Participatory action and dual lens research

This article describes the exploratory and preparatory phase of a research project designed to use co-operative enquiry as a method for transformative and participatory action research into relations between donors and recipients in two developing countries, Bolivia and Bangladesh. It describes the origins of the idea, the conceptual challenges that the authors faced in seeking funding, and what they learned from this first phase. The authors analyse why the researchers, as well as the potential subjects of the research, were uncomfortable with the proposed methodology, including the challenges arising from their own positions and the highly sensitive nature of the topic. They explain why they decided to abandon the project, and they reach some tentative conclusions concerning the options for participatory action learning and research in development practice.

Participatory ethnography brings together strands of academic and local knowledge, transforming the positionality of both academic and local participants in the research site. The extent of citizen involvement in participatory (action) research and the ethical dilemmas for both academic and civil researchers have long been the subject of debate [Lenette, Caroline. 2022. Participatory Action Research: Ethics and Decolonization. New York: Oxford Academic]. Our paper focuses on how local participants manage their new knowledge and transformed ideologies in a local reality that remains highly (in)securitised. The research site presented in this paper is a small town in Hungary with a large Romani-speaking community. We organised monthly workshops in the town with the participation of academics, local Hungarian-Romani bilingual and Hungarian monolingual citizens. The present study is based on the findings of these workshops and on ethnographic work conducted by the academic participants with citizens not involved in the workshops. We draw attention to the fact that the dissemination of workshop results in the locality can be successful only if local citizens succeed in developing a transformative voice of their own which disrupts conventionalised discourse repertoires. The intersubjective dynamics between local v. non-local and participating v. non-participating actors determines the long-term sustainability and impact of participatory research projects.

Participatory Action Research (PAR) is a methodology often used in social sciences, which involves groups of people in action, reflection and iterative change. In PAR, ‘traditional’ researchers become participants, and people who comprise ‘traditional’ participants become researchers, facilitating cohesiveness and communication within the team. However, PAR is less used in healthcare, despite the complexity of providing and receiving health and social care. Development and testing of the delivery of new models of care is an area with increasing service-user participation, but often with no structured or formalised framework to embed end-users. This may be due in part to the complex ethical and governance systems in healthcare research, and the lack of practical guidance on using PAR as a research method within this context. We carried out a PAR project to develop and evaluate the implementation of a new model of care for the assessment and management of respiratory conditions in the community (MISSION ABC). The care model delivered a community-based multidisciplinary clinic involving healthcare staff from both primary and secondary care. Regular sessions were held for participants (including patients, healthcare staff, research staff) to discuss observations, reflections and suggestions for the development and delivery of the care model. At the end of the project, meetings were held with representatives from the different groups of participants to discuss overall views about the study and ethics and research governance challenges specifically. We present key perspectives from various stakeholders involved in the PAR process, highlighting benefits and challenges. Specific challenges relating to ethical and governance approvals encountered in the set-up and delivery of the project are described. These include the design of the study protocol, approaches to consent, presentation of study information within the current ethical and regulatory frameworks and maintaining the flexibility of study methods and roles of participants throughout the study period. Recommendations for improvement in the research pathway that PAR researchers could adopt to enable a meaningful and successful PAR approach are made, in addition to suggestions for overarching ethics and governance frameworks. Developing new models of healthcare benefits significantly from collaboration with stakeholders so that the design and delivery are feasible and acceptable to all. However, the current UK research approvals and governance frameworks present challenges to design and successfully deliver PAR studies in healthcare; we present possible solutions.

