International Journal of Nursing Practice 2007; 13: 81–88

RESEARCH PAPER

Feminist-informed participatory action research:

A methodology of choice for examining critical
nursing issues
Andrea M Corbett BN MPhil (Nursing)
PhD Candidate, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Monash University, Gippsland Campus,
Churchill, Victoria, Australia

Karen Francis RN, PhD, Med, MHlth ScPHC, Grad Cert Uni Teach/Learn,
BHlth ScNsg, DipHlth ScNsg
Professor of Rural Health, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Monash University, Gippsland
Campus, Churchill, Victoria, Australia

Ysanne Chapman RN, PhD, MSc (Hons), BEd (Nsg), GDE, DNE
Senior Research Fellow, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Monash University, Gippsland
Campus, Churchill, Victoria, Australia

Accepted for publication September 2006

Corbett AM, Francis K, Chapman Y. International Journal of Nursing Practice 2007; 13: 81–88
Feminist-informed participatory action research: A methodology of choice for examining critical
nursing issues

Identifying a methodology to guide a study that aims to enhance service delivery can be challenging. Participatory action
research offers a solution to this challenge as it both informs and is informed by critical social theory. In addition, using a
feminist lens helps acquiesce this approach as a suitable methodology for changing practice. This methodology embraces
empowerment self-determination and the facilitation of agreed change as central tenets that guide the research process.
Encouraged by the work of Foucault, Friere, Habermas, and Maguire, this paper explicates the philosophical assumptions
underpinning critical social theory and outlines how feminist influences are complimentary in exploring the processes and
applications of nursing research that seeks to embrace change.
Key words: critical social theory, feminism, participatory action research, power relationship, practice development.

INTRODUCTION development, are utilized in health-care environments to

Health professionals, including nurses and health service
administrators, are charged with maintaining high-quality
services to consumers. Initiatives, for example, practice
Correspondence: Andrea M. Corbett, 244 St Aubyn Street, New Ply-
mouth, New Zealand. Email: a.corbett@witt.ac.nz
support clinicians to enhance their service delivery
capacity and ultimately improve health outcomes for
consumers.1–7 Proposed studies using the framework of
participatory action research (PAR) seek to assist health
professionals to acquire the necessary skills and knowl-
edge required to meet these challenges.7–10 Situated
within the critical naturalistic paradigm, PAR aims to

