action research qualitative study

Qualitative study design: Action research

• Qualitative study design
• Phenomenology
• Grounded theory
• Ethnography
• Narrative inquiry
• Action research
• Case Studies
• Field research
• Focus groups
• Observation
• Surveys & questionnaires
• Study Designs Home

Action research / Participatory Action Research

These methods focus on the emancipation, collaboration and empowerment of the participants. This methodology is appropriate for collaborative research with groups, especially marginalised groups, where there is more flexibility in how the research is conducted and considers feedback from the participants. 

Has three primary characteristics:  

Action oriented, participants are actively involved in the research.

involvement by participants in the research, collaborative process between participant and researcher - empowerment of participants. The participants have more of a say in what is being researched and how they want the research to be conducted.

cycle is iterative so that it is flexible and responsive to a changing situation.  

• Questionnaires
• Oral recordings
• Focus groups,
• Photovoice (use of images or video to capture the local environment / community and to share with others)
• Informal conversations 

Produces knowledge from marginalised people's point of view and can lead to more personalised interventions.  

Provides a voice for people to speak about their issues and the ability to improve their own lives. People take an active role in implementing any actions arising from the research. 

Transforms social reality by linking theory and practice.  

Limitations

Open ended questions are mainly used, and these can be misinterpreted by researcher – data needs to be cross-checked with other sources.

Data ownership between researcher and research participants needs to be negotiated and clearly stated from the beginning of the project.

Ethical considerations with privacy and confidentiality.

This method is not considered scientific as it is more fluid in its gathering of information and is considered an unconventional research method – thus it may not attract much funding.

Example questions

• What is the cultural significance of yarning amongst Aboriginal people?  

Macro Question:

• “What would it take to improve the stability of young people’s living situations?”  

Micro Questions:  

• “What can we do to better engage with accommodation service providers?”  
• “What can we do to improve the service knowledge of young people?”  
• “What can we do to measure stability outcomes for our clients?”  

(Department of Social Services)  

Example studies

• Miller, A., Massey, P. D., Judd, J., Kelly, J., Durrheim, D. N., Clough, A. R., . . . Saggers, S. (2015). Using a participatory action research framework to listen to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Australia about pandemic influenza.  Rural and Remote Health , 15(3), 2923-2923.  
• Spinney, A. (2013). Safe from the Start? An Action Research Project on Early Intervention Materials for Children Affected by Domestic and Family Violence. Children & Society, 27(5), 397-405. doi:10.1111/j.1099-0860.2012.00454.x 
• Department of Social Services. (2019).  On PAR  - Using participatory action research to improve early intervention. 
• Liamputtong, P. (2013). Qualitative research methods (4th ed.). South Melbourne: Oxford  University Press. 
• Mills, J., & Birks, M. (2014). Qualitative Methodology: A Practical Guide. Retrieved from https://methods.sagepub.com/book/qualitative-methodology-a-practical-guide doi:10.4135/9781473920163 
• << Previous: Narrative inquiry
• Next: Case Studies >>
• Last Updated: Jun 13, 2024 10:34 AM
• URL: https://deakin.libguides.com/qualitative-study-designs

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 7: Action Research

Darshini Ayton

Learning outcomes

Upon completion of this chapter, you should be able to:

• Explain the purpose of an action research approach.
• Explain the action research cycle.
• Describe action research characteristics.

What is action research?

The key concept in action research is change or action .

Action research (also known as ‘participatory action research’) aligns well with the practice of health and social care because researchers and practitioners in this discipline work with people and communities in holistic and relational ways to understand the history, culture and context of the setting. Action research aims to understand the setting and improve it through change or action. 1 This method has its roots in activism and advocacy and is focused on solutions. It is practical and deals with real-world problems and issues. Action research often undergoes phases in seeking to understand the problem, plan a solution, implement the solution and then reflect on or evaluate the solution, cyclically and iteratively. Action research is used in the practice of health and social care because it has two fundamental aims: to improve and to involve. This chapter outlines how this is evident, using examples from the research literature (see Table 7.1.).

Action research as involvement

Action research is a collaborative process between researchers and community members. This process is a core component of action research and represents a significant shift from typical research methods. Through action research, those who are being researched become the researchers, with close consideration given to power dynamics. The research participants become partners in the research and are involved in identifying and prioritising the research area, designing and undertaking data collection, conducting data analysis, and interpreting and disseminating the results. 1 The research partners may be provided with support and training to enable them to undertake these activities and to promote empowerment and capacity building (see examples following). Patient and public involvement in research and healthcare improvement (known in Australia as ‘consumer and community involvement’), has led to action research gaining popularity as a research design that captures the ‘living knowledge’ with, for and by people and communities throughout the research journey.

As an example, in the project Relationships Matter for Youth ‘Aging Out’ of Care, 2 Doucet and colleagues aimed to examine relationships that matter to young people in care and how these relationships can be nurtured and supported over time. The project is a collaborative participatory action research study incorporating photovoice (see Chapter 17 for more information on photovoice). Eight young people, formerly in care and from diverse backgrounds, were recruited to the study. The lead researcher highlighted their own lived experience of the child welfare system and a consciousness of the power dynamics at play. The lead researcher created processes within the project to ensure the youth co-researchers were empowered to share their experiences and that the research team members were working with the youth co-researchers and not for them. These processes included three months of weekly facilitated group discussions, shared meals before project commencement and group outings and community engagement during the project to encourage connection, bonding and trust. The youth co-researchers were provided with photography training and digital cameras. Data collection included the youth co-researchers submitting 6–7 photographs with responses to the following questions for photo contextualisation:

• What does this photograph mean to you? Why is this photo, in particular, most significant to you?
• How do you see this photo as a reflection of the issue of supportive long-term relationships – and one that is relevant to you as a former youth in care in your community?
• What is the relationship between the content of the photo and how you perceive the community or the world around you? What recommendation for change in your community is associated with this photo? 2(para22)

The photographs were showcased at an exhibition that was open to the community; those in attendance included policymakers, advocates and community representatives. The change documented through this project was one of social transformation for the community and self-transformation and healing for the individuals.

Action research as improvement

Action research can be practitioner-led, whereby the study investigates problems identified by the practitioner with the goal of understanding and improving practice over time. Improvement can be both social improvement and healthcare improvement. Healthcare improvement, in particular quality (of healthcare) improvement, has been the focus of clinical practice, research, education and advocacy for more than 30 years. The two main frameworks guiding healthcare and quality improvement efforts are the Plan, Do, Study, Act (PDSA) cycle and Learning Health Systems. 3 Both of these frameworks lend themselves to action research. For example, the PDSA cycle is guided by three overarching questions:

• What are we trying to accomplish?
• How will we know that a change is an improvement?
• What change can we make that will result in improvement? 4(Figure1)

Learning Health Systems is another approach to quality improvement that has gained popularity over the past decade. Data collected by health services (e.g. patient data, health records, laboratory results) are used for knowledge creation in continuous and rapid cycles of study, feedback and practice change. 5 A Learning Health Systems framework incorporates systems science, data science, research methods for real-world contexts, implementation science, participatory research and quality improvement approaches.

Van Heerden and colleagues adopted an action research study to transform the practice and environment of neonatal care in the maternity section of a district hospital in South Africa. The study Strategies to sustain a quality improvement initiative in neonatal resuscitation 6 was conducted in three cycles. Cycle 1 was a situation analysis that explored and described the existing practices and factors influencing neonatal resuscitation and mortality in the hospital through administering questionnaires with nurses (n=69); a focus group with nine doctors; and an analysis of hospital records. A nominal group discussion (structured group discussion including prioritisation) was conducted with 10 managers and staff, followed by a reflective meeting with the project’s steering committee. Cycle 2 developed and implemented strategies to sustain a quality improvement initiative. The strategies addressed training, equipment and stock, staff attitudes, staff shortages, transport transfer for critically ill neonates, and protocols. Cycle 3 was an evaluation of change and sustainability after the implementation of strategies (Cycle 2) and involved the analysis of hospital record data, repeat questionnaire with nurses (n=40), focus group discussion with 10 doctors, steering committee and management members, followed by reflective meetings with the steering committee. Qualitative data was analysed through open coding, and quantitative data was analysed descriptively. The neonatal mortality rate declined (yet still needed to improve) and the implementation strategies facilitated change that led to improvement and practice transformation.

Action research as a methodology or an approach

There is debate as to whether action research is a methodology or an approach, since several different research methods and methodologies can be used. For example, multiple forms of data collection can be utilized, including quantitative data from surveys or medical records, to inform the identification and understanding of the problem and evaluation of the solution. Action research can also draw on descriptive qualitative research, quantitative cross-sectional studies, case studies (see Chapter 8 ), ethnography ( Chapter 9 ) and grounded theory ( Chapter 10 ). Action research can therefore take a purely qualitative approach, or can take a mixed-methods approach. See Table 7.1. for examples of action research studies.

Advantages and disadvantages of action research

Action research addresses practical problems, drawing on principles of empowerment, capacity-building and participation. The research problem to be addressed is typically identified by the community, and the solutions are for the community. The research participants are collaborators in the research process. The examples presented in this chapter demonstrate how the research collaborators and co-researchers received training and support to lead elements of the project. Another advantage of action research is that it is a continuous cycle of development. Hence, the approach is iterative and the full solution can take multiple cycles and iterations to develop and sustain. 7,8

Since action research is fundamentally about relationships and integrating research into the real world, studies can take years to result in a solution. It is important to be able to adapt and be flexible in response to community and stakeholder needs and contexts. The research can therefore be constrained by what is practical and also ethical within the setting. This may limit the scope and scale of the research and compromise its rigour. Action research can also create unanticipated work for community members and participants because they are not usually involved in research in this way, and thus training may be required, as well as remuneration for time and experience. 7,8

Action research is a research design in which researchers and community members work together to identify problems, design and implement solutions and evaluate the impact of these solutions. Change or action is a core component of this research design.

• Baum F, MacDougall C, Smith D. Participatory action research. J Epidemiol Community Health .  2006;60(10):854-857. doi:10.1136/jech.2004.028662
• Doucet M, Pratt H, Dzhenganin M, Read J. Nothing About Us Without Us: Using Participatory Action Research (PAR) and arts-based methods as empowerment and social justice tools in doing research with youth ‘aging out’ of care. Child Abuse Negl . 2022;130:105358. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2021.105358
• Taylor J, Coates E, Wessels B, Mountain G, Hawley MS. Implementing solutions to improve and expand telehealth adoption: participatory action research in four community healthcare settings. BMC Health Serv Res . 2015;15:529. doi:10.1186/s12913-015-1195-3
• Taylor MJ, McNicholas C, Nicolay C, Darzi A, Bell D, Reed JE. Systematic review of the application of the plan-do-study-act method to improve quality in healthcare. BMJ Qual Saf .  2014;23(4):290-298. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2013-001862
• Menear M, Blanchette MA, Demers-Payette O, Roy D. A framework for value-creating learning health systems. Health Res Policy Syst . 2019;17(1):79. doi:10.1186/s12961-019-0477-3
• Van Heerden C, Maree C, Janse Van Rensburg ES. Strategies to sustain a quality improvement initiative in neonatal resuscitation. Afr J Prim Health Care Fam Med . 2016;8(2):a958. doi:10.4102/phcfm.v8i2.958
• Liamputtong P. Qualitative Research Methods . 5th ed. Oxford University Press; 2020.
• Liamputtong P, Ezzy D. Qualitative Research Methods: A Health Focus . Oxford University Press; 1999.
• Middleton TRF, Schinke RJ, Lefebvre D, Habra B, Coholic D, Giffin C. Critically examining a community-based participatory action research project with forced migrant youth. Sport Soc . 2021;25(2):418-433. doi:10.1080/17430437.2022.2017619

Qualitative Research – a practical guide for health and social care researchers and practitioners Copyright © 2023 by Darshini Ayton is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Section 2: Home
• Developing the Quantitative Research Design
• Qualitative Descriptive Design
• Design and Development Research (DDR) For Instructional Design
• Qualitative Narrative Inquiry Research
• Action Research Resource

What is Action Research?

