Participatory Action Research, Like a Technique of Carrying Out a Research Through Action

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Outline

Introduction to Participatory Action Research
Summary of Practicing Participatory Action Research by Kidd, S.A., and Kral, M.J
Summary of Participatory Action Research: Reflections on Critical Incidents in a PAR Project by Santelli et al.
Summary of Participatory Action Research in the Contact Zone by Torre, Fine et al.
Conclusion

Introduction to Participatory Action Research

Participatory action research is a technique of carrying out a research through action. What this means is that the objects of the study are also actively involved in the research process; they become researchers themselves. This research technique is known by different terms including collaborative inquiry, emancipatory research, action learning, and contextual action research (O”Brien, 2001).

In participatory action research, a researcher identifies a problem that afflicts a certain group of people or community. However, the researcher does not proceed to study the problem and find the solution without first contacting the group/community that is afflicted by the problem. This group of people becomes part and parcel of the research process. They agree on the existence of the problem, find ways and means of solving the problem and if their identified solutions do not yield desired result, they repeat the whole process again until the problem has been solved. The participatory action research is therefore a technique used to solve common problems.

However, it has other features that distinguish it from the ordinary problem-solving activities. First, participatory action research, unlike common problem-solving activities, is a scientific study and therefore follows the scientific systematic process. This process involves: identification of a problem, statement of hypotheses to be tested, collection of data, analysis of data, presentation of data, and making inferences and conclusions from the data analysis that help to confirm or reject the hypotheses and provide solutions to the problem in question. Second, participatory action research uses the objects of the study as researchers.

The people experiencing the problem in question are actively involved in the research process. They help to define the goals of the study, help to collect, analyze and present the data and make inferences from the data analysis. Third, participatory action research has a social aspect in it. This means that the research process happens within a real-life circumstance rather than in experimental situations, and its objective is to provide solutions to real-life difficulties. Lastly, the main researcher is not obligated to remain objective. This characteristic differs tremendously from other research techniques whereby the researcher is forced to remain objective and avoid personal bias while carrying out his research.

In participatory action research, the researcher is allowed to have and show bias towards other participants involved in the study. He is allowed to have differing opinions with the other participants, voice these differences and discuss them with the participants. The participatory action research as a process has five main steps that are followed. These steps were postulated by Gerald Susman in 1983. The first step involves the identification of a problem.

Once a problem has been identified, data is collected to provide the researchers with a clearer prognosis. The second step involves a collaborative statement of the probable solutions to the identified problem. The researcher and participants then unanimously agree on the best solution from the list of the possible solutions. The third step involves the collection of data pertaining to the problem and the agreed-upon solution.

The collected data is then analyzed using the most appropriate data analysis techniques. The results of the data analysis are then interpreted and inferences are made concerning the success or failure of the proposed solution. If the proposed solution is not successful in solving the problem, the same process will be repeated using other possible solutions until the best solution to the problem is identified.

Summary of Practicing Participatory Action Research by Kidd, S.A., and Kral, M.J

Kidd and Kral’s article gives a general idea of a number of important theoretical and practical dimensions of participatory action research. Kidd and Kral begin by defining the term participatory action research. To them, it is an inquiry technique that involves the participation of members of a group of community that has been affected by a particular problem. The group of people come together to identify and define the problem at hand and come up with solutions to the problem.

PAR has several attributes that include: understanding, mutual involvement, change and a process that encourages personal development (Kidd and Kral, 2005, p.187). Both the researchers and participants are actively engaged in the whole research process that encompasses the development of objectives and methodological tools, the collection of data, analysis of data, interpretation of data, and implementation of the results in a way that will address the identified problem.

According to Kidd and Kral (2005), change is an important element of the PAR. The change comes about when the results of the study are implemented and the problem is solved thereby making the lives of the participants and those of the larger community better than they were before. A PAR project can be introduced in a community in several ways. First, a group of people may be facing a problem that they need to address.

This group of people can incidentally come into contact with a researcher together with whom they can come up with a project that will help them to solve the problem at hand. Secondly, a researcher may perceive a problem that afflicts a certain group. The researcher will then approach the group of persons and introduce to them the concept of PAR through which they can come up with a project and solve the problem. What is most crucial to the PAR is the mutual dedication and sense of responsibility among both the researcher and the participants. The attitude of both the researcher and participants is important and will determine the success or failure of the project.

