatory tools and approaches. The focus of this article, however, is on the relevance of the usage of participatory methodology to broaden the scope of the policy assessment and outcome.

The subsequent presentation of the article thus explores people-centered social innovation as a methodological alternative to knowledge production and change management through the following broad sections. Section 2 presents a critical review of the literature on social innovation, with an attempt to conceptualise participatory methodologies as people-centered social innovation. Section 3 describes the methodological approach adopted for the study, particularly the participatory methodology, which forms the core of the people-centered social innovation for research and action as conceptualised in the article. Section 4 presents the results where the different participatory methodologies used in the study are elucidated in centering the concerns of the fisherfolk in the design of compensation policy for the loss of livelihoods for the fisherfolk impacted by the Mumbai Coastal Road Project (South). Section 5 presents the discussion and concludes the article by delving deeply into the linkages between participatory methodology and social innovation. This section identifies the emerging link of participatory methodology as a people-centered social innovation, with its focus on centering the voices of people and providing a space for participation, which are the key drivers for people-centered social innovation.

2. Conceptualising Participatory Methodologies as Social Innovation

The study is aimed at exploring the pre-existing as well as consequential vulnerabilities of the fishing community affected by MCRP. The study adopted a combination of participatory methodologies and people-centered social innovation (PCSI) as an approach to evolve an inclusive and comprehensive compensation policy by taking into consideration the multi-dimensional and intersectional marginalities. In the light of the overall objective of the study, it is necessary to delve into conceptual as well as theoretical discourses on vulnerabilities and marginalities associated with the dominant development process as well as situate the idea of PCSI to bring to the foreground the importance of people’s knowledge. Hence, it is important that the intersectional impact of multiple factors related to social, economic and political spheres of life of communities are put at the center for discussion on understanding their marginalities in the specific context being discussed.

The pre-existing vulnerabilities experienced by fishing communities, which were exacerbated by the impact of the project, necessitate a careful and innovative analysis. From the existing literature, it can be elucidated that PCSI bears significant potential in addressing structural issues in society [1,5,6,7]. The need is to go beyond traditional approaches to poverty and promote social innovation by specifically bringing these multi-dimensional and intersectional marginalities to the forefront [5]. In the above work, authors discuss that “exclusion from developmental and societal progress is the reason for marginality which is a root cause of poverty”. Poverty disproportionately affects some vulnerable groups more than others depending on other intersecting identities such as race, gender, religion, caste, etc., enhancing their experience of marginalities. This argument was supplemented in a study [2] that explicated the interrelationship within the context of rural, rurality and social innovation, that aims to highlight how the caste, class, race, gender and ethnicity interface with rural poverty and marginalities impinging on the processes of innovation. The paper stresses the need for recognising strategies and innovations grounded on the conditions of specific groups and communities and their own knowledge and rhythm within complex rural contexts that needs to be recognized as social innovation. Authors argue that the current development models are ignoring complexities in the rural societies and highlight the contribution of feminist and postcolonial theories to develop the understanding of social innovation in rural societies and suggest an inclusive approach for addressing the complexities in rural communities. By highlighting the lifeworld, rurality, and importance of indigenous knowledge amongst rural communities, the paper argues for the people-centered approach of social innovation. While the above work refers to the rural contexts of intersectional marginalities, several parallels can be drawn to the conditions of marginality in the case of urban fishing communities referred to in the present study.

Roots of such conceptualisation can be identified in the classic work by Chambers in his book titled Revolutions in Development Inquiry, in the chapter titled ‘Microenvironments: Observing the Unobserved’, which comprehensively explores the often-unnoticed dynamics of agricultural ecosystems by highlighting their importance for nutrition, livelihoods and sustainability [3]. Further, the author critically analyses the role of microenvironments for providing various benefits to serve as resources in the times of lean seasons to offer potential ways for sustainable growth. Additionally, the author stresses the need for paradigm shifts by advising practitioners to recognise and support the complexities of such microenvironments to foster participatory learning and a farmer-centered approach. What this essentially means is to emphasise the importance of participatory learning and people-centered development in bringing sustainable changes in society.

