Archives

Uncategorized — 1 Comment
16
Nov 23

Giving Voice to the Voiceless: A Paradigm Shift in Animal Welfare through Participatory Action Research

Action research, at its core, is a transformative methodology that seeks to bridge the gap between theory and practice by actively involving participants in the research process. It evolved out of disillusionment with the traditional positivist research model (Brydon-Miller, 1997) and  emp sizes collaboration, empowerment, and real-world social change. Within this realm, Participatory Action Research (PAR) stands out, striving to holistically comprehend social situations and instigate change through collaboration between researchers, participants, and communities (Cornish et al., 2023). PAR has been a useful tool for addressing issues of systemic inequalities and empowering marginalized communities, such as during the U.S. Civil Rights Movement and facilitating mental health programs for Australian Aboriginals (Tsey et al., 2004). 

PAR’s steadfast commitment to honoring diverse ways of knowing, coupled with its rejection of prioritizing the researcher over participants, prompts a profound question: Can PAR extend beyond human entities?

Historically, animal subjugation has long-been justified through science and Judeo-Christian decrees that argue for the absolute difference between humans and other creatures. These divisions often hinge on three primary contentions: the impossibility of intersubjectivity, lack of subjectivity, and absence of spoken language (Merskin, 2010). It is worth noting that these same arguments maintained grounds for the mistreatment of indigenous and mentally handicapped people (2004). The assumption of human superiority has driven much of our scientific inquiry. However, trans-species psychology challenges these narratives, asserting that animals, like humans, share commonalities in cognition and emotion conserved through evolution that evinces their sentience. It explores the psychological experiences, behaviors, and needs of animals beyond traditional behaviorism and considers them as individuals with subjective lives and emotions (Bradshaw, 2010). The shift in our scientific understanding and acceptance of animals as complex beings akin to ourselves is evident in contemporary zoos, which now recognize the psychological needs of animals. This paradigm restructuring challenges the ethical implications of poor animal welfare under human guardianship and underscores that animals deserve a place in the discourse on social change.

Trans-species psychology, coupled with PAR, provides a potential avenue to amplify the voices of animals (Merskin, 2010). However, implementing PAR necessitates adapting human-centric methodologies to accommodate the unique characteristics, behaviors, and communication methods of different species. Modern research is gradually acknowledging that animals possess unique cultural and contextual aspects to their communication that are not easily translatable into human terms. Many species, especially highly social animals like dolphins and primates, exhibit complex communication systems specific to their species. Attempting to interpret their behavior solely through an anthropocentric lens will inevitably distort our understanding. The language barrier between humans and other animals is a prominent challenge, and this is where ethology becomes fundamental to the PAR approach (Bradshaw, 2010). 

Ethology is the study of animal behavior with a particular focus on the observation and analysis of how animals interact with each other and their environment (Immelmann, 1980). It has already enriched our understanding of the social lives of species such as chimpanzees through the work of Jane Goodall. Keen and immersive observation of animal behaviors, social structures, and communication methods in natural environments must occur to grasp the intricacies of animal communities. Collaboration with experts and advocates, including animal caretakers with extensive field experience, will contribute to project insights. Innovative technologies, such as touchscreens for interactive communication, have shown promise and may be further instrumental in a PAR approach. Ethical considerations, rooted in respecting animal autonomy and natural behaviors, underpin the entire PAR process and evaluation metrics would diverge from typical human criteria to focus on behavioral changes and improved well-being. In this way, PAR on animals offers a novel avenue to deepen our understanding, enhance their welfare, and contribute to conservation efforts.

While the information within this blog may seem “crazy” or “over-anthropomorphizing,” PAR research remains open to equalizing all life on Earth. A reductionist science that draws distinct lines between species is complicit in the destruction of the natural world (Merskin, 2010, p.153). Animals having poor welfare under human guardianship does not bode well for the future of our world, as it reflects a continued collective passivity and apathy towards fellow organisms and environments. Indifference is a luxury we cannot afford. As our history unfolds in the Anthropocene era, marked by humanity’s profound influence on the planet since the Industrial Revolution (Rafferty, 2020), adopting a new mode of thinking about the creatures we share Earth with becomes imperative for our continued existence as a species.

