DESCRIPTION

Participatory Action Research, or PAR, is one of the approaches contained under the umbrella of 'participatory research'. PAR is itself an umbrella term, encompassing a range of differently-inflected approaches; common to all of these, however, is the fact that PAR involves collaborative work with individuals or communities outside academia to jointly and reflexively create knowledge about specific contexts - often contexts of oppression - and to iteratively generate, implement and reflect upon strategies of (often liberatory) action. PAR has been variously described as 'a social, participatory process that is practical and collaborative, critical, emancipatory and reflexive' (Kemmis & McTaggart, 2005, 566-7); 'a counter-hegemonic approach to knowledge production' (Kindon et al., 2007, 9), and a methodology that 'seeks to understand and improve the world by changing it' (Baum et al., 2006, 854). The often radical liberatory impetus of PAR and its focus on transformative action identify it as a distinct set of approaches from more general conceptions of participatory methods and co-production. Common disciplinary contexts for PAR projects include education, social work, politics, gender studies, development studies, geography, postcolonial studies and public health.

An understanding of PAR is aided by consideration of its methodological and theoretical roots. These include the radical pedagogy of Paulo Freire, with its emphasis on problem-based dialogue leading to the development of conscientização, or critical consciousness, in oppressed persons, and consequently to emancipatory action (Freire, 2000; McIntyre, 2008). PAR has also been linked to the 'Action Research' movement initiated by Kurt Lewin and to the work of the Colombian sociologist Orlando Fals-Borda, who emphasised the importance of participants' agency and empowerment within research (Lenette, 2022, 22). More broadly, scholars trace PAR's liberationist aims to grassroots feminist, antiracist and social justice movements (Cahill et al., 2010, 408) and to feminist theory, including the work of bell hooks. These critical and activist frameworks inform both the practice of PAR and the lenses through which PAR work is articulated; PAR is often defined as both a feminist praxis in its focus on care, relationality, and the revaluing of silenced experiences and knowledges, and 'an effective tool for decolonization because of [...] its commitment to disrupting uncritical applications of western norms in research' (Lenette, 2022, 27). Other critical approaches often invoked in PAR include Marxist theory, critical race theory, and Indigenous epistemologies.

What does PAR look like in practice? Researchers collaborate with individuals/groups to address a specific issue about which the individuals or groups - termed 'co-researchers' to reflect their status as partners - possess expert knowledge grounded in lived experience. After collaboratively identifying and negotiating research questions, researchers and co-researchers undertake an iterative, recursive sequence of action research cycles (plan, do, study, and act), which involve generating, implementing, evaluating and reformulating successive problem-solving approaches in the light of the incremental insights accrued (Baum et al., 2006, 854). Methods employed in these action research cycles may include mapping, diagramming, interviewing, photovoice methods, storytelling and video. 'Actions' include the actions of formulating, implementing and analysing research outcomes at each stage, as well as research-informed action aimed at producing ongoing change, which might include community-led initiatives and consultation with policymakers. At each stage, decision making is democratically shared between all involved parties. Such an approach stands in contrast with more 'traditional' (and extractive) models of research with minoritised individuals and groups, in which research is conducted 'on' rather than 'with' the persons whose experiences it concerns.

In what sense is PAR a form of open research? The form of openness embodied here is not the openness of research products - papers, data, methodological materials - though it can include these features. It is, instead, an openness to the participation and knowledge of individuals outside academia. In this sense, PAR evokes two key dimensions of the UNESCO model of open science: 'open dialogue with other knowledge systems' and 'open engagement of societal actors' (UNESCO, 2021). PAR may also evidence openness in the more familiar form of accessible outputs: involving participants in decision-making about the dissemination of project findings often leads to a wider range of dissemination methods addressing a more diverse range of audiences, using methods such as podcasts, videos, exhibitions, reports, performance and public art (see, for example Cahill & Torre, 2007, 198) designed to make outcomes legible to broader publics. In terms of academic outputs, PAR approaches also often entail inviting co-researchers to co-author publications and present at conferences, transparently acknowledging the input and agency of all involved.

