Being a good researcher must be hard. Most people getting into research are interested in answering questions that will help society. But what if your hypothesis is wrong, and it turns out that manipulating the independent variable creates bad results? That can’t feel good when you’re trying to find out how to make things better. I imagine it’s even more difficult when a researcher uses participant observation. Participant observation is when the researcher is embedded into a group or situation to observe what happens from within (Gruman, Schneider, & Coutts, 2016). I see them as the vice-squad of researchers – needing to be covert so they don’t influence what they are studying. In addition to avoiding bias and affecting the results, researchers need to be constantly mindful of internal validity, as well as if their results will be generalizable (external validity).
However, I’ve recently been introduced to participatory action research where the methods are variable, and the scope of research is known to the participants, – in fact, their cooperation is encouraged (Brydon-Miller, 1997). The idea is to identify ways to enact positive social change, while the participants are active stakeholders that receive the benefits. In traditional research, the methods are set (i.e., changing a variable), but the results (although hypothesized), still need to be accurately coded and interpreted. In participatory action research, the results are pre-determined (i.e., improve literacy), but the methods to achieve the outcome come from trial and the feedback of the participants.
The word ‘activism” came to mind when I was learning about this, but this is not to be confused with activist research. In activist research, the major stakeholder is usually a corporate sponsor that likely wants to show how their product is more valuable to society than a competitor (Psych 424>modules>Lesson 13: Social Change/Participatory Research, n.d.). Participatory action research seems more genuine. The motivation is in finding solutions for stakeholders that are actually experiencing social problems.
The concept of participatory action and social change research really started to draw me in. It seems so much more fulfilling than having to stress over the wording of survey questions, or if demographic questions are in the optimal order too! This research sounds like the “get to work and get your hands dirty” type of stuff that can get results. That said, I have a lingering problem about a question I’m not sure of. Does participatory action research have external validity – meaning, can the results be used in a variety of social groups? For example, if I help an underdeveloped community improve their literacy rate, will my methods work with a different tribe or nation? At the same time, should I worry about generalizability when I have the opportunity to help someone that has a problem?
In the end, the question for me isn’t about if one research style is “better” than the other. The question is will I be happier facilitating customized, scientifically designed interventions helping groups one at a time, or discovering variables that create more generalizable social responses. I don’t know the answers to those questions yet. Which type of research will be the best fit for you?
References
Brydon-Miller, M. (1997). Participatory Action Research: Psychology and Social Change. Journal of Social Issues , 657-666.
Gruman, J. A., Schneider, F. W., & Coutts, L. M. (2016). Applied Social Psycology; Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Psych 424>modules>Lesson 13: Social Change/Participatory Research. (n.d.). Retrieved from Penn State World Campus: https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2110187/modules/items/30953786
Interesting topic that you decided to blog about! I think there’s more than a cookie cutter design or method for social approaches. I also think that Participatory Action Research is a good approach for most but I don’t think it’s the best for all kinds. As you could get results that favor or look good to those that are giving their personal feedback of what they see. As it’s allowing them to not feel exploited or oppressed. I think this is a topic that should be brought up more because we see a lot of people using one design for all kinds of social studies. This would help create a more diverse and hopefully more accurate result if we see a way of being able to use PAR with the patients also not lying or swaying things so they don’t look bad, to be completely transparent and honest and we should be able to see results that are more accurate. (Brydon-Miller 1997) They won’t feel exploited to give certain results.
Brydon-Miller, M. (1997). Participatory Action Research: Psychology and Social Change. Journal of Social Issues, 53(4). 657-666
I believe that participatory action research (PAR) should be implemented on the local state government level. I believe this because it allows stakeholders to collaborate to fix the problem and with the direct feedback and engagement from the members of the community. (Bryndon-Miller, 1997) I do not believe that there is a one size fits all approach to social issues. Each community has its own nuances and therefore their needs and motivating factors will vary. I believe that PAR promotes unity in our world where we are plagued with divisiveness. The government is supposed to use their power to make things better for all. Instead they misuse their power to dominate and promote divisiveness amongst the people.
I agree with you, we need action. We have enough data to show the plights of the communities. The government cannot and will not self-correct. There needs to be a partnership where everyone is able to contribute to the objective. PAR provides the model for this partnership and it allows involvement from all impacted parties.
Brydon-Miller, M. (1997). Participatory Action Research: Psychology and Social Change. Journal of Social Issues, 53(4). 657-666
Participatory Action Research, or PAR, is so interesting to me. It is “a practice in which the distinction between the researcher and the researched is challenged as participants are afforded the opportunity to take an active role in addressing issues that affect themselves, their families, and their communities” (Brydon-Miller, 1997). In other words, researchers are involving participants in ways that are not “exploiting or oppressing” (Brydon-Miller, 1997) them. This helps to create social change. I think this is an extremely healthy and positive form of research. If participants are treated better and made to feel like they are active in this research, you may find yourself reading more accurate results. Your post was really interesting!
References:
Brydon-Miller, M. (1997). Participatory Action Research: Psychology and Social Change. Journal of Social Issues , 657-666.