Research With, Not On: Exploring Participatory Action Research
“Researchers are like mosquitos- they suck your blood and leave”
This quote highlights a need for a different kind of research, one that doesn’t just take from communities but works with them to foster change. Participatory action research (PAR) is not just about understanding problems- it’s about solving them.
PAR (or what we call co-research) has become increasingly popular over recent years. This is because it is a dynamic, ethical and socially engaging approach to research, especially in settings where traditional methods have failed to reflect or respect the subjective realities of marginalised communities. For example, Pettican (2023) and colleagues worked with individuals experiencing mental distress to help them become involved in team sports activities to help them develop coping mechanisms.
Participatory action research (PAR) challenges conventional research, which positions the researcher as the ‘expert’ with participants as passive sources of data. PAR is collaborative, democratic and action-oriented. It is not tied to one specific method, so can involve different ways of gathering and interpreting data. What makes it revolutionary, is the combination of research, action and participation to create positive change.
One of the most powerful aspects of PAR is that it gives people a voice in research that affects them. Community members become co-researchers, active collaborators in every phase of the process, from defining the problem to collecting data and implementing solutions. This can lead to deeper insights, more relevant findings for researchers. It can also build trust between researchers/ research institutions and communities. Plus, it helps implement positive change. For example, Ana Moragues-Faus, Aziz Omar and Joan Wang worked with local communities to develop a food system, which helped the community produce fresh, organic produce in Wales which was sold at a local farmer’s market. This project helped the community socially and economically. It also was an ecological project.
The model of collaboration is especially valuable when working with groups who have historically been excluded from research or who’s voices have been overlooked. Refugees, working-class communities, ethnic minorities and other marginalised groups often, justifiably, mistrust authority and academia. Participatory research offers a fairer and more respectful way of engaging with these groups. For example, Cawston, Mercer and Barbour worked with deprived communities, asking people to rate the primary care in the area. This helped members of the community feel part of positive change, and part of the change in primary care systems in the area. Another reason this method is gaining momentum is its capacity to foster social cohesion. In societies marked by increasing polarisation, whether across racial, class, or political lines, it creates safe spaces for groups to engage with each other on equal terms. The project by Cawston and colleagues, working with the community and primary care professionals highlights this.
Because PAR is deeply rooted in reflection, negotiation and co-learning, it is especially well-suited to complex social issues. Whether dealing with inequality, health disparities or post-crisis recovery, PAR can accommodate the multilayered nature of human experiences, allowing for interactive, adaptive processes. It also challenges dominant research paradigms, many of which originate from the global Nort, impose rigid top-down (elitist expert knowledge imposed down onto marginalised groups) frameworks. In contrast, PAR is grounded in traditions from the Global South - values of local knowledge, cultural difference and lived experience.
PAR is not a quick fix. It takes time, resources and a willingness to share power, but it’s benefits are clear. It creates a deeper trust, more relevant insights, empowered communities and research that leads to real change. In a world grappling with inequality, conflict and social division, the principles of PAR collaboration, equity and action.
Written by Emily Hopley- Co-researcher
Bibliography
Borg, M. Karlsson, B., & Kim, H. S. (2010) Double helix of research and practice-developing a practice model for crisis resolution and home treatment through participatory action research. International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being. [Online] 5 (1), 4647–4648.
Cawston, P. G. et al. (2007) Involving deprived communities in improving the quality of primary care services: does participatory action research work? BMC health services research. [Online] 7 (1), .
Chevalier, J. M. & Buckles, D. (2013) Participatory action research : theory and methods for engaged inquiry. [Online]. Abingdon, Oxon ; Routledge.
Cochran, P. A. L. et al. (2008) Indigenous Ways of Knowing: Implications for Participatory Research and Community. American journal of public health (1971). [Online] 98 (1), 22–27.
Glasford, D.E. & Calcagno, J. (2011). The conflict of harmony: Intergroup contact, commonalty and political solidarity between disadvantaged groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 323-328.
Gomez, R. J. & Ryan, T. N. (2016) Speaking Out: Youth Led Research as a Methodology Used with Homeless Youth. Child & adolescent social work journal. [Online] 33 (2), 185–193.
Harris, J., Cook, T., Gibbs, L., Oetzel, J., Salsberg, J., Shinn, C., . . . Wright, M. (2018). Searching for the impact of participation in health and health research: Challenges and methods. BioMed Research International, 1–12. doi:10.1155/2018/9427452
Jones, T. & Loewenson, R. (2020) Applying participatory action research approaches to postcrisis settings : a case study from Monrovia, Liberia. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Kara, H. & Khoo, S. (eds.) (2022) Qualitative and digital research in times of crisis : methods, reflexivity and ethics. 1st ed. [Online]. Bristol: Policy Press.
Keyl, S. (2022) Development, Education, and Participatory Action Research to Empower Marginalized Groups: Subaltern Ways of Knowing Among Migrant Domestic Workers. Routledge.
Lawson, H. A. et al. (2015) Participatory action research. First edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
López, J. S. et al. (2023) Combining participatory action research and emerging ways of collective action to promote institutional change toward social commitment: Groundings, strategies, and implications of an experience. Journal of community psychology. [Online] 51 (3), 1435–1453.
Mathias, K. et al. (2020) Co-production of a pictorial recovery tool for people with psycho-social disability informed by a participatory action research approach—a qualitative study set in India. Health promotion international. [Online] 35 (3), 486–499.
McKeown, S., & Dixon, J. (2017). The ‘contact hypothesis’: Critical reflections and future directions. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11(1), Article e12295. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12295
Moragues-Faus, A., Omar, A., & Wang, J. (2021). Participatory action research with local communities: transforming our food system. Food Research Collaboration [online]. Available at: https://foodresearch.org.uk/publications/participatory-action-research-with-local-communities-transforming-our-food-system/. (Accessed 08/08/2025).
Pettican, A. et al. (2023) Doing together: reflections on facilitating the co-production of participatory action research with marginalised populations. Qualitative research in sport, exercise and health. [Online] 15 (2), 202–219.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology 38, 922– 34.
Smith, K. E. et al. (2024) Youth Are the Experts! Youth Participatory Action Research to Address the Adolescent Mental Health Crisis. Healthcare (Basel). [Online] 12 (5).
Worthen, M. et al. (2019) The transformative and emancipatory potential of participatory evaluation: reflections from a participatory action research study with war-affected young mothers. Oxford development studies. [Online] 47 (2), 154–170.