action research research paper

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 27 April 2023

Participatory action research

• Flora Cornish   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3404-9385 1 ,
• Nancy Breton   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8388-0458 1 ,
• Ulises Moreno-Tabarez   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3504-8624 2 ,
• Jenna Delgado 3 ,
• Mohi Rua 4 ,
• Ama de-Graft Aikins 5 &
• Darrin Hodgetts 6  

Nature Reviews Methods Primers volume  3 , Article number:  34 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

58k Accesses

38 Citations

53 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Communication
• Developing world

Participatory action research (PAR) is an approach to research that prioritizes the value of experiential knowledge for tackling problems caused by unequal and harmful social systems, and for envisioning and implementing alternatives. PAR involves the participation and leadership of those people experiencing issues, who take action to produce emancipatory social change, through conducting systematic research to generate new knowledge. This Primer sets out key considerations for the design of a PAR project. The core of the Primer introduces six building blocks for PAR project design: building relationships; establishing working practices; establishing a common understanding of the issue; observing, gathering and generating materials; collaborative analysis; and planning and taking action. We discuss key challenges faced by PAR projects, namely, mismatches with institutional research infrastructure; risks of co-option; power inequalities; and the decentralizing of control. To counter such challenges, PAR researchers may build PAR-friendly networks of people and infrastructures; cultivate a critical community to hold them to account; use critical reflexivity; redistribute powers; and learn to trust the process. PAR’s societal contribution and methodological development, we argue, can best be advanced by engaging with contemporary social movements that demand the redressingl of inequities and the recognition of situated expertise.

Similar content being viewed by others

Mapping the community: use of research evidence in policy and practice

Negotiating the ethical-political dimensions of research methods: a key competency in mixed methods, inter- and transdisciplinary, and co-production research

Structured output methods and environmental issues: perspectives on co-created bottom-up and ‘sideways’ science

Introduction.

For the authors of this Primer, participatory action research (PAR) is a scholar–activist research approach that brings together community members, activists and scholars to co-create knowledge and social change in tandem 1 , 2 . PAR is a collaborative, iterative, often open-ended and unpredictable endeavour, which prioritizes the expertise of those experiencing a social issue and uses systematic research methodologies to generate new insights. Relationships are central. PAR typically involves collaboration between a  community with lived experience of a social issue and professional researchers, often based in universities, who contribute relevant knowledge, skills, resources and networks. PAR is not a research process driven by the imperative to generate knowledge for scientific progress, or knowledge for knowledge’s sake; it is a process for generating knowledge-for-action and knowledge-through-action, in service of goals of specific communities. The position of a PAR scholar is not easy and is constantly tested, as PAR projects and roles straddle university and community boundaries, involving unequal  power relations and multiple, sometimes conflicting interests. This Primer aims to support researchers in preparing a PAR project, by providing a scaffold to navigate the processes through which PAR can help us to collaboratively envisage and enact emancipatory futures.

We consider PAR an emancipatory form of scholarship 1 . Emancipatory scholarship is driven by interest in tackling injustices and building futures supportive of human thriving, rather than objectivity and neutrality. It uses research not primarily to communicate with academic experts but to inform grassroots collective action. Many users of PAR aspire to projects of liberation and/or transformation . Users are likely to be critical of research that perpetuates oppressive power relations, whether within the research relationships themselves or in a project’s messages or outcomes, often aiming to trouble or transform power relations. PAR projects are usually concerned with developments not only in knowledge but also in action and in participants’ capacities, capabilities and performances.

PAR does not follow a set research design or particular methodology, but constitutes a strategic rallying point for collaborative, impactful, contextually situated and inclusive efforts to document, interpret and address complex systemic problems 3 . The development of PAR is a product of intellectual and activist work bridging universities and communities, with separate genealogies in several Indigenous 4 , 5 , Latin American 6 , 7 , Indian 8 , African 9 , Black feminist 10 , 11 and Euro-American 12 , 13 traditions.

PAR, as an authoritative form of enquiry, became established during the 1970s and 1980s in the context of anti-colonial movements in the Global South. As anti-colonial movements worked to overthrow territorial and economic domination, they also strived to overthrow symbolic and epistemic injustices , ousting the authority of Western science to author knowledge about dominated peoples 4 , 14 . For Indigenous scholars, the development of PAR approaches often comprised an extension of Indigenous traditions of knowledge production that value inclusion and community engagement, while enabling explicit engagements with matters of power, domination and representation 15 . At the same time, exchanges between Latin American and Indian popular education movements produced Orlando Fals Borda’s articulation of PAR as a paradigm in the 1980s. This orientation prioritized people’s participation in producing knowledge, instead of the positioning of local populations as the subject of knowledge production practices imposed by outside experts 16 . Meanwhile, PAR appealed to those inspired by Black and postcolonial feminists who challenged established knowledge hierarchies, arguing for the wisdom of people marginalized by centres of power, who, in the process of survivance, that is, surviving and resisting oppressive social structures, came to know and deconstruct those structures acutely 17 , 18 .

Some Euro-American approaches to PAR are less transformational and more reformist, in the action research paradigm, as developed by Kurt Lewin 19 to enhance organizational efficacy during and after World War II. Action research later gained currency as a popular approach for professionals such as teachers and nurses to develop their own practices, and it tended to focus on relatively small-scale adjustments within a given institutional structure, instead of challenging power relations as in anti-colonial PAR 13 , 20 . In the late twentieth century, participatory research gained currency in academic fields such as participatory development 21 , 22 , participatory health promotion 23 and creative methods 24 . Although participatory research includes participants in the conceptualization, design and conduct of a project, it may not prioritize action and social change to the extent that PAR does. In the early twenty-first century, the development of PAR is occurring through sustained scholarly engagements in anti-colonial 5 , 25 , abolitionist 26 , anti-racist 27 , 28 , gender-expansive 29 , climate activist 30 and other radical social movements.

This Primer bridges these traditions by looking across them for mutual learning but avoiding assimilating them. We hope that readers will bring their own activist and intellectual heritages to inform their use of PAR and adapt and adjust the suggestions we present to meet their needs.

Four key principles

Drawing across its diverse origins, we characterize PAR by four key principles. The first is the authority of direct experience. PAR values the expertise generated through experience, claiming that those who have been marginalized or harmed by current social relations have deep experiential knowledge of those systems and deserve to own and lead initiatives to change them 3 , 5 , 17 , 18 . The second is knowledge in action. Following the tradition of action research, it is through learning from the experience of making changes that PAR generates new knowledge 13 . The third key principle is research as a transformative process. For PAR, the research process is as important as the outcomes; projects aim to create empowering relationships and environments within the research process itself 31 . The final key principle is collaboration through dialogue. PAR’s power comes from harnessing the diverse sets of expertise and capacities of its collaborators through critical dialogues 7 , 8 , 32 .

Because PAR is often unfamiliar, misconstrued or mistrusted by dominant scientific 33 institutions, PAR practitioners may find themselves drawn into competitions and debates set on others’ terms, or into projects interested in securing communities’ participation but not their emancipation. Engaging communities and participants in participatory exercises for the primary purpose of advancing research aims prioritized by a university or others is not, we contend, PAR. We encourage PAR teams to articulate their intellectual and political heritage and aspirations, and agree their core principles, to which they can hold themselves accountable. Such agreements can serve as anchors for decision-making or counterweights to the pull towards inegalitarian or extractive research practices.

Aims of the Primer

The contents of the Primer are shaped by the authors’ commitment to emancipatory, engaged scholarship, and their own experience of PAR, stemming from their scholar-activism with marginalized communities to tackle issues including state neglect, impoverishment, infectious and non-communicable disease epidemics, homelessness, sexual violence, eviction, pollution, dispossession and post-disaster recovery. Collectively, our understanding of PAR is rooted in Indigenous, Black feminist and emancipatory education traditions and diverse personal experiences of privilege and marginalization across dimensions of race, class, gender, sexuality and disability. We use an inclusive understanding of PAR, to include engaging, emancipatory work that does not necessarily use the term PAR, and we aim to showcase some of the diversity of scholar-activism around the globe. The contents of this Primer are suggestions and reflections based on our own experience of PAR and of teaching research methodology. There are multiple ways of conceptualizing and conducting a PAR project. As context-sensitive social change processes, every project will pose new challenges.

This Primer is addressed primarily to university-based PAR researchers, who are likely to work in collaboration with members of communities or organizations or with activists, and are accountable to academic audiences as well as to community audiences. Much expertise in PAR originates outside universities, in community groups and organizations, from whom scholars have much to learn. The Primer aims to familiarize scholars new to PAR and others who may benefit with PAR’s key principles, decision points, practices, challenges, dilemmas, optimizations, limitations and work-arounds. Readers will be able to use our framework of ‘building blocks’ as a guide to designing their projects. We aim to support critical thinking about the challenges of PAR to enable readers to problem-solve independently. The Primer aims to inspire with examples, which we intersperse throughout. To illustrate some of the variety of positive achievements of PAR projects, Box  1 presents three examples.

Box 1 What does participatory action research do?

The Tsui Anaa Project 60 in Accra, Ghana, began as a series of interviews about diabetes experiences in one of Accra’s oldest indigenous communities, Ga Mashie. Over a 12-year period, a team of interdisciplinary researchers expanded the project to a multi-method engagement with a wide range of community members. University and community co-researchers worked to diagnose the burden of chronic conditions, to develop psychosocial interventions for cardiovascular and associated conditions and to critically reflect on long-term goals. A health support group of people living with diabetes and cardiovascular conditions, called Jamestown Health Club (JTHC), was formed, met monthly and contributed as patient advocates to community, city and national non-communicable disease policy. The project has supported graduate collaborators with mixed methods training, community engagement and postgraduate theses advancing the core project purposes.

Buckles, Khedkar and Ghevde 39 were approached by members of the Katkari tribal community in Maharashtra, India, who were concerned about landlords erecting fences around their villages. Using their institutional networks, the academics investigated the villagers’ legal rights to secure tenure and facilitated a series of participatory investigations, through which Katkari villagers developed their own understanding of the inequalities they faced and analysed potential action strategies. Subsequently, through legal challenges, engagement with local politics and emboldened local communities, more than 100 Katkari communities were more secure and better organized 5 years later.

The Morris Justice Project 74 in New York, USA, sought to address stop-and-frisk policing in a neighbourhood local to the City University of New York, where a predominantly Black population was subject to disproportionate and aggressive policing. Local residents surveyed their neighbours to gather evidence on experiences of stop and frisk, compiling their statistics and experiences and sharing them with the local community on the sidewalk, projecting their findings onto public buildings and joining a coalition ‘Communities United for Police Reform’, which successfully campaigned for changes to the city’s policing laws.

Experimentation

This section sets out the core considerations for designing a PAR project.

Owing to the intricacies of working within complex human systems in real time, PAR practitioners do not follow a highly proceduralized or linear set of steps 34 . In a cyclical process, teams work together to come to an initial definition of their social problem, design a suitable action, observe and gather information on the results, and then analyse and reflect on the action and its impact, in order to learn, modify their understanding and inform the next iteration of the research–action cycle 3 , 35 (Fig.  1 ). Teams remain open throughout the cycle to repeating or revising earlier steps in response to developments in the field. The fundamental process of building relationships occurs throughout the cycles. These spiral diagrams orient readers towards the central interdependence of processes of participation, action and research and the nonlinear, iterative process of learning by doing 3 , 36 .

Participatory action research develops through a series of cycles, with relationship building as a constant practice. Cycles of research text adapted from ref. 81 , and figure adapted with permission from ref. 82 , SAGE.

Building blocks for PAR research design

We present six building blocks to set out the key design considerations for conducting a PAR project. Each PAR team may address these building blocks in different ways and with different priorities. Table  1 proposes potential questions and indicative goals that are possible markers of progress for each building block. They are not prescriptive or exhaustive but may be a useful starting point, with examples, to prompt new PAR teams’ planning.

Building relationships

‘Relationships first, research second’ is our key principle for PAR project design 37 . Collaborative relationships usually extend beyond a particular PAR project, and it is rare that one PAR project finalizes a desired change. A researcher parachuting in and out may be able to complete a research article, with community cooperation, but will not be able to see through the hard graft of a programme of participatory research towards social change. Hence, individual PAR projects are often nested in long-term collaborations. Such collaborations are strengthened by institutional backing in the form of sustainable staff appointments, formal recognition of the value of university–community partnerships and provision of administrative support. In such a supportive context, opportunities can be created for achievable shorter-term projects to which collaborators or temporary researchers may contribute. The first step of PAR is sometimes described as the entry, but we term this foundational step building relationships to emphasize the longer-term nature of these relationships and their constitutive role throughout a project. PAR scholars may need to work hard with and against their institutions to protect those relationships, monitoring potential collaborations for community benefit rather than knowledge and resource extraction. Trustworthy relationships depend upon scholars being aware, open and honest about their own interests and perspectives.

The motivation for a PAR project may come from university-based or community-based researchers. When university researchers already have a relationship with marginalized communities, they may be approached by community leaders initiating a collaboration 38 , 39 . Alternatively, a university-based researcher may reach out to representatives of communities facing evident problems, to explore common interests and the potential for collaboration 40 . As Indigenous scholars have articulated, communities that have been treated as the subjects or passive objects of research, commodified for the scientific knowledge of distant elites, are suspicious of research and researchers 4 , 41 . Scholars need to be able to satisfy communities’ key questions: Who are you? Why should we trust you? What is in it for our community? Qualifications, scholarly achievements or verbal reassurances are less relevant in this context than past or present valued contributions, participation in a heritage of transformational action or evidence of solidarity with a community’s causes. Being vouched for by a respected community member or collaborator can be invaluable.

Without prior relationships one can start cold, as a stranger, perhaps attending public events, informal meeting places or identifying organizations in which the topic is of interest, and introducing oneself. Strong collaborative relationships are based on mutual trust, which must be earned. It is important to be transparent about our interests and to resist the temptation to over-promise. Good PAR practitioners do not raise unrealistic expectations. Box  2 presents key soft skills for PAR researchers.

Positionality is crucial to PAR relationships. A university-based researcher’s positionalities (including, for example, their gender, race, ethnicity, class, politics, skills, age, life stage, life experiences, assumptions about the problem, experience in research, activism and relationship to the topic) interact with the positionalities of community co-researchers, shaping the collective definition of the problem and appropriate solutions. Positionalities are not fixed, but can be changing, multiple and even contradictory 42 . We have framed categories of university-based and community-based researchers here, but in practice these positionings of ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’ are often more complex and shifting 43 . Consideration of diversity is important when building a team to avoid  tokenism . For example, identifying which perspectives are included initially and why, and whether members of the team or gatekeepers have privileged access owing to their race, ethnicity, class, gender and/or able-bodiedness.

The centring of community expertise in PAR does not mean that a community is ‘taken for granted’. Communities are sites of the production of similarity and difference, equality and inequalities, and politics. Knowledge that has the status of common sense may itself reproduce inequalities or perpetuate harm. Relatedly, strong PAR projects cultivate  reflexivity 44 among both university-based and community-based researchers, to enable a critical engagement with the diversity of points of view, positions of power and stakes in a project. Developing reflexivity may be uncomfortable and challenging, and good PAR projects create a supportive culture for processing such discomfort. Supplementary files  1 and   2 present example exercises that build critical reflexivity.

Box 2 Soft skills of a participatory action researcher

Respect for others’ knowledge and the expertise of experience

Humility and genuine kindness

Ability to be comfortable with discomfort

Sharing power; ceding control

Trusting the process

Acceptance of uncertainty and tensions

Openness to learning from collaborators

Self-awareness and the ability to listen and be confronted

Willingness to take responsibility and to be held accountable

Confidence to identify and challenge power relations

Establishing working practices

Partnerships bring together people with different sets of norms, assumptions, interests, resources, time frames and working practices, all nested in institutional structures and infrastructures that cement those assumptions. University-based researchers often take their own working practices for granted, but partnership working calls for negotiation. Academics often work with very extended time frames for analysis, writing and review before publication, hoping to contribute to gradually shifting agendas, discourses and politics 45 . The urgency of problems that face a community often calls for faster responsiveness. Research and management practices that are normal in a university may not be accessible to people historically marginalized through dimensions that include disability, language, racialization, gender, literacy practices and their intersections 46 . Disrupting historically entrenched power dynamics associated with these concerns can raise discomfort and calls for skilful negotiation. In short, partnership working is a complex art, calling for thoughtful design of joint working practices and a willingness to invest the necessary time.

Making working practices and areas of tension explicit is one useful starting point. Not all issues need to be fully set out and decided at the outset of a project. A foundation of trust, through building relationships in building block 1, allows work to move ahead without every element being pinned down in advance. Supplementary file  1 presents an exercise designed to build working relationships and communicative practices.

Establishing a common understanding of the issue

Co-researchers identify a common issue or problem to address. University-based researchers tend to justify the selection of the research topic with reference to a literature review, whereas in PAR, the topic must be a priority for the community. Problem definition is a key step for PAR teams, where problem does not necessarily mean something negative or a deficit, but refers to the identification of an important issue at stake for a community. The definition of a problem, however, is not always self-evident, and producing a problem definition can be a valid outcome of PAR. In the example of risks of eviction from Buckles, Khedkar and Ghevde 39 (Box  1 ), a small number of Katkari people first experienced the problem in terms of landlords erecting barbed wire fences. Other villages did not perceive the risk of eviction as a big problem compared with their other needs. Facilitating dialogues across villages about their felt problems revealed how land tenure was at the root of several issues, thus mobilizing interest. Problem definitions are political; they imply some forms of action and not others. Discussion and reflexivity about the problem definition are crucial. Compared with other methodologies, the PAR research process is much more public from the outset, and so practices of making key steps explicit, shareable, communicable and negotiable are essential. Supplementary file  3 introduces two participatory tools for collective problem definition.

Consideration of who should be involved in problem definition is important. It may be enough that a small project team works closely together at this stage. Alternatively, group or public meetings may be held, with careful facilitation 5 . Out of dialogue, a PAR team aims to agree on an actionable problem definition, responding to the team’s combination of skills, capacities and priorities. A PAR scholar works across the university–community boundary and thus is accountable to both university values and grassroots communities’ values. PAR scholars should not deny or hide the multiple demands of the role because communities with experience of marginalization are attuned to being manipulated. Surfacing interests and constraints and discussing these reflexively is often a better strategy. Creativity may be required to design projects that meet both academic goals (such as when a project is funded to produce certain outcomes) and the community’s goals.

For example, in the context of a PAR project with residents of a public housing neighbourhood scheduled for demolition and redevelopment, Thurber and colleagues 47 describe how they overcame differences between resident and academic researchers regarding the purposes of their initial survey. The academic team members preferred the data to be anonymous, to maximize the scientific legitimacy of their project (considered valuable for their credibility to policymakers), whereas the resident team wanted to use the opportunity to recruit residents to their cause, by collecting contact details. The team discussed their different objectives and produced the solution of two-person survey teams, one person gathering anonymous data for the research and a second person gathering contact details for the campaign’s contact list.

Articulating research questions is an early milestone. PAR questions prioritize community concerns, so they may differ from academic-driven research questions. For example, Buckles, Khedkar and Ghevde 39 facilitated a participatory process that developed questions along the lines of: What are the impacts of not having a land title for Katkari people? How will stakeholders respond to Katkari organizing, and what steps can Katkari communities take towards the goal of securing tenure? In another case, incarcerated women in New York state, USA, invited university academics to evaluate a local college in prison in the interest of building an empirical argument for the value of educational opportunities in prisons 38 , 48 Like other evaluations, it asked: “What is the impact of college on women in prison?” But instead of looking narrowly at the impact on re-offending as the relevant impact (as prioritized by politicians and policymakers), based on the incarcerated women’s advice, the evaluation tracked other outcomes: women’s well-being within the prison; their relationships with each other and the staff; their children; their sense of achievement; and their agency in their lives after incarceration.

As a PAR project develops, the problem definition and research questions are often refined through the iterative cycles. This evolution does not undermine the value of writing problem definitions and research questions in the early stages, as a collaboration benefits from having a common reference point to build from and from which to negotiate.

Observing, gathering and generating materials

With a common understanding of the problem, PAR teams design ways of observing the details and workings of this problem. PAR is not prescriptive about the methods used to gather or generate observations. Projects often use qualitative methods, such as storytelling, interviewing or ethnography, or participatory methods, such as body mapping, problem trees, guided walks, timelines, diaries, participatory photography and video or participatory theatre. Gathering quantitative data is an option, particularly in the tradition of participatory statistics 49 . Chilisa 5 distinguishes sources of spatial data, time-related data, social data and technical data. The selected methods should be engaging to the community and the co-researchers, suited to answering the research questions and supported by available professional skills. Means of recording the process or products, and of storing those records, need to be agreed, as well as ethical principles. Developing community members’ research skills for data collection and analysis can be a valued contribution to a PAR project, potentially generating longer-term capacities for local research and change-making 50 .

Our selection of data generation methods and their details depends upon the questions we ask. In some cases, methods to explore problem definitions and then to brainstorm potential actions, their risks and benefits will be useful (Supplementary file  3 ). Others may be less prescriptive about problems and solutions, seeking to explore experience in an open-ended way, as a basis for generating new understandings (see Supplementary file  2 for an example reflective participatory exercise).