Considerations, creating a plan of action.

• Case Study Design in an Applied Doctorate
• SAGE Research Methods
• Research Examples (SAGE) This link opens in a new window
• Dataset Examples (SAGE) This link opens in a new window
• IRB Resource Center This link opens in a new window

Action research is a qualitative method that focuses on solving problems in social systems, such as schools and other organizations. The emphasis is on solving the presenting problem by generating knowledge and taking action within the social system in which the problem is located. The goal is to generate shared knowledge of how to address the problem by bridging the theory-practice gap (Bourner & Brook, 2019). A general definition of action research is the following: “Action research brings together action and reflection, as well as theory and practice, in participation with others, in the pursuit of practical solutions to issues of pressing concern” (Bradbury, 2015, p. 1). Johnson (2019) defines action research in the field of education as “the process of studying a school, classroom, or teacher-learning situation with the purpose of understanding and improving the quality of actions or instruction” (p.255).

Origins of Action Research

Kurt Lewin is typically credited with being the primary developer of Action Research in the 1940s. Lewin stated that action research can “transform…unrelated individuals, frequently opposed in their outlook and their interests, into cooperative teams, not on the basis of sweetness but on the basis of readiness to face difficulties realistically, to apply honest fact-finding, and to work together to overcome them” (1946, p.211).

Sample Action Research Topics

Some sample action research topics might be the following:

• Examining how classroom teachers perceive and implement new strategies in the classroom--How is the strategy being used? How do students respond to the strategy? How does the strategy inform and change classroom practices? Does the new skill improve test scores? Do classroom teachers perceive the strategy as effective for student learning?
• Examining how students are learning a particular content or objectives--What seems to be effective in enhancing student learning? What skills need to be reinforced? How do students respond to the new content? What is the ability of students to understand the new content?
• Examining how education stakeholders (administrator, parents, teachers, students, etc.) make decisions as members of the school’s improvement team--How are different stakeholders encouraged to participate? How is power distributed? How is equity demonstrated? How is each voice valued? How are priorities and initiatives determined? How does the team evaluate its processes to determine effectiveness?
• Examining the actions that school staff take to create an inclusive and welcoming school climate--Who makes and implements the actions taken to create the school climate? Do members of the school community (teachers, staff, students) view the school climate as inclusive? Do members of the school community feel welcome in the school? How are members of the school community encouraged to become involved in school activities? What actions can school staff take to help others feel a part of the school community?
• Examining the perceptions of teachers with regard to the learning strategies that are more effective with special populations, such as special education students, English Language Learners, etc.—What strategies are perceived to be more effective? How do teachers plan instructionally for unique learners such as special education students or English Language Learners? How do teachers deal with the challenges presented by unique learners such as special education students or English Language Learners? What supports do teachers need (e.g., professional development, training, coaching) to more effectively deliver instruction to unique learners such as special education students or English Language Learners?

Remember—The goal of action research is to find out how individuals perceive and act in a situation so the researcher can develop a plan of action to improve the educational organization. While these topics listed here can be explored using other research designs, action research is the design to use if the outcome is to develop a plan of action for addressing and improving upon a situation in the educational organization.

Considerations for Determining Whether to Use Action Research in an Applied Dissertation

• When considering action research, first determine the problem and the change that needs to occur as a result of addressing the problem (i.e., research problem and research purpose). Remember, the goal of action research is to change how individuals address a particular problem or situation in a way that results in improved practices.
• If the study will be conducted at a school site or educational organization, you may need site permission. Determine whether site permission will be given to conduct the study.
• Consider the individuals who will be part of the data collection (e.g., teachers, administrators, parents, other school staff, etc.). Will there be a representative sample willing to participate in the research?
• If students will be part of the study, does parent consent and student assent need to be obtained?
• As you develop your data collection plan, also consider the timeline for data collection. Is it feasible? For example, if you will be collecting data in a school, consider winter and summer breaks, school events, testing schedules, etc.
• As you develop your data collection plan, consult with your dissertation chair, Subject Matter Expert, NU Academic Success Center, and the NU IRB for resources and guidance.
• Action research is not an experimental design, so you are not trying to accept or reject a hypothesis. There are no independent or dependent variables. It is not generalizable to a larger setting. The goal is to understand what is occurring in the educational setting so that a plan of action can be developed for improved practices.

Considerations for Action Research

Below are some things to consider when developing your applied dissertation proposal using Action Research (adapted from Johnson, 2019):

• Research Topic and Research Problem -- Decide the topic to be studied and then identify the problem by defining the issue in the learning environment. Use references from current peer-reviewed literature for support.
• Purpose of the Study —What need to be different or improved as a result of the study?
• Research Questions —The questions developed should focus on “how” or “what” and explore individuals’ experiences, beliefs, and perceptions.
• Theoretical Framework -- What are the existing theories (theoretical framework) or concepts (conceptual framework) that can be used to support the research. How does existing theory link to what is happening in the educational environment with regard to the topic? What theories have been used to support similar topics in previous research?
• Literature Review -- Examine the literature, focusing on peer-reviewed studies published in journal within the last five years, with the exception of seminal works. What about the topic has already been explored and examined? What were the findings, implications, and limitations of previous research? What is missing from the literature on the topic?  How will your proposed research address the gap in the literature?
• Data Collection —Who will be part of the sample for data collection? What data will be collected from the individuals in the study (e.g., semi-structured interviews, surveys, etc.)? What are the educational artifacts and documents that need to be collected (e.g., teacher less plans, student portfolios, student grades, etc.)? How will they be collected and during what timeframe? (Note--A list of sample data collection methods appears under the heading of “Sample Instrumentation.”)
• Data Analysis —Determine how the data will be analyzed. Some types of analyses that are frequently used for action research include thematic analysis and content analysis.
• Implications —What conclusions can be drawn based upon the findings? How do the findings relate to the existing literature and inform theory in the field of education?
• Recommendations for Practice--Create a Plan of Action— This is a critical step in action research. A plan of action is created based upon the data analysis, findings, and implications. In the Applied Dissertation, this Plan of Action is included with the Recommendations for Practice. The includes specific steps that individuals should take to change practices; recommendations for how those changes will occur (e.g., professional development, training, school improvement planning, committees to develop guidelines and policies, curriculum review committee, etc.); and methods to evaluate the plan’s effectiveness.
• Recommendations for Research —What should future research focus on? What type of studies need to be conducted to build upon or further explore your findings.
• Professional Presentation or Defense —This is where the findings will be presented in a professional presentation or defense as the culmination of your research.

Adapted from Johnson (2019).

Considerations for Sampling and Data Collection

Below are some tips for sampling, sample size, data collection, and instrumentation for Action Research:

Sampling and Sample Size

Action research uses non-probability sampling. This is most commonly means a purposive sampling method that includes specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. However, convenience sampling can also be used (e.g., a teacher’s classroom).

Critical Concepts in Data Collection

Triangulation- - Dosemagen and Schwalbach (2019) discussed the importance of triangulation in Action Research which enhances the trustworthiness by providing multiple sources of data to analyze and confirm evidence for findings.

Trustworthiness —Trustworthiness assures that research findings are fulfill four critical elements—credibility, dependability, transferability, and confirmability. Reflect on the following: Are there multiple sources of data? How have you ensured credibility, dependability, transferability, and confirmability? Have the assumptions, limitations, and delimitations of the study been identified and explained? Was the sample a representative sample for the study? Did any individuals leave the study before it ended? How have you controlled researcher biases and beliefs? Are you drawing conclusions that are not supported by data? Have all possible themes been considered? Have you identified other studies with similar results?

Sample Instrumentation

Below are some of the possible methods for collecting action research data:

• Pre- and Post-Surveys for students and/or staff
• Staff Perception Surveys and Questionnaires
• Semi-Structured Interviews
• Focus Groups
• Observations
• Document analysis
• Student work samples
• Classroom artifacts, such as teacher lesson plans, rubrics, checklists, etc.
• Attendance records
• Discipline data
• Journals from students and/or staff
• Portfolios from students and/or staff

A benefit of Action Research is its potential to influence educational practice. Many educators are, by nature of the profession, reflective, inquisitive, and action-oriented. The ultimate outcome of Action Research is to create a plan of action using the research findings to inform future educational practice. A Plan of Action is not meant to be a one-size fits all plan. Instead, it is mean to include specific data-driven and research-based recommendations that result from a detailed analysis of the data, the study findings, and implications of the Action Research study. An effective Plan of Action includes an evaluation component and opportunities for professional educator reflection that allows for authentic discussion aimed at continuous improvement.

When developing a Plan of Action, the following should be considered:

• How can this situation be approached differently in the future?
• What should change in terms of practice?
• What are the specific steps that individuals should take to change practices?
• What is needed to implement the changes being recommended (professional development, training, materials, resources, planning committees, school improvement planning, etc.)?
• How will the effectiveness of the implemented changes be evaluated?
• How will opportunities for professional educator reflection be built into the Action Plan?

