par chapter

8/9/2019 PAR Chapter

1/8

1

Chapter 21Participatory Action Research

Maggie Walter

Introduction

Participatory action research (PAR) or action research, as it is sometimes known, has inits implementation and underpinning philosophies an action purpose. This action purpose

differentiates PAR from methods whose primary aim is to research or investigate. Although

nearly all social research has some form of social change as motivation, only PAR has change

and action as an embedded and critical element of its approach. Participatory action research

has therefore been defined as having a double objective:

One aim is to produce knowledge and action directly useful to a group of people through

research, adult education or sociopolitical action. The second aim is to empower people at a

second and deeper level through the process of constructing and using their own knowledge

(Reason 1998:71)

The term action research was coined in 1946 by Kurt Lewin to describe a spiral action

of research aimed at problem solving. Community involvement was important for Lewin,

writing and working after World War II, and he saw participatory action research as a

tool for bringing about democracy in postwar countries (Robson 1993). Lewin, as a social

psychologist, felt that the best way to move people forward was to engage them in their own

enquiries into their own lives. He stressed the fundamental role of democratic collaboration

and participation within this project (McNiff 1988:22).

The key to PAR is in its name. The concepts of participation and action form the basics

of the method.

1 Action: Research should be more than just finding out; research should also involve an

action component that seeks to engender positive change.

2 Participation: Research is a participatory process that requires the equal and collaborative

involvement of the community of research interest.

WAL_SRM2_ORC_21_3pp.indd 1 8/9/09 9:06:22 AM


2/8

Social Research Methods

2 Part 5:Other Social Research Methods

In other words, by its collaborative and participatory nature, PAR moves right away

from the idea of the outside expert coming into a community to examine, theorise and

propose solutions. As such, PAR is:

a form of applied research: the research is intended to have some real world effect

increasingly popular: at the trendy end of the research method spectrum

guided by a research topic/question that emerges from the community of interest.

PAR: A methodology rather than a methodThe components of participatory action research make it different from other social research

methods. They also delineate PAR as more of a methodology rather than a method (see

chapter 1). PAR comes with its own in-built value system (axiology) and way of perceiving the

reality of an issue or problem (ontology) and values the knowledges and knowledge systems of

the community of research interest above others, thereby exhibiting a specific epistemology.

Its qualities of being both an active research practice and one based on the principles of

democracy are what draw many social science researchers to PAR, particularly those coming

from more qualitative paradigms. The diffusion, or even relocation, of power from the

researcher to the community of interest is a central element of the research method. Within

participatory action research the researcher is the tool for facilitating change, rather than the

owner, director and expert in the research project. Or as Whyte puts it, the researcher has

the role of research coach (1991:40).

The requirement for equal and open collaboration between researcher and research

community is central to participatory action research. More particularly, within this

collaboration it is the researched, or the subject group, who are the owners and instigators of

the research rather than the researcher. In the words of Rapoport (1970:1 cited in Robson

1993:438): Action research aims to contribute to both the practical concerns of people in

an immediate problematic situation and to the goals of social science by joint collaboration

within a mutually acceptable framework. As such, participatory action research as a research

method/methodology is characterised by the strong and active involvement and high degree

of participation of those with the research objective (Whyte 1991).

Using participatory action researchThe use of participatory action research for social research in Australia is rapidly rising.

Because of its focus on problem solving, it is particularly suited to practitioner based

research. For example, a local community welfare agency uses PAR at their regular staff



3/8

Maggie Walter

Chapter 21:Participatory Action Research 3

meetings as the base for working through work-related problems. Participatory action

research is also widely used in educational research, especially around improving teaching

and learning practice. Because of its problem solving aims and its community locus

of control, participatory action research is a primary method in much contemporaryIndigenous research focused on solving problems at the community level. The internal

development and ownership of the research, rather than diagnosis and imposition from

outside, makes participatory action research a social research method far more amenable to

Indigenous research paradigms and Indigenous research agendas.