Less-experienced practitioners may take a naive approach to PAR, which assumes that knowledge should emerge solely from an authentic community devoid of outside ideas. More established PAR researchers, however, work consciously to combine and exchange skills and knowledge through dialogue. Together with communities, we want to produce effective products, and we recognize that doing so may require specific skills. In Marzi’s 51 participatory video project with migrant women in Colombia, she engaged professional film-makers to provide the women with training in filming, editing and professional film production vocabulary. The women were given the role of directors, with the decision-making power over what to include and exclude in their film. In a Photovoice project with Black and Indigenous youth in Toronto, Canada, Tuck and Habtom 25 drew on their prior scholar–activist experience and their critical analysis of scholarship of marginalization, which often uses tropes of victimhood, passivity and sadness. Instead of repeating narratives of damage, they intended to encourage desire-based narratives. They supported their young participants to critically consider which photographs they wanted to include or exclude from public representations. Training participants to be expert users of research techniques does not devalue their existing expertise and skills, but takes seriously their role in co-producing valid, critical knowledge. University-based researchers equally benefit from training in facilitation methods, team development and the history and context of the community.

Data generation is relational, mediated by the positionalities of the researchers involved. As such, researchers position themselves across boundaries, and need to have, or to develop, skills in interpreting across boundaries. In the Tsui Anaa Project (Box  1 ) in Ghana, the project recruited Ga-speaking graduate students as researchers; Ga is the language most widely spoken in the community. The students were recruited not only for their language skills, but also for their Ga cultural sensibilities, reflected in their sense of humour and their intergenerational communicative styles, enabling fluid communication and mutual understanding with the community. In turn, two community representatives were recruited as advocates to represent patient perspectives across university and community boundaries.

University-based researchers trained in methodological rigour may need reminders that the process of a PAR project is as important as the outcome, and is part of the outcome. Facilitation skills are the most crucial skills for PAR practitioners at this stage. Productive facilitation skills encourage open conversation and collective understandings of the problem at hand and how to address it. More specifically, good facilitation requires a sensitivity to the ongoing and competing social context, such as power relations, within the group to help shift power imbalances and enable participation by all 52 . Box  3 presents a PAR project that exemplifies the importance of relationship building in a community arts project.

Box 3 Case study of the BRIDGE Project: relationship building and collective art making as social change

The BRIDGE Project was a 3-week long mosaic-making and dialogue programme for youth aged 14–18 years, in Southern California. For several summers, the project brought together students from different campuses to discuss inclusion, bullying and community. The goal was to help build enduring relationships among young people who otherwise would not have met or interacted, thereby mitigating the racial tensions that existed in their local high schools.

Youth were taught how to make broken tile mosaic artworks, facilitated through community-building exercises. After the first days, as relationships grew, so did the riskiness of the discussion topics. Youth explored ideas and beliefs that contribute to one’s individual sense of identity, followed by discussion of wider social identities around race, class, sex, gender, class, sexual orientation and finally their identities in relationship to others.

The art-making process was structured in a manner that mirrored the building of their relationships. Youth learned mosaic-making skills while creating individual pieces. They were discouraged from collaborating with anyone else until after the individual pieces were completed and they had achieved some proficiency. When discussions transitioned to focus on the relationship their identities had to each other, the facilitators assisted them in creating collaborative mosaics with small groups.

Staff facilitation modelled the relationship-building goal of the project. The collaborative art making was built upon the rule that no one could make any changes without asking for and receiving permission from the person or people who had placed the piece (or pieces) down. To encourage participants to engage with each other it was vital that they each felt comfortable to voice their opinions while simultaneously learning how to be accountable to their collaborators and respectful of others’ relationships to the art making.

The process culminated in the collective creation of a tile mosaic wall mural, which is permanently installed in the host site.

Collaborative analysis

In PAR projects, data collection and analysis are not typically isolated to different phases of research. Instead, a tried and tested approach to collaborative analysis 53 is to use generated data as a basis for reflection on commonalities, patterns, differences, underlying causes or potentials on an ongoing basis. For instance, body mapping, photography, or video projects often proceed through a series of workshops, with small-scale training–data collection–data analysis cycles in each workshop. Participants gather or produce materials in response to a prompt, and then come together to critically discuss the meaning of their productions.

Simultaneously, or later, a more formal data analysis may be employed, using established social science analytical tools such as grounded theory, thematic, content or discourse analysis, or other forms of visual or ethnographic analysis, with options for facilitated co-researcher involvement. The selection of a specific orientation or approach to analysis is often a low priority for community-based co-researchers. It may be appropriate for university-based researchers to take the lead on comprehensive analysis and the derivation of initial messages. Fine and Torre 29 describe the university-based researchers producing a “best bad draft” so that there is something on the table to react to and discuss. Given the multiple iterations of participants’ expressions of experiences and analyses by this stage, the university-based researchers should be in a position that their best bad draft is grounded in a good understanding of local perspectives and should not appear outlandish, one-sided or an imposition of outside ideas.

For the results and recommendations to reflect community interests, it is important to incorporate a step whereby community representatives can critically examine and contribute to emerging findings and core messages for the public, stakeholders or academic audiences.

Planning and taking action

Taking action is an integral part of a PAR process. What counts as action and change is different for each PAR project. Actions could be targeted at a wide range of scales and different stakeholders, with differing intended outcomes. Valid intended outcomes include creating supportive networks to share resources through mutual aid; empowering participants through sharing experiences and making sense of them collectively; using the emotional impact of artistic works to influence policymakers and journalists; mobilizing collective action to build community power; forging a coalition with other activist and advocacy groups; and many others. Selection between the options depends on underlying priorities, values, theories of how social change happens and, crucially, feasibility.

Articulating a theory of change is one way to demonstrate how we intend to bring about changes through designing an action plan. A theory of change identifies an action and a mechanism, directed at producing outcomes, for a target group, in a context. This device has often been used in donor-driven health and development contexts in a rather prescriptive way, but PAR teams can adapt the tool as a scaffolding for being explicit about action plans and as a basis for further discussions and development of those plans. Many health and development organizations (such as Better Evaluation ) have frameworks to help design a theory of change.

Alternatively, a community action plan 5 can serve as a tangible roadmap to produce change, by setting out objectives, strategies, timeline, key actors, required resources and the monitoring and evaluation framework.

Social change is not easy, and existing social systems benefit, some at the expense of others, and are maintained by power relations. In planning for action, analysis of the power relations at stake, the beneficiaries of existing systems and their potential resistance to change is crucial. It is often wise to assess various options for actions, their potential benefits, risks and ways of mitigating those risks. Sometimes a group may collectively decide to settle for relatively secure, and less-risky, small wins but with the building of sufficient power, a group may take on a bigger challenge 54 .

Ethical considerations are fundamental to every aspect of PAR. They include standard research ethics considerations traditionally addressed by research ethics committees or institutional review boards (IRBs), including key principles of avoidance of harm, anonymity and confidentiality, and voluntary informed consent, although these issues may become much more complex than traditionally presented, when working within a PAR framework 55 . PAR studies typically benefit from IRBs that can engage with the relational specificities of a case, with a flexible and iterative approach to research design with communities, instead of being beholden to very strict and narrow procedures. Wilson and colleagues 56 provide a comprehensive review of ethical challenges in PAR.

Beyond procedural research ethics perspectives, relational ethics are important to PAR projects and raise crucial questions regarding the purpose and conduct of knowledge production and application 37 , 57 , 58 . Relational ethics encourage an emphasis on inclusive practices, dialogue, mutual respect and care, collective decision-making and collaborative action 57 . Questions posed by Indigenous scholars seeking to decolonize Western knowledge production practices are pertinent to a relational ethics approach 4 , 28 . These include: Who designs and manages the research process? Whose purposes does the research serve? Whose worldviews are reproduced? Who decides what counts as knowledge? Why is this knowledge produced? Who benefits from this knowledge? Who determines which aspects of the research will be written up, disseminated and used, and how? Addressing such questions requires scholars to attend to the ethical practices of cultivating trusting and reciprocal relationships with participants and ensuring that the organizations, communities and persons involved co-govern and benefit from the project.

Reflecting on the ethics of her PAR project with young undocumented students in the USA, Cahill 55 highlights some of the intensely complex ethical issues of representation that arose and that will face many related projects. Determining what should be shared with which audiences is intensely political and ethical. Cahill’s team considered editing out stories of dropping out to avoid feeding negative stereotypes. They confronted the dilemma of framing a critique of a discriminatory educational system, while simultaneously advocating that this flawed system should include undocumented students. They faced another common dilemma of how to stay true to their structural analysis of the sources of harms, while engaging decision-makers invested in the current status quo. These complex ethical–political issues arise in different forms in many PAR projects. No answer can be prescribed, but scholar–activists can prepare themselves by reading past case studies and being open to challenging debates with co-researchers.

The knowledge built by PAR is explicitly knowledge-for-action, informed by the relational ethical considerations of who and what the knowledge is for. PAR builds both  local knowledge and conceptual knowledge. As a first step, PAR can help us to reflect locally, collectively, on our circumstances, priorities, diverse identities, causes of problems and potential routes to tackle them.

Such local knowledge might be represented in the form of statistical findings from a community survey, analyses of participants’ verbal or visual data, or analyses of workshop discussions. Findings may include elements such as an articulation of the status quo of a community issue; a participatory analysis of root causes and/or actionable elements of the problem; a power analysis of stakeholders; asset mapping; assessment of local needs and priorities. Analysis goes beyond the surface problems, to identify underlying roots of problems to inform potential lines of action.

Simultaneously, PAR also advances more global conceptual knowledge. As liberation theorists have noted, developments in societal understandings of inequalities, marginalization and liberation are often led by those battling such processes daily. For example, the young Black and Indigenous participants working with Tuck and Habtom 25 in Toronto, Canada, engaged as co-theorists in their project about the significance of social movements to young people and their post-secondary school futures. Through their photography project, they expressed how place, and its history, particularly histories of settler colonialism, matters in cities — against a more standard view that treated the urban as somehow interchangeable, modern or neutral. The authors argue for altered conceptions of urban and urban education scholarly literatures, in response to this youth-led knowledge.

A key skill in the art of PAR is in creating achievable actions by choosing a project that is engaging and ambitious with achievable elements, even where structures are resistant to change. PAR projects can produce actions across a wide range of scales (from ‘small, local’ to ‘large, structural’) and across different temporal scales. Some PAR projects are part of decades-long programmes. Within those programmes, an individual PAR project, taking place over 12 or 24 months, might make one small step in the process towards long-term change.

For example, an educational project with young people living in communities vulnerable to flooding in Brazil developed a portfolio of actions, including a seminar, a native seeds fair, support to an individual family affected by a landslide, a campaign for a safe environment for a children’s pre-school, a tree nursery at school and influencing the city’s mayor to extend the environmental project to all schools in the area 30 .

Often the ideal scenario is that such actions lead to material changes in the power of a community. Over the course of a 5-year journey, the Katkari community (Box  1 ) worked with PAR researchers to build community power to resist eviction. The community team compiled households’ proof of residence; documented the history of land use and housing; engaged local government about their situations and plans; and participated more actively in village life to cultivate support 39 . The university-based researchers collected land deeds and taught sessions on land rights, local government and how to acquire formal papers. They opened conversations with the local government on legal, ethical and practical issues. Collectively, their legal knowledge and groundwork gave them confidence to remove fencing erected by landlords and to take legal action to regularize their land rights, ultimately leading to 70 applications being made for formal village sites. This comprised a tangible change in the power relation between landlords and the communities. Even here, however, the authors do not simply celebrate their achievements, but recognize that power struggles are ongoing, landlords would continue to aggressively pursue their interests, and, thus, their achievements were provisional and would require vigilance and continued action.

Most crucially, PAR projects aim to develop university-based and community-based researchers’ collective agency, by building their capacities for collaboration, analysis and action. More specifically, collaborators develop multiple transferable skills, which include skills in conducting research, operating technology, designing outputs, leadership, facilitation, budgeting, networking and public speaking 31 , 59 , 60 .

University-based researchers build their own key capacities through exercising and developing skills, including those for collaboration, facilitation, public engagement and impact. Strong PAR projects may build capacities within the university to sustain long-term relationships with community projects, such as modified and improved infrastructures that work well with PAR modalities, appreciation of the value of long-term sustained reciprocal relations and personal and organizational relationships with communities outside the university.

Applications

PAR disrupts the traditional theory–application binary, which usually assumes that abstract knowledge is developed through basic science, to then be interpreted and applied in professional or community contexts. PAR projects are always applied in the sense that they are situated in concrete human and social problems and aim to produce workable local actions. PAR is a very flexible approach. A version of a PAR project could be devised to tackle almost any real-world problem — where the researchers are committed to an emancipatory and participatory epistemology. If one can identify a group of people interested in collectively generating knowledge-for-action in their own context or about their own practices, and as long as the researchers are willing and able to share power, the methods set out in this Primer could be applied to devise a PAR project.

PAR is consonant with participatory movements across multiple disciplines and sectors, and thus finds many intellectual homes. Its application is supported by social movements for inclusion, equity, representation of multiple voices, empowerment and emancipation. For instance, PAR responds to the value “nothing about us without us”, which has become a central tenet of disability studies. In youth studies, PAR is used to enhance the power of young people’s voices. In development studies, PAR has a long foundation as part of the demand for greater participation, to support locally appropriate, equitable and locally owned changes. In health-care research, PAR is used by communities of health professionals to reflect and improve on their own practices. PAR is used by groups of health-care service users or survivors to give a greater collective power to the voices of those at the sharp end of health care, often delegitimized by medical power. In environmental sciences, PAR can support local communities to take action to protect their environments. In community psychology, PAR is valued for its ability to nurture supportive and inclusive processes. In summary, PAR can be applied in a huge variety of contexts in which local ownership of research is valued.

Limitations to PAR’s application often stem from the institutional context. In certain (often dominant) academic circles, local knowledge is not valued, and contextually situated, problem-focused, research may be considered niche, applied or not generalizable. Hence, research institutions may not be set up to be responsive to a community’s situation or needs or to support scholar–activists working at the research–action boundary. Further, those who benefit from, or are comfortable with, the status quo of a community may actively resist attempts at change from below and may undermine PAR projects. In other cases, where a community is very divided or dispersed, PAR may not be the right approach. There are plenty of examples of PAR projects floundering, failing to create an active group or to achieve change, or completely falling through. Even such failures, however, shed light on the conditions of communities and the power relations they inhabit and offer lessons on ways of working and not working with groups in those situations.

Reproducibility and data deposition

Certain aspects of the open science movement can be productively engaged from within a PAR framework, whereas others are incompatible. A key issue is that PAR researchers do not strive for reproducibility, and many would contest the applicability of this construct. Nonetheless, there may be resonances between the open science principle of making information publicly available for re-use and those PAR projects that aim to render visible and audible the experience of a historically under-represented or mis-represented community. PAR projects that seek to represent previously hidden realities of, for example, environmental degradation, discriminatory experiences at the hands of public services, the social history of a traditionally marginalized group, or their neglected achievements, may consider creating and making public robust databases of information, or social history archives, with explicit informed permission of the relevant communities. For such projects, making knowledge accessible is an essential part of the action. Publicly relevant information should not be sequestered behind paywalls. PAR practitioners should thus plan carefully for cataloguing, storing and archiving information, and maintaining archives.

On the other hand, however, a blanket assumption that all data should be made freely available is rarely appropriate in a PAR project and may come into conflict with ethical priorities. Protecting participants’ confidentiality can mean that data cannot be made public. Protecting a community from reputational harm, in the context of widespread dehumanization, criminalization or stigmatization of dispossessed groups, may require protection of their privacy, especially if their lives or coping strategies are already pathologized 25 . Empirical materials do not belong to university-based researchers as data and cannot be treated as an academic commodity to be opened to other researchers. Open science practices should not extend to the opening of marginalized communities to knowledge exploitation by university researchers.

The principle of reproducibility is not intuitively meaningful to PAR projects, given their situated nature, that is, the fact that PAR is inherently embedded in particular concrete contexts and relationships 61 . Beyond reproducibility, other forms of mutual learning and cross-case learning are vitally important. We see increasing research fatigue in communities used, extractively, for research that does not benefit them. PAR teams should assess what research has been done in a setting to avoid duplication and wasting people’s time and should clearly prioritize community benefit. At the same time, PAR projects also aspire to produce knowledge with wider implications, typically discussed under the term generalizability or transferability. They do so by articulating how the project speaks to social, political, theoretical and methodological debates taking place in wider knowledge communities, in a form of “communicative generalisation” 62 . Collaborating and sharing experiences across PAR sites through visits, exchanges and joint analysis can help to generalize experiences 30 , 61 .

Limitations and optimizations

PAR projects often challenge the social structures that reproduce established power relations. In this section, we outline common challenges to PAR projects, to prompt early reflection. When to apply a workaround, compromise, concede, refuse or regroup and change strategy are decisions that each PAR team should make collectively. We do not have answers to all the concerns raised but offer mitigations that have been found useful.

Institutional infrastructure

Universities’ interests in partnerships with communities, local relevance, being outward-facing, public engagement and achieving social impact can help to create a supportive environment for PAR research. Simultaneously, university bureaucracies and knowledge hierarchies that prize their scientists as individuals rather than collaborators and that prioritize the methods of dominant science can undermine PAR projects 63 . When Cowan, Kühlbrandt and Riazuddin 45 proposed using gaming, drama, fiction and film-making for a project engaging young people in thinking about scientific futures, a grants manager responded “But this project can’t just be about having fun activities for kids — where is the research in what you’re proposing?” Research infrastructures are often slow and reluctant to adapt to innovations in creative research approaches.

Research institutions’ funding time frames are also often out of sync with those of communities — being too extended in some ways and too short in others 45 , 64 . Securing funding takes months and years, especially if there are initial rejections or setbacks. Publishing findings takes further years. For community-based partners, a year is a long time to wait and to maintain people’s interest. On the other hand, grant funding for one-off projects over a year or two (or even five) is rarely sufficient to create anything sustainable, reasserting precarity and short-termism. Institutions can better support PAR through infrastructure such as bridging funds between grants, secure staff appointments and institutional recognition and resources for community partners.

University infrastructures can value the long-term partnership working of PAR scholars by recognizing partnership-building as a respected element of an academic career and recognizing collaborative research as much as individual academic celebrity. Where research infrastructures are unsupportive, building relationships within the university with like-minded professional and academic colleagues, to share work-arounds and advocate collectively, can be very helpful. Other colleagues might have developed mechanisms to pay co-researchers, or to pay in advance for refreshments, speed up disbursement of funds, or deal with an ethics committee, IRB, finance office or thesis examiner who misunderstands participatory research. PAR scholars can find support in university structures beyond the research infrastructure, such as those concerned with knowledge exchange and impact, campus–community partnerships, extension activities, public engagement or diversity and inclusion 64 . If PAR is institutionally marginalized, exploring and identifying these work-arounds is extremely labour intensive and depends on the cultivation of human, social and cultural capital over many years, which is not normally available to graduate students or precariously employed researchers. Thus, for PAR to be realized, institutional commitment is vital.

Co-option by powerful structures

When PAR takes place in collaboration or engagement with powerful institutions such as government departments, health services, religious organizations, charities or private companies, co-option is a significant risk. Such organizations experience social pressure to be inclusive, diverse, responsive to communities and participatory, so they may be tempted to engage communities in consultation, without redistributing power. For instance, when ‘photovoice’ projects invite politicians to exhibitions of photographs, their activity may be co-opted to serving the politician’s interest in being seen to express support, but result in no further action. There is a risk that using PAR in such a setting risks tokenizing marginalized voices 65 . In one of our current projects, co-researchers explore the framing of sexual violence interventions in Zambia, aiming to promote greater community agency and reduce the centrality of approaches dominated by the Global North 66 . One of the most challenging dilemmas is the need to involve current policymakers in discussions without alienating them. The advice to ‘be realistic’, ‘be reasonable’ or ‘play the game’ to keep existing power brokers at the table creates one of the most difficult tensions for PAR scholars 48 .

We also caution against scholars idealizing PAR as an ideal, egalitarian, inclusive or perfect process. The term ‘participation’ has become a policy buzzword, invoked in a vaguely positive way to strengthen an organization’s case that they have listened to people. It can equally be used by researchers to claim a moral high ground without disrupting power relations. Depriving words of their associated actions, Freire 7 warns us, leads to ‘empty blah’, because words gain their meaning in being harnessed to action. Labelling our work PAR does not make it emancipatory, without emancipatory action. Equally, Freire cautions against acting without the necessary critical reflection.

To avoid romanticization or co-option, PAR practitioners benefit from being held accountable to their shared principles and commitments by their critical networks and collaborators. Our commitments to community colleagues and to action should be as real for us as any institutional pressures on us. Creating an environment for that accountability is vital. Box  4 offers a project exemplar featuring key considerations regarding power concerns.

Box 4 Case study: participatory power and its vulnerability

Júba Wajiín is a pueblo in a rural mountainous region in the lands now called Guerrero, Mexico, long inhabited by the Me’phaa people, who have fiercely resisted precolonial, colonial and postcolonial displacement and dispossession. Using collective participatory action methods, this small pueblo launched and won a long legal battle that now challenges extractive mining practices.

Between 2001 and 2012, the Mexican government awarded massive mining concessions to mining companies. The people of Júba Wajiín discovered in mid-2013 that, unbeknown to them, concessions for mining exploration of their lands had been awarded to the British-based mining company Horschild Mexico. They engaged human rights activists who used participatory action research methods to create awareness and to launch a legal battle. Tlachinollan, a regional human rights organization, held legal counselling workshops and meetings with local authorities and community elders.

