Understanding What Participatory Action Research Is

1 Participatory Action Research (PAR) Understanding What Participatory Action Research (PAR) Is By John Kerkula Foeday Capella University June 9, 2011 Introduction Can the production of knowledge be democratized? Krimerman (2001) asked this question differently. He asked, “Should social inquiry be conducted democratically?” More than 50 years ago, an approach to research was developed and has, from its a priori assumptions and evidence, given us the confidence to challenge the legitimacy of claims of traditional scientific or empirical methods as the sole dominant modes of knowledge generation (Ozanne & Saatcioglu, 2008; Bradbury & Reason, 2003; Krimerman, 2001; LÖvbrand, Pielke, Jr., & Beck, 2011). We can contend confidently that indeed the production of knowledge can be democratized through participatory action research (PAR) (Cronholm & Goldhukl, 2004), also referred to simply as action research or as community action research (CAR) in the South (Ozanne & Saatcioglu, 2008). What is participatory action research (PAR)? How can PAR be compared and contrasted with traditional empirical research models? What are the strengths and weaknesses of each? How well does PAR align with the values of the social work profession? These are the questions that this discussion will attempt to address. What is participatory action research (PAR)? Bradbury and Reason (2003) define PAR as a non-traditional research method in which research is done with rather than on people. They see PAR as a “value-laden activity” (p. 158) or research J. Kerkula Foeday Understanding What PAR Is “grounded in lived experience, developed in partnership, addresses significant problems, works with (rather than simply studies) people, develops new ways of seeing/interpreting the world …, and leaves infrastructure in its wake” (p. 156). Lofman, Pelkonen, and Pietila (2004) define PAR as a “new paradigm research” that entails “doing research with and for people rather than on people” (p. 333). Dick (2006) defines PAR as a real world research that adopts and employs critical approaches (including critical reflection) with focus on improving human life. Ozanne and Saatcioglu (2008) share this view as well. They believe that action researchers have an emancipatory interest in improving human welfare and as such employ methods of reflection and action. Judging from Bradbury and Reason‟s definition, one can say that PAR is bifunctional or bifocal. It empowers research participants as well as fosters social policy reform or social change/transformation (Ozanne & Saatcioglu, 2008). The Action Research Paradigm Protocol (ARPP) depicts PAR as a three-phase competency process, beginning with a plan for research and problem-solving in Phase One, implementation of actions and measurement of results in Phase Two, and the evaluation of and critical reflection on results of actions and decisions in Phase Three. According to the Action Research Model (ARM), PAR occurs in a cycle. It starts first with analyzing, understanding, and reconceptualizing the issue or problem on hand. No matter what approach adopted, Bradbury and Reason (2003) contend that PAR starts with questions about the purpose and audience of the study. After fully understanding the problem or issue, the next thing to do is to formulate a plan for the research and on how to solve the problem. The next step, obviously, will be execution or implementation of the plan. As the plan is being executed, observation or more fact-finding is happening as well. The researchers, in the wake of more facts, critically reflect on new data and 2 3 Participatory Action Research (PAR) actions are taken accordingly. Drawing on the ARM principles, one can say that PAR is indeed a relatively new way of conducting research that is not characterized by rigidity in format and process. Ozanne and Saatcioglu (2008) allude to this fact about PAR when they reported on and discussed the five types of validity of PAR. It should be noted here that epicentral to PAR, unlike in the case of traditional positivist models, is a focus on the critical rethinking of the power dynamics and processes that shape the relationship between the researchers and study participants as well as critical reflection on how the production of knowledge is affected by the various constituents involved in research and policy-making processes (Stahl and Shdaimah, 2004). How can PAR be compared and contrasted with traditional empirical research models? Bradbury and Reason (2003) state that the designs of action research are usually indistinguishable from other designs of empirical inquiries, especially qualitative studies. Like other modes of inquiry, PAR, Bradbury and Reason report, can be field-based, longitudinal, etc, and can use the following