Citations

Bradshaw, G. (2010). You see me, but do you hear me? The science and sensibility of trans-species dialogue. Feminism & Psychology, 20(3), 407-419. https://doi-org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/10.1177/0959353510368285

Brydon-Miller, M. (1997). Participatory Action Research: Psychology and Social Change. Journal of Social Issues, 53(4). 657-666.

Cornish, F., Breton, N., Moreno-Tabarez, U. et al. (2023) Participatory action research. Nat Rev Methods Primers 3,34 . https://doi.org/10.1038/s43586-023-00214-1

Immelmann, K. (1980). Introduction to ethology. In Springer eBooks. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-1054-9

Merskin, D. (2010). Hearing voices: The promise of participatory action research for animals. Action Research, 9(2), 144–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750310388050

Rafferty, J. P. (2020, March 28). Anthropocene Epoch | Definition & Evidence. Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved September 2, 2022, from https://www.britannica.com/science/Anthropocene-Epoch

Tsey, K., Patterson, D., Whiteside, M., Baird, L., Baird, B. C., & Tsey, K. (2004). A microanalysis of a participatory action research process with a rural Aboriginal men’s health group. Australian Journal of Primary Health, 10(1), 64. https://doi.org/10.1071/py04009

 

Uncategorized — 1 Comment
14
Apr 19

Smoking and Social Change Initiatives for Our Youth

“Cigarette smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death and disability in the United States, despite a significant decline in the number of people who smoke. Over 16 million Americans have at least one disease caused by smoking. This amounts to $170 billion in direct medical costs that could be saved every year if we could prevent youth from starting to smoke and help every person who smokes to quit” (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2018). Cigarette use in our youth population is a serious behavioral health issue, one that requires the combative focus of social action groups. The youth of today look to their community based social norms, their parental guidance, and to the facts illustrated through social media and news outlets for information on how to act and what is normalized behavior. There is a lot of information out there that generates supportive movements one way or another. If one were to look at centuries past, idealizing and promotion of smoking was common place. “There was a time when people didn’t know that smoking cigarettes could be deadly—a long time ago, doctors even recommended that people smoke to cure other illnesses” (National Institute of Health, 2009). Today, it is required by law in the United States that every cigarette carton state the health dangers and give great detail about the poisonous toxins that the body is subjected to when smoking.

In my youth and from personal experience, growing up in a small rural town who normalized tobacco use— I can say that many of my friends began sneaking around and smoking as early as middle school. I was suckered into the peer pressure of trying it before the age of 10. Although the smell was terrible and the smoke burned my lungs, I took a drag all the same in an attempt to be “cool” like the other kids. In my freshman year in high school, my close friend came to me in tears saying that her father had passed away from lung cancer. It changed things for me, seeing how her pain and loss overcame her. This change was not triggered in many of her other close friends, friends who even today continue to ask if we have lighters handy. Cigarettes are addictive, they are poisonous and they kill; sometimes more slowly for some, but in the end— they hack away at the health of the body all the same.

Health groups and organizations such as the CDC’s: Tips from Former Smokers Campaign help advocate on both a federal and state level for smokers to quit the harmful habit. “Since 2012, the CDC has been educating the public about the consequences of smoking and exposure to secondhand smoke and encouraging smokers to quit through a federally funded, national tobacco education campaign” (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2018). Campaigns such as this involve the use of what is known as participatory action research. This type of research is gathered with the intention of using comparative research rooted in empirical evidence combined with the practical interest of mankind—all with the intent to ignite change or social action. It isn’t enough to just lay out facts to medical professionals about how bad smoking is and rely on annual doctor visits to suffice, participatory action research calls on the community to spread knowledge and an informing agenda to our youth more regularly.

Participatory action research demands “greater involvement and commitment on our parts to our own communities and to addressing issues of social justice around the world” (Brydon‐Miller, 1997). It draws a connection between society and science for the betterment of mankind as a whole. “Community-based participatory research involves the equitable partnership between the researchers and members of the community that is being researched, and is aimed at creating positive community change” (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012). In reference to this particular social issue, this means that we as a society need to diminish the socialization and acceptance of our youth smoking. This can take form through the use of advocating to the media to be held accountable for glamourizing smoking for our youth. It can be represented by parents choosing to quit smoking or even just by them choosing to have more serious conversations with their children about the dangers of smoking. It can be brought about by backing political affiliates who tout a no-smoking agenda, or even be as simple as liking a Truth about Smoking campaign on a social media platform for all your followers to see. All of these options bring about change in some way, they give meaning and a driving force to this participatory action research agenda.

