Participatory action research (PAR) has a long tradition in social inquiry with communities, industries and corporations, and other organisations outside of education (e.g., Kemmis & McTaggart, 2005). Instead of focusing on individual teachers addressing sidelined problems in their classrooms or schools, dealing with issues that may be common to internal issues, PAR has a social and community focus – priority is given to research that is emancipatory or aims at changing our society. Inspired by the Brazilian Paulo Freire, the German critical theorist Jurgen Habermas, and more recently, Kemmis and Stringer of Australia, it has developed into a specific, action-oriented, advocacy-based approach to inquiry. PAR often includes qualitative data collection/fieldwork, but could incorporate quantitative data collection.
There are many names for participatory action research (PAR), including participatory research, critical action research, and classroom action research (Kemmis & McTaggart, 2005, pp. 560-561). Given the importance of participation in a participatory approach to inquiry, we will employ participatory action research in this chapter. The overall goal of PAR is to create improved quality of people’s organisations, communities, and family lives (Stringer, 2007). While it shares many characteristics with teacher and school-based practical action research, PAR adds to this, as its primary focus, aim, and methodology involve an emancipatory purpose of improving and empowering individuals and organisations for life in education, and other schools or contexts. In education, this means improving the quality of individuals in schools, systems of education and school communities. PAR also extends this to thinking about the critical ideological bases that will influence the direction of the inquiry process, the kinds of issues that will motivate the action researcher, to inform data collection protocols; ideas of purpose for the inquiry process, and in what locations or communities it will happen.
Besides addressing these delicate matters, the participatory action researcher engages in a study that facilitates ideals of egalitarian and democratic purposes. Participatory action researchers desire to have an open and inclusive manner for participants to be involved in their studies by making decisions as consensual partners, while fully engaging participants as relative equals to ensure their welfare. For example, in their inquiries, they will consider establishing contacts, identifying stakeholder groups, identifying key people, negotiating the researcher’s role, and forming a first picture of the field context of the study (Stringer, 2007). Also influential are the social values of liberation and life-enhancing transformations, and action researchers are interested in spearheading a new envisioning for schools, community agencies, youth clubs, and ethnic groups of schools. Lastly, Kemmis and McTaggart (2005) summarised six characteristics of PAR:
The action research process is best characterized as a spiral of looking, thinking, and action. Stringer (2007) called this process the interacting spiral. The model presents three phases: look, think, and act. The spiral indicates that the process of action research is not tidy, orderly, and linear, but involves cycles of repetition and revision of both procedures and interpretations.
In his model, Stringer (2007) emphasised that “looking” to develop a picture is important for the stakeholders to understand the issues they are experiencing. The ‘look’ phase includes gathering information (e.g., through interviews, observation, and documents), recording and making sense of the information, and providing a report to the stakeholders on the issue. The ‘think’ phase then engages with deeper interpretation and working out priorities for action. Finally, the researcher articulates the ‘act’ phase of creating actions to address the problem. This consists of forming a plan and heading in the direction of the plan, such as formulating objectives, tasks, and identifying people to complete the objectives and obtain needed resources for the plan. It also consists of acting on the plan, motivating stakeholders to act, and evaluating the plan with respect to impact and accomplishments.
Let’s look at a PAR study to illustrate this process in action. Stanulis and Jeffers (1995) investigated the mentoring relationship of a fifth-grade classroom teacher (Lynn), her student teacher (Shawna), and a university coordinator (Randi). As critical action research, the authors described Lynn’s mentoring relationship with Shawna. Randi served as the field experiences coordinator and university mentor; she worked with Lynn to collect data to evaluate the mentoring of her student teacher. They collected 3 data sources to examine the mentoring:
◆ Five videotaped conferences were held between the student and the classroom teachers every other week throughout 10 weeks.
◆ Weekly personal reflective journal entries of the classroom teacher and the student teacher.
◆ The university coordinator engaged in five interviews with the classroom and the student teachers using the strategy of individual stimulated recall (a method of viewing the videotapes and asking the interview questions, e.g., “Was there a point in the conference that you chose not to say something?”).
The university coordinator and classroom teacher, based on the data, identified four themes: (a) the method through which the student teacher earned the respect of the students, (b) the way the student teacher came to know the students as a learning community (e.g., knowledge about their family backgrounds, their interests), (c) the relationship between the student teacher and the classroom teacher as mentors, and (d) ideas gained from action research.
In alignment with participatory action research, the authors pointed out that the student teacher introduced challenges of knowledge and authority to the classroom. The mentor teacher viewed authority, built into the student-teacher experience, as fluid and different throughout the learning experience. The mentoring experience began with the teacher sharing and telling how to teach the children and transitioned to the mentor teacher being someone to listen, and help the student educator get their ideas clarified. The semester came to a close with the teacher and student teacher viewing each other as colleagues and sharing ideas; in the process, loosening the constraints of teacher authority residing in the student-teaching experience. Thus, they developed change and transformation in their mentoring experience, one that accords with PAR. Further, in the student teacher-teacher conversations, they had the opportunity to reflect on each individual’s approach to teaching, which was collaborative and reflective, before they took action. Each individual learned about themself and became attuned to changes in the teacher-student relationship.