ISSUES IN TEACHING PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH

Author(s): Paule McNicoll

Source: Journal of Social Work Education, Vol. 35, No. 1 (Winter 1999), pp. 51-62
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. on behlaf of Council on Social Work Education
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23043442
Accessed: 20-04-2016 08:48 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd., Council on Social Work Education are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Social Work Education

This content downloaded from 94.230.84.27 on Wed, 20 Apr 2016 08:48:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 ISSUES IN TEACHING PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH

Paule McNicoll

This article discusses participatory action research, a methodology

that incorporates subjects in the research and indexes results to
transforming the lives of those involved. The approach is gaining
momentum and recognition in academic circles but still often
limited to specialized training centers. The author discusses two
years of experience teaching participatory action research at a
school of social work, focusing on the challenges that educators
planning courses in action-oriented research are likely to meet.

gies, which are consistentwith the pursuit

Participatory actionand
ing momentum research is gain
recognition in
academic circles, but it has not been well
integrated into regular university cur
ricula. Schools of social work, however,
would be ideal sites for such courses, as
they are mandated by their accrediting
bodies (the Council on Social Work Edu
cation in the United States; the Canadian
Association of Schools of Social Work in
Canada) to work toward social justice.
Participatory action research courses
would provide social work students with
needed training in non-oppressive and
social change-oriented research strate
Paule McNicoll is assistant professor,
School of Social Work, University of British
Columbia.
This article is based on a paper presented
at the Fourth International Social Science
Methodology Conference at the University
of Essex, July 1996, Colchester, UK.
of emancipation and equity.
Because education in participatory re
search, as it is also known, has not been
widely offered in universities, research
ers are often left to fend for themselves.
Maguire (1993) described the obstacles
she encountered doing participatory re
search in her doctoral dissertation, while
others first developed their participatory
research in their field work (Mason &
Boutilier, 1996). Although there are no
table exceptions (Martin, 1996a;
Meulenberg-Buskens, 1996; Tolley &
Bentley, 1996), relatively little has been
written on the particular difficulties, chal
lenges, and pleasures of teaching partici
patory research. My objectives in this
article are to share my experiences based
on two years of teaching, alert those who
are planning similar courses about ex
pectant challenges, and reassure them
that it is both possible and deeply satisfy
ing to prepare students for research that
furthers the goals of social justice.

Journal of Social Work Education Vol. 35, No. 1 (Winter 1999).

© by the Council on Social Work Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

51

This content downloaded from 94.230.84.27 on Wed, 20 Apr 2016 08:48:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION
Definition and Critique
Participatory action research puts "re
search capabilities in the hands of the
deprived and disenfranchised people so
they can transform their lives for them
selves" (Park, 1993, p. 1). It is what hap
pens when researchers are both part of
the population to be researched and ben
eficiaries of the findings. These partici
pants are involved in all stages of the
research project, which includes educa
tion, reflection, research, and action. Aca
demic and professional researchers serve
not only as experts, but as co-learners
who share their research skills and also
recognize and benefit from the skills and
knowledge of the other group members.
The emergence of participatory action
research stems from the development of
critical perspectives and practices "in the
countries of the South" and the recent
expansions of perspectives on knowledge
in the Northern hemisphere (Tandon,
1996, p. 20). Participatory action research
has the power to revolutionize the way
social scientists do research, that is, by
working " with and for people rather than
on people" (Reason, 1988, p. 1). It has
been linked to empowerment and social
awareness (Martin, 1996b; Park, 1993;
Ristock & Pennell, 1996), counter-hege
monic practice (Hall, 1993), and the
breaking of the "academic monopoly" on
knowledge production (Hall, 1979; Hall,
Gillette, & Tandon, 1982).
Participatory action research does have
its critics. Stanley and Wise (1983) fear
that using traditional science techniques,
even when working with women and op
pressed people, will further their exploi
tation. In a similar vein, Maguire (1987)
warns that the progressive character of
participatory action research should not
prevent us from seeing the androcentric
bias it conceals—by which she means that
participatory action research has not com
pletely rejected this approach to science.