People-centered development can be “produced in collaborative arenas which bring socially desirable outcomes by adopting processes that put faith in diverse forms of knowledge” [6]. While examining the intersection of people-centered development and social innovation, Hulgård and Shajahan coined the term people-centred social innovation (PCSI), bringing centrality of people in social innovation discourses beyond the institutions and innovators concerned [1]. By presenting the intervention of collaborative learning and action by Tata Institute of Social Sciences in its immediate neighbourhood, the authors highlight how people-centered development promotes community engagement, interdisciplinary collaboration and empowerment. Overall, the article is an important source for identifying the theoretical underpinnings and practical application of people-centered development for leading inclusive social development. PCSI is conceptualised as a combination of ideas of people-centeredness in development discourse as well as an emphasis on the social-relational dimensions of social innovation [1]. A people-centered orientation to social innovation is a powerful way to address the multi-dimensional challenges that confront policy makers, activists, and marginalised groups worldwide [7]. Different forms of knowledge of local actors are significant in the process of people-centered and grassroots social innovations [8], leading to decolonising the concept of ‘mainstream’ social innovation. Thus, participatory methodologies are considered as a key construct within PCSI to help in center-staging the voices of the marginalized communities not only in implementing development programmes but also in co-creating knowledge through participatory research. Participatory tools are thus community-driven and simplified to co-create knowledge that breaks the knowledge hierarchy between ‘scientific’ and researcher-driven knowledge and ‘people’s knowledge’ which is people-driven. This further is a way forward for expanding people’s agency towards empowerment in the process of development. Development is about change. Does empowerment and participation imply specific kinds of people-centered change, and if so, for whom [9]? This article thus covers the ground to understand these nuances through the application of participatory methodology and people-centered social innovation in co-creation of knowledge that drives action leading to the reclamation of rights and entitlements of the affected community.

3. Methodology

The study adopted a mixed-methods approach, where the quantitative components of the study were used to collect empirical data related to fish catch, days of work, earnings lost and other direct economic dimensions. The qualitative part adopted participatory methodologies as an alternative paradigm to co-produce an understanding of disruptions to livelihoods through the embeddedness of power, roles and realities at the grassroots. The participatory tools were thematically organised to capture the different livelihood components and were implemented with a segmental and spatial approach from a gendered and intersectional understanding.

The underlying assumption in using the participatory tools was to elicit the experiences, views, aspirations and struggles of the fishing communities in decision-making processes in evolving the compensation policy. The local urban complexities of the project-affected fisherfolk needed methodologies that respond to and capture people’s voices that are embedded in their everyday realities. Participatory methodologies, therefore, offered a dynamic and creative shift in methodological diversity that is not only a method of inquiry but also a tool for knowledge co-production along with local communities. The participatory tools and approaches used in the study, specifically related to livelihoods assessment, were adapted from various sources [10,11].

Participatory Tool Development and Implementation

In true resonance with the participatory ideals of the methodology, the tools of the research were also co-constructed along with the community in a two-stage process. The first stage included the use of some popular participatory tools referred to here as primary tools, such as transect walk, community mapping, seasonal calendar and daily activity schedule, all aimed at undertaking a situational analysis of the livelihoods context. This process helped the researchers to gain important insights into the areas which need deeper exploration in stage two of the process. Influenced by a sustainable rural livelihoods framework [12], different livelihood components are organized accordingly.

Tools used in the second stage, designated as secondary tools, were co-constructed with the community members to capture various processes in the value chain that needed specific tools to capture the actor voices. Specific tools co-constructed are presented in Figure 1.

After developing an understanding about the livelihood contexts including social, cultural and economic dimensions using the primary tools, nuances of livelihood engagement by various value chain actors were analysed using a battery of tools developed under three broad components such as (1) Production and Exchange Activities, (2) Livelihood Assets and Strategies, and (3) Gender and Intersectionalities.

The participatory methods used in the study were community-based methods for collaborative understanding and decision-making with visuals, including chart papers, pebbles, etc., and were largely group activities. The use of this methodology was part of the shift from things to people, from top–down to bottom–up, from standard to diverse, from control to empowerment [3].

Table 1. Number of Groups to which the Tools were Administered.