Children, Youth and Environments Vol. 14 No. 2 (2004) ISSN: 1546-2250 Youth Participatory Evaluation: A Field in the Making Sabo, Kim (2000). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 112 pages. $27.00. ISBN 0787970743. The objective of this slim but powerful volume is to share field experience about how, when and why to include children in participatory evaluation. It emerges from rapidly converging methods in community development, participatory action research and cognitive science and is underpinned by the need for greater inclusivity across all domains. Sabo carefully sets the stage for the contributions of leaders in the field by illustrating theories of community development through action research, participatory evaluation, positive youth development and the emergence of youth participatory evaluation. A group of leaders in the field of youth and child participation, including international researchers, evaluators and practitioners, gathered in June 1999 for the Children’s Participation in Community Settings conference, sponsored by Child watch International Research Network and the Growing Up in Cities project of the MOST program of UNESCO. Eventually three related conferences took place, culminating with a symposium on Youth Participation in Community Research and Evaluation in 2002. Each chapter in Sabo’s volume deals with one or more arguments for including youth participation in evaluation made during this conference. One key observation made in this book is that youth participation fundamentally changes relationships between youth, between adults, and between youth and adults, supporting all to perform in advance of their current level of development (Sabo 2001). An important assertion is that youth are best situated to collect data from other youth and therefore might produce data that is more valid and reliable than that collected by adults. Further, this more effective collection of data lends itself to actively changing, modifying 352 and adapting programs while they are in process, a form of participatory action research. One of the most significant contributions of this volume is to introduce or remind international scholars and professionals about the seminal role of Lev Vygotsky in participatory research and practice. A Russian educator and psychologist, Vygotsky worked with children in the1930s. In some ways, this collection mirrors an intentional Vygotskian learning environment, with the 2002 Youth Participation in Community Research and Evaluation conference as a performance and participatory evaluation tool, emerging from the collaborative research and practice of international experts working with children today. In the introductory article, “A Vygotskian Perspective on Youth Participatory Evaluation,” Sabo quotes Vygotsky’s work on the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) to explain that “’What is in the zone of proximal development today will be the actual developmental level tomorrow– that is, what a child can do with assistance today she will be able to do by herself tomorrow’” (1978, 87). Sabo cites her undergraduate mentor, Lois Holzman, a highly respected Vygotskian scholar and professional, who suggests that the ZPD is the continuously changing “distance” between being and becoming (2000, 88). As Vygotsky(1978) would say, people learn “by performing a head taller than they are” (102). Professionals in participatory research and practice recognize that the many ways group activities inform individual and group thinking are important characteristics of participation but difficult to measure. Vygotsky and his colleagues Luria and L’eontev developed Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) or socio-cultural activity theory to explain how collaborative performance, activity or learning leads to development. In this theoretical perspective, collaborative practices are situated within cultural and historical contexts. Rather than being easily parsed for further research into independent and dependent variables, these influences overlap, fade into, engage with and 353 supercede each other over time to co-create and mutually constitute learning environments. Barbara Rogoff (2003) suggests that human development is a process of people’s changing participation in the socio-cultural activities of their communities. She theorizes that children’s thinking tools are provided by culture and especially through more skilled partners in the ZPD, suggesting that these tools are both inherited and transformed by successive use in dynamic cultural changes. Babbie (2004) describes the role of researcher as resource and suggests that those affected by participatory action research should be responsible for its design (Whyte, Greenwood and Lazes 1991). In a similar vein, Gaventa (1991) believes...

In this paper we take inspiration from Levin’s (2003) provocation “can universities ever become a greenhouse for education in action research?” His assertion that creating action research learning opportunities within universities is possible becomes particularly relevant in the context of a changing Higher Degree Research (HDR) landscape, notably in Australia. The increasing emphasis on industry-focused doctorates and the demand for post-doctoral career pathways beyond academia necessitates a deeper understanding of supporting engaged and impact-oriented research training. To address these challenges, we present a reflexive discussion centred around the HDR Participatory Action Research (PAR) Collaborative—a year-long peer-learning initiative designed to cultivate a community of practice on transdisciplinary participatory research among graduate researchers at the University of Technology Sydney. This was conducted as a participatory action research project, with a systems-thinking orientation. We articulate lessons learned around the blockers and enablers for training HDR candidates engaged in participatory research to tackle wicked problems and ways to enhance HDR researcher development in this area, including the prototyping of new peer learning and mentoring approaches. By aligning with Levin’s emphasis on practical and useful knowledge, we highlight the importance of curriculum design for synchronous and asynchronous hybrid delivery, collective peer learning practices, and transdisciplinary orientations to research as crucial factors for success in action research programs within the academic context. By addressing the evolving needs of HDR training and research cultures, our study contributes to the ongoing dialogue on holistic and integrative research approaches and ways to support them within higher education.

