BOOK : Participatory Action Research, Hal A. Lawson et al, 2015

PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH

Lawson, H. A., Caringi, J., Pyles, L., Bozlak, C., & Jurkowski, J. (2015). Participatory action research. Pocket Guides to Social Work Research Methods.

 MY SUMMARY

..............

ABSTRACT

Abstract : As novel, complex social problems increase, especially those involving vulnerable people who reside in challenging places, the limitations of conventional research methods implemented by just one or two investigators become apparent. Research and development alternatives are needed, particularly methods that engage teams of researchers in real world problem solving while simultaneously generating practice- and policy-relevant knowledge. Research methods that effectively tap the expertise of everyday people, especially those impacted by these targeted social problems, are a special priority because academic researchers often lack experiential knowledge that stems from direct, everyday encounters with these vexing problems. Participatory action research (PAR) responds to these manifest needs. It provides a methodological structure and operational guidelines for preparing and deploying people from various walks of life as co-researchers, and it provides a proven strategy for generating practice- and policy-relevant knowledge as problem-solving in real world contexts proceeds.

IMPORTANT QUOTATION

DESCRIBING, EXPLAINING, AND JUSTIFYING PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH PAR provides the opportunity to explore, implement, and elaborate a revolutionary idea. It has the potential to recast researchers’ roles, empowering researchers as scholar change agents. They are both scholars and change agents because PAR joins social analysis and social action, bringing both to bear on knowledge production in service of practical problem-solving. Insofar as knowledge is power, and laypeople both generate and use PAR knowledge, scholar change agents who facilitate PAR are able to frame, name, and conduct their work as a special kind of empowerment practice. Because groups are involved, and group members empower one another, PAR can become a relational empowerment practice (Christens, 2012).p.6

Constitutive Rules: 

The Defining Features of PAR

➢ The research problem (phenomenon of interest) that necessitates and launches PAR is not wholly understood, and ready-made solutions apparently are not available.

➢ Especially when PAR is structured in relation to, and guided by, the scientific method, rigorous reviews of related research are expected and prerequisite to the study’s launch.

➢ PAR is an optimal research strategy for developing clarity about, and knowledge for, this phenomenon of interest because the best way to understand the problem is by trying to change it in its naturally occurring context(s).

➢ PAR is conducted in real world, natural settings.

➢ Persons without substantial research training, experience, demonstrated competence and formal credentials have valuable expertise regarding the phenomenon of interest, and enlightening knowledge generation depends on their engagement in PAR-structured problem-solving. Consequently, laypersons (including clients, patients, students and service users), practitioners, and policy makers are designated as co-researchers.

➢ Laypersons, practitioners, and policy makers serving as co-researchers must be prepared for PAR, and the lead researcher(s) possessing formal training and credentials must provide this preparation, accompanying social supports, and requisite resources.

➢ PAR, like group work, team development, and networked communities of practice, fundamentally depends on the lead researchers’ abilities to organize and mobilize co-researchers for collective action, especially the ability to facilitate the investigative process over time, managing conflicts, and developing “win-win” strategies that unite participants.

➢ PAR, like group work, team development, and networked communities of practice, fundamentally depends on special social settings with supportive prescriptive and prohibitive norms that enhance participant interactions, while safeguarding the quality of treatment each participant experiences.

➢ Democratic decision-making about all relevant aspects of the research is the norm, and lead researchers are responsible for initially established shared decision-making structures and processes.

➢ PAR is an iterative and recursive research process structured by a clear purpose (oftentimes operationalized as SMART goals) and structured cycles of inquiry that enable collective, action learning, incremental knowledge development, problem-solving progress, and adjustments in hypothesized problem-solving solutions.

➢ Research-based solutions to the problem are not expected to be generalizable. That is, what works for one person-, group-team, family-, organization-, community-, and town-city may not work for others.

➢ However, the PAR process may be generalizable, and so considerable attention to, and careful documentation of, the research phases and details is essential.

➢ If the research is presented at scholarly-academic meetings and published in journals and books, representative co-researchers who have made special contributions are expected to be co-authors.

➢ In contrast to the passive voice used to describe most conventional research, researchers use an active voice to describe who did what; when, where, how, and why; and the research outcomes, both intended and unintended.

