Participatory Action

Research (PAR)

Creative methods for collective engagement

Susan O’Shea

Sociology

susan.oshea@mmu.ac.uk

Twitter: @SOSheaSNA
 Workshop Aims
• Experience of using a participatory action research
(PAR) tool

• What makes PAR distinct from other research

approaches?

• Life cycle of a PAR project

• Project examples

• Review advantages and disadvantages of PAR

 Ketso
• What is Ketso? - http://www.ketso.com/

• Write or draw one idea per leaf for clarity

• Think about what each leaf means to make data easier to

code and compare across groups

What works well / existing resources Creative ideas / Positive

Goals / Next steps /

Challenges and barriers Solutions
 Branch 1

Q1 - What research skills are you good at?

Q 2 - What would you like to learn / improve?

 What is PAR?
Method or Approach

• PAR is not a method but a toolkit of methods

• It is an approach to research (Pain, Whitman, Milledge, &

Lune Rivers Trust, 2011; Boyle, 2012; Patton, 2008)

• "an orientation to inquiry" (Reason & Bradbury, 2008)

• Seeks to redress the balance of power from researcher as

expert in traditional hierarchical research programmes

• The intention is that the participant is an equal partner

with the researcher
 What is PAR?
Participatory = The way information (data) is collected
Action = the change - how the community/group uses information with
support - the process
Closely Related Terms
Range of Approaches
• Participatory appraisal • participatory learning research (PLR)
• Participant observation
• Emancipatory research • community based participatory
research (CRPR)
• Co-operative/collaborative enquiry
• Participatory learning research • participatory action research (PAR)
• Reciprocal research
• cooperative inquiry (CI)
• Critical action research
• Empowerment research • participatory rural appraisal (PRA)
• Action learning • participatory learning and action
• Rapid appraisal (PLA)
• Contextual action research
• Action science
 Elements of PAR?
Branch 2
If PAR is research ‘with’, ‘for’ or
‘by’ rather than ‘on’ people then
what are the key elements we
should consider?
For example: PAR should be
collaborative - researchers and
communities or groups should
work together at all stages of
the process
 Elements of PAR
Your thoughts first….
• Co-production of
knowledge
• Collaborative
• Bottom up approach
• Iterative cyclical process
• research, reflection &
action
• Asset based
• Democratising research
• Active participation
• Knowledge for action rather
than for understanding
• Ongoing process as
important as product
• Range of methods
• Leads to change by and for
those who carry out the
research
• Facilitates Empowerment
• Challenges research
relationships
• Encourages Ownership
 When to use PAR?
• When you want to gather and use
information that benefit the people it
directly affects.
• Education
• With community groups / organisation
• International development
- well established or newly formed
• Health Care
• When social change (action) is
important • Social Policy

• Building partnerships / Trust • Criminal Justice

• Developing action plans for solving • Community settings e.g

problems environmental, regeneration
projects
• Empowering the community and
developing community capacity

• Accessing specialised local knowledge

 Elements of PAR
Similar to other ‘participatory methods’ but only PAR
embraces all of the following five principles (Grundy 1982)

1) participation
2) collaboration
3) empowerment
4) knowledge
5) social change
 PAR Toolkit of Methods
Choose the most appropriate methods (traditional/non/
traditional) for the topic and the participants, for example:

• Survey • Art competition

• Public meetings • Website
• Focus groups • Workshops
• Interviews • Public / open space events
• Mapping • Photography
• Social Networks Analysis • Video
• Photo elicitation Narratives • Drama
 Branch 3
Q 4 - Advantages of using Participatory Action Research?

Q 5 - Disadvantages of using Participatory Action Research?

 Knowledge & Power
• PAR questions who can produce and ‘own’ knowledge
• Who is included, who is missing? What voices are heard
and what voices are missing?
• Challenges institutional power dynamics and research
norms
• Collaborative - brings diverse knowledge, experience,
resources, skills together
• How and where are meetings conducted?
• How inclusive are spaces? Access
• Ideal: co-creation of knowledge
 Knowledge & Power
• Conflict resolution techniques - are facilitators
comfortable and skilled in managing diverse opinions?
Training?
• Reporting structures and information flow - boards,
trustees, research funders, mangers, participants & co-
creators…
• Can be challenging for research ethics boards to
understand (often dominated by medical paradigm) -
especially if combined with other relational methods e.g.
Social Network Analysis
• Researcher as facilitator
 Ethics
• Informed consent
(negotiated)
• Information storage - legal
obligation under the Data
Protection Act - but need to
balance this with openness
and shared ownership of
data
• Anonymity - whole group
or just individuals, how is
this negotiated?
• Confidentiality (negotiated)
• Accountability - setting up
research guidelines from the
start. If there are safeguarding
issues with some participants
sharing all information not in
best interests of all
participants
• Ensuring aims are met -
action taken when possible
to maximise benefit
• Identifying possible areas of
harm, avoiding and mitigating
harm - guidelines useful
Ethics - Emotions & Wellbeing
Things to think about:
• The facilitator/researcher
• Participants
• Others outside the PAR group - is this a contentious or
emotional topic?
• Managing expectations
• Conflict / Anger
• Disappointment
• Emotional investment in the project / burnout
• Support services / safeguarding / other professionals
 Life cycle of a PAR project
Before you begin:
• Staff capacity / researcher capacity
• Budget (things always cost more)
• Data - primary / secondary / access Theory of Change
• Equipment / Tools / Technology
• Partnerships & Collaboration
• Expertise
Chevalier JM, Buckles DJ and Schweidler C (2013: 10)
Life cycle of a PAR project
Table 1:Typical key stages in PAR (adapted from Kindon et al., 2007)