	Components	Tools Used	No. of Groups (6–10 Members) in Each Group
Primary Tools	Livelihood Context	Transect Walk	2
		Community Mapping	2
		Seasonal Calendar	3
		Daily Activity Schedule	1
Secondary Tools	Livelihood Assets and Strategies	Boat Typology Matrix	2
		Fishing Net Profiling	2
		Market Transect	2
		Sea Visit	1
	Production and Exchange Activities	Value Chain Analysis	8
		Market Mobility Map	1
		Marketing Checklist	6
		Cash Inflow Outflow Calendar	12
	Gender and Intersectionalities	Gender Role Mapping	6
		Access and Control Matrix	2

provides the list of primary and secondary tools adopted in the study with the number of groups against each tool.

A purposive sampling technique was used to implement the above tools with various actors along the fishing value chain. Along with the above participatory tools, 39 in-depth individual interviews and 12 group interviews were conducted as part of the qualitative study. Overall, the participatory methods helped in developing a collective understanding of the rhythms and struggles of the lives of fisherfolk in the project-affected areas. Here, the participatory methodologies were considered not as a complementary components of study but used as a primary means to value the people’s voices as well as to co-create the knowledge essential for capturing the impact of the project and articulating the aspirations of the community, thereby signifying a methodological and social innovation.

It was thus a journey towards uncovering “people’s knowledges” vis-a-vis the local government’s ‘scientific’ understanding of the situation of the fisherfolks. This was possible through implementing participatory tools, which are essential tools for enquiry that facilitate discussion and consensus on the theme through visual participatory techniques, including diagramming, mapping, matrix, etc. This enables the local actors to discover their views and simplify complex information. For example, through the daily activity schedule, where a visual clock was made on chart paper by the people themselves, they could not only see and draw their daily activities but could also understand how much time women and men spend on household chores, productive functions including fishing-related activities, and other routine engagements. These tools thus also help in the consciousness-raising and mobilising of local communities.

The ethical considerations applied in this study evolved from a southern epistemological paradigm of working in a non-hierarchical relationship with communities. Active participation of the community in co-creation of participatory tools for the study, as explained in the sub-section on participatory tool development and implementation, elucidates the ethical consideration as an inherent part of the research process. Further, the co-design of the outcome of the study, say, the compensation plan and engagement of FRAC in all of the processes in co-designing the plan, elaborates the organic conception of ethical practice adopted in the present study.

4. Results: Key Processes and Methodologies in Participatory Decision-Making

This section summarises the results that emerged from the study and the participatory processes undertaken in designing the compensation plan. It also emphasises the importance of a clear participatory methodology that considers the local micro-context and rhythms of people’s lives. This section, therefore, tries to explain both the situatedness and importance of participatory processes for desired outcomes, in this case, the compensation policy that was being discussed and co-evolved with the fisherfolk at every stage. The participatory processes here involved both participatory community interactions and assessments through participatory tools, as well as creating a democratic space for multi-stakeholder decision-making. The Fisherfolk Rehabilitation and Compensation (FRAC) Committee was a body created as a consultative space, both for the project and the study. The FRAC consisted of representation from fisherfolk along with BMC/local government and the research team. This was an important space for discussing the research in various phases, including tool development, sharing of study findings, and the evolution of the policy for different actors along the fishing value chain. This continued to be an important space even after the study and in the disbursement of the compensation package, ensuring inclusivity and grievance redressal.

The community processes involved interactions and assessment of the livelihoods from people’s perspectives through the use of various participatory tools. One of the first steps was to identify the diverse actors along the fishing value chain and then assess the project’s impact on them. Using a variety of participatory tools, the value chain actors were identified as Nakhwa (the boat owners), Tandel (the boat drivers), Khalashi (the workers in the boats), the women hand pickers (those who hand pick fish for their livelihoods from the inter-tidal zones) and the fish sellers. The differential impact of the development project on the livelihoods of these actors was understood through various participatory tools and approaches. Intrinsic to this effort was to empower the local fishing communities to participate in the various phases of the compensation policy. Thus, this process resulted in the co-creation of knowledge regarding the livelihood vulnerabilities, including pre-existing and project-induced. This led to a co-created compensation plan, strengthened through community discussions and discussions with FRAC.

The participatory tools used in each of the livelihood components and their relevance in participatory assessment and decision-making in the compensation policy are outlined in the following section.