Sample Action Research Studies

Anderson, A. J. (2020). A qualitative systematic review of youth participatory action research implementation in U.S. high schools. A merican Journal of Community Psychology, 65 (1/2), 242–257. https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.proxy1.ncu.edu/doi/epdf/10.1002/ajcp.12389

Ayvaz, Ü., & Durmuş, S.(2021). Fostering mathematical creativity with problem posing activities: An action research with gifted students. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 40. https://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edselp&AN=S1871187121000614&site=eds-live

Bellino, M. J. (2018). Closing information gaps in Kakuma Refugee Camp: A youth participatory action research study. American Journal of Community Psychology, 62 (3/4), 492–507. https://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ofs&AN=133626988&site=eds-live

Beneyto, M., Castillo, J., Collet-Sabé, J., & Tort, A. (2019). Can schools become an inclusive space shared by all families? Learnings and debates from an action research project in Catalonia. Educational Action Research, 27 (2), 210–226. https://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=135671904&site=eds-live

Bilican, K., Senler, B., & Karısan, D. (2021). Fostering teacher educators’ professional development through collaborative action research. International Journal of Progressive Education, 17 (2), 459–472. https://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=149828364&site=eds-live

Black, G. L. (2021). Implementing action research in a teacher preparation program: Opportunities and limitations. Canadian Journal of Action Research, 21 (2), 47–71. https://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=149682611&site=eds-live

Bozkuş, K., & Bayrak, C. (2019). The Application of the dynamic teacher professional development through experimental action research. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 11 (4), 335–352. https://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=135580911&site=eds-live

Christ, T. W. (2018). Mixed methods action research in special education: An overview of a grant-funded model demonstration project. Research in the Schools, 25( 2), 77–88. https://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=135047248&site=eds-live

Jakhelln, R., & Pörn, M. (2019). Challenges in supporting and assessing bachelor’s theses based on action research in initial teacher education. Educational Action Research, 27 (5), 726–741. https://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=140234116&site=eds-live

Klima Ronen, I. (2020). Action research as a methodology for professional development in leading an educational process. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 64 . https://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edselp&AN=S0191491X19302159&site=eds-live

Messiou, K. (2019). Collaborative action research: facilitating inclusion in schools. Educational Action Research, 27 (2), 197–209. https://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=135671898&site=eds-live

Mitchell, D. E. (2018). Say it loud: An action research project examining the afrivisual and africology, Looking for alternative African American community college teaching strategies. Journal of Pan African Studies, 12 (4), 364–487. https://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ofs&AN=133155045&site=eds-live

Pentón Herrera, L. J. (2018). Action research as a tool for professional development in the K-12 ELT classroom. TESL Canada Journal, 35 (2), 128–139. https://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ofs&AN=135033158&site=eds-live

Rodriguez, R., Macias, R. L., Perez-Garcia, R., Landeros, G., & Martinez, A. (2018). Action research at the intersection of structural and family violence in an immigrant Latino community: a youth-led study. Journal of Family Violence, 33 (8), 587–596. https://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=132323375&site=eds-live

Vaughan, M., Boerum, C., & Whitehead, L. (2019). Action research in doctoral coursework: Perceptions of independent research experiences. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 13 . https://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsdoj&AN=edsdoj.17aa0c2976c44a0991e69b2a7b4f321&site=eds-live

Sample Journals for Action Research

Educational Action Research

Canadian Journal of Action Research

Sample Resource Videos

Call-Cummings, M. (2017). Researching racism in schools using participatory action research [Video]. Sage Research Methods  http://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?URL=https://methods.sagepub.com/video/researching-racism-in-schools-using-participatory-action-research

Fine, M. (2016). Michelle Fine discusses community based participatory action research [Video]. Sage Knowledge. http://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?URL=https://sk-sagepub-com.proxy1.ncu.edu/video/michelle-fine-discusses-community-based-participatory-action-research

Getz, C., Yamamura, E., & Tillapaugh. (2017). Action Research in Education. [Video]. You Tube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2tso4klYu8

Bradbury, H. (Ed.). (2015). The handbook of action research (3rd edition). Sage.

Bradbury, H., Lewis, R. & Embury, D.C. (2019). Education action research: With and for the next generation. In C.A. Mertler (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of action research in education (1st edition). John Wiley and Sons. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nu/reader.action?docID=5683581&ppg=205

Bourner, T., & Brook, C. (2019). Comparing and contrasting action research and action learning. In C.A. Mertler (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of action research in education (1st edition). John Wiley and Sons. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nu/reader.action?docID=5683581&ppg=205

Bradbury, H. (2015). The Sage handbook of action research . Sage. https://www-doi-org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.4135/9781473921290

Dosemagen, D.M. & Schwalback, E.M. (2019). Legitimacy of and value in action research. In C.A. Mertler (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of action research in education (1st edition). John Wiley and Sons. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nu/reader.action?docID=5683581&ppg=205

Johnson, A. (2019). Action research for teacher professional development. In C.A. Mertler (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of action research in education (1st edition). John Wiley and Sons. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nu/reader.action?docID=5683581&ppg=205

Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. In G.W. Lewin (Ed.), Resolving social conflicts: Selected papers on group dynamics (compiled in 1948). Harper and Row.

Mertler, C. A. (Ed.). (2019). The Wiley handbook of action research in education. John Wiley and Sons. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nu/detail.action?docID=5683581

• << Previous: Qualitative Narrative Inquiry Research
• Next: Case Study Design in an Applied Doctorate >>
• Last Updated: Jul 28, 2023 8:05 AM
• URL: https://resources.nu.edu/c.php?g=1013605

© Copyright 2024 National University. All Rights Reserved.

Privacy Policy | Consumer Information

Research Methods and Design

• Action Research
• Case Study Design
• Literature Review
• Quantitative Research Methods
• Qualitative Research Methods
• Mixed Methods Study
• Indigenous Research and Ethics This link opens in a new window
• Identifying Empirical Research Articles This link opens in a new window
• Research Ethics and Quality
• Data Literacy
• Get Help with Writing Assignments

Action research

A type of applied research designed to find the most effective way to bring about a desired social change or to solve a practical problem, usually in collaboration with those being researched.

SAGE Research Methods Videos

How do you define action research.

Professor David Coghlan explains action research as an approach that crosses many academic disciplines yet has a shared focus on taking action to address a problem. He describes the difference between this approach and empirical scientific approaches, particularly highlighting the challenge of getting action research to be taken seriously by academic journals

Dr. Nataliya Ivankova defines action research as using systematic research principles to address an issue in everyday life. She delineates the six steps of action research, and illustrates the concept using an anti-diabetes project in an urban area.

This is just one segment in a whole series about action research. You can find the rest of the series in our SAGE database, Research Methods:

Videos covering research methods and statistics

Further Reading

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Case Study Design >>
• Last Updated: May 7, 2024 9:51 AM

CityU Home - CityU Catalog

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

63k Accesses

47 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

Exploring community needs in combating aedes mosquitoes and dengue fever: a study with urban community in the recurrent hotspot area.

• Nurul Adilah Samsudin
• Hidayatulfathi Othman
• Zul-‘Izzat Ikhwan Zaini

BMC Public Health (2024)

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.

Qualitative Research Methods

• Gumberg Library and CIQR
• Qualitative Methods Overview
• Phenomenology
• Case Studies
• Grounded Theory
• Narrative Inquiry
• Oral History
• Feminist Approaches

Action Research

• Finding Books
• Getting Help

Action research is a form of research done by practitioners in the field, rather than in an academic setting. In action research, the researcher puts their hypothesis to the test in their own work, and then examines and analyzes the results of their practice. It is often used in the fields of education and healthcare.

Books and eBooks

Online Resources

• Action Research Tutorials Twelve tutorials from the Center for Collaborative Action Research.

• << Previous: Feminist Approaches
• Next: Finding Books >>
• Last Updated: Aug 18, 2023 11:56 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.duq.edu/qualitative_research

Research Methodologies Guide

• Action Research
• Bibliometrics
• Case Studies
• Content Analysis
• Digital Scholarship This link opens in a new window
• Documentary
• Ethnography
• Focus Groups
• Grounded Theory
• Life Histories/Autobiographies
• Longitudinal
• Participant Observation
• Qualitative Research (General)
• Quasi-Experimental Design
• Usability Studies

Action Re search

Acti on research is defined by O'Leary (2007) as

"Research strategies that tackle real-world problems in participatory, collaborative, and cyclical ways in order to produce both knowledge  and action."

It refers to a type of research methodology which works toward a kind of change (whether social or professional). Because its goals are oriented toward change rather than knowledge-gathering alone, active research studies are often based in everyday issues, and concern themselves with the creation of practical solutions to these problems.

Elements of action research studies include:

• Identify a problem
• Research the problem and its probable causes
• Develop a response to the problem
• Implement the proposed solution
• Observe the implementation of the solution
• Reflect on the results (and start over, if necessary)

For more in-depth information, browse the resources below:

Where to Start

Below, a few tools and online guides that can help you start your action research project are listed. These include free online resources and resources available only through ISU Library.

• Action Research Handout [pdf] From the University of Pittsburgh, this handout defines action research, how it can be carried out, and common features of this type of research.

Online Resources

• YouTube - What is Action Research? This video reviews action research as it is used in education.
• Action Research - Informal Education From the encyclopedia of information education, this is another helpful article on action research, featuring different ways of describing it.
• Action research - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Wikipedia can be a useful place to start your research- check the citations at the bottom of the article for more information.
• Center for Collaborative Action Research A website for collaboration in action research.
• << Previous: Home
• Next: Bibliometrics >>
• Last Updated: Dec 19, 2023 2:12 PM
• URL: https://instr.iastate.libguides.com/researchmethods

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• What Is Qualitative Research? | Methods & Examples

What Is Qualitative Research? | Methods & Examples

Published on June 19, 2020 by Pritha Bhandari . Revised on June 22, 2023.

Qualitative research involves collecting and analyzing non-numerical data (e.g., text, video, or audio) to understand concepts, opinions, or experiences. It can be used to gather in-depth insights into a problem or generate new ideas for research.

Qualitative research is the opposite of quantitative research , which involves collecting and analyzing numerical data for statistical analysis.

Qualitative research is commonly used in the humanities and social sciences, in subjects such as anthropology, sociology, education, health sciences, history, etc.

• How does social media shape body image in teenagers?
• How do children and adults interpret healthy eating in the UK?
• What factors influence employee retention in a large organization?
• How is anxiety experienced around the world?
• How can teachers integrate social issues into science curriculums?

Table of contents

Approaches to qualitative research, qualitative research methods, qualitative data analysis, advantages of qualitative research, disadvantages of qualitative research, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about qualitative research.

Qualitative research is used to understand how people experience the world. While there are many approaches to qualitative research, they tend to be flexible and focus on retaining rich meaning when interpreting data.

Common approaches include grounded theory, ethnography , action research , phenomenological research, and narrative research. They share some similarities, but emphasize different aims and perspectives.

Note that qualitative research is at risk for certain research biases including the Hawthorne effect , observer bias , recall bias , and social desirability bias . While not always totally avoidable, awareness of potential biases as you collect and analyze your data can prevent them from impacting your work too much.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Each of the research approaches involve using one or more data collection methods . These are some of the most common qualitative methods:

• Observations: recording what you have seen, heard, or encountered in detailed field notes.
• Interviews:  personally asking people questions in one-on-one conversations.
• Focus groups: asking questions and generating discussion among a group of people.
• Surveys : distributing questionnaires with open-ended questions.
• Secondary research: collecting existing data in the form of texts, images, audio or video recordings, etc.
• You take field notes with observations and reflect on your own experiences of the company culture.
• You distribute open-ended surveys to employees across all the company’s offices by email to find out if the culture varies across locations.
• You conduct in-depth interviews with employees in your office to learn about their experiences and perspectives in greater detail.

Qualitative researchers often consider themselves “instruments” in research because all observations, interpretations and analyses are filtered through their own personal lens.