© 2007 The Authors

doi:10.1111/j.1440-172X.2007.00612.x Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd
82
facilitate change using a recurring cyclical process of
engagement, collaboration, cooperation, reflection and
evaluation. This paper will explore the relationship
between PAR and feminist theory, arguing that both
philosophical premises share a common goal and might
acquiesce to inform a process for clinical research.
It will be useful to understand that the essential differ-
ence between action research and PAR is that action
research has been undertaken by and with people who
have power and control, such as managers and directors of
organizations, whereas PAR has been developed and uti-
lized with disempowered people.3,4
ACTION RESEARCH
Stringer and Genat defined action research as: ‘a system-
atic, participatory approach to inquiry that enables people
to extend their understanding of problems or issues and to
formulate actions directed towards the resolution of those
problems or issues’.11 The linking of the terms ‘action’
and ‘research’ highlights the essential features of the
approach: testing ideas in practice as a means of improve-
ment and as a means of increasing knowledge. This linking
originates from the work of Kurt Lewin.12 He contended
that the two ideas of group decision and commitment to
improvement were inextricably linked. He believed that
those affected by planned changes had the primary respon-
sibility for deciding on courses of critically informed
action which would likely lead to improvement and be
accountable for evaluating the results of strategies tried
out in practice.
Although Lewin is acknowledged as the pioneer of
action research as a distinct research methodology by
many writers,13 others actually attributed the develop-
ment of this research methodology to the American phi-
losopher, John Dewey. Dewey wrote extensively in the
1930s regarding the education system and the need to
reform it by democratization. Dewey analysed and wrote
about reflective thinking in which practical problems
demanded practical solutions, and the solution could only
be regarded as viable when it was shown that it produced
the desired outcome in actual practice.
The term ‘action research’ is credited to two men,
Lewin and John Collier. Collier was the Commissioner of
Indian Affairs in the United States between 1933 and 1945.
He used the term ‘research-action’ to describe social
research that was cyclical in its nature: ‘action research and
research action’. Collier believed that ethnic relationships
between indigenous North Americans and the ‘free
© 2007 The Authors
Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd
AM Corbett et al.
settlers’ could only be improved by a programme of col-
laborative research in which both parties came together to
develop acceptable solutions to common problems.14
Social psychologist Kurt Lewin developed an action
research approach that he used to explore questions raised
by communities in post-war America.12 It is believed that
his experiences in Nazi Germany influenced his views of
the world and his conceptualisation of a democratically
based research approach, action research, for understand-
ing and changing human behaviour.4 Lewin rejected the
positivist belief that researchers study an objective world
separate from the intersubjective meanings as understood
by them as they act in and on their world. In this way,
action research not only links action and research but also
assumes an educational mission as part of the problem-
solving process.3 The approach Lewin developed, tested
and modified during the turbulent years of the 1950s and
1960s, advocated the management of provocative and
complex situations both critically and practically. Lewin
was the first to state that the action research process was
cyclical, involving a process of fact-finding, planning,
action, and reflection and evaluation.15
In the education sector, action research was first used in
1945 by Columbia University to investigate and enhance
practice. Following several refinements, the action
research methodology was recognized as a valid approach
to facilitate change in educational settings in the USA,
Britain and Australia.4 Lawrence Stenhouse and John
Elliott used action research to develop an innovative
humanities curricula.15 Elliot promoted an individual
reflective approach for understanding educational prac-
tice. He argued that the dominant paradigm supported an
institutionalized division of teachers and an academic elite
of educational researchers. Elliot advocated the use of
action research as a coupling strategy for teachers to
engage as researchers and ultimately assured a vehicle for
professionalism.4 Schon argued that the use of reflective
work in educational practice led to intentional action to
improve professional practice which was then evaluated in
an action research methodology.16,17 Kemmis and McTag-
gart spearheaded the use of Lewin’s action research in
Australia.18 They maintained that this approach to enquiry
is useful as it provides for greater opportunity and poten-
tial to effect change in practice environments.
PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH
Participatory action research arose as a separate research
methodology within the critical paradigm out of action
Feminist-informed research methodology
research. PAR has been used extensively as a research
methodology in developing nations undertaking commu-
nity projects associated with educational issues. Early PAR
projects were concerned with marked inequalities in the
distribution of resources and power between the privileged
and dominant and those who were marginalized and
oppressed.1,5 Tandon believed that six premises converge
to form the methodological foundations underpinning
PAR.19 These premises continue to guide the theoretical
principles, methodology and epistemology of PAR:
1. The debate concerning the sociology of knowledge and
its implications for epistemological development through-
out history. The writings of Habermas led this debate
which emphasized that what we know is steeped in our
historical context.20
2. Adult educators in South America, among them