4.1. Understanding the Livelihoods Context

An initial understanding of the community and its surroundings was crucial to gaining a contextual understanding of the fisherfolk community, including the spatial dynamics. With the help of community representatives, the team of researchers gained entry into the community, initiated conversations, and collectively evolved strategies for the data collection. Participatory tools adopted in this stage included transect walk, community mapping, seasonal calendar, and daily activity schedule. The researchers undertook two transect walks in the community, aimed at observing the crucial locations in the community, key institutions like markets, community halls, offices of the fisherfolk cooperative society, and the general built environment in the community. Subsequently, a community mapping was conducted with the help of community members and facilitated by a team of researchers to gather the socio-economic and cultural context of the community along with a spatial understanding of the site where the research was being conducted. The mapping exercise was implemented using a participatory approach so that the respondents led the definition of spaces, boundaries, and regions on the map. The participants in the mapping contributed by sharing their insights to identify crucial landmarks, community resources, infrastructure in the community, religious places and their cultural significance, social hierarchy, fishing zones, fish landing stations, etc. This was sketched on a commonplace within the community and later represented on a map. This exercise resulted in co-creating a detailed map of the Worli Koliwada (a fisherfolk community), which helped the researchers to better understand the site and provided important information regarding navigation and location.

The daily activity schedule is a tool used to identify and understand various activities performed by community members in their everyday life. It also helps understand the gendered division of labour and provides crucial information about the duration of their work, time taken for each activity, and changes in duration and patterns of working across different seasons. Figure 2 provides one such map of daily routines captured from the fisherwomen in the locality. It was found that each participant had a different routine depending on their role in the value chain along with seasonality. The tool was invaluable in understanding the varied dimensions of the community, more especially the gendered dynamics.

A seasonal calendar tool was used to understand the seasonal variations in fishing activities and the levels of income earned across the months in a year. By implementing a seasonal calendar (

Table 2. Seasonal Calendar of Fisherfolk Production and Exchange Activities.

Months	Income	Fishing Season	Imp Festivals	Major Fish Varieties
JAN	Medium	Fishing Season Ends by May		Hekru, Mushi, Bangda
FEB	Medium			Hekru, Mushi, Bangda
MAR	High		Holi/Festival of colours	Lobster, Khajra
APR	High			Ghol, Prawns
MAY	High			Ghol, Prawns, Bilja
JUN	Low/Nil	Net Making, Maintenance, Boat Repair, Etc.		Restricted/No Fishing
JUL	Low/Nil			Restricted/No Fishing
AUG	Very High	Fishing Season Starts from August	Narali Purnima (a local festival) & Ganpati Festival	Lobster, Prawns, Surmai
SEP	Very High			Lobster, Prawns, Surmai, Bilja
OCT	Very High		Navratri	Prawns, Kolambi, Pomfret
NOV	Very High		Diwali	Prawns, Kolambi, Pomfret
DEC	Medium		Christmas	Pakat, Bangda

), the researchers were able to understand the key periods in the lives of the fisherfolk, the periods of high catch and lean catch, periods of repair and maintenance of boat nets and fishing equipment, and income fluctuations, among other things. This enabled identifying the seasonality of opportunities and vulnerabilities associated with fishing activities. The tool had been crucial in understanding different dimensions of artisanal fishing to draw the policy framework considering the seasonal fluctuations in resources, income, and market conditions. The months of June and July are non-fishing months primarily to protect fish species during their breeding season. This period is used to perform routine maintenance and repairs of boats, as well as the cleaning, repairing, and making of nets. This is also a time when household incomes drop, and women fish sellers travel to wholesale markets in the city of Mumbai, like Crawford Market, to buy fish for sale in their local markets. This is followed by the key fishing season spreading across nearly four months, which begins with Narali Purnima, an important festival of the fishing community. This period brings maximum earnings to the fisherfolk families, so much so that after the season, they often go on several-day leisure trips and pilgrimages with the earnings they gain during this period. The winter months do not see much catch or earnings, and it is the summer period beginning around Holi, the festival of colours, that catch increases once again.

4.2. Livelihood Assets and Strategies

Gaining deeper insights into the livelihood assets owned or used by the fisherfolk and the strategies adopted by them was of crucial significance. The team used participatory tools such as boat typology matrix, net profiling, sea visit and market transect.

