limitations to action research

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

16.5: The Challenges of Action Research

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 86883

Well and good, you may say. Action research offers teachers a way to hear each other, to learn from their own and other’s experience. But there are also a few cautions to keep in mind, both ethical and practical. Look briefly at each of these areas.

Ethical cautions about action research

One caution is the possibility of conflict of interest between the roles of teaching and conducting action research (Hammack, 1997). A teacher’s first priorities should be the welfare of his or her students: first and foremost, you want students to learn, to be motivated, to feel accepted by their peers, and the like. A researcher’s first priorities, however, are to the field or topic being studied. The two kinds of priorities may often overlap and support each other. Vivian Paley’s observations of children in her classes, described earlier, not only supported her children’s learning, but also her studies of the children.

But situations can also occur in which action research and teaching are less compatible, and can create ethical dilemmas. The problems usually relate to one of three issues: privacy, informed consent, or freedom to participate. Each of these becomes an issue only if the results of a research project are made public, either in a journal or book, as with the examples we have given in this chapter, or simply by being described or shared outside the classroom. (Sharing, you may recall, is one of the defining features of action research.) Look briefly at each of the issues.

Insuring privacy of the student

Teachers often learn information about students that the students or their families may not want publicized. Suppose, for example, you have a student with an intellectual disability in your class, and you wish to study how the student learns. Observing the student work on (and possibly struggle with) academic activities may be quite consistent with a teacher’s responsibilities; after all, teachers normally should pay attention to their students’ academic efforts. But the student or his family may not want such observations publicized or even shared informally with other parents or teachers. They may feel that doing so would risk stigmatizing the student publicly.

To respect the student’s privacy and still study his learning behavior, the teacher (alias the “action researcher”) therefore needs to disguise the student’s identity whenever the research results are made public. In any written or oral report, or even in any hallway conversation about the project, the teacher/researcher would use a pseudonym for the student, and change other identifying information such as the physical description of the student or even the student’s gender. There are limits, however, to how much can be disguised without changing essential information. The teacher could not, for example, hide the fact of the intellectual disability without compromising the point of the study; yet the intellectual disability might be unusual enough that it would effectively identify the student being studied.

Gaining informed consent

Students may not understand what is being studied about them, or even realize that they are being studied at all, unless the teacher/researcher makes an explicit effort to inform them about the action research and how she will use the results from it. The same is true for the students’ parents; unless the teacher-researcher makes an effort to contact parents, they simply will not know that their child’s activities are being observed or may eventually be made public. Students’ ignorance is especially likely if the students are very young (kindergarten) or have intellectual or reading difficulties, as in the example we described above. As an action researcher, therefore, a teacher is obliged to explain the nature of a research project clearly, either in a letter written in simple language or in a face-to-face conversation, or both. Parents and students need to give clear indications that they actually understand what class activities or materials will constitute data that could be made public. In most cases, indicating informed consent means asking students’ parents signing a letter giving permission for the study. Sometimes, in addition, it is a good idea to recheck with students or parents periodically as the project unfolds, to make sure that they still support participation.

Insuring freedom to participate

When a student fails to participate in an ordinary class activity, most teachers consider it legitimate to insist on the student’s participation—either by persuading, demanding, or (perhaps) tricking the student to join. Doing so is ethical for teachers in their roles as teachers, because teachers are primarily responsible for insuring that students learn, and students’ participation presumably facilitates learning. If a teacher designates an activity as part of an action research project, however, and later shares the results with them, the teacher then also becomes partly responsible for how other teachers use knowledge of the research study. (Remember: sharing results is intrinsically part of the research process.) The resulting dual commitment means that “forcing” a student to participate in an action research activity can no longer be justified solely as being for the student’s own educational good.

Much of the time, a simultaneous commitment to both teachers and students presents no real dilemma: what is good for the action research project may also be good for the students. But not always. Suppose, for example, that a teacher wants to do research about students’ beliefs about war and global conflict, and doing so requires that students participate in numerous extended group discussions on this topic. Even though the group discussions might resemble a social studies lesson and in this sense be generally acceptable as a class activity, some parents (or students) may object because they take too much class time away from the normal curriculum topics. Yet the research project necessitates giving it lots of discussion time in class. To respond ethically to this dilemma, therefore, the teacher may need to allow students to opt out of the discussions if they or their parents choose. She may therefore need to find ways for them to cover an alternate set of activities from the curriculum. (One way to do this, for example, is to hold the special group discussions outside regular class times—though this obviously also increases the amount of work for both the teacher and students.)

Practical issues about action research

Is action research practical? From one perspective the answer has to be “Of course not!” Action research is not practical because it may take teachers’ time and effort which they could sometimes use in other ways. Keep in mind, though, that a major part of the effort needed for action research involves the same sort of work—observing, recording information, reflecting—that is needed for any teaching that is done well. A better way to assess practicality may therefore be to recognize that teaching students always takes a lot of work, and to ask whether the additional thoughtfulness brought on by action research will make the teaching more successful.

Looked at in this way, action research is indeed practical, though probably not equally so on every occasion. If you choose to learn about the quality of conversational exchanges between yourself and students, for example, you will need some way to record these dialogues, or at least to keep accurate, detailed notes on them. Recording the dialogues may be practical and beneficial—or not, depending on your circumstances. On the other hand, if you choose to study how and why certain students remain on the margins of your class socially, this problem too may be practical as action research. Or it may not, depending on whether you can find a way to observe and reflect on students’ social interactions, or lack thereof. Much depends on your circumstances—on the attention you can afford to give to your research problem while teaching, in relation to the benefits that solutions to the problems will bring students later. In general any action research project may require certain choices about how to teach, though it should not interfere with basic instructional goals or prevent coverage of an important curriculum. The main point to remember is that action research is more than passive observation of students and classrooms; it also includes educational interventions, efforts to stimulate students to new thinking and new responses. Those are features of regular teaching; the difference is primarily in how systematically and reflectively you do them.

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: Apr 8, 2024 11:12 AM
• URL: https://deakin.libguides.com/qualitative-study-designs

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Methodology
• What Is Action Research? | Definition & Examples

What Is Action Research? | Definition & Examples

Published on 27 January 2023 by Tegan George . Revised on 21 April 2023.

Table of contents

Types of action research, action research models, examples of action research, action research vs. traditional research, advantages and disadvantages of action research, frequently asked questions about action research.

There are 2 common types of action research: participatory action research and practical action research.

• Participatory action research emphasises that participants should be members of the community being studied, empowering those directly affected by outcomes of said research. In this method, participants are effectively co-researchers, with their lived experiences considered formative to the research process.
• Practical action research focuses more on how research is conducted and is designed to address and solve specific issues.

Both types of action research are more focused on increasing the capacity and ability of future practitioners than contributing to a theoretical body of knowledge.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Action research is often reflected in 3 action research models: operational (sometimes called technical), collaboration, and critical reflection.

• Operational (or technical) action research is usually visualised like a spiral following a series of steps, such as “planning → acting → observing → reflecting.”
• Collaboration action research is more community-based, focused on building a network of similar individuals (e.g., college professors in a given geographic area) and compiling learnings from iterated feedback cycles.
• Critical reflection action research serves to contextualise systemic processes that are already ongoing (e.g., working retroactively to analyse existing school systems by questioning why certain practices were put into place and developed the way they did).

Action research is often used in fields like education because of its iterative and flexible style.

After the information was collected, the students were asked where they thought ramps or other accessibility measures would be best utilised, and the suggestions were sent to school administrators. Example: Practical action research Science teachers at your city’s high school have been witnessing a year-over-year decline in standardised test scores in chemistry. In seeking the source of this issue, they studied how concepts are taught in depth, focusing on the methods, tools, and approaches used by each teacher.

Action research differs sharply from other types of research in that it seeks to produce actionable processes over the course of the research rather than contributing to existing knowledge or drawing conclusions from datasets. In this way, action research is formative , not summative , and is conducted in an ongoing, iterative way.

As such, action research is different in purpose, context, and significance and is a good fit for those seeking to implement systemic change.

Action research comes with advantages and disadvantages.

• Action research is highly adaptable , allowing researchers to mould their analysis to their individual needs and implement practical individual-level changes.
• Action research provides an immediate and actionable path forward for solving entrenched issues, rather than suggesting complicated, longer-term solutions rooted in complex data.
• Done correctly, action research can be very empowering , informing social change and allowing participants to effect that change in ways meaningful to their communities.

Disadvantages

• Due to their flexibility, action research studies are plagued by very limited generalisability  and are very difficult to replicate . They are often not considered theoretically rigorous due to the power the researcher holds in drawing conclusions.
• Action research can be complicated to structure in an ethical manner . Participants may feel pressured to participate or to participate in a certain way.
• Action research is at high risk for research biases such as selection bias , social desirability bias , or other types of cognitive biases .

Action research is conducted in order to solve a particular issue immediately, while case studies are often conducted over a longer period of time and focus more on observing and analyzing a particular ongoing phenomenon.

Action research is focused on solving a problem or informing individual and community-based knowledge in a way that impacts teaching, learning, and other related processes. It is less focused on contributing theoretical input, instead producing actionable input.

Action research is particularly popular with educators as a form of systematic inquiry because it prioritizes reflection and bridges the gap between theory and practice. Educators are able to simultaneously investigate an issue as they solve it, and the method is very iterative and flexible.

A cycle of inquiry is another name for action research . It is usually visualized in a spiral shape following a series of steps, such as “planning → acting → observing → reflecting.”

Sources for this article

We strongly encourage students to use sources in their work. You can cite our article (APA Style) or take a deep dive into the articles below.

George, T. (2023, April 21). What Is Action Research? | Definition & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 6 May 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/action-research-cycle/

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2017). Research methods in education (8th edition). Routledge.

Naughton, G. M. (2001).  Action research (1st edition). Routledge.

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, primary research | definition, types, & examples, a quick guide to experimental design | 5 steps & examples, what is an observational study | guide & examples.

Action Research

• First Online: 02 January 2023

Cite this chapter

• Janet Mola Okoko 4  

Part of the book series: Springer Texts in Education ((SPTE))

4287 Accesses

The term Action Research was first credited by scholars and practitioners to Kurt Lewin’s work from the mid-1930’s. Action Research began to assert its place as a distinct type of research in the social sciences in the mid-1940’s, after Lewin’s article entitled “Action Research and Minority Problems”.

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

Access this chapter

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

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Adelman, C. (1993). Kurt Lewin and the origins of action research. Educational Action Research, 1 (1), 7–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965079930010102

Article   Google Scholar  

Andronic, R. L. (2010). A brief history of action research. Review of the Air Force Academy 144–149. http://www.afahc.ro/ro/revista/Nr_2_2010/2.2010%20Andronic.pdf

Creswell, J., & Guetterman, T. (2019). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating qualitative and quantitative research . Pearson.

Google Scholar  

Duesbery, L., & Twyman T. (2020). 100 questions and answers about action research . SAGE.

Helskog, G. H. (2014). Justifying action research. Educational Action Research, 22 (1), 4–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2013.856769

Hendricks, C. C. (2017). Improving schools through action research: A reflective practice approach (4th ed.). Pearson.

Mackenzie, J., Tan, P. L., Hoverman, S., & Baldwin, C. (2012). The value and limitations of participatory action research methodology. Journal of Hydrology, 474, 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.09.008

Masters, J. (1995). The history of action research. In I. Hughes (Ed.) Action research electronic reader . The University of Sydney. http://www.behs.cchs.usyd.edu.au/arow/Reader/rmasters.htm

McNiff, J. (2013). Action research principles and practice . Routledge.

Book   Google Scholar  

Mertler, C. (2020). Action research: Improving schools and empowering educators . SAGE.

Thorkildsen, A. (2013). Participation, power and democracy: Exploring the tensional field between empowerment and constraint in action research. International Journal of Action Research, 9 (1), 15–37. https://www.budrich-journals.de/index.php/ijar/article/view/26732

Stringer, E. T. (2008). Action research in education . Pearson Prentice Hall.

Additional Reading

Johnson, A. P. (2008). A short guide to action research (3rd Ed.). Allyn and Bacon.

McNiff, J. (2016). You and your action research project . Routledge.

Mertler, C. A. (2016). Leading and facilitating educational change through action research learning communities.  Journal of Ethical Educational Leadership , 3 (3), 1–11.

Mertler, C. A (2018). Action research communities professional learning, empowerment, and improvement through collaborative action research . Routledge.

Sagor, R. (2011). The action research guidebook: A four-stage process for educators and school teams . Corwin Press.

Online Resources

Overview of Action Research (2018) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmBSKK9izao 12:48 min

Action Research development (2020) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ns7S-N4_aJ0 2:08 min

What is Action Research (2016) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTwmdPSSgDs 2:02 min

What is Action Research (2017) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov3F3pdhNkk 2:24 min

Personal empowerment through reflection and learning (2019) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzDsT-25w14 10:52 min

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada

Janet Mola Okoko

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Janet Mola Okoko .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Educational Administration, College of Education, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Scott Tunison

Department of Educational Administration, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Keith D. Walker

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Okoko, J.M. (2023). Action Research. In: Okoko, J.M., Tunison, S., Walker, K.D. (eds) Varieties of Qualitative Research Methods. Springer Texts in Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04394-9_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04394-9_2

Published : 02 January 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-04396-3

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-04394-9

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Assessing the strengths and weaknesses of action research

Affiliation.