methodologies: interviewing, focus groups, social network data gathering, surveys, network analysis, any quantitative approach that produces practical results the participants consider to be necessary, or a combination of approaches as deemed appropriate given the interests and aims of the participants. Like traditional positivist models, PAR, in addition to improving practice, can build, inform, and test social theory (Ozanne & Saatcioglu, 2008). Notwithstanding these similarities, PAR is fundamentally different from traditional empirical studies in a number of ways. Unlike the positivist models that assume an objective or value- J. Kerkula Foeday Understanding What PAR Is neutral perspective on knowledge and try to make nomothetic generalized statements cutting across time and contexts, PAR proponents rightly assume that knowledge is relative, uncertain, evolving, contextual, and value-laden (Bradbury & Reason, 2003; Ozanne & Saatcioglu, 2008; Borda, 2008). PAR can be contrasted with positivist models in the way the end product of research is considered or published. For positivists, Ozanne and Saatcioglu observe, the end product of research is formal article published in a scholarly journal. For action researchers, the end product of research should be shared with the community in culturally appropriate ways, which could be through songs, storytelling, radio, etc. Another difference between PAR and traditional positivist models lies in the interpretation of causality of behavior. Positivists, according to Ozanne and Saatcioglu, see behaviors as outcomes of real causes that precede the behaviors. For action researchers, human actions are influenced by causes and social structures that constrain people‟s awareness and potential. Put another way, as we are reminded by Fook (2006) and by Suarez, Newman, and Reed (2008), PAR explains causality in terms of local realities and macrostructures. Another difference between PAR and traditional empirical models involves how the research participants are described (Bradbury & Reason, 2003). Positivists refer to study participants as “objects” and/or “subjects”, thereby highlighting the „researcherresearched‟ and the „expert‟ and „non-expert‟ divide. This divide is rejected in PAR. Action researchers consider study participants as collaborators in the research project, because, as Bradbury and Reason rightly observe, those who participate in the research demonstrate commitment and are critical to knowledge generation and application. In other words, in action research, the relationship between the researchers and the participants is collaborative. This feature of PAR underscores the deliberative democratic nature of this nontraditional approach to 4 5 Participatory Action Research (PAR) research, in which the significance of reflective citizenship is recognized as being central to fostering social justice and a knowledge society (LÖvbrand, Pielke, Jr., & Beck, 2011). What are the strengths and weaknesses of each? The strengths and weaknesses of PAR and the positivist models have been tacitly alluded to above. PAR, as contrasted with positivist models, is viewed as being “user-centered”, cooperative, interactive, and democratic – a process in which the researcher and participants are considered as co-researchers (Cronholm & Goldhukl, 2004, p. 48), fully involved in research decisions about the content and method of the research project. Stahl and Shdaimah (2004) rightly claim that collaboration between the researchers and community-based groups and/or members is an effective way to study social problems that are compatible with social work values and practice. Traditional empirical models fall short of the benefits of this important collaborativeness among research participants. Meanwhile, there are concerns about PAR. One concern is that PAR fails to be all-inclusive, that is, it fails to include minority groups such as women, especially in traditional patriarchal cultures and economically and socially marginalized groups (Ozanne & Saatcioglu, 2008). This concern, admittedly, is warrantable, and from a critically reflective perspective, it should behoove action researchers to take a hard look at this reported weakness of the model. This same concern could be expressed about the traditional empirical models as well, given the fact that quantitative studies are not all-inclusive if the true meaning of „all-inclusive‟ is considered. Quantitative and qualitative studies are usually representative. Whatever the case, the issue of inclusiveness is warrantable and should not be minimized or dismissed in any shape and form. Another concern J. Kerkula Foeday Understanding What PAR Is about PAR, as compared to traditional positivist models, is that it can be expensive in terms of time and resources (Gray, 2004). Gray (2004) argues that, as in the case of qualitative research (Rubin & Babbie, 2008), it is difficult to generalize PAR findings owing to its relatively small sample size and the uniqueness of the problem or issue being addressed. Dick (2006) disagrees with Gray (2004) on the issue of the generalizability of PAR findings, contending that “if that were true we would not be able to learn from experience” (p. 440). Another concern about PAR involves process validity, particularly concerning people‟s insecurities, impatience, and inexperience about the PAR process (Ozanne & Saatcioglu, 2008; Bradbury & Reason, 2003). When people feel insecure and impatient about the PAR process, this could affect their participation and of course the study outcome. This concern, again, is noteworthy. How well does PAR align with the values of the social work profession? The link between PAR and social work can be appreciated when one considers the bifunctionality of PAR. Bradbury and Reason (2003) remind us that PAR attempts to empower research participants so that they can influence decision making for their own aspirations and for the attainment of social justice. Do social workers have any role to play in bringing about social justice in society? Suarez, Newman, and Reed (2008) rightly answer this question in their contention that “Social workers have an ethical responsibility to address the dynamics and consequences of oppression and to promote social justice” (p. 407). As they correctly imply in their contention, confronting oppression and working to foster a just society is part of the core values of social work. Clearly then, PAR falls in line with the values of social work. Proponents of PAR see PAR as a collaborative social work research. They believe action research is critical to contributing to the empowerment of oppressed groups, and further contend that social 6 7 Participatory Action Research (PAR) workers, as frontline advocates and implemeneters of social policies (Bradbury & Reason, 2003) and working from the PAR paradigm, are well situated to engage community groups in research projects because they often have access to these groups. Concluding Comments Community action research (CAR), or simply referred to as action research (AR), is promising and encouraging, especially when clients see themselves as co-researchers rather than as people upon which research is done. This approach to research is motivating and it encourages community groups and/or members to become actively involved in the research and in owning the research process. Taking ownership of the research is critical to taking responsibility of the problem on hand. J. Kerkula Foeday Understanding What PAR Is References Borda, O. F. (2008). The application of the social sciences‟ contemporary issues to work on participatory action research. Human Organization, 67(4), 359-361. Bradbury, H., & Reason, P. (2003). Action research: An opportunity for revitalizing research purpose and practices. Qualitative Social Work, 2(2), 155-175. Cronholm, S., & Goldkuhl, G. (2004). Conceptualizing participatory action research – Three different practices. Electronic Journal of Business research Methods, 2(2), pp. 47–58. Dick, B. (2006). Action research literature 2004 – 2006: Themes and trends. Action Research, 4(4), 439-458. Fook, J. (2006). Critical reflection and transformative possibilities. In L. Davies and P. Leonard (Eds.), Social work in a corporate era: Practices of power and resistance. Retrieved from, http://www.gptsw.net/papers/8_06/fkcrtrns.pdf. Gray, D. E. (2004). Doing research in the real world. London: Sage. Krimerman, L. (2001). Participatory action research: Should social inquiry be conducted democratically? Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 31(1), 60-82. Lofman, P., Pelkonen, M., & Pietila, A. (2004). Ethical issues in participatory action research. Scand Journal of Caring Science, 18, pp. 333 – 340. LÖvbrand, E., Pielke, Jr., R., & Beck, S. (2011). A democracy paradox in studies of science and technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 36(4), 474-496. Ozanne, J. L., & Saatcioglu, B. (2008). Participatory action research. Journal of Consumer 8 9 Participatory Action Research (PAR) research, 35, 423-439. Rubin, A., & Babbie, E. R. (2008). Research methods for social work (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole. Stahl, R. & Shdaimah, C. (2008). Collaboration between community advocates and academic researchers: Scientific advocacy or political research?. British Journal of Social Work, 38(8), pp.1610–1629. Suarez, Z. E.., Newman, P. A., & Reed, B. G. (2008). Critical consciousness and crosscultural/intersectional social work practice: A case analysis. Families in Society: A Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 89(3), 407-417.