The researcher, especially, should be open-minded, flexible and receptive towards the opinions, perceptions and ideas of the group members. Likewise, the group members should respect the opinions and ideas of the researcher. Most importantly, the group members should respect each other’s opinions and suggestions. All this calls for continuous and healthy dialogue among all the participants.

According to Kidd and Kral, the participatory action research is a process that involves four main stages: reflection, planning, acting and observation (2005, p.189). The group of people faced with the problem at hand come together to share their experiences pertaining to the identified problem. They then plan on the course of action that can be taken to deal with the problem. After planning, they execute their plan according to the unanimously agreed terms.

Once the plan has been carried out, observation is made as to whether or not the problem has been solved. The researcher, in all this process, has to be part and parcel of the group. If he is not a member of the group, he has to live amongst them and feel exactly what the group is feeling about its experiences with the problem. Through this, the researcher gains an insight into the lives and experiences of the participants in the context of their own world. On the other hand, expert knowledge is also passed from the professional researcher to the participants, particularly knowledge about the research process.

Kidd and Kral (2005) emphasize that the PAR is not a research method per se. the method used to gather and analyze data is not identified beforehand. What happens is that once the problem has been identified, research questions pertaining to the problem are formulated. It is these research questions that guide the research process. As a result, the methods used may differ from one PAR project to another. Additionally, the method used to generate knowledge also differs from one PAR project to another and may include storytelling, survey and drawings (Kidd and Kral, 2005, p.190).

Summary of Participatory Action Research: Reflections on Critical Incidents in a PAR Project by Santelli et al.

Santelli et al.’s article is a description of a participatory action research project that was intended to assess Parent to Parent programs in five American states. The PAR team had two groups of people: parent leaders of Parent to Parent programs as well as volunteers of the program, and academic researchers. The definition of PAR that was adopted by Santelli et al. was that given by Bruyere (1993).

According to this view, PAR involves the need to define pertinent issues that affect individuals and families of individuals with special needs. It also involves coming up with solutions that best address these issues and which bring about meaningful changes in the lives of the afflicted individuals and their families. The PAR project in this case was initiated through the chance meeting of parents with disabled children and researchers during the 7^th International Parent to Parent Conference held in April 1992.

The problem that arose from this chance meeting was the lack of quantitative data that proved the effectiveness of the one-to-one Parent to Parent match. The initial meeting involved only five people: three parent leaders and two researchers. The small group however planned another meeting that would involve more parent leaders and more researchers. The researchers selected were university-based and majority of them had experiences with disabilities either in their own families or through their research work.

The PAR team involved in this project therefore consisted of both professional researchers and the subjects of the study (members of the Parent to Parent program). There was therefore a great need for collaboration and team building; a major characteristic of any PAR project. A lot of time was needed to comprehend the Parent to Parent program, its goals, mission and vision. There was also the need to come to a consensus about the terminologies used and roles assumed by all the participants.

By the end of such sharing and discussion, all the participants including the researchers had a unanimously-agreed conception of the program in question. Both the parent leaders and the researchers were willing to participate in the study and more willing to accommodate the views, perceptions and opinions of each other. Once the problem had been identified and agreed upon, the PAR team then embarked on the next task: formulation of the research questions.

The parent leaders of the team initiated a discussion about the impact that the Parent to Parent program has had on them and other parents. The researchers were active in this discussion by asking questions, clarifying information and requesting for more information about the program. When this discussion was done, the PAR team collectively agreed upon the goals of the Parent to Parent program as well as the research questions that would guide the study.

The next task was to choose the research design. A number of suggestions were made both by the researchers and the parent leaders. All these suggestions were discussed by the team including their strengths, weaknesses and applicability to the project. In the end, it was collectively agreed that an experimental/control group design would be used as the research design. The sharing of expertise and knowledge that characterize PAR was highly evident in this project.

The parent leaders shared their knowledge of the Parent to Parent program with the researchers. On the other hand, the researchers were very instrumental in matters pertaining to the research design. Santelli et al. argue that, “without the explanation from the researchers about the importance of a large sample, the parents might have limited the size of the study and thus reduced its power to detect group differences,” (1995, p.215). The collaboration between the parent leaders and researchers continued throughout the research process; from data collection to conducting the study to data analysis.

