When we think of “research,” traditional experiments carried out in a lab may come to mind. Clinical advancements in understanding diseases, steps forward in physics at facilities like CERN, and of course, deeper understanding of human psychology through approaches such as neuroimaging and social experiments. And while a great majority of research is in fact still carried out in this way, there is another form of research that isn’t talked about as often: participatory action research, or PAR.
So what is PAR? Participatorymethods.org defines it as “an approach to enquiry which involves researchers and participants working together to understand a problematic situation and change it for the better.” If this sounds different than regular research, that’s because it is. Unlike most traditional research, PAR seeks to distribute power evenly between the researchers and the participants. Throughout the entire process, from research design to data collection to publishing of results, participants have an equal say. Due to its less objective nature, PAR can certainly be controversial in some academic circles.
However, there are situations in which it can potentially be more helpful than traditional research methods. One example is Indigenous health research—with traditional research methods, Indigenous communities are many times misunderstood and treated poorly, and their situations rarely improve as a consequence. Most of these issues are able to be remedied by including Indigenous communities in the entire process from start to finish and listening to their input, opinions, and desired outcomes. The result is a more tailored and personal approach to examining and solving issues facing the community (Baum, MacDougall, & Smith, 2006).
While traditional, nonpersonal experimental research methods remain the gold standard, PAR shouldn’t be entirely discounted. By involving the communities that are being studied in the design and analysis processes, data that might not otherwise have been recorded is considered more deeply and used in taking actions meant to improve the situation.
References:
https://www.participatorymethods.org
Baum, F., MacDougall, C., & Smith, D. (2006). Participatory action research. Journal of epidemiology and community health, 60(10), 854–857.
I found your title interesting because maybe PAR isn’t always the best option in all cases. According to the article provided for our lesson this week, “PAR works to address the specific concerns of the community as well as the fundamental causes of the oppression, with the goal of achieving *positive* social change” (Brydon-Miller, 1997).
I had a friend who did some community work in Puerto Rico a few years ago. They were attempting a type of PAR, however the community with which they were working was not receptive of their assistance in the least bit. I think that PAR can be extremely productive if utilized in the correct situation, but it may not be good for everything.
Brydon‐Miller, M. (1997), Participatory Action Research: Psychology and Social Change. Journal of Social Issues, 53: 657-666. https://doi-org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1997.tb02454.x