For this reason, when writing up your methodology for qualitative research, it’s important to reflect on your approach and to thoroughly explain the choices you made in collecting and analyzing the data.

Qualitative data can take the form of texts, photos, videos and audio. For example, you might be working with interview transcripts, survey responses, fieldnotes, or recordings from natural settings.

Most types of qualitative data analysis share the same five steps:

• Prepare and organize your data. This may mean transcribing interviews or typing up fieldnotes.
• Review and explore your data. Examine the data for patterns or repeated ideas that emerge.
• Develop a data coding system. Based on your initial ideas, establish a set of codes that you can apply to categorize your data.
• Assign codes to the data. For example, in qualitative survey analysis, this may mean going through each participant’s responses and tagging them with codes in a spreadsheet. As you go through your data, you can create new codes to add to your system if necessary.
• Identify recurring themes. Link codes together into cohesive, overarching themes.

There are several specific approaches to analyzing qualitative data. Although these methods share similar processes, they emphasize different concepts.

Qualitative research often tries to preserve the voice and perspective of participants and can be adjusted as new research questions arise. Qualitative research is good for:

• Flexibility

The data collection and analysis process can be adapted as new ideas or patterns emerge. They are not rigidly decided beforehand.

• Natural settings

Data collection occurs in real-world contexts or in naturalistic ways.

• Meaningful insights

Detailed descriptions of people’s experiences, feelings and perceptions can be used in designing, testing or improving systems or products.

• Generation of new ideas

Open-ended responses mean that researchers can uncover novel problems or opportunities that they wouldn’t have thought of otherwise.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Researchers must consider practical and theoretical limitations in analyzing and interpreting their data. Qualitative research suffers from:

• Unreliability

The real-world setting often makes qualitative research unreliable because of uncontrolled factors that affect the data.

• Subjectivity

Due to the researcher’s primary role in analyzing and interpreting data, qualitative research cannot be replicated . The researcher decides what is important and what is irrelevant in data analysis, so interpretations of the same data can vary greatly.

• Limited generalizability

Small samples are often used to gather detailed data about specific contexts. Despite rigorous analysis procedures, it is difficult to draw generalizable conclusions because the data may be biased and unrepresentative of the wider population .

• Labor-intensive

Although software can be used to manage and record large amounts of text, data analysis often has to be checked or performed manually.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Chi square goodness of fit test
• Degrees of freedom
• Null hypothesis
• Discourse analysis
• Control groups
• Mixed methods research
• Non-probability sampling
• Quantitative research
• Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Research bias

• Rosenthal effect
• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Selection bias
• Negativity bias
• Status quo bias

Quantitative research deals with numbers and statistics, while qualitative research deals with words and meanings.

Quantitative methods allow you to systematically measure variables and test hypotheses . Qualitative methods allow you to explore concepts and experiences in more detail.

There are five common approaches to qualitative research :

• Grounded theory involves collecting data in order to develop new theories.
• Ethnography involves immersing yourself in a group or organization to understand its culture.
• Narrative research involves interpreting stories to understand how people make sense of their experiences and perceptions.
• Phenomenological research involves investigating phenomena through people’s lived experiences.
• Action research links theory and practice in several cycles to drive innovative changes.

Data collection is the systematic process by which observations or measurements are gathered in research. It is used in many different contexts by academics, governments, businesses, and other organizations.

There are various approaches to qualitative data analysis , but they all share five steps in common:

• Prepare and organize your data.
• Review and explore your data.
• Develop a data coding system.
• Assign codes to the data.
• Identify recurring themes.

The specifics of each step depend on the focus of the analysis. Some common approaches include textual analysis , thematic analysis , and discourse analysis .

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Bhandari, P. (2023, June 22). What Is Qualitative Research? | Methods & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved June 26, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/qualitative-research/

Is this article helpful?

Pritha Bhandari

Other students also liked, qualitative vs. quantitative research | differences, examples & methods, how to do thematic analysis | step-by-step guide & examples, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer
• QuestionPro

• Solutions Industries Gaming Automotive Sports and events Education Government Travel & Hospitality Financial Services Healthcare Cannabis Technology Use Case NPS+ Communities Audience Contactless surveys Mobile LivePolls Member Experience GDPR Positive People Science 360 Feedback Surveys
• Resources Blog eBooks Survey Templates Case Studies Training Help center

Home Market Research Research Tools and Apps

Action Research: What it is, Stages & Examples

The best way to get things accomplished is to do it yourself. This statement is utilized in corporations, community projects, and national governments. These organizations are relying on action research to cope with their continuously changing and unstable environments as they function in a more interdependent world.

In practical educational contexts, this involves using systematic inquiry and reflective practice to address real-world challenges, improve teaching and learning, enhance student engagement, and drive positive changes within the educational system.

This post outlines the definition of action research, its stages, and some examples.

Content Index

What is action research?

Stages of action research, the steps to conducting action research, examples of action research, advantages and disadvantages of action research.

Action research is a strategy that tries to find realistic solutions to organizations’ difficulties and issues. It is similar to applied research.

Action research refers basically learning by doing. First, a problem is identified, then some actions are taken to address it, then how well the efforts worked are measured, and if the results are not satisfactory, the steps are applied again.

It can be put into three different groups:

• Positivist: This type of research is also called “classical action research.” It considers research a social experiment. This research is used to test theories in the actual world.
• Interpretive: This kind of research is called “contemporary action research.” It thinks that business reality is socially made, and when doing this research, it focuses on the details of local and organizational factors.
• Critical: This action research cycle takes a critical reflection approach to corporate systems and tries to enhance them.

All research is about learning new things. Collaborative action research contributes knowledge based on investigations in particular and frequently useful circumstances. It starts with identifying a problem. After that, the research process is followed by the below stages:

Stage 1: Plan

For an action research project to go well, the researcher needs to plan it well. After coming up with an educational research topic or question after a research study, the first step is to develop an action plan to guide the research process. The research design aims to address the study’s question. The research strategy outlines what to undertake, when, and how.

Stage 2: Act

The next step is implementing the plan and gathering data. At this point, the researcher must select how to collect and organize research data . The researcher also needs to examine all tools and equipment before collecting data to ensure they are relevant, valid, and comprehensive.

Stage 3: Observe

Data observation is vital to any investigation. The action researcher needs to review the project’s goals and expectations before data observation. This is the final step before drawing conclusions and taking action.

Different kinds of graphs, charts, and networks can be used to represent the data. It assists in making judgments or progressing to the next stage of observing.

Stage 4: Reflect

This step involves applying a prospective solution and observing the results. It’s essential to see if the possible solution found through research can really solve the problem being studied.

The researcher must explore alternative ideas when the action research project’s solutions fail to solve the problem.

Action research is a systematic approach researchers, educators, and practitioners use to identify and address problems or challenges within a specific context. It involves a cyclical process of planning, implementing, reflecting, and adjusting actions based on the data collected. Here are the general steps involved in conducting an action research process:

Identify the action research question or problem

Clearly define the issue or problem you want to address through your research. It should be specific, actionable, and relevant to your working context.

Review existing knowledge

Conduct a literature review to understand what research has already been done on the topic. This will help you gain insights, identify gaps, and inform your research design.

Plan the research

Develop a research plan outlining your study’s objectives, methods, data collection tools, and timeline. Determine the scope of your research and the participants or stakeholders involved.

Collect data

Implement your research plan by collecting relevant data. This can involve various methods such as surveys, interviews, observations, document analysis, or focus groups. Ensure that your data collection methods align with your research objectives and allow you to gather the necessary information.

Analyze the data

Once you have collected the data, analyze it using appropriate qualitative or quantitative techniques. Look for patterns, themes, or trends in the data that can help you understand the problem better.

Reflect on the findings

Reflect on the analyzed data and interpret the results in the context of your research question. Consider the implications and possible solutions that emerge from the data analysis. This reflection phase is crucial for generating insights and understanding the underlying factors contributing to the problem.

Develop an action plan

Based on your analysis and reflection, develop an action plan that outlines the steps you will take to address the identified problem. The plan should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART goals). Consider involving relevant stakeholders in planning to ensure their buy-in and support.

Implement the action plan

Put your action plan into practice by implementing the identified strategies or interventions. This may involve making changes to existing practices, introducing new approaches, or testing alternative solutions. Document the implementation process and any modifications made along the way.

Evaluate and monitor progress

Continuously monitor and evaluate the impact of your actions. Collect additional data, assess the effectiveness of the interventions, and measure progress towards your goals. This evaluation will help you determine if your actions have the desired effects and inform any necessary adjustments.

Reflect and iterate

Reflect on the outcomes of your actions and the evaluation results. Consider what worked well, what did not, and why. Use this information to refine your approach, make necessary adjustments, and plan for the next cycle of action research if needed.

Remember that participatory action research is an iterative process, and multiple cycles may be required to achieve significant improvements or solutions to the identified problem. Each cycle builds on the insights gained from the previous one, fostering continuous learning and improvement.

Explore Insightfully Contextual Inquiry in Qualitative Research

Here are two real-life examples of action research.

Action research initiatives are frequently situation-specific. Still, other researchers can adapt the techniques. The example is from a researcher’s (Franklin, 1994) report about a project encouraging nature tourism in the Caribbean.

In 1991, this was launched to study how nature tourism may be implemented on the four Windward Islands in the Caribbean: St. Lucia, Grenada, Dominica, and St. Vincent.

For environmental protection, a government-led action study determined that the consultation process needs to involve numerous stakeholders, including commercial enterprises.

First, two researchers undertook the study and held search conferences on each island. The search conferences resulted in suggestions and action plans for local community nature tourism sub-projects.

Several islands formed advisory groups and launched national awareness and community projects. Regional project meetings were held to discuss experiences, self-evaluations, and strategies. Creating a documentary about a local initiative helped build community. And the study was a success, leading to a number of changes in the area.

Lau and Hayward (1997) employed action research to analyze Internet-based collaborative work groups.

Over two years, the researchers facilitated three action research problem -solving cycles with 15 teachers, project personnel, and 25 health practitioners from diverse areas. The goal was to see how Internet-based communications might affect their virtual workgroup.

First, expectations were defined, technology was provided, and a bespoke workgroup system was developed. Participants suggested shorter, more dispersed training sessions with project-specific instructions.

The second phase saw the system’s complete deployment. The final cycle witnessed system stability and virtual group formation. The key lesson was that the learning curve was poorly misjudged, with frustrations only marginally met by phone-based technical help. According to the researchers, the absence of high-quality online material about community healthcare was harmful.

Role clarity, connection building, knowledge sharing, resource assistance, and experiential learning are vital for virtual group growth. More study is required on how group support systems might assist groups in engaging with their external environment and boost group members’ learning. 

Action research has both good and bad points.

• It is very flexible, so researchers can change their analyses to fit their needs and make individual changes.
• It offers a quick and easy way to solve problems that have been going on for a long time instead of complicated, long-term solutions based on complex facts.
• If It is done right, it can be very powerful because it can lead to social change and give people the tools to make that change in ways that are important to their communities.