• 1 Little Bloxwich Day Hospice, Walsall, West Midlands.
• PMID: 12216236
• DOI: 10.7748/ns2001.03.15.26.33.c2994

Background: Proponents of action research claim that it is not just for researchers, but helps to empower research participants to make changes in practice. This literature review examines some of the evidence for and against a research methodology that might still be unfamiliar to many nurses.

Conclusion: Action research often lends itself to small-scale studies and is time-consuming. The value of such a methodology is that it provides a powerful means of improving and enhancing practice.

Publication types

• Attitude of Health Personnel
• Evidence-Based Medicine / education
• Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice
• Health Services Research / methods
• Health Services Research / standards*
• Nursing Research / education
• Nursing Research / methods
• Nursing Research / standards*
• Nursing Staff / education
• Nursing Staff / organization & administration
• Nursing Staff / psychology
• Organizational Innovation
• Power, Psychological
• Problem Solving
• Reproducibility of Results
• Research Design / standards*
• Time Factors
• Total Quality Management / organization & administration

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

52k Accesses

31 Citations

46 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Communication
• Developing world

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

Similar content being viewed by others

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

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

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

Introduction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Four key principles

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

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

Aims of the Primer

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

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

Box 1 What does participatory action research do?

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

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

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

Experimentation

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

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

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

Building blocks for PAR research design

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

Building relationships

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

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

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

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

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

Box 2 Soft skills of a participatory action researcher

Respect for others’ knowledge and the expertise of experience

Humility and genuine kindness

Ability to be comfortable with discomfort

Sharing power; ceding control

Trusting the process

Acceptance of uncertainty and tensions

Openness to learning from collaborators

Self-awareness and the ability to listen and be confronted

Willingness to take responsibility and to be held accountable

Confidence to identify and challenge power relations

Establishing working practices

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

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

Establishing a common understanding of the issue

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

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

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

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

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

Observing, gathering and generating materials

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Collaborative analysis

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

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

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

Planning and taking action

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Applications

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

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

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

Reproducibility and data deposition

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

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

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

Limitations and optimizations

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

Institutional infrastructure

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

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

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

Co-option by powerful structures

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

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

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

Box 4 Case study: participatory power and its vulnerability

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

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

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

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

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

Power inequalities within PAR

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

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

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

Lack of control and unpredictability

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

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

Decolonizing or re-powering

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

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

Co-production

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

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

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

Global–local inequality and solidarity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

Acknowledgements

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

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

Flora Cornish & Nancy Breton

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

Ulises Moreno-Tabarez

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

Jenna Delgado

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

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

Ama de-Graft Aikins

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

Darrin Hodgetts

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

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

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Flora Cornish .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

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

Additional information

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

Related links

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

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

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

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

Supplementary information

Supplementary information.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

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

Download citation

Accepted : 27 February 2023

Published : 27 April 2023

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

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Increasing disability inclusion through self-relevant research.

• Kathleen R. Bogart

Communications Psychology (2024)

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

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

Health Research Policy and Systems (2024)

Coproducing health research with Indigenous peoples

• Chris Cunningham
• Monica Mercury

Nature Medicine (2023)

Quick links

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

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

• No results found

Limitations of Action Research and how they are addressed

All research has limitations (Cohen et al, 2008). Action Research is limited insomuch as whilst it recognises the existence of multiple world views, it also acknowledges that different views change

“over time” (Checkland and Poulter, 2010). A static set of world views does not suit Action Research, since it opposes the idea of social problems that are fixed to a point in time, and prefers to discover findings by means of qualitative data rather than quantitative numbers. Therefore, the research findings may hold less currency “over time”. By retaining comparison with known trust constructs, the value of the findings will hold value “over time”, irrespective of the changing views towards technology and ICT usage.

138 Like any non-empirical study, Action Research is limited by the subjective interpretations of the researcher (Wadsworth, 2006). Since there are usually multiple variables, and a range of individual differences, the possibility of subjective bias cannot be excluded from this study. In terms of addressing the subjective nature of the approach, the researcher accepts the action research methodology for what it is, an approach that is inherently designed and structured in order to elicit a subjective perspective that can deliver new understanding in the field of endeavour (Reason and Bradbury, 2007; Zuber-Skerritt and Fletcher, 2007).

Notwithstanding the possibility of bias through subjectivity, strong rigour can be reached through two key elements in the research methodology. In defence of a rigorous AR-based methodology for this research the design includes double loop learning (Argyris, 1991, Zuber-Skerritt and Fletcher, 2007) and an observational and reflexive system of examining and analysing research data (Johns and Burnie, 2013). As earlier described, (see Table 3.2) the use of emancipatory research is designed to allow situations where the existing thinking about the problem should also be critically evaluated. This process, as described in action research (Cohen et al, 2008), uses reflexivity to include both the raw data from the research along with a number of reflections upon the established and existing view of things (Figure 3.3).

Figure 3.3 Double Loop Learning and the Reflexive Feedback Loop (Argyris, 1991)

139 In this research, reflexivity, and the integration of critical reflections, provides an important cornerstone for an epistemological understanding that evaluates not just the participants of the interviews, but the underlying existing views about technology usage and acceptance. Thus, without the combination of both interview data from active participants, and the ability to challenge and contest an existing expectation placed upon them, an important dimension to the critical analysis of this research proposition can be under-represented (Fisher and Phelps, 2006; Zuber-Skerritt and Fletcher, 2007).

The next chapter discusses an extension to understanding issues of trust and technology. It considers issues about usage, choice, and capability in relation to how trust and technology are affected.

140 4 CHAPTER 4 TECHNOLOGY AND TRUST-DRIVEN RELATIONSHIPS

The purpose of this chapter is to build on the information drawn from the intial literature review to better understand concepts that will more directly inform the hypothesis in regards to ICT trust, ICT usage, choice, and capability. To do this it looks at what the literature shows to be strong trust-driven relationships.

The literature review in Chapter 2 looked broadly across a range of areas of influence about technology and trusted usage. With specific reference to the research question that asks what affects the way older people make informed decisions about their trust in new ICTs that involve imposed or mandated online financial transactions, the literature identified two main areas. Firstly it showed that older people generally made poor decisions in terms of risk, security, and practices. Secondly it identified gaps and uncertainties about how older people choose (or have difficulty in choosing) how and why they might trust new ICTs.

By examining what reduces trust, and looking more closely at some assumptions that are associated with trust, the emergent gap in the literature is that requires attention is to show that usage does not imply trust. For example, a great deal of the technology acceptance literature is heavily premised on the idea that continued usage “over time” equates to trusted usage. However, different factors other than usage, affect the trusted acceptance to choose and to use ICT technologies. Older people’s ICT usage changes when the ability to choose an ICT is removed, reduced, or influenced. The literature identified many uncertainties in relation to cyber vulnerabilities and the differences between novice ICT users and experienced users. ICT trust and usage choices can be characterised as reactions to perceived risks.

The relationship between technology and its trusted usage underpins this research. The initial review of literature suggests that trusted acceptance of technology comes from usage. However several different ideas emerged alongside the notion that usage creates trust. The first was that older people were disproportionately reluctant to use and accept technology. The second was that despite a series of progressively developed approaches to technology usage, mandatory and imposed interactions failed to gain trusted acceptance. A third element, although not as prominent as the first two, was that technology

141 practices involving the secure use of systems for financial transactions and daily living, were problematic in terms of online security, ICT capability, and accessibility.

• The Problem
• Structure of the Thesis
• Other publications by the Researcher
• Social Engineering
• Physical, Mental and Social changes in Aging
• Measuring Trust
• Trust, Authority, and Influence affecting Governance
• Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
• Summary of TAM models and iterations
• Trust and Acceptance Model Timeline and Progression
• Defining the problem
• Ontology and Epistemology
• Background to the methodology
• Sample strategy
• Limitations of Action Research and how they are addressed (You are here)
• Reflections on trust and mandated, imposed and freely chosen technology
• Interview Design
• Limitations of the study
• Interviews Part One - Basic proficiencies
• Management of Emails
• Issues with Remembering Passwords
• Interviews Part Three – Trust and Money

Related documents

How to Write Limitations of the Study (with examples)

This blog emphasizes the importance of recognizing and effectively writing about limitations in research. It discusses the types of limitations, their significance, and provides guidelines for writing about them, highlighting their role in advancing scholarly research.

Updated on August 24, 2023

No matter how well thought out, every research endeavor encounters challenges. There is simply no way to predict all possible variances throughout the process.

These uncharted boundaries and abrupt constraints are known as limitations in research . Identifying and acknowledging limitations is crucial for conducting rigorous studies. Limitations provide context and shed light on gaps in the prevailing inquiry and literature.

This article explores the importance of recognizing limitations and discusses how to write them effectively. By interpreting limitations in research and considering prevalent examples, we aim to reframe the perception from shameful mistakes to respectable revelations.

What are limitations in research?

In the clearest terms, research limitations are the practical or theoretical shortcomings of a study that are often outside of the researcher’s control . While these weaknesses limit the generalizability of a study’s conclusions, they also present a foundation for future research.

Sometimes limitations arise from tangible circumstances like time and funding constraints, or equipment and participant availability. Other times the rationale is more obscure and buried within the research design. Common types of limitations and their ramifications include:

• Theoretical: limits the scope, depth, or applicability of a study.
• Methodological: limits the quality, quantity, or diversity of the data.
• Empirical: limits the representativeness, validity, or reliability of the data.
• Analytical: limits the accuracy, completeness, or significance of the findings.
• Ethical: limits the access, consent, or confidentiality of the data.

Regardless of how, when, or why they arise, limitations are a natural part of the research process and should never be ignored . Like all other aspects, they are vital in their own purpose.

Why is identifying limitations important?

Whether to seek acceptance or avoid struggle, humans often instinctively hide flaws and mistakes. Merging this thought process into research by attempting to hide limitations, however, is a bad idea. It has the potential to negate the validity of outcomes and damage the reputation of scholars.

By identifying and addressing limitations throughout a project, researchers strengthen their arguments and curtail the chance of peer censure based on overlooked mistakes. Pointing out these flaws shows an understanding of variable limits and a scrupulous research process.

Showing awareness of and taking responsibility for a project’s boundaries and challenges validates the integrity and transparency of a researcher. It further demonstrates the researchers understand the applicable literature and have thoroughly evaluated their chosen research methods.

Presenting limitations also benefits the readers by providing context for research findings. It guides them to interpret the project’s conclusions only within the scope of very specific conditions. By allowing for an appropriate generalization of the findings that is accurately confined by research boundaries and is not too broad, limitations boost a study’s credibility .

Limitations are true assets to the research process. They highlight opportunities for future research. When researchers identify the limitations of their particular approach to a study question, they enable precise transferability and improve chances for reproducibility. 

Simply stating a project’s limitations is not adequate for spurring further research, though. To spark the interest of other researchers, these acknowledgements must come with thorough explanations regarding how the limitations affected the current study and how they can potentially be overcome with amended methods.

How to write limitations

Typically, the information about a study’s limitations is situated either at the beginning of the discussion section to provide context for readers or at the conclusion of the discussion section to acknowledge the need for further research. However, it varies depending upon the target journal or publication guidelines. 

Don’t hide your limitations

It is also important to not bury a limitation in the body of the paper unless it has a unique connection to a topic in that section. If so, it needs to be reiterated with the other limitations or at the conclusion of the discussion section. Wherever it is included in the manuscript, ensure that the limitations section is prominently positioned and clearly introduced.

While maintaining transparency by disclosing limitations means taking a comprehensive approach, it is not necessary to discuss everything that could have potentially gone wrong during the research study. If there is no commitment to investigation in the introduction, it is unnecessary to consider the issue a limitation to the research. Wholly consider the term ‘limitations’ and ask, “Did it significantly change or limit the possible outcomes?” Then, qualify the occurrence as either a limitation to include in the current manuscript or as an idea to note for other projects. 

Writing limitations

Once the limitations are concretely identified and it is decided where they will be included in the paper, researchers are ready for the writing task. Including only what is pertinent, keeping explanations detailed but concise, and employing the following guidelines is key for crafting valuable limitations:

1) Identify and describe the limitations : Clearly introduce the limitation by classifying its form and specifying its origin. For example:

• An unintentional bias encountered during data collection
• An intentional use of unplanned post-hoc data analysis

2) Explain the implications : Describe how the limitation potentially influences the study’s findings and how the validity and generalizability are subsequently impacted. Provide examples and evidence to support claims of the limitations’ effects without making excuses or exaggerating their impact. Overall, be transparent and objective in presenting the limitations, without undermining the significance of the research. 

3) Provide alternative approaches for future studies : Offer specific suggestions for potential improvements or avenues for further investigation. Demonstrate a proactive approach by encouraging future research that addresses the identified gaps and, therefore, expands the knowledge base.