The courts initially rejected the case by denying that residents could be identified as Indigenous because they practised Catholicism and spoke Spanish. A media organization, La Sandia Digital , supported the community to collectively document their syncretic religious and spiritual practices, their ability to speak Mhe’paa language and their longstanding agrarian use of the territory. They produced a documentary film Juba Wajiin: Resistencia en la Montaña , providing visual legal evidence.

After winning in the District court, they took the case to the Supreme Court, asking it to review the legality and validity of the mining concessions. Horschild, along with other mining companies, stopped contesting the case, which led to the concessions being null and void.

The broader question of Indigenous peoples’ territorial rights continued in the courts until mid-2022 when the Supreme Court ruled that Indigenous peoples had the constitutional right to be consulted before any mining activities in their territory. This was a win, but a partial one. ‘Consultations’ are often manipulated by state and private sectors, particularly among groups experiencing dire impoverishment. Júba Wajiín’s strategies proved successful but the struggle against displacement and dispossession is continual.

Power inequalities within PAR

Power inequalities also affect PAR teams and communities. For all the emphasis on egalitarian relationships and dialogue, communities and PAR teams are typically composed of actors with unequal capacities and powers, introducing highly complex challenges for PAR teams.

Most frequently, university-based researchers engaging with marginalized communities do not themselves share many aspects of the identities or life experiences of those communities. They often occupy different, often more privileged, social networks, income brackets, racialized identities, skill sets and access to resources. Evidently, the premise of PAR is that people with different lives can productively collaborate, but gulfs in life experience and privilege can yield difficult tensions and challenges. Expressions of discomfort, dissatisfaction or anger in PAR projects are often indicative of power inequalities and an opportunity to interrogate and challenge hierarchies. Scholars must work hard to undo their assumptions about where expertise and insights may lie. A first step can be to develop an analysis of a scholar’s own participation in the perpetuation of inequalities. Projects can be designed to intentionally redistribute power, by redistributing skills, responsibilities and authority, or by redesigning core activities to be more widely accessible. For instance, Marzi 51 in a participatory video project, used role swapping to distribute the leadership roles of chairing meetings, choosing themes for focus and editing, among all the participants.

Within communities, there are also power asymmetries. The term ‘community participation’ itself risks homogenizing a community, such that one or a small number of representatives are taken to qualify as the community. Yet, communities are characterized by diversity as much as by commonality, with differences across sociological lines such as class, race, gender, age, occupation, housing tenure and health status. Having the time, resources and ability to participate is unlikely to be evenly distributed. Some people need to devote their limited time to survival and care of others. For some, the embodied realities of health conditions and disabilities make participation in research projects difficult or undesirable 67 . If there are benefits attached to participation, careful attention to the distribution of such benefits is needed, as well as critical awareness of the positionality of those involved and those excluded. Active efforts to maximize accessibility are important, including paying participants for their valued time; providing accommodations for people with health conditions, disabilities, caring responsibilities or other specific needs; and designing participatory activities that are intuitive to a community’s typical modes of communication.

Lack of control and unpredictability

For researchers accustomed to leading research by taking responsibility to drive a project to completion, using the most rigorous methods possible, to achieve stated objectives, the collaborative, iterative nature of PAR can raise personal challenges. Sense 68 likens the facilitative role of a PAR practitioner to “trying to drive the bus from the rear passenger seat—wanting to genuinely participate as a passenger but still wanting some degree of control over the destination”. PAR works best with collaborative approaches to leadership and identities among co-researchers as active team members, facilitators and participants in a research setting, prepared to be flexible and responsive to provocations from the situation and from co-researchers and to adjust project plans accordingly 28 , 68 , 69 . The complexities involved in balancing control issues foreground the importance of reflexive practice for all team members to learn together through dialogue 70 . Training and socialization into collaborative approaches to leadership and partnership are crucial supports. Well-functioning collaborative ways of working are also vital, as their trusted structure can allow co-researchers to ‘trust the process’, and accept uncertainties, differing perspectives, changes of emphasis and disruptions of assumptions. We often want surprises in PAR projects, as they show that we are learning something new, and so we need to be prepared to accept disruption.

The PAR outlook is caught up in the ongoing history of the push and pull of popular movements for the recognition of local knowledge and elite movements to centralize authority and power in frameworks such as universal science, professional ownership of expertise, government authority or evidence-based policy. As a named methodological paradigm, PAR gained legitimacy and recognition during the 1980s, with origins in popular education for development, led by scholars from the Global South 16 , 32 , and taken up in the more Global-North-dominated field of international development, where the failings of externally imposed, contextually insensitive development solutions had become undeniable 21 . Over the decades, PAR has both participated in radical social movements and risked co-option and depoliticization as it became championed by powerful institutions, and it is in this light that we consider PAR’s relation to three contemporary societal movements.

Decolonizing or re-powering

The development of PAR took place in tandem with anti-colonial movements and discourses during the 1970s and 1980s, in which the colonization of land, people and knowledge were all at stake. During the mid-2010s, calls for decolonization of the university were forced onto the agenda of the powerful by various groups, including African students and youth leading the ‘Rhodes Must Fall’, ‘Fees must Fall’ and ‘Gandhi must Fall’ movements 71 , followed by the eruption of Black Lives Matter protests in 2020 (ref. 72 ). PAR is a methodology that stands to contribute to decolonization-colonization through the development of alternatives to centralizing knowledge and power. As such, the vitality of local and global movements demanding recognition of grassroots knowledge and the dismantling of oppressive historical power–knowledge systems heralds many openings and exciting potential collaborations and causes for PAR practitioners 73 , 74 . As these demands make themselves felt in powerful institutions, they create openings for PAR.

Yet, just as PAR has been subject to co-option and depoliticization, the concept of decolonization too is at risk of appropriation by dominant groups and further tokenization of Indigenous groups, as universities, government departments and global health institutions absorb the concept, fitting it into their existing power structures 41 , 75 . In this context, Indigenous theorists in Aotearoa/New Zealand are working on an alternative concept of ‘re-powering Indigenous knowledge’ instead of ‘decolonizing knowledge’. By doing so, they centre Indigenous people and their knowledge, instead of the knowledge or actions of colonizers, and foreground the necessity of changes to power relations. African and African American scholars working on African heritage and political agency have drawn on the Akan philosophy of Sankofa for a similar purpose 76 . Sankofa derives from a Twi proverb Se wo were fi na wosan kofa a yenkyiri (It is not taboo to fetch what is at risk of being left behind). Going back to fetch what is lost is a self-grounded act that draws on the riches of Indigenous history to re-imagine and restructure the future 77 . It is also an act independent of the colonial and colonizing gaze. Contributing to a mid-twenty-first century re-powering community knowledge is a promising vision for PAR. More broadly, the loud voices and visionary leadership of contemporary anti-racist, anti-colonial, Indigenous, intersectional feminist and other emancipatory movements provide a vibrant context to re-invent and renew PAR.

Co-production

In fields concerned with health and public service provision, a renewed discourse of respectful engagement with communities and service users has centred in recent years on the concept of  co-production 78 . In past iterations, concepts such as citizen engagement, patient participation, community participation and community mobilization had a similar role. Participatory methods have proved their relevance within such contexts, for example, providing actionable and wise insights to clinicians seeking to learn from patients, or to providers of social services seeking to target their services better. Thus, the introduction of co-production may create a receptive environment for PAR in public services. Yet again, if users are participating in something, critical PAR scholars should question in which structures they are participating, instantiating which power relations and to whose benefit. PAR scholars can find themselves compromised by institutional requirements. Identifying potential compromises, lines that cannot be crossed and areas where compromises can be made; negotiating with institutional orders; and navigating discomfort and even conflict are key skills for practitioners of PAR within institutional settings.

One approach to engaging with institutional structures has been to gather evidence for the value of PAR, according to the measures and methods of dominant science. Anyon and colleagues 59 systematically reviewed the Youth PAR literature in the United States. They found emerging evidence that PAR produces positive outcomes for youth and argued for further research using experimental designs to provide harder evidence. They make the pragmatic argument that funding bodies require certain forms of evidence to justify funding, and so PAR would benefit by playing by those rules.

A different approach, grounded in politics rather than the academy, situates co-production as sustained by democratic struggles. In the context of sustainability research in the Amazon, for instance, Perz and colleagues 79 argue that the days of externally driven research are past. Mobilization by community associations, Indigenous federations, producer cooperatives and labour unions to demand influence over the governance of natural resources goes hand in hand with expectations of local leadership and ownership of research, often implemented through PAR. These approaches critically question the desirability of institutional, external funding or even non-monetary support for a particular PAR project.

Global–local inequality and solidarity

Insufferable global and local inequalities continue to grow, intensified by climate catastrophes, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and extreme concentrations of wealth and political influence, and contested by increasingly impactful analyses, protests and refusals by those disadvantaged and discriminated against. Considering the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on PAR projects, Auerbach and colleagues 64 identify increasing marketization and austerity in some universities, and the material context of growing pressure on marginalized communities to simply meet their needs for survival, leaving little capacity for participating in and building long-term partnerships. They describe university-based researchers relying on their own capacities to invent new modes of digital collaboration and nourish their partnerships with communities, often despite limited institutional support.

We suggest that building solidaristic networks, and thus building collective power, within and beyond universities offers the most promising grounding for a fruitful outlook for PAR. PAR scholars can find solidarity across a range of disciplines, traditions, social movements, topics and geographical locations. Doing so offers to bridge traditions, share strategies and resonances, build methodologies and politics, and crucially, build power. In global health research, Abimbola and colleagues 80 call for the building of Southern networks to break away from the dominance of North–South partnerships. They conceptualize the South not only as a geographical location, as there are of course knowledge elites in the South, but as the communities traditionally marginalized from centres of authority and power. We suggest that PAR can best maximize its societal contribution and its own development and renewal by harnessing the diverse wisdom of knowledge generation and participatory methods across Southern regions and communities, using that wisdom to participate in global solidarities and demands for redistribution of knowledge, wealth and power.

Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R. & Nixon, R. in The SAGE Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice (eds Reason, P. & Bradbury, H.) 453–464 (Sage, 2015).

Kindon, S., Pain, R. & Kesby, M. Participatory Action Research Approaches and Methods: Connecting People, Participation and Place (Routledge, 2007). A classic, reflective and practical, all-rounder PAR textbook, with a social science/geography orientation and a Global North origin.

McIntyre, A. Participatory Action Research (Sage, 2007).

Smith, L. T. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples (Bloomsbury, 2021). A foundational book in decolonization and Indigenous methods, including theory, critique and methodological guidance, rooted in Indigenous thought in Aotearoa/New Zealand.

Chilisa, B. Indigenous Research Methodologies (Sage, 2019). A thorough and accessible grounding in the epistemology, methodology and methods of postcolonial, Indigenous research, suitable for a wide audience and rooted in African knowledge systems.

Fals-Borda, O. & Rahman, M. A. Action and Knowledge (Practical Action Publishing, 1991).

Freire, P. Pedagogy of the Oppressed (Continuum, 1970).

Rahman, M. A. in The SAGE Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice (eds Reason, P. & Bradbury, H.) 49–62 (Sage, 2008).

Fanon, F. The Wretched of the Earth (Penguin, 1963).

Crenshaw, K. Mapping the margins: intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanf. Law Rev. 43 , 1241–1299 (1991).

Article   Google Scholar  

Mama, A. Beyond the Masks: Race, Gender, and Subjectivity (Psychology Press, 1995).

Lewin, K. Action research and minority problems. J. Soc. Issues 11 , 34–46 (1946).

Reason, P. & Bradbury, H. The Sage Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice (Sage, 2015).

Le Grange, L. Challenges for participatory action research and indigenous knowledge in Africa. Acta Acad. 33 , 136 (0000).

Google Scholar  

Caxaj, C. S. Indigenous storytelling and participatory action research: allies toward decolonization? Reflections from the Peoples’ International Health Tribunal. Glob. Qual. Nurs. Res. 2 , 2333393615580764 (2015).

Díaz-Arévalo, J. M. In search of the ontology of participation in Participatory Action Research: Orlando Fals-Borda’s Participatory Turn, 1977–1980. Action Res. https://doi.org/10.1177/14767503221103571 (2022).

McKittrick, K. Dear Science and Other Stories (Duke Univ. Press, 2021).

Mohanty, C. T. Under Western eyes: feminist scholarship and colonial discourses. Bound. 2 12/13 , 333–358 (1984).

Lewin, K. Action research and minority problems. J. Soc. Issues 2 , 34–46 (1946).

Adelman, C. Kurt Lewin and the origins of action research. Educ. Action Res. 1 , 7–24 (1993).

Chambers, R. The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal. World Dev. 22 , 953–969 (1994).

Cornwall, A. & Jewkes, R. What is participatory research? Soc. Sci. Med. 41 , 1667–1676 (1995).

Wallerstein, N. & Duran, B. Community-based participatory research contributions to intervention research: the intersection of science and practice to improve health equity. Am. J. Public Health 100 , S40–S46 (2010).

Wang, C. & Burris, M. A. Photovoice: concept, methodology, and use for participatory needs assessment. Health Educ. Behav. 24 , 369–387 (1997).

Tuck, E. & Habtom, S. Unforgetting place in urban education through creative participatory visual methods. Educ. Theory 69 , 241–256 (2019).

Kaba, M. We Do This’Til We Free Us: Abolitionist Organizing and Transforming Justice (Haymarket Books, 2021).

Toraif, N. et al. How to be an antiracist: youth of color’s critical perspectives on antiracism in a youth participatory action research context. J. Adolesc. Res. 36 , 467–500 (2021).

Akom, A. A. A. Black emancipatory action research: integrating a theory of structural racialisation into ethnographic and participatory action research methods. Ethnogr. Educ. 6 , 113–131 (2011).

Fine, M. & Torre, M. E. Critical participatory action research: a feminist project for validity and solidarity. Psychol. Women Q. 43 , 433–444 (2019).

Trajber, R. et al. Promoting climate change transformation with young people in Brazil: participatory action research through a looping approach. Action Res. 17 , 87–107 (2019).

Marzi, S. Co-producing impact-in-process with participatory audio-visual research. Area https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12851 (2022).

Fals-Borda, O. The application of participatory action-research in Latin America. Int. Sociol. 2 , 329–347 (1987).

Liboiron, M. Pollution is Colonialism (Duke Univ. Press, 2021).

Babington, P. Ageing well in Bournville: a participative action research project. Rural. Theol. 15 , 84–96 (2017).

Elder, B. C. & Odoyo, K. O. Multiple methodologies: using community-based participatory research and decolonizing methodologies in Kenya. Int. J. Qual. Stud. Educ. 31 , 293–311 (2018).

Frisby, W., Reid, C. J., Millar, S. & Hoeber, L. Putting “Participatory” into participatory forms of action research. J. Sport Manag. 19 , 367–386 (2005).

King, P., Hodgetts, D., Rua, M. & Te Whetu, T. Older men gardening on the marae: everyday practices for being Māori. Altern. Int. J. Indig. Scholarsh. 11 , 14–28 (2015).

Fine, M. et al. Changing Minds: The Impact of College in a Maximum-Security Prison. Effects on Women in Prison, the Prison Environment, Reincarceration Rates and Post-Release Outcomes . https://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/changing_minds.pdf (2001).

Buckles, D., Khedkar, R. & Ghevde, B. Fighting eviction: local learning and the experience of inequality among India’s adivāsi. Action. Res. 13 , 262–280 (2015). A strong example of a sustained university–community partnership in India that used PAR to build expertise and power in a tribal community to improve their security of tenure.

Vecchio, D. D., Toomey, N. & Tuck, E. Placing photovoice: participatory action research with undocumented migrant youth in the Hudson Valley. Crit. Questions Educ. 8 , 358–376 (2017).

Tuck, E. & Yang, K. W. Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolonization Indigeneity Educ. Soc. 1 , 1–40 (2012).

Lucko, J. Positionality and power in PAR: exploring the competing motivations of PAR stakeholders with latinx middle school students in Northern California. in Education | Faculty Conference Presentations (Dominican Univ., 2018).

Herr, K. & Anderson, G. The Action Research Dissertation: A Guide for Students and Faculty (SAGE, 2005).

Alejandro, A. Reflexive discourse analysis: a methodology for the practice of reflexivity. Eur. J. Int. Relat. 27 , 150–174 (2021).

Cowan, H., Kühlbrandt, C. & Riazuddin, H. Reordering the machinery of participation with young people. Sociol. Health Illn. 44 , 90–105 (2022).

Buettgen, A. et al. We did it together: a participatory action research study on poverty and disability. Disabil. Soc. 27 , 603–616 (2012).

Thurber, A., Collins, L., Greer, M., McKnight, D. & Thompson, D. Resident experts: The potential of critical Participatory Action Research to inform public housing research and practice. Action Res. 18 , 414–432 (2020).

Sandwick, T. et al. Promise and provocation: humble reflections on critical participatory action research for social policy. Urban. Educ. 53 , 473–502 (2018).

Holland, J. & Chambers, R. Who Counts? (Practical Action Publishing, 2013).

Percy-Smith, B. & Burns, D. Exploring the role of children and young people as agents of change in sustainable community development. Local. Environ. 18 , 323–339 (2013).

Marzi, S. Participatory video from a distance: co-producing knowledge during the COVID-19 pandemic using smartphones. Qual. Res. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687941211038171 (2021).

Schoonen, A., Wood, L. & Kruger, C. Learning to facilitate community-based research: guidelines from a novice researcher. Educ. Res. Soc. Change 10 , 16–32 (2021).

Cornish, F., Gillespie, A. & Zittoun, T. in The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis (ed. Flick, U.) 79–93 (Sage, 2013).

Burgess, R. A. Working in the wake: transformative global health in an imperfect world. BMJ Glob. Health 7 , e010520 (2022).

Cahill, C. Repositioning ethical commitments: participatory action research as a relational praxis of social change. ACME Int. J. Crit. Geogr. 6 , 360–373 (2007).

Wilson, E., Kenny, A. & Dickson-Swift, V. Ethical challenges in community-based participatory research: a scoping review. Qual. Health Res. 28 , 189–199 (2018).

Hodgetts, D. et al. Relational ethics meets principled practice in community research engagements to understand and address homelessness. J. Community Psychol. 50 , 1980–1992 (2022).

Hopner, V. & Liu, J. C. Relational ethics and epistemology: the case for complementary first principles in psychology. Theory Psychol. 31 , 179–198 (2021).

Anyon, Y., Bender, K., Kennedy, H. & Dechants, J. A systematic review of youth participatory action research (YPAR) in the United States: methodologies, youth outcomes, and future directions. Health Educ. Behav. 45 , 865–878 (2018).

de-Graft Aikins, A. et al. Building cardiovascular disease competence in an urban poor Ghanaian community: a social psychology of participation approach. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol. 30 , 419–440 (2020).

Feldman, S. & Shaw, L. The epistemological and ethical challenges of archiving and sharing qualitative data. Am. Behav. Sci. 63 , 699–721 (2019).

Cornish, F. Communicative generalisation: dialogical means of advancing knowledge through a case study of an ‘unprecedented’ disaster. Cult. Psychol. 26 , 78–95 (2020).

Anderson, G. Participatory action research (PAR) as democratic disruption: new public management and educational research in schools and universities. Int. J. Qual. Stud. Educ. 30 , 432–449 (2017).

Auerbach, J. et al. Displacement of the Scholar? Participatory action research under COVID-19. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 6 , 762065 (2022).

Levac, L., Ronis, S., Cowper-Smith, Y. & Vaccarino, O. A scoping review: the utility of participatory research approaches in psychology. J. Community Psychol. 47 , 1865–1892 (2019).

Breton, N. N. Reflecting on our good intentions: a critical discourse analysis of women’s health and empowerment discourses in sexual and gender-based violence policies relevant to southern Africa. Glob. Public Health https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2022.2120048 (2022).

de-Graft Aikins, A. Healer shopping in Africa: new evidence from rural-urban qualitative study of Ghanaian diabetes experiences. BMJ 331 , 737 (2005).

Sense, A. J. Driving the bus from the rear passenger seat: control dilemmas of participative action research. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 9 , 1–13 (2006).

Dawson, M. C. & Sinwell, L. Ethical and political challenges of participatory action research in the academy: reflections on social movements and knowledge production in South Africa. Soc. Mov. Stud. 11 , 177–191 (2012).

Dadich, A., Moore, L. & Eapen, V. What does it mean to conduct participatory research with Indigenous peoples? A lexical review. BMC Public Health 19 , 1388 (2019).

Bhambra, G. K., Gebrial, D. & Nisancioglu, K. in Decolonising the University (eds Bhambra, G. K., Gebrial, D. & Nişancıoğlu, K.) 1–18 (Pluto Press, 2018).

Seckinelgin, H. Teaching social policy as if students matter: decolonizing the curriculum and perpetuating epistemic injustice. Crit. Soc. Policy https://doi.org/10.1177/02610183221103745 (2022).

Fine, M. Just methods in revolting times. Qual. Res. Psychol. 13 , 347–365 (2016).

Fine, M. Just Research in Contentious Times: Widening the Methodological Imagination (Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 2018). An inspiring PAR book, addressing complex challenges and transformational potentials of PAR, based on the author’s wide-ranging, deep and long-standing experience with PAR in the USA.