Disadvantages

• These studies have a hard time being generalized and are hard to repeat because they are so flexible. Because the researcher has the power to draw conclusions, they are often not thought to be theoretically sound.
• Setting up an action study in an ethical way can be hard. People may feel like they have to take part or take part in a certain way.
• It is prone to research errors like selection bias , social desirability bias, and other cognitive biases.

LEARN ABOUT: Self-Selection Bias

This post discusses how action research generates knowledge, its steps, and real-life examples. It is very applicable to the field of research and has a high level of relevance. We can only state that the purpose of this research is to comprehend an issue and find a solution to it.

At QuestionPro, we give researchers tools for collecting data, like our survey software, and a library of insights for any long-term study. Go to the Insight Hub if you want to see a demo or learn more about it.

LEARN MORE         FREE TRIAL

Frequently Asked Questions(FAQ’s)

Action research is a systematic approach to inquiry that involves identifying a problem or challenge in a practical context, implementing interventions or changes, collecting and analyzing data, and using the findings to inform decision-making and drive positive change.

Action research can be conducted by various individuals or groups, including teachers, administrators, researchers, and educational practitioners. It is often carried out by those directly involved in the educational setting where the research takes place.

The steps of action research typically include identifying a problem, reviewing relevant literature, designing interventions or changes, collecting and analyzing data, reflecting on findings, and implementing improvements based on the results.

MORE LIKE THIS

The Item I Failed to Leave Behind — Tuesday CX Thoughts

Jun 25, 2024

Feedback Loop: What It Is, Types & How It Works?

Jun 21, 2024

QuestionPro Thrive: A Space to Visualize & Share the Future of Technology

Jun 18, 2024

Relationship NPS Fails to Understand Customer Experiences — Tuesday CX

Other categories.

• Academic Research
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assessments
• Brand Awareness
• Case Studies
• Communities
• Consumer Insights
• Customer effort score
• Customer Engagement
• Customer Experience
• Customer Loyalty
• Customer Research
• Customer Satisfaction
• Employee Benefits
• Employee Engagement
• Employee Retention
• Friday Five
• General Data Protection Regulation
• Insights Hub
• Life@QuestionPro
• Market Research
• Mobile diaries
• Mobile Surveys
• New Features
• Online Communities
• Question Types
• Questionnaire
• QuestionPro Products
• Release Notes
• Research Tools and Apps
• Revenue at Risk
• Survey Templates
• Training Tips
• Tuesday CX Thoughts (TCXT)
• Uncategorized
• Video Learning Series
• What’s Coming Up
• Workforce Intelligence

Warning: The NCBI web site requires JavaScript to function. more...

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
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024 Jan-.

StatPearls [Internet].

Qualitative study.

Steven Tenny ; Janelle M. Brannan ; Grace D. Brannan .

Affiliations

Last Update: September 18, 2022 .

• Introduction

Qualitative research is a type of research that explores and provides deeper insights into real-world problems. [1] Instead of collecting numerical data points or intervening or introducing treatments just like in quantitative research, qualitative research helps generate hypothenar to further investigate and understand quantitative data. Qualitative research gathers participants' experiences, perceptions, and behavior. It answers the hows and whys instead of how many or how much. It could be structured as a standalone study, purely relying on qualitative data, or part of mixed-methods research that combines qualitative and quantitative data. This review introduces the readers to some basic concepts, definitions, terminology, and applications of qualitative research.

Qualitative research, at its core, asks open-ended questions whose answers are not easily put into numbers, such as "how" and "why." [2] Due to the open-ended nature of the research questions, qualitative research design is often not linear like quantitative design. [2] One of the strengths of qualitative research is its ability to explain processes and patterns of human behavior that can be difficult to quantify. [3] Phenomena such as experiences, attitudes, and behaviors can be complex to capture accurately and quantitatively. In contrast, a qualitative approach allows participants themselves to explain how, why, or what they were thinking, feeling, and experiencing at a particular time or during an event of interest. Quantifying qualitative data certainly is possible, but at its core, qualitative data is looking for themes and patterns that can be difficult to quantify, and it is essential to ensure that the context and narrative of qualitative work are not lost by trying to quantify something that is not meant to be quantified.

However, while qualitative research is sometimes placed in opposition to quantitative research, where they are necessarily opposites and therefore "compete" against each other and the philosophical paradigms associated with each other, qualitative and quantitative work are neither necessarily opposites, nor are they incompatible. [4] While qualitative and quantitative approaches are different, they are not necessarily opposites and certainly not mutually exclusive. For instance, qualitative research can help expand and deepen understanding of data or results obtained from quantitative analysis. For example, say a quantitative analysis has determined a correlation between length of stay and level of patient satisfaction, but why does this correlation exist? This dual-focus scenario shows one way in which qualitative and quantitative research could be integrated.

Qualitative Research Approaches

Ethnography

Ethnography as a research design originates in social and cultural anthropology and involves the researcher being directly immersed in the participant’s environment. [2] Through this immersion, the ethnographer can use a variety of data collection techniques to produce a comprehensive account of the social phenomena that occurred during the research period. [2] That is to say, the researcher’s aim with ethnography is to immerse themselves into the research population and come out of it with accounts of actions, behaviors, events, etc, through the eyes of someone involved in the population. Direct involvement of the researcher with the target population is one benefit of ethnographic research because it can then be possible to find data that is otherwise very difficult to extract and record.

Grounded theory

Grounded Theory is the "generation of a theoretical model through the experience of observing a study population and developing a comparative analysis of their speech and behavior." [5] Unlike quantitative research, which is deductive and tests or verifies an existing theory, grounded theory research is inductive and, therefore, lends itself to research aimed at social interactions or experiences. [3] [2] In essence, Grounded Theory’s goal is to explain how and why an event occurs or how and why people might behave a certain way. Through observing the population, a researcher using the Grounded Theory approach can then develop a theory to explain the phenomena of interest.

Phenomenology

Phenomenology is the "study of the meaning of phenomena or the study of the particular.” [5] At first glance, it might seem that Grounded Theory and Phenomenology are pretty similar, but the differences can be seen upon careful examination. At its core, phenomenology looks to investigate experiences from the individual's perspective. [2] Phenomenology is essentially looking into the "lived experiences" of the participants and aims to examine how and why participants behaved a certain way from their perspective. Herein lies one of the main differences between Grounded Theory and Phenomenology. Grounded Theory aims to develop a theory for social phenomena through an examination of various data sources. In contrast, Phenomenology focuses on describing and explaining an event or phenomenon from the perspective of those who have experienced it.

Narrative research

One of qualitative research’s strengths lies in its ability to tell a story, often from the perspective of those directly involved in it. Reporting on qualitative research involves including details and descriptions of the setting involved and quotes from participants. This detail is called a "thick" or "rich" description and is a strength of qualitative research. Narrative research is rife with the possibilities of "thick" description as this approach weaves together a sequence of events, usually from just one or two individuals, hoping to create a cohesive story or narrative. [2] While it might seem like a waste of time to focus on such a specific, individual level, understanding one or two people’s narratives for an event or phenomenon can help to inform researchers about the influences that helped shape that narrative. The tension or conflict of differing narratives can be "opportunities for innovation." [2]

Research Paradigm

Research paradigms are the assumptions, norms, and standards underpinning different research approaches. Essentially, research paradigms are the "worldviews" that inform research. [4] It is valuable for qualitative and quantitative researchers to understand what paradigm they are working within because understanding the theoretical basis of research paradigms allows researchers to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the approach being used and adjust accordingly. Different paradigms have different ontologies and epistemologies. Ontology is defined as the "assumptions about the nature of reality,” whereas epistemology is defined as the "assumptions about the nature of knowledge" that inform researchers' work. [2] It is essential to understand the ontological and epistemological foundations of the research paradigm researchers are working within to allow for a complete understanding of the approach being used and the assumptions that underpin the approach as a whole. Further, researchers must understand their own ontological and epistemological assumptions about the world in general because their assumptions about the world will necessarily impact how they interact with research. A discussion of the research paradigm is not complete without describing positivist, postpositivist, and constructivist philosophies.

Positivist versus postpositivist

To further understand qualitative research, we must discuss positivist and postpositivist frameworks. Positivism is a philosophy that the scientific method can and should be applied to social and natural sciences. [4] Essentially, positivist thinking insists that the social sciences should use natural science methods in their research. It stems from positivist ontology, that there is an objective reality that exists that is wholly independent of our perception of the world as individuals. Quantitative research is rooted in positivist philosophy, which can be seen in the value it places on concepts such as causality, generalizability, and replicability.

Conversely, postpositivists argue that social reality can never be one hundred percent explained, but could be approximated. [4] Indeed, qualitative researchers have been insisting that there are “fundamental limits to the extent to which the methods and procedures of the natural sciences could be applied to the social world,” and therefore, postpositivist philosophy is often associated with qualitative research. [4] An example of positivist versus postpositivist values in research might be that positivist philosophies value hypothesis-testing, whereas postpositivist philosophies value the ability to formulate a substantive theory.

Constructivist

Constructivism is a subcategory of postpositivism. Most researchers invested in postpositivist research are also constructivist, meaning they think there is no objective external reality that exists but instead that reality is constructed. Constructivism is a theoretical lens that emphasizes the dynamic nature of our world. "Constructivism contends that individuals' views are directly influenced by their experiences, and it is these individual experiences and views that shape their perspective of reality.” [6]  constructivist thought focuses on how "reality" is not a fixed certainty and how experiences, interactions, and backgrounds give people a unique view of the world. Constructivism contends, unlike positivist views, that there is not necessarily an "objective"reality we all experience. This is the ‘relativist’ ontological view that reality and our world are dynamic and socially constructed. Therefore, qualitative scientific knowledge can be inductive as well as deductive.” [4]

So why is it important to understand the differences in assumptions that different philosophies and approaches to research have? Fundamentally, the assumptions underpinning the research tools a researcher selects provide an overall base for the assumptions the rest of the research will have. It can even change the role of the researchers. [2] For example, is the researcher an "objective" observer, such as in positivist quantitative work? Or is the researcher an active participant in the research, as in postpositivist qualitative work? Understanding the philosophical base of the study undertaken allows researchers to fully understand the implications of their work and their role within the research and reflect on their positionality and bias as it pertains to the research they are conducting.

Data Sampling 

The better the sample represents the intended study population, the more likely the researcher is to encompass the varying factors. The following are examples of participant sampling and selection: [7]

• Purposive sampling- selection based on the researcher’s rationale for being the most informative.
• Criterion sampling selection based on pre-identified factors.
• Convenience sampling- selection based on availability.
• Snowball sampling- the selection is by referral from other participants or people who know potential participants.
• Extreme case sampling- targeted selection of rare cases.
• Typical case sampling selection based on regular or average participants. 

Data Collection and Analysis

Qualitative research uses several techniques, including interviews, focus groups, and observation. [1] [2] [3] Interviews may be unstructured, with open-ended questions on a topic, and the interviewer adapts to the responses. Structured interviews have a predetermined number of questions that every participant is asked. It is usually one-on-one and appropriate for sensitive topics or topics needing an in-depth exploration. Focus groups are often held with 8-12 target participants and are used when group dynamics and collective views on a topic are desired. Researchers can be participant-observers to share the experiences of the subject or non-participants or detached observers.