Whether presenting limitations as an individual section within the manuscript or as a subtopic in the discussion area, authors should use clear headings and straightforward language to facilitate readability. There is no need to complicate limitations with jargon, computations, or complex datasets.

Examples of common limitations

Limitations are generally grouped into two categories , methodology and research process .

Methodology limitations

Methodology may include limitations due to:

• Sample size
• Lack of available or reliable data
• Lack of prior research studies on the topic
• Measure used to collect the data
• Self-reported data

The researcher is addressing how the large sample size requires a reassessment of the measures used to collect and analyze the data.

Research process limitations

Limitations during the research process may arise from:

• Access to information
• Longitudinal effects
• Cultural and other biases
• Language fluency
• Time constraints

The author is pointing out that the model’s estimates are based on potentially biased observational studies.

Final thoughts

Successfully proving theories and touting great achievements are only two very narrow goals of scholarly research. The true passion and greatest efforts of researchers comes more in the form of confronting assumptions and exploring the obscure.

In many ways, recognizing and sharing the limitations of a research study both allows for and encourages this type of discovery that continuously pushes research forward. By using limitations to provide a transparent account of the project's boundaries and to contextualize the findings, researchers pave the way for even more robust and impactful research in the future.

Charla Viera, MS

See our "Privacy Policy"

Ensure your structure and ideas are consistent and clearly communicated

Pair your Premium Editing with our add-on service Presubmission Review for an overall assessment of your manuscript.

• Career Resources
• Addressing Trauma in Students
• BSW Holders: Advanced Standing
• Academics FAQs
• CASAC Credentialing
• Gerontology and Palliative Care Certificate
• Application and Admissions Requirements
• Tuition and Financial Aid
• Admissions FAQs
• A Letter from the Dean
• Our Faculty
• Student Resources
• Student Support
• The Heights: Virtual Learning
• Licensing and CE
• Alumni Network

Social Work Research and Evaluation Foundations

Studying social work and its effect on societies is essential to understanding and enhancing human and community well-being. By effectively measuring and evaluating social work outcomes, practitioners can employ evidence-based social work practices and evidence-based treatments (EBTs) to provide structured approaches to addressing client needs. For example, in the case of a client with an anxiety disorder, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and behavioral science can be applied as efficient and ethical frameworks to address communication and collaboration problems. 1

Read on to learn more about the essential role of social work research and evaluation.

The Importance of Research and Evaluation in Social Work Practice

By rigorously assessing and evaluating social work studies, researchers can better identify the most effective strategies to achieve their client’s objectives. 2 Instead of trial and error, a data-driven approach ensures researchers make better use of the resources available to them.

Evidence-based interventions result from analyzing past research findings. After choosing a solution, researchers test it to verify replicability in multiple real-world scenarios before it’s deemed successful. 3 New intervention methods are constantly being standardized across the social work field of study, letting practitioners choose from a wider range of tools and techniques suitable for their study. These are usually taught in more advanced research courses in graduate or master's programs.

For example, at Wurzweiler School of Social Work, students participate in individual research projects and learn the basics of conducting social work research . This includes learning how to use measurement instruments; logic of research design, including sampling and design selection; ethical and legal issues; quantitative and qualitative modes of observation; analysis of data; use of computers and computer programs; and research report writing.

Methodologies and Approaches for Conducting Social Work Research

Conducting social work research requires access to large amounts of data supplied by study participants, which can be historical data or up-to-date surveys. 4 Due to social work’s multifaceted nature, researchers must then use their understanding of how psychosocial factors intersect. They need to develop and adhere to strict research methodologies that are evidence-based instead of preconceived notions of a particular social issue. 5

Action Research and Participatory-Action Research (PAR)

By emphasizing the importance of direct collaboration with communities, researchers can hope to identify and address a demographic’s needs. 6

Empowerment Research

Studies, surveys and experiments aim to increase the feelings of empowerment, equality and social justice among people in communities by having them participate directly in the research process. 7

Constructivist Research

Constructivist research begins with the individual and their social contexts instead of the community as a whole. 8 It highlights the importance of perspective and social standing in shaping communities .

Designing Effective Evaluation Frameworks for Social Programs

Data collected from participants in a target demographic is considered raw data that needs to go through several stages of cleaning and refining before any insights can be extracted. 9 That’s why researchers need to be able to develop robust evaluation frameworks that facilitate access to the data.

Logic Models

Logic models are often used to evaluate a single program or intervention. 10 Logic models are designed to offer:

• Development approaches: Using forward logic to develop models starts from activities to predict outcomes, or vice versa in the case of reverse logic
• Framework utility: Frameworks guide the implementation and reporting of the logic model by clarifying its methodology and expected results
• Visual representation: Graphical depictions of data illustrate the connections between a study’s input, activities and outputs, showcasing the anticipated outcomes
• Components: Key elements include the problem statement, outcomes, outputs, resources and strategies

Theories of Change and Program Theory

Merging theories with logic models adds depth to frameworks by outlining the research process, mechanisms and the logic behind the expected outcomes. 11 Furthermore, theories explain the “how” and “why” the desired changes and outcomes are expected to occur in the program’s context, including factors outside the program’s control.

Furthermore, leveraging resources such as The Kellogg Foundation Logic Model Development Guide and the CDC Framework for Program Evaluation in Social Work can offer guidance and tools for constructing and utilizing robust evaluation frameworks. 12,13

Data Collection and Analysis Techniques in Social Work Research

Researchers can collect relevant data in a variety of ways , such as surveys, in-person focus groups, observations and official census reports. They can then select the suitable social work data analysis technique based on the type of data they have and the nature of the insights they’re looking for. 14 These techniques include:

• Thematic analysis: A qualitative approach that identifies, analyzes and reports patterns and anomalies
• Descriptive statistics: Mean, medians, modes and averages of datasets
• Inferential statistics: Predictive models that provide insights based on patterns

Ethical Considerations in Social Work Research and Evaluation

Ethical considerations determine the efficacy of social work research methods and evaluations. 15 Participants in the study must give informed consent to the data being collected on them without attempts to persuade or influence their answers. 16 Similarly, confidentiality and anonymity, especially when handling socially sensitive topics, are needed to ensure candid responses from study participants.

Utilizing Research Findings to Inform Evidence-Based Practice

In order to use results from past studies to inform future practices, researchers need to translate the studies’ outcomes through systematic reviews and guideline development. 17 The outcomes of earlier implementations often require constant monitoring to detect any underlying biases that can be addressed early on.

Challenges and Limitations in Social Work Research and Evaluation

Research in social work often faces numerous challenges that might impact the quality and efficacy of studies. Some of the most common ones include:

• Time constraints
• Hard-to-reach populations
• Inadequate strategies
• Financial constraints

Case Study of Successful Research and Evaluation Initiative

Despite the many complexities, many research studies can be successfully conducted in the field of social studies. One example is the study of developing new treatments for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) patients.

First developed in the 1980s by Francine Shapiro, eye movement desensitization and reprocessing has been successful in treating emotional distress associated with PTSD. The method’s application was then expanded to include a wide range of issues from trauma and anxiety to addiction.

It’s been supported by over 30 controlled outcomes studies and has since been recognized by the World Health Organization and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) as an effective therapeutic method. 18

Deepen Your Impact Through Social Work

The intersection between theoretical research and practical evaluation in the field of social work produces solutions that make a profound impact on the quality of life of communities and individuals. 19 This is a testament to the commitment of researchers to advance the field through progressively available means, particularly technology for data collection and mathematical algorithms for Big Data analytics.

Yeshiva University’s online Master of Social Work focuses on cultural responsiveness, social justice, and human transformation. You will gain hands-on experience in the field of social work and obtain CSWE accreditation that qualifies you for the post-graduate state exam. The expert faculty will equip you with the tools to create positive change in the world. Make an appointment to speak with an admissions outreach advisor today.

• Retrieved on April 10, 2024, from hbr.org/podcast/2021/01/using-behavioral-science-to-improve-well-being-for-social-workers
• Retrieved on April 10, 2024, from researchgate.net/publication/323370072_Evaluating_effectiveness_in_social_work_sharing_dilemmas_in_practice
• Retrieved on April 10, 2024, from ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK547524/
• Retrieved on April 10, 2024, from researchgate.net/publication/298697140_Big_data_in_social_work_The_development_of_a_critical_perspective_on_social_work’s_latest_electronic_turn
• Retrieved on April 10, 2024, from https://caseworthy.com/articles/why-is-evidence-based-practice-important-in-social-work/
• Retrieved on April 10, 2024, from nature.com/articles/s43586-023-00214-1
• Retrieved on April 10, 2024, from academic.oup.com/bjsw/article/51/4/1482/6202975
• Retrieved on April 10, 2024, from journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/16094069231186257
• Retrieved on April 10, 2024, from journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/17456916221137350
• Retrieved on April 10, 2024, from sopact.com/guides/theory-of-change-vs-logic-model
• Retrieved on April 10, 2024, from betterevaluation.org/frameworks-guides/rainbow-framework/define/develop-programme-theory-theory-change
• Retrieved on April 10, 2024, from naccho.org/uploads/downloadable-resources/Programs/Public-Health-Infrastructure/KelloggLogicModelGuide_161122_162808.pdffrom-being-a-breeding-ground-for-threats/
• Retrieved on April 10, 2024, from cdc.gov/evaluation/framework/index.htm
• Retrieved on April 10, 2024, from nesta.org.uk/feature/eight-ways-councils-are-using-data-create-better-services/the-data-driven-social-worker/
• Retrieved on April 10, 2024, from cmsindia.org/sites/myfiles/Guidelines-for-Ethical-Considerations-in-Social-Research-Evaluation-In-India_2020.pdf
• Retrieved on April 10, 2024, from researchsupport.admin.ox.ac.uk/governance/ethics/resources/consent
• Retrieved on April 10, 2024, from health-policy-systems.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12961-020-00662-1
• Retrieved on April 10, 2024, from ptsd.va.gov/understand_tx/emdr.asp
• Retrieved on April 10, 2024, from researchgate.net/publication/8480043_Future_directions_in_evaluation_research_People_organizational_and_social_issues

Return to Blog

Yeshiva University has engaged Everspring , a leading provider of education and technology services, to support select aspects of program delivery.

• Privacy Policy

Home » Limitations in Research – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Limitations in Research – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

Limitations in Research

Limitations in research refer to the factors that may affect the results, conclusions , and generalizability of a study. These limitations can arise from various sources, such as the design of the study, the sampling methods used, the measurement tools employed, and the limitations of the data analysis techniques.

Types of Limitations in Research

Types of Limitations in Research are as follows:

Sample Size Limitations

This refers to the size of the group of people or subjects that are being studied. If the sample size is too small, then the results may not be representative of the population being studied. This can lead to a lack of generalizability of the results.

Time Limitations

Time limitations can be a constraint on the research process . This could mean that the study is unable to be conducted for a long enough period of time to observe the long-term effects of an intervention, or to collect enough data to draw accurate conclusions.

Selection Bias

This refers to a type of bias that can occur when the selection of participants in a study is not random. This can lead to a biased sample that is not representative of the population being studied.

Confounding Variables

Confounding variables are factors that can influence the outcome of a study, but are not being measured or controlled for. These can lead to inaccurate conclusions or a lack of clarity in the results.

Measurement Error

This refers to inaccuracies in the measurement of variables, such as using a faulty instrument or scale. This can lead to inaccurate results or a lack of validity in the study.

Ethical Limitations

Ethical limitations refer to the ethical constraints placed on research studies. For example, certain studies may not be allowed to be conducted due to ethical concerns, such as studies that involve harm to participants.

Examples of Limitations in Research

Some Examples of Limitations in Research are as follows:

Research Title: “The Effectiveness of Machine Learning Algorithms in Predicting Customer Behavior”

Limitations:

• The study only considered a limited number of machine learning algorithms and did not explore the effectiveness of other algorithms.
• The study used a specific dataset, which may not be representative of all customer behaviors or demographics.
• The study did not consider the potential ethical implications of using machine learning algorithms in predicting customer behavior.

Research Title: “The Impact of Online Learning on Student Performance in Computer Science Courses”

• The study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, which may have affected the results due to the unique circumstances of remote learning.
• The study only included students from a single university, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other institutions.
• The study did not consider the impact of individual differences, such as prior knowledge or motivation, on student performance in online learning environments.

Research Title: “The Effect of Gamification on User Engagement in Mobile Health Applications”

• The study only tested a specific gamification strategy and did not explore the effectiveness of other gamification techniques.
• The study relied on self-reported measures of user engagement, which may be subject to social desirability bias or measurement errors.
• The study only included a specific demographic group (e.g., young adults) and may not be generalizable to other populations with different preferences or needs.