Starting with the PAR problem

An essential element of PAR is that the problem that needs solving or the objective that

needs reaching must arise from the community of interest. That is, it is those who have

the problem or desire the objective that must decide what the problem or objective is and

that they want to achieve some change. It cannot be imposed or diagnosed from outside,especially by the researcher. The action part of PAR is situational in that attempts to

resolve the problem or achieve the objectives are also located within and with the

community of interest.

Putting PAR into place

Although theoretical insights are gained through research practice, PAR is essentially

applied research. Rather than taking a standard linear model of research, participatory action

research is cyclic, working its way through various iterations of planning, acting, observing

and reflecting. The cyclical nature of PAR is its fundamental process feature (Wadsworth

1998). The following diagram summarises how PAR operates in an iterative, cyclical mode.

Figure 21.1: The iterative cycle of participatory action research (PAR)

Initialplanning

Observation

Action

Observation

Issue

Action

Observation

Cyclecontinues

until issue is

resolved or

agreed byall parties

Action

Reflectioninformed

planning

Reflectioninformed

planning



4/8



The cycle takes the following steps:

A problem, issue, or desire for change is identified by the community of research

interest.

Initial collaboration takes place between the community of research interest and the

researcher andplanninghow to tackle the problem then begins.

The developed plan is then put into action.

The action and its outcomes are then observedagain by the community of research

interest and the researcher.

The final stage in the first cycle is to reflecton the action and its outcomes.

If this reflection leads to an assessment that the first action step was effective, then the

process of planning, action, observing and reflecting starts again, building on this initial

success.

If the reflection deems the first action unsuccessful or not as successful as anticipated,

then these outcomes are taken into consideration in the planning of new or different

action in the next cycle of planning action, observation and reflection.

The cycle continues in as many iterations as needed to resolve the problem or reach

the objective. As with all aspects of PAR, the deeming of a problem as solved or an

objective as reached is a collaborative one.

As demonstrated in the model, the new cycle of the PAR process does not repeat the

old cycle. Rather the planning, acting, observing and reflecting of the previous cycle inform

and shape the next cycle. The PAR process is therefore self-evaluative, involving a constant

evaluation of its process and modifications to adjust the research problem articulation and

research practice.

The methodological nature of participatory action research limits its full applicability in broad social

research. It is much easier to locate literature that discusses how to undertake PAR or the principles

of PAR than it is to find literature reporting a completed PAR project. For broader community social

research, PAR demands that the problem or issue must emerge from the community of research

interest, that the research is fully collaborative at all stages with the community and that the

cyclical process of PAR does not finish until the problem is resolved. These requirements are

problematic and often unfeasible. In the real world of social research practice, much research

involving PAR takes place with discrete and limited communities, such as classrooms.

The following example of PAR in action summarises a position description for a PAR

coordinator. The researcher is being recruited to work on a cooperative project between the

Yorta Yorta National Aboriginal Corporation and the Friends of the Earth MelbourneBarmahFromm

et

hodtopractice



5/8

Maggie Walter


Evaluating participatory action researchAs a methodology, participatory action research critiques the theoretical and methodological

bases of conventional social research. Winter frames it this way:

it challenges a scientific method of inquiry based on the authority of the outside observer

and the independent experimenter, and it claims to reconstruct both practical expertise andtheoretical insights on the different basis of its own inquiry procedures (Winter 1989:2).

Its proponents see this radical shift away from standard research practice as providing

huge research benefits. These benefits accrue at both a practical expertise and theoretical

level. It is argued that when the researcher and community of interest work together in a

Millewa Campaign (Melbourne Friends of the Earth 2008). As can be seen from this example, the

problemdeveloping a partnership model for joint management of traditional Yorta Yorta lands

and waters by Yorta Yorta people and the Victorian State Governmenthas emerged from theYorta Yorta people via the Yorta Yorta National Aboriginal Corporation. It is only after the objective

has been developed that the researcher is brought in.

Project description

To develop a partnership model with the Victorian State Government to facilitate the active

involvement of the Yorta Yorta people in the management of traditional lands and waters in ways

that utilise Yorta Yorta knowledge and perspectives.