Other researchers report the difficulties
of real power-sharing among research
This content downloaded from 94.230.84.27 on Wed, 20 Apr 2016 08:48:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
partners (Kent, 1996; Mason & Boutilier,
1996). The current popularity of partici
patory research is also perceived as a
potentially dangerous trend by some who
fear that it will become the only accept
able way to do research and, therefore,
could stifle the vitality of progressive work
(Duelli Klein, 1983). Advocates for par
ticipatory action research, however,
surely recognize that other approaches
could also lead toward liberatory knowl
edge and progressive action.
Notwithstanding their cautions, most
critics are also proponents of participa
tory research for several reasons. First,
such research leads directly to action
because it arouses the motivation of those
directly involved. Second, it sets in mo
tion a permanent process of reflection
that leads to subsequent and continuous
actions (Comstock & Fox, 1993). Colo
rado (1988) sees a good fit between par
ticipatory action research and aboriginal
culture and science because both focus
on alliance rather than on separation and
hierarchy. Participatory action research
has been used in health promotion
(Ritchie, 1996), community planning and
development (Comstock & Fox, 1993),
land use studies (Jackson, 1993), needs
assessments (Gould, 1994; Jackson &
McKay, 1982), feminist studies (Reinharz,
1992), and evaluation research (Morrell
Bellai & Boydell, 1994), among other
purposes. Its use is increasing in Latin
America (Fals-Borda & Rahman, 1991),
Asia (Hall, Gillette, & Tandon, 1982;
Kassam & Mustafa, 1982) .Africa (Mwansa,
Mufune, & Osei-Hwedie, 1994), Australia
(Ritchie, 1996), the United Kingdom and
Europe (Callaway, 1981; Dubell, Erasmie,
&deVries, 1980) and North America (Park,
Bryden-Miller, Hall, & Jackson, 1993).
Experiences
When I first undertook to teach partici
patory action research to a group of
undergraduate students, I searched the
literature in vain for guidelines and ad
 TEACHING PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH
vice. I knew in advance that the experi
ence would be unlike any other introduc
tory research methodology courses I had
taught, but remained unaware of the po
tential hurdles I would meet along the
way. Nevertheless, I share my experi
ences to reassure colleagues that the task
is feasible, worthwhile, and, at times,
even exhilarating.
The students who took the course were
in their last year of the bachelor's degree
in social work. They had already success
fully completed one course on research
methodology and one on statistical analy
sis. With one last research course remain
ing, they were allowed to choose between
a course on participatory research and
one on practice evaluation. The group
split about equally, which resulted in
classes of approximately 25 students. The
participatory action research group was
very diverse in terms of life experiences,
ages, races, cultures, and social classes.
Most students (80%), as is typical of schools
of social work, were women. Thirty-five
percent were from visible minority
groups, mostly students of Chinese and
South Asian descent and including a few
American Indian students. About half of
the remaining students came from cul
tural backgrounds other than British:
Eastern and Western European, French
Canadian, as well as several from mixed
heritage. Their ages ranged from 24 to 60
with a median of 30. Statistics on social
class and life experiences were not kept,
but interests and experiences shared by the
students in class evidenced much diversity.
Case Examples
In two years, 60 students completed 14
projects, using either qualitative or quan
titative methods, sometimes both. The
following are some of the projects.
• One action project on dating violence
involved 15 volunteer interviewees us
ing feminist qualitative research prin
ciples. The interview data were
This content downloaded from 94.230.84.27 on Wed, 20 Apr 2016 08:48:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
analyzed, and women who had experi
enced dating violence on campus inte
grated the research findings in a play.
• Euro- and Chinese-Canadians talked
about their mutual views of each oth
ers' community during two focus group
sessions and challenged the news me
dia to stop feeding misconceptions.