Various challenges of PAR have been identified, including its time-consuming and often emotionally demanding nature and the degree to which it can be messy and unproductive within the narrow, publication-focused constraints of institutions and research assessment regimes (Baum et al., 2006, 855; Cahill, 2007, 368). Scholars engaged in PAR have also highlighted its lack of consistency with the expectations of ethical review boards. These expectations include that research must be fully planned at the outset, and that the emphasis is on individual participant safety, overlooking both co-researchers' agency (which may include a desire to be named) and broader ethical responsibilities to the communities represented and addressed (Blake, 2007; Manzo and Brightbill, 2007). Raynor (2019) has also highlighted the disproportionate burden and career impact experienced by early career researchers who practice PAR. Finally, PAR has been subject to critique on the grounds of the validity and generalisability of the knowledge it produces (Lawson, 2015, 2), the extent to which 'participation' may operate as a form of lip service / cultural capital and may be deployed in ways that in fact reproduce existing power differentials (Kesby et al., 2007, 21; Lenette, 2022, 46; Mason, 2015, 499), and questions of (mis)representation relating to overlooking the diversity and heterogeneity within marginalised groups (Levinson, 2017, 390).

References

Baum, F., MacDougall, C., and Smith, D. (2006). 'Participatory Action Research', Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 60, 854–857. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2004.028662

Blake, M.K. (2007). 'Formality and Friendship: Research Ethics Review and Participatory Action Research', ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, 6(3), 411–421. https://doi.org/10.14288/acme.v6i3.789

Cahill, C. (2007). 'Repositioning Ethical Commitments: Participatory Action Research as a Relational Praxis of Social Change', ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, 6(3), 360–373. https://doi.org/10.14288/acme.v6i3.784

Cahill, C., and Torre, M.E. (2007). 'Beyond the Journal Article: Representations, Audience, and the Presentation of Participatory Action Research' in S. Kindon, R. Pain, and M. Kesby, (eds), Participatory Action Research Approaches and Methods: Connecting People, Participation and Place. Abingdon: Routledge. pp. 196-205

Cahill, C., Quijada Cerecer, D.A. and Bradley, M. (2010). '"Dreaming of . . .": Reflections on Participatory Action Research as a Feminist Praxis of Critical Hope', Affilia, 25(4), 406–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886109910384576

Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Trans by M. Bergman Ramos. 30th anniversary ed. New York and London: Bloomsbury

Kemmis, S., and McTaggart, R. (2005). 'Participatory Action Research: Communicative Action and the Public Sphere' in N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. pp. 559–604

Kesby, M., Kindon, S., and Pain, R. (2007). 'Participation as a Form of Power: Retheorising Empowerment and Spatialising Participatory Action Research' in S. Kindon, R. Pain, and M. Kesby, (eds), Participatory Action Research Approaches and Methods: Connecting People, Participation and Place. Abingdon: Routledge. pp. 19-25

Kindon, S., Pain, R. and Kesby, M. (2007). 'Participatory Action Research: Origins, approaches and models' in S. Kindon, R. Pain, and M. Kesby, (eds), Participatory Action Research Approaches and Methods: Connecting People, Participation and Place. Abingdon: Routledge. pp. 9-18

Lawson, H. (2015). 'Introducing Participatory Action Research' in Lawson, H.A. et al., Participatory Action Research. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 1-34

Lenette, C. (2022). Participatory Action Research: Ethics and Decolonization. New York, NY: Oxford University Press

Levinson, M. (2017). 'When Participants Don't Wish to Participate in Participatory Action Research, and When Others Participate on Their Behalf: The Representation of Communities by Real and Faux Participants', The Urban Review, 49(3), 382–399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-016-0390-9

Manzo, L.C., and Brightbill, N. (2007). 'Towards a Participatory Ethics' in S. Kindon, R. Pain, and M. Kesby, (eds), Participatory Action Research Approaches and Methods: Connecting People, Participation and Place. Abingdon: Routledge. pp. 33-40

Mason, K. (2015). 'Participatory Action Research: Coproduction, Governance and Care', Geography Compass, 9(9), 497–507. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12227

McIntyre, A. (2008). Participatory Action Research. 1st ed. Los Angeles, Calif.: SAGE

Raynor, K. (2019). 'Participatory Action Research and Early Career Researchers: The Structural Barriers to Engagement and Why We Should Do It Anyway', Planning Theory & Practice, 20(1), 130–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2018.1556501

UNESCO (2021). Recommendation on Open Science. https://doi.org/10.54677/MNMH8546