References

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2018, September 13). Extinguishing the Tobacco Epidemic in Washington | CDC. Retrieved April 14, 2019, from

National Institute of Health. (2009, December 9). Smoking: Then and Now. Retrieved April 14, 2019, from https://teens.drugabuse.gov/blog/post/smoking-then-and-now

Brydon‐Miller, M. (1997). Participatory action research: Psychology and social change. Journal of Social Issues, 53(4), 657-666. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00042

Schneider, F., Gruman, J., & Coutts, L. (2012). Applied social psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Uncategorized — 1 Comment
14
Apr 19

Participatory Action Research in Children

Participatory research blends education, investigation, and action into one (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2005). It seamlessly educates both the participants and the researchers on the problem they are researching (Schneider et al., 2012). For the sake of this discussion, it will go over the roles of Participatory Action Research (PAR) in children.

There has been a great push for children’s participation in research in most recent years (Shamrova & Cummings, 2017). However, there are many researchers who fail to include children in their research studies (Shamrova & Cummings, 2017). If a researcher excludes children from their data, then their research will not show insights, ideas, and interpretations than only a child can provide. These possible research findings from the child may be completely different than the adult researchers findings themselves. By letting children and young adults participate in PAR it opens the door to letting them “be a part of social change” (Shamrova & Cummings, 2017). PAR is often thought of as an integration of participation from the community starting from the beginning to the end of the research process (Bennett, 2004). 

What exactly are some perceived benefits or outcomes of using PAR with children? A child’s participation can help researchers increase their social justice awareness, their responsibility and leadership roles, self-confidence, and in gaining more research skills (Shamrova & Cummings, 2017). Children and young adults can actively participate in their communities by getting involved in different PAR projects. The active engagement, team building experiences, and guided participation can all help a child grow in ways they never have before just by being involved in PAR (Langhout & Thomas, 2010). 

PAR is very rewarding for both the researcher and the participant. Past PAR studies with children involve changes in physical harassment policies, in school reconstruction, involvement in new facilities for water filtration, in tobacco access legislation, and more (Shamrova & Cummings, 2017). There are many different fields PAR has been used for. Some to name are in farmer participatory research, in architecture, action research in community development and in organizations, land use, participatory evaluation, and in landscape design (Bennett, 2004). Although there may be challenges with ethical issues regarding the use of children in PAR, there seems to be more positives then negatives in using them in research. 

References

Bennett, M. (2004). A review of the literature on the benefits and drawbacks of participatory action research. First Peoples Child & Family Review, 14(1), 109-122.

Langhout, R. D., & Thomas, E. (2010). Imagining participatory action research in collaboration with children: An introduction. American journal of community psychology, 46(1-2), 60-66.

Schneider, F.W., Gruman, J.A., & Coutts, L.A. (2005). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Shamrova, D. P., & Cummings, C. E. (2017). Participatory action research (PAR) with children and youth: An integrative review of methodology and PAR outcomes for participants, organizations, and communities. Children and Youth Services Review, 81, 400-412. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.08.022

Uncategorized — No Comments
23
Nov 18

People Who Care About a Topic Shouldn’t Get Involved?

“As my sufferings mounted I soon realized that there were two ways in which I could respond to my situation — either to react with bitterness or seek to transform the suffering into a creative force. I decided to follow the latter course.”
―Martin Luther King Jr., 1960, ‘Suffering and Faith’

 

People Who Care About a Topic Shouldn’t Get Involved?

It’s a little odd to me that there is a debate over whether or not participatory action research (PAR) is a valid method. Like most things that are different from the norm, the importance lies in not jumping to label them as “good” or “bad” but as what they actually are: different. And, ideally, any scientist would welcome all tools which expand the understanding and possibilities in a given situation. The argument against it seems to be based on the concern about whether or not a researcher who is also a participant can be objective in assessing the situation, deciphering the data, or implementing what is truly the most beneficial course of action. But objectivity, though vital, actually isn’t the most important element of these otherwise-ignored situations. The most important thing is that they are recognized at all.