Transcriptions of the focus groups were
analyzed using the constant compara
tive approach, and the results were
disseminated through a 10-minute vid
eotape.
• A group of self-advocates expressed
their displeasure at being labelled men
tally disabled. Three participants in
this group surveyed their peers using a
questionnaire that contained both
closed- and open-ended questions. In a
second stage of the project, partici
pants present a huge collage exhibi
tion, which seemed to have more impact
on the community than the mostly quan
titative findings of the survey. Through
the exercise, the participants found the
motivation, interest, and hope to fight
the stereotypes that affected them.
Many students used the university or
the school as their action research turf.
• A study of barriers faced by visually
impaired university students led to the
formation of a self-help group and the
installation of at least one new safe
street crossing. The students used an
observation participant approach,
where notes were collated, audiotaped,
and analyzed in collaboration with
blind participants.
• Documentation of instances of racism
on campus provided the impulse for a
university-wide study sponsored by the
student association. This was done
through a survey containing closed
and open-ended questions.
• A satisfaction survey of the social work
student body culminated in a multi
media exhibition of findings and an
 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION
open forum, followed by a community
enhancement project and an assess
ment of day care needs.
• One group of friends who did a self
study of their own group dynamics by
content analysis of taped meetings and
comparative analysis of standard edu
cational and personality tests came close
to a breaking point before finding
greater appreciation for one another
and for difference.
In this article, I use the case of youth
who painted graffiti and vandalized their
community center but gained new appre
ciation and services after presenting a
video and an art display of their needs.
Most of the challenges encountered in
training for participatory action research
will be illustrated. Three social work stu
dents established rapport with these ado
lescents from a poor neighborhood (called
here East City) who were angry to be the
only group ignored by their local com
munity center. They were labelled "delin
quents" by community workers and were
somewhat feared locally. Some reconcili
ation between the adolescents and staff of
the center occurred during the project,
and the adolescents of East City eventu
ally got their own community social worker
and own space in the community center.
Teaching Challenges
The special challenges of teaching ac
tion-oriented research, as contrasted with
other research courses, can be summa
rized via six main issues: (1) the need to
adopt a new research perspective; (2) the
tension between grading and modeling;
(3) the realization that ethical consider
ations sometimes hide social control ele
ments; (4) the limitation of the time frame;
(5) the tension between research and
action ; and (6) the need to pay attention
to group process. How instructors attend
to these issues will make a huge differ
ence: either participatory action research
This content downloaded from 94.230.84.27 on Wed, 20 Apr 2016 08:48:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
will be perceived as 'just another fad,' or
we will see the emergence of researchers
with the necessary attitude and skills to
exploit the full transformative potential
of this approach.
A New Perspective on Research
A first hurdle instructors face is the
blank stare of students who do not grasp
the difference between a traditional re
search approach and research oriented
toward action. They do not immediately
perceive the action component; for them,
participatory action research is just an
other method of acquiring knowledge.
Therefore, they can be confused as to
how to do such research.
There are two main areas of confusion.
First, many students have an experimen
tal view of research. They tend to ask
comparison questions, such as "Is this
group more politically aware than this
other group?" The jump to action-ori
ented and participatory types of research
is enormous, and most students initially
wonder if they are even in the right class.
They do not recognize the validity of
other types of research questions, espe
cially broad ones such as "What does the
experience of becoming politically aware
look and feel like?" I have found it helpful
to start from students' own research ques
tions, or from the comparative questions
they think they should be asking. I then
pose the many different ways these ques
tions may be phrased. For example, "Are
adolescents from East City (a poor neigh
borhood) more delinquent than those of
West City (an affluent neighborhood)?"
can become "How does it feel like to be 13
to 16 years old, poor, and offered no
services by your own community cen
ter?"; "Are adolescents of East City 'delin
quent'?" can become "What do East City
adolescents say they need?"