Brazilian Paulo Friere, contended that in order to learn,
the learner must have control over their own learning.
In 1974, they proposed a theory of ‘adult learning’ that
promulgated the term and practice of participatory
research.21
3. Freire’s contribution to educational practice was
informed by his pedagogical belief that reality was not an
objective truth or facts to be discovered,21 but included
ways in which people interacted with their perceptions
of truth.3 This process of knowing, he argued, was
interlinked with learning and thus gave support to the
arguments promoted by adult educators in support of
PAR.
4. A parallel premise in the development of PAR was the
contribution of action research that challenged the exist-
ing concept of research as a static process. Rather, PAR
built on Lewin’s treatise that action underpins both learn-
ing and knowing.12
5. Phenomenology made the next significant contribu-
tion to the development of PAR, according to Tandon,19
as the work of phenomenologists legitimated experience
as a basis of knowing. Human emotions and feelings as
reported through narrative were recognized as ways of
knowing. In addition, phenomenologists recognized that
experiential learning was a legitimate form of knowledge
that could inform practice.
6. The question of active participation in research of the
persons seeking answers to their questions was seen as a
critical variable. This approach differentiates between
researching ‘on’ and researching ‘with’, and realizes the
importance of the participatory process rather than a
process that is orchestrated from without.
83
Tandon further developed his arguments by referring
to the trends that contributed to the contemporary use of
PAR.19 He referred first to how the logic of manipulation
and control of nature, the basis of pure science which is
expert-led and has a top-down centralized model of devel-
opment, has merely contributed to the continued hege-
mony of the ruling classes. Tandon drew attention to the
role of education and its links to ideology that is a crucial
instrument of regulation and control of the people,
moving on to acknowledge the enrichment of the theory
and practice of PAR that can be attributed to some femi-
nist perspectives.19
Feminist ways of knowing and changing reality as
expressed by Maguire have strengthened the use of PAR
in a contemporary context.22 The scope of PAR has been
extended from its original development in education to
areas such as rural appraisal, and aboriginal community
organizational development, along with its practice in
human social services, counselling and therapy as well as
other people-centred development of marginalized
groups.19 Early PAR projects were concerned with
marked inequalities in the distribution of resources and
power between the privileged and dominant and those
who were marginalized and oppressed in Latin America,
Africa and Asia.15,18,21
To be successful projects utilising PAR require partici-
pants to engage in the entire research process. There is
integration of action and the practice of knowledge. It is
set apart from other forms of action-orientated research,
according to Park,23 because of the central role of ‘non-
experts’ in the process. PAR deals explicitly with issues
that affect diverse groups of people in such wide ranging
areas as inner city and rural poverty, health, education,
agriculture, environment, housing, community develop-
ment, mental health, disability, women’s oppression and
immigration.23
To achieve its results, PAR requires that people engage
in three different activities:
• Inquiring into the nature of a problem;
• Getting together as participant units; and
• Mobilizing for action by raising awareness of what
needs to be done.
Open communication throughout all stages of the
research process is essential. The principal researcher
makes it possible for participants to create a space in
which they can share experiences and information to
create common meanings and develop actions together.
PAR has been described as an alternative philosophy of
© 2007 The Authors
Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd
84
social research18 with its roots in liberation theology and
neo-Marxist approaches to community development, and
has often been associated with social transformation in the
Third World.
It was but a short step to adapt action research as a
practitioner-friendly research methodology that could be
used by nurses, physicians and other health professionals
to formulate appropriate service delivery practices, and
appropriate health strategies. Its practitioner-friendly
qualities make it a suitable methodology to use when
attempting to understand the ways lay people might con-
tribute to the development of appropriate service delivery
strategies.3,5,18,19 Reason and Bradbury in discussing the
characteristics of action research in relationship to the
dominant paradigm stated that the emergent world view
is systemic, holistic, relational, feminine and experiential,
but its defining characteristic is that it is participatory
(emphasis added).1
Koch et al. reported that during a PAR project the
reflection phase creates a self-awareness which enables
participants to give voice to topics that are important to
them.24 This inclusiveness has the potential to improve
and change practice, and to enhance the sense of belong-
ing, involvement and empowerment of those involved.
These changes in individuals enable group reflection to
lead to a reconstruction of the meaning of a particular
practice situation and to enable understanding and a sense
of clarity of what might be possible. It is further pointed
out that the ability to have a voice or an opinion, to raise
an issue and have it heard, is potentially empowering.24
The experience of some participants in a PAR project
reveals that they feel validated, as it is the first time they
have been heard in their lives.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ACTION
RESEARCH AND PAR
Action research emphasizes the need to act on the basis of
learning and knowing. In the Australian context, action
research has been undertaken in the main by and with