Numerous meetings were held both physically and through telephone to discuss any task at hand. The researchers were helpful especially in the data analysis. They explained the results of the analysis to the parents and more questions were formulated from the data analysis. The findings of the study were discussed among the parent leaders and the researchers. These findings were then used by the parent leaders to improve their Parent to Parent programs. This PAR project was highly successful because there was a shared vision among the PAR team members, clear definition of roles, and the willingness to listen to and learn from all the participants (Santelli et al., 1995, p.221).

Summary of Participatory Action Research in the Contact Zone by Torre, Fine et al

Torre et al. carried out a participatory action research to confront the unfairness of public education and the prison industrial complex. The participants ranged widely from high school students to college faculties, artists, poets, writers, graduate students and college students (Torre, Fine et al., p.23). The PAR team, collectively known as a contact zone, consisted of participants with experiences that varied greatly. Some participants were advantaged youth and adults while others were marginalized. Yet, the PAR team used these great differences to facilitate advanced thinking and research on educational injustice and the need for change.

The project, known as Opportunity Gap Project was initiated when a set of uptown school administrators of integrated districts met to discuss the disturbing achievement gaps between Asian-American, White American, Latino and African American students. The administrators wanted to get to the root cause of the achievement gaps. They therefore invited members from the Graduate Center of the City University to make up the research team.

The team discussed and agreed that there was a need to include a wide range of students both from suburban and urban schools as part of the research team. The youth researchers were selected over a period of three years and were drawn from different groups such as English as a Second Language, the Gay/Straight Alliances, discipline rooms, student councils and AP classes (Torre, Fine, et al., p.28).

During the first meeting between the students and the researchers, the students argued that the framing of the research problem was biased against the students. It was therefore agreed that the research problem would be changed from achievement gap to opportunity gap. Numerous discussions and meetings were held by the researchers in different settings; from local schools to research camps, community and university settings. During the initial session, questions and design were developed by the professional researchers but were later reviewed by the youth researchers who, not liking what they saw, revised and amended them.

The next session involved individual research in individual schools, communities and organizations by the youth researchers in consultation with the professional researchers. The researchers also collectively agreed on the research questions they would ask, the sample elements they would interview as well as the techniques they would use to carry out the study. During the three-year period of the study, the researchers studied widely historical events that were shaped by discrimination in schools based on race, language and sexual identity (Torre, Fine, et al., p.30). Data collection and analysis were done collectively using unanimously-agreed methods.

A topographical map was then created collectively by the researchers which documented the racial, ethnic and class inequalities practiced in public secondary schools, as well as the sources of such inequalities. The researchers proceeded to write articles and deliver talks pertaining to their findings.

Conclusion

Participatory action research (PAR) is a method of inquiry which makes use of the objects of the study by making them to be part and parcel of the research process. PAR recognizes that people will learn best and practice what they have learned only if they are active participants of the learning process. As such, it calls for great collaboration between the researchers and the participants. PAR as a process has a number of phases which include: problem identification, statement of possible solutions, data collection and analysis and making inferences from the data analysis.

The two articles and the chapter from the book that have been summarized above make use of the participatory action research in their studies. All the stages of the PAR were followed in each of the studies. What came out clearly was the composition of members from different social and academic backgrounds in the PAR team. Despite such differences, the members of the PAR team in each study worked collaboratively and harmoniously in the entire research process.

Numerous meetings and discussions were held by the PAR team members to share their experiences and information and clarify any unclear details. The meetings also facilitated the PAR team members in choosing the best solution to the problem at hand; the best research design and sample elements where applicable. The members of the population afflicted by the problem provided deep insight and understanding of the problem at hand through the sharing of their own experiences.

The professional researchers on the other hand, provided useful information and expertise on the research methodology and design tools chosen. In the end, all the studies that used PAR were highly successful in identifying the best solution to the research problem thereby cringing about effective changes in the population under study. This is the whole essence of participatory action research.

References

Kidd, S.A. and Kral, M.J. (2005). Practicing participatory action research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52.2, 187-195.

O’Brien, R. (2001). An Overview of the Methodological Approach of Action Research. In Roberto Richardson (Ed.), Theory and Practice of Action Research. João Pessoa, Brazil: Universidade Federal da Paraíba. Web.

Santelli, B., Singer, G.H.S., DiVenere, N., Ginsberg, C., and Powers, L.E. (1998). Participatory action research: Reflections on critical incidents in a PAR project. JASH, 23.3, 211-222.

Torre, M.E., Fine, M., Alexander, N., Billups, A.B, Blanding, Y, et al. (n.d). Participatory action research in the contact zone.

Click Here To Order Now!