When did sociologist Orlando Fals-Borda name his method Participatory Action Research (PAR), and what were the epistemological implications of this shift from action research to PAR? To address these questions, this article critically examines Fals-Borda’s ‘participatory turn’ —his epistemological shift from orthodox Marxism to the participatory paradigm—, which squarely underpinned the origins of PAR yet has hitherto remained unexplored in the literature. The article focuses on Fals-Borda’s transition from participation “by” to participation “with” the people, which occurred during a period of intense self-criticism after years of radical activism. Drawing on exhaustive archival research, it examines the collaborative systematisation of his method alongside an emerging constellation of participatory research practices. Thereby, it highlights the centrality of collaboration to the development of his work and demonstrates that Fals-Borda’s embrace of the participatory paradigm stemmed from rejecting the centrality of historical materialism in favour of a model of research which supports and sustains the conditions for collective analysis and action through harnessing the creativity and wisdom of marginalized peoples. It concludes that for all the innovations in tools and techniques of action-oriented methods, the ontology of participation is what fundamentally differentiates PAR from other instrumental or top-down forms of people’s participation in research.

This chapter focuses on the application of Research Oriented Action Research (RO-AR) to research inter-organizational collaboration within and across the public and non-profit sectors. RO-AR is a phenomenological action research methodology developed by Colin Eden and Chris Huxham (1996, 2006) which they and others have used to research aspects of management and organizations generally and inter-organizational collaboration specifically; the latter being the focus here. To that end, this chapter draws on a program of empirical research into governing, leading and managing collaborations that has been ongoing since 1989, and which has relied primarily on RO-AR. As a program of research, it is concerned with the development of conceptual knowledge that can inform practice and which has accumulated into the still evolving theory of collaborative advantage (TCA) (Huxham and Vangen 2005; Vangen and Huxham 2014). The aim in this chapter is to provide a brief introduction to RO-AR and to explore its applicability to research on collaboration. Action Research, of which RO-AR is a particular type, was pioneered in the United States in the 1940s, most notably by Kurt Lewin (1946). Lewin argued that research for social practice needs to be concerned with ‘the study of general laws … and the diagnosis of specific situations’ (36). He pointed, among other things, to the need to design methods for recording ill-structured data and to focus on the relationship between perception and action through taking an interpretist approach to research. In a similar vein, action research aimed at understanding organizations and organizational change began at the Tavistock Institute in the United Kingdom (UK) in 1947. With the aim of conducting research and developing knowledge, the Tavistock Institute developed new participative approaches to organization change and development. In the years that have followed, a number of related approaches have emerged including action science (Argyris, Putnam, and Smith 1985), action inquiry (Torbert 1976), action learning (Mwaluko and Ryan 2000; Revans 1982), appreciative inquiry (Cooperrider and Srivastva 1987; Cooperrider, Whitney, and Stavros 2008) and participatory action research (Argyris and Schon 1991; Whyte 1991). Given the growth in popularity of these kinds of research methods, the literature is unsurprisingly both large and somewhat confusing. Nevertheless, and notwithstanding inherent differences, these methods all involve learning from interventions in organizations with the purpose of bringing about change and advancing knowledge. A distinguishing feature between them is the relative emphasis on change (or practical transformation) and the development of more general knowledge (i.e. theory). The primary purpose of the systematic engagement with action in praxis may be the immediate development of an individual, an organization or a community (e.g. via appreciative inquiry or action learning) or it may be to inform the development of theory on the aspect of management or organizations that is being researched, as is the case with RO-AR. The validity of RO-AR, however, rests fundamentally on the intervention being useful in practice. This close relationship with practice enhances the potential of a theory ultimately developed to inform other contexts. Eden and Huxham distinguish RO-AR from other action research approaches in the following ways (2006: 388): • from organizational intervention projects that do not satisfy characteristics of rigorous research • from research within an organization that does not satisfy characteristics of action orientation • from forms of action research that do not have research output as their primary rasion d’etre. The aim of this chapter is to highlight key features of RO-AR and to show how it may be used to produce good research on collaboration. In what follows, we look at the relevance of RO-AR to research on collaboration, provide and account of the application of the method in developing the theory of collaborative advantage, along with an overview of issues pertaining to data capture and analysis. The chapter also offers a brief evaluation of the method and some thoughts on rigor and relevance for researchers who may wish to apply the methods in future research on collaboration.