people who have considerable power and control, such as
teachers and managers, whereas PAR has developed with
disempowered people.25
According to Ritchie and Lewis, the major difference
between these two approaches is in the relationship
between the researcher and the participants.26 With action
research, the researcher is likely to be one of their own
kind, an ‘outsider’ sharing similar values and culture,
whereas in PAR the researcher might well be an ‘insider’.
© 2007 The Authors
Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd
AM Corbett et al.
The advantage that an outsider has in many research
studies is that whereas they might well be from another
culture, they are often better resourced, educated and
knowledgeable of the many implications and consider-
ations than the participants whether this be an action
research or a PAR project. Reason and Bradbury con-
tended that PAR will not occur without the initiative of
someone with time, skill and commitment, someone who
will inevitably be part of a privileged and educated group.1
Being an outsider in this context, therefore, is not a bad
thing; however, participatory by its very name demands
the inclusion of all.
INFLUENCE OF FEMINISMS
Feminist perspectives have strengthened and contributed
to the development of PAR methodology. Feminisms
refer to a number of perspectives that have a central
set of tenets. Maguire22,27 indicated that these beliefs
include:
• that women face some form of oppression and exploi-
tation, and that these oppressions and exploitations
are experienced differently depending on race, class,
culture, religion, sexual preference, age, physical abili-
ties and nationality;
• that all feminisms have a commitment to uncover and
understand the forces that cause and sustain oppres-
sion;28,29 and finally
• that feminisms work to obtain individually and
collectively, a commitment to end all forms of
oppression.
Participatory action research highlights the centrality of
power in the social construction of knowledge; however,
only feminist research has pointed out the centrality of
male power as a factor in the construction of knowledge.20
Paulo Freire made a major contribution through his work
in adult education to the development of PAR; however,
in his writings he presented a male bias.21,30,31 He wrote of
‘man in the world’, suggesting that it is ‘man’ that makes
culture not woman. That he took androcentricity as the
norm could well explain why he ignores man’s domina-
tion of woman in the social world.
Feminist critique and influence on PAR asks questions
regarding terminology: who are the ‘poor’, who are the
‘marginalized’, who are the ‘oppressed’; words often
used in PAR projects as many of the major PAR projects
in the Third World have had the primary aim of empow-
ering the ‘poor’, the ‘marginalized’ or the ‘oppressed’.
There is a danger in using such terminologies, however, as
Feminist-informed research methodology
there is the implication that the persons to who they refer
are homogenous.
Feminist criticisms of PAR ask the following questions:
1. Who are the participants in a PAR project and whose
ideas are represented in the results? In the past, many of
these projects represented the voices of men with women
excluded from the research.
2. The use of categories such as the ‘poor’, the ‘margin-
alized’, the ‘oppressed’ raises questions about the devel-
opment of theory in practice. The writings of Friere failed
to distinguish the differences between these groups.21,30,31
3. The meaning of being woman differs depending on
place, situation and time.22,27–29 Ethnicity, class and age
also influence the experience of being woman.
Maguire in her writings highlighted the relevance of
feminist theory and its initial emphasis on the issues of the
power and dominance of men over women to PAR with
her reflections that feminisms are more about attempting
to bring together the many voices and visions of a more
just, loving and non-violent world.22,27 In the sense that
feminisms and PAR share emancipatory and transforma-
tive intentions, it is noted that often PAR has ignored the
gender factor in oppression. During the 1970s, PAR
centred on male power, perceptions and problems.
Maguire argued that feminist perspectives have shifted
since then and that instead of being man-centred, femi-
nisms now talk of human-centred which automatically
includes woman on the agenda.22,27 This shift in emphasis
is stated as being a good development as it strengthens the
PAR approach where there are inequalities due to class,
ethnicity and gender.
The initial attraction of feminist researchers to PAR,
according to Rose,28 was the understanding that this meth-
odology was committed to the emancipation of the mar-
ginalized and the oppressed. Through their usage of PAR,
it was the influence of feminist researchers that demon-
strated a lack of an awareness of how masculine concep-
tions of knowledge and gender dynamics within the
research process impeded the full participation of research
participants and therefore their experiences in PAR.28 As
part of this awareness, feminists brought to PAR an under-
standing of how the concept of empowerment was often
used in a simplistic manner and that many PAR studies
rarely resulted in transformation of the participant’s lives.
Rose28 cites Gatenby and Humphries29 in concluding that
feminist researchers, particularly in the control of data
collection and analysis, acknowledge that research rela-
tionships, even in a PAR study, are inherently unequal.
85
Reinharz spoke of the challenges that confronted
feminist researchers when undertaking effective action
research because many feminist researchers believe that
research is only feminist if it is linked to action.32 It is the
blending of knowledge and action that occurs with a PAR
methodology that leads participants to make decisions
rather than merely functioning as passive subjects.
Our understanding of the influence of feminist theory
on the PAR model becomes clearer when considering the
process of reflection, used in the early stages of the PAR
spiral of planning, action and evaluation. This melding of
the two approaches facilitates understanding of the power