Hirsch, L. A. Is it possible to decolonise global health institutions? Lancet 397 , 189–190 (2021).

Chigumadzi, P. Sankofa and the afterlives of Makerere. Los Angeles Review of Books https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/sankofa-and-the-afterlives-of-makerere (2021).

Gumbonzvanda, N., Gumbonzvanda, F. & Burgess, R. Decolonising the ‘safe space’ as an African innovation: the Nhanga as quiet activism to improve women’s health and wellbeing. Crit. Public Health 31 , 169–181 (2021).

Tembo, D. et al. Effective engagement and involvement with community stakeholders in the co-production of global health research. BMJ 372 , n178 (2021).

Perz, S. G. et al. Participatory action research for conservation and development: experiences from the Amazon. Sustainability 14 , 233 (2022).

Abimbola, S. et al. Addressing power asymmetries in global health: imperatives in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS Med. 18 , e1003604 (2021).

O’Leary, Z. The Essential Guide to Doing Research (Sage, 2004).

Koshy, E., Koshy, V. & Waterman, H. Action Research in Healthcare https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446288696 (Sage, 2011).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank their PAR collaborators and teachers, who have shown us how to take care of each other, our communities and environments. They thank each other for generating such a productive critical thinking space and extending care during challenging times.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Methodology, London School of Economics & Political Science, London, UK

Flora Cornish & Nancy Breton

Departmento de Gestion para el Desarrollo Sustentable, CONACyT–Universidad Autonoma de Guerrero, Acapulco, Guerrero, Mexico

Ulises Moreno-Tabarez

Department of Communication Studies, California State University, Northridge, CA, USA

Jenna Delgado

Māori Studies, University of Auckland, Auckland, Aotearoa, New Zealand

Institute of Advanced Studies, University College London, London, UK

Ama de-Graft Aikins

School of Psychology, Massey University, Albany, Aotearoa, New Zealand

Darrin Hodgetts

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors researched and drafted material for the article. All authors contributed substantially to discussion of the content. F.C. drafted the article. All authors reviewed and/or edited the manuscript before submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Flora Cornish .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature Reviews Methods Primers thanks Jesica Fernández, Sonja Marzi, Jill Clark and Alice McIntyre for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Related links

Better Evaluation: https://www.betterevaluation.org/frameworks-guides/managers-guide-evaluation/scope/describe-theory-change

Juba Wajiin: resistencia en la montaña: https://bombozila.com/juba-wajiin/

La Sandia Digital: https://lasandiadigital.org.mx/

Morris Justice project: https://morrisjustice.org/

Supplementary information

Supplementary information.

Involving multiple team members in the analysis and interpretation of materials generated, typically in iterative cycles of individual or pair work and group discussion.

Both a structure and a process, community refers to a network of often diverse and unequal persons engaged in common tasks or actions, stakes or interests that lead them to form social ties or commune with one another.

A process through which a person or group’s activities are altered or appropriated to serve another group’s interests.

A term typically used in service provision to describe partnership working between service providers and service users, to jointly produce decisions or designs.

A call to recognize and dismantle the destructive legacies of colonialism in societal institutions, to re-power indigenous groups and to construct alternative relationships between peoples and knowledges that liberate knowers and doers from colonial extraction and centralization of power.

Scholarship that creates knowledge of the conditions that limit or oppress us to liberate ourselves from those conditions and to support others in their own transformations.

Injustices in relation to knowledge, including whose knowledge counts and which knowledge is deemed valid or not.

Research that extracts information and exploits relationships, places and peoples, producing benefit for scholars or institutions elsewhere, and depleting resources at the sites of the research.

Knowledge that is rooted in experience in a particular social context, often devalued by social science perspectives that make claims to generalizability or universality.

The relationships of domination, subordination and resistance between individuals or social groups, allowing some to advance their perspectives and interests more than others.

A methodological practice through which scholars critically reflect on their own positionality and how it impacts on participants and co-researchers, understanding of the topic and the knowledge produced.

An approach to ethical conduct that situates ethics as ongoingly negotiated within the context of respectful relationships, beyond following the procedural rules often set out by ethics committees.

A dual role in which scholars use their knowledge (scholarship) to tackle injustices and instigate changes (activism) in collaboration with marginalized communities and/or organizations.

Doing something or appointing a person for reasons other than in the interest of enabling meaningful change.

A systemic change in which relationships and structures are fundamentally altered, often contrasted with smaller-scale changes such as varying or refining existing relations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

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

Download citation

Accepted : 27 February 2023

Published : 27 April 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s43586-023-00214-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Increasing disability inclusion through self-relevant research.

• Kathleen R. Bogart

Communications Psychology (2024)

Future directions for patient engagement in research: a participatory workshop with Canadian patient partners and academic researchers

• Anna Maria Chudyk
• Roger Stoddard
• Annette S. H. Schultz

Health Research Policy and Systems (2024)

Coproducing health research with Indigenous peoples

• Chris Cunningham
• Monica Mercury

Nature Medicine (2023)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Action Research Design

• First Online: 04 January 2024

Cite this chapter

• Stefan Hunziker 3 &
• Michael Blankenagel 3  

444 Accesses

This chapter addresses action research design’s peculiarities, characteristics, and significant fallacies. This research design is a change-oriented approach. Its central assumption is that complex social processes can best be studied by introducing change into these processes and observing their effects. The fundamental basis for action research is addressing organizational problems and their associated unsatisfactory conditions. Also, researchers find relevant information on how to write an action research paper and learn about typical methodologies used for this research design. The chapter closes by referring to overlapping and adjacent research designs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Altrichter, H., Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Zuber-Skerritt, O. (2002). The concept of action research. The Learning Organization, 9 (3), 125–131.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bamberger, G. G. (2015). Lösungsorientierte Beratung. 5. Aufl. Beltz.

Google Scholar  

Baskerville, R. (1999). Investigating Information Systems with Action Research. Communications of AIS, Volume 2, Article 19. https://wise.vub.ac.be/sites/default/files/thesis_info/action_research.pdf .

Baskerville, R. (2001). Conducting action research: High risk and high reward in theory and practice. In E. M. Trauth (Ed.), Qualitative research in is: issues and trends (pp. 192–217). IGI Publishing.

Baskerville, R. & Lee. A. (1999). Distinctions among different types of generalizing in information systems research. In O. Ngwenyama et al., (Ed.), New IT technologies in organizational processes: Field studies and theoretical reflections on the future of work. Kluwer.

Baskerville, R., & Wood-Harper, A. T. (1998). Diversity in information systems action research methods. European Journal of Information Systems, 7 (2), 90–107.

Blichfeldt, B. S., & Andersen, J. R. (2006). Creating a wider audience for action research: Learning from case-study research. Journal of Research Practice, 2 (1), Article D2. http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/23/69 . (Accessed 10 May 2021).

Borrego, M., Douglas, E. P., & Amelink, C. T. (2009). Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed research methods in engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 98 (1), 53–66.

Bunning, C. (1995). Placing action learning and action research in context. International Management Centre.

Cauchick, M. (2011). Metodologia de Pesquisa em Engenharia ee Produção e Gestão de Operações. (2nd ed.). Elsevier.

Coghlan, D., & Shani, A. B. (2005). Roles, politics and ethics in action research design. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 18 (6), 533–546.

Cole, R., Purao, S., Rossi, M., & Sein, M. K. (2005). Being proactive: Where action research meets design research. ICIS.

Collatto, D. C., Dresch, A., Lacerda, D. P., & Bentz, I. G. (2018). Is action design research indeed necessary? Analysis and synergies between action research and design science research. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 31 (3), 239–267.

Coughlan, P., & Coghlan, D. (2002). Action research for operations management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 22 (2), 220–240.

Cunningham, J. B. (1993). Action research and organizational development. Praeger Publishers.

Davison, R. M., & Martinsons, M. G. (2007). Action research and consulting. In Ned Kock (Ed.), Information systems action research. An applied view of emerging concepts and methods (vol. 13, pp. 377–394). Springer (Integrated Series in Information Systems).

Davison, R., Martinsons, M. G., & Kock, N. (2004). Principles of canonical action research. Information Systems Journal, 14 (1), 65–86.

Dick, B. (2003). Rehabilitating action research: Response to Davydd Greenwood’s and Björn Gustavsen’s papers on action research perspectives. Concepts and Transformation, 7 (2), 2002 and 8 (1), 2003. Concepts and Transformation, 8 (3), 255–263.

Dickens, L., & Watkins, K. (1999). Action Research: Rethinking Lewin. Management Learning, 30 (2), 127–140.

Eden, C., & Huxham, C. (1996). Action research for management research. British Journal of Management, 7 (1), 75–86.

Foster, M. (1972). An introduction to the theory and practice of action research in work organizations. Human Relations, 25 (6), 529–556.

Grønhaug, K., & Olsson, O. (1999). Action research and knowledge creation: Merits and challenges. Qualitative Market Research, 2 (1), 6–14.

Heller, F. (1993). Another look at action research. Human Relations, 46 (10), 1235–1242.

Holmström, J., Ketokivi, M., & Hameri, A-P. (2009). Bridging Practice and Theory: A Design Science Approach. Decision Sciences 40 (1), 65–87.

Hult, M., & Lennung, S. -Å. (1980). Towards a definition of action research: A note and bibliography. Journal of Management Studies, 17 (2), 241–250.

Hüner, K. M., Ofner, M., & Otto, B. (2009). Towards a maturity model for corporate data quality management. 24th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (ACM SAC 2009).

Järvinen, P. (2007). Action research is similar to design science. Quality & Quantity, 41 (1), 37–54.

Lau, F. (1997). A review on the use of action research in information systems studies. In A.S. Lee, J. Liebenau, & J. I. DeGross (eds.), Information systems and qualitative research. IFIP—the international federation for information processing. Springer.

Loebbecke, C., & Powell, P. (2009). Furthering distributed participative design. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 21, 77–106.

Iivari, J., & Venable, J. (2009). Action research and design science research—Seemingly similar but decisively dissimilar. In 17th European Conference in Information Systems. ECIS, Verona, pp. 1–13.

March, S.T., & Smith, G. F. (1995). Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision Support Systems, 15 (4), 251–266.

McKay, J., & Marshall, P. (2001). The dual imperatives of action research. Information Technology & People, 14 (1), 46–59.

Mohrman, S. A., & Lawler, E. E. (2011). Useful research: Advancing theory and practice. Berrett-Koehler.

Pries-Heje, J., & Baskerville, R. 2008. The Design Theory Nexus. MIS Quarterly, 32 (4), 731–755.

Ractham, P., Kaewkitipong, L., & Firpo, D. (2012). The use of facebook in an introductory MIS course: Social constructivist learning environment. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 10 (2), 165–188.

Rapoport, R. N. (1970). Three dilemmas in action research. Human Relations, 23 (6), 499–513.

Rossi, M., & Sein, M. K. (2003). Design Research workshop: A proactive Research Approach. 26th Information Systems Seminar, Haikko, Finland.

Schein, E. H. (2010). Organization development: Science, technology or philosophy?. In D. Coghlan, & A. B. (Rami) Shani (Eds.), Fundamentals of organization development (1) (pp. 91–100). Sage.

Sein, M. K., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M. & Lindgren, R. (2011). Action Design Research. MIS Quarterly , 35(1), 37–56

Shani, A. B., & Coghlan, D. (2019). Action research in business and management: A reflective review. Action Research, 19 (3), 1–24.

Shani, A. B., & Pasmore W. A. (1985). Organization inquiry: Towards a new model of the action research process. In D. D Warrick (Ed.), Contemporary organization development: Current thinking and applications. (pp. 438–448). Scott Foresman.

Thiollent, M. (2009). Metodologia da Pesquisa-Ação (17th ed.). Cortez.

Von Kroch, G., Ichijo, K., & Nonaka, I. (2000). Enabling knowledge creation. Oxford University Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Wirtschaft/IFZ, Campus Zug-Rotkreuz, Hochschule Luzern, Zug-Rotkreuz, Zug, Switzerland

Stefan Hunziker & Michael Blankenagel

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefan Hunziker .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Hunziker, S., Blankenagel, M. (2024). Action Research Design. In: Research Design in Business and Management. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-42739-9_7

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-42739-9_7

Published : 04 January 2024

Publisher Name : Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden

Print ISBN : 978-3-658-42738-2

Online ISBN : 978-3-658-42739-9

eBook Packages : Business and Management Business and Management (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HRB Open Res

• PMC8240599.1 ; 2021 May 7
• ➤ PMC8240599.2; 2021 Jun 15

Application of action research in the field of healthcare: a scoping review protocol

1 UCD School of Nursing, Midwifery & Health Systems, University College Dublin, Dublin 4, Ireland

David Coghlan

2 Trinity Business School, University of Dublin, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

Áine Carroll

3 School of Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin 4, Ireland

4 National Rehabilitation Hospital, Dun Laoghaire, Co Dublin, Ireland

Diarmuid Stokes

5 The Library, University College Dublin, Dublin 4, Ireland

Kinley Roberts

Geralyn hynes.

6 School of Nursing & Midwifery, University of Dublin, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

Associated Data

No data are associated with this article.

Version Changes

Revised. amendments from version 1.

We received feedback from two very helpful experts in the field of action research and action learning. There were a few minor changes that we made in the light of this feedback as seen hereunder. We see all action research as involving change, action, and reflection which is thus transformational and transformative in some way. We further elaborated slightly on the description of stage 5 to emphasise that there is no extant quality appraisal checklist for action research studies and that our findings will contribute to future development.  We justified our choice of action research framework on the basis that the framework by Coghlan and Shani (2018) expresses the essential relationships between context, quality of relationships, has a dual focus on the inquiry and implementation process as well as concern for the actionability and contribution to knowledge creation. These four factors comprise a comprehensive framework as they capture the core of action research and the complex cause-and-effect dynamics within each factor and between the factors. We interpret the explanatory definition of organisational context as described by Coghlan and Shani (2018) to include community healthcare context which is also seen as community care context in healthcare parlance. Therefore, our search will pick up CBPR. We have clarified that participative values are embodied within the relational component of the action research and added an additional reference. We have also justified the inclusion of a particular focus on measurement of the degree of participation as in some publications the inclusion of stakeholders in interviews and focus groups only, is taken as essentially constituting the entire spectrum of the core values of participation and inclusion of the quality of the co-researcher partnership.

Peer Review Summary

Background: Traditional research approaches are increasingly challenged in healthcare contexts as they produce abstract thinking rather than practical application. In this regard, action research is a growing area of popularity and interest, essentially because of its dual focus on theory and action. However, there is a need for action researchers not only to justify their research approach but also to demonstrate the quality of their empirical studies. Therefore, the authors set out to examine the current status of the quality of extant action research studies in healthcare to encourage improved scholarship in this area. The aim of this scoping review is to identify, explore and map the literature regarding the application of action research in either individual, group or organisational domains in any healthcare context.

Methods: The systematic scoping review will search the literature within the databases of CINAHL, PubMed and ABI/Inform within the recent five-year period to investigate the scientific evidence of the quality of action research studies in healthcare contexts. The review will be guided by Arksey and O'Malley’s five mandatory steps, which have been updated and published online by the Joanna Briggs Institute. The review will follow the PRISMA-ScR framework guidelines to ensure the standard of the methodological and reporting approaches are exemplary.

Conclusion: This paper outlines the protocol for an exploratory scoping review to systematically and comprehensively map out the evidence as to whether action research studies demonstrate explicitly how the essential factors of a comprehensive framework of action research are upheld. The review will summarise the evidence on the quality of current action research studies in healthcare. It is anticipated that the findings will inform future action researchers in designing studies to ensure the quality of the studies is upheld.

Introduction

The utility and versatility of action research has brought about an increase in the level of interest, application and usage of action research in a variety of healthcare contexts in the past 20 years as healthcare systems all over the world undergo transformative change. Part of this greater interest and usage relates to the fact that in this context of change, action research aims at both taking action in a particular system in response to particular forces, and therefore brings a change, and creating knowledge about that action that provides actionable knowledge for other health care organisations. Another possible explanation for the increased application of action research in healthcare is its participatory paradigm, which invites participants to be both embedded and reflexive in the creation of collaborative learning and of actionable knowledge where research is with, rather than on or for, people. Action research therefore attempts to link theory and practice, thinking and doing, achieving both practical and research objectives ( Casey & Coghlan, 2021 ), and therefore provides a means of improvement by narrowing the gap between researching and implementing.

A wide range of terms are used to describe action research approaches such that it is now considered as a family of approaches ( Casey et al. , 2018 ), the common approaches being appreciative inquiry, co-operative inquiry, collaborative research, participatory action research and, more recently, co-design to name a few. The action research process involves engagement in cycles of action and reflection and always involves two goals: to address a real issue and to contribute to science through the elaboration or development of theory. These are the dual imperatives of action research. The creation of actionable knowledge is the most rigorous test of knowledge creation. Action research embodies a set of principles and outlines definite steps on how to engage in the research process. These steps are cyclical and spiral in nature and iterative and some argue that two overlapping spirals of activity exist, where one spiral depicts the research activity and the other depicts the work interest ( Casey & Coghlan, 2021 ). This facilitates the researchers giving adequate consideration to their own learning and knowledge as well as to all the relevant issues prior to engaging in research activity. Thus the researchers are engaging in developmental reflexivity and adopt a critical stance on their role throughout the action research project ( Bradbury et al. , 2019 ). According to Reason & Bradbury (2008:4) action research “is a living, emergent process that cannot be predetermined but changes and develops as those who engage deepen their understanding of the issues to be addressed and develop their capacity as co-inquirers both individually and collectively’.

In one of his seminal articles on action research, Lewin (1947: 147-8) describes how action research begins and develops.

• Planned social action (intentional change) usually emerges from a more or less vague “idea”. An objective appears in the cloudy form of a dream or a wish, which can hardly be called a goal. To become real, to be able to steer action, something has to be developed which might be called a plan... It should be noted that the development of a general plan presupposes “fact-finding” … On the basis of this fact-finding the goal is somewhat altered…Accepting a plan does not mean that all further steps are fixed by a decision; only in regard to the first step should be the decision be final. After the first action is carried out, the second step should not follow automatically. Instead it should be investigated whether the effect of the first action was actually what was expected.

Keeping a regular check on how the inquiry process is unfolding and checking for the presence of any underlying assumptions with the group is essential ( Coughlan & Coghlan, 2002 ).

Participation as a core value in action research

Action research has its focus on generating solutions to practical problems and its ability to empower practitioners because of its emphasis on participation as a core strategy ( Reason, 1994 ) and implementation of action ( Meyer, 2000 ). Active participation in a research study can be more threatening than participation in the traditional designs and there are increasing calls for evidence of impact and outcome from participation and co-design ( Palmer, 2020 ). Participation in healthcare is rendered complex by the different lens through which different professional groups view and understand problems through different disciplinary lens while patients must engage with these against a hierarchical background. Participation has thus been described as a multivoiced process ( Hynes et al. , 2012 ) and embraces multiple ways of knowing-for-action ( Bradbury et al. , 2019 ). Indeed, there is an expectation that participation from participants and co-researchers increases involvement and commitment and sustainability of action research outcomes; however, the measurement of this has been inconsistent and almost absent. In some published accounts we have seen the inclusion of stakeholders in interviews and focus groups only, as essentially constituting the entire spectrum of the core values of participation and inclusion of the quality of the co-researcher partnership. Indeed, there is an expectation that participation from participants and co-researchers increases involvement and commitment and sustainability of action research outcomes; however, the measurement of this has been inconsistent and almost absent. For this reason we have opted to look at the degree of participation that is evidenced in the empirical studies using the ladder of citizen participation ( Arnstein, 1969 ), which although based on citizen participation in model cities in a department of housing and urban development, can form the basis for a more enlightened conversation about the type of participation evident in the selected studies. The ladder is organised into three major positions on citizen participation along a continuum of citizen control based on the concept of ability to exercise power. The ladder has eight rungs, with the bottom two rungs representing non-participation labelled as ‘therapy’ and ‘manipulation’. The middle section is labelled ‘degrees of tokenism’ and includes three rungs called ‘informing’, ‘consultation’ and ‘placation’ in ascending order. The higher rungs indicate three degrees of citizen power ranging from ‘partnership’ at the lower level, followed by ‘delegated power’, and ‘citizen control’ as the top rung of the ladder.

Indicating the quality of action research studies

Action researchers do not make claims “so much on the grounds of scientific rigour, as in terms of generating findings which are useful and relevant" ( Hart & Bond, 1995:13 ). Baskerville & Wood-Harper (1996:238) suggest that “where the change is successful, the evaluation must critically question whether the undertaken action, among the myriad routine and non-routine organisational actions, was the sole cause of success”. According to Waterman (1998:104) , “the validity of action research projects does not reside in their degree to effect change but in their attempt to improve people’s lives...through voluntary participation and cooperation”. According to Ellis & Kiely (2000:87) the validity of the research is based on the degree to which the research is useful and relevant in precipitating discussion about improvement. Morrison & Lilford (2001:441) suggest the search for knowledge can be considered scientific “if it leads to the development of theories that are explanatory: telling us why things happen as they do in that domain, comprehensively applying to the whole domain, and falsifiability: giving rise, via testable hypotheses, to empirical predictions whose persistent failure counts against the theory”. They conclude action research offers explanatory theories, and that these theories can be falsified. However, they attest these theories are context dependent and hence cannot be comprehensive.

