Participatory action research into donor–recipient relations: a case study

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.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to explore the idea that, in the last few decades, collaborative inquiry methods have evolved along a similar trajectory to dual lens research. Dual lens research, known in various contexts as both ways, two-eyed seeing Old Ways New Ways, and Koodjal Jinnung (looking both ways), is designed to generate new knowledge by exploring a theme through Aboriginal and contemporary western lenses. Participatory action research and a dual lens approach are considered in a number of projects with a particular focus on the issues such work can raise including conceptual challenges posed by fundamental differences between knowledge sets.Design/methodology/approachThe authors hypothesize that a dual lens approach will become a branch of participatory action research, as such, a robust description needs to be developed and its ethical implications are considered. Existing work in this direction, including principles and processes, are collated and discussed.FindingsDual lens research as a branch of participatory action research is of great significance in countries with Aboriginal populations that are undergoing a cultural renaissance. As dual lens practitioners, the authors are finding their research outputs have a high positive impact on both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal populations and make a genuine contribution to reconciliation by finding ways of going forward together.Originality/valueThis paper joins a growing body of research that supports resonances between Aboriginal and “western” research methods.

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.

The following paper is a critical examination of participatory action research in practice. By looking at two different narratives of this methodology in practice the aim of the paper is to initiate a discussion around the ways in which we1 talk about participatory action research—our narratives of participatory action research—and how these forms of expression constrain our theorising of people, interaction, and change. The first narrative discussed follows the conventions of action research. I describe this narrative as a formal narrative that highlights the ideal dimensions of participatory action research. The second narrative follows ethnographic conventions. I describe this narrative as an informal narrative that highlights the real (or lived experience in the language of ethnography) dimensions of participatory action research. In comparing and contrasting the two narratives, I aim to demonstrate the narrative conventions that govern change experiences. I conclude by suggesting that on the one hand we need to maintain a tension between the ideal and the real but at the same time acknowledge that sometimes narrative conventions of the ideal are difficult to break away from. 1By “we,” I am referring to researchers and practitioners, that is, experts of action research.

The discourse of validity has been colonised by positivist thought. Recent methodological debates in the qualitative social sciences have opened new issues in the relationship between researchers and research ‘subjects’, between knowledge and power, and between research and social action. This has necessitated the rethinking of the concept of validity. The author argues that developments in the theory and practice of participatory action research provide the basis for an extended view of validity. This approach to validity takes the view that examined change with moral justification is most likely to be sustained when it is conducted with careful attention to the manifoldness and concrete particularity of social life which participatory action researchers attempt to influence, portray and understand. Participatory action research is not valid unless it meets the criteria of defensibility, educative value, and political efficacy and moral appropriateness.

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.

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.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to examine how the Participatory Action Research (PAR) method is applied to the empowerment program and how it is implemented in the Student Community Service Program (KKN). The study aims to see if students can have a positive impact on society and learn from existing social realities, despite the challenges of time and cost limitations. Method: This research uses a qualitative approach and Participatory Action Research (PAR). Data collection was carried out by observing, interviewing, conducting Forum Group Discussions (FGD), and documentation. Data analysis techniques were carried out by reducing, displaying, understanding data, and drawing conclusions. Practical Applications: The research results show that the KKN program can be carried out using the PAR approach by making stages: initial mapping, transects, historical tracing, trends and changes, Venn diagrams, flowcharts, problem and expectation trees, and program strategy analysis. The process is intended to find the basic problem and also try to find a solution according to the problem. Conclusion: From this process, three programs emerged, namely: First, Socialization of environmental awareness; Second, strengthening the waste bank program; Third, FGD between the village government and the waste bank group. These programs address the community’s indifference to environmental concerns and the polarization of illegal landfills in Tambi Village, Kejajar District, Wonosobo Regency, Central Java. The community’s involvement in implementing this program is very important because the PAR method places the community as the subject of the program. This shows that the KKN program can have a positive impact on society when the PAR approach is used.

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.

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.

Poor watershed management has resulted in environmental degradation and has resulted in increasingly competitive use of water resources. The balance between demand and supply of water in the upstream watershed area as a water recharge area becomes difficult to obtain. The main parties most affected are the poor in the upstream watershed. This research was carried out in two villages in Bulukumba Regency and Bantaeng Regency, South Sulawesi with the aim of producing an effective and efficient residential-based independent water resource management model in the upstream watershed that ensures a balance between demand and sustainable supply. The participatory action research (PAR) method is used as an approach in conducting research. PAR prioritizes participatory action, assessment, and learning through regular mentoring to encourage interactive community participation. In describing the general condition of the research location, qualitative descriptive analysis was used. Domestic water supply and demand are calculated based on the number and rate of population growth. The results showed that the settlement-based water management model in the two villages was able to produce water that exceeds the need and in sufficient quantity and quality in a sustainable manner. From the process of implementing the activities for 3 years, it can be seen that the PAR approach with mentoring has an impact on increasing the community's ability, self-confidence, and increasing their motivation to manage their natural resources better together. The PAR process also triggers an increase in public perception and trust in assistance from outside parties so that subsequent programs are more easily accepted by the community.