Position objective

The PAR coordinator will assist the Yorta Yorta people to define their aspirations for working

on country and an ideal joint management model to achieve these aspirations, by organising

workshops and facilitating Yorta Yorta nation members to illustrate their interests and capacity to

work on country.

Participatory action research position roles

Ensure project objectives are met by clearly communicating community engagement>

principles and practice (including PAR)

develop and maintain relationships with Yorta Yorta family group and other Yorta Yorta groups>

organise, conduct and facilitate workshops with Yorta Yorta family group and other Yorta>

Yorta groups, utilising PAR techniques and tools

coordinate meeting logistics: travel and accommodation, meeting minutes, task list>

develop and implement monitoring and evaluation methods and activities.>

From

methodtopractice



6/8



collaborative and participatory way, expertise and insights develop that would not otherwise

be possible. In turn, these insights and access to broader expertise provide for more workable

and innovative problem solutions.

However, PAR has been strongly criticised by other social researchers. These criticismstend to focus on how its participation, democracy and external ownership aspects can greatly

reduce the validity of the research and the rigour of the methods used, and question whether

PAR methods lead to good, scientific, valid, reliable, usable research outcomes. Another

criticism centres on what is perceived as a moralising tone in PARs methodology. For

example, Adelman (1989, cited in Robson 1993:440) argues that PARs claims, of being an

alternative research paradigm, as a democratising force and means of achieving informed,

practical change arising from issues at the grass roots are overbearing. The essential critique

here is that PAR might be seen more as an ideology of how research shouldbe undertaken

that is, a methodology or a paradigmrather than a practical research method.

The other difficult issue for PAR is the research end date. Unlike most other research

methods, which tend to be timed undertakings with clear start and stop periods, the

iterations of PAR continue until the problem is resolved. Conceivably, this process could

repeat forever. The key question here is: when is a social problem solved? In the natural

sciences, finding a resolution to a problem, such as developing a formula for unshatterable

glass, can often be clearcut; however, in the social world, with all its complexities, defining

a problem is often difficult enough without also having to decide unequivocally that the

problem is resolved.

The strengths and weaknesses of PAR are summarised in box 21.2.

Box 21.1: Advantages and disadvantages of participatoryaction research (PAR)

Advantages of PAR

PAR is applied research.

The problem solving focus means that PAR is research with practical outcomes and

positive change.

PAR is collaborative research.

Involving the community of research interest with the research objective aids in producing

practical outcomes that are workable.

PAR is committed research.

The commitment of the community of interest enables the research project to access

community understanding, knowledge and collective memory.



7/8

Maggie Walter


PAR originates with the researched.

The community locus of control leads to the identification of problems that are important

to the community, not diagnosed from outside.

Disadvantages of PAR

PAR has no research leader.

The group involvement and democratic processes may lead to competing research

agendas.

PAR may be impractical.

Categorising a group with a shared interest or problem as a community does not

automatically result in a consensus on what the problem is and how it might best be

addressed.

PAR usually has no timeline.

The process, by its nature, has no set end date. The question then becomes: how do weknow when a problem is resolved, or when has the process become ineectual?



8/8



References

McNiff, J. (1988).Action Research, Principles and Practice. London: MacMillan Education.

Melbourne Friends of the Earth (2008). Position Description: Participatory Action Research

Coordinator .

Reason, R. (1998). Three Approaches to Participative Inquiry, in Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y.

(eds), Strategies of Qualitative Research. London: Sage: 26191.

Robson, C. (1993). Real World Enquiry: A Resource for Social Scientists and Practitioner-Researchers.

Oxford: Blackwell.

Wadsworth, Y. (1998). What is Participatory Action Research?,Action Research International,

Paper 2.

Whyte, W. F. (1991). Participatory Action Research. Newbury Park: Sage.

Winter, R. (1989). Learning From Experience: Principles and Practice in Action-Research. London:

Falmer Press.

par chapter

Documents