journal article
Open Access
Jan 01, 2024
The Merits and Pitfalls of Participatory Action Research: Navigating Tokenism and Inclusion with Lived Experience Members
Abstract
This paper explores the merits and pitfalls of involving people with lived and living experiences of a phenomenon of interest (e.g., poverty, hunger, housing deprivation) in Participatory Action Research (PAR). As researchers who have conducted PAR and community-based research for several years, the authors have gained deep insight into the value of having lived/living experience members in PAR projects, as well as the challenges attendant to such work. Using a collaborative autoethnographic methodology, this paper provides an overview of PAR, including its purposes and objectives. Aiming to move past tokenistic inclusion, issues associated with meaningful participation, including relational (e.g., issues of power), ethical (e.g., risks of participation), emotional (e.g., research triggers), economic (e.g., remunerating contributions and financially supporting participation), representational (e.g., whose perspectives are advanced), and structural barriers (e.g., time, technological connectivity, etc.) are discussed using concrete examples. Bringing together people who may hold disparate perspectives, community ties, worldviews, and visions associated with a research undertaking can create challenges, but not including those who experience the phenomenon of study can create even more challenges.
Topics
No keywords indexed for this article. Browse by subject →
References
65
[1]
Adams, M., & Moore, G. (2007). Participatory action research and researcher safety. In S. Kindon, R. Pain, & M. Kesby (Eds.), Participatory action research approaches and methods (pp. 67-74). Routledge.
10.4324/9780203933671-17
[2]
Adams, T. E., Holman, J. S., & Ellis, C. (2014). Autoethnography. Oxford University Press.
[4]
[6]
Bradbury, H., & Reason, P. (2006). Conclusion: Broadening the bandwidth of validity: Issues and choice-points for improving the quality of action research. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Concise paperback edition (pp. 343-351). Sage.
[7]
Brydon‐Miller, M., & Maguire, P. (2009). Participatory action research: Contributions to the development of practitioner inquiry in education. Educational Action Research, 17(1), 79-93.
10.1080/09650790802667469
[9]
Cambridge Dictionary. (2024). Tokenism. Retrieved from: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/nglish/tokenism
[10]
Canadian Institutes of Health Research. (2018). Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research. Retrieved from:https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/41204.html
[11]
Coghlan, D., & Brydon-Miller, M. (Eds.). (2014). Community-Based Research. In The Sage encyclopedia of action research. Sage.
10.4135/9781446294406
[12]
Corbett, A. M., Francis, K., & Chapman, Y. (2007). Feminist‐informed participatory action research: A methodology of choice for examining critical nursing issues. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 13(2), 81-88.
10.1111/j.1440-172x.2007.00612.x
[13]
Participatory action research
Flora Cornish, Nancy Breton, Ulises Moreno-Tabarez et al.
Nature Reviews Methods Primers
10.1038/s43586-023-00214-1
[15]
Dedding, C., Goedhart, N. S., Broerse, J. E. W., & Abma, T. A. (2021). Exploring the boundaries of ‘good' Participatory Action Research in times of increasing popularity: Dealing with constraints in local policy for digital inclusion. Educational Action Research, 29(1), 20-36.
10.1080/09650792.2020.1743733
[19]
Freire, P. (2017). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Penguin Classics.
[20]
[22]
Given, L. (Ed.). (2008). Community-based research. In The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. Sage.
10.4135/9781412963909
[28]
Huffman, T. (2017). Participatory/action research/CBPR. In J. Mathes (Ed.), The International encyclopedia of communication research methods (pp. 1-10). Wiley & Sons.
10.1002/9781118901731.iecrm0180
[29]
Khanlou, N., & Peter, E. (2005). Participatory action research: Considerations for ethical review. Social Science & Medicine, 60(10), 2333-2340.
10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.10.004
[31]
[32]
Kingdon, J. W. (2003). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers.
[33]
Kuriloff, P. J., Andrus, S. H., & Ravitch, S. M. (2011). Messy ethics: Conducting moral participatory action research in the crucible of university–school relations. Mind, Brain, and Education, 5(2), 49-62.
10.1111/j.1751-228x.2011.01110.x
[34]
Lac, V. T., & Fine, M. (2018). The good, the bad, and the ugly: An autoethnographic journey on doing participatory action research as a graduate student. Urban Education, 53(4), 562-583.
10.1177/0042085918762491
[35]
Lake, D., & Wendland, J. (2018). Practical, epistemological, and ethical challenges of participatory action research: A cross-disciplinary review of the literature. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 22(3), 11-42.
[37]
Loomba, A. (2002). Colonialism/postcolonialism. Routledge.
10.4324/9780203194911
[39]
Mason, K. (2015). Participatory action research: Coproduction, governance and care. Geography Compass, 9(9), 497-507.
10.1111/gec3.12227
[40]
McCullough, S., & Havens, M., with Isaak, C., & Deboer, T. (2012). At Home/Chez Soi, Winnipeg Site: Later Implementation Evaluation Report. Canadian Mental Health Commission of Canada. Retrieved from:https://winnspace.uwinnipeg.ca/bitstream/handle/10680/746/2012%20Later%20Implementation%20Report--Winnipeg.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
[41]
Minkler, M., & Freudenberg, N. (2010). From community-based participatory research to policy change. In H. E. Fitzgerald, C. Burack, & S. D. Seifer (Eds.), Handbook of engaged scholarship: Contemporary landscapes, future directions, Volume (2 (pp. 275-294). Michigan State University Press.
[42]
Miyahara, M., & Fukao, A. (2022). Exploring the use of collaborative autoethnography as a tool for facilitating the development of researcher reflexivity. System, 105, 102751.
10.1016/j.system.2022.102751
[44]
Pascale, R., Sternin, J., & Sternin, M. (2010). The power of positive deviance. Harvard Business School Publishing.
[46]
[47]
Richardson, L. (1994). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 516-529). Sage.
[48]
Root, M. (2007). Community-Based Research. In W. Outhwaite & S. Turner, The Sage handbook of social science methodology (pp. 565–577). Sage.
10.4135/9781848607958.n31
[50]
Sandwick, T., Fine, M., Greene, A. C., Stoudt, B. G., Torre, M. E., & Patel, L. (2018). Promise and provocation: Humble reflections on critical participatory action research for social policy. Urban Education, 53(4), 473-502.
10.1177/0042085918763513
Showing 50 of 65 references
Metrics
6
Citations
65
References
Details
- Published
- Jan 01, 2024
- Vol/Issue
- 6:1
- Pages
- 46-62
- License
- View
Authors
Cite This Article
Tracy Smith-Carrier, Rana Van Tuyl (2024). The Merits and Pitfalls of Participatory Action Research: Navigating Tokenism and Inclusion with Lived Experience Members. International Review of Public Policy, 6:1, 46-62. https://doi.org/10.4000/11whj