After three or more examples of this
type, students are generally surprised by
how relevant and flexible research can
 TEACHING PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH
be. At this point, they may well be more
prepared to see their own seeking as
legitimate and to think in terms of action
as well as inquiry. Students' research ques
tions are often ignored in research meth
odology courses in favor of the textbook's
and instructor's examples, but it is crucial
for students of participatory action re
search to be open to their own and oth
ers' tacit research desires and motivations.
Researchers who fail to recognize their
own research questions as valid can hardly
help a community generate a full comple
ment of alternative questions that can be
used to solve a given problem. With par
ticipatory action research, theory and
social skills need to work hand in hand.
The second type of confusion has to do
with the predominant desire of students
to study other people, or situations that
have nothing to do with their own. Part of
this stems from the positivist code of
objectivity: only those people who are
disinterested in a topic can research it.
But choosing to explore unknown territo
ries in participatory research means cut
ting yourself off from a strong source of
motivation toward action, much contex
tual knowledge of the situation, and im
portant allies in the effort to promote
change. This distant attitude toward re
search may also be objectionable on ethi
cal grounds; it has encouraged a kind of
voyeurism, particularly in the predomi
nantly white middle-class students who
have traditionally come to colleges and
universities. As Noel (1993) puts it, those
who benefit from being perceived as
"mainstream" cannot see themselves as
subjects of research.
Students from increasingly multi
cultural backgrounds are leading us to
ward a consciousness of their higher
visibility as potential study subjects. Their
feedback, and the feedback of many
overstudied communities, help us also to
realize that studies not followed by infor
mation and action are both exploitative
and no longer wanted. Study populations
This content downloaded from 94.230.84.27 on Wed, 20 Apr 2016 08:48:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
increasingly want to be integral partici
pants from beginning to end, from phras
ing the original questions to interpretation
and diffusion of the results. They are
suspicious of academic researchers' mo
tives, which they correctly see as influen
tial on the findings and outcome. They
want to understand the motivation of
those who plan to study their community.
As Lili Walker, an Australian aboriginal
woman, put it:
If you are here to help me, then you are
wasting your time. But if you come be
cause your liberation is bound up in
mine, then let us begin, (in Schutzman
& Cohen-Cruz, 1994, pp. 183-184)
To help students deal with this second
type of confusion, one may teach them to
ask questions about their own communi
ties and identify the resources for change
they could involve in various phases of a
project. In the process, they will realize
the full relevance of research in their own
lives and be prepared to face the respon
sibilities that come with knowledge of
research methods.
Grading versus Modeling
Traditional research methods fit well
within academic structures. One can teach
survey and/or experimental techniques;
students set their own projects, write re
ports, and are graded. Beyond teaching
the techniques, little instructor involve
ment is required for training the students
to work in the field. Students become
professionals who know how to keep their
distance and do "objective" research.
Without much instructor involvement,
the better-prepared students produce
better papers, and vice versa. This sce
nario produces reliable grading because
a student's intellectual capabilities, ef
fort, and life challenges are relatively
stable characteristics.
Preparing students to do participatory
action research requires more than teach
 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION
ing research methods. The instructor must
call on students' group work and commu
nity organization skills. Because the rela
tionship between researcher and study
participants will be a major determinant
of the study outcome, students have to
learn what this relationship entails. This
is best done through modeling by the
instructor. Ideally the instructor in the
class—and the researcher in the commu
nity—takes the role of coach, someone
who instills and helps maintain motiva
tion, clarifies matters when the research
project gets muddy (as it often does), and
provides methodological guidance and
encouragement. Unfortunately, such in
volvement comes at the price of reliable
grading, since not everyone needs, and
therefore receives, the same level of in
structor support.
In my opinion, the increased validity
more than adequately compensates for
the loss of reliability. An instructor who
takes into account students' ability to take
full advantage of resources and consulta
tion may be grading the real ability of
students to do field research, rather than
solely the ability to follow instructions
received during class lectures.