One of the first things we are told from the first lesson in our most basic class on entering the field of psychology is that “science doesn’t answer big questions” (Psychology as a Science and Profession, n.d.). Instead, science is meant to answer the decidedly small questions unique to very specific situations so that what is learned may then be appliedto more general situations. And that works perfectly, assuming that we’re aware of what requires our focus and have the means to conduct the research. But this scientific method is a top-down approach, assuming that those who have the training, resources, and opportunity to conduct research also have an exhaustive knowledge of what needs to be researchedand will automatically carry it out. Realistically, that is not going to be the case.

In general, research is conducted in cycles of “hot topics” which faze out, giving way to other areas of focus, all of which depends on what interests or corporations provide the funding. In addition, researchers are compelled to publish, which means that they will naturally turn their focus to topics of interest (increasing the chances of publication), rather than what is necessarily most important. Much falls through the proverbial cracks. This is exactly why PAR is well-suited to groups who are ignored, oppressed, or exploited (Maguire, 1987). The group in question does not have to wait for attention or funding from the greater population that would not otherwise consider their problem worthy of attention. It is a bottom-up approach where those who intimately involved in the problem (and vested in outcomes) conduct their own research to bring about positive change. Though this method attracts criticism for not being truly scientific, it is fair to say that much of the progress that has been made with this method never would have come to pass otherwise, because the issues it addresses would not have caught the attention of the scientific community at large nor garnered its focus and funding. This is exactly the “small questions” psychology is meant to answer—specific situations with unique problems requiring specialized solutions tailored to those involved. Private therapy also incorporates this bottom-up technique into its generally top-down approach. Clinical psychology has techniques and methods which are scientifically proven to help in given situations (top-down). However, individual therapists are also given license to adapt these proven methods, depending on their educated assessment of their client and the specific situation (bottom-up)—receiving constant feedback on what is working and what isn’t and evolving the intervention plan to best bring about the desired positive change. This is the same method that PAR uses on a larger scale, with a researcher applying their knowledge to a larger group or demographic.

Rather than dismissing PAR as “unscientific,” it may simply be accepted as another tool that is useful in bringing about positive change. In any research situation, a researcher must decide what method is best for testing a hypothesis. PAR is one possible method which may or may not be suited to a certain situation. In addition, it may actually be moreuseful in situations where there is not a great deal of existing knowledge about the dynamics, traditions, or practices of the group in question—when a researcher is just beginning to gather information on a population. Last semester, I was required to take ENG 221: Writing in the Social Sciences, which requires its students to each find a culture to observe throughout the semester. I chose a group of which I am a long-time member: an online group focused on fountain pens and writing. Because I was already a member of the group, I held a greater practical knowledge than someone who would have been observing from outside the group: I already understood the (very plentiful) jargon; I understood what was taboo in the group and what was encouraged; I understood the hierarchy of the members. All of this would have been lost on an outsider or, at minimum, created a significant learning curve in order to study the group. Because I was an “insider” but also a researcher, I was able to use my knowledge of the group to better understand my observances. I think of this as a very powerful tool—much like the benefit of an interpreter when approaching new study of a culture with which the researcher is not familiar.

Returning to the private therapy parallel, any therapist would be quick to acknowledge that change in a client isn’t something the therapist does, but something the client brings about for themselves. As Yeich and Levine (1992) describe, “Empowerment seems to be a process that one must do for oneself-not something that someone can do for or to another.” This may be even truer for a group: those who are considered in-groupare not going to be as open to being told what to do from someone (or some group) considered out-group (e.g. researchers who have not experienced their situation first-hand). However, because PAR arises from within the group desiring the change, the necessary steps to bring it about would be more readily accepted and adopted. The policy that a researcher should not have a vested interest in their own research is based on the assumption that this is mutually exclusive with being objective. However, if a researcher in this situation can remain as objective as possible in assessing the best course of action, an interest in the outcome may not only bring an otherwise-ignored topic into the spotlight, but it may provide the motive needed to see the situation through to a satisfactory resolution.

 

_______________________________________

References

Psychology as a Science and Profession(n.d.) Lesson 1: Why Psych 105?[Lesson Notes]. Retrieved from Pennsylvania State University, Psychology as a Science and Profession, https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1803751/modules/items/21132916

King ML, Jr. (1960). ‘Suffering and Faith’ The Christian Century27 April.

Maguire, P. (1987). Doing participatory research: A feminist approach.Amherst, MA: Center for Inter- national Education,  University of Massachusetts.

Yeich, S., & Levine, R. (1992). Participatory research’s contribution to a conceptualization of empowerment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(24), 189&1908.

Skip to toolbar