Participatory Action Research (PAR)

Participatory action research (PAR) is considered the antitheses to traditional research because it emphasizes collective investigation. The aim is to move research from an abstract sphere to a social commitment and activity. When correctly implemented, PAR offers transparency in its intent. PAR is multi-disciplinary in nature. One can distinguish PAR from its academic research counterpart in three ways: 1) local analysis of social problems; 2) group proprietorship of research inquiries; and 3) emphasis on community action. This value system suggests neo-Marxism. It should be noted that, the majority of the time, the intent of PAR is to serve common people, rather than the powerful upper-class. Proponents stress that this is a key difference between PAR and academic research. The PAR process has been refined to include planning for change, becoming involved in and taking note of the process and likely impact of change, reflecting on the process observed, and re-planning before beginning the cycle again.

Brief History

Though PAR began in the 1990s, it was rooted in concepts from earlier decades. Both activist participatory research and participatory research were introduced in the 1960s and 1970s, respectively. Another common thread for all three movements was empowerment of the poor and powerless to conduct research and, ultimately, take proactive steps to improve their own conditions. PAR differentiates itself in that it relies upon the group’s collaboration to attain and communicate new knowledge.

This methodology is qualitative, meaning it relies heavily on data for understanding of human behaviors. Because of the large role of figures, the potential for control of the study by the researcher is diminished. Data can be gathered via focus groups, observation, and interviews.

Kurt Lawin and Paulo Freire pioneered the PAR movement in 1994. The two believed that mobilizing under-represented populations to study and effect change about their own environment would be empowering and effective. Segregation, discrimination, literacy, and land reform were some of the first topics they approached within this new paradigm.

Economic development issues are strongly interwoven into any discussion of PAR, especially as it relates to international development. Regardless of the issue discussed, PAR requires a thorough examination of power differences and has been extended to include power differences by gender. PAR eventually encompassed business, health, agriculture, and social work. The exact definition of PAR was difficult for many of the early years because each researcher outlined it from his own industry-specific lens.

In 1997, researcher D. Selenger laid out a seven-step framework for PAR, which appears to have stood the test of time.

• Acknowledging and defining the problem;
• Identifying the need for radical transformation and the beneficiaries;
• Engaging the community throughout the research process;
• Empowering economically disadvantaged, oppressed, or marginalized parties with involvement;
• Taking inventory of available resources;
• Striving for community involvement at every step of the process;
• Recognizing leaders as facilitators.

The process is designed to grow leadership skills in oppressed individuals.

Impact

Application of PAR is diverse, but health and education have had broad use over the years. In education, PAR has been instrumental in teacher development. Some researchers have gone as far as suggesting that PAR has spurred a movement called "teacher to researcher" that gives them a voice in curriculum and professional development planning.

Within the medical realm, this era of healthcare reform is ripe for application of PAR. In Canada, a 2004 community-based PAR project helped restructure the nation’s healthcare model from a primary provider to multi-disciplinary approach. Swedish health officials used PAR methods to increase screening for cervical cancer among foreign-born residents.

The movement is beginning to take hold in nursing academic circles. In 2015, a book titled Nursing Research Using Participatory Action Research: Qualitative Designs illustrated PAR models studying pain documentation, healthy eating and wellness, and other topics. In the book’s introduction, Patricia Kelly noted the inherent challenges in producing PAR. For example, institutional review boards often question use of research participants in data review. Human subject protection is an area not to be taken lightly and it is a major undertaking educating everyone about these rules. Kelly also acknowledged the time commitment in training subject members to act as spokespeople for the research study.

Similarly, a 2011 academic paper describing PAR on the impact of deportation policies on Central American migrants in the U.S., by M. Brinton Lykes, Rachel M. Hershberg and Kalina Brabeck and published in the Journal for Social Action in Counseling and Psychology, unveiled several challenges to undertaking PAR. Many migrants fear getting a driver’s license or filling out a tax form, lest it alert the government to their illegal status. So getting their participation buy-in was difficult. Ultimately, the research team declared it is "worth the trouble" to attain a more comprehensive understanding of the issue and empower families far removed from governmental decision making.

Others acknowledge the difficulty in developing community relationships, establishing credibility, explaining the connection between participation and change. Critics charge that PAR is fraught with a Western cultural bias because some of the techniques commonly employed are unfamiliar to participants. Many in the academic community question the validity of PAR on several grounds. Victim status can sometimes be confusing or in need of additional analysis. Researchers’ objectivity is often open to interpretation. For example, it is only natural for a researcher who invests time with a marginalized population to begin to identify with the research subjects and befriend them. While this can be an asset for PAR, many counter that "going native" is too time consuming.

There are also challenges specific to each study. In research published in the June 2010 issue of Curationis, authors began implementing PAR with five Xhosa-speaking HIV/AIDS patients in Cape Town. Researchers later concluded the participants were unmotivated to take on a research leadership role and had issues of low self-efficacy.

Bibliography

Baum, Fran, Cohn MacDougall, and Danielle Smith. "Participatory Action Research." Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 60.10 (2006): 854–857. Academic Search Complete. Web. 9 Jan. 2016.

Lykes, M. Brinton. "Participatory and Action Research as a Transformative Praxis: Responding to Humanitarian Crises from the Margins." American Psychologist 68.8 (2013): 774–783. Business Source Complete. Web. 9 Jan. 2016.

Chevalier, Jacques, and Daniel Buckles. Participatory Action Research: Theory and Methods for Engaged Inquiry. New York: Routledge, 2013.

De Chesnay, M. Nursing Research Using Participatory Action Research. Springer, 2014.

Fletcher, Amber J., Maura MacPhee, and Graham Dickson. "Doing Participatory Action Research in a Multicase Study: A Methodological Example." International Journal of Qualitative Methods 14.5 (2015): 1–9. Academic Search Complete. Web. 9 Jan. 2016.

Hills, Marcia, Jennifer Mullett, and Simon Carroll. "Community-Based Participatory Action Research: Transforming Multidisciplinary Practice in Primary Health Care." Revista Panamericana De Salud Publica 21.2/3 (2007): 125–135. Academic Search Complete. Web. 9 Jan. 2016.

Olsson, Erik. "When One Size Does Not Fit All: Using Participatory Action Research to Co-Create Preventive Healthcare Services." Action Research 13.1 (2015): 1–9. Print.

Rosenthal, W. A., and D. Khalil. "Exploring the Challenges of Implementing Participatory Action Research in the Context of HIV and Poverty." Curationis 33.2 (2010): 69–78. Print.