I received some evidence of the neces
sity for instructor/principal researcher
involvement when I was consulted by a
community researcher who had been given
traditional training (accompanied by mod
eling of a "hands-off" approach to re
search). The problem presented was the
loss of enthusiasm for a project that had
started in high spirits. Participants, in this
case pregnant women addicted to drugs
and alcohol, got discouraged by the diffi
culties encountered during their evalua
tion project. When asked what she had
suggested to solve these difficulties, the
researcher said she had made no sugges
tions and that she had refrained from
warning the other women of the coming
pitfalls, although she knew their plans
were leading to trouble. She had not
This content downloaded from 94.230.84.27 on Wed, 20 Apr 2016 08:48:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
shared her knowledge, "because to em
power people, you have to let them do
their own mistakes." Believing that knowl
edge equals power, the researcher feared
that the women participants would be at
a disadvantage if she showed she knew
more than they did. Fortunately, if knowl
edge can be shared, so can power, and
this situation soon improved after the
researcher started to share her knowl
edge and resources with the research team.
This community researcher was right
in thinking one can disempower people
by showing greater knowledge. The know
how to share knowledge effectively is not
something that instructors can assume is
learned automatically; rather, the best
way I know of teaching this is through
modeling, discussion, and feedback. The
price to pay is having to grade a final
project which has often benefited from
instructor input.
Ethics versus Social Control
Universities require that all research
projects involving people, whether con
ducted by students or faculty, be pre
approved by university ethics committees
to ensure that respondents are protected
from abuse and exploitation. This protec
tive function is extremely important and
is not problematic for participatory ac
tion research. However, ethics commit
tees have developed their criteria and
procedures based upon traditional forms
of research, with an emphasis on consent,
confidentiality, and lack of deception.
Recommendations to equalize the power
differential between researchers and re
spondents, such as informing participants
of the results of the study, are gradually
being added. With growing interest about
academic research in the media, and the
possibility of media outrage and even
legal complications, some university eth
ics committees have moved to protect the
interests of the university as well as those
 TEACHING PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH
of research participants. This new role as
safeguard of institutional reputation of
ten results in more rigid regulations and
increased processing time.
For researchers involved in participa
tory action research, it is hard to know the
appropriate moment to enter the ethics
committee procedure, because the re
search itself starts with the first contact
with the community partners. One either
files the ethics form at this stage, and gets
it back for lack of a defined research
question, or files the form when the ques
tion is fully formulated. The person then
has to explain to the community partners
that the process must stop for a month or
two while the ethics of the project are
being evaluated.
It can also be tough to tell whether one
needs to seek approval of the university
ethics committee at all. When one's re
search methodology mainly uses adult
education techniques (Freire, 1970;
Nadeau, 1996) as data gathering, is it
research? Take, for instance, the case of
adolescents interested in identifying the
needs of other adolescents in their neigh
borhood. They put huge blank wall post
ers in the local schools and invited their
peers to write graffiti, ideas, slogans, and
jokes on them. If this action is merely
perceived as a step toward meeting stu
dents' needs, the adolescent researchers
require only the permission of the school
principal. If they call it research, how
ever, they might have multiple hurdles to
clear: not only do they need the approval
of the university ethics committee, but
they must get local school board and
parents' permissions.
Participatory action research is a rela
tively new form of research on campuses
and has yet to be fully recognized by
university procedures. As such, it requires
more flexible treatment by ethics com
mittees. The fact that the university re
searcher has less control over the research
process may worry ethics committee mem
This content downloaded from 94.230.84.27 on Wed, 20 Apr 2016 08:48:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
bers. Moreover, the transformative na
ture of the work may be unwelcome in
some powerful quarters that may have
influence on university affairs. To the
extent that participatory action research
is about "breaking the monopoly of the
university" over knowledge (Hall, 1979;
Hall, Gillette, & Tandon, 1982), those
who challenge the academic institution
are likely to encounter opposition (Heany,
1993). Thus, those who want to work at
empowerment have first to create the
conditions of empowerment for them
selves. They can do so by sensitizing their
respective ethics committees to the spe
cial requirements for participatory ac
tion research, possibly with the support
of their school, faculty, and/or profes
sional associations (e.g., CSWE).