How to Write Limitations in Research

When writing about the limitations of a research study, it is important to be honest and clear about the potential weaknesses of your work. Here are some tips for writing about limitations in research:

• Identify the limitations: Start by identifying the potential limitations of your research. These may include sample size, selection bias, measurement error, or other issues that could affect the validity and reliability of your findings.
• Be honest and objective: When describing the limitations of your research, be honest and objective. Do not try to minimize or downplay the limitations, but also do not exaggerate them. Be clear and concise in your description of the limitations.
• Provide context: It is important to provide context for the limitations of your research. For example, if your sample size was small, explain why this was the case and how it may have affected your results. Providing context can help readers understand the limitations in a broader context.
• Discuss implications : Discuss the implications of the limitations for your research findings. For example, if there was a selection bias in your sample, explain how this may have affected the generalizability of your findings. This can help readers understand the limitations in terms of their impact on the overall validity of your research.
• Provide suggestions for future research : Finally, provide suggestions for future research that can address the limitations of your study. This can help readers understand how your research fits into the broader field and can provide a roadmap for future studies.

Purpose of Limitations in Research

There are several purposes of limitations in research. Here are some of the most important ones:

• To acknowledge the boundaries of the study : Limitations help to define the scope of the research project and set realistic expectations for the findings. They can help to clarify what the study is not intended to address.
• To identify potential sources of bias: Limitations can help researchers identify potential sources of bias in their research design, data collection, or analysis. This can help to improve the validity and reliability of the findings.
• To provide opportunities for future research: Limitations can highlight areas for future research and suggest avenues for further exploration. This can help to advance knowledge in a particular field.
• To demonstrate transparency and accountability: By acknowledging the limitations of their research, researchers can demonstrate transparency and accountability to their readers, peers, and funders. This can help to build trust and credibility in the research community.
• To encourage critical thinking: Limitations can encourage readers to critically evaluate the study’s findings and consider alternative explanations or interpretations. This can help to promote a more nuanced and sophisticated understanding of the topic under investigation.

When to Write Limitations in Research

Limitations should be included in research when they help to provide a more complete understanding of the study’s results and implications. A limitation is any factor that could potentially impact the accuracy, reliability, or generalizability of the study’s findings.

It is important to identify and discuss limitations in research because doing so helps to ensure that the results are interpreted appropriately and that any conclusions drawn are supported by the available evidence. Limitations can also suggest areas for future research, highlight potential biases or confounding factors that may have affected the results, and provide context for the study’s findings.

Generally, limitations should be discussed in the conclusion section of a research paper or thesis, although they may also be mentioned in other sections, such as the introduction or methods. The specific limitations that are discussed will depend on the nature of the study, the research question being investigated, and the data that was collected.

Examples of limitations that might be discussed in research include sample size limitations, data collection methods, the validity and reliability of measures used, and potential biases or confounding factors that could have affected the results. It is important to note that limitations should not be used as a justification for poor research design or methodology, but rather as a way to enhance the understanding and interpretation of the study’s findings.

Importance of Limitations in Research

Here are some reasons why limitations are important in research:

• Enhances the credibility of research: Limitations highlight the potential weaknesses and threats to validity, which helps readers to understand the scope and boundaries of the study. This improves the credibility of research by acknowledging its limitations and providing a clear picture of what can and cannot be concluded from the study.
• Facilitates replication: By highlighting the limitations, researchers can provide detailed information about the study’s methodology, data collection, and analysis. This information helps other researchers to replicate the study and test the validity of the findings, which enhances the reliability of research.
• Guides future research : Limitations provide insights into areas for future research by identifying gaps or areas that require further investigation. This can help researchers to design more comprehensive and effective studies that build on existing knowledge.
• Provides a balanced view: Limitations help to provide a balanced view of the research by highlighting both strengths and weaknesses. This ensures that readers have a clear understanding of the study’s limitations and can make informed decisions about the generalizability and applicability of the findings.

Advantages of Limitations in Research

Here are some potential advantages of limitations in research:

• Focus : Limitations can help researchers focus their study on a specific area or population, which can make the research more relevant and useful.
• Realism : Limitations can make a study more realistic by reflecting the practical constraints and challenges of conducting research in the real world.
• Innovation : Limitations can spur researchers to be more innovative and creative in their research design and methodology, as they search for ways to work around the limitations.
• Rigor : Limitations can actually increase the rigor and credibility of a study, as researchers are forced to carefully consider the potential sources of bias and error, and address them to the best of their abilities.
• Generalizability : Limitations can actually improve the generalizability of a study by ensuring that it is not overly focused on a specific sample or situation, and that the results can be applied more broadly.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

How to Cite Research Paper – All Formats and...

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Paper Format – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

• Privacy Policy

Pros and Cons of Action Research

Action research.

            Action research involves methodical observation, data collection for purposes of reflection, decision-making, and development of efficient strategies in the classrooms. Action research consists of phases including selecting an area of focus, data collection, data organization, analysis and interpretation of data, study of professional literature, and the last step is taking action. This study aims at analyzing the pros and cons of action research. This will aid in understanding the benefits accrued by practitioners as well as shortfalls of action research.

What is Action Research

Action research is a process of practitioners checking their work to confirm if it is as good as they want. As action research is done by, the practitioner is often referred to practitioner-based research or even self reflecting practice as it entails checking the effectiveness of work done personally (Dick 440). Action 5 research is not a replacement of quasi-experimental research but acts as a means of finding out results where other research paradigms may not be effective. This is due to the difference in the conditions inherent with different research conditions for the choice of a research paradigm to be utilized. Action analysis is primarily used to examine an ongoing situation in a work environment, for example. A choice of a research paradigm depends on it being able to meet the methodology and goals of the research.

Advantages of Action Research

Action research, as a paradigm, was mainly used for the improvement of the teaching profession, which is the main reason for pros and cons of action research examples being centered on education. Action research pros use action analysis as a basic method for improving the efficiency of service delivery in a sector in meeting needs and demands. Action research can be carried out in a teaching organization to allow teachers to recognize their weaknesses and improve on them in order to increase student experience. It will also aid in improving the effectiveness of teaching as a measure of making teachers efficiency in imparting knowledge and development on the students. Action research also aids in the building of a professional culture in the profession of the practitioners. This is possible owing to the better understanding of the practices in the profession that will be effective in meeting the needs and inculcated by practitioners for the development of the culture.

Action study also has the benefit of the the problem-solving skills of the professional within and without their service centers. For teachers, this is possible through an interactive process of the augmented process of the teachers to be analytical in the course of taking part in research. Action research aids teachers to be more reflective of the situation they are faced in and the ability of meeting the requirements of the students. Another prerequisite for action research is critical analysis of own teaching styles and methods. The consequence of incorporation of critical evaluation of teaching styles, analysis, and reflection results in the ability of the teachers to solve problems.

Action research has the ability of sharpening reasoning abilities of the practitioner and aids them in the development of measures of self monitoring to augment performance effectiveness. Through action research, teachers become more aware of their teaching practices, the difference between practice and beliefs, thoughts, feelings, and learning of their pupils. This allows them to tailor their teaching in a well reasoned and with high skill to meet the learning requirements of their pupils. Action research also aids in the ability of teachers to focus on student explanation and conceptions. This is brought about by the fact that action research involves collecting data on student’s understanding and thinking, making teachers understand the students better (Calhoun 33)

The research base of practitioners augments with participation in action research. This is due to collection of literature in literature review part of the action research on the main objective of the research. In teaching profession, the teacher will have a better understanding of the teaching process and will enable them to improve their teaching methods even if they do not eventually conduct the research. The other advantage of is that it aids in the general development of the work environment as it leads to the development of better work practices and strategies for service delivery and duty performance. There is involvement in action research groups in the course of participation in action research that leads to the generation of a new social setting. This is whereby ne relations are created, establishment of dialogue and profession practices, challenging and translating to change and modification. This change results in better practices and beliefs in the profession, which results on better development of the profession and creation of an effective workforce (Balnaves & Caputi 45).

Action research aids in improvement of confidence among practitioners in the course of the performance of their duties. As an example, action research augments a teacher’s confidence through learning various ways they are able to change lives and the importance of their jobs and it improves their confidence in their teaching ability. This improved confidence by the teachers gives them professional self-assurance, which is a main factor in the ability of continuous development of the teaching profession. The main way this is developed by action research is having better knowledge of education issues, formulating significant matters on the issues, and reviews them for the development of education practices (Balnaves & Caputi 24s).

In regards to the teaching profession, the other advantage of action research is that it is regarded as the only viable and coherent way of addressing curriculum development, evaluation and professional development. This is duty to the critical nature of action research on the state of the teaching profession as there is the application of critical theory for the completion of action (Dick 430).

Disadvantages of Action Research

The main disadvantage of action research is that the practitioner evaluates himself or herself. There is a risk in the benefits of action research in this case on the student selection criteria, objectivity in selecting the participants by the practitioner. There may raise a problem in action research if there exists coercion or voluntary selection of the participants is also a problem, honesty in the answers given by the participants is also in doubt, this is due to the presence of fear of repercussions that may arise after the research. This reduces the ability of action research to meet the required needs as there may not be presented the true picture of the situation because of personal evaluation by the teacher (Coghlan,  & Brannik 23).

The other disadvantage of action research is the validity in writing and presentation of the final report by the practitioner. A practitioner may not give a correct report owing to matters that may not be good for the profession including a conclusion that may be critical of their methods of practice. The practitioner may not be willing to write this in the final report; hence, the validity of the report will be in doubt. The other matter is the objectivity in writing of report, as the practitioner may not be able to separate personal issues, and write the report in an objective manner as these touches on his /her profession. This will also affect the ability to deliver a report that is objective, efficient, and of high quality. The last matter for this assertion is if the practitioner will be willing to take corrective action on findings of the report. A recommendation for a change in teaching style may not augur well with the educator because many people love the status quo and there is a very strong resistance to change in all workplaces (Parsons & Kimberlee 29).

The other disadvantage of action research is that the results in action research cannot be generalized. The results can only be applicable to the portion of the population studied and the exact system. The other disadvantage of action research is that it is more difficult to conduct than conventional research as it takes longer and requirements refinement of the methodology as the research continues.

In conclusion, action research has a number of advantages including improved effectiveness, culture development, increases learning and improved confidence for the development of the practitioner in effective service delivery . However, action research has a number of disadvantages including lack of isolation between action research and personal issues, harder than conventional research, lack of generalization and objectivity problems. Despite the stated setbacks, action research has far more advantages than disadvantages making in an effective tool in augmenting service delivery, development of professionalism and the creation of better policies and rules at the workplace. Understanding of the workplace environment and the practitioners as well as quality of service are the other benefits accrued from action research making it an important component in organizational development.

References;

• Balnaves, M., & Caputi, P., 2001, Introduction to quantitative research methods, California: Sage Thousand Oaks.
• Calhoun, E., 1994, “ How to Use Action Research in the Self-Renewing School.” Alexandria, Va: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Coghlan, D., & Brannik, T., 2005, Doing Action Research in your Organisation , London: Sage Publicaions.
• Dick, B,. 2006, Action Research Literature, Action Research , 4(4), 439-458.
• Dick, B., 2004, Action Research Literature: Themes and Trends, Action Research , 2(4), 425- 444.
• Parsons, D., & Kimberlee, S., 2002, Teacher as Reflective Practitioner and Action Researcher . Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Related Posts

Learn a new language with this new trending..., top safety measures for small vehicle owners on..., balancing free speech and user safety in the..., the ultimate guide to e-commerce website design, unable to work after an injury, securing fair treatment after workplace injuries, anton kreil – trading masterclass course: an over-review, the legal path: navigating road accident claims with..., these are the best chess openings for black, how to edit an essay well.

Hi How can i reference this?, the date, author?

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Please enter an answer in digits:

Advertisement

Tracking Abortion Bans Across the Country

By The New York Times Updated May 1, 4:40 P.M. ET

• Share full article

Twenty-one states ban abortion or restrict the procedure earlier in pregnancy than the standard set by Roe v. Wade, which governed reproductive rights for nearly half a century until the Supreme Court overturned the decision in 2022.

In some states, the fight over abortion access is still taking place in courtrooms, where advocates have sued to block bans and restrictions. Other states have moved to expand access to abortion by adding legal protections.

Latest updates

• The Arizona state legislature voted to repeal an 1864 ban on nearly all abortions. Officials warned that the near-total ban may be briefly enforceable this summer until the repeal takes effect in the fall. A 15-week ban remains in effect.
• A ban on abortion after about six weeks of pregnancy took effect in Florida , following a ruling by the Florida Supreme Court that the privacy protections of the state’s Constitution do not extend to abortion.

The New York Times is tracking abortion laws in each state after the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization , which ended the constitutional right to an abortion.

Where abortion is legal

In a few states that have enacted bans or restrictions, abortion remains legal for now as courts determine whether these laws can take effect. Abortion is legal in the rest of the country, and many states have added new protections since Dobbs.

Ban in effect

Note: TK note here.

Legal for now

State details.

More details on the current status of abortion in each state are below.

An earlier version of this article misstated the legal status of abortion in Utah. As of 4 p.m. on June 24, the state attorney general had issued a statement saying the state’s abortion ban had been triggered, but it had not yet been authorized by the legislature’s general counsel. By 8:30 p.m., the counsel authorized the ban and it went into effect.

A table in an earlier version of this article misstated which abortion ban is being challenged in Texas state court. Abortion rights supporters are challenging a pre-Roe ban, not the state’s trigger ban.

An earlier version of this article referred incorrectly to the legal status of abortion in Indiana. While Indiana abortion providers stopped offering abortion services in anticipation of an abortion ban taking effect on Aug. 1, the law did not take effect.

• Open access
• Published: 03 May 2024

Monocytes prevent apoptosis of iPSCs and promote differentiation of kidney organoids

• Ekaterina Pecksen 1 ,
• Sergey Tkachuk 1 ,
• Cristoph Schröder 1 ,
• Marc Vives Enrich 1 , 2 ,
• Anindita Neog 1 , 2 ,
• Cory P. Johnson 2 ,
• Niko Lachmann 3 , 4 ,
• Hermann Haller 1 , 2 &
• Yulia Kiyan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2063-6327 1  

Stem Cell Research & Therapy volume  15 , Article number:  132 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

111 Accesses

6 Altmetric

Metrics details

Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs)-derived kidney organoids are a promising model for studying disease mechanisms and renal development. Despite several protocols having been developed, further improvements are needed to overcome existing limitations and enable a wider application of this model. One of the approaches to improve the differentiation of renal organoids in vitro is to include in the system cell types important for kidney organogenesis in vivo, such as macrophages. Another approach could be to improve cell survival. Mesodermal lineage differentiation is the common initial step of the reported protocols. The glycogen synthase kinase-3 (GSK-3) activity inhibitor, CHIR99021 (CHIR), is applied to induce mesodermal differentiation. It has been reported that CHIR simultaneously induces iPSCs apoptosis that can compromise cell differentiation. We thought to interfere with CHIR-induced apoptosis of iPSCs using rapamycin.

Differentiation of kidney organoids from human iPSCs was performed. Cell survival and autophagy were analyzed using Cell counting kit 8 (CCK8) kit and Autophagy detection kit. Cells were treated with rapamycin or co-cultured with human monocytes isolated from peripheral blood or iPSCs-macrophages using a transwell co-culture system. Monocyte-derived extracellular vesicles (EVs) were isolated using polyethylene glycol precipitation. Expression of apoptotic markers cleaved Caspase 3, Poly [ADP-ribose] polymerase 1 (PARP-1) and markers of differentiation T-Box Transcription Factor 6 (TBX6), odd-skipped related 1 (OSR1), Nephrin, E-Cadherin, Paired box gene 2 (Pax2) and GATA Binding Protein 3 (Gata3) was assessed by RT-PCR and western blotting. Organoids were imaged by 3D-confocal microscopy.

We observed that CHIR induced apoptosis of iPSCs during the initial stage of renal organoid differentiation. Underlying mechanisms implied the accumulation of reactive oxygen species and decreased autophagy. Activation of autophagy by rapamacin and by an indirect co-culture of differentiating iPSCs with iPSCs-macrophages and human peripheral blood monocytes prevented apoptosis induced by CHIR. Furthermore, monocytes (but not rapamycin) strongly promoted expression of renal differentiation markers and organoids development via released extracellular vesicles.

Our data suggest that co-culturing of iPSCs with human monocytes strongly improves differentiation of kidney organoids. An underlying mechanism of monocytic action implies, but not limited to, an increased autophagy in CHIR-treated iPSCs. Our findings enhance the utility of kidney organoid models.

Introduction

Several protocols for differentiating human iPSCs to 3D structures termed ‘organoids’ resembling the anatomical structure of the corresponding organ have been developed [ 1 ]. As understanding of kidney embryonic development progressed, several approaches towards the differentiation of stem cells to kidney organoids have been reported [ 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ]. Generally, these approaches rely on the same signaling pathways and achieve similar development of kidney organoids. Metanephric kidney develops from reciprocally interacting metanephric mesenchyme and the nephric duct [ 6 ]. Both cell populations derive from intermediate mesoderm that takes its origin from late-stage primitive streak. Nephric duct is derived from anterior and metanephric mesenchyme from posterior intermediate mesoderm [ 2 , 7 ]. Nephron progenitors of metanephric mesenchyme produce factors including Glial Cell Line-derived Neurotrophic Factor (GDNF), Fibroblast growth factor (FGF), and Bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) ligands to promote branching morphogenesis of ureteric bud – outgrowth of the nephric duct invading the metanephric mesenchyme. In turn, BMP, FGF and canonical Wingless/Integrated (Wnt) signals produced by ureteric bud support proliferation and maintenance of nephron progenitors [ 8 ]. Several transcriptome studies have been performed to address robustness and reproducibility of kidney organoids differentiation protocols and revealed batch-to-batch variability and differences in the degree of differentiation between the compared protocols. Furthermore, the main problem of kidney organoids in vitro remains their immaturity. Transcriptional similarities with human kidney of trimester I have been reported [ 3 ]. In addition, recent single-cell transcriptome studies suggested that there are significant differences between cell types in organoids and human fetal tissues [ 9 , 10 , 11 ]. Also, morphological structure and functional maturation of kidney organoids need to be improved [ 12 ]. Despite these limitations, kidney organoids have found an application for studying kidney development, modeling renal diseases, and for drug screening. Therefore, improvements in the differentiation protocols should enable wider applications of renal organoids. One of the approaches to improve kidney organoids differentiation in vitro is to include in the in vitro system other cell types that are important for kidney organogenesis in vivo, primarily macrophages [ 13 , 14 ] and vascular cells [ 15 , 16 ].

Macrophages are inborn phagocytes and are important to the early stages of organ development. Macrophages can be detected in a renal interstitium even before renal organogenesis [ 13 ]. However, the role of macrophages is not limited to the clearance of apoptotic cells and fighting the infection. Tissue-resident macrophages maintain homeostasis, conduct disease responses, and organize tissue and organ repair [ 15 , 17 ]. During renal development, macrophages regulate fate and restrict the nephron progenitors population, participating in signaling, conducting trophic function, and promoting vasculature interconnections [ 13 , 14 ]. Recent work showed that kidney tissue macrophages originate from fetal liver monocytes [ 18 ]. Depletion of renal tissue macrophage pool in the adult kidney leads to recruitment of circulating monocytes that acquire specific phenotypes under the influence of renal niche [ 18 ].

The influence of monocytes on the differentiation of iPSCs-kidney or other organ organoids in vitro has not been addressed yet. We reasoned that macrophages could play a role in the differentiation of iPSCs along the renal development not only in vivo but also in our in vitro setting. To investigate the crosstalk between differentiating renal progenitors and monocytes, we established a co-culture system of human monocytes or iPSCs-derived macrophages and kidney organoids. We found that monocytes promote iPSCs survival during initial CHIR-induced differentiation via the release of extracellular vesicles (EVs) and induction of autophagy. Furthermore, the superior survival resulted in more effective kidney organoids differentiation.

Autophagy is a pathway of lysosomal degradation of damaged internal cellular components such as proteins and organelles [ 19 ]. It is a fundamental process for the maintenance of postmitotic tissue homeostasis as well as for controlling stem cells’ fate [ 20 ]. Autophagy can be activated in response to various stresses including oxidative stress, DNA damage, endoplasmic reticulum stress, and starvation to promote cell survival [ 20 ]. In addition, autophagy can be activated by extracellular signals. Thus, tumor-associated macrophages induced autophagy in cancer cells by an unknown mechanism [ 21 ].

Mesodermal lineage differentiation induction by the glycogen synthase kinase-3 (GSK-3) activity inhibitor, CHIR99021 (CHIR), is the common initial step of all reported protocols for iPSCs differentiation to kidney organoids. Reports showed that CHIR induces dose-dependent apoptosis in mouse embryonic cells [ 22 ] and that massive apoptosis takes place during initial stages of human iPSCs differentiation towards cardiogenic mesoderm lineage [ 23 , 24 ]. Cell death is an important aspect of differentiation and development [ 25 ]. During iPSCs differentiation in vitro, blockade of apoptosis prevented mesodermal commitment [ 23 ]. However, excessive apoptosis hurdles efficient iPSCs differentiation. One of the approaches to regulate cell death and to improve cardiomyocyte differentiation was the activation of autophagy by application of the Mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor, rapamycin [ 26 ]. We also applied rapamycin and observed better iPSCs survival during CHIR stimulation. However, no improvement of organoid differentiation was induced by this approach.

Our data show that by adding macrophages we could induce a positive effect on renal organoid development. Our novel approach promotes the successful application of renal organoids for disease modeling and drug development.

Material and methods

All reagents, kits, antibodies, RT-PCR primers used in the study are listed in the Additional file 2 Table S1.

Cells and cell culture

Human Episomal iPSCs Line (ThermoFisher Gibco, A18945) was used in the study. Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) were cultured using StemFlex medium (Gibco) on Geltrex (Gibco)-coated cell culture plates. ED-iPSCs cell line was a kind gift of Dr. Aloise Mabondzo (CEA, Institute Joliott, Paris, France). Cell lines authentication was performed at Eurofins ( https://eurofinsgenomics.eu/de/ ). Results are shown in Additional file 3 Table S2. No matching cell line was found using Short Tandem Repeats search of the DSMZ database ( https://celldive.dsmz.de/str/search ) [ 27 ].

Human peripheral blood CD14 + CD16– monocytes were isolated from buffy coats obtained from the German Red Cross (DRK-Blutspendedienst NSTOB, Springe, Germany) using a Classical Monocyte Isolation Kit (Miltenyi Biotec). The methods were in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. The functionality of monocytes has been tested by their ability to differentiate into macrophages in the presence of Macrophage colony-stimulating factor (M-CSF) and then polarize into M1- and M2-like macrophages [ 28 ]⁠. Monocytes were treated with 20 ng/mL M-CSF (Peprotech) for 7 days and then polarized during 24 h. For M1-like polarization, cell stimulation with 20 ng/mL Interferon gamma (IFNγ) (Peprotech) and 20 ng/mL Lipopolysaccharide (LPS) (Sigma) was used, for M2-like polarization 20 ng/mL of Interleukin 4 (IL-4) (Peprotech) was used. Expression of Interleukin 6 (IL-6), Interleukin 10 (IL-10), and Tumor Necrosis Factor alpha (TNFɑ) was used to characterize polarization of macrophages. Only co-cultures with functionally differentiated monocytes have been used for further analysis.

Human iPSCs-derived macrophages were differentiated as previously described [ 29 , 30 ].

iPSCs-kidney organoid differentiation

We performed kidney organoid differentiation according to the protocol reported by Morizane et al. [ 4 ] with modifications. We applied an adherent culture differentiation protocol. Cells were differentiated in Basal Medium (BM) consisting of Advanced RPMI 1640 Medium (Gibco) with 200 µM L-Glutamine and 0.5% KnockOut Serum Replacement (Gibco). iPSCs were seeded at a density of 0.75 × 10 6 cells/cm 2 . On the following day, 10 µM CHIR-99021 (Selleckchem) and 5 ng/ml noggin (PeproTech) were applied for 4 days with refreshment of the medium after 2 days. On Day 4 medium was changed to BM supplemented with 10 ng/ml Activin A (PeproTech) where cells were cultured for 3 days. Then 10 ng/ml Fibroblast growth factor 9 (FGF9) Protein (R&D Systems,) was added in BM for 2 days. On Day 9 of the differentiation supplemented with 10 ng/ml FGF9 and 3 µM of CHIR BM medium was refreshed. From day 11 to 14 was used BM with 10 ng/ml FGF9. From day 14 until day 28 day of differentiation, organoid progenitors were switched to BM, which was refreshed every 2 days. A discrete aggregate of progenitor cell, recognizable in bright-field microscopic image as a cluster of 3D nephron-like structures was counted as a single organoid.

On Day 0 of kidney organoids differentiation iPSCs-derived macrophages or human monocytes were placed at a density of 1 × 10 5 or 2 × 10 5 as indirect co-culture in Thincert cell culture inserts with pores diameter 0.4 µm for 24 or 6-well plate, respectively. The volume of medium has been adjusted proportionally to the total cell number. Rapamycin was added at a concentration of 0.4 µM.

Kidney organoid fixation and staining

For fluorescence microscopy, kidney organoids were fixed for 1 h in 4% paraformaldehyde in Dulbecco's Phosphate-Buffered Saline (DPBS) for 60 min at room temperature. The fixation solution was removed, organoids were washed 3 × with 0.1% Triton X-100, blocked in DPBS containing 5% goat serum, 5% donkey serum with 1% Triton X-100 in 5% BSA for 1 h twice, and incubated overnight with primary antibodies at 4°C. Then they were 3 × washed with 1%Triton X-100 in DPBS for 1 h and incubated with secondary antibodies overnight at 4°C or at room temperature for 3 h. To clear the organoids was used 20% Formamide/DPBS vol/vol for 30 min, 40% Formamide/DPBS vol/vol for 30 min, 80% Formamide/DPBS vol/vol for 1 h, 95% Formamide/DPBS vol/vol for 2 h. Images were taken using oil-immersed x 20 objective at the Research Core Unit for Laser Microscopy at Hannover Medical School. ImageJ software was used for creating plot profile, sum of z-stacks and 3D viewer plugin was used for creating animations.

Cell assays

Live cell numbers were quantified using Cell counting kit 8 (CCK8, Dojindo). Briefly, inserts with monocytes were removed from the wells and 10 µl of reagent per 100 µl of medium was added to the wells. Cells were placed in the incubator. After 1 h absorbance was measured at 450 nm. Then, cells were rinsed with pre-warmed PBS and medium was replaced.

The ROS levels were assessed using 5- (and 6-)Carboxy-2',7'-Dichlorodihydrofluorescein-Diacetate (Carboxy-H 2 DCFDA, ThermoFisher) dye. CellROX green reagent (ThermoFisher) was used as recommended by the supplier, and MitoSOX green reagent (ThermoFisher) was used as recommended by the supplier to detect mitochondrial superoxide production. For normalization of the cell number per well, cells were fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde for 10 min at room temperature, then 50 µl of 0.5% crystal violet/H 2 O solution was added to each well, cells were stained for 30 min on the orbital shaker, then washed 3 times with 200 µl PBS/well. After the last wash, 200 µl of 1% SDS solution was added, and absorbance was read at 570 nm.

Biotracker 488 Green Mitochondria Dye (Millipore) was used to quantify mitochondria content in the cells using Nunc 96-Well Optical Coverglass Bottom plates and TECAN Multiplate Reader (Tecan Group). Normalization of cell number /well was performed as described above. We used Cyto-ID Autophagy Detection Kit (ENZO Life Sciences) as recommended by the supplier to detect the process of autophagy.

EVs from monocyte conditioned medium were concentrated using the protocol described recently [ 31 ] with slight modifications. Briefly, EVs were isolated from conditioned media from six transwell inserts each containing 2,5 × 10 5 monocytes. Cells were incubated either in BM, or BM containing 10 µM CHIR and 5 ng/mL noggin, or from monocytes and iPSCs co-cultured in BM containing 10 µM CHIR and 5 ng/mL noggin for 3 and 6 days. Conditioned medium was centrifuged at 500 g to remove cell debris. Then, conditioned medium was mixed in a 1:1 ratio with a concentrating solution containing 24% of polyethylenglycol (PEG) with an average molecular weight of 6000 and 1 M sodium chloride. After overnight incubation, EVs were enriched by centrifugation at 10 000 g for 1 h at 4 °C. Supernatant was then removed and EVs were dissolved in BM and applied to three wells of iPSCs at Day 0 of renal organoid differentiation protocol. 10 µM CHIR and 5 ng/mL noggin were added to the iPSCs simultaneously with EVs. The experiment has been independently repeated two times.

L-lactate was analyzed using an assay Kit from Promocell.

Cell lysis and western blotting

For western blotting cells were washed with ice-cold PBS, placed on ice and lysed using RIPA lysis buffer containing 25 mM Tris–HCl, pH 7.6, 150 mM NaCl, 1% NP-40, 1% sodium deoxycholate and 0.1% SDS with added inhibitors of proteases and phosphatases (1 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl fluorid, 10 µg/ml aprotinin, 10 µg/ml Leupeptin, 0.3 mM sodium orthovanadate). Cells were scraped and allowed to lyse on ice for 10 min. SDS-PAGE electrophoresis and semi-wet protein transfer on PVDF membrane were performed. Antibodies used in the study are listed in the Additional file 2 Table S1. Western blotting membranes were imaged and quantified using VersaDoc and QuantityOne software (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc.). Uncropped western blotting images are shown in Additional file 1 Figs. S2 and S3.

We isolated RNA from renal organoids using Qiagen RNeasy mini kit. Approximately 100 organoids were used for each RNA probe. The list of TaqMan gene expression assays from ThermoFisher Scientific used in the study is given in the Additional file 2 Table S1. LightCycler480 RNA Master Hydrolysis Probes (Roche Diagnostics GmbH) and Roche LightCycler96 were used.

All data were obtained with at least 3 biological replications. Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD). Multiple comparisons were analyzed by ANOVA with Tukey post hoc test. P values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. GraphPad Prism 8.3.0 (GraphPad Software) was used for data analysis. *means P values less than 0.05; **means P values less than 0.01; ***means P values less than 0.001.

CHIR induced apoptosis of iPSCs

Several groups reported that CHIR induced apoptosis during iPSCs differentiation [ 24 , 26 ]. Since we have also observed strong cell death during iPSCs stimulation with CHIR and noggin, we first quantified cell survival using a CCK8 kit. We applied 10 µM CHIR and 5 ng/mL noggin as these were optimal concentrations for the differentiation of renal organoids [ 4 ]. Cells were stimulated with CHIR and noggin for 48 h. CHIR at a concentration of 10 µM and even at a lower concentration of 5 µM but not noggin at 5 ng/mL induced a strong decrease of live cell number (Fig.  1 A). Next, we assessed whether or not cell stimulation with CHIR results in the accumulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS). We treated cells with varying concentrations of CHIR and noggin alone and in combination and then applied CellROX green fluorogenic indicator to detect the level of cellular ROS. The dye becomes fluorescent and binds to DNA after being oxidized by O2 − and/or •OH in the living cells. Data presented in Fig.  1 B show that CHIR induced oxidative stress in the cells in a concentration-dependent manner, whereas the application of noggin did not cause any ROS production. Accordingly, cell treatment with CHIR and noggin simultaneously induced ROS similarly as CHIR alone. To clarify the source of cellular ROS, we used the same experimental setting as above and applied mitochondrial superoxide indicator MitoSOX. Our data showed that mitochondria also produced superoxide in response to stimulation with CHIR (Fig.  1 C). Though CHIR-induced superoxide increase was statistically significant, the degree of activation was significantly less than the one detected by CellROX reagent.

CHIR induces apoptosis of iPSC. A iPSC live cell number after 48 h of stimulation with different concentrations of CHIR or noggin was assessed using CCK8 kit. B Cellular level of ROS in the presence of different concentrations of CHIR and noggin separately and together was analyzed 24 h after their addition using CellRox green reagent. Concentrations of CHIR is in µM, concentrations of Noggin is in ng/mL. C Mitochondrial superoxide production in the presence of different concentrations of CHIR and noggin separately and together was analyzed 24 h after their addition using MitoSOX green reagent. Concentrations of CHIR is in µM, concentrations of Noggin is in ng/mL. D iPSC treated with different concentrations of CHIR in the presence of 5 ng/ml Noggin were lysed and expression of cleaved caspase 3, cleaved PARP-1 was assessed by western blotting. Full-length blots are shown in Additional file 1 Fig. S2

Increased oxidative stress resulted in turn in cell apoptosis. Expression of cleaved caspase 3 and cleaved Poly [ADP-ribose] polymerase 1 (PARP-1) was concentration-dependently increased by CHIR (Fig.  1 D). However, decreasing CHIR concentration interfered with iPSCs differentiation and strongly inhibited the formation of kidney organoids (data not shown).

Rapamycin and human monocytes promote survival of iPSCs via activation of autophagy

We selected two approaches to look for possible interventions that could decrease cell death during CHIR stimulation. We based our first hypothesis on the report that upon activation of WNT signaling, β-catenin negatively regulates autophagy [ 32 ]. Since inhibition of autophagy was reported to induce cell death in iPSCs [ 33 ] and activation of autophagy decreased apoptosis and promoted cardiomyocyte differentiation [ 26 ] we decided to apply the mTOR inhibitor, rapamycin. Secondly, since macrophages co-cultured with hepatocellular carcinoma cells could induce autophagy in tumor cells and promote their survival [ 21 ]⁠, we performed differentiation of iPSCs using indirect transwell co-culture with human monocytes and iPSCs-macrophages. Classical human CD14 + /CD16- monocytes were isolated from buffy coats using negative selection magnetic sorting. The functionality of monocytes has been routinely tested by their ability to differentiate into macrophages in the presence of M-CSF and then polarize into M1- and M2-like macrophages. For M1-like polarization, IFNγ and LPS stimulation was used, for M2-like polarization IL-4 was used. Expression of IL-6, IL-10, and TNFɑ was used to characterize the polarization of macrophages (Additional file 1 Fig. S1A). Despite some variability between cells isolated from different donors, differentiated macrophages demonstrated similar pattern of expression. To determine the optimal ratio of monocytes and iPSCs, we performed co-culture using different numbers of monocytes (Additional file 1 Fig. S1B). We selected the ratio of 2.5 × 10 5 monocytes / 10 7  iPSCs because increasing the numbers of monocytes did not result in further improvement of their effect on iPSCs survival.

Next, we analyzed the levels of ROS in cells treated with rapamycin and in co-culture with monocytes. Since we showed before that superoxide production by mitochondria was only slightly increased by cell treatment with CHIR, we applied H 2 DCFDA ROS indicator for these experiments. H 2 DCFDA has wide specificity and detects hydroxy, peroxy, and other ROS in the cell. We observed that both, rapamycin and monocytes, significantly decreased production of ROS (Fig.  2 A, B).

Rapamycin and monocytes rescue iPSC from apoptosis via activation of mitophagy. A , B ROS accumulation in the presence of 10 µM CHIR was measured using Carboxy-H2DCFDA dye after 48 ( A ) and 72 ( B ) hours of cell stimulation. 5 ng/mL Noggin was added to all cells. Rapamycin (Rapa) and monocytes (Mono) were applied as indicated. After measurement of fluorescence, cells were fixed and stained using crystal violet for normalization of cell number. C Autophagy in iPSC cells treated as indicated was assessed using Autophagy detection kit after 48 h. 5 ng/mL Noggin was added to all cells. Normalization of cell number was performed as in A . D Mitochondria content was assessed using Mitotracker green after 48 h. Normalization of cell number was performed as in A . E Survival of iPSC in the presence of Rapa and monocytes has been determined using CCK8 kit. F CCK8 assay was performed on ED-iPSC cell line stimulated with 10 µM CHIR and 5 ng/mL Noggin in mono-culture (Control) and in co-culture with iPSC-derived macrophages (MΦ) on Day 1, 4 and 7

Autophagy was analyzed using an Autophagy detection kit that selectively labels accumulated autophagic vacuoles. We showed that both, rapamycin application and co-culture with monocytes promoted autophagy (Fig.  2 C). It was reported recently that despite increased mitochondrial activity, mitochondrial content is decreased in mesoderm in comparison to undifferentiated iPSCs [ 34 ]⁠. Since mitophagy, the degradation of mitochondria by the process of autophagy, represents the main mechanism of mitochondria quality control [ 35 ]⁠, we assessed the accumulation of mitochondria using mitotracker green (Fig.  2 D). The CHIR-induced increase of mitochondria content was decreased by the addition of rapamycin or co-culturing with monocytes. Accordingly, cell survival was improved (Fig.  2 E).

Furthermore, we performed a CCK8 assay using different iPSCs cell lines and co-cultured the cells with human iPSCs-derived macrophages during the differentiation to kidney organoids. Our data showed (Fig.  2 F) that co-culturing with iPSCs-macrophages also strongly improved cell survival. We also observed that rapamycin and monocytes promoted a formation of autophagosomes containing mitochondria and their fusion with lysosomes. We stained cells with mitotracker green and Lysosome-associated membrane protein 2 (LAMP2) as a lysosomal marker and performed confocal microscopy (Fig.  3 A). We detected co-localization of mitochondria and lysosomes in cells treated with rapamycin and in co-culture with monocytes. Fluorescence plot profiles created using ImageJ software showed localization of LAMP2 around mitochondria suggesting the fusion of these organelles (Fig.  3 A). Expression of apoptosis markers cleaved caspase 3 and cleaved PARP-1 in CHIR-treated iPSCs was assessed by western blotting (Fig.  3 B–D). Apoptosis was decreased by both, rapamycin and in co-culture with monocytes. Decreased content of Sequestosome-1/ Ubiquitin-binding protein p62 (p62) in rapamycin-treated iPSCs and cells co-cultured with monocytes confirmed activation of autophagy.

Rapamycin and monocytes rescue iPSC from apoptosis A Cells treated with 10 µM CHIR and 5 ng/mL Noggin for 48 h were fixed and stained using Mitotracker green and LAMP-2 antibody. Co-localization of Mitotracker green and LAMP-2 is shown by white asterisk. Higher magnification images of an autophagosome and Plot Profile of green and red fluorescence created using ImageJ software are shown in bottom panels. B Expression of autophagy marker p62, cleaved caspase 3 ( C ) and cleaved PARP-1 ( D ) in iPSC cells treated for 48 h with CHIR and Noggin was assessed by western blotting. The upper panels show typical western blotting picture. The lower panels show quantification for at least three independent experiments. Full-length blots are presented in Additional file 1 Fig. S2

Together these data imply that autophagy was decreased during iPSCs stimulation with CHIR which led to the accumulation of cell damage and death. We conclude that stimulating autophagy by rapamycin or via co-culturing of differentiating iPSCs with monocytes, improved cell survival.

Mechanism of monocyte action

EVs are membrane vesicles released by cells to deliver proteins, metabolites, nucleic acid and other bioactive molecules to recipient cells [ 36 ]. EVs are recognized as one of the key mechanisms of intercellular communications and important regulators of multiple biological processes including development. Classical EVs include exosomes, microvesicles, and apoptotic bodies, though recent works suggest the existence of further EVs types [ 36 ]⁠. Several methods of EVs isolation have been developed. Recently, PEG-based precipitation method has proven to be efficient in EVs isolation from various sources including cell culture conditioned medium [ 31 , 37 ]⁠. Monocytes have also been reported to release bioactive EVs that can affect other cell types [ 38 ]⁠. To test whether monocytes release EVs to improve survival and differentiation of iPSCs, we incubated monocytes in BM, BM supplemented with 10 µM CHIR and 5 ng/mL noggin, and in co-culture with iPSCs in the presence of CHIR and noggin for 2 days. Experimental setting is schematically shown in Fig.  4 A. Then, EVs were isolated from conditioned medium as described in Methods. Isolated EVs fraction was tested on the presence of exosomal marker Heat shock protein 90 alpha family class B member 1 (HSP90AB1) and Heat shock protein 70 (HSP70), endoplasmic reticulum marker Calnexin, and actin (Fig.  4 B). After confirming that isolated fractions contain EVs from monocytes, we added EVs to iPSCs on Day 0 of the renal organoid differentiation protocol simultaneously with 10 µM CHIR and 5 ng/mL noggin. On Day 2 medium change on differentiating organoids has been performed and the second portion of monocytes-secreted EVs was added to the cells. CCK8 assay was performed on Day 4 of differentiation (Fig.  4 C). To make sure that traces of the EVs precipitation reagent, can affect cell survival, we performed a control and showed that it does not affect on cells (Fig.  4 C). EVs from monocytes incubated in BM slightly decreased survival of iPSCs though this difference has not reached statistical significance. On the contrary, EVs from CHIR- and noggin-treated monocytes and from co-cultured monocytes strongly improved the survival of differentiating iPSCs and the values of rescue effect were very similar. We have also performed RT-PCR for the expression of the Late Primitive Streak Marker T-Box Transcription Factor 6 (TBX6) [ 4 ] since cells at Day 4 of differentiation should demonstrate the expression of this gene (Fig.  4 D). We observed that not only survival but also differentiation of iPSCs was improved by EVs isolated from CHIR- and noggin-treated as well as co-cultured monocytes. Furthermore, we have also demonstrated that the expression of posterior intermediate mesoderm marker odd-skipped related 1 (OSR1) was increased by the monocytes-derived EVs already at day 4 (Fig.  4 E). Since we observed that EVs from co-cultured monocytes demonstrate similar effects on iPSCs survival and expression of differentiation markers as EVs form monocytes treated with CHIR and noggin in mono-culture, we concluded that monocytes released EVs in response to CHIR and noggin and this effect is not further improved by the presence of iPSCs at least during the first days of differentiation.

Monocytes-released EVs promote survival and differentiation of iPSC. A Schematic presentation of experimental design. On Day -3, monocytes (Monos) were seeded in the inserts in (i) BM; (ii) BM containing 10 µM CHIR and 5 ng/mL noggin (CN), and (iii) in coculture with iPSC in BM supplemented with CHIR and noggin (Co-cult). After 48 h (Day -1), medium from the well was collected, cell debris were removed by centrifugation, and EVs were precipitated overnight (ON). Monocytes were given the same medium (i-iii) once again. On Day 0, exosomes were added to iPSC in BM containing 10 µM CHIR and 5 ng/mL noggin. On Day, 1 EVs were harvested from monocytes and precipitated overnight (ON). On Day 2, exosomes were added to iPSC during medium refreshing with BM containing 10 µM CHIR and 5 ng/mL noggin. On Day 4, CCK8 assay was performed and RNA was extracted from cells for RT-PCR. B Western blotting was performed to confirm the presence of EVs marker proteins in the isolated EVs fraction. Uncropped gels are shown in Additional file 1 Fig. S3. C CCK8 assay was performed on iPSC differentiated in the presence of monocytes-derived EVs on Day 4. (PS)—precipitation solution control. (Mono)—mono-cultured iPSC. D , E Relative expression of late primitive streak marker TBX6 ( D ) and posterior intermediate mesoderm marker OSR1 ( E ) by iPSC differentiated in the presence of monocytes-derive EVs was assessed by RT-PCR on Day 4

Taking together, our data show that in response to CHIR and noggin treatment monocytes release EVs that in turn exert anti-apoptotic and pro-survival effects on iPSCs and promote their differentiation to renal organoids.

During the differentiation of iPSCs metabolic reprogramming from aerobic glycolysis to oxidative phosphorylation is taking place. Since the content of L-lactate in conditioned medium reflects aerobic glycolysis, we measured L-lactate using a colorimetric assay kit. As shown in Additional file 1 Fig. S1C, we have not observed any differences in the concentration of L-lactate in cells treated with exosomes from monocytes, at least during the initial stages of differentiation.

Monocytes strongly improve iPSCs differentiation to renal organoids.

To further characterize the effects of rapamycin and monocytes on the differentiation of iPSCs towards renal organoids, we applied rapamycin during the first 4 days of CHIR-induced cell differentiation. Co-culture of iPSCs with monocytes was performed during the whole protocol. In order to understand, at what stage of organoid development the effects of monocytes are important, co-culture with monocytes was also performed starting from Day 7 of the differentiation protocol. Expression of E-Cadherin, Nephrin, Paired box gene 2 (Pax2), and GATA Binding Protein 3 (GATA3) was assessed by TaqMan RT-PCR after completion of protocol from several independent experiments. We observed a robust increase of renal marker expression in cells co-cultured with monocytes during the whole protocol (Fig.  5 A–E). On the contrary, co-culturing from Day 7 did not significantly improve organoids differentiation (Fig.  5 A–E). Expression of some stroma-related markers like platelet derived growth factor receptor beta (PDGFRβ) was not affected by co-culturing with monocytes. Though rapamycin application increased survival during the first four days, treatment with rapamycin during that period failed to improve the differentiation of kidney organoids.

Monocytes promote differentiation of renal organoids. iPSC differentiation to renal organoids has been performed in the transwell co-culture with human monocytes from Day 0 (Mono D 0) or Day 7 (mono Day 7) of the differentiation protocol and in the presence of rapamycin (Rapa). Expression of renal markers ( A – E ) was assessed by TaqMan RT-PCR on Day 28 of the protocol. F Number of organoids per area unit was quantified on Day 28 of the protocol

We quantified the number of organoids after 4 weeks of differentiation in mono- and co-culture with monocytes and with and without the presence of rapamycin. Monocytes but not rapamycin strongly promote renal differentiation of iPSCs (Fig.  5 F). These data suggest that, even though improvement of autophagy at the first step of renal organoid differentiation can improve cell survival, effects of monocytes during the differentiation are not limited to the activation of autophagy. Furthermore, if co-culturing has begun from Day 7 of the protocol, monocytes failed to improve differentiation of iPSCs to kidney organoids.

We then performed immunohistochemical staining followed by 3D-confocal microscopy, to assess morphological appearance of renal organoids differentiated in co-culture with monocytes (Fig.  6 A, B). Two examples of renal organoids differentiated in mono- and co-culture with monocytes and stained using Nephrin and E-cadherin antibodies are shown in Fig.  6 A and B. Shown sum of z-scans demonstrate more advanced development of organoids in co-culture with increased size in z-dimension (Fig.  6 C). We have performed 3D reconstruction of confocal z-scans using ImageJ. Additional files 4 and 5 videos illustrate improved development of organoids in co-culture. Our data show that EVs released by monocytes promote survival and differentiation of iPSCs during initial phase of the differentiation protocol that results in higher number and better development of iPSCs-renal organoids (Fig.  6 ).

Monocytes promote differentiation of renal organoids. iPSC differentiation to renal organoids has been performed in the transwell co-culture with human monocytes from Day 0 up to the Day 28. A and B 3D-Confocal microscopy of the renal organoid differentiated in mono culture and in transwell co-culture with human monocytes was performed. A For mono- and co-culture 64 and 135 Z-scans, respectively, were imaged with Z-distance of 1 µM. Sum image of Z-scans was obtained using ImageJ. B For mono- and co-culture 90 and 140 Z-scans, respectively, were imaged with Z-distance of 1 µM. Right panel shows fragment of one of Z-scans with higher magnification. C Size of organoids in z-dimension was analyzed. D Schematic diagram of our observations. EVs released by monocytes promote survival and differentiation of iPSC during initial stages of kidney organoids differentiation. This results in higher number and improved development of organoids

Developing the iPSCs-derived renal organoids in vitro was a notable advance in generating new approaches with the promise to overcome some disadvantages of animal models [ 39 , 40 ]. However, kidney organoids are not yet widely accepted as a model for human disease, and applications for drug development appear distant. Further improvement of the differentiation of iPSCs to kidney organoids remains an important and necessary step. Earlier studies focused on the renal developmental signaling pathways, though some aspects of the iPSCs differentiation remain poorly understood. As a result, the role of cell removal (cell death) during organoid development was not appreciated and remains poorly studied. The novel findings of our study could improve that state of affairs by underscoring the role of autophagy and macrophages in kidney organoid development.

During the initial stages of iPSCs differentiation to renal progenitors GSK3β kinase inhibition using CHIR is performed. This treatment results in non-specific activation of Wnt signaling pathway. A similar approach is used during the differentiation of iPSCs to cardiomyocytes. Using two different iPSCs cell lines we observed strong cell death by apoptosis during this step. This was paralleled by increased production of ROS and expression of apoptotic markers cleaved caspase 3 and cleaved PARP-1 (Fig.  3 ). Our data are consistent with results presented by several groups investigating cardiomyocyte differentiation [ 24 , 26 ]. Investigators reported that stabilized β-catenin can inhibit both, basal and stress-induced, autophagy [ 32 ]. We used the Autophagy detection kit and demonstrated a decreased rate of autophagy rates in the presence of CHIR (Fig.  2 C). The importance of autophagy during development and for normal tissue function is undisputed [ 19 ]. Activating autophagy by application of rapamycin promoted iPSCs survival and differentiation towards cardiomyocytes [ 23 , 24 ]⁠. During the differentiation of iPSCs to renal organoids rapamycin improved cell survival by increasing autophagy. However, in contrast to cardiac differentiation, rapamycin could not improve the robust differentiation of renal cells and the formation of kidney organoids.

Our idea was to expand the parameters, as it might be in vivo. We added macrophages into this (complex) equation by co-culturing with human iPSCs-derived macrophages and human blood monocytes. Others observed that tumor-associated macrophages can induce autophagy in the tumor cells thus promoting their survival [ 21 ]. However, the mechanism of this effect remains unknown. A recent report pointed out the role of iPSCs-derived microglia in brain organoid development [ 41 ]. They showed the role of cholesterol-contained lipid droplets released by microglia-like cells. To investigate whether EVs released by monocytes can promote survival and differentiation of iPSCs, we isolated EVs from monocytes using PEG precipitation. Enriched EVs could indeed promote iPSCs survival and differentiation without monocytes present (Fig.  4 ). Detailed investigation of monocytes-derived EVs and their cargo remains the objective of further study. The process of autophagy was activated in iPSCs co-cultured with monocytes, similar to the application of rapamycin. Cell survival was also dramatically improved by monocytes and macrophages (Fig.  2 ). Furthermore, the efficiency of differentiation and the formation of renal organoids has been strongly improved in co-culture with monocytes. One possible explanation for the improved differentiation could be a more efficient removal of damaged mitochondria by the process of autophagy. Such a state of affairs not only could prevent formation of ROS but also may promote the biogenesis of new mitochondria. Mitophagy is a necessary mechanism for mitochondrial biogenesis [ 42 ]. During the differentiation of renal organoids, iPSCs switch from glycolysis to oxidative phosphorylation [ 43 ] and biogenesis of mitochondria is important for the metabolic reprogramming of the iPSCs. However, it is likely that the role of monocytes is not limited to the activation of autophagy during CHIR stimulation.

There is an opportunity that monocytes in addition to the release of EVs exert also other more basic regulatory functions. We believe it is unlikely that the presence of monocytes can significantly affect the availability of nutrients in the culture because first, the ratio of monocytes to iPSCs was 1:40, respectively; and second, we adjusted the medium volume in co-culture. We have also analyzed the content of L-Lactate in the conditioned media since it reflects the rate of aerobic glycolysis and observed no difference.

Macrophages play an important role during the embryogenesis of the kidney. During organ’s functional development, tissue resident macrophages fulfill anti-inflammatory and repair functions. In vivo, macrophages do not differentiate from the renal progenitors but infiltrate the developing kidney from the yolk sac and fetal liver early in the development [ 15 ]. Depletion of macrophages resulted in disturbance of kidney organogenesis and decreased the number of vascular anastomoses in vivo [ 14 ]. Our data show that monocytes/macrophages can also promote the differentiation of kidney organoids from iPSCs in vitro. Detailed transcriptomic investigation of kidney organoid differentiation remains the objective of future studies. Nevertheless, our findings provide a novel tool for improving iPSCs differentiation towards kidney organoids.

Conclusions

Our study showed that the differentiation of iPSCs to kidney organoids can be significantly improved by co-culturing with human classical monocytes. Oxidative stress and apoptosis of iPSCs induced by CHIR are reduced in the presence of monocytes and by the application of rapamycin. Underlying mechanisms imply the activation of autophagy. Furthermore, monocytes but not rapamycin can strongly promote differentiation of iPSCs that results in higher number and better morphological structure of kidney organoids. Our study provides a novel approach for improving the utility of kidney organoid models.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article and its Supplementary information files.

Abbreviations

Basal medium

Bone morphogenetic protein

5- (And 6-)Carboxy-2',7'-Dichlorodihydrofluorescein-Diacetate

Cell counting kit 8

Dulbecco's phosphate-buffered saline

Extracellular vesicles

Fibroblast growth factor

Fibroblast growth factor 9

GATA binding protein 3

Glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor

Glycogen synthase kinase-3

Heat shock protein 90 alpha family class B member 1

Heat shock protein 70

Interferon gamma

Induced pluripotent stem cells

Interleukin 4

Interleukin 6

Interleukin 10

Lysosome-associated membrane protein 2

Lipopolysaccharide

Mammalian target of rapamycin

Macrophage colony-stimulating factor also known as colony stimulating factor 1

Odd-skipped related 1

Poly [ADP-ribose] polymerase 1

Sequestosome-1/ Ubiquitin-binding protein p62

Paired box gene 2

Platelet derived growth factor receptor beta

Polyethylenglycol

Polyvinylidene difluoride

Reactive oxygen species

Sodium dodecylsulfate

T-Box transcription factor 6

Tumor necrosis factor alpha

Wingless/Integrated

Chambers BE, Weaver NE, Wingert RA. The “3Ds” of growing kidney organoids: advances in nephron development, disease modeling, and drug screening. Cells. 2023;12(4):549. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells12040549 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Taguchi A, Kaku Y, Ohmori T, Sharmin S, Ogawa M, Sasaki H, et al. Redefining the in vivo origin of metanephric nephron progenitors enables generation of complex kidney structures from pluripotent stem cells. Cell Stem Cell. 2014;14(1):53–67.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Takasato M, Er PX, Becroft M, Vanslambrouck JM, Stanley EG, Elefanty AG, et al. Directing human embryonic stem cell differentiation towards a renal lineage generates a self-organizing kidney. Nat Cell Biol. 2014;16(1):118–26.

Morizane R, Lam AQ, Freedman BS, Kishi S, Valerius MT, Bonventre JV. Nephron organoids derived from human pluripotent stem cells model kidney development and injury. Nat Biotechnol. 2015;33(11):1193–200.

Freedman BS, Brooks CR, Lam AQ, Fu H, Morizane R, Agrawal V, et al. Modelling kidney disease with CRISPR-mutant kidney organoids derived from human pluripotent epiblast spheroids. Nat Commun. 2015;6:8715.

Little MH. Generating kidney tissue from pluripotent stem cells. Cell Death Discov. 2016;2:16053.

Xu J, Wong EYM, Cheng C, Li J, Sharkar MTK, Xu CY, et al. Eya1 interacts with Six2 and Myc to regulate expansion of the nephron progenitor pool during nephrogenesis. Dev Cell. 2014;31(4):434–47.

Little MH, Combes AN. Kidney organoids: accurate models or fortunate accidents. Genes Dev. 2019;33(19–20):1319–45.

Wu H, Uchimura K, Donnelly EL, Kirita Y, Morris SA, Humphreys BD. Comparative analysis and refinement of human PSC-derived kidney organoid differentiation with single-cell transcriptomics. Cell Stem Cell. 2018;23(6):869-881.e8.

Subramanian A, Sidhom E-H, Emani M, Vernon K, Sahakian N, Zhou Y, et al. Single cell census of human kidney organoids shows reproducibility and diminished off-target cells after transplantation. Nat Commun. 2019;10(1):5462.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Phipson B, Er PX, Combes AN, Forbes TA, Howden SE, Zappia L, et al. Evaluation of variability in human kidney organoids. Nat Methods. 2019;16(1):79–87.

Nishinakamura R. Human kidney organoids: progress and remaining challenges. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2019;15(10):613–24.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Rae F, Woods K, Sasmono T, Campanale N, Taylor D, Ovchinnikov DA, et al. Characterisation and trophic functions of murine embryonic macrophages based upon the use of a Csf1r-EGFP transgene reporter. Dev Biol. 2007;308(1):232–46.

Munro DAD, Wineberg Y, Tarnick J, Vink CS, Li Z, Pridans C, et al. Macrophages restrict the nephrogenic field and promote endothelial connections during kidney development. Elife. 2019. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.43271 .

Munro DAD, Hughes J. The origins and functions of tissue-resident macrophages in kidney development. Front Physiol. 2017;8:837.

Daniel E, Azizoglu DB, Ryan AR, Walji TA, Chaney CP, Sutton GI, et al. Spatiotemporal heterogeneity and patterning of developing renal blood vessels. Angiogenesis. 2018;21(3):617–34.

Mass E, Nimmerjahn F, Kierdorf K, Schlitzer A. Tissue-specific macrophages: how they develop and choreograph tissue biology. Nat Rev Immunol. 2023;23(9):563–79.

Liu F, Dai S, Feng D, Qin Z, Peng X, Sakamuri SSVP, et al. Distinct fate, dynamics and niches of renal macrophages of bone marrow or embryonic origins. Nat Commun. 2020;11(1):2280.

Perrotta C, Cattaneo MG, Molteni R, De Palma C. Autophagy in the regulation of tissue differentiation and homeostasis. Front cell Dev Biol. 2020;8:602901.

Chang NC. Autophagy and stem cells: self-eating for self-renewal. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2020;8:138.

Fu X-T, Song K, Zhou J, Shi Y-H, Liu W-R, Shi G-M, et al. Tumor-associated macrophages modulate resistance to oxaliplatin via inducing autophagy in hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer Cell Int. 2019;19:71.

Naujok O, Lentes J, Diekmann U, Davenport C, Lenzen S. Cytotoxicity and activation of the Wnt/beta-catenin pathway in mouse embryonic stem cells treated with four GSK3 inhibitors. BMC Res Notes. 2014;7:273.

Fort L, Gama V, Macara IG. Stem cell conversion to the cardiac lineage requires nucleotide signalling from apoptosing cells. Nat Cell Biol. 2022;24(4):434–47.

Laco F, Woo TL, Zhong Q, Szmyd R, Ting S, Khan FJ, et al. Unraveling the inconsistencies of cardiac differentiation efficiency induced by the GSK3β inhibitor CHIR99021 in human pluripotent stem cells. Stem Cell Rep. 2018;10(6):1851–66.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Voss AK, Strasser A. The essentials of developmental apoptosis. F1000Research. 2020;9:148. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.21571.1 .

Qiu X-X, Liu Y, Zhang Y-F, Guan Y-N, Jia Q-Q, Wang C, et al. Rapamycin and CHIR99021 coordinate robust cardiomyocyte differentiation from human pluripotent stem cells via reducing p53-dependent apoptosis. J Am Heart Assoc. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.116.005295 .

Dirks WG, MacLeod RAF, Nakamura Y, Kohara A, Reid Y, Milch H, Drexler HG, Mizusawa H. Cell line cross‐contamination initiative: an interactive reference database of STR profiles covering common cancer cell lines. Int J Cancer. 2010;126(1):303–4. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.24999 .

Hickman E, Smyth T, Cobos-Uribe C, Immormino R, Rebuli ME, Moran T, et al. Expanded characterization of in vitro polarized M0, M1, and M2 human monocyte-derived macrophages: bioenergetic and secreted mediator profiles. PLoS ONE. 2023;18(3):e0279037.

Lachmann N, Ackermann M, Frenzel E, Liebhaber S, Brennig S, Happle C, et al. Large-scale hematopoietic differentiation of human induced pluripotent stem cells provides granulocytes or macrophages for cell replacement therapies. Stem Cell Rep. 2015;4(2):282–96.

Ackermann M, Rafiei Hashtchin A, Manstein F, Carvalho Oliveira M, Kempf H, Zweigerdt R, et al. Continuous human iPSC-macrophage mass production by suspension culture in stirred tank bioreactors. Nat Protoc. 2022;17(2):513–39.

Weng Y, Sui Z, Shan Y, Hu Y, Chen Y, Zhang L, et al. Effective isolation of exosomes with polyethylene glycol from cell culture supernatant for in-depth proteome profiling. Analyst. 2016;141(15):4640–6.

Petherick KJ, Williams AC, Lane JD, Ordóñez-Morán P, Huelsken J, Collard TJ, et al. Autolysosomal β-catenin degradation regulates Wnt-autophagy-p62 crosstalk. EMBO J. 2013;32(13):1903–16.

Sotthibundhu A, McDonagh K, von Kriegsheim A, Garcia-Munoz A, Klawiter A, Thompson K, et al. Rapamycin regulates autophagy and cell adhesion in induced pluripotent stem cells. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2016;7(1):166.

Mostafavi S, Balafkan N, Pettersen IKN, Nido GS, Siller R, Tzoulis C, et al. Distinct mitochondrial remodeling during mesoderm differentiation in a human-based stem cell model. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2021;9:744777.

Onishi M, Yamano K, Sato M, Matsuda N, Okamoto K. Molecular mechanisms and physiological functions of mitophagy. EMBO J. 2021;40(3):e104705.

Sheta M, Taha EA, Lu Y, Eguchi T. Extracellular vesicles: new classification and tumor immunosuppression. Biology (Basel). 2023;12(1):110.

CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Singh AD, Patnam S, Manocha A, Bashyam L, Rengan AK, Sasidhar MV. Polyethylene glycol-based isolation of urinary extracellular vesicles, an easily adoptable protocol. MethodsX. 2023;11:102310.

Gebraad A, Kornilov R, Kaur S, Miettinen S, Haimi S, Peltoniemi H, et al. Monocyte-derived extracellular vesicles stimulate cytokine secretion and gene expression of matrix metalloproteinases by mesenchymal stem/stromal cells. FEBS J. 2018;285(12):2337–59.

Becker GJ, Hewitson TD. Animal models of chronic kidney disease: useful but not perfect. Nephrol Dial Transplant Off Publ Eur Dial Transpl Assoc - Eur Ren Assoc. 2013;28(10):2432–8.

Google Scholar  

Liang J, Liu Y. Animal models of kidney disease: challenges and perspectives. Kidney360. 2023;4(10):1479–93.

Park DS, Kozaki T, Tiwari SK, Moreira M, Khalilnezhad A, Torta F, et al. iPS-cell-derived microglia promote brain organoid maturation via cholesterol transfer. Nature. 2023;623(7986):397–405.

Liu L, Li Y, Chen G, Chen Q. Crosstalk between mitochondrial biogenesis and mitophagy to maintain mitochondrial homeostasis. J Biomed Sci. 2023;30(1):86.

Wang Q, Xiong Y, Zhang S, Sui Y, Yu C, Liu P, et al. The dynamics of metabolic characterization in iPSC-derived kidney organoid differentiation via a comparative omics approach. Front Genet. 2021;12:632810.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Professor F. Luft for critical reading the manuscript. There is no work that was outsourced. All data were collected by authors.

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. The study was funded by Scott MacKenzie Foundation.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Clinics for Kidney and Hypertension Disease, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany

Ekaterina Pecksen, Sergey Tkachuk, Cristoph Schröder, Marc Vives Enrich, Anindita Neog, Hermann Haller & Yulia Kiyan

Mount Desert Island Biological Laboratory, Bar Harbor, Maine, USA

Marc Vives Enrich, Anindita Neog, Cory P. Johnson & Hermann Haller

Department of Pediatric Pneumology Allergology and Neonatology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany

Niko Lachmann

Fraunhofer Institute for Toxicology and Experimental Medicine ITEM, Hannover, Germany

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

HH, NL, YK designed the study; EP, MVE, AN, ST, CPS, CPJ performed experimental work; EP, HH and YK made a major contributor in writing the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yulia Kiyan .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and informed consent.

During this study, buffy coats were obtained as a waste product of German Red Cross blood donations. Buffy coats were anonymized by the Red Cross before delivery. Accordingly to the Ethics Commetee of the Hannover Medical School, experiments using anonymized biological material that no longer allows any connections to the identity of the corresponding donor and that do not serve commercial purposes do not require additional ethical approval.

Consent for publication

Non applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

. Supplementary figures.

Additional file 2

. Supplementary Table 1. List of reagents and antibodies used in the study.

Additional file 3

. Supplementary Table 2. Results of authentication of iPSC cell lines.

Additional file 4 . Supplementary movie of organoid differentiated in mono-culture.

Additional file 5 . Supplementary movie of organoid differentiated in co-culture.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Pecksen, E., Tkachuk, S., Schröder, C. et al. Monocytes prevent apoptosis of iPSCs and promote differentiation of kidney organoids. Stem Cell Res Ther 15 , 132 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13287-024-03739-8

Download citation

Received : 15 December 2023

Accepted : 22 April 2024

Published : 03 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13287-024-03739-8

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

• Kidney organoids
• iPSCs-macrophages

Stem Cell Research & Therapy

ISSN: 1757-6512

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]