PHASE ACTION
Establish relationships and common agenda with all stakeholders.
Action
Collaboratively decide on issues
Reflection On research design, ethics, knowledges and accountability
Build relationships

Action
Identify roles and responsibilities
On research questions, design, working relationships and information
Reflection
required
Action Work together to implement research and collect data Enable
participation of all members
On working together

Reflection
Has participation worked?
Begin to work on feeding research back to all participants and plan
Action
for feedback on process and ndings
Reflection Evaluate both the action and reflection processes as a whole
Action Collectively identify future research and impacts

Taken from the PAR toolkit by Pain R, Whitman G, Milledge D, et al. (2012)
 Advantages of PAR
What did you say? (Branch 3)…..
Burns, Cooke and Schweidler (2011:13)

• Facilitate collaborative, equitable partnerships in all phases of research

• Balance research and action for the benefit of all

• Recognise community as unit of analysis

• Build on community strengths and resources (assets)

• Promote joint learning, skill-sharing and capacity- building among all partners

• Long-term process and commitment

• Develop Engagement Strategy for Action

• Determine how you want to engage community members

• Conduct interviews with residents to confirm or “ground-truth” data

• Presentation of findings to staff / community to gather support for advocacy

 Advantages of PAR
• Increases depth and understanding of issues, making research more
relevant
• Increases chances of community adopting outcomes from research
• Reduces barriers to research, - improve efficiency and reduce
frustration
• Provides the ability to observe behaviour as it occurs, thus
increasing the efficiency of data collection
• Minimises the risk of misunderstanding due to the close
relationships developed with the community
• Research participants or stakeholders already possess the required
knowledge and expertise to help improve the program
 Disadvantages of PAR
What did you say? (Branch 3) ….

• Time Consuming - if participants are too involved in details

• Researcher Bias - because the researcher is involved
• Lack of Professional Recognition - not as well recognised as
quantitative research methods or stand alone qualitative
methods
• Data Overload - can be difficult to manage / analyse / use
appropriately
• Inadequate Representation - research participants may not fully
represent the interests of all stakeholders, particularly where
numerous stakeholders are involved in the evaluation
• Cost - many activities and meetings have costs associated
 Research Examples

Participatory youth practice framework uses young people’s lived experiences, supported by
academic theory and research evidence, to suggest a new approach to youth justice

Youth-led principles
1. Let them participate 5. Help problem solve
2. Always unpick why 6. Help them find better options
3. Acknowledge limited life chances 7. Develop their ambitions
4. Try to avoid threats and 8. Remember that ultimately, it’s their
sanctions choice

VIDEO: https://youtu.be/AIjXXpOxi5Q
 Things to think about:Transnational Project
UK, South Africa & Colombia

Sport, Arts and Mentoring

Dr Susan O’Shea and Dr Deborah Jump
Sociology and Criminology
I Define Me
Comic Relief Project Title
 Transnational

Colombia: Bogota (linked with London)

South Africa: Cape Town & Johannesburg

England: Manchester, Wolverhampton, Birmingham & London

 Child Sexual Exploitation
https://youtu.be/SsUIMMakb-8

Figure 2: Operation Y offender network. Figure 4: Operation Y Victim network.