Limited Time Frame
As mentioned earlier, the best way to
learn participatory action research is to
do it firsthand. Unfortunately, 13- to 26
week sessions are very unnatural time
frames for the completion of such projects.
By and large, it takes longer to complete
participatory action research than other
types of research. Maguire addresses the
problem of not knowing where to start
(1987, pp. 111-112) and points at the
unlikelihood of being "requested" by a
community to do participatory research.
At first, a researcher faces the time-con
suming and uncertain task of gaining the
trust of a community. Then comes the
task of getting them interested in inquiry.
Once this is done, discovering the right
questions in a collective way takes much
more time than a single researcher or
group of academic researchers would
need. Groups have their own dynamics,
timings, and priorities; research activities
should ideally intersperse among the ac
tivities and events of their daily lives. This
is real time—as opposed to a university's
rigid time frame—and if we are to work
 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION
with marginalized people, it needs to be
respected. On the other hand, one advan
tage to a limited time frame is that students
are compelled to be realistic and choose
projects with their own communities.
Either participatory action
research will be perceived as 'just
another fad/ or we will see the
emergence of researchers with
the necessary attitude and skills
to exploit the full transformative
potential of this approach.
This issue of time is first contextual,
but also has important ramifications in
the essential shift in a researcher's atti
tude. A major distinction between tradi
tional and participatory research concerns
the continuity of the relationship. Tradi
tional researchers leave the field after
completion of the project; no ongoing
involvement exists because no real rela
tionship was established in the first place.
But this disappearance can be perceived
as abandonment by communities that
have worked closely with a researcher to
promote change in their locale. A mutu
ally respectful relationship may become
more distant over time, of course, but
should not be broken altogether. The
rapid opening and closing of relation
ships is a cultural trait of the non
marginalized, one which others may not
understand.
The students who worked with the ado
lescents of East City had to leave the
neighborhood because they found jobs
in other cities at the completion of the
project. They kept an interest and some
communication with the youth with whom
they worked, but they left before meeting
the community worker who was hired on
a temporary contract. Ideally, they would
have remained until permanent services
were in place.
This content downloaded from 94.230.84.27 on Wed, 20 Apr 2016 08:48:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Tension between Research and Action
Participatory action research is used
sometimes to signify an accent on action
and other times to emphasize research
goals. In the first instance, a process of
information gathering, group discussion,
and soul searching leads to greater aware
ness and action in some communities. In
all research projects, however, it is im
portant to ensure against bias of the re
sults. The critical point is to be clear at the
onset what the goals are and to keep a
proper balance between research and
action goals during the course of the
project. This brings to the fore the issue
of objectivity. Although, like many critics
of positivist research methods, I do not
believe in the objective insularity of the
researcher, I do believe that bias and
subjectivity exist and can be problematic.
In our case example, a few co-research
ers were more eager to express them
selves than to provide a space for the
youths' expression. Although these co
researchers found camera work and in
terviewing to be empowering, the
principal researchers took the time to
confront the playing of jokes on
interviewees and ensure that all neigh
borhood youth could truly be heard dur
ing the remainder of the project. In this
instance, the action goals (empowerment
for the interviewers) threatened to super
sede and negate the research goals (knowl
edge of the needs and desires of
neighborhood youth). This tension be
tween research and action goals is present
in most projects, and needs to be dis
cussed and clarified repeatedly. Mem
bers of the community who are not directly
involved in the study, classmates working
on different projects, and the instructor
all can provide useful feedback to re
searchers and co-researchers in this re
spect. An additional strength can be the
timely integration of other social work
courses, particularly in community devel
opment and group work, either before or
alongside participatory research courses.