Participatory action research is often informed by strength-based approaches such as appreciative inquiry. However, when social change and collective action appear to be difficult, feelings of powerlessness and suffering can arise. There is an ongoing debate on the place and importance of these so-called negative emotions within strength-based approaches. In a participatory action research project on citizen participation in the Netherlands we encountered a social and political context that was beyond our ability to change. We came to realize that change or action is not always possible in participatory action research and that ‘pushing’ for action can become a disempowering experience for those involved. In this article we share the moral dilemmas that we encountered and reflect on our own learning experiences as academic researchers. We argue that researchers need to anticipate upon these moral challenges by reflecting upon their personal position towards powerlessness and suffering. Nussbaum’s notion of compassion can help researchers to create space for these experiences and to acknowledge these experiences as sources of generative knowledge. Researchers should carefully navigate between fostering action and expressing compassion in participatory action research. With this article we aim to contribute to a care ethical perspective on participatory action research that acknowledges vulnerabilities and precariousness in research practices.

Introduction: While existing reflections on participatory action research (PAR) emphasize the benefits experienced by participants in such studies, they often fail to critically interrogate the PAR process. This gap underscores the significance of process-oriented papers that illuminate the dynamics, supports, and hurdles of PAR, crucial for aligning scholarly endeavors with its fundamental principles of equitable participation, social transformation, and reflexivity. This paper aimed to bridge these gaps by presenting insights from both older adults with age-related vision loss (ARVL) and university researchers, shedding light on their application of PAR principles during the initial stages of a project focused on identifying research priorities. Methods: The foundational PAR study, forming the basis of this paper, involved eight older adults aged 65 and above with ARVL. Additionally, three university researchers participated, including a faculty member and two students (one pursuing a PhD and the other an MSc). The PAR process encompassed three half-day meetings, dedicated to investigating how environmental factors (physical, social, cultural, political, and institutional) influence the engagement of older adults with ARVL in their daily activities. Following completion of the three half-day meetings, the university co-researchers conducted individual interviews with each older adult, as well as a collective reflexive exercise involving the university co-researchers, to delve into their personal journey through the PAR process, encompassing achievements, challenges, and encountered tensions. Results: The study’s outcomes were distilled into three central thematic domains: (1) attentiveness to power differentials; (2) realization of personal and social transformation; and (3) a steadfast commitment to reflexivity. Discussion: This paper endeavors to fill a void within the existing PAR landscape by providing process-oriented insights that spotlight the intricacies of the PAR journey, inclusive of encountered challenges. By candidly acknowledging these challenges, future scholars will be better equipped to harness PAR in a manner that is truly aligned with its core principles.