While quantitative research design prescribes a controlled environment for data collection, qualitative data collection may be in a central location or the participants' environment, depending on the study goals and design. Qualitative research could amount to a large amount of data. Data is transcribed, which may then be coded manually or using computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software or CAQDAS such as ATLAS.ti or NVivo. [8] [9] [10]

After the coding process, qualitative research results could be in various formats. It could be a synthesis and interpretation presented with excerpts from the data. [11] Results could also be in the form of themes and theory or model development.

Dissemination

The healthcare team can use two reporting standards to standardize and facilitate the dissemination of qualitative research outcomes. The Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research or COREQ is a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. [12] The Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) is a checklist covering a more comprehensive range of qualitative research. [13]

Applications

Many times, a research question will start with qualitative research. The qualitative research will help generate the research hypothesis, which can be tested with quantitative methods. After the data is collected and analyzed with quantitative methods, a set of qualitative methods can be used to dive deeper into the data to better understand what the numbers truly mean and their implications. The qualitative techniques can then help clarify the quantitative data and also help refine the hypothesis for future research. Furthermore, with qualitative research, researchers can explore poorly studied subjects with quantitative methods. These include opinions, individual actions, and social science research.

An excellent qualitative study design starts with a goal or objective. This should be clearly defined or stated. The target population needs to be specified. A method for obtaining information from the study population must be carefully detailed to ensure no omissions of part of the target population. A proper collection method should be selected that will help obtain the desired information without overly limiting the collected data because, often, the information sought is not well categorized or obtained. Finally, the design should ensure adequate methods for analyzing the data. An example may help better clarify some of the various aspects of qualitative research.

A researcher wants to decrease the number of teenagers who smoke in their community. The researcher could begin by asking current teen smokers why they started smoking through structured or unstructured interviews (qualitative research). The researcher can also get together a group of current teenage smokers and conduct a focus group to help brainstorm factors that may have prevented them from starting to smoke (qualitative research).

In this example, the researcher has used qualitative research methods (interviews and focus groups) to generate a list of ideas of why teens start to smoke and factors that may have prevented them from starting to smoke. Next, the researcher compiles this data. The research found that, hypothetically, peer pressure, health issues, cost, being considered "cool," and rebellious behavior all might increase or decrease the likelihood of teens starting to smoke.

The researcher creates a survey asking teen participants to rank how important each of the above factors is in either starting smoking (for current smokers) or not smoking (for current nonsmokers). This survey provides specific numbers (ranked importance of each factor) and is thus a quantitative research tool.

The researcher can use the survey results to focus efforts on the one or two highest-ranked factors. Let us say the researcher found that health was the primary factor that keeps teens from starting to smoke, and peer pressure was the primary factor that contributed to teens starting smoking. The researcher can go back to qualitative research methods to dive deeper into these for more information. The researcher wants to focus on keeping teens from starting to smoke, so they focus on the peer pressure aspect.

The researcher can conduct interviews and focus groups (qualitative research) about what types and forms of peer pressure are commonly encountered, where the peer pressure comes from, and where smoking starts. The researcher hypothetically finds that peer pressure often occurs after school at the local teen hangouts, mostly in the local park. The researcher also hypothetically finds that peer pressure comes from older, current smokers who provide the cigarettes.

The researcher could further explore this observation made at the local teen hangouts (qualitative research) and take notes regarding who is smoking, who is not, and what observable factors are at play for peer pressure to smoke. The researcher finds a local park where many local teenagers hang out and sees that the smokers tend to hang out in a shady, overgrown area of the park. The researcher notes that smoking teenagers buy their cigarettes from a local convenience store adjacent to the park, where the clerk does not check identification before selling cigarettes. These observations fall under qualitative research.

If the researcher returns to the park and counts how many individuals smoke in each region, this numerical data would be quantitative research. Based on the researcher's efforts thus far, they conclude that local teen smoking and teenagers who start to smoke may decrease if there are fewer overgrown areas of the park and the local convenience store does not sell cigarettes to underage individuals.

The researcher could try to have the parks department reassess the shady areas to make them less conducive to smokers or identify how to limit the sales of cigarettes to underage individuals by the convenience store. The researcher would then cycle back to qualitative methods of asking at-risk populations their perceptions of the changes and what factors are still at play, and quantitative research that includes teen smoking rates in the community and the incidence of new teen smokers, among others. [14] [15]

Qualitative research functions as a standalone research design or combined with quantitative research to enhance our understanding of the world. Qualitative research uses techniques including structured and unstructured interviews, focus groups, and participant observation not only to help generate hypotheses that can be more rigorously tested with quantitative research but also to help researchers delve deeper into the quantitative research numbers, understand what they mean, and understand what the implications are. Qualitative research allows researchers to understand what is going on, especially when things are not easily categorized. [16]

• Issues of Concern

As discussed in the sections above, quantitative and qualitative work differ in many ways, including the evaluation criteria. There are four well-established criteria for evaluating quantitative data: internal validity, external validity, reliability, and objectivity. Credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability are the correlating concepts in qualitative research. [4] [11] The corresponding quantitative and qualitative concepts can be seen below, with the quantitative concept on the left and the qualitative concept on the right:

• Internal validity: Credibility
• External validity: Transferability
• Reliability: Dependability
• Objectivity: Confirmability

In conducting qualitative research, ensuring these concepts are satisfied and well thought out can mitigate potential issues from arising. For example, just as a researcher will ensure that their quantitative study is internally valid, qualitative researchers should ensure that their work has credibility. 

Indicators such as triangulation and peer examination can help evaluate the credibility of qualitative work.

• Triangulation: Triangulation involves using multiple data collection methods to increase the likelihood of getting a reliable and accurate result. In our above magic example, the result would be more reliable if we interviewed the magician, backstage hand, and the person who "vanished." In qualitative research, triangulation can include telephone surveys, in-person surveys, focus groups, and interviews and surveying an adequate cross-section of the target demographic.
• Peer examination: A peer can review results to ensure the data is consistent with the findings.

A "thick" or "rich" description can be used to evaluate the transferability of qualitative research, whereas an indicator such as an audit trail might help evaluate the dependability and confirmability.

• Thick or rich description:  This is a detailed and thorough description of details, the setting, and quotes from participants in the research. [5] Thick descriptions will include a detailed explanation of how the study was conducted. Thick descriptions are detailed enough to allow readers to draw conclusions and interpret the data, which can help with transferability and replicability.
• Audit trail: An audit trail provides a documented set of steps of how the participants were selected and the data was collected. The original information records should also be kept (eg, surveys, notes, recordings).

One issue of concern that qualitative researchers should consider is observation bias. Here are a few examples:

• Hawthorne effect: The effect is the change in participant behavior when they know they are being observed. Suppose a researcher wanted to identify factors that contribute to employee theft and tell the employees they will watch them to see what factors affect employee theft. In that case, one would suspect employee behavior would change when they know they are being protected.
• Observer-expectancy effect: Some participants change their behavior or responses to satisfy the researcher's desired effect. This happens unconsciously for the participant, so it is essential to eliminate or limit the transmission of the researcher's views.
• Artificial scenario effect: Some qualitative research occurs in contrived scenarios with preset goals. In such situations, the information may not be accurate because of the artificial nature of the scenario. The preset goals may limit the qualitative information obtained.
• Clinical Significance

Qualitative or quantitative research helps healthcare providers understand patients and the impact and challenges of the care they deliver. Qualitative research provides an opportunity to generate and refine hypotheses and delve deeper into the data generated by quantitative research. Qualitative research is not an island apart from quantitative research but an integral part of research methods to understand the world around us. [17]

• Enhancing Healthcare Team Outcomes

Qualitative research is essential for all healthcare team members as all are affected by qualitative research. Qualitative research may help develop a theory or a model for health research that can be further explored by quantitative research. Much of the qualitative research data acquisition is completed by numerous team members, including social workers, scientists, nurses, etc. Within each area of the medical field, there is copious ongoing qualitative research, including physician-patient interactions, nursing-patient interactions, patient-environment interactions, healthcare team function, patient information delivery, etc. 

• Review Questions
• Access free multiple choice questions on this topic.
• Comment on this article.

Disclosure: Steven Tenny declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.

Disclosure: Janelle Brannan declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.

Disclosure: Grace Brannan declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.

This book is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ), which permits others to distribute the work, provided that the article is not altered or used commercially. You are not required to obtain permission to distribute this article, provided that you credit the author and journal.

• Cite this Page Tenny S, Brannan JM, Brannan GD. Qualitative Study. [Updated 2022 Sep 18]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024 Jan-.

In this Page

Bulk download.

• Bulk download StatPearls data from FTP

Related information

• PMC PubMed Central citations
• PubMed Links to PubMed

Similar articles in PubMed

• Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas. [Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022] Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas. Crider K, Williams J, Qi YP, Gutman J, Yeung L, Mai C, Finkelstain J, Mehta S, Pons-Duran C, Menéndez C, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1; 2(2022). Epub 2022 Feb 1.
• Macromolecular crowding: chemistry and physics meet biology (Ascona, Switzerland, 10-14 June 2012). [Phys Biol. 2013] Macromolecular crowding: chemistry and physics meet biology (Ascona, Switzerland, 10-14 June 2012). Foffi G, Pastore A, Piazza F, Temussi PA. Phys Biol. 2013 Aug; 10(4):040301. Epub 2013 Aug 2.
• The future of Cochrane Neonatal. [Early Hum Dev. 2020] The future of Cochrane Neonatal. Soll RF, Ovelman C, McGuire W. Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov; 150:105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.
• Review Invited review: Qualitative research in dairy science-A narrative review. [J Dairy Sci. 2023] Review Invited review: Qualitative research in dairy science-A narrative review. Ritter C, Koralesky KE, Saraceni J, Roche S, Vaarst M, Kelton D. J Dairy Sci. 2023 Sep; 106(9):5880-5895. Epub 2023 Jul 18.
• Review Participation in environmental enhancement and conservation activities for health and well-being in adults: a review of quantitative and qualitative evidence. [Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016] Review Participation in environmental enhancement and conservation activities for health and well-being in adults: a review of quantitative and qualitative evidence. Husk K, Lovell R, Cooper C, Stahl-Timmins W, Garside R. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 May 21; 2016(5):CD010351. Epub 2016 May 21.

Recent Activity

• Qualitative Study - StatPearls Qualitative Study - StatPearls

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

5 Collecting Data in Your Classroom

ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS

• What sort of methodological considerations are necessary to collect data in your educational context?
• What methods of data collection will be most effective for your study?
• What are the affordances and limitations associated with your data collection methods?
• What does it mean to triangulate data, and why is it necessary?

As you develop an action plan for your action research project, you will be thinking about the primary task of conducting research, and probably contemplating the data you will collect. It is likely you have asked yourself questions related to the methods you will be using, how you will organize the data collection, and how each piece of data is related within the larger project. This chapter will help you think through these questions.