relationships and imbalances in the various experiences of
research participants.
Maguire makes a pertinent statement when she said
that to utilize a more feminist approach to PAR is not to
use a set of techniques—it is broader than techniques.27 It
is firmly situated within a larger paradigm approach to
human enquiry that challenges the positivist research para-
digm with its often dehumanizing assumptions, methods
and implicit messages. PAR is part of an emancipatory
approach to human enquiry that encourages people to act
unapologetically, and boldly with, instead of for, the less
powerful and voiceless.
FOUCAULT AND FRIERE
The principle contribution to PAR from Foucault relates
to his writings on power.33,34 Foucault believed that the
production of knowledge was not as a result of the rela-
tionship between the use of power and the powerless.
Foucault suggested that the expressions of power took a
specific form depending on the particular society (group)
under study and these expressions were organized in rela-
tion to class, race, gender, religion, sexual preference and
age. Foucault purported that the production of knowl-
edge, from which power arose, has a direct relationship to
social practices and ways of being. Dominant knowledge
systems could be resisted by alternative perceptions and
forms of knowledge, whereas alternative forms of knowl-
edge exist and are produced through individual and group
levels that are enhanced by the PAR process. Foucault
taught us to look at how each participant has the potential
to accept, challenge or ignore another’s perspective.
Maguire suggested that by acknowledging the differing
perspectives held by others, PAR encourages participants
to explore their own viewpoints.27
Koch et al.24 acknowledged that the intellectual roots of
PAR have emerged from the works of Friere21,30,31 and
© 2007 The Authors
Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd
86
Habermas.20,35 Friere linked the processes of learn-
ing and knowing through an ongoing cycle of action and
reflection which led to a critical awareness of the world in
which the participant lived. The influence of the thoughts
of Freire could have been deduced by the number of
writers on PAR that refer to his pedagogy.
Knowledge is related to power and power is related to
knowledge.31 Research is not undertaken ‘on’ or ‘for’
participants but ‘with’ research participants. PAR focuses
on empowerment and power relations. Empowerment is
realized as the researcher and the participants join
together to illuminate power inequalities and to explore
the power imbalances. Through this process participants
find their voice and engage fully in the research process.
Friere wrote of this empowerment process when he
stated: ‘even when one must speak to the people, one
must convert the “to” to a “with” the people’.22 This inclu-
siveness implies respect for the knowledge of their lived
experience. The central tenet of PAR is to focus on the
development of knowledge through raising issues of rele-
vance and salience, and the creation of critical conscious-
ness that leads to effective change.25
CRITICAL SOCIAL THEORY
Habermas discussed the creation of theory and the devel-
opment of practice as two separate entities.20,35 He argued
that although theory could inform practice, there was no
question of a direct relationship. Habermas took this a
step further and rejected the notion of action research
altogether. He believed that participation in an action
research project would lock the researcher into the prac-
tical aspects of a study in such a way that the ability to
participate in theoretical discourse would be lost. Critical
theory as proposed and supported by Habermas espoused
that society is filled with extreme power and oppression
with little prospect of new rationale practices being
developed.1
Habermas developed a strong desire to democratize
research in order to present a challenge to the institu-
tionalization of research that he describes as being exclu-
sive and exploitative.20,35 His principle contentions were
that the generation of knowledge is based upon free,
uncoerced, undistorted communication and that there
were three ways in which cognitive knowledge is devel-
oped: technical, practical and emancipatory.
1. Technical knowledge is related to knowledge gener-
ated by empirical, analytical science. It could be described
© 2007 The Authors
Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd
AM Corbett et al.
as a utilitarian problem-solving approach to make systems
work better.
2. Practical knowledge is related to that gained by the
joint processes of interaction and communication, and
participants orient their actions to the common values of
their cultural and social environments rather than as
solitary individuals.
3. Emancipatory knowledge is related to the develop-
ment of self-knowledge and the gaining of power over the
forces that control one’s life, understanding why a situa-
tion has come about based upon human actions and what
the future could be.3
Of particular applicability to health and social science
researchers is the belief that emancipatory knowledge is
concerned with social structures, and enables the critical
examination of existing rules, habits, traditions and ideo-
logies. Emancipatory knowledge is said to expose power
relationships that shape society.36 Park stated that the
influence of critical theory has been an important feature
of PAR in both theory and practice because critical social
theory argues that meaningful human knowledge must not
merely understand the world but also change it.23 Femi-
nist influences strengthen these drives to understand the
worlds and to change it in a meaningful manner.
VARIATIONS IN IMPLEMENTATION
PAR has been used in health research in the United
Kingdom conducted by the National Health Service
(NHS). The NHS is a bureaucracy that is stated to be one
of the largest in Europe; it is hierarchical in nature and
practice, and there are huge implications in any attempt to
make structural and/or operational changes. Although it
is indeed difficult to change structures and practices in a