Net profiling was implemented with Khalashis or the workers in the fishing value chain, and net-makers over three days. The tool aimed to gather detailed information about every kind of net used, including size, utility, place of purchase, price, durability, kinds of fish caught in each of the net types, etc. Through a net profiling exercise, detailed information was sought on each type of net used for fishing, including its cost, usage pattern, damages due to the construction work, hindrance in spreading net in the sea, the average catch it can bring in different seasons, etc. These details helped in gaining insights into local fishing patterns and the usage of fishing nets for different types of fish species, thereby helping to understand the loss of livelihood to the fishers during the obstructions posed due to the construction activities.

A boat typology matrix was used to understand the different kinds of boats, their engines, materials, strengths and weaknesses, crew capacity, cargo capacity, carrying power, quantum of catch they could obtain, etc. As the boat is one of the key assets for fishing, the matrix allowed the researchers to understand the role of different elements in determining a boat’s usefulness to a given route/trip/task. Several visits to different landing stations, interviews with fisherfolk engaged in different roles, observations, and reviews of government records were the key data sources used to prepare the matrix. This has provided a structural framework to categorise boats based on their type and features. It helped in comparing the boat type and income earned from different types of boats. This tool had been one of the major sources of information to formulate the policy framework (

Table 3. Boat Typology Matrix.

Name	Length × Width	No. of Crew	Engine Cylinder	Engine Horsepower	Diesel Usage	Tank Cap (L)	Storage Cap (Ton)	Max Days per Trip	Ice Capacity
Hodi	18–20 × 3–4	1–3	0	0	0	0	0	1	0
Comet/Single cylinder	20–22 × 4–5	4	1	3.5–5.0	2 L	10 L	0.7–0.8	1	0
Lister Engine/Single cylinder	22–25 × 4–5	4	1	10	3 L	10–12 L	1.0	1	0
2-cylinder boat	26 × 8.5–10.5	5–6	2	16–24	4–5 L	50–100 L	2.0	2	3 slab
3-cylinder boat	27 × 9–10.5	6–7	3	45	12–15 L	50 L	2.5–3.0	1–3	4–5 slab
4-cylinder boat	30–32 × 10–14	6–8	4	90–120	12–20 L	160 L	4.0	3–5	5 slab
6-cylinder	38 × 15	10–15	6	200–300	15–20 L	200–300 L	7.0–8.0	3–5	6–7 slab

).

A sea visit was conducted along with the fisherfolk in their fishing boats. The sea visit was not planned initially by the research team. However, the fisherfolk demanded that the researchers undertake a sea visit along with them so that the researchers would understand the navigational route, fishing processes and the issues likely to be caused by the coastal road project. They said, “you must join us and experience the sea as we visit the sea everyday, every season and every weather”. Even though it was challenging for the research team to undertake the sea visit without prior experience, the visit yielded valuable insights on various aspects of fishing, various types of equipment used in the process, the navigational route, challenges faced when the sea is rough, as well as some basic knowledge of the marine ecosystem. The visit also helped the researchers to understand the potential of infrastructural improvement required to sustain their livelihoods.

A market transect was conducted in the fish market to understand the local market conditions, its layout, capacity, trading practices, pricing, customer interactions, market dynamics and overall operations. This method involved direct interaction and discussion on-site with vendors in the market, especially the women fish sellers, the local customers and members of the market committee. The visit was accompanied by fisherfolk representatives who provided the context and facilitated the interactions. The visit enabled gaining deep insights into different aspects of the local market operations. This has been useful in considering concerns shared by the women fish sellers in view of the impact on sales and, thereby, the impact on their livelihoods. Data were collected using various visual means like chart papers and other means like drawing on the ground for the community to understand and see what they share. The participatory techniques used included mapping, diagramming, matrix, etc.

4.3. Production and Exchange Activities

Tools that helped in understanding the livelihood strategies and related economic dimensions included a detailed value chain analysis, market and mobility map, marketing checklist and cash inflow and outflow calendar. The market and mobility map was prepared with a combination of participatory discussion, mapping exercises, and in-depth interviews with fish sellers, fisherfolk and community members. It covered the local as well as city markets, the routes taken to reach them, the time and cost of transportation, price variations, market timings and schedules, different varieties of fish sold in the markets, etc. This provided a visual representation of market mobility and its operations, thereby giving valuable insights into the market dynamics concerning space, mobility, pricing, etc.