Reason & Bradbury (2001) prefer to use the term quality rather than validity in action research as a means of expressing and judging rigour. They suggest the judge for quality action research be on the basis that it develops a praxis of relational knowledge and knowledge generation reflects co-operation between the researcher and participants. These authors also ask whether the research is guided by a reflexive concern for practical outcomes and whether the process of iterative reflection as part of the change process is readily apparent. Therefore, action research must acknowledge multiple realities and a plurality of knowing evident in the inclusion of various perspectives from the participants without attempting to find an agreed common perspective. The significance of the project is also an important aspect of quality criteria and whether the project results in new developments such as sustainable change. A framework that expresses these essential relationships between context, quality of relationships, has a dual focus on the inquiry and implementation process as well as concern for the actionability and contribution to knowledge creation was selected. Such a framework exists in the work of Shani & Pasmore (1985/2016) who suggest that the necessary evidence of the quality of their action research studies can be achieved by: i) demonstrating knowledge of the practical and academic context of the project; ii) creating participants as co-researchers; iii) enacting cycles of action and reflection as the project is being implemented and knowledge is being co-generated; and iv) generating outcomes that are both practical for the delivery of healthcare system in the project and robust for theory development about change in healthcare. A comprehensive framework of the action research process is presented by Coghlan & Shani (2018) in terms of four factors. These four factors comprise a comprehensive framework as they capture the core of action research and the complex cause-and-effect dynamics within each factor and between the factors.

• The context of the action research project refers to individual, organisational, environmental and research/consulting factors. Individual factors include ideas about the direction of the project and how collaboration can be assured. From an organisational perspective, the availability and use of resources influence of previous history, and the level of congruence between these impacts on the capability for participation. Environmental factors in the global and local economies provide the larger context in which action research takes place. An example of research factors which can have relevance relates to previous research experience and involvement a similar area or topic.
• The quality of relationship refers to trust, shared language, concern for each other and equality of influence between members and researchers.
• Refers to the dual focus on both the inquiry process and the implementation process as they are being undertaken.
• The dual outcomes of action research are some level of organisational improvement and learning and the creation of actionable knowledge.

These four factors will be used for the scoping review. A scoping review is the most appropriate approach to the literature as it provides an overview of studies, clarifying concepts or contextual information ( Pollack et al ., 2021 ) and it can be used to investigate research conduct ( Munn et al ., 2018 ; Tricco et al ., 2018 ). This aim of this scoping review is to explore whether action research studies demonstrate explicitly how the essential factors of a comprehensive framework of action research are upheld. This is a scoping protocol for this review. Our protocol includes information about the aims and objectives of the scoping review, inclusion and exclusion criteria, search strategy and data extraction.

The protocol for the scoping review is based on the work of Arksey & O' Malley (2005) . In addition, The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) ( Tricco et al ., 2018 ) will guide the process. This reporting guideline is consistent with the JBI guidance for scoping reviews, ( Tricco et al. , 2018 ). These steps are:

• Stage 1 : Identifying the research question

Stage 2: Identifying relevant studies

Stage 3: study selection, stage 4: charting the data.

• Stage 5: Collating, summarising and reporting results

Stage 1: Identifying the research question

The review aims to identify, explore and map the literature regarding the application of action research in either individual, group or organisational domains in any healthcare context.

Objectives . To identify the degree to which the core factors of a comprehensive framework of action research ( Coghlan & Shani, 2018 ) are manifestly addressed. The following are the key objectives of the scoping review:

• 1. To identify the degree to which knowledge of the practical and academic context are addressed.
• 2. To establish how the quality of co-researcher relationships was maintained.
• 3. To determine how the quality of the enactment of cycles of action and reflection in the present tense were implemented.
• 4. To identify how the dual outcomes of co-generated actionable knowledge are addressed.

Review question . How do researchers address the core factors of a comprehensive framework of action research in healthcare?

According to Peters et al. (2020b) , a scoping review question should include elements of the PCC mnemonic (population, concept, and context) and it will also inform inclusion and exclusion criteria and consequently the literature search strategy.

• Population - healthcare professionals and patients and clients who work or come into contact with health care in any context of primary, secondary or tertiary settings
• Concept - studies that use an action research approach in healthcare contexts.
• Context - any part of health service in any country that people (healthcare professionals and patients or clients) interact with.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria . The inclusion and exclusion criteria for study selection are summarised in Table 1 .

The research team will undertake a comprehensive search of the literature within the following databases:

• CINAHL - Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL Plus)
• PubMed – Biomedical and life sciences database
• ABI/Inform (ProQuest) – Business database

Using the three terms of population, concept, context (PCC framework) an initial search will be deployed on CINAHL Plus. This will be followed by the use of search terms to identify key text words used to address the major concepts of population (healthcare professionals and patients), concept (action research studies in healthcare), and context (any part of health service that people interact with). Alternative terms for each of the concepts will also be included. Then each search strategy will be adapted for each database (PubMed and ABI/Inform) and specific Boolean operators, truncation markers, and MeSH headings where necessary will be used. The inclusion of the expertise of a research librarian is invaluable at an early stage of completing a scoping review ( McGowan et al. , 2020 ); the research team worked with the expert university librarian in designing and refining the search strategy and will be included as part of the research team. We noted that while the data bases CINAHL and ABI/Inform claim to include the Action Research Journal, this is not the case. Therefore, we plan to do a manual search of the Action Research Journal and also of Educational Action Research for the past 5 years in keeping with the timeframe of the search strategy for this protocol. Sample search terms for the PubMed database are outlined in Table 2 .

Key search concepts . The key search concepts for this study are ‘people in healthcare’ AND ‘action research’ AND ‘healthcare environment’.

Endnote 9 will be used to manage the identified studies from the three databases. All duplicates will be removed within Endnote 9. The process of screening the titles and abstracts will be undertaken by four members of the team and non-relevant studies based on the criteria will be removed with the assistance of Rayyan (an online open access screening software tool). To resolve any conflict regarding the difference of opinion and in the ‘undecided, category, one member from the other team will chair a discussion to reach a consensus agreement. To improve reliability of the reviewers, a short training programme on the use of Rayyan will be undertaken by all the researchers and a small percentage of the studies will be screened independently by each reviewer and then a comparison will be reviewed for consistency of decision-making between the members. The full text article review will be undertaken by the same researchers using the same iterative steps, with the researchers reviewing the full texts independently.

We will do a small pilot study to test the use of the criteria and these can be modified as the researchers become more familiar with a sample of the studies to determine if further information is required of if fields are not relevant and should be removed. Data will be extracted using specified criteria and evidence from this process will be presented in table format.

Four members of the research team will be involved in extracting the data using a charting table created by the researchers within Microsoft Excel 365 software, as suggested by Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) ( Peters et al. , 2017 ). The extracted data will be selected and mapped according to the specified inclusion of evidence of the quality of the action research study. Using the elements identified in the PCC framework as a guide, the initial fields will include:

• Citation details (authors and year of publication)
• Study title
• Geographical location of study
• Study setting/context
• Methodology/design – Type of action research
• ▪ knowledge of the practical and academic context,
• ▪ quality of co-researcher relationships,
• ▪ quality of the enactment of cycles of action and reflection in the present tense,
• ▪ the dual outcomes of co-generated actionable knowledge.
• ▪ Citizen power (citizen control, delegated power, partnership)
• ▪ Tokenism (placation, consultation, informing)
• ▪ Non-participation (therapy, manipulation)

Stage 5: Collating, summarising and reporting the results

Data will be collected using Microsoft Excel 365 software to capture relevant information for each study by the same four members of the research team and it will be available to all members via a shared drive. Studies will be mapped according to their contextual setting, geographical location, and year of publication. All authors will discuss the data prior to analysis, which will be a descriptive analysis, as recommended by Peters et al. (2020a) . A narrative tabular report will be produced summarising the extracted data concerning the objectives and scoping review question. The PRISMA-ScR guidelines will be used for reporting the outcomes of the review ( Tricco et al. , 2018 ). Quality appraisal of the studies will not be conducted as there is no extant quality appraisal check list for action research studies. This review aims to explore how the core factors of a comprehensive framework of action research are addressed in each study and our findings will contribute to future development of such a check list for the application of action research principles in action research studies in general. The review will consist of analysis of the evidence of the quality of their action research on: i) demonstrating knowledge of the practical and academic context of the project; ii) creating participants as co-researchers; iii) enacting cycles of action and reflection in the present tense as the project is being implemented and knowledge is being co-generated; and iv) generating outcomes that are both practical for the delivery of healthcare system in the project and robust for theory development about change in healthcare. Full adherence to ethical procedures in disseminating information will be undertaken by the research team. The report will be presented both orally and through publications at national and international conferences.

Study status

At the time of publication of this protocol, preliminary database searches had commenced.

This scoping review protocol has been designed in line with the latest evidence. Action research studies were carried out in diverse healthcare settings and there are many ways of undertaking action research in healthcare that consider the research purpose, aims and theoretical underpinnings. However, there is a need demonstrate the quality of the action research studies by choosing a coherent theoretical guidance provided by scholars. This will enable the transformation and impact of action research in healthcare settings to be evaluated and thereby improve the quality of action research studies in healthcare. The results extracted from this scoping review will identify how the quality element is addressed in current empirical action research studies within a recent five-year period. Based on the outcome of the review knowledge gaps and deficits will be uncovered in relation to demonstrating adherence to quality criteria when undertaking action research studies. A Quality check list for action research studies may be generated similar in format to extant reporting criteria for qualitative and quantitative studies. Findings from the review will be shared widely with healthcare personnel both locally and nationally and also through presentations and publication of the review in an open-access journal.

Data availability

[version 2; peer review: 2 approved]

Funding Statement

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

• Arksey H, O'Malley L: Scoping Studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005; 8 ( 1 ):19–32. 10.1080/1364557032000119616 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Arnstein S: A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Inst Plann. 1969; 35 ( 4 ):216–224. 10.1080/01944366908977225 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baskerville RL, Wood-Harper AT: A critical perspective on action research as a method for information systems research. J Inf Technol. 1996; 11 ( 3 ):235–246. 10.1080/026839696345289 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bradbury H, Waddell S, O’Brien K, et al.: A call to Action Research for Transformations: The times demand it. Action Research. 2019; 17 ( 1 ):3–10. 10.1177/1476750319829633 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Casey M, Coghlan D: Action research for practitioners and researchers. In J. Crossman and S. Bordia (eds.). Handbook of qualitative research methodologies in workplace contexts. Cheltenham UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.2021; Chapter 5 :67–81. 10.4337/9781789904345.00010 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Casey M, O’Leary D, Coghlan D: Unpacking action research and implementation science: Implications for nursing. J Adv Nurs. 2018; 74 ( 5 ):1051–1058. 10.1111/jan.13494 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Coghlan D, Shani AB (Rami): Conducting action research for business and management students. London: Sage. 2018. 10.4135/9781529716566 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Coughlan P, Coghlan D: Action research for operations management. Int J Oper Prod Man. 2002; 22 ( 2 ):220–240. 10.1108/01443570210417515 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ellis JHM, Kiely JA: Action inquiry strategies: Taking stock and moving forward. Journal of Applied Management Studies. 2000; 9 ( 1 ):83–94. 10.1080/713674360 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hart E, Bond M: Developing action research in nursing. Nurse Researcher. 1995; 2 ( 3 ):4–14. 10.7748/nr.2.3.4.s2 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hynes G, Coghlan D, McCarron M: Participation as a multi-voiced process: Action research in the acute hospital environment. Action Res. 2012; 10 ( 3 ):293–312. 10.1177/1476750312451278 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lewin K: Frontiers in group dynamics: II. Channels of group life, social planning and action research. Hum Relat. 1947; 1 ( 2 ):143–153. 10.1177/001872674700100201 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McGowan J, Straus S, Moher D, et al.: Reporting scoping reviews-PRISMA ScR extension. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020; 123 :177–179. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.03.016 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Meyer J: Qualitative research in health care: Using qualitative methods in health related action research. BMJ. 2000; 320 ( 7228 ):178–181. 10.1136/bmj.320.7228.178 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morrison B, Lilford R: How can action research apply to health services? Qual Health Res. 2001; 11 ( 4 ):436–449. 10.1177/104973201129119235 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, et al.: Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018; 18 ( 1 ):143. 10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Palmer VJ: The participatory Zeitgeist in Health Care: It is Time for a Science of Participation. J Particip Med. 2020; 12 ( 1 ):e15101. 10.2196/15101 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, et al.: Chapter 11: Scoping Reviews. In: Aromataris E. Munn Z. (Editors). Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer’s Manual . The Joanna Briggs Institute.2017. 10.46658/JBIMES-20-12 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, et al.: Chapter 11: Scoping Reviews. In: Aromataris E. Munn Z. (Editors). JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis , JBI,2020b. 10.46658/JBIMES-20-12 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, et al.: Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020a; 18 ( 10 ):2119–2126. 10.11124/JBIES-20-00167 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pollack D, Davies EL, Peters MDJ, et al.: Undertaking a scoping review: A practical guide for nursing and midwifery students, clinicians, researchers, and academics. J Adv Nurs. 2021; 77 ( 4 ):2102–2113. 10.1111/jan.14743 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reason P: Three Approaches to Participative Inquiry. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.). Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage, London,1994;324–339. Reference Source [ Google Scholar ]
• Reason P, Bradbury H: Inquiry and participation in search of a world worthy of human aspiration. In P. Reason and H. Bradbury (Eds.). Handbook of Action Research Participative Inquiry and Practice. Sage, London,2001;1–13. Reference Source [ Google Scholar ]
• Reason P, Bradbury H: Sage Handbook of action research: Participative Inquiry and Practice. (2 nd ed) London: Sage.2008. Reference Source [ Google Scholar ]
• Shani AB (Rami), Pasmore WA: Organization inquiry: Towards a new model of the action research process. In D.D. Warrick (ed.) Contemporary organization development: Current thinking and applications (pp 438–448). Scott Foresman and Company: Glenview, ILL. [Reproduced in D. Coghlan and A.B. (Rami) Shani (eds.). (2016). Action research in business and management 1,191-200 ). London: Sage.1985. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al.: PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018; 169 ( 7 ):467–473. 10.7326/M18-0850 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Waterman H: Embracing ambiguities and valuing ourselves: Issues of validity in action research. J Adv Nurs. 1998; 28 ( 1 ):101–105. 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1998.00763.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Reviewer response for version 2

Victor friedman.

1 Action Research Center for Social Justice, Max Stern Yezreel Valley College, Emek Yezreel, Israel

The changes to the article are sufficient.

Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Reviewer Expertise:

Action research, organisational learning, social inclusion, conflict transformation, action science, field theory

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

UCD Nursing, Midwifery & Health Systems, Ireland

Many thanks for your considered response that has helped us to improve our publication.

Kind Regards

Reviewer response for version 1

This paper presents a protocol for a scoping literature review of how action research in health care deals with quality. It argues for the need for such a review, which promises to provide a deeper, more nuanced, and empirically based understanding of what quality actually means in action research in the health care field. The paper reviews a small sample of the literature on quality in action research and points to a variety of criteria/factors for evaluating/generating quality. For their scoping review, the authors choose “four factors” for quality as presented by Coghlan and Shani (2018). The paper then presents the research question, the methods to be used for (1) identifying and selecting relevant studies to be reviewed, (2) charting the data, and (3) collating, summarising and reporting the results.

The paper makes a convincing argument for the need for such a scoping review and prevents a very clear, systematic, and well though-out protocol that should generate very useful and important knowledge. 

At the same time, I question the authors choice of a single, pre-existing framework for quality (Coghlan & Shani,2018). After presenting a number of varying approaches to quality, they write, “a connection that integrates their different forms of expertise and different initial frameworks is needed in order to generate a third framework of the local situation.” However, the authors do not actually explain how these frameworks are integrated within the Coghlan and Shani (2018) model. It seems to me that some things are missing or need to be developed a bit more:

•  Making a specific reference to the issues of reflection/reflexivity, which are featured in the literature reviewed earlier in the paper. These are not the same processes, though they related, and are an important component of action research.
• The Coghlan & Shani (2018) framework is very heavily oriented towards action research in organizations. Making a specific reference to the issue of “community,” which is a central domain in health care but is missing from the “Context” part of the framework. It does appear in Table 2. Regarding Table 2, I would add “Community Based (Participatory Research (CBPR or CBR)” to “Concept” (studies that use an action research approach in healthcare contexts).
•  “Participation” appears as a separate category outside of the framework. However, participation is applied implied in the Coghlan and Shani (2018) model by “equality of influence between members and researchers” in the “quality of relationships” (factor 3). How does quality of relationships differ from participation? Perhaps participation cold be incorporated into the framework or the framework crafted to reduce redundancy.
• I suggest that the authors take a look at the quality choice-points for action oriented research for transformation suggested by the (Bradbury et al, 2020), https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1476750320904562 . )

To sum up, Coghlan & Shani (2018) provides a very good foundation on which to build the integrative model, but a bit more work needs to be done to make it integrative and more comprehensive.

There are also a number of editing issues:

•  The authors write: “Therefore, a connection that integrates their different forms of expertise and different initial frameworks is needed in order to generate a third framework of the local situation.”  What is meant by “third framework”? What were the first and second frameworks? 
• The very next sentence says  “Such a frame exists”.  This confuses a bit more since “framework” and “frame” are not the same
• The authors write: “Individual factors include ideas about the direction and collaboration can be assured.”  There is something missing in this sentence. I think it should say “ideas about how the…” but that’s up to the authors
• The authors write: “From an organisational perspective, the availability and use of resources influence of previous history, and the level of congruence between these impacts on the capability for participation.” There is something missing in this sentence as well. I think there needs to be a comma: “use of resources, influence of previous history and…"
• The authors write: “Based on the outcome of the review knowledge gaps and deficits will be uncovered in relation to demonstrating adherence to quality criteria when undertaking action research studies.” I think there is a missing comma and should read: Based on the outcome of the review, knowledge gaps…

Finally, I want to raise a thought I had about the relationship between action research and academic writing that may, or may not, be relevant to this project and the protocol. Understandably, the authors exclude research that lacks “information and descriptions on the core tenets of action research”. However, as an associate editor of the Acton Research Journal and a frequent reviewer of action research papers, I am often struck by the difference between doing action research and writing about it for academic journals. Unlike normal research, which can be planned and controlled to a high degree, action research, by its very nature as a participative process, is emergent and responsive to changing situations, rarely actually occurring according to “plan.” Sometimes I read manuscripts that are based on quite interesting and high quality action research, but this research is not framed or presented in a way that meets academic standards. Writing up action research for academic journals is often a post hoc reflective process that addresses the question “What did we learn from this project? What kind of knowledge did we produce?” In my experience, many manuscripts fail because they do not adequately frame a question, connect with the relevant literature, or adequately present the data to back up their claims. All of these problems have more to with writing than with the action research itself. In this respect, I believe that this project looks not so much at the quality of action research as the quality of action research as reflected in academic writing. I am not sure how important this distinction is, if at all, but I did want to put it on the table.

I wish the authors all the best in carrying out this important study.

action research, organisational learning, social inclusion, conflict transformation, action science, field theory

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Brendan McCormack

1 Centre for Person-Centred Practice Research, Queen Margaret University Edinburgh, Musselburgh, UK

Thanks for asking me to review this protocol. It is great to see this work happen and it is to be welcomed, as it is needed. Generally the protocol is really thorough and is very clear and should produce some good outcomes.

A couple of comments:

• The focus is interesting to me. You clearly set out what 'counts' as action research, which includes 'co-design work in healthcare' (much of which I struggle to see as research at all!) but don't include transformational and transformative research which is usually theoretically and philosophically robust. That seems odd!
• The databases to be searched don't include any educational or social science databases. Whilst I completely appreciate that health related publications in these databases are few, they are however places that health-focused action research gets published. I think these need to be included.
• The methods are clearly set out and are very thorough. However I found the stage 5 of the methods to be 'vague' and I am not completely sure what the processes are and how standardised they are. I think these could be further clarified.
• The dissemination ideas lack creativity and contemporary (non-academic publication focused) methods. These should be further considered.

Well done and I wish you luck with the project.

action research. participatory research. person-centred research. nursing and healthcare research

• From the Directors
• Mission & History
• Advisory Council
• Corporate Responsibility Initiative
• Corporations, Government and Public Policy
• Digital Assets Policy Project
• Education Policy Program
• Financial Sector Program
• GrowthPolicy
• Corporate Responsibility and Citizenship Hub
• Harvard Electricity Policy Group
• Harvard Environmental Economics Program
• Harvard Kennedy School Healthcare Policy Program
• Harvard Project on Climate Agreements
• Kansai Keizai Doyukai Program
• Regulatory Policy Program
• Rising Chinese Economic Power
• Sustainability Science Program
• Annual Robert Glauber Lecture
• Working Papers and Reports
• Funding & Prizes
• Other Opportunities

Educating Students for Climate Action: Distraction or Higher-Education Capital?

In this section.

• Fernando Reimers

Spring 2024, Paper: "This essay examines how universities are responding to demands to educate students for climate action. I argue for a whole-of-university approach, in which sustainability becomes part of the mission of the university, and translates into reimagined forms of education, research, outreach, and management of the university operations. This approach runs counter to the most common response of universities, incremental to new demands, and is likely to take place only in institutions with greater capacity for innovation. Strategy and knowledge are key resources to support such innovation, drawing on the comparative analysis of the global experience of higher education, as there are already high rates of institutional innovation globally in educating for climate action." 