Data Collection

The data collection methods used in educational research have originated from a variety of disciplines (anthropology, history, psychology, sociology), which has resulted in a variety of research frameworks to draw upon. As discussed in the previous chapter, the challenge for educator-researchers is to develop a research plan and related activities that are focused and manageable to study. While human beings like structure and definitions, especially when we encounter new experiences, educators-as-researchers frequently disregard the accepted frameworks related to research and rely on their own subjective knowledge from their own pedagogical experiences when taking on the role of educator-researcher in educational settings. Relying on subjective knowledge enables teachers to engage more effectively as researchers in their educational context. Educator-researchers especially rely on this subjective knowledge in educational contexts to modify their data collection methodologies. Subjective knowledge negotiates the traditional research frameworks with the data collection possibilities of their practice, while also considering their unique educational context. This empowers educators as researchers, utilizing action research, to be powerful agents for change in educational contexts.

Thinking about Types of Data

Whether the research design is qualitative, quantitative or mixed-methods, it will determine the methods or ways you use to collect data. Qualitative research designs focus on collecting data that is relational, interpretive, subjective, and inductive; whereas a typical quantitative study, collects data that are deductive, statistical, and objective.

In contrast, qualitative data is often in the form of language, while quantitative data typically involves numbers. Quantitative researchers require large numbers of participants for validity, while qualitative researchers use a smaller number of participants, and can even use one (Hatch, 2002). In the past, quantitative and qualitative educational researchers rarely interacted, sometimes holding contempt for each other’s work; and even published articles in separate journals based on having distinct theoretical orientations in terms of data collection. Overall, there is a greater appreciation for both quantitative and qualitative approaches, with scholars finding distinct value in each approach, yet in many circles the debate continues over which approach is more beneficial for educational research and in educational contexts.

The goal of qualitative data collection is to build a complex and nuanced description of social or human problems from multiple perspectives. The flexibility and ability to use a variety of data collection techniques encompasses a distinct stance on research. Qualitative researchers are able to capture conversations and everyday language, as well as situational attitudes and beliefs. Qualitative data collection is able to be fitted to the study, with the goal of collecting the most authentic data, not necessarily the most objective. To researchers who strictly use quantitative methods, qualitative methods may seem wholly unstructured, eclectic, and idiosyncratic; however, for qualitative researchers these characteristics are advantageous to their purpose. Quantitative research depends upon structure and is bounded to find relationship among variables and units of measurement. Quantitative research helps make sense of large amounts of data. Both quantitative and qualitative research help us address education challenges by better identifying what is happening, with the goal of identifying why it is happening, and how we can address it.

Most educator-researchers who engage in research projects in schools and classrooms utilize qualitative methodologies for their data collection. Educator-researchers also use mixed methods that focus on qualitative methods, but also use quantitative methods, such as surveys, to provide a multidimensional approach to inquiring about their topic. While qualitative methods may feel more comfortable, there is a methodological rationale for using quantitative research.

Research methodologists use two distinct forms of logic to describe research: induction and deduction. Inductive approaches are focused on developing new or emerging theories, by explaining the accumulation of evidence that provides meaning to similar circumstances. Deductive approaches move in the opposite direction, and create meaning about a particular situation by reasoning from a general idea or theory about the particular circumstances. While qualitative approaches are inductive – observe and then generate theories, for example – qualitative researchers will typically initiate studies with some preconceived notions of potential theories to support their work.

Flexible Research Design

A researcher’s decisions about data collection and activities involve a personal choice, yet the choice of data sources must be responsive to the proposed project and topic. Logically, researchers will use whatever validated methods help them to address the issue they are researching and will develop a research plan around activities to implement those methods. While a research plan is important to conducting valid research in schools and classrooms, a research plan should also be flexible in design to allow data to emerge and find the best data to address research questions. In this way, a research plan is recommended, but data collection methods are not always known in advance. As you, the educator-researcher, interacts with participants, you may find it necessary to continue the research with additional data sources to better address the question at the center of your research. When educators are researchers and a participant in their study, it is especially important to keep an open mind to the wide range of research methodologies. All-in-all educator-researchers should understand that there are varied and multiple paths to move from research questions to addressing those questions.

Mixed Methods

As mentioned above, mixed methods is the use of both qualitative and quantitative methods. Researchers generally use mixed methods to clarify findings from the initial method of data collection. In mixed-methods research, the educator-researcher has increased flexibility in data collection. Mixed methods studies often result in a combination of precise measurements (e.g., grades, test scores, survey, etc.) along with in-depth qualitative data that provide meaningful detail to those measurements. The key advantage of using mixed methods is that quantitative details enhance qualitative data sources that involve conclusions and use terms such as usually, some, or most which can be substituted with a number or quantity, such as percentages or averages, or the mean, the median, and/or the mode. One challenge to educator-researchers is that mixed methods require more time and resources to complete the study, and more familiarity about both qualitative and quantitative data collection methods.

Mixed methods in educator research, even if quantitative methods are only used minimally, provide an opportunity to clarify findings, fill gaps in understanding, and cross-check data. For example, if you are looking at the use of math journals to better engage students and improve their math scores, it would be helpful to understand their abilities in math and reading before analyzing the math journals. Therefore, looking at their test scores might give you some nuanced understanding of why some students improved more than others after using the math journals. Pre- and post-surveys would also provide valuable information in terms of students’ attitudes and beliefs about math and writing. In line with thinking about pre- and post-surveys, some researchers suggest using either qualitative or quantitative approaches in different phases of the research process. In the previous example, pre- and post test scores may quantitatively demonstrate growth or improvement after implementing the math journal; however, the qualitative data would provide detailed evidence as to why the math journals contributed to growth or improvement in math. Quantitative methods can establish relationships among variables, while qualitative methods can explain factors underlying those same relationships.

I caution the reader at this point to not simply think of qualitative methodologies as anecdotal details to quantitative reports. I only highlight mixed methods to introduce the strength of such studies, and to aid in moving educational research methodology away from the binary thinking of quantitative vs. qualitative. In thinking about data collection, possible data sources include questionnaires or surveys, observations (video or written notes), collaboration (meetings, peer coaching), interviews, tests and records, pictures, diaries, transcripts of video and audio recordings, personal journals, student work samples, e-mail and online communication, and any other pertinent documents and reports. As you begin to think about data collection you will consider the available materials and think about aspects discussed in the previous chapter: who, what, where, when, and how. Specifically:

• Who are the subjects or participants for the study?
• What data is vital evidence for this study?
• Where will the data be collected?
• When will the data be collected?
• How will the data be collected?

If you find you are having trouble identifying data sources that support your initial question, you may need to revise your research question – and make sure what you are asking is researchable or measurable. The research question can always change throughout the study, but it should only be in relation the data being collected.

Participant Data

As an educator, your possible participants selection pool is narrower than most researchers encounter – however, it is important to be clear about their role in the data design and collection. A study can involve one participant or multiple participants, and participants often serve as the primary source of data in the research process. Most studies by educator-researchers utilize purposeful sampling, or in other words, they select participants who will be able to provide the most relevant information to the study. Therefore, the study design relies upon the participants and the information they can provide. The following is a description of some data collection methods, which include: surveys or questionnaires, individual or group interviews, observations, field notes or diaries, narratives, documents, and elicitation.

Surveys, or questionnaires, are a research instrument frequently used to receive data about participants’ feelings, beliefs, and attitudes in regard to the research topic or activities. Surveys are often used for large sample sizes with the intent of generalizing from a sample population to a larger population. Surveys are used with any number of participants and can be administered at different times during the study, such as pre-activity and post-activity, with the same participants to determine if changes have occurred over the course of the activity time, or simply change over time. Researchers like surveys and questionnaires as an instrument because they can be distributed and collected easily – especially with all of the recent online application possibilities (e.g., Google, Facebook, etc.). Surveys come in several forms, closed-ended, open-ended, or a mix of the two. Closed-ended surveys are typically multiple-choice questions or scales (e.g. 1-5, most likely–least likely) that allow participants to rate or select a response for each question. These responses can easily be tabulated into meaningful number representations, like percentages. For example, Likert scales are often used with a five-point range, with options such as strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, and strongly disagree. Open-ended surveys consist of prompts for participants to add their own perspectives in short answer or limited word responses. Open-ended surveys are not always as easy to tabulate, but can provide more detail and description.

Interviews and Focus Groups

Interviews are frequently used by researchers because they often produce some of the most worthwhile data. Interviews allow researchers to obtain candid verbal perspectives through structured or semi-structured questioning. Interview questions, either structured or semi-structured, are related to the research question or research activities to gauge the participants’ thoughts, feelings, motivations, and reflections. Some research relies on interviewing as the primary data source, but most often interviews are used to strengthen and support other data sources. Interviews can be time consuming, but interviews are worthwhile in that you can gather richer and more revealing information than other methods that could be utilized (Koshy, 2010). Lincoln and Guba (1985) identified five outcomes of interviewing:

Outcomes of Interviewing

• Here and now explanations;
• Reconstructions of past events and experiences;
• Projections of anticipated experiences;
• Verification of information from other sources;
• Verification of information (p. 268).

As mentioned above, interviews typically take two forms: structured and semi-structured. In terms of interviews, structured means that the researcher identifies a certain number of questions, in a prescribed sequence, and the researcher asks each participant these questions in the same order. Structured interviews qualitatively resemble surveys and questionnaires because they are consistent, easy to administer, provide direct responses, and make tabulation and analysis more consistent. Structured interviews use an interview protocol to organize questions, and maintain consistency.

Semi-structured interviews have a prescribed set of questions and protocol, just like structured interviews, but the researcher does not have to follow those questions or order explicitly. The researcher should ask the same questions to each participant for comparison reasons, but semi-structured interviews allow the researcher to ask follow-up questions that stray from the protocol. The semi-structured interview is intended to allow for new, emerging topics to be obtained from participants. Semi-structured questions can be included in more structured protocols, which allows for the participant to add additional information beyond the formal questions and for the researcher to return to preplanned formal questions after the participant responds. Participants can be interviewed individually or collectively, and while individual interviews are time-consuming, they can provide more in-depth information.

When considering more than two participants for an interview, researchers will often use a focus group interview format. Focus group interviews typically involve three to ten participants and seek to gain socially dependent perspectives or organizational viewpoints. When using focus group interviews with students, researchers often find them beneficial because they allow student reflection and ideas to build off of each other. This is important because often times students feel shy or hesitant to share their ideas with adults, but once another student sparks or confirms their idea, belief, or opinion they are more willing to share. Focus group interviews are very effective as pre- and post-activity data sources. Researchers can use either a structured or semi-structured interview protocol for focus group interviews; however, with multiple participants it may be difficult to maintain the integrity of a structured protocol.