Ann Coffey Report
March 2017

• CSE Offences up 5 fold in

GM Last 3 years
• 3 x children victims up
1,731 from 650 2015 to
2016
• Technology – Sexting
• 14% 14yr olds sent
• 22% received

2011 - Exploring Internal Child Sex Trafficking1

Networks Using Social Network Analysis Eleanor
Cockbain , Helen Brayley and Gloria Laycock
 Project Interventions
Sport, Arts & Mentoring

Sport
Mentoring Collyhurst & Moston City in the Community Arts
Boxing Football
Drama
MCR Active Voices MAD Theatre
Wellbeing Organisation

IGMU Design Performance

Build Resilience Girls & Skills

Self Peer Young
Women Film Making
Youth Services Peer Support &
Relationship Building Confidence Education

Positive Social Networks Writing skills

Referrals AQA Change

Accreditation
 Project Outcomes
1. To enhance the personal wellbeing of girls and young women engaged
with the ‘Getting out for Good’ project across the partner sites and
communities of Greater Manchester

2. To enhance the social capital and social networks of girls and young
women engaged with the sport, culture and mentoring scheme

3. To encourage resilience in girls and young women that increases their

confidence to make positive choices away from gangs

4. To raise the educational aspirations of girls and young women by

providing age and level appropriate pathways and opportunities for
learning
 Academic Outputs - REF & Teaching
Knowledge exchange
Sport
Mentoring Can sport be a tool for change?
Arts
Does mentoring
work? What impact does cultural
Public Profile participation have?
International • Radio
Publications • Social Media
Gang- • Web
Title: Girls and Gangs, Global Policy Impact Innovative Research: Using Narrative &
involved • TV
Intervention and Prevention Girls & Social Network Analysis to understand the
Strategies: A Systematic Review Young positive and negative Influences on
The Campbell Review Women gang-involved young women

Teaching and Student Engagement Opportunities

Public Event 2020
Monitoring Learning and Evaluation Festival Of Achievement
REF Case Study Local (Internal MMU / External)
Showcase & AQA
National, International (Comic Relief) Awards
 Who is eligible to participate?
Professional /Support referrals
Girls or young women at risk of, or identified as being vulnerable to, gang involvement or coercion by
groups of people to engage in criminal behaviours, unsafe or exploitative sexual behaviour.

Self / Peer / Carer referrals

If you are female and aged between 14-24 years and if you answer ‘yes’ to any of the following questions
you meet the eligibility criteria:

• Are you concerned about how your friends influence you?

• Do you worry about getting involved in things that you don’t want to be, because of
your friends or other groups of people?
• Do you feel under any pressure from groups of friends or people you know to do
things?
Contact MMU Research
Deborah Jump: deborahjump@mmu.ac.uk
Susan O’Shea: susan.oshea@mmu.ac.uk
Website: www.ggo4g.org (launch end Jan 2018)
Twitter: @GGo4G

Referrals to Manchester Active Voices

Angela Lawrence / Tel: 0161 227 1125 / Mobile: 07779950472
Website: www.manchesteractivevoices.org.uk
Email: info@manchesteractivevoices.org.uk
Address: Turing House , Archway 5, Hulme, Manchester, M15 5RL
 Feedback
Any Questions? ….. Branch 4
1 - Write down your top 3 key take home points

2 - Would you recommend this workshop to others?

Yes - It was really useful No - Not what I was expecting

Not sure
It might be useful for some

3 - Any other comments?

 References
Appel K, Jodoin K and Roth D (2012) Participatory Learning and Action Toolkit: For Application in BSR’s Global
Programs. Available from: https://herproject.org/downloads/curriculum-resources/herproject-pla-toolkit.pdf
(accessed 4 January 2018).

Boyle, M. (2012). Research in action: A guide to Participatory Action Research (Research Report). Canberra:
Department of Social Services. Retrieved from <www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/06_2012/
research_in_action.pdf>

Burns JC, Cooke DY and Schweidler C (2011) A Short Guide to Community Based Participatory Action
Research. Available from: https://hc-v6-static.s3.amazonaws.com/media/resources/tmp/cbpar.pdf (accessed 4
January 2018).

Chevalier JM, Buckles DJ and Schweidler C (2013) Handbook for Participatory Action Reseearch, Planning and
Evaluation. Available from: https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/11f418_c56ab3b5fc5c455091178ac894ab359d.pdf
(accessed 4 January 2018).

Grundy, S 1982, ‘Three modes of action research’ in S Kemmis & R McTaggart (eds), The Action Research
Reader, Deakin University Press,Victoria.

Kindon S, Pain R and Kesby M (2007) Participatory action research approaches and methods: connecting people,
participation and place. Routledge.

Pain R, Whitman G, Milledge D, et al. (2012) An Introduction to Using PAR as an Approach to Learning, Research
and Action. Available from: https://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/beacon/PARtoolkit.pdf (accessed 4 January 2018).

Patton, M. Q. (2008). Utilization-focused evaluation (4th ed.). London: SAGE

Reason, Peter & Bradbury, Hilary (Eds.) (2008b). The Sage handbook of action research. Participative Inquiry and
Practice (2nd ed.). London: Sage.