Related Publications

Transforming the insurance industry to combat climate change-induced poverty and accelerate implementation of the 2030 agenda, an assessment of the infrastructural and temporal barriers constraining a near-term implementation of a global stratospheric aerosol injection program, energy transition needs new materials.

Suggestions or feedback?

MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology

• Machine learning
• Social justice
• Black holes
• Classes and programs

Departments

• Aeronautics and Astronautics
• Brain and Cognitive Sciences
• Architecture
• Political Science
• Mechanical Engineering

Centers, Labs, & Programs

• Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL)
• Picower Institute for Learning and Memory
• Lincoln Laboratory
• School of Architecture + Planning
• School of Engineering
• School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences
• Sloan School of Management
• School of Science
• MIT Schwarzman College of Computing

Study models how ketamine’s molecular action leads to its effects on the brain

Press contact :.

Previous image Next image

Ketamine, a World Health Organization Essential Medicine, is widely used at varying doses for sedation, pain control, general anesthesia, and as a therapy for treatment-resistant depression. While scientists know its target in brain cells and have observed how it affects brain-wide activity, they haven’t known entirely how the two are connected. A new study by a research team spanning four Boston-area institutions uses computational modeling of previously unappreciated physiological details to fill that gap and offer new insights into how ketamine works.

“This modeling work has helped decipher likely mechanisms through which ketamine produces altered arousal states as well as its therapeutic benefits for treating depression,” says co-senior author Emery N. Brown , the Edward Hood Taplin Professor of Computational Neuroscience and Medical Engineering at The Picower Institute for Learning and Memory at MIT, as well as an anesthesiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital and a professor at Harvard Medical School.

The researchers from MIT, Boston University (BU), MGH, and Harvard University say the predictions of their model, published May 20 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , could help physicians make better use of the drug.

“When physicians understand what's mechanistically happening when they administer a drug, they can possibly leverage that mechanism and manipulate it,” says study lead author Elie Adam , a research scientist at MIT who will soon join the Harvard Medical School faculty and launch a lab at MGH. “They gain a sense of how to enhance the good effects of the drug and how to mitigate the bad ones.”

Blocking the door

The core advance of the study involved biophysically modeling what happens when ketamine blocks the “NMDA” receptors in the brain’s cortex — the outer layer where key functions such as sensory processing and cognition take place. Blocking the NMDA receptors modulates the release of excitatory neurotransmitter glutamate.

When the neuronal channels (or doorways) regulated by the NMDA receptors open, they typically close slowly (like a doorway with a hydraulic closer that keeps it from slamming), allowing ions to go in and out of neurons, thereby regulating their electrical properties, Adam says. But, the channels of the receptor can be blocked by a molecule. Blocking by magnesium helps to naturally regulate ion flow. Ketamine, however, is an especially effective blocker.

Blocking slows the voltage build-up across the neuron’s membrane that eventually leads a neuron to “spike,” or send an electrochemical message to other neurons. The NMDA doorway becomes unblocked when the voltage gets high. This interdependence between voltage, spiking, and blocking can equip NMDA receptors with faster activity than its slow closing speed might suggest. The team’s model goes further than ones before by representing how ketamine’s blocking and unblocking affect neural activity.

“Physiological details that are usually ignored can sometimes be central to understanding cognitive phenomena,” says co-corresponding author Nancy Kopell , a professor of mathematics at BU. “The dynamics of NMDA receptors have more impact on network dynamics than has previously been appreciated.”

With their model, the scientists simulated how different doses of ketamine affecting NMDA receptors would alter the activity of a model brain network. The simulated network included key neuron types found in the cortex: one excitatory type and two inhibitory types. It distinguishes between “tonic” interneurons that tamp down network activity and “phasic” interneurons that react more to excitatory neurons.

The team’s simulations successfully recapitulated the real brain waves that have been measured via EEG electrodes on the scalp of a human volunteer who received various ketamine doses and the neural spiking that has been measured in similarly treated animals that had implanted electrode arrays. At low doses, ketamine increased brain wave power in the fast gamma frequency range (30-40 Hz). At the higher doses that cause unconsciousness, those gamma waves became periodically interrupted by “down” states where only very slow frequency delta waves occur. This repeated disruption of the higher frequency waves is what can disrupt communication across the cortex enough to disrupt consciousness.

Previous item Next item

But how? Key findings

Importantly, through simulations, they explained several key mechanisms in the network that would produce exactly these dynamics.

The first prediction is that ketamine can disinhibit network activity by shutting down certain inhibitory interneurons. The modeling shows that natural blocking and unblocking kinetics of NMDA-receptors can let in a small current when neurons are not spiking. Many neurons in the network that are at the right level of excitation would rely on this current to spontaneously spike. But when ketamine impairs the kinetics of the NMDA receptors, it quenches that current, leaving these neurons suppressed. In the model, while ketamine equally impairs all neurons, it is the tonic inhibitory neurons that get shut down because they happen to be at that level of excitation. This releases other neurons, excitatory or inhibitory, from their inhibition allowing them to spike vigorously and leading to ketamine’s excited brain state. The network’s increased excitation can then enable quick unblocking (and reblocking) of the neurons’ NMDA receptors, causing bursts of spiking.

Another prediction is that these bursts become synchronized into the gamma frequency waves seen with ketamine. How? The team found that the phasic inhibitory interneurons become stimulated by lots of input of the neurotransmitter glutamate from the excitatory neurons and vigorously spike, or fire. When they do, they send an inhibitory signal of the neurotransmitter GABA to the excitatory neurons that squelches the excitatory firing, almost like a kindergarten teacher calming down a whole classroom of excited children. That stop signal, which reaches all the excitatory neurons simultaneously, only lasts so long, ends up synchronizing their activity, producing a coordinated gamma brain wave.

“The finding that an individual synaptic receptor (NMDA) can produce gamma oscillations and that these gamma oscillations can influence network-level gamma was unexpected,” says co-corresponding author Michelle McCarthy , a research assistant professor of math at BU. “This was found only by using a detailed physiological model of the NMDA receptor. This level of physiological detail revealed a gamma time scale not usually associated with an NMDA receptor.”

So what about the periodic down states that emerge at higher, unconsciousness-inducing ketamine doses? In the simulation, the gamma-frequency activity of the excitatory neurons can’t be sustained for too long by the impaired NMDA-receptor kinetics. The excitatory neurons essentially become exhausted under GABA inhibition from the phasic interneurons. That produces the down state. But then, after they have stopped sending glutamate to the phasic interneurons, those cells stop producing their inhibitory GABA signals. That enables the excitatory neurons to recover, starting a cycle anew.

Antidepressant connection?

The model makes another prediction that might help explain how ketamine exerts its antidepressant effects. It suggests that the increased gamma activity of ketamine could entrain gamma activity among neurons expressing a peptide called VIP. This peptide has been found to have health-promoting effects, such as reducing inflammation, that last much longer than ketamine’s effects on NMDA receptors. The research team proposes that the entrainment of these neurons under ketamine could increase the release of the beneficial peptide, as observed when these cells are stimulated in experiments. This also hints at therapeutic features of ketamine that may go beyond antidepressant effects. The research team acknowledges, however, that this connection is speculative and awaits specific experimental validation.

“The understanding that the subcellular details of the NMDA receptor can lead to increased gamma oscillations was the basis for a new theory about how ketamine may work for treating depression,” Kopell says.

Additional co-authors of the study are Marek Kowalski, Oluwaseun Akeju, and Earl K. Miller.

The work was supported by the JPB Foundation; The Picower Institute for Learning and Memory; The Simons Center for The Social Brain; the National Institutes of Health; George J. Elbaum ’59, SM ’63, PhD ’67; Mimi Jensen; Diane B. Greene SM ’78; Mendel Rosenblum; Bill Swanson; and annual donors to the Anesthesia Initiative Fund.

Share this news article on:

Related links.

• Institute for Medical Engineering and Science
• The Picower Institute for Learning and Memory
• Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences

Related Topics

• Pharmaceuticals
• Neuroscience
• Brain and cognitive sciences
• Health sciences and technology
• Health care
• Picower Institute
• Institute for Medical Engineering and Science (IMES)

Related Articles

Anesthesia technology precisely controls unconsciousness in animal tests

Study finds tracking brain waves could reduce post-op complications

3 Questions: Emery Brown on improving anesthesia with neuroscience

Statistical model defines ketamine anesthesia’s effects on the brain

More mit news.

QS ranks MIT the world’s No. 1 university for 2024-25

Read full story →

Physicists create five-lane superhighway for electrons

SPURS Fellowships offer time out to reflect, learn, and connect

All in the family

Ultrasound offers a new way to perform deep brain stimulation

Helping robots grasp the unpredictable

• More news on MIT News homepage →

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA, USA

• Map (opens in new window)
• Events (opens in new window)
• People (opens in new window)
• Careers (opens in new window)
• Accessibility
• Social Media Hub
• MIT on Facebook
• MIT on YouTube
• MIT on Instagram

‘Fine-Tuning Enhances Existing Mechanisms: A Case Study on Entity Tracking’

“Fine-tuning on generalized tasks such as instruction following, code generation, and mathematics has been shown to enhance language models’ performance on a range of tasks. Nevertheless, explanations of how such fine-tuning influences the internal computations in these models remain elusive. We study how fine-tuning affects the internal mechanisms implemented in language models. As a case study, we explore the property of entity tracking, a crucial facet of language comprehension, where models fine-tuned on mathematics have substantial performance gains.”

Find the paper and full list of authors at ArXiv.

‘The Arrangement of Marks Impacts Afforded Messages: Ordering, Partitioning, Spacing and Coloring in Bar Charts’

‘a retrospective study of one decade of artifact evaluations’, ‘fully dynamic matching: (2-√2)-approximation in polylog update time’, ‘measuring and controlling persona drift in language model dialogs’, ‘richwasm: bringing safe, fine-grained, shared-memory interoperability down to webassembly’, advancing wireless with ‘deep learning-based polymorphic platform’, ‘ai fairness in action: a human-computer perspective on ai fairness in organizations and society’, ghoreishi receives funding to study ai in harsh environments, patent for network slicing policies.

• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Technology and code article, open and remotely accessible neuroplatform for research in wetware computing.

• FinalSpark, Rue du Clos 12, Vevey, Switzerland

Wetware computing and organoid intelligence is an emerging research field at the intersection of electrophysiology and artificial intelligence. The core concept involves using living neurons to perform computations, similar to how Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) are used today. However, unlike ANNs, where updating digital tensors (weights) can instantly modify network responses, entirely new methods must be developed for neural networks using biological neurons. Discovering these methods is challenging and requires a system capable of conducting numerous experiments, ideally accessible to researchers worldwide. For this reason, we developed a hardware and software system that allows for electrophysiological experiments on an unmatched scale. The Neuroplatform enables researchers to run experiments on neural organoids with a lifetime of even more than 100 days. To do so, we streamlined the experimental process to quickly produce new organoids, monitor action potentials 24/7, and provide electrical stimulations. We also designed a microfluidic system that allows for fully automated medium flow and change, thus reducing the disruptions by physical interventions in the incubator and ensuring stable environmental conditions. Over the past three years, the Neuroplatform was utilized with over 1,000 brain organoids, enabling the collection of more than 18 terabytes of data. A dedicated Application Programming Interface (API) has been developed to conduct remote research directly via our Python library or using interactive compute such as Jupyter Notebooks. In addition to electrophysiological operations, our API also controls pumps, digital cameras and UV lights for molecule uncaging. This allows for the execution of complex 24/7 experiments, including closed-loop strategies and processing using the latest deep learning or reinforcement learning libraries. Furthermore, the infrastructure supports entirely remote use. Currently in 2024, the system is freely available for research purposes, and numerous research groups have begun using it for their experiments. This article outlines the system’s architecture and provides specific examples of experiments and results.

1 Introduction

The recent rise in wetware computing and consequently, artificial biological neural networks (BNNs), comes at a time when Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) are more sophisticated than ever.

The latest generation of Large Language Models (LLMs), such as Meta’s Llama 2 or OpenAI’s GPT-4, fundamentally rely on ANNs.

The recent acceleration of ANN use in everyday life, such as in tools like ChatGPT or Perplexity combined with the explosion in complexity in the underlying ANN’s architectures, has had a significant impact on energy consumption. For instance, training a single LLM like GPT-3, a precursor to GPT-4, approximately required 10 GWh, which is about 6,000 times the energy a European citizen uses per year. According to a recent publication the energy consumption projected may increase faster than linearly ( De Vries, 2023 ). At the same time, the human brain operates with approximately 86 billion neurons while consuming only 20 W of power ( Clark and Sokoloff, 1999 ). Given these conditions, the prospect of replacing ANNs running on digital computers with real BNNs is enticing ( Smirnova et al., 2023 ). In addition to the substantial energy demands associated with training LLMs, the inference costs present a similarly pressing concern. Recent disclosures reveal that platforms like OpenAI generate over 100 billion words daily through services such as ChatGPT as reported by Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI. When we break down these figures, assuming an average of 1.5 tokens per word—a conservative estimate based on OpenAI’s own tokenizer data—the energy footprint becomes staggering. Preliminary calculations, using the LLaMA 65B model (precursor to Llama 2) as a reference point, suggest energy expenditures ranging from 450 to 600 billion Joules per day for word generation alone ( Samsi et al., 2023 ). While necessary for providing AI-driven insights and interactions to millions of users worldwide, this magnitude of energy use underscores the urgency for more energy-efficient computing paradigms.

Connecting probes to BNNs is not a new idea. In fact, the field of multi-unit electrophysiology has an established state of the art spanning easily over the past 40 years. As a result, there are already well-documented hardware and methods for performing functional electrical interfacing and micro-fluidics needed for nutrient delivery ( Gross et al., 1977 ; Pine, 1980 ; Wagenaar et al., 2005a ; Newman et al., 2013 ). Some systems are also specifically designed for brain organoids ( Yang et al., 2024 ). However, their research is mostly focused on exploring brain biology for biomedical applications (e.g., mechanisms and potential treatments of neurodegenerative diseases). The possibility of using these methods for making new computing hardware has not been extensively explored.

For this reason, there is comparatively less literature on methods that can be used to reliably program those BNNs in order to perform specific input–output functions (as this is essential for wetware computing, not for biomedical applications). To understand what we need for programming of BNNs, it is helpful to look at analogous problem for ANNs.

For ANNs, the programming task involves finding the network parameters, globally denoted as S below, that minimize the difference L computed between expected output E and actual output O , for given inputs I , given the transfer function T of the ANN. This can be written as:

L = f O E , with O = T I S

where f is typically a function that equals 0 when O = E .

The same equation applies to BNNs. However, the key differences compared to ANNs include the fact that the network parameters S cannot be individually adjusted in the case of BNNs, and the transfer function T is both unknown and non-stationary. Therefore, alternative heuristics must be developed, for instance based on spatiotemporal stimulation patterns ( Bakkum et al., 2008 ; Kagan et al., 2022 ; Cai et al., 2023a,b ). Such developments necessitate numerous electrophysiological experiments, including, for instance, complex closed-loop algorithms where stimulation is a function of the network’s prior responses. These experiments can sometimes span days or months.

To facilitate long-term experiments involving a global network of research groups, we designed an open innovation platform. This platform enables researchers to remotely perform experiments on a server interfaced with our hardware. For example, our Neuroplatform enhances the chances of discovering the abovementioned stimulation heuristics. It should be noted that, outside of the field of neuroplasticity, similar open platforms were already proposed in 2023 ( O’Leary et al., 2022 ; Armer et al., 2023 ; Elliott et al., 2023 ; Zhang et al., 2023 ). However, to our knowledge, there are no platforms specifically dedicated to research related to biocomputing.

2 Biological setup

The biological material used in our platform is made of brain spheroids [also called minibrains ( Govindan et al., 2021 ), brain organoids ( Qian et al., 2019 ), or neurospheres ( Brewer and Torricelli, 2007 )] developed from Human iPSC-derived Neural Stem Cells (NSCs), following the protocol of Prof. Roux Lab ( Govindan et al., 2021 ). Based on the recent guidelines to clarify the nomenclature for defining 3D cellular models of the nervous system ( Paşca et al., 2022 ), we can call those brain spheroids “forebrain organoids” (FOs). Generation of brain organoids from NSCs has been already described for both mouse ( Ciarpella et al., 2023 ), and human models ( Lee et al., 2020 ). Our protocol is based on the following steps: expansion phase of the NSCs, induction of the 3D structure, differentiation steps (using GDNF and BDNF), and maturation phase ( Figures 1A , B ). The Figure 1C is an image of the FO obtained using electronic microscope, it shows that it is a compact spheroid. The average shape of FOs obtained with this protocol are spheroids of a diameter around 500 μm ( Govindan et al., 2021 ). Our experiments show that the FOs obtained can be kept alive in an orbital shaker for years, as previously demonstrated ( Govindan et al., 2021 ).

Figure 1 . FO generation and MEA setup. (A) Protocol used for the generation of forebrain organoids (FO). Neural progenitors are first thawed, plated and expanded in T25 flasks. They are then differentiated in P6 dishes on orbital shakers, and finally manually placed on the MEA. (B) Representative images showing various stages of FO formation and differentiation, taken at different time points. The scale bar represents 250 μm. (C) Image of a whole FO taken with scanning electron microscope. The scale bar represents 100 μm. (D) Microscope view of the FO (in white) sitting on the electrodes of the MEA, and the membrane. The hole in the membrane is not visible on the picture since it is hidden by the FO. The scale bar represents 500 μm (E) Overview of the MEA, where the 32 electrodes are visible as 4 sets of 8 electrodes each. An FO is placed atop of each set of 8 electrodes, visible as a darker area. For each FO, the 2 circles correspond to a 2.5 mm circular membrane with a central hole. The scale bar represents 1 mm. (F) Cross-sectional view of the MEA setup, illustrating the air-liquid interface. The medium covering the FO is supplied from the medium chamber through the porous membranes.

Gene expression analysis of mature FOs vs. NSCs showed a marked upregulation of genes characteristic to neurons, oligodendrocytes and astrocytes in FOs compare to NSCs. More precisely, FOs expressed genes typically enriched in the forebrain, such as striatum, sub pallium, and layer 6 of motor cortex ( Govindan et al., 2021 ). Pathway enrichment analysis of FOs vs. NSCs demonstrated activation of biological processes like synaptic activity, neuron differentiation and neurotransmitter release ( Govindan et al., 2021 ).

At the age of 12 weeks, FOs contain a high number of ramified neurons ( Govindan et al., 2021 ), and they are mature enough to be transferred to the electrophysiological measurement system ( Figure 1A ). In this setup, they have a life expectancy of several months, even with 24/7 experiments that include hours of electrical stimulations. This setup has a quick turnaround with occasional downtime – about 1 h – during organoid replacements. Therefore, the platform maintains a high availability for experiments.

3 Hardware architecture

3.1 introduction.

The remotely accessible hardware includes all the systems which are required to preserve homeostasis, monitor environmental parameters and perform electrophysiological experiments. These systems can be controlled interactively using our custom Graphical User Interface (GUI) or via Python scripts. All data is stored in a time-series database (InfluxDB), which can be accessed either via a GUI or via Python scripts. The users typically connect to the system using the Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP).

The platform is composed of several sub-systems, which can be accessed remotely via API calls over the internet, typically through Python.

3.2 Multi-Electrode Array (MEA)

Our current platform features 4 MEAs. The MEAs were designed by Prof. Roux’s Lab form Haute Ecole du Paysage, d’Ingénierie et d’Architecture (HEPIA) and are described in Wertenbroek et al. (2021) . Each MEA can accommodate 4 organoids, with 8 electrodes per organoid ( Figure 1E ).

The MEA setup utilizes an Air-Liquid-Interface (ALI) approach ( Stoppini et al., 1991 ), in which the organoids are directly placed on electrodes located atop of a permeable membrane ( Figure 1D ), with the medium flowing beneath this membrane in a 170 μL chamber. As a result, a thin layer of medium, created by surface tension, separates the upper side of the organoids from the humidified incubator air. This arrangement is further protected by a lid partially covering the MEA ( Figure 1F ). This ALI method enables a higher throughput and higher stability compared to submerged approaches, since no dedicated coating is required, and it is less prone to have the organoids detaching from the electrodes.

3.3 Electrophysiological stimulation and recording system

The electrodes in our system enable both stimulation and recording. The respective digital-to-analog and analog-to-digital conversions are performed by Intan RHS 32 headstages. Stimulations are executed using a current controller that ranges from 10 nA to 2.5 mA, and recordings are obtained by measuring the voltage on each electrode at a 30 kHz sampling frequency with a 16 bits resolution giving an accuracy of 0.15 μV. The headstages are connected to an Intan RHS controller, which in turn is connected to a computer via a USB port. The Figure 2A shows the electrical activity recorded for each of the 32 electrodes. It can be noticed that the recorded activity is different between each electrode. This difference comes from the facts that each set of 8 electrodes records a different FO and that for a given FO, electrodes record at a different location. This display is refreshed in real-time and also available 24/7 on our website at the URL https://finalspark.com/live/ . We compared the recording characteristics of this ALI setup to MCS MEA (60MEA200/30iR-Ti) monitoring a submerged FO, using the exact same Intan system for voltage conversion. The overlays of an action potential recorded, respectively, with the ALI and submerged versions are shown in Figures 2C , D and show similar signal characteristics.