 TEACHING PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH
Attention to Group Process
Because of the complex human rela
tionships at play, attention to group pro
cess, at both class and community levels,
is especially important for those teaching
participatory action research. Group pro
cess is always an issue for students when
ever they have to produce a collective
product. Although most are ill-prepared
for the difficulties in group dynamics that
arise, students are often left to fend for
themselves with their group assignments.
Some students cannot find a way to par
ticipate equitably, some coast on the work
of their peers, and others believe that
they carry the whole project on their
shoulders. Many say that they have been
"burned" during the completion of col
lective assignments and avoid further
courses requiring group work. In these
cases, not only are the benefits expected
from group exercises (e.g., preparing
practitioners for collaborative practice)
lost, but indifference is replaced by fear
and loathing.
Group dynamics determine, in great
part, the success or failure of participa
tory research. Because students are in
volved in projects with community
members, the importance of group dy
namics is more crucial here than in other
cases where students simply complete
group projects with one another. How
does one, for instance, handle in-fighting
in the participating community? In the
East City project, students found them
selves disparaged by community center
workers because of their alliance with
"delinquent" local youth. Regaining the
trust of these workers and creating op
portunities for cooperative exchanges
took more than theoretical and method
ological preparation; students needed
support, critical feedback, and their own
group work skills. Instructors teaching
participatory action research have the
opportunity to model the relationship
between professional and community re
This content downloaded from 94.230.84.27 on Wed, 20 Apr 2016 08:48:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
searchers. The power differential between
instructor and students can be used to
illustrate the crucial mistake of assuming
equality of power and equality of input
(Bryceson & Mustafa, 1982).
Anyanwu (1988, p. 15) cites "willing
ness to learn from and with the people,
sensitivity, adaptability, patience, empa
thy and a flexibility of attitude" among
the attitudes and skills needed by partici
patory researchers. To these, Meulenberg
Buskens (1996, pp. 42-43) adds "an
attitude of and a capacity for critical
reflection on the participatory-research
process... and the commitment to stimu
late that attitude and capacity in others
who are involved in the research." With
out these skills, which are not empha
sized in traditional research, students
risk becoming disenchanted with collabo
rative research; worse, projects aimed at
social justice may result in disem
powermentand exploitation. Here again,
one may be reminded of the need to see
participatory research as only one of many
courses that provide the skills and atti
tudes for empowerment work.
Other Difficulties
Not all the projects completed as course
requirements were truly participatory
because the impetus sometimes came
from the students rather than the commu
nity. Once the process was initiated, how
ever, the original research questions and
goals for action were vastly modified, and
in most cases the community took owner
ship of the process. People with psychiat
ric illnesses who were approached by
students in a drop-in activity center and
who ended up playing an active part in a
provincial health consultation did not
remember who had approached whom;
they felt they were acting on their own
agenda.
Some students encountered insur
mountable difficulties and could not com
plete a project. Those instances generally
 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION
involved an institution protecting itself
against criticism, loss of funding, or both.
In all cases, students were not well con
nected (or not well enough) to the com
munity with which they wanted to work.
Asian students focusing on the mental
health needs of their local high school
counterparts may have had the support of
the student association and teachers, but
not the clout necessary at the administra
tion level. Even in cases where official
permission was obtained, it was not al
ways sufficient. Administrators of a host
program for new immigrants realized the
thoroughness of the students' research
investigation and balked at publicizing
the results. One central person in a sec
ond-stage transition house for women
dragged her feet so much that the feed
back from the women was not available in
time for class presentation. Students who
could not complete a project were then
asked to critically analyze the situation,
the process, their own strategy, and the
impact on the community of their attempt
at action research.
Rewards
As the instructor leading a class through
uncharted waters, I feared being over
whelmed by students' needs and demands.
Both years, however, I was surprised at
their self-sufficiency. After an initial pe
riod of anxiety, when students were scram
bling for ideas and checking and
rechecking their plans, came a period
when I felt almost neglected. I was con
sulted for major hurdles, but mostly stu
dents kept busy solving problems where
and with whom they arose. If gratification
can be summarized in a brief instant, this
moment for me—observing a group of
bright-eyed students in hot discussion
about a point I cannot remember, but
that had to do with social action and
research—was it.