non-participatory, hierarchical organisation such as the
NHS, PAR projects have resulted in improved health
service delivery.37
As a research methodology, PAR is having success in
achieving improvements in clinical practice. Practice
development is a refinement of PAR in its purest form and
is achieving success at an organizational level in many
health-care service organizations.2,11,15 PAR is producing
change for the betterment of health service delivery to the
patient in a number of different sectors and in almost
every country in the world. Stringer and Genat11 write
extensively on the use of the method and give examples
ranging from continence management in patients with
multiple sclerosis, community medical practice, phy-
siotherapy practice and in public health areas. Other
Feminist-informed research methodology
examples cited include introducing a care pathway for
patients with schizophrenia in Wales,38 introducing
advanced practice nurses for prostate cancer care in
Ontario, Canada,39 and introducing improvement in
health service delivery on a regional basis in rural
Norway.40 It is noted in these examples of PAR and
practice development that they nearly all are interprofes-
sional in their scope and application.
CONCLUSION
This paper has traced the development of PAR as a
research methodology that is gaining increasing accep-
tance as a suitable methodology to use within the health
sector, particularly by nurses who seek to examine critical
issues of service delivery. The influence of feminisms,
themselves influenced by critical social theory, on the
development of the methodology has been discussed. The
authors believe that these influences make this a safe and
emancipatory research methodology of first choice for
nurses seeking answers to critical issues in nursing and
health service delivery.
REFERENCES
1 Reason P, Bradbury H. Handbook of Action Research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2004.
2 McCormack B, Manley K, Garbutt R. Practice Development in
Nursing. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2004.
3 Minkler M, Wallerstein N (eds). Community Based Participa-
tory Research for Health. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass,
2003.
4 Hart E, Bond M. Action Research for Health and Social Care: A
Guide to Practice. Buckingham: Open University Press,
1995.
5 De Koning K, Martin M. Participatory Action Research in
Health: Issues and Experience. London: Zed Books, 1996.
6 FitzGerald M, Soloman A. Clinical practice development in
Central Coast Health. Collegian 2003; 10: 8–12.
7 Conway J, FitzGerald M. Processes, outcomes and evalua-
tion: Challenges to practice development in gerontological
nursing. Journal of Clinical Nursing 2004; 13: 121–127.
8 Keatinge D, Scarfe C, Bellchambers H et al. The manifes-
tation and nursing management of agitation in institutiona-
lised residents with dementia. International Journal of Nursing
Practice 2000; 6: 16–25.
9 Chenoweth L, Kilstoff K. Facilitating positive changes in
community dementia management through participatory
action research. International Journal of Nursing Practice 1998;
4: 175–188.
10 Koch T, Kralik D, Kelly S. We just don’t talk about it: Men
living with urinary incontinence and multiple sclerosis.
International Journal of Nursing Practice 2000; 6: 253–
260.
87
11 Stringer E, Genat WJ. Action Research in Health. Upper
Saddle River, OH: Pearson, 2004.
12 Lewin K. Action research and minority problems. Journal of
Social Issues 1946; 2: 34–46.
13 Greenwood DJ, Levin M. Reconstructing the relationships
between universities and society through action research.
In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds). Handbook of Qualitative
Research, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2000;
85–106.
14 Pasmore W. Action research in the workplace: The socio-
technical perspective. In: Reason P, Bradbury H (eds).
Handbook of Action Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage,
2004; 38–46.
15 Waterman H, Tillen D, Dickson R, de Koning K. Action
Research: A Systematic Review and Guidance for Assessment. York:
Health Technology Assessment, 2001.
16 Schon DA. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think
in Action. London, UK: Basic Books, 1983.
17 Schon DA. Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Towards a
New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1987.
18 Kemmis S, McTaggart R. Participatory action research. In:
Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds). Handbook of Qualitative
Research, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2000; 567–
605.
19 Tandon R. The historical roots and contemporary tenden-
cies in participatory research: Implications for health care.
In: De Koning K, Martin M (eds). Participatory Research in
Health: Issues and Experiences. London: Zed Books, 1996;
19–26.
20 Habermas J. Towards a Rational Society. London: Heineman,
1971.
21 Friere P. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Seabury,
1974.
22 Maguire P. Doing Participatory Research: A Feminist Approach.
Massachusetts: Centre for International Education, Univer-
sity of Massachusetts, 1987.
23 Park P. Knowledge and participatory research. In: Reason
P, Bradbury H (eds). Handbook of Action Research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage, 2004; 81–90.
24 Koch T, Selim P, Kralik D. Enhancing lives through the
development of a community based participatory action
research programme. Journal of Clinical Nursing 2002; 11:
109–117.
25 Liamputtong P, Ezzy D. Qualitative Research Methods, 2nd
edn. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 2004.
26 Ritchie J, Lewis J. Qualitative Research Practice. A Guide for
Social Science Students and Researchers. London: Sage, 2003.
27 Maguire P. Proposing a more feminist participatory
research: Knowing and being embraced openly. In: de
Koning K, Martin M (eds). Participatory Research in Health:
Issues and Experiences. London: Zed Books, 1996; 27–39.
28 Rose D. Revisiting Feminist Research Methodologies: A Working
Paper. Xxx, Canada: Status of Women Canada, 2001.
© 2007 The Authors
Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd
88 AM Corbett et al.