BACKGROUND: A rise in the number of elderly people in society increases the need for disease prevention and health promotion services as the growing figure entails more patients suffering from chronic illnesses, such as hypertension and diabetes. In order to prevent and control these non-communicable diseases, Participation Action Research (PAR) can be a powerful mechanism for engaging the elderly in PAR, and has the potential to provide a way to enhance the health of the elderly, consequently; it is necessary to design an appropriate health promotion model involving community participation.OBJECTIVE: This participation action research aims to develop a health promotion model integrating community participation for the prevention and control of hypertension and diabetes in the elderly and to implement a local intervention.METHODS: Mixed methodologies of mainly a qualitative approach and a supported quantitative approach with a questionnaire were employed. This was community-based participatory action research in which the researchers and community partners were the main participants. The PAR model was developed interactively in collaboration with the setting of local administration, the public sector, and the private sector. The process involved assessing the situation, taking action to promote community participation based on the analysis, implementing the solution, and testing the model and evaluating the model applying the After Action Review (AAR) approach.RESULTS: A health promotion model was developed and then piloted by the community team. The model is designed to improve the health behavior of the elderly; preventing and controlling hypertension and diabetes; providing continuous health education, especially regarding the importance of nutrition; physical activity; stress management; and facilitating the access of the vulnerable elderly to health services. The results showed that all the sectors, namely, families, schools, and temples, were involved in every stage of the research. The research results indicate that the model can build community health-promotion capacity, partnership development, community health plans, and community innovation and build a supportive environment.CONCLUSION: The paper illustrates that PAR has the potential to provide a way to make the significant role of community participation in a project for the prevention and control of hypertension and diabetes and for the promotion of healthy aging in a rural setting. Moreover, PAR can enhance program design and implementation based on the sharing of best practices and the active engagement of community members. In this way, the elderly can perceive benefits of group participation in enhancing their self-care ability, their sense of empowerment, and their ability to learn to prevent, control and sustain changes in their health behavior.

This qualitative study explores the transformative potential of Participatory Action Research (PAR) as a catalyst for empowering mathematics educators. The study highlights the experiences of the ten (10) in-service teachers who engaged in a yearlong PAR community engagement project. The focus was empowering the senior phase mathematics teachers with skills and knowledge to innovate and transform their teaching practices. This study is underpinned by two theories, namely Critical Emancipatory Research (CER) and Community of Practice (CoP). Data were collected through focus group discussions and reflection sessions. Therefore, the study focused on how teachers perceived the PAR approach and its influence on their practices. The findings revealed that PAR can restore working relationships, reignite the passion for teaching mathematics, unlock teachers’ full potential, and foster a sense of ownership and contribution within the educational field. Furthermore, PAR emerges as a powerful tool for providing meaningful learning experiences for mathematics educators. These findings advocate the strategic integration of PAR in promoting the scholarship of teaching and learning mathematics (SoTLM) and underscore its role in driving transformative change in educational practices. Keywords: Approach, Community of Practice, Participatory Action Research, Transformation

To facilitate staff transition from an open-plan to a two-cot neonatal intensive care unit design. In 2012, an Australian regional neonatal intensive care unit transitioned from an open-plan to a two-cot neonatal intensive care unit design. Research has reported single- and small-room neonatal intensive care unit design may negatively impact on the distances nurses walk, reducing the time they spend providing direct neonatal care. Studies have also reported nurses feel isolated and need additional support and education in such neonatal intensive care units. Staff highlighted their concerns regarding the impact of the new design on workflow and clinical practice. A participatory action research approach. A participatory action group titled the Change and Networking Group collaborated with staff over a four-year period (2009-2013) to facilitate the transition. The Change and Networking Group used a collaborative, cyclical process of planning, gathering data, taking action and reviewing the results to plan the next action. Data sources included meeting and workshop minutes, newsletters, feedback boards, subgroup reports and a staff satisfaction survey. The study findings include a description of (1) how the participatory action research cycles were used by the Change and Networking Group: providing examples of projects and strategies undertaken; and (2) evaluations of participatory action research methodology and Group by neonatal intensive care unit staff and Change and Networking members. This study has described the benefits of using participatory action research to facilitate staff transition from an open-plan to a two-cot neonatal intensive care unit design. Participatory action research methodology enabled the inclusion of staff to find solutions to design and clinical practice questions. Future research is required to assess the long-term effect of neonatal intensive care unit design on staff workload, maintaining and supporting a skilled workforce as well as the impact of a new neonatal intensive care unit design on the neonatal intensive care unit culture. A supportive work environment for staff is critical in providing high-quality health care.