The cash inflow and outflow chart was used to estimate the income and expenditure of the artisanal fisherfolk over the year. The cash flow chart was implemented by conducting interviews with various stakeholders and checking the financial records with some of the community members. This included gathering information on income sources from fishing and other allied activities, as well as expenses for household essentials such as food, clothing, education, health, electricity, mobile, etc. While these data corroborated the seasonal nature of income, they also highlighted the fact that there are regular household expenses which need to be met irrespective of the seasonal income they obtain, and therefore the compensation policy needs to take care of the same.

The marketing checklist was used to understand the processes involved in sales and marketing after the arrival of catch at the landing stations. The tool involved a participatory listing of the major products/species being sold, as well as a set of questions on the roles of different persons, selling techniques, price-setting mechanisms, etc. This checklist yielded results pertaining to marketing dynamics, leading to a greater understanding of the contemporary changes in the supply chain due to the impact of coastal road construction.

Value chain analysis was conducted with various impact groups to understand the different stages of value addition in the fishing process (refer Figure 3). This included pre-fishing, fishing, post-fishing, and selling. The analysis from this tool provided an understanding of the different actors engaged in fishing activities at different stages of the fishing value chain. The tool aided in understanding the role of each actor, the distribution of tasks, and their contribution in the fishing value chain.

4.4. Gender and Intersectionalities

A combination of gender role mapping and an access and control matrix was implemented to understand the gendered differences in fishing activities as well as access to resources in the community. Gender role mapping was used to understand the differential activities performed by women and men fisherfolk, e.g., who goes to the sea, who sorts the fish after it reaches the shore, who takes and sells the fish in the market. However, the access and control matrix was used to understand how women and men use and control different resources in fishing and related activities. This combined analysis provided deep insights into gender disparities and access to resources, highlighting inequalities and the need for potential interventions for equitable access to opportunities and resources in the community.

5. Discussion and Conclusions: Opening up Spaces for Voice and Influence in Policy Practice

This article highlights the importance of participatory methodologies in policy and practice and how they particularly helped in shaping the compensation policy by taking into account the insights from multiple value chain actors in the fishing community. This helped in co-designing a compensation policy aligned with the interests, needs and priorities of the local fishing communities, inspiring methodological pluralism in a policy space. This participatory process, therefore, not only captured the voices of the actors and the differential impact the project had on them but also facilitated their participation in the evolution of a situated compensation policy that intends to offset some of the project’s impacts.

Participatory approaches and tools also enabled the inclusion of invisibilised groups in the fishing value chain, such as the women fish pickers. The women fish pickers that perform hand picking in the shallow waters along the intertidal zones were not considered fishers, and they never had fishing licences, which systemically excluded them from the policies in very many ways and more so in the compensation policy. It was the implementation of the participatory value chain tool which presented the multitude of roles played by the value chain actors, including the women hand pickers in the intertidal zone. The researchers, along with the women fisherfolk and the fisherfolk cooperative society, advocated for their inclusion in the compensation package, which the local government accepted.

The participatory methodologies and processes also led to the inclusion of the voices of people, e.g., the voices of boat owners and boat workers during the implementation of the sea visit, where the fisherfolk pointed out to the research team how the lesser span between pillars of the sea bridge connecting the Coastal Road with the existing sea link leads to risk in navigating boats during rough weather as well as when towing back any boat that may break down in the sea. Such nuances were not recognised while planning the said development project, which relied heavily on the technical and expert committee reports. However, the space created by this study opened up channels of communication for the fisherfolk with the local government. This was supplemented by the insights from the sea visit, which made it possible for the government to increase the span between the pillars to 120 feet from the earlier planned 60 feet despite the need to make structural and architectural changes in the overall project plan along with a significant cost escalation of the project. A variety of participatory tools employed also helped in devising the compensation policy constituting different compensation packages for boat owners with different engine capacities, which again was not part of the compensation envisaged by the project holders, as well as previous policies on similar projects. Participatory approaches thus have the potential to deepen grassroots democracy, leading to people-centered social innovation that is founded on people’s knowledge, articulation of their voices, and facilitation of grassroots democracy and empowerment through co-created processes.