➢ Evaluate the findings with regarding to a special kind of theory: A theory of change, also known as a theory of action.

 Regulative Rules: PAR Strategies  p.11

➢ Draw on a review of the related research as you frame and plan the PAR investigation and the accompanying co-researcher recruitment and capacity-building processes.

➢ If you intend to publish the research, complete the application process for the Institutional Review Board.

➢ Gain as much advanced knowledge as possible about the relationship between the research problem and the people with expertise about it, especially the people who must act strategically and effectively to address the problem.

➢ Do your homework on the targeted people and their affiliations: Start with the best determinations of the right mix of the essential people.

➢ Develop PAR training and learning materials, ensuring that participants are adequately prepared for the investigative journey before it commences.

➢ Start small, on a manageable scale, with consensus on the research purpose and where the probability of demonstrable, immediate progress is high.

➢ Ensure that all participants agree on the main research question(s), especially the language that will be used to define, describe and address it.

➢ From start to finish, emphasize the need for and importance of actionable knowledge, insisting that proposed solutions are ones that can be tried out immediately and evaluated in practice.

➢ Ensure that all participants enjoy voice and choice regarding every aspects of the research investigation, which means that the lead researcher(s) must share power and control whenever possible.

➢ Because every perspective and alternative strategy ultimately may have merit and use-values, develop an idea parking lot, which provides a storage space for priorities, alternatives, and strategies that are not top priorities or may not be feasible at this time.

p/12

➢ Establish firmly group norms and operational procedures. For example, agree that PAR language must be strengths-based and solution-focused with companion rules for preventing deficit-oriented thinking as well as finger-pointing and blaming dynamics. (See attached Figure 3.) ➢ Make sure that everyone understands that conflict is unavoidable and, if handled properly, generates good ideas. Develop consensus on the use of dialogue instead of divisive debates (see attached description in Figure 4). ➢ All decisions must be “data driven,” which recommends a formal process such as the development of logic models to guide PAR iterations and decision-making. ➢ Keep meticulous records of all meetings because they are essential “data” to be used in monitoring progress and building the group’s collective efficacy. ➢ Honor prior achievements and reward “small wins” to keep participants engaged and maintain the PAR momentum. ➢ Develop procedures that ensure that, even while every voice is heard and also that problem-solving dialogue is focused, detailed, efficient, and productive. ➢ Whenever and wherever possible, start with SMART goals (i.e., goals that are strategic and specific; measurable, attainable, results-based, and time-bound). ➢ Because short-term obstacles and permanent barriers to success are predictable, develop appropriate strategies and contingency plans in anticipation of these challenges because they have the potential to derail the PAR effort ➢ Do not try to solve complex adaptive and wicked problems in one effort: Where possible and feasible, chunk out solvable aspects of these problems. ➢ Identify and develop continuous monitoring and continuous quality improvement mechanisms such identifying and celebrating small wins, addressing obstacles and barriers; and adapting the PAR to meet new needs. ➢ Change the PAR participants as circumstances change, perhaps adding new members or reducing the number of participants. ➢ Especially when complex problems must be addressed, structure sub-groups and special task forces for particular aspects of these problems. ➢ Especially when research publication is a priority, subject the study and its findings to collective, democratic evaluations and “proofs”—and make sure that the authorship is based on group consensus.

Figure 1.1 PAR’s Constitutive and Regulative Rules

p. 13

There are two defining features of PAR: (a) It is an iterative process. Each cycle builds on the previous one(s). (b) It is also a recursive process. Each cycle’s knowledge contributions provide timely opportunities to reflect on where participants started, taking stock of all that they have learned and the knowledge and understanding they have produced along the way.

The first cycle begins with the problem identification phase, followed by planning (developing a proposed solution), then implementing the solution, and then monitoring and evaluating outcomes, which paves the way for reflection on action (described in the next section).  P.13

The second structured cycle builds on the first, but augments it with three additional phases: (a) a literature review, (b) data collection, and (c) data interpretation. This emphasis on data is especially important in forms of PAR conducted in accordance with the scientific method—and with the reminder that not all PAR is guided by the scientific method. P.14