There is a large and growing number of participatory action research (PAR) programs, both with youth and with the general population. There is significant literature on evaluation methodology, including on making evaluations more participatory (a topic addressed elsewhere in this issue). However, rarely are the two linked: there are very few published works on evaluations of PAR programs or PAR evaluation methodology. The lack of focus on evaluation of PAR is particularly troubling given the shift towards foundation and federal funding of ‘science-based,’ or rigorously evaluated, interventions with youth. Evaluation is becoming increasingly necessary in establishing interventions as legitimate. If PAR is to progress along the path towards prominence and viability with respect to youth-oriented intervention, then evaluation of PAR is the map needed to follow that path.

Participatory action research (PAR) is characterised by processes of community partnership and respectful attempts to address and mitigate power relationships between researchers and those affected by research. Further, these approaches to research seek to not only understand social phenomena within communities but also to affect change or action in and with community members. However, PAR projects are diverse in their theoretical underpinnings and the political economies of their research and action initiatives. These underpinnings are often located on a continuum between the participatory/Freirian and action-oriented/Lewinian ideologies of PAR approaches. In this paper, we reflect on the processes involved in a four-year PAR partnership with a rural community recreation committee located in Central Ontario, Canada. We discuss the process chronologically, including how we acquired and managed resources; developed programs and policies, and; monitored and evaluated outcomes. Drawing from field notes pertaining to the research partnership, we trace the way our research and action initiatives oscillated between these theoretical/philosophical approaches while we attempted to engage in the processes of empowerment and ongoing research and action. While much of the literature describes PAR processes rooted in either a Freirian or Lewinian tradition, we suggest that fluid movement within and between the two was a productive and enriching process. In doing so, we advance the idea of shifting along the PAR continuum as a framework for thinking about the methodological and logistical practices involved in PAR.

The notion of teachers studying their own practice and working with students and community partners to address issues of inequality in schooling is the radical root of many forms of educational practitioner inquiry. But this emancipatory foundation of practitioner inquiry is currently under threat by efforts to limit the focus of this engaged form of knowledge generation to narrowly defined and decontextualized problems, disconnected from critiques of unjust and inequitable social conditions. Participatory action research (PAR) provides a framework for recapturing the potential of practitioner inquiry to bring about meaningful change. PAR expands the notion of researcher to include a range of stakeholders who collaboratively engage in all phases of the action–reflection cycle. The intentional focus on collaborative research, action for social change, and participant education shifts inquiry from an individual to a collective endeavor, intentionally aimed at transformative personal, organizational, and structural change. PAR is an openly and unapologetically political approach to knowledge creation through and for action. It is political in the sense of naming and unsettling relationships of power. The struggle to maintain, or in some cases introduce, a counter‐hegemonic edge to action research, including all types of practitioner inquiry, frames our work. The diverse community of participatory action researchers has unique contributions to offer the dialogue about the nature and consequences of various forms of educational practitioner inquiry. In this article, we briefly address the origins, purposes, values, and unique aspects of PAR. We then identify some of the contributions PAR can make to our common goal of improving educational practice and contributing to positive change in the lives of children, their families, teachers, and communities, and consider some of the tensions that may arise when we attempt to integrate the principles of PAR into practitioner inquiry along with strategies for addressing these concerns in creative and constructive ways.