Available from URL: http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca. Accessed
16 April 2006.
29 Gatenby B, Humphries M. Feminist participatory action
research: Methodological and ethical issues. Women’s Studies
International Forum 2000; 23: 89–105.
30 Friere P. Pedagogy of Freedom: Ethics, Democracy and Civic
Courage. New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 1998.
31 Friere P. Pedagogy of Hope: Reliving Pedagogy of the Oppressed.
New York: Continuum, 2004.
32 Reinharz S. Feminist Methods in Social Research. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1992.
33 Faucault M, Archaeology of Knowledge. London: Tavistock,
1972.
34 Faucault M. The History of Sexuality, Part 1. London: Allen
Lane, 1979.
35 Lindsay E, Shields L, Stajduhar K. Creating effective
nursing partnerships: Relating community development to
participatory action research. Journal of Advanced Nursing
1999; 29: 1238–1245.
36 Habermas J. Theory and Practice. London: Heinemann, 1974.
37 Dockery G. Rhetoric or reality? Participatory research in
the National Health Service, UK. In: de Koning K, Martin
M (eds). Participatory Research in Health: Issues and Experiences.
London: Zed Books, 1996; 164–176.
38 Jones A. Perceptions of the standardization of psychiatric
work: Development of a care pathway. Journal of Psychiatric
and Mental Health Nursing 2004; 11: 705–713.
39 Bryant-Lukosius D, DiCenso A. A framework for the intro-
duction and evolution of advanced nursing practice nursing
roles. Journal of Advanced Nursing 2004; 48: 530–535.
40 Johansen HG, Normann R. When research and practice
collide: The role of action research when there is conflict
with stakeholders. Systemic Practice and Action Research 2004;
17: 207–235.

© 2007 The Authors

Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd