30
Participatory Action Research
Mark Baldwin
This chapter shows, rather than the genera- right and, if so, what kinds of social work
tion of new knowledge – the purpose of practice it suggests.
conventional research – participatory action
research (PAR) is driven predominantly by a
desire for positive social change. Growing
out of social and educational research, it is
WHAT PARTICIPATORY ACTION
one of the few research approaches embrac- RESEARCH CLAIMS TO BE
ing the principles of participation and critical
reflection. Its aim is to empower and emanci- The Handbook of Action Research defines
pate groups of people seeking to improve PAR as:
their situation and, to this end, involves col- a participatory process concerned with developing
laboration between researchers and stake- practical knowing in the pursuit of worthwhile
holders as co-researchers. It closely parallels human purposes. It seeks to bring together action
the purpose of social work as conceptualised and reflection, theory and practice, in participation
in the International Federation of Social with others, in the pursuit of practical solutions to
issues of pressing concern to people, and more
Workers (IFSW)/International Association of generally the flourishing of individual persons and
Schools of Social Work (IASSW) definition their communities (Reason & Bradbury, 2008, p. 4).
(see Chapter 24).
The chapter begins with a review of the There are several important aspects to this
conceptual foundations of PAR, highlighting definition of PAR as a form of cooperative or
its benefits and shortcomings. It then exam- collaborative enquiry. Firstly, PAR conducts
ines PAR’s compatibility with the values and research with people not on them (Heron &
methods of social work providing illustrative Reason, 2001). Those involved in the prob-
examples of its appropriateness for investi- lem under study are part of the research proc-
gating many of the questions social work ess. Secondly, co-researchers join together to
practitioners, academics, students, and serv- develop knowledge to inform practice and
ice users ask. Notwithstanding critiques of solve concrete problems. As such, PAR aims
PAR, the chapter asks whether social work is to ensure the actions of those involved are
a form of participatory research in its own better informed, if not changed through the
5712-Gray-30.indd 467 2/23/2012 6:04:05 PM
468 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF SOCIAL WORK
research process. Thirdly, PAR is a process Three inter-related aspects of PAR are now
of knowledge development involving action examined before going on to describe how it
and reflection. It is a creative process of test- works in practice:
ing knowledge in action and through critical
reflection on action. Lastly, PAR aims to 1 its participatory world view fitting the social
solve concrete problems and, in so doing, constructionist argument people construct reality
make a positive difference in the lives of in relationship with one another;
2 the focus on action and making a difference to
those involved in the research process and
how people behave;
those who benefit from it (Wadsworth, 1998). 3 the nature of knowledge created through partici-
Hence PAR is transformative rather than patory action processes not just valuing formal
merely informative. As Gergen and Gergen theory, but also other ways of knowing and
(2008) argue, PAR is about ‘world making’ making sense of the world.
not ‘world mapping’ (p. 159). Research
should, in their view, show people how the
world could be and not just how it is. In
Participatory world view
wanting to make a difference, participatory
action researchers often make claims to the Participatory action research takes a social
emancipatory nature of the PAR process. constructionist perspective holding to the
There are examples, in the world of social belief all knowledge is socially created.
work, of PAR changing practice through There is no reality independent of human
critical reflection (Baldwin, 2001; Bryan, beings and, therefore, suggests all knowledge
2002; Jones, 2004; Kreitzer et al., 2009) and is relative since it is co-constructed by human
transforming the lives of marginalised groups beings in relationships with others and, fur-
through challenging rather than perpetuating thermore, humans in interaction with one
oppression (Baldwin, 1997; Bryan, 2002; another co-create their reality from their par-
Chowns, 2008; Cassano & Dunlop, 2005; ticular worldview (Reason, 1994). Hence
Fenge 2010). human relationships are fundamental to the
Van Rooyen and Gray (1995) provide a co-construction of reality and research meth-
useful critique of participatory research and odology should reflect this inextricable rela-
its compatibility with social work foreshad- tionship. For researchers to see themselves as
owing Reason and Bradbury’s (2008) defini- separate from the researched is to deny this
tion cited above. They defined PAR as an relationship. Researcher-led methodologies,
‘experiential research process where people where objective measures are used (see
are collectively involved on an equal basis in Chapter 27) wherein the researcher’s inter-
collective action aimed at knowledge devel- pretation of the data is paramount are exam-
opment, education, social change and ples of the separation of researcher and
empowerment’ (van Rooyen & Gray 1995, p. research subjects. They imply research sub-
89). Their review of the literature describes jects’ knowledge has lesser importance. From
three aspects of participatory approaches a PAR perspective, knowledge thus gained is
which are the source of their strength as a less likely to have meaning for the subjects of
research methodology. These are: the research because it has not been con-
structed from within their experience. They
the collective investigation of problems involving the are, therefore, less likely to find use for
active participation of those affected by them; the research findings or to see them as relevant to
collective analysis of data so that participants gain their particular situation. In PAR ownership
an enhanced understanding of both the problems of research data and the knowledge gener-
identified and their underlying structural causes;
the collective action of participants to yield both
ated is crucial based on the belief people are
short and long term solutions to their identified also less likely to change their behaviour in
problems (van Rooyen & Gray 1995, p. 3). directions suggested by research if they have
5712-Gray-30.indd 468 2/23/2012 6:04:05 PM
PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH 469
not been part of the research experience. co-researchers is paramount and the driving
Hence they are more likely to reject the find- force is the search for practical solutions
ings of research if they have not participated likely to make a difference in the lives of
in the production of knowledge directly rel- participants, who are, more often than not,
evant to their concerns (Baldwin, 2000). oppressed or marginalised social groups. For
Subject participation, on the other hand, is this reason, Reason and Bradbury (2008)
more likely to generate a sense of ownership argued PAR is: (i) political in ‘asserting peo-
and ensure the outcomes of the research are ple’s right and ability to have a say in deci-
‘empowering and sustaining’ (van Rooyen & sions which affect them and which claim to
Gray, 1995, p. 97). For this reason, PAR claims generate knowledge about them’ (p. 9); and
to generate locally relevant, useful knowledge (ii) empowering in enabling marginalised
capable of solving real-world problems. people to ‘see that they are capable of construct-
In this sense, the influence on the develop- ing and using their own knowledge’ (p. 9).
ment of participatory research from ‘in-depth,
community level anthropological research’
(van Rooyen & Gray, 1995, p. 88) is discern-
ible. This tradition is apparent through much THE NATURE OF KNOWLEDGE
of the ethnographic research used within a CREATED THROUGH PARTICIPATORY
participatory framework. For example, Carol ACTION RESEARCH
Stack, the white US researcher, is described
as using a participatory ethnography in her Rather than privileging objective or proposi-
work with Black Americans (Edmonson Bell, tional knowledge, as in orthodox research,
2001). The participative nature of her research, Reason and Heron (2008) suggested an
built on a value base which esteemed hearing extended epistemology for PAR including:
the voice of the poorest and most marginal- (i) experiential knowledge gained through
ised in the community, rather than the usual direct encounters with people, places, and
community leaders, is a powerful example of objects; (ii) practical knowledge related to
the way in which PAR can use anthropologi- competence or skill – knowing ‘how to’ do
cal and ethnographic traditions, within a par- something; (iii) propositional or explanatory
ticipatory world view, to hear the voice of knowledge comprising theories ‘about’ some-
marginalised people. thing; and (iv) presentational knowledge
expressed through speech, writing, and art to
symbolise and convey meaning (Reason,
1994; see also Heron, 1996). Propositional
Focus on participatory action
knowledge – or formal theory – has domi-
An action focus is pivotal to PAR built on nated Western epistemology with its positiv-
the idea people’s involvement in research ist scientific rationality. Being gleaned by
directly concerning them is likely to generate expert researchers from individual subjects
useable knowledge and enhance the possibil- alienated as objects of research, it is not
ity of problem-solving action based on the grounded in subjective, experiential, and
research findings. People’s participation has practical knowledge. In recognising the dan-
the added impact of removing power differ- gers of this separation, PAR provides a par-
entials between researchers and research ticipatory model to ensure propositional
subjects – seen as participants in the PAR knowledge is grounded in the experience
process (Healy, 2001; Reason & Heron, of service users as co-researchers and co-
1995). Whereas the aim of conventional constructed by them through democratic
research is the generation of objective knowl- decision-making processes. It also requires
edge, in PAR the subjective perceptions, reflection upon and validation of other
interests, and experiences of participants or forms of knowledge within the extended
5712-Gray-30.indd 469 2/23/2012 6:04:05 PM
470 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF SOCIAL WORK
epistemology outlined above and emphasises method with its pursuit of certainty (Harre,
the part feelings play in generating or block- 1981). From his study of diverse professions,
ing knowledge development in the reflective he found multiple realities and myriad ways
inquiry-action learning cycle (Boud & of knowing constituted the everyday lives of
Knights, 1996). Honing the critical faculties professionals. PAR is equipped uniquely for
of participants is, therefore, an important this uncertain world: Its collaborative proc-
outcome of PAR (Baldwin, 2000, 2004; esses of knowledge creation validate multi-
Bryan, 2002; Chowns, 2008; Glennie & ple voices and constructions of reality, where
Cosier, 1994; Jones, 2004). participants own the knowledge created.
More important in professional practice is
making sense of participants’ subjective
experience and behaviour in particular situa-
THE PURPOSE OF PARTICIPATORY tions rather than the generation of ‘new’
ACTION RESEARCH AND ITS knowledge or solution of broader social
USE IN PRACTICE problems.
Reason and Bradbury (2008) refer to three
purposes for PAR. Firstly, it brings an ‘action Illustrative examples of
dimension’ back to research generating useful participatory action
knowledge in practice. As a collaborative research in practice
research process, it uses cycles of reflection
and action to create new forms of knowledge In the context of professional social work
and understanding where the aim is to link practice, PAR can provide support for social
rather than separate knowing and doing. This workers working in threatening organisa-
is why participatory action researchers claim tional contexts (Baldwin, 2000, 2001; Heron,
the potential to produce useful, practical, 1996), such as Black practitioners working in
locally relevant, emancipatory knowledge predominantly White organisations, given its
freeing research participants to transform commitment ‘to improving practice in organ-
their lives through the actions they take in isations and bringing about political change
and as a result of the research process. to improve the lives of black people in a
Secondly, it challenges the status quo by racist society’ (Bryan, 2002, p. 1). It enhances
giving voice to local people’s perspectives multidisciplinary practice in contexts, such
and shifting views on what constitutes as child protection, where engaging groups
‘useful’ knowledge (Swantz, 2008). It pro- of practitioners in collaborative inquiry is
motes ‘inclusive participation … to address essential to interprofessional teamwork
embedded social and economic inequalities’ (Glennie & Cosier, 1994). Jones (2004) dem-
(Gaventa & Cornwall, 2008, p. 173) giving it onstrated its usefulness in improving assess-
the appearance of political action or commu- ment practices with prospective foster
nity development rather than research or parents. Baldwin (2001) used cooperative
knowledge development. Thirdly, it moves inquiry to explore social workers’ use of pro-
away from the modernist, positivist mindset fessional knowledge, skills, and values within
many PAR protagonists argue is dominated a challenging new policy framework per-
by ‘crude notions of economic progress’ ceived to be undermining their autonomy.
(Reason & Bradbury, 2008, p. 7). Most influ- They experimented with new forms of prac-
ential in this regard was the work of psy- tice, collected data on their effectiveness,
chologist Schön (1984) who believed over a six-month period, developed under-
reflection in action was a better way of standing of the nature of the problems with
making sense of the ‘swampy lowlands’ of which they were dealing, and gained confi-
professional practice than the scientific dence in the process, in particular, valuing
5712-Gray-30.indd 470 2/23/2012 6:04:05 PM
PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH 471
the opportunities to reflect critically on their and, after some cycling, presented to all
practice. Three further examples are dis- involved as an action plan. This initial proc-
cussed below to illustrate PAR’s use in social ess was far from easy. There was a commit-
work. Each depicts PAR as a strongly col- ment from most staff but this was complicated
laborative and empowering approach, con- as many centre users did not initially have the
gruent with the ethos, values, aims, and capacity to make choices or offer opinions.
practice of social work. The depth of marginalisation of these centre
users was remarkable, although, through the
use of a participatory research approach, this
Daycare on the move marginalisation was largely overcome. With
(Baldwin, 1997) sensitive and empowering facilitation, the
groups moved from being unable to under-
Baldwin (1997) describes his research with stand the concept of choice to being assertive
colleagues involved in a daycare centre for about what they wanted individually and
people with learning difficulties, where a collectively for the centre.
person-centred model of service provision The next phase involved networking
was used (Williams, 2006). Senior staff mem- groups based on areas for future activity
bers were concerned service users were identified as appropriate and desirable by the
being stigmatised and labelled in the local changeover groups. They then took the activ-
community. Consequently, they had bought ity (or occupation) as a research focus. The
into a consultancy package, which was based degree of sophistication of this cooperative
on a participatory, action-oriented approach inquiry was remarkable. It followed the prin-
to change, and had engaged the researcher ciples of PAR in being participatory (all
as an external participant tasked with pro- members of the group were involved as equal
viding an evaluation of the change process. partners), involving action and reflection
Drawing on O’Brien and Lyle’s (1987) frame- (going out and finding information, followed
work, Baldwin (1997) endeavoured to assess by an opportunity to share and make sense of
the extent to which service users had been what had been learnt), and creating useable
able to: knowledge.
An example was the catering group, who
1 exercise their right to share the centre with eve-
decided to research the viability of a business
ryone else;
2 make real choices affecting their lives;
providing light lunches, with a view to mar-
3 develop their skills and abilities; keting their enterprise to the local authority
4 be treated with respect and play a valued role in for staff on training days. They explored
society; menus, ingredients, purchasing, preparation,
5 grow in relationships. cooking, equipment, health and safety, and
potential markets. Each person’s interests
The collaborative PAR process involved and capabilities – in what became known as
staff-facilitated groups of service users, staff, the catering crew – contributed the motiva-
and other stakeholders. It was overseen by a tion to start a successful business providing
core group comprising representatives of all delicious lunches (tried and tested by the
constituencies. Centre users were placed in author!).
changeover groups taking the process through This was a PAR project because: (i) it was
the early stages of action and reflection when inclusive, democratic, and participatory; and
options for change were explored and (ii) rather than merely map the existing world
debated. Each changeover group provided of service users, it created a new world for
the core group with ideas for change, where- them (Gergen & Gergen, 2008). Some centre
upon they were collated, critically reflected users had very poor communication skills
upon, checked with each group for accuracy and dedicated efforts were made by staff and
5712-Gray-30.indd 471 2/23/2012 6:04:05 PM
472 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF SOCIAL WORK
user colleagues to ensure their involvement. which a democratic, collaborative process
One service user, who was believed to be was followed and knowledge and learning
mute, began to speak when being filmed and was co-constructed could be subject to some
literally found his voice through the PAR critique. Nevertheless, the justification for
process. using PAR was located within its transforma-
Cycles of action and reflection meant the tional potential. The group endeavoured to
process of cooperative inquiry resulted in construct methods to ensure democratic com-
effective learning about the practicalities munication, worked hard to reach consensus
of running a small enterprise. The author on important matters, such as information
observed and highlighted the different gathering and critical analysis, and generated
forms of knowledge found most helpful. research themes geared towards constructing
Presentational knowledge was used in imagi- action plans. These then determined the
native ways by staff and centre users alike. focus of the work.
The view of the ‘mute’ man, presented on One theme was the exploration of ‘past
video, was one such example. The validation influences that have affected education in
of different forms of knowledge in the Ghana’ (Kreitzer et al., 2009, p. 152). Explo-
extended epistemology of PAR was vital in ration through cycles of study and reflection
ensuring everyone’s voice was heard (Heron challenged the group to ‘critically examine
& Reason, 2008). underlying [Western] assumptions’ (Kreitzer
et al., 2009, p. 153) affecting their personal
and professional development. This action-
Developing culturally and-reflection phase enabled the group to
appropriate social work in explore traditional Ghanaian beliefs and cul-
tural practices so collectively they could
Ghana (Kreitzer et al., 2009)
decide which were appropriate to local social
Baldwin (1997) showed PAR can be devel- work education and practice. In so doing,
opmental or emancipatory in process and they also studied the effects of globalisation
intent. Another study, facilitated by Canadian and the way in which neoliberal International
academic Kreitzer as the subject of her Ph.D. Monetary Fund policies had led to cuts in
research, was primarily developmental but government spending on education and wel-
had emancipatory potential. She involved a fare services thus marginalising social work
group of nine Ghanaian social workers – one in Ghana.
academic, five Bachelor of Social Work The group’s inquiry focused on: (i) foreign
(BSW) and Diploma graduates, two BSW and local influences on social work educa-
students, and a local community leader in a tion in Ghana and social work’s position
PAR project aimed at developing culturally on the ‘periphery’ (Kreitzer et al., 2009,
appropriate social work education in Ghana p. 156); (ii) restructuring the Ghanaian
(Kreitzer et al., 2009). The initial stages of Association of Social Workers (GASOW),
the research involved developing understand- which had become weak and disorganised;
ing of social work in Ghana so as to explore (iii) researching African social work litera-
ways to make it more consistent with African ture and getting these texts into university
culture and values. Kreitzer’s research libraries; (iv) evaluating the effectiveness of
involved developing an understanding of the social welfare institutions and social work
tension between Western and African per- practice in Ghana, noting the undue British
spectives by collecting African social work influences and the implications of changes
literature for the group and, based on group for social work education; and (v) developing
discussions, developing her critique of a new culturally appropriate postcolonial
Western, hegemonic social work ideas vis à social work curriculum, which balanced
vis Ghanaian social work. Thus the extent to the traditional and colonial systems. After a
5712-Gray-30.indd 472 2/23/2012 6:04:05 PM
PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH 473
ten-month period, the following outcomes approach to research respecting the margin-
were achieved. alised nature of the group and the need to
engage in a process in which their voices
1 The ‘core themes of the research were incor- could be heard and make a difference, at the
porated into the existing courses’; new ones very least, in their own lives. Chowns (2008)
reflecting ‘the social needs of Ghanaian society’ described the research as ‘a collaborative
(Kreitzer et al., 2009, p. 159) were added; read-
inquiry that sought to enable children to be
ing lists were revised to include the new-found
African texts; and new teaching methods, such
listened to, and respected for their expertise
as the use of video, were developed. and experience’ (p. 562). She focused on two
2 To raise the profile of social work, the research particular aspects, namely, power and com-
group made a public education video with assist- petence. She covered the ethical issues
ance from Ghana TV. involved, namely, informed consent, confi-
3 The GASOW was revivified with a new, more dentiality, and the ownership of knowledge
active executive. generated, noting her value position as well
as a number of different methods for ensur-
While there are some concerns about the ing ethical issues were addressed. These
written evaluation of this project, such as included acknowledging the children’s rights
questions regarding participants’ insider– and abilities and seeking their consent before
outsider status, power, and control of the talking to parents. In addition, she engaged in
PAR process, and the possibility some were a number of trust exercises enabling the
marginalised as a consequence, Kreitzer et young people to address their hopes and
al. (2009) concluded the ‘PAR process, as fears, starting from an ‘assumption of ability
experienced by this group of people, gener- rather than vulnerability’ (Chowns, 2008, p.
ated a wealth of knowledge and experience’ 566). She conveyed the message their voice
(p. 161). The process was described as inter was important thus addressing the power dif-
alia chaotic, confusing, serious, and conflict- ferentials in research involving young people.
ual, but the outcome of a clear process to At all stages, children were given permission
disseminate learning and conscientise par- to veto the content of discussions and the
ticipants so changes to the curriculum could recording of them. As in Baldwin (1997), a
be made to the benefit of Ghanaian society great deal of emphasis was placed on group
made it worthwhile. This is a substantial processes and facilitation, and on building
claim for a research project and it perhaps trust and modelling good practice, which
overplays the importance of the research Chowns (2008) saw as fundamental to the
process in particular and social work in gen- success of the project. The vehicle for dem-
eral as a force for the benefit of society as a onstrating the knowledge, as in the example
whole. above, was video.
The children generated ideas for discus-
sion, although the process was facilitated
Collaborative inquiry with by adults. In light of the possibility of dis-
children (Chowns, 2008) tressing feelings being generated by the proc-
ess, opportunities for feedback, reflection,
In engaging in a process of research with and offloading were introduced. These
children facing the life-threatening illness of included trust exercises, games, discussions,
a parent, Chowns (2008), a palliative care and opportunities for feedback at the begin-
social worker-researcher, pushes the bounda- ning and end of each session when partici-
ries of what she identifies as an acceptable pants were given the chance to examine
subject group because the voices of these positive and negative aspects of the process.
particular children were rarely heard. Hence Other than the skill of reflection, the children
she thought it necessary to employ an learnt to express themselves in coherent and
5712-Gray-30.indd 473 2/23/2012 6:04:05 PM
474 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF SOCIAL WORK
sophisticated ways over the course of the regarding young people’s capacity or com-
project. They also showed the video at con- petence to express their feelings and beliefs,
ferences and learnt skills of presentation. thus questioning their reliability as co-
Hence ‘the project … enabled a marginalised researchers. However, she believed the chil-
group of service users – children – to com- dren would be no more reliable or unreliable
municate their research directly to the wider than any other group of participants. Hence,
public’ (Chowns, 2008, p. 565). While ongo- she started with the ‘assumption of ability’
ing critique is necessary (see later) about the favouring ‘capacity and competence’
degree to which this process constituted (Chowns, 2008, p. 566). The process of the
‘research’, there is a strongly made argument research, the video produced, and the oppor-
the process enabled these young people to tunities for the children to present their work
create new knowledge for and about them- to adults at professional practitioner confer-
selves and this made a difference in their ences, changed those involved despite the
lives. For instance, the effect on the young project’s ‘limited power to change the broader
people’s self-esteem was considerable, ena- context in which it took place’ (Chowns,
bling them ‘to properly value themselves 2008, p. 568). Since competence was not
as worthwhile contributors to society, rather acknowledged, generally, by other key adults
than as passive victims needing help’ in the children’s lives – parents, school teach-
(Chowns, 2008, p. 565). Chowns (2008) also ers, and the wider community, Chowns
noted their critical faculties were honed, par- (2008) concluded ‘knowledge may be power,
ticularly through practising ‘other-centred but if that knowledge is not respected or
behaviour’ (p. 566). Another fundamental sanctioned as knowledge by those currently
aspect of PAR was the collaborative ethos, in power (adults), then it may yet not bring
which was significant, not just in building power to the knowers (children)’ (p. 568).
critical capability, but also for mutual capac- She noted, in constructing children ‘as know-
ity building. There were some profoundly ers, actors and equals … the espoused values
moving examples of the ability to empathise of social work and collaborative inquiry [we]
and draw out deep feeling between the chil- re the same’ (Chowns, 2008, p. 568).
dren in the account. The learning from this Collaborative inquiry tried to shift the power
research process concluded young children dynamic not through research as method but
were able to use the participatory aspect of through modelling collaboration. This made
the research process to express personal feel- it akin to empowering social work practice
ings, such as fear or grief, they found diffi- (e.g. Dalrymple & Burke, 2006; Dominelli,
cult to articulate. Again, some observers may 2002; Guttierez, Parsons, & Cox, 1998). The
wish to define this more as group work than discussion now turns to the overlapping
research. What makes this research from the nature of social work practice and participa-
PAR perspective is the engagement of the tory action research.
researcher in helping young people under-
stand the research process, that is, how to
collect information so as to find new and
effective ways of solving the problems more PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH:
traditional helping approaches had left them AN APPROACH SUITABLE FOR
struggling with, such as grief management. SOCIAL WORK?
The key outcome of the research is the new
knowledge generated through the process Participatory action research and social
making a difference in these young people’s work are linked in three ways: (i) there are
lives. similarities between the aims, values, and
Chowns (2008) encountered views from skills of PAR and social work (Barbera,
parents, schools, and the wider community 2008; Healy, 2001); (ii) social work favours
5712-Gray-30.indd 474 2/23/2012 6:04:06 PM
PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH 475
collaborative, cooperative research (Reason & Bradbury, 2008) and other com-
approaches involving service-user participa- mentaries on its purpose and aims, several
tion (see Chapter 44); (iii) the social work connections emerge: (i) Reason and Bradbury
process could be seen as a form of PAR and (2008) emphasise the participatory nature of
vice versa; (iv) both are political in represent- PAR in much the same way that social work
ing the interests of oppressed and marginal- emphasises working in solidarity with those
ised groups; (v) both capitalise on strengths; who are disadvantaged; (ii) PAR emphasises
(vi) both focus on process and outcomes; and the importance of practical change as does
(vii) both recognise the importance of critical the definition of social work; (iii) the IFSW/
reflection. IASSW (2000/2001) definition refers to
enhancing well-being, while Reason and
Bradbury (2008) refer to ‘human flourishing’
Definitional similarities (p. 1) and the contribution of PAR to ‘increased
well-being’ (p. 4); and (iv) Reason and
The two principal international social work Bradbury (2008) talk about creating ‘theories
organisations, the IASSW and the IFSW, which contribute to human emancipation’ (p.
agreed on the following definition of social 4) while the definition of social work refers
work: to the values of alleviating poverty and liber-
The social work profession promotes social change, ating ‘vulnerable and oppressed people in
problem solving in human relationships and the order to promote social inclusion’ (IFSW/
empowerment and liberation of people to enhance IASSW, 2000/2001). These correspondences
well-being. Utilising theories of human behaviour between the two activities at the level of
and social systems, social work intervenes at the
definition are profound, but the similarities
points where people interact with their environ-
ments. Principles of human rights and social jus- do not stop there.
tice are fundamental to social work (IFSW/IASSW,
2000/2001).
Service-user involvement
And on the following statement on values:
Much of the rhetoric from social care policy,
Since its beginnings over a century ago, social
practice guidelines, and academic writing
work practice has focused on meeting human
needs and developing human potential. Human about social work emphasises the importance
rights and social justice serve as the motivation of working in participation with service
and justification for social work action. In solidarity users. Indeed, in the UK, for instance, this
with those who are disadvantaged, the profession was written into law (e.g., in the Children’s
strives to alleviate poverty and to liberate vulnera-
Act, 1989 and National Health Service and
ble and oppressed people in order to promote
social inclusion (IFSW/IASSW, 2000/2001). Community Care Act, 1990) and governs
how social workers should work with chil-
The statement on theories states: ‘The dren, their families, and with adults. This
social work profession draws on theories of directly reflects the centrality of participation
human development and behaviour and social as a value and process not only for effective
systems to analyse complex situations and to social work but also for successful PAR, as
facilitate individual, organisational, social discussed earlier.
and cultural changes’ (IFSW/IASSW, 2000/
2001). Finally, the statement on practice
includes: ‘Social work addresses the barriers,
Shared political objectives
inequities and injustices that exist in society’
(IFSW/IASSW, 2000/2001). Proponents of social work and PAR see both
Returning to the definition of PAR pro- as areas of political activity, with an eye to the
vided in the Handbook of Action Research ways in which unequal power relationships
5712-Gray-30.indd 475 2/23/2012 6:04:06 PM
476 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF SOCIAL WORK
create and maintain poverty and oppression. direct outcomes for oppressed and marginal-
In the radical tradition, social work was ised people than with knowledge develop-
viewed as a political activity seeking to: (i) ment and this brings the approach close to
liberate some sections of the community the the values of contemporary social work
welfare state machinery maintained in pov- where service-user participation is seen as
erty (Bailey & Brake, 1975); (ii) involve empowering and transformative. One impor-
them in decision making about the distribu- tant outcome is giving marginalised groups a
tion of scarce resources (Baldwin, 2011); (iii) ‘voice’, as in the example above of children
work with marginalised people constructed as living with a parent who has a life-threaten-
quasi-consumers in a market of care (Ferguson ing condition (Chowns, 2008), where those
& Woodward, 2009); and (iv) question the involved also gained confidence in the value
supremacy of global capitalism and the way of the knowledge they had generated, not just
in which it marginalises and oppresses people for them, but also for others, such as fellow
(Ferguson & Woodward, 2009; Ferguson, practitioners, or where children are con-
Lavalette, & Whitmore, 2005). cerned, their parents. PAR encourages ‘people
from minority groups to have a “voice” in
defining knowledge, theory and practice in
Capitalising on strengths their lives’ (Fenge, 2010, p. 878) and might
also provide social workers working in hos-
Another aspect of commonality is a focus on tile environments with a powerful means of
strengths (see Chapter 11), with its emphasis understanding and addressing their feelings
on the expertise and autonomy of service of powerlessness. By aligning themselves
users in assessing and meeting their own with service users, clients and social workers
needs (Baldwin & Teater, 2012; Teater 2010). alike can gain a voice.
Social workers do, however, need to be wary
of trumpeting the strengths perspective in
isolation from other considerations, such as
Focus on critical reflection
structural inequalities, as it could, in isolation
from a broader political analysis, be seen to Writers such as Schön (1984) and Boud and
be congruent with ‘contemporary neoliberal Knights (1996) have been highly influential
notions of self-help and self-responsibility’ in the development of critical reflection in
(Gray, 2011, p. 10). The UK’s ruling Con- social work (Fook, 2002; Gould & Baldwin,
servative Party policy on ‘The Big Society’ 2004; Gould & Taylor, 1996) and Heron’s
would be a good example of this. The more (1996) cooperative inquiry, later expanded
empowering version of the strengths per- with Peter Reason into the approach now
spective is reflected in the writing of a known as action research, further popular-
number of action researchers, such as Brydon- ised critical reflection (Heron & Reason,
Miller (2008), who acknowledges the impor- 2001). Hence Gaventa and Cornwall (2008)
tance of participant autonomy and voice in and Brydon-Miller (2008) refer to PAR as a
the construction of knowledge and research process of reflection emphasising its impor-
practice. However, this is difficult to sustain tance in developing critical consciousness
in neoliberal environments seeking to curtail and dealing with power relationships within
autonomy (see Chapter 4). the research process. However, neither PAR
nor radical social work is mainstream. PAR
has struggled to maintain a place in the
research hierarchy, although there is some
Focus on process and outcomes
evidence of its success in the market for
Some forms of participatory research are books and journals, such as Reason and
more concerned with processes leading to Bradbury (2008) and the Journal of Action
5712-Gray-30.indd 476 2/23/2012 6:04:06 PM
PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH 477
Research (now into its eighth volume), both acknowledge this means power becomes
of which have elicited contributions from invisible or is driven underground. She
many disciplines across the globe. Radical laments the lack of reflection on the overt
social work perspectives retain their appeal forms of power recreated by PAR, such as
due to their critique of mainstream social consciousness-raising, which presupposes
work practice and the global managerialist research participants are uneducated or igno-
agenda (Ferguson & Lavalette 2008; Ferguson rant and need the researcher to make sense of
& Woodward, 2009; Ferguson, Lavalette, & their oppression. She asks how overarching
Whitmore, 2005). They are rediscovering claims of PAR’s potential to change the
their voice in some parts of the world, such world might be measured, noting examples
as the UK, where the radical Social Work of projects contributing to local change but a
Action Network (SWAN) has proved suc- lack of evidence of PAR initiatives changing
cessful in attracting social workers’ interest the social order. Further, Healy (2001) sug-
in its publications (e.g., Ferguson & Lavalette, gests PAR is too conflictual and oppositional
2008) and conferences (see Chapter 47). in its approach to dealing with the results of
Likewise, PAR is marginal in social research, structural oppression, since social workers
partly because of wariness as to its efficacy. have to make pragmatic decisions about
For example, Frideres (1992) offers a strident which battles to fight, partly because they
attack on the nonscientific basis of participa- risk losing their jobs if they take on the
tory research claiming it is ‘moral and ideo- wrong power brokers. There are limited
logical’ (p. 4) in its search for a ‘legitimizing opportunities for social workers to act as co-
strategy’ (p. 5). He sees knowledge gleaned researchers in contemporary Western envi-
from PAR as ‘idiosyncratic’ (Frideres, 1992, ronments where market forces, managerialism,
p. 8) reflecting ‘the opinion or conviction of and privatisation threaten professional auton-
a specific individual’ (p. 7). He goes on to omy, ascribe highly prescriptive roles, and
claim PAR undermines the privileging of leave little time for the reflective approach of
scientific knowledge are ‘an ethical consid- PAR. PAR is time and resource intensive
eration … [rather than] a research issue’ (p. making it unattractive to research funders.
8) and rebrands PAR as an education or com- Finally, it does not transfer easily across cul-
munity development medium claiming it tures built as it is on a Western ethos of ‘con-
transcends ‘the bounds of research … [in] flict, protest and dissent as features of social
mixing ideology and politics with scientific progress’ (Healy, 2001, p. 102), which is not
research’ (p. 9). Whether or not PAR consti- necessarily applicable, for example, in some
tutes research is clearly debatable and, as in Asian contexts.
the examples above, it is not always clear While noting the consistency between the
what new knowledge has been produced. core values of social work and PAR, Barbera
Rather it is clearer how existing knowledge (2008) warns there is an ethical issue in the
has been used for the betterment of partici- risks participants take in speaking up, whether
pants, either to enhance their understanding they are practitioners or members of the
or improve their skills. For academics who community. Social workers could lose their
accept PAR as a legitimate form of research, jobs and members of the community could
there are still problems requiring resolution. fall foul of the authorities as shown in her
For example, Healy (2001) questions whether case example from Chile, post-Pinochet. The
PAR reduces power differentials in research need for participants to make informed deci-
relationships. While PAR claims researchers sions about the consequences of participation
should eliminate power differences, activi- is clear. PAR exponents Rennie and Singh
ties, such as initiating activism, promoting (1995) warn, at its worst, PAR could result in
involvement, and facilitating meetings all co-option of key members of communities to
involve the exercise of power. Failure to more powerful agendas, thus undermining
5712-Gray-30.indd 477 2/23/2012 6:04:06 PM
478 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF SOCIAL WORK
community cohesion. Participation holds the than a mainstream research methodology.
danger of being exploitative and tokenistic. It Likewise, Healy (2001) believes participa-
can provide an impression of involvement tory action researchers must be transparent
but actually have the effect of legitimising given the considerable opportunities for
powerful political and business agendas social workers to engage in collaborative
rather than those of marginalised communi- research (Baldwin, 2000, 2004; Jones, 2004);
ties. Another powerful proponent of PAR, positive feedback from service users engaged
McTaggart (1999) notes the problems of as co-researchers in cooperative or collabora-
publication and dissemination as having tive inquiry (Baldwin, 1997; Chowns, 2008);
potential to alter or at least diffuse the voice and encouraging outcomes in multidiscipli-
of participants because of the problem of col- nary environments (Glennie & Cosier, 1994;
lective recording. Ultimately, whose voice is Jones, 2004). Indeed, wherever human beings
heard? experience the blunt end of discrimination,
Another interesting critical consideration due to racism, gender inequalities, homopho-
for participatory action researchers is the bia, disabling environments, ageism, clas-
notion of insiders and outsiders (Cassano & sism, Indigeneity, or any of the other ways in
Dunlop, 2005). In describing PAR with South which people’s lives are devalued as a result
Asian immigrant women, Cassano and of unequal power relationships, social work-
Dunlop (2005) note how an external ers and participatory action researchers will
researcher, acting as facilitator for a PAR be found. However, they will be people who
group, had her position undermined by the recognise the negative impacts of global
director of a voluntary organisation. There is capitalism and want to make a difference by
also an issue, not discussed in any detail, of changing the world. There are others, for
the problems associated with outsider status, example from some of the new social move-
where the facilitator can skew the cooperative ments, with whom participatory action
inquiry process by their presence – as in the researchers and social workers will also col-
Kreitzer et al. (2009) example earlier. In laborate, but, in the fields of social work and
other contexts, where researchers are insid- research practice, such a political perspective
ers, there might be questions about the degree is still comparatively unusual.
to which they can be neutral in the research
process (van Rooyen & Gray, 1995). The
problem for PAR is it purports to be demo-
cratic and collaborative, and this aspect is CONCLUSION: SOCIAL WORK
crucial to the validity and meaning of knowl- AS A FORM OF PARTICIPATORY
edge generated by the participatory research ACTION RESEARCH
process. If there are unacknowledged power
relationships from outsiders towards insiders, This chapter described and defined PAR illus-
then the danger is this validity and meaning trating its compatibility with social work’s
is undermined. Vigorously identifying the aims, values, processes, and, to a lesser
potential for such occurrences and building degree, its practice. While academic freedom
checks and balances at every stage of a PAR gives some leeway to researchers committed
project is then essential to avoid this. In light to social justice, social work practitioners
of such critique, van Rooyen and Gray might not have the same leeway within neo-
(1995) argue researchers committed to PAR liberal welfare regimes (Ferguson et al.,
have a duty to ensure consistency and clarity 2005). Those in nongovernment organisa-
through use of ‘systematic methodologies’ tions engaged in community action and social
(p. 93), especially if they want to avoid per- development might enjoy more freedom than
ceptions PAR is merely a ‘problem-solving those working in public social services where
process’ (p. 93) like community work rather most social workers are employed. There are
5712-Gray-30.indd 478 2/23/2012 6:04:06 PM
PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH 479
signs of resistance in some quarters which oppressed, and poor. PAR is illustrative in its
are encouraging for social workers who intentions and in its practice of a different
treasure the profession’s radical roots, but way of understanding and instigating social
there is little to suggest organisations employ- change. Although it may be difficult in such
ing social workers are likely to provide organisations to offer resistance, PAR does
opportunities for them to engage in radical provide a positive and pragmatic call to
practice let alone participatory research action.
despite the profession’s avowed commitment
to work ‘in solidarity with those who are
disadvantaged’ to address the ‘barriers, ineq- REFERENCES
uities and injustices that exist in society’
(IASSW, 2001). Bailey, R., & Brake, M. (eds). (1975). Radical social
This barrier to realising the values of the work. London; Edward Arnold.
profession in the current climate is unfortu- Baldwin, M. (1997). Day care on the move. British
nate. There are distinct signs around the Journal of Social Work, 27, 951–958.
globe that people are unhappy with the Baldwin, M. (2000). Care management and community
authoritarian imposition of ways of living care: Social work discretion and the construction of
upon then. This is evident in the renewal in policy. Aldershot, Hants: Ashgate.
democratic fervour in some South Medi- Baldwin, M. (2001). Working together, learning
terranean and Middle East countries where together: The role of co-operative inquiry in the
development of complex practice by teams of social
long-standing authoritarian leaders are being
workers. In P. Reason & Bradbury, H. (eds). Handbook
threatened or pushed aside by popular revolt. of action research. London; Sage. 287–293.
Also evident is a growing realisation among Baldwin, M. (2004). Critical reflection: Opportunities
public sector workers, service users, and the and threats to professional learning and service
general public in countries such as the UK of development in social work organizations. In N.
the effect of the authoritarian imposition of Gould & Baldwin, M. (eds). Social work, critical
welfare retrenchment and ideologically reflection and the learning organisation. Aldershot,
driven policy carving huge chunks out of the Hants: Ashgate.
welfare state. In this context, social work as Baldwin, M. J., (2008). Promoting and managing
a profession could be working in alliance Innovation; Critical reflection, organizational learn-
with the losers in such authoritarian regimes ing and the development of innovative practice in a
national children’s voluntary organization. Qualitative
whether driven by autocracy or global capi-
Social Work, 7 (3), 330–348.
talism. In the UK, the spectre of privatisation Baldwin, M. (2011). Resisting the EasyCare model:
of potentially all services delivered by local Building a more radical, community-based, anti-
government for the last 100 years looms. authoritarian social work for the future. In M.
The UK coalition government has opened up Lavalette (ed.). Radical social work today: Legacy,
all services for marketisation: ‘We will create relevance and prospects. Bristol: Policy Press.
a new presumption – backed up by new Baldwin, M., & Teater, B. (2011). Social work in the
rights for public service users and a new community: Making a difference. Bristol: Policy
system of independent adjudication – that Press.
public services should be open to a range of Barbera, R (2008). Relationships and the research
providers competing to offer a better service’ process: Participatory action research and social
work, Journal of Progressive Human Services, 19 (2),
(David Cameron, in the Daily Telegraph, 21
140–159.
February 2011). A profession driven by the Boud, D., & Knights, S. (1996). Course design for
values of social justice and human rights is reflective practice. In N. Gould & Taylor, I. (eds).
completely at odds with an ideology which Reflective learning for social work. Aldershot, Hants:
favours markets and the pursuit of financial Arena. 23–34.
gain for the few. Social workers habitually Bryan, A. (2002). Exploring the experiences of black
work with people who are marginalised, professionals in welfare agencies and black students
5712-Gray-30.indd 479 2/23/2012 6:04:06 PM
480 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF SOCIAL WORK
in social work education. Ph.D. thesis, University Gaventa, J., & Cornwall, A. (2008). Power and knowl-
of Bath. edge. In P. Reason & Bradbury, H. (eds). The Sage
Brydon-Miller, M. (2008). Ethics and action research: handbook of action research: Participative inquiry
Deepening our commitment to principles of social and practice (2nd ed.). London: Sage. 172–189.
justice and redefining systems of democratic prac- Gergen, K., & Gergen, M. (2008). Social construction
tice. In P. Reason & Bradbury, H. (eds). The Sage and research as action. In P. Reason & Bradbury, H.
handbook of action research: Participative inquiry (eds). The Sage handbook of action research:
and practice (2nd ed.). London: Sage. 199–210. Participative inquiry and practice (2nd ed.). London:
Cassano, R., & Dunlop, J. (2005). Participatory action Sage. 159–171.
research with South Asian immigrant women: A Glennie, S., & Cosier, J. (1994). Collaborative inquiry:
Canadian example. Critical Social Work, 6(1). Developing multi-disciplinary learning and action.
Retrieved October 28, 2010 from http://www.uwind- Journal of Inter-Professional Care, 8(3), 255–263.
sor.ca/criticalsocialwork/participatory-action- Gould, N., & Baldwin, M. (2004). Social work, critical
research-with-south-asian-immigrant-women-a- reflection and the learning organisation. Aldershot,
canadian-example. Hants: Ashgate.
Chowns, G. (2008). No – you don’t know how we feel: Gould, N., & Taylor, I. (1996). Reflective learning for
Collaborative inquiry using video with children facing social work. Aldershot, Hants: Arena.
the life-threatening illness of a parent. In P. Reason Gray, M. (2011). Back to basics: A critique of the
& Bradbury, H. (eds). The Sage handbook of action strengths perspective in social work. Families in
research: Participative inquiry and practice (2nd ed.). Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human
London: Sage. 562–572. Services, 92(1), 5–11.
Dalrymple, J., & Burke, B. (2006). Anti-oppressive Guttierez, L., Parsons, R., & Cox, E. (eds). (1998).
practice: Social care and the law (2nd ed.). Empowerment in social work practice: A source-
Maidenhead: Open University Press. book. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Dominelli, L. (2002). Anti-oppressive social work: Harre, R. (1981). The positivist–empiricist approach
Theory and practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave and its alternatives. In P. Reason & Rowan, J. (eds).
Macmillan. Human inquiry: A sourcebook of new paradigm
Edmonson Bell, E. (2001) Infusing race into the US research. Chichester: John Wiley.
discourse on action research. In P. Reason & Healy, K. (2001). Participatory action research and
Bradbury, P. (eds). Handbook of action research: social work: A critical appraisal. International Social
Participative inquiry and practice. London: Sage. Work, 44, 93–105.
48–58 Heron, J. (1996). Co-operative inquiry: Research into
Fenge, L. (2010). Striving towards inclusive research: the human condition. London: Sage.
An example of participatory action research with Heron, J., & Reason, P. (2001). The practice of co-
older lesbians and gay men. British Journal of Social operative inquiry: Research ‘with’ rather than ‘on’
Work, 40, 878–894. people. In P. Reason & Bradbury, P. (eds). Handbook
Ferguson, I., & Lavalette, M (2008). Social work of action research: Participative inquiry and practice.
after Baby ‘P’: Issues, debates and alternative London: Sage.
perspectives. Liverpool: Hope University. Heron, J., & Reason, P. (2008). Extending epistemology
Ferguson, I., Lavalette, M., & Whitmore, E. (eds). within a co-operative inquiry. In P. Reason &
(2005). Globalisation, global justice and social work. Bradbury, H. (eds). The Sage handbook of action
Abingdon: Routledge. research: Participative inquiry and practice (2nd ed.).
Ferguson, I., & Woodward, R. (2009). Radical social London: Sage.
work in practice: Making a difference. Bristol: Policy International Federation of Social Workers [IFSW]/
Press. International Association of Schools of Social Work
Fook, J. (2002). Social work: Critical theory and prac- [IASSW] (2000/2001). The definition of social work.
tice. London: Sage. Electronic document. Retrieved August 3, 2010
Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. London: from: http://www.ifsw.org/f38000138.html.
Penguin. International Association of Schools in Social Work
Frideres, J. S. 1992. Participatory research: An illusion- (IASSW). (2001). Historic agreement on international
ary perspective. In J.S. Frideres (Ed.). A world of definition of social work, IASSW Newsletter, 1.
communities: Participatory research perspectives. Jones, J. (2004). Report of an action research project to
North York: Captus University Publications. 1–13. improve the quality of family placement assessments.
5712-Gray-30.indd 480 2/23/2012 6:04:06 PM
PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH 481
Mindful Practice Ltd. Retrieved August 13, 2010 Reason, P., & Heron, J. (1995). Co-operative inquiry. In
from www.mindfulpractice.co.uk. Smith, J., Harre, R., & Langenhove, L. (eds).
Kreitzer, L., Abukari, Z., Antonio, P., Mensah, J., & Rethinking methods in psychology. London: Sage.
Kwaku, A. (2009). Social work in Ghana: A partici- Schön, D. (1984). The reflective practitioner: How pro-
patory action research project looking at culturally fessionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
appropriate training and practice. Social Work Social Work Action Network. (2010). Home page.
Education, 28(2), 145–164. Retrieved August 13, 2010 from www.socialworkfu-
McTaggart, R (1999). Reflection on the purposes of ture.org.
research, action, and scholarship: A case of cross- Swantz, M. (2008). Participative action research as
cultural participatory action research. Systemic practice. In P. Reason & Bradbury, H. (eds). The Sage
Practice and Action Research, 12(5), 493-511. handbook of action research: Participative inquiry
O’Brien, J., & Lyle, C. (1987). A framework for accom- and practice (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
plishment. Decatur, GA: Responsive Systems Teater, B. (2010). Applying social work theories and
Associates. methods. Maidenhead: Open University Press,
Reason, P. (ed.). (1994). Participation in human inquiry. McGraw Hill.
London: Sage. van Rooyen, C., & Gray, M. (1995). Participatory
Reason, P., & Bradbury, P. (2001). Handbook of action research and its compatibility to social work. Social
research: Participative inquiry and practice. London: Work Practitioner-Researcher, 8(3), 87–93.
Sage. Wadsworth, Y (1998) What is participatory action
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (eds). (2008). The Sage research? Action Research International, Paper 2.
handbook of action research: Participative inquiry Retrieved on September 29, 2010 from http://www.
and practice (2nd ed.). London: Sage. scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/ari/p-ywadsworth98.html.
Reason, P. (1994). (ed.). Participation in human inquiry. Williams, P. (2006). Social work with people with learn-
London: Sage. ing difficulties (2nd ed.). Exeter: Learning Matters.
5712-Gray-30.indd 481 2/23/2012 6:04:06 PM