Figure 2 . Recording system and user interface. (A) Electrical activity measured in μV over one second for each of the 32 electrodes. Each set of 8 electrodes records a different FO. (B) Graphical User Interface for manually controlling each of the microfluidic pumps. (C) Overlays of FO action potential recorded by the ALI system of the Neuroplatform. (D) Overlays of FO action potentials recorded with an MCS system. (E) Fluctuations of the flowrate of the medium within the microfluidic system, illustrating the cyclic variations induced by the peristaltic pump operating at 1 round per minute with 10 cams. (F) Temporal variations of the red component of the medium color, triggered by a sudden change in medium acidity, resulting in phenol red color change.

3.4 Micro-fluidics

To sustain the life of the organoids on the MEA, Neuronal Medium (NM) needs to be constantly supplied. Our Neuroplatform is equipped with a closed-loop microfluidic system that allows for a 24/7 medium supply. The medium is circulating at a rate of 15uL/min. The medium flow rate is controlled by a BT-100 2 J peristaltic pump and is continuously adjusted according to needs, for instance during experimental runs. The peristaltic pump is connected to the PC-control software using an RS485 interface, for programmed (i.e., in Python) or manual operations ( Figure 2B ). Additionally, Figure 3A depicts this microfluidic closed-loop circuit.

Figure 3 . Microfluidics. (A) Microfluidic system illustrating the continuously operating primary system, which ensures constant flow in the medium chamber, and the secondary system responsible for medium replacing every 48 h. (B) Side view of the assembly, featuring the camera and the MEA. The entire assembly is enclosed with aluminum foil to ensure the lowest possible noise level. (C) Front view of the assembly, showing the intake and outtake of the microfluidic system, as well as the LED used during image capture.

The microfluidic circuit is made of 0.8 mm (inside diameter, ID) tubing. Continuous monitoring of the microfluidic circuit and flow rate is achieved by using Fluigent flow-rate sensors, which connect to the Neuroplatform control center via USB. Data related to medium flow rate is stored in a database for later access. Figure 2E shows the cyclic variations in flow induced by the cams of the peristaltic pump.

A secondary microfluidic system is used to replace the medium in the closed-loop with fresh medium every 24 h, a process illustrated in Figure 3A . This replacement is fully automated through a Python script and performed in the following consecutive steps:

1. Set the rotary valve to select the path from the reservoir F50 to the syringe pump

2. Pump 2 mL of old medium using the syringe pump

3. Set the rotary valve to select the path from the syringe pump to the waste F50

4. Push 2 mL of old medium to the waste using the syringe pump

5. Set the rotary valve to select the path from the new medium in the F50 in the fridge to the syringe pump

6. Pump 2 mL of fresh medium using the syringe pump

7. Set the rotary valve to select the path from the syringe pump to the reservoir F50

8. Push 2 mL of fresh medium using the syringe pump

3.5 Cameras

Each MEA is equipped with a 12.3-megapixel camera that can be controlled interactively or programmatically (i.e., through a Raspberry Pi) for still image capture or video recording. The camera is positioned below the MEA, while illumination is provided by a remotely controlled LED situated above the MEA. Figures 3B , C illustrate this assembly (the aluminum wrapping is used in order to minimize the noise). This setup is particularly useful for detecting various changes, such as cell necrosis, possible organoid displacement caused by microfluidics, variations in medium acidity (using color analysis since our medium contains Phenol red), contamination, neuromelanin production (which can happen when uncaging dopamine), overflows (where the medium inadvertently fills the chamber above the membrane), or bubbles in the medium. For the latter two events, dedicated algorithms automatically detect these issues and trigger an alert to the on-site operator.

Changes of acidity, for example, can be detected by measuring the average color over a pre-defined window. Figure 2F shows the evolution of the medium’s red color component, with data points recorded hourly. The noticeable sudden drop is attributed to the pumping of medium with a slightly different acidity. This change in acidity results in a color alteration of the phenol red present in the medium.

3.6 UV light controlled uncaging

It is also possible to release molecules at specific timings using a process called uncaging. In this method, a specific wavelength of light is employed to break open a molecular “cage” that contains a neuroactive molecule, such as Glutamate, NMDA or Dopamine. A fiber optic of 1,500 μm core diameter and a numerical aperture of 0.5 is used to direct light in the medium within the MEA chamber. The current system, Prizmatix Silver-LED, operates at 365 nm with an optical power of 260 mW. The uncaging system is fully integrated into the Neuroplatform and can be programmatically controlled during experiment runs via our API (see section 5.3).

3.7 Environmental measurements

The environmental conditions are monitored within two incubators. In both incubators, the following parameters are recorded: CO2, O2 concentrations, humidity, atmospheric pressure and temperature. Door-opening events are also logged since they have a major impact on measurements. The primary purpose of this monitoring is to ensure that experiments are performed in stable and reproducible environmental conditions.

All these parameters are displayed in real-time in a graphic interface showing both instant values as well as variations versus time of noise and flowrates ( Figure 4A ).

Figure 4 . Graphic user interface to monitor critical parameters in the incubators. (A) Graphical User Interface displaying critical environmental conditions for the incubator 1, where electrophysiological experiments are performed, as well as the incubator 2, where FO are maintained on an orbital shaker. (B) The display shows environmental data for incubator 1 for specific time periods, extracted from the database, with door opening events displayed as dashed line. Noise, Temperature, humidity and pressure are indicated by different colored lines. The units of each measurement are normalized between 0 and 1 for the selected time interval.

Incubator 1 houses the MEAs and the organoids used for electrophysiological experiments. In addition to the mentioned parameters, flowmeters are also utilized to report the actual flow rate of the microfluidic for each MEA, as depicted in the graph labelled “Pump” in Figure 4A . The system’s state is indirectly monitored through the noise level of each MEA, as shown in the graph labelled “Noise Intan” in Figure 4A . The noise level is calculated based on the standard deviation of the electrical signals recorded by the electrodes over a 30 ms period.

Incubator 2 houses the organoids which are kept in orbital shakers. Piezoelectric gyroscopes are used to measure the actual rotation speed of the orbital shakers.

Since all the data is logged in the database, it is also possible to access the historical measurements through a dedicated GUI ( Figure 4B ).

4.1 General architecture

The core of the system relies on a computational notebook which provides access to 3 resources ( Figure 5A ):

1. A database where all the information regarding the Neuroplatform system is stored

2. The Intan software running on a dedicated PC, which is used for:

• Recording the number of detected spikes in a 200 ms time window

• Setting stimulation parameters

3. A Raspberry Pi for triggering current stimulation according to stimulation parameters

Figure 5 . Software setup and electrical stimulation. (A) General architecture of the Neuroplatform. The Jupyter Notebook serves as the main controller, enabling initiation and reading of spikes, configuration stimulation signals and access to database via, e.g., Python (B) Parameters of the stimulation current: settings optimally these parameters can elicit spikes. Through the Python API, parameters that can be adjusted for the bi-phasic stimulation signals include the duration (D1) and amplitude (A1) of the positive current phase, and, respectively, D2 and A2 for the negative current phase. Additionally, the polarity of the biphasic signal can be reversed to start with a negative current.

4.2 Database

The Neuroplatform records monitored data 24/7 using InfluxDB, a database designed for time series. Other options are also available.

This database contains all the data coming from the hardware listed in Section 3.

The electrical activity of the neurons is also recorded 24/7 at a sampling rate of 30 kHz. To minimize the volume of stored data, we designed a dedicated process that focuses on significant events, such as threshold crossings that are likely to be due to action potentials (spikes). The following pseudo code illustrates the implemented approach:

- Each 1-min write buffer to database

- Each 33 μs

- For each electrode

- If, at time t , the voltage exceeds a threshold T

- Store (in buffer) 3 ms of data [ t -1 ms, t  + 2 ms]

- Each 3 s update T

Additionally, a timestamp corresponding to each detected event is also stored in the database, along with the maximum value of voltage during the 3 ms spike waveform recording.

The threshold T is computed directly from voltage values sampled each 33 μs, according to the following formula:

Where σ i is the standard deviation computed over a set i of 30 ms consecutive voltage values, and M d n represents the median function computed over 101 consecutive σ i values. The use of the median reduces the sensitivity to outliers, which is typically caused by action potentials. In our current setup, a multiplier of 6 on the median has proven to be a good compromise for achieving reliable spike detection.

Besides electric tension data, the number spikes recorded per minute is also computed and stored in the database every minute by a batch process.

4.3 Recording electrical activity

As previously discussed, the communication among neurons is captured by the MEA and converted into a voltage signal sampled at 30 kHz. The Neuroplatform offers two basic access modes to the recorded neural activity:

1. Raw: raw sampling values.

2. Optimized: waveforms of the raw signal near neuronal spikes, available directly from the database.

In addition to the aforementioned features, the Neuroplatform offers even more advanced methods. For instance, it includes counting spikes over a fixed time period of 200 ms following stimulation, with a 10 ms delay suppressing the stimulation artifact.

From a technical perspective, accessing the number of spikes can be accomplished in two different ways:

- Retrieving the number of spikes per minute from the database

- Through direct communication with the PC managing the Intan controller for spike count

The second approach is required when the stimulation protocol demands real-time responsiveness. This is typically the case for certain closed-loop strategies. For instance, closed-loop stimulation strategies have been deployed in primary cortical cultures for effective burst control ( Wagenaar et al., 2005a , b ) and for goal-directed learning ( Samsi et al., 2023 ).

4.4 Syntax for stimulations

Programmatically stimulating the FO on the Neuroplatform is accomplished by sending an electrical current to the MEA electrodes. The electrical current profile can be parameterized in a variety of ways, which is partly shown in Figure 5B . These parameters and controls include:

- Basic shape of stimulation signal:

o Bi-phasic

o Bi-phasic with interphase delay

o Tri-phasic

- Stimulation duration and intensity:

o Positive (A1) and negative (A2) electrical current intensity (typical 1uA, ranging from 0.1uA to 20uA)

o Duration of positive (D1) and negative (D2) stimulation currents

- Stimulation triggers

o Single start

o Table with collection of start triggers

o Pulse trains

- MEA electrodes

send_stim_param (electrodes, params)

5 Examples of electrophysiological experiments

To demonstrate the effectiveness of the Neuroplatform, the following sections will provide an overview of several experiments conducted on the Neuroplatform at FinalSpark’s Laboratories in Vevey, Switzerland.

5.1 Modification of spontaneous activity

The spontaneous electrical activity of the FO can be represented by the concept of “Center of Activity” (CA) ( Bakkum et al., 2008 ) which is defined as a virtual position C on the MEA described by:

Where X k Y k define the spatial position of the 8 electrodes and F k is the number of spontaneous spikes detected. The interest of the concept of CA is that its position provides statistical information about the average location of the activity over the surface of the FO. The ability to change the position of the CA is interesting because it also shows the ability to memorize information in the state of the FO.

The coordinates of the CA can be modified using a high frequency stimulation. In the following experiment we use the following protocol:

1) Compute the CA using the number of detected spikes over 500 ms

2) Goto 1,100x

3) Perform a 20 Hz stimulation during 500 ms using a bi-phasic current (negative first) of 2 μA of 200 μS, for both phases, on one electrode

4) Wait 1 s

5) Goto 5,100x

Figure 6A displays the 100 measured positions of the CA corresponding to the spontaneous activity before the 20 Hz stimulation in blue, and after the high-frequency stimulation in red (the average position is indicated by a cross). A close-up is shown in Figure 6B . The timestamps of the spontaneous activity, before and after stimulation, are presented in Figures 6C , D , respectively. Each graph shows one example of the 100 records of 500 ms used to compute the CA location (showing a decrease of spontaneous firing activity of electrodes 3, 4 and 6). A noticeable shift in the average position (shown by a cross) of the CA can be observed before and after the high-frequency stimulation (as seen in Figure 6A ), indicating a change of state of the biological network. A classifier based on a simple logistic regression is employed to predict if the network has received the 20 Hz stimulation. In this particular experiment, the classification accuracy, computed from the confusion matrix, is 95.5%.

Figure 6 . Center of activity modification. (A) Graph showing the 2D layout of the 8 electrodes, the X and Y axis are normalized units showing the spatial coordinates of the electrodes. All electrodes can be used for both stimulation and reading. A 20 Hz stimulation signal is applied to electrode 6. The 100 blue circles represent the positions of the Center of Activity (CA) before 20 Hz stimulation, while the 100 red circles indicate the positions after the stimulation. The cross mark the average position. (B) A closer look at the two groups of CA. (C) Timestamps depicting the spontaneous activity over 500 ms for each of the 8 electrodes before the high-frequency stimulation. (D) Spontaneous activity observed after the high-frequency stimulation, showing a lower activity of electrodes 6, 4 and 3, compared to (C) .

The Neuroplatform allows users to perform both the experimental part (including stimulation and reading operations) and the visualization of the CA displacement within the same Python source code. The 500 ms 20 Hz signal is generated directly by the Python source code shown below. The first trigger.send instruction sends the trigger for the stimulation on a specific electrode and time.sleep pauses the execution for 50 ms.

Despite the common perception of Python as being less than ideal for real-time signal processing due to its inherent latency, our empirical data reveals a time accuracy of under 1 ms (on an Intel Xeon CPU E5-2690 v2 @ 3.00GHz), a level of precision that is satisfactory for the generation of tetanic signals.

5.2 Optimization of stimulation parameters

In this example, the objective is to identify the set of stimulation parameters that can elicit the maximum number of action potentials within 200 ms after a stimulation.

Depending on the FOs, their composition, and maturity, only specific combinations of electrodes and parameters can elicit spikes. In our experiment, we use an 8-electrode MEA and cycle through several stimulation signal parameters as shown in Figure 7A . Consequently, we need to test a total of 342 different parameter-electrode combinations. The following pseudo code illustrates the Python script used in this experiment.

1) For each set of stimulation parameters

2) For each stimulation electrode

3) For each recording electrode

4) During 15 s, every 250 ms

5) Decide between stimulating, or recording spontaneous activity, with a 50% probability

6) Record number of spikes during 200 ms

Figure 7 . Neural activity stimulation and dopamine uncaging. (A) Graph depicting the number of spikes recorded over 250 ms. The spike counts in orange were measured following a stimulation, while those in blue were measured during periods without stimulation. For clarity in visualization, a small bar is displayed even when no spikes are detected. (B) Diagram illustrating the different steps involved in the closed-loop uncaging process of dopamine, which is repeated 240 times. (C) Timestamps of action potentials from the 8 electrodes before and after stimulation (shown as red line), showcasing the elicited spikes. (D) Graph displaying the number of elicited spikes over the 240 steps of the closed-loop (in blue) alongside the activation events of the UV light source (red).

The aim of probabilistic stimulation and no stimulation in step 5 is to evaluate the difference between elicited and spontaneous spikes in a way that ensures there is no bias.

The bar chart in Figure 7A displays a segment of the experimental results. It shows a 15-s recording from a single electrode, corresponding to one execution of step 4 in the pseudo code above. Each bar represents the spike count during a 200 ms period, repeated every 250 ms. The orange bars in this plot are the result of the parameters selected in step 1 of the pseudo code. The blue bars represent no-stimulation periods, thus corresponding to the spontaneous activity of the neurons.

From Figure 7A , we can see that this particular combination of electrode and parameters reliably elicits responses.

In practice, the Python script can also be used to automatically display the 342 graphs similar to Figure 7A , allowing the operator to select the optimal set of parameters. Additionally, it can compute a scalar metric to characterize the “efficiency” of the parameters, and automatically identify the optimal parameters.

An example of a parameter maximization metric is given in the equation below. Let us denote μ r and μ s the average number of spikes recorded spontaneously or after a stimulation, respectively, and σ r and σ s as their standard deviations. The following metric is used:

The set of parameters that maximize this metric can then be utilized to perform other experiments requiring elicited spikes, such as investigating the effect of pharmacological agents on a biological network’s ability to react quickly to stimulation.

5.3 UV light-induced uncaging of molecules

‘Uncaging’ is a pivotal technique in cellular biology, enabling the precise control of molecular interactions within cells ( Gienger et al., 2020 ). It involves the use of photolabile caged compounds that are activated by specific light wavelengths, releasing bioactive molecules in a targeted and timely manner. This method is particularly valuable for studying dynamic processes in neural networks and intracellular signaling, offering real-time insights into complex biological mechanisms.

Our Neuroplatform is equipped with all necessary components to perform uncaging. In this example, we investigate closed-loop stimulation, where dopamine is used to reward the network when more spikes are elicited by the same stimulation. The release of the dopamine is achieved through the uncaging of CNV-dopamine using the UV system described in section 3.6.

Figure 7B shows the flow chart of the closed-loop uncaging process. The optimal stimulation parameters are first found using the technique shown in 5.2 (in this case, a current of 4uA, biphasic with 100uS per phase), which is sent successively to each of the 8 electrodes with a delay of 10 ms between each electrode.

Figure 7C shows the response timestamps of the 8 electrodes for a period of 1,200 ms, 600 ms before and after the stimulation. The stimulation event is indicated by the vertical red line. It is interesting to observe that in this particular case, most of the elicited spikes originate from 2 electrodes, specifically electrode 112 and electrode 119.

The Python source code implementing the closed-loop process illustrated in Figure 7B is provided below. We would like to highlight here how concise the code is. With only 13 lines of code, the entire closed-loop process has been implemented.

The graph in Figure 7D shows the variation in the number of spikes elicited during the execution of the script above across 5 h. A general increase in the number of elicited spikes can be observed. However, it is obviously not possible to establish causality between the closed-loop strategy and the observed increase with this single experiment alone. The primary purpose of this closed-loop experiment is to demonstrate the flexibility offered by the Neuroplatform.

6 External users of the Neuroplatform

Access to the Neuroplatform is freely available for research purposes. For researchers lacking lab infrastructure, the Neuroplatform provides the capability to conduct real-time experiments on biological networks. Additionally, it allows others to replicate results obtained in their own lab. The database is shared between all research groups, however the Python scripts and Jupyter Notebooks are in private sections.

In 2023, 36 academic groups proposed research projects, of which 8 were selected. At the time of writing, 4 of these have already yielded some results:

• University Côte d’Azure, CNRS, NeuroMod Institute and Laboratoire JA Dieudonné: investigates the functional connectivity of FO and how electrical stimulation can modify it.

• University of Michigan, investigates stimulation protocols that induce global changes in electrical activity of a FO.

• Free University of Berlin, investigates stimulation protocols that induce changes in the electrical activity of a FO. Additionally, this research employs machine learning tools to extract information from neural firing patterns and to develop well-conditioned responses. Moreover, it utilizes both shallow and deep reinforcement learning techniques to identify optimal training strategies, aiming to elicit reproducible behaviors in the FO.

• University of Exeter, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Living Systems Institute, investigates storing and retrieving of spatiotemporal spiking patterns, using closed-loop experiments that combine mathematical models of synaptic communication with the Neuroplatform.

• Lancaster University Leipzig and University of York: characterizes computational properties of FOs under the reservoir computing model, with a view to building low-power environmental sensors.

• Oxford Brookes University, School of Engineering, Computing and Mathematics: investigating the properties of emerging dynamics and criticality within neural organizations using the FOs.

• University of Bath, ART-AI, IAH: using the free energy principle and active inference to study the learning capabilities of neurons, embodied in a virtual environment.

• University of Bristol: stimulating of FOs based on data gathered from an artificial tactile sensor. Use machine learning techniques to interpret the FO’s output, investigating their ability to process real-world data.

7 Discussion and conclusion

The Neuroplatform has now been operational 24/7 for the past 4 years. During this time, the organoids on the MEA have been replaced over 250 times. Considering that we place at least 4 organoids per MEA, and change all the organoids simultaneously, this amounts to testing over 1,000 organoids. Initially, their lifetime was only a few hours, but various improvements, especially related to the microfluidics setup, have extended this to up to 100 days in best cases. It is important to note that the spontaneous activity of the organoids can vary over their lifetime, a factor that must be taken into consideration when conducting experiments ( Wagenaar et al., 2006 ). Additionally, we observed that the minimum current required to elicit spikes, computed using the method described in section 5.2, is increasing over the lifetime of the organoid. This phenomenon may be linked to an impedance increase caused by glial encapsulation ( Salatino et al., 2017 ).

The 24/7 recording strategy as described in section 4.2, results in the constant growth of the database. As of this writing, its size has reached 18 terabytes. This volume encompasses the recording of over 20 billion individual action potentials, each sampled at a 30 kHz resolution for 3 ms. This extensive dataset is significant not only due to its size but also because it was all recorded in a similar in-vitro environment, as described in section 3.2. We are eager to share this data with any interested research group.

8 Future extensions

In the future, we plan to extend the capabilities of our platform to manage a broader range of experimental protocols relevant to wetware computing. For example, we aim to enable a remote control over the injection of specific molecules into the medium, facilitating remote experiments that involve pharmacological manipulation of neuronal activity. This expansion will provide additional degrees of freedom for the automatic optimization of parameters influencing neuroplasticity.

Currently, as detailed in Chapter 2, only one differentiation protocol is used for generating organoids. We plan to introduce additional types of organoid generation protocols soon, with the aim of exploring a broader range of possibilities.