Observations

One of the simplest, and most natural, forms of data collection is to engage in formal observation. Observing humans in a setting provides us contextual understanding of the complexity of human behavior and interrelationships among groups in that setting. If a researcher wants to examine the ways teachers approach a particular area of pedagogical practice, then observation would be a viable data collection tool. Formal observations are truly unique and allow the researcher to collect data that cannot be obtained through other data sources. Ethnography is a qualitative research design that provides a descriptive account based on researchers’ observations and explorations to examine the social dynamics present in cultures and social systems – which includes classrooms and schools. Taken from anthropology, the ethnographer uses observations and detailed note taking, along with other forms of mapping or making sense of the context and relationships within. For Creswell (2007), several guidelines provide structure to an observation:

Structuring Observations

• Identify what to observe
• Determine the role you will assume — observer or participant
• Design observational protocol for recording notes
• Record information such as physical situation, particular events and activities
• Thank participants and inform them of the use of and their accessibility to the data (pp. 132– 134)

As an educator-researcher, you may take on a role that exceeds that of an observer and participate as a member of the research setting. In this case, the data sources would be called participant observation to clearly identify the degree of involvement you have in the study. In participant observation, the researcher embeds themselves in the actions of the participants. It is important to understand that participant observation will provide completely different data, in comparison to simply observing someone else. Ethnographies, or studies focused completely on observation as a data source, often extend longer than other data sources, ranging from several months to even years. Extended time provides the researcher the ability to obtain more detailed and accurate information, because it takes time to observe patterns and other details that are significant to the study. Self-study is another consideration for educators, if they want to use observation and be a participant observer. They can use video and audio recordings of their activities to use as data sources and use those as the source of observation.

Field Diaries and Notes

Utilizing a field dairy, or keeping field notes, can be a very effective and practical data collection method. In purpose, a field diary or notes keep a record of what happens during the research activities. It can be useful in tracking how and why your ideas and the research process evolved. Many educators keep daily notes about their classes, and in many ways, this is a more focused and narrower version of documenting the daily happenings of a class. A field diary or notes can also serve as an account of your reflections and commentary on your study, and can be a starting place for your data analysis and interpretations. A field diary or notes are typically valuable when researchers begin to write about their project because it allows them to draw upon their authentic voice. The reflective process that represents a diary can also serve as an additional layer of professional learning for researchers. The format and length of a field diary or notes will vary depending on the researching and the topic; however, the ultimate goal should be to facilitate data collection and analysis.

Data narratives and stories are a fairly new form of formalized data. While researchers have collected bits and pieces of narratives in other forms of data, asking participants to compose a narrative (either written, spoken, or performed) as a whole allows researchers to examine how participants embrace the complexities of the context and social interactions. Humans are programmed to engage with and share narratives to develop meaningful and experiential knowledge. Educator autobiographies bring to life personal stories shaped by knowledge, values, and feelings that developed from their classroom experiences. Narrative data includes three primary areas: temporality, sociality, and place (Clandinin & Conolley, 2000). In terms of temporality, narratives have a past, present, and future because stories are time-based and transitional. Sociality highlights the social relationships in narratives as well as the personal and moral dispositions. Place includes the spaces where the narratives happen. Furthermore, bell hooks (1991) notes that narratives, or storytelling, as inquiry can be a powerful way to study how contexts are influenced by power structures, often linking and intersecting the structural dynamics of social class, race, and gender to highlight the struggle.

Documents provide a way to collect data that is unobtrusive to the participant. Documents are unobtrusive data because it is collected without modifying or distracting the research context when gathered. Educational settings maintain records on all sorts of activities in schools: content standards, state mandates, student discipline records, student attendance, student assessments, performance records, parental engagement, records of how teachers spend PTO money, etc. Documents often provide background and contextual material providing a snapshot of school policies, demographic information, ongoing records over a period of time, and contextual details from the site of the research study. Documents can be characterized similarly to historical research, as primary and secondary. Examples of primary materials are first-hand sources from someone in the educational context, such as minutes from a school board or faculty meeting, photographs, video recordings, and letters. Examples of secondary sources typically include analysis or interpretations of a primary source by others, such as texts, critiques, and reviews. Both types of sources are especially valuable in action research.

Elicitation Methods

We have talked about several methods of data collection that each have useful ways of documenting, inquiring, and thinking about the research question. However, how does a researcher engage participants in ways that allow them to demonstrate what they know, feel, think, or believe? Asking participants directly about their thinking, feeling, or beliefs will only take you so far depending on the comfort and rapport the participant has with the researcher. There are always a variety of hurdles in extracting participants’ knowledge. Even the manner in which questions are framed and the way researchers use materials in the research process are equally important in getting participants to provide reliable, comparable, and valid responses. Furthermore, all individuals who participate in research studies vary in their ability to recall and report what they know, and this affects the value of traditional data collection, especially structured and semi-structured interviewing. In particular, participants’ knowledge or other thinking of interest may be implicit and difficult for them to explicate in simple discussion.

Elicitation methods help researchers uncover unarticulated participant knowledge through a potential variety of activities. Researchers will employ elicitation methods and document the participants’ actions and typically the description of why they took those particular actions. Educators may be able to relate the process of elicitation methods to a “think aloud” activity in which the researcher wants to record or document the activity. Elicitation methods can take many forms. What follows are some basic ideas and formats for elicitation methods.

Brainstorming/Concept Map

Most educators are probably familiar with the process of brainstorming or creating a concept map. These can be very effective elicitation methods when the researcher asks the participant to create a concept map or representation of brainstorming, and then asks the participant to explain the connections between concepts or ideas on the brainstorming or concept map.

Sorting provides an engaging way to gather data from your participants. Sorting, as you can imagine, involves participants sorting, grouping, or categorizing objects or photographs in meaningful ways. Once participants have sorted the objects or photographs, the researcher records or documents the participant explaining why they sorted or grouped the objects or photographs in the way that they did. As a former history teacher, I would often use sorting to assess my students’ understanding of related concepts and events in a world history class. I would use pictures too as the means for students to sort and demonstrate what they understood from the unit. For broader discussion of elicitation techniques in history education see Barton (2015).

Listing/ Ranking

Listing can be an effective way to examine participants’ thinking about a topic. Researchers can have participants construct a list in many different ways to fit the focus of the study and then have the participants explain their list. For example, if an educator was studying middle school student perceptions of careers, they could ask them to complete three lists: Careers in Most Demand; Careers with Most Education/Training; Careers of most Interest.

Then, once participants have filled out the lists, the most important part is documenting them explaining their thinking, and why they filled out the lists the way they did. As you may imagine, in this example, every participant would have a list that is different based on their personal interests.

Researchers can also elicit responses by simply giving participants a prompt, and then asking them to recall whatever they know about that prompt. Researchers will have the participants do this in some sort of demonstrative activity. For example, at the end of a world history course, I might ask students to explain what “culture” means to them and to explain their thinking.

Re-articulation (writing or drawing)

A unique way to engage participants in elicitation methods is to have them write about, rewrite, or draw visual representations of either life experiences or literature that they have read. For example, you could ask them to rewrite a part of the literature they did not like, add a part they thought should be there, or simply extend the ending. Participants can either write or draw these re-articulations. I find that drawing works just as well because, again, the goal is to have participant describe their thinking based on the activity.  

Scenario Decision-Making

Elicitation methods can also examine skills. Researchers can provide participants scenarios and ask them to make decisions. The researchers can document those decisions and analyze the extent to which the participant understands the skill.

  Document, Photograph, or Video Analysis

This is the most basic elicitation in which the researcher provides a document, photograph, or video for the participant to examine. Then, the researcher asks questions about the participants interpretations of the document, photograph, or video. One method that would support this sort of elicitation is to ask the participants to provide images from their everyday words. For example, asking students to document the literacy examples in their homes (i.e., pictures of calendars, bookshelves etc.).  With the availability of one-to-one tech, and iPads, participant documentation is easier.

There are many more methods of data collection also, as well as many variations of the methods described above. The goal for you is to find the data collection methods that are going to give you the best data to answer your research question. If you are unsure, there is nothing wrong with collecting more data than you need to make sure you use effective methods – the only thing you have to lose is time!

Use of Case Studies

Case studies are a popular way for studying phenomena in settings using qualitative methodology. Case studies typically encompass qualitative studies which look closely at what happens when researchers collect data, analyze the data, and present the results. Case studies can focus on a single case or examine a phenomenon across multiple cases. Case studies frame research in a way that allows for rich description of data and depth of analysis.

An advantage of using case study design is that the reader often identifies with the case or phenomena, as well as the participants in the study. Yin (2003) describes case study methodology as inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its authentic context. Case studies are particularly appropriate when the boundaries and relationship between the phenomenon and the context are not clear. Case studies relate well with the processes involved in action research. Critics of action research case studies sometimes criticize the inevitable subjectivity, just like general criticisms of action research. Case studies provide researchers opportunities to explore both the how and the why of phenomena in context, while being both exploratory and descriptive.

We want to clarify the differences between methodologies and methods of research. There are methodologies of research, like case study and action research, and methods of data collection. Methodologies like ethnography, narrative inquiry, and case study draw from some similar methods of data collecting that include interviews, collection of artifacts (writings, drawings, images), and observations. The differences between the methodologies include the time-frame for research; the boundaries of the research; and the epistemology.

Triangulation of Data

Triangulation is a method used by qualitative researchers to check and establish trustworthiness in their studies by using and analyzing multiple (three or more) data collection methods to address a research question and develop a consistency of evidence from data sources or approaches. Thus, triangulation facilitates trustworthiness of data through cross verification of evidence, to support claims, from more than two data collection sources. Triangulation also tests the consistency of findings obtained through different data sources and instruments, while minimizing bias in the researcher’s interpretations of the data.

If we think about the example of studying the use of math journals in an elementary classroom, the researcher would want to collect at least three sources of data – the journal prompts, assessment scores, and interviews. When the researcher is analyzing the data, they will want to find themes or evidence across all three data sources to address their research question. In a very basic analysis, if the students demonstrated a deeper level of reflection about math in the journals, their assessment scores improved, and their interviews demonstrated they had more confidence in their number sense and math abilities – then, the researcher could conclude, on a very general level, that math journals improved their students’ math skills, confidence, or abilities. Ideally, the study would examine specific aspects of math to enable deeper analysis of math journals, but this example demonstrates the basic idea of triangulation. In this example, all of the data provided evidence that the intervention of a math journal improved students’ understanding of math, and the three data sources provided trustworthiness for this claim.

Data Collection Checklist

• Based on your research question, what data might you need ?
• What are the multiple ways you could collect that data ?
• How might you document this data , or organize it so that it can be analyzed?
• What methods are most appropriate for your context and timeframe ?
• How much time will your data collection require? How much time can you allow for?
• Will you need to create any data sources (e.g., interview protocol, elicitation materials)?
• Do your data sources all logically support the research question, and each other?
• Does your data collection provide for multiple perspectives ?
• How will your data achieve triangulation in addressing the research question?
• Will you need more than three data sources to ensure triangulation of data?

Action Research Copyright © by J. Spencer Clark; Suzanne Porath; Julie Thiele; and Morgan Jobe is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book