Implementing participatory methodologies and tools in this project is about moving away from mainstream policy studies where impact is largely understood through household surveys using large questionnaires, leading to household compensation. The methodological pluralism here is also about capturing the voices of all the primary actors and visualising their work along the fishing value chain. Our work thus contributed towards deepening the existing understanding of social innovation and expanding the scope of people-centered social innovation in research and action in a policy space, by looking at participatory methodology as a pathway for ‘doing’ people-centered social innovation.

One of the notable outcomes of people-centered social innovation in the project is the paradigm shift it has been able to bring in compensation policy, where a framework of household compensations is replaced by individual compensation depending on the roles each member of the household performs in the entire fishing value chain. By integrating the insights from the local fishing community, the study attempted to align with the global goals of sustainable development and livelihood security of the local fishing communities of Mumbai. Each tool served a distinct objective to capture a multifaceted impact on the life and livelihoods of project-affected fisherfolk. Diverse voices captured in the study depicted the stark realities of the lives of local fisherfolk, including their everyday lives and struggles. For example, the following voice captured in our sea visit highlighted their everyday vulnerabilities.

“Sometimes, there are cyclones, sometimes there are huge waves due to the rough sea we venture into. There is even the risk of death in this profession.”

—A Khalashi from Lotus Jetty

New knowledges evolved from the study has been articulated as new emergences [13]. Participatory methodologies therefore are a methodological shift to capture people’s voices and co-produce ‘knowledges’. It is a simple commitment that all are listened to where it privileges the voices and knowledge of people with a commitment to co-produce knowledge and work towards social value that serves the interest of the marginalised groups.

We argue that the future of social innovation lies in centering participation of people on the margins to bring about sustainable social transformation and improve their contextual realities. Using participatory methodologies not only helped us to get insights from people but also created a common and collective space for discussion, participation and dialogue, leading to the policy outcome and its implementation. “What distinguishes social innovations from other manifestations of social change is that they are driven by certain actors in an intentionally targeted manner with the goal of better satisfying or answering needs and problems than is possible based on established practices” [14]. People-centered social innovation adds one more layer to the transformatory goals of social innovation by strengthening grassroots democracy. The participatory tools used enabled a collective space for the engagement of the diverse actors along the fishing value chain by collectivising them for discussion and dialogue. The systematic and intentional engagement with the local community through the participatory processes and methodologies with various actors and actor networks, including community-based organisations like formal and informal fishery collectives/co-operatives and other local institutions, opened up spaces for them to participate in the design of the compensation policy, leading to discussions, debates, negotiations and dialogue.

The story of the process of participation and social innovation is not complete without the challenges that may remain, including ensuring that everyone affected gets their due. Along with FRAC mentioned earlier, a Validation and Verification Committee and Grievance Redressal Committee were also formed. Participation of researchers in these committees helped to ensure that no one was left behind by virtue of some procedural inadequacies, but genuine cases needed some extraordinary efforts to be included for compensation. Thus, the achievements of the use of participatory methodologies and the active engagement of the researchers in evolving a policy that is inclusive and empowering are enough to demonstrate that social innovation and transformation are possible through creative methodological pluralism. No tools are intrinsically participatory in nature or spontaneously lead to empowerment. Multiple synergies are, therefore, required for a true process of social transformation.

Participatory methodologies can be a key point of entry. But on their own, they are not a panacea. For them to be transformative, a long-term engagement, sensitivity to professional concerns, institutionalisation in universities, research organisations and government departments, and, above all, sustained creative personal commitment are essential [3]. Here, participatory methodologies adopted in the study led to innovative practices in addressing the basic needs of the affected fisherfolk in gaining appropriate compensation for the losses they incurred due to the Coastal Road Project and having their demands for improving fishing infrastructure met in the long run. The process also led to empowering them to ensure that their voices are adequately reflected in a policy which, otherwise, is normally state-driven. Finally, negotiating for relational equity helped the fisherfolk to be significant stakeholders in policy formulation and implementation. This signifies people-centered social innovation that is transformative and empowering. Empowerment here could be affirmed as people’s ability to participate and understand the impact of the project and co-evolve a compensation policy for making better choices for compensation and the way forward [15]. Thus, empowerment through active participation and co-creation of knowledges provides a pathway for change and transformation that is owned by the people rather than expert-driven.