Although 32 research groups requested to access to the Neuroplatform, our current infrastructure only allows us to accommodate 7 groups, considering our own research needs as well. We are in the process of scaling-up the AC/DC hardware system to support more users simultaneously. Additionally, we are currently limited to executing close-loop algorithms for neuroplasticity on one single FO, as these algorithms require sending in real-time adapted simulation signals to each FO. Our software is being updated to run closed-loops in parallel on up to 32 FO.

9.1 Brain organoid generation

Human forebrain organoids were originated as described in Govindan et al. (2021) . Briefly, Human Neural Stem Cells derived from the human induced pluripotent stem (hiPS) cell line (ThermoFisher), were plated in flasks coated with CellStart (Fisher Scientific) and amplified in Stempro NSC SFM kit (ThermoFischer) complete medium: KnockOut D-MEM/F12, 2 mM of GlutaMAX, 2% of StemPro Neural supplement, 20 ng/mL of Human FGF-basic (FGF-2/bFGF) Recombinant Protein, and 20 ng/mL of EGF Recombinant Human Protein (Fisher Scientific). Cells were then detached with StemPro ™ Accutase (Gibco) and plated in p6 at the concentration of 250,000 cells/well. The plates were sealed with breathable adhesive paper and leads, placed on an orbital shaker at 80 rpm, and culture for 7 days at 37°C 5% CO2. After one week the newly formed spheroids were put in differentiation medium I (Diff I), containing DMEM/F-12, GlutaMAX ™ supplement (Gibco), 2% BSA, 1X of Stempro® hESC Supplement, 20 ng/mL of BDNF Recombinant Human Protein (Invitrogen), 20 ng/mL of GDNF Recombinant Human Protein (Gibco), 100 mM of N6,2′-O-Dibutyryladenosine 3′,5′-cyclic monophosphate sodium salt, and 20 mM of 2-Phospho-L-ascorbic acid trisodium salt. After one week, brain spheroids were put in differentiation medium II (Diff II) made of 50% of Diff I and 50% of Neurobasal Plus (Invitrogen). After 3 weeks of culture in Diff II, brain organoids were plated in Neurobasal Plus and kept in the orbital shaker until the transfer on the MEA. Medium was change once per week.

9.2 Electron microscopy analysis of FOs

Mature FOs were fixed in 2.5% Glutaraldehyde in 0.1 M phosphate buffer pH 7.4, at RT. After 24 h the samples were processed as described in Cakir et al. (2019) at the Electron Microscopy Facility of University of Lausanne. The whole FO images were acquired with Quanta FEG 250 Scanning Electron Microscope.

9.3 Transfer of FOs on MEA

MEA connected with the microfluid system was moved from the incubator and placed on a 12.3-megapixel camera system (with an optical lens of 16 mm of focal, giving a magnification power of 21x) inside the cell culture hood. The lid was removed to access the top of the liquid/air interface. Sterile Hydrophilic PTFE MEMBRANE Hole ‘confetti’ (diameter 2.5 mm, diameter of the hole 0.7 mm) (HEPIA) were positioned on top of each electrode and left there 2 min to absorb the medium. FOs were collected from the plate using wide bore pipette tips (Axygen) and placed in the middle of confetti, in a 10 μL drop of medium. The position of the organoids was adjusted with the help of sterile forceps. After all the organoids were put on place, the chamber was covered with the plate sealer Greiner Bio-One ™ BREATHseal ™ Sealer (Fisher Scientific), and with the MEA lid. MEA containing the organoids were placed immediately back in the cell incubator and were ready to be used for recording and stimulation. A similar procedure was used for the positioning of organoids on MCS MEA (60MEA200/30iR-Ti). In this case the Hydrophilic PTFE MEMBRANE was not used and organoids were directly laid on the electrodes in a 30 μL drop of medium. Recording of organoid activity was performed immediately afterwards.

9.4 System design and assembly

Cell culture media was stored in a 50 mL Falcon tube with a multi-port delivery cap (ElveFlow) and stored at 4°C. Each reservoir delivery cap contained a single 0.8 mm ID × 1.6 mm OD PTFE tubing (Darwin Microfluidics), sealed by a two-piece PFA Fittings and ferrule threaded adapter (IDEX), extending from the bottom of the reservoir to an inlet port on the 4-port valve head of the RVM Rotary Valve (Advance Microfluidics SA). Sterile air is permitted to refill the reservoir through a 0.22-μm filter (Milian) fixed to the cap to compensate for syringe pump medium withdrawal. A similar PTFE tubing and PFA Fittings and adapters were used to connect the syringe pump to the 4-port valve head of the RVM Rotary Valve (Advance Microfluidics SA). Each PTFE tubing coming from the distribution valve connects with a 50 mL falcon tube inside the cell culture incubator (Binder) and to a borosilicate glass bottle (Milian) to collect discarded cell culture medium.

A secondary microfluid system made of 0.8 mm ID × 1.6 mm OD PTFE tubing, were used to connect each 50 mL falcon tube inside the cell culture incubator with its own MEA (HEPIA). The connection was through a precise peristaltic pump BT100-2 J (Darwin Microfluidics) containing 10 rollers. A compute module (Raspberry Pi 4) controlled the peristaltic pump and the Rotary Valve, through a custom application program interface (API), using RS485 interface and RS-232 interface, respectively. A Fluigent flow-rate sensor connected via USB to the Raspberry Pi 4 allowed the monitoring of the flow rate inside the microfluidic system between the peristaltic pump and the MEA. Python was used to develop the software required to carry out automation protocols.

9.5 Uncaging of dopamine

Carboxynitroveratryl (CNV)-caged dopamine (Tocris Bioscience) was dissolved in Neurobasal Plus at the concentration of 1 mM, and injected in the fluidic system. After 3 h from the injection, the uncaging experiment started as described in paragraph 5.3. UV Silver-LED fiber-coupled LED (Prizmatix) was used to uncage the dopamine at the wavelength of 365 nm for 800 ms each time.

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics statement

Ethical approval was not required for the studies on humans in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements because only commercially available established cell lines were used.

Author contributions

FJ: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. MK: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. J-MC: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. FB: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. EK: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Acknowledgments

We thank Steve M. Potter and Daniel Burger for their multiple advices and editing, as well as Mathias Reusser for the figures.

Conflict of interest

FJ, MK, J-MC, FB, and EK are employed at FinalSpark, Switzerland.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Armer, C., Letronne, F., and DeBenedictis, E. (2023). Support academic access to automated cloud labs to improve reproducibility. PLoS Biol. 21:e3001919. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001919

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bakkum, D. J., Chao, Z. C., and Potter, S. M. (2008). Spatio-temporal electrical stimuli shape behavior of an embodied cortical network in a goal-directed learning task. J. Neural Eng. 5, 310–323. doi: 10.1088/1741-2560/5/3/004

Brewer, G. J., and Torricelli, J. R. (2007). Isolation and culture of adult neurons and neurospheres. Nat. Protoc. 2, 1490–1498. doi: 10.1038/nprot.2007.207

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cai, H., Ao, Z., Tian, C., Wu, Z., Liu, H., Tchieu, Z., et al. (2023a). Brain organoid reservoir computing for artificial intelligence. Nat Electron 6, 1032–1039. doi: 10.1038/s41928-023-01069-w

Cai, H., Ao, Z., Tian, C., Wu, Z., Liu, H., et al. (2023b). Brain organoid computing for artificial intelligence. bioRxiv [Preprint]. doi: 10.1101/2023.02.28.530502

Cakir, B., Xiang, Y., Tanaka, Y., Kural, M. H., Parent, M., Kang, Y. J., et al. (2019). Engineering of human brain organoids with a functional vascular-like system. Nat. Methods 16, 1169–1175. doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0586-5

Ciarpella, F., Zamfir, R. G., Campanelli, A., Pedrotti, G., Di Chio, M., Bottani, E., et al. (2023). Generation of mouse hippocampal brain organoids from primary embryonic neural stem cells. STAR Protoc. 4:102413. doi: 10.1016/j.xpro.2023.102413

Clark, D. D., and Sokoloff, L. (1999). “Circulation and energy metabolism of the brain” in Basic neurochemistry: Molecular, cellular and medical aspects . 6th ed (New York: Philadelphia Lippincott-Raven Publishers), 637–669.

Google Scholar

De Vries, A. (2023). The growing energy footprint of artificial intelligence. Joule 7, 2191–2194. doi: 10.1016/j.joule.2023.09.004

Elliott, M. A. T., Schweiger, H. E., Robbins, A., Vera-Choqqueccota, S., Ehrlich, D., Hernandez, S., et al. (2023). Internet-connected cortical organoids for project-based stem cell and neuroscience education. eNeuro 10. doi: 10.1523/ENEURO.0308-23.2023

Gienger, M., Hübner, H., Löber, S., König, B., and Gmeiner, P. (2020). Structure-based development of caged dopamine D2/D3 receptor antagonists. Sci. Rep. 10:829. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-57770-9

Govindan, S., Batti, L., Osterop, S. F., Stoppini, L., and Roux, A. (2021). Mass generation, neuron labeling, and 3D imaging of Minibrains. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 8:582650. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2020.582650

Gross, G. W., Rieske, E., Kreutzberg, G. W., and Meyer, A. (1977). A new fixed-array multimicroelectrode system designed for long-term monitoring of extracellular single unit neuronal activity in vitro. Neurosci. Lett. 6, 101–105. doi: 10.1016/0304-3940(77)90003-9

Kagan, B. J., Kitchen, A. C., Tran, N. T., Habibollahi, F., Khajehnejad, M., Parker, B. J., et al. (2022). In vitro neurons learn and exhibit sentience when embodied in a simulated game-world. Neuron 110, 3952–3969.e8. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2022.09.001

Lee, S. E., Shin, N., Kook, G., Kong, D., Kim, N. G., Choi, S. W., et al. (2020). Human iNSC-derived brain organoid model of lysosomal storage disorder in Niemann–pick disease type C. Cell Death Dis. 11:1059. doi: 10.1038/s41419-020-03262-7

Newman, J. P., Zeller-Townson, R., Fong, M., Arcot Desai, S., Gross, R. E., and Potter, S. M. (2013). Closed-loop, multichannel experimentation using the open-source NeuroRighter electrophysiology platform. Front. Neur. Circ. 6:98. doi: 10.3389/fncir.2012.00098

O’Leary, G., Khramtsov, I., Ramesh, R., Perez-Ignacio, A., Shah, P., Chameh, H. M., et al. (2022). OpenMEA: open-source microelectrode Array platform for bioelectronic interfacing. BioRxiv . doi: 10.1101/2022.11.11.516234

Paşca, S. P., Arlotta, P., Bateup, H. S., Camp, G., Cappello, S., Gage, F. H., et al. (2022). A nomenclature consensus for nervous system organoids and assembloids. Nature 609, 907–910. doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05219-6

Pine, J. (1980). Recording action potentials from cultured neurons with extracellular microcircuit electrodes. J Neurosci. Meth 2, 19–31. doi: 10.1016/0165-0270(80)90042-4

Qian, X., Song, H., and Ming, G. L. (2019). Brain organoids: advances, applications and challenges. Development 146:dev166074. doi: 10.1242/dev.166074

Salatino, J. W., Ludwig, K. A., Kozai, T. D. Y., and Purcell, E. K. (2017). Glial responses to implanted electrodes in the brain. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 1, 862–877. doi: 10.1038/s41551-017-0154-1

Samsi, S., Zhao, D., McDonald, J., Li, B., Michalea, A., Jones, M., et al. (2023). From words to Watts: benchmarking the energy costs of large language model inference. arXiv :2310.03003 [cs.CL] doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2310.03003

Smirnova, L., Caffo, B. S., Gracias, D. H., Huang, Q., Morales Pantoja, I. E., Tang, B., et al. (2023). Organoid intelligence (OI): the new frontier in biocomputing and intelligence-in-a-dish. Front. Sci. 1:1017235. doi: 10.3389/fsci.2023.1017235

Stoppini, L., Buchs, P.-A., and Muller, D. (1991). A simple method for organotypic cultures of nervous tissue. J. Neurosc. Methods 37, 173–182. doi: 10.1016/0165-0270(91)90128-M

Wagenaar, D. A., DeMarse, T. B., and Potter, S. M., "MeaBench: a toolset for multi-electrode data acquisition and on-line analysis.," In 2nd Intl. IEEE EMBS conference on neural Engigneering, Arlington, VA, USA, (2005a).

Wagenaar, D. A., Madhavan, R., Pine, J., and Potter, S. M. (2005b). Controlling bursting in cortical cultures with closed-loop multi-electrode stimulation. J. Neuroscience 25

Wagenaar, D. A., Pine, J., and Potter, S. M. (2006). An extremely rich repertoire of bursting patterns during the development of cortical cultures. BMC Neurosci. 7:11. doi: 10.1186/1471-2202-7-11

Wertenbroek, R., Thoma, Y., Mor, F. M., Grassi, S., Heuschkel, M. O., Roux, A., et al. (2021). SpikeOnChip: a custom embedded platform for neuronal activity recording and analysis. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Circuits Syst. 15, 743–755. doi: 10.1109/TBCAS.2021.3097833

Yang, X., Forró, C., Li, L. T., Miura, L., Zaluska, T. J., Tsai, C. T., et al. (2024). Kirigami electronics for long-term electrophysiological recording of human neural organoids and assembloids. Nat. Biotechnol. doi: 10.1038/s41587-023-02081-3

Zhang, X., Dou, Z., Kim, S. H., Upadhyay, G., Havert, D., Kang, S., et al. (2023). Mind in vitro platforms: versatile, scalable, robust, and open solutions to interfacing with living neurons. Adv. Sci. (Weinh) :e2306826. doi: 10.1002/advs.202306826. Online ahead of print.

Keywords: wetware computing, organoid intelligence, biocomputing, synthetic biology, AI, biological neural network, hybrot

Citation: Jordan FD, Kutter M, Comby J-M, Brozzi F and Kurtys E (2024) Open and remotely accessible Neuroplatform for research in wetware computing. Front. Artif. Intell . 7:1376042. doi: 10.3389/frai.2024.1376042

Received: 24 January 2024; Accepted: 11 March 2024; Published: 02 May 2024.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2024 Jordan, Kutter, Comby, Brozzi and Kurtys. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Fred D. Jordan, [email protected]

This article is part of the Research Topic

Intersection between the biological and digital: Synthetic Biological Intelligence and Organoid Intelligence

Urgent need for action now for increasing threat from invasive alien species

While invasive alien species have long been recognised as a major threat to nature and people, urgent action now is needed to tackle this global issue. This is the critical evaluation by the 88 authors, representing 101 organisations from 47 countries, of 'Curbing the major and growing threats from invasive alien species is urgent and achievable' published in Nature, Ecology & Evolution, including lead author Professor Helen Roy from the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology and the University of Exeter.

Focused on the main findings of the Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) thematic assessment report on invasive alien species and their control*, the paper also highlights that the impacts of invasive alien species observed today are likely to underestimate the magnitude of future impacts. Also, the interactions among biodiversity drivers are key as no driver acts in isolation.

Co-chair of the IPBES IAS assessment and lead author, Professor Helen Roy from the UKCEH and the University of Exeter, said: "The paper brought together the entire expert team of the IAS assessment, with this diverse group spanning many disciplines with perspectives from around the world drawing the same conclusion about the need for urgent action on the major and growing threat of invasive alien species.

"With the number of invasive alien species set to rise, the IPBES invasive alien species assessment provides the evidence-base and options to inform immediate and ongoing action. To achieve this there is a need for collaboration, communication and cooperation, not only across borders but within countries."

Professor Peter Stoett from Ontario Tech University, co-chair of the IPBES IAS assessment, added: "Interdisciplinarity is key to the success of IPBES assessments. It was wonderful to see social science and humanities experts interacting with invasion biologists and other natural scientists, in a community-building process that will inform policy decisions moving forward."

The threats posed by invasive alien species are expected to continue to rise. Every year, approximately two hundred new alien species are now being introduced globally by human activities to regions they had not been recorded before. Even without the introduction of new species by human activities, already established alien species will continue to naturally expand their geographic ranges and spread into new countries and regions, with many causing negative impacts. Simple extrapolations from the impacts of invasive alien species observed today are likely to underestimate the magnitude of future impacts.

Interactions among drivers of biodiversity loss are amplifying biological invasions with no driver acting in isolation. Climate change is a major driver facilitating the establishment and spread of invasive alien species into previously inhospitable regions. For example, climate warming is enabling aquatic and terrestrial invasive alien species to establish and spread poleward, including into the Arctic and Antarctic regions. Also, in some mountainous regions, climate change, acting together with other drivers of biodiversity loss, has allowed invasive alien species to extend their ranges into higher elevations twice as fast as native species.

The IPBES invasive species assessment provided the first comprehensive synthesis of evidence globally concluding that the threat of biological invasions is major but can be mitigated with urgent cross-sectorial cooperative and collaborative action. Co-developing management actions with multiple stakeholders including government and private sector stakeholders, and Indigenous Peoples and local communities will be critical to achieving success in addressing biological invasions.

Aníbal Pauchard, co-chair of the IPBES IAS assessment and Professor at the University of Concepción, Chile, highlights the importance of inclusion within the assessment: "This is not only the most comprehensive global assessment on invasive alien species to date, but also the selection of experts and the evidence gathering was done under the highest standards of inclusivity, resulting in a report which provides critical insights for all stakeholders."

Coordinating bodies such as the Non-Native Species Secretariat can ensure effective collaboration among diverse stakeholder groups. Indeed, management actions in response to incursions of the Asian hornet ( Vespa velutina ) in the UK have involved multiple stakeholders coming together to ensure rapid flow of information following detection of the species leading to effective control of nests.

The paper recognises that the engagement of the general public through awareness raising campaigns, education and community science platforms also contributes to establishing shared responsibilities in managing biological invasions. Community science initiatives, supported by digital identification tools are important for the rapid detection of invasive alien species. Records submitted by the public through the Asian Hornet Watch app in the UK are making a major contribution to Vespa velutina (Asian hornet) early warning and rapid response.

• Invasive Species
• New Species
• Exotic Species
• Environmental Awareness
• Environmental Policies
• Land Management
• Ocean Policy
• Invasive species
• Biodiversity Action Plan
• United Nations Development Programme
• Water hyacinth
• Purple loosestrife
• Sustainable land management
• Unified neutral theory of biodiversity

Story Source:

Materials provided by UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology . Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Journal Reference :

• Helen E. Roy, Aníbal Pauchard, Peter J. Stoett, Tanara Renard Truong, Laura A. Meyerson, Sven Bacher, Bella S. Galil, Philip E. Hulme, Tohru Ikeda, Sankaran Kavileveettil, Melodie A. McGeoch, Martin A. Nuñez, Alejandro Ordonez, Sebataolo J. Rahlao, Evangelina Schwindt, Hanno Seebens, Andy W. Sheppard, Vigdis Vandvik, Alla Aleksanyan, Michael Ansong, Tom August, Ryan Blanchard, Ernesto Brugnoli, John K. Bukombe, Bridget Bwalya, Chaeho Byun, Morelia Camacho-Cervantes, Phillip Cassey, María L. Castillo, Franck Courchamp, Katharina Dehnen-Schmutz, Rafael Dudeque Zenni, Chika Egawa, Franz Essl, Georgi Fayvush, Romina D. Fernandez, Miguel Fernandez, Llewellyn C. Foxcroft, Piero Genovesi, Quentin J. Groom, Ana Isabel González, Aveliina Helm, Ileana Herrera, Ankila J. Hiremath, Patricia L. Howard, Cang Hui, Makihiko Ikegami, Emre Keskin, Asuka Koyama, Stanislav Ksenofontov, Bernd Lenzner, Tatsiana Lipinskaya, Julie L. Lockwood, Dongang C. Mangwa, Angeliki F. Martinou, Shana M. McDermott, Carolina L. Morales, Jana Müllerová, Ninad Avinash Mungi, Linus K. Munishi, Henn Ojaveer, Shyama N. Pagad, Nirmalie P. K. T. S. Pallewatta, Lora R. Peacock, Esra Per, Jan Pergl, Cristina Preda, Petr Pyšek, Rajesh K. Rai, Anthony Ricciardi, David M. Richardson, Sophie Riley, Betty J. Rono, Ellen Ryan-Colton, Hanieh Saeedi, Bharat B. Shrestha, Daniel Simberloff, Alifereti Tawake, Elena Tricarico, Sonia Vanderhoeven, Joana Vicente, Montserrat Vilà, Wycliffe Wanzala, Victoria Werenkraut, Olaf L. F. Weyl, John R. U. Wilson, Rafael O. Xavier, Sílvia R. Ziller. Curbing the major and growing threats from invasive alien species is urgent and achievable . Nature Ecology & Evolution , 2024; DOI: 10.1038/s41559-024-02412-w

Cite This Page :

Explore More

• Giant Viruses Found On Greenland Ice Sheet
• Using AI to Decode Dog Vocalizations
• Humans and Woolly Rhinoceros' Extinction
• More Summer Droughts for Northern Hemisphere
• All Electrical Needs from Floating Solar Panels?
• Over 60% of US People Likely to Have CVD by 2050
• Gigantic Jurassic Pterosaur Fossil Unearthed
• Bringing Back an Ancient Bird
• How Quantum Field Theories Decay and Fission
• River Nile's Evolution During Ancient Egypt

Trending Topics

Strange & offbeat.