This content downloaded from 94.230.84.27 on Wed, 20 Apr 2016 08:48:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Conclusion
Participatory action research is too
important a tool to be ignored by schools
of social work, especially those that have
adopted programs with a focus on struc
tures of oppression, the fight for social
justice, and embracement of diversity. If
social work truly means to break its legacy
of alliance with and legitimization of in
stitutional power, the profession will have
to develop new research and intervention
approaches. As Hall, Gillette, and Tandon
(1982) write:
Research and research institutions play
an important role in the development
of national and international strate
gies for social transformation. Research
is used by the ruling classes to justify or
maintain unfavorable or exploitative
positions. But, by the same measure, if
research is playing an increasing role
in the development of new strategies
of control, it can at the same time be
used to provide both an alternative
analysis and a means of expanding the
base of analysis to include the most
exploited sectors of society, (p. 6)
Participatory action research ap
proaches require a major shift in atti
tudes and behaviors related to power
relations. The relative novelty of these
approaches in university settings will
doubtless cause trepidation for some in
structors, but I hope this account of the
difficulties and joys I have encountered
will be instructive and will encourage
those who contemplate teaching partici
patory action research to take the initial
plunge. Instructors who take the chal
lenge will find the experience rewarding.
References
Anyanwu, C. N. (1988). The technique of partici
patory research in community health. Commu
nity Development Journal, 25(1), 11-15.
 TEACHING PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH
Bryceson, D., & Mustafa, K. (1982). Participa
tory research: Refining the relationship be
tween theory and practice. InY. Kassam and K.
Mustafa (Eds.), PR: An emerging alternative meth
odology in social science research (pp. 87-109). New
Delhi: Society for Participatory Research in Asia.
Callaway, H. (Ed.). (1981). Case studies in partici
patory research. Amersfoort, The Netherlands:
Netherlands Centre for Research and Devel
opment in Adult Education.
Colorado, P. (1988). Bridging native and west
ern science. Convergence, 21(2/3), 49-68.
Comstock, D. E., &Fox, R. (1993). Participatory
research as critical theory: The North
Bonneville, USA, experience. In P. Park, M.
Bryden-Miller, B. Hall, & T.Jackson (Eds.),
Voices of change: Participatory research in the United
States and Canada (pp. 41-46). Westport, CT:
Bergin and Garvey.
Dubell, F., Erasmie, T., 8c de Vries, J. (Eds.).
(1980). Research for the people, research by the
people. Likoping, Sweden: Likoping University
Press.
Duelli Klein, R. (1983). How to do what we want
to do: Thoughts about feminist methodology.
In G. Bowles & R. Duelli Klein (Eds.), Theory of
women'sstudies (pp. 88-104). Boston: Routledge,
Kegan and Paul.
Fals-Borda, O., & Rahman, M. A. (Eds.). (1991).
Action and knowledge: Breaking the monopoly with
participatory action-research. New York: Apex.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New
York: Seabury.
Gould, K. (1994). Ideas about health care from very
marginalized women from all over Vancouver. Un
published manuscript prepared for the
Vancouver Health Board.
Hall, B. (1979). Participatory research: Break
ing the academic monopoly. InJ. Niemi (Ed.),
Viewpoints on adult education (pp. 43-69). De
Kalb: Northern Illinois University Press.
Hall, B. (1993). Introduction. In P. Park, M.
Bryden-Miller, B. Hall, & T.Jackson (Eds.),
Voices of change: Participatory research in the United
States and Canada (pp. xiii-xxii). Westport, CT:
Bergin and Garvey.
Hall,B.,Gillette, A.,&Tandon,R. (Eds.). (1982).
Creating knowledge: A monopoly ? New Delhi: So
ciety for Participatory Research in Asia.
Heany, T. (1993). If you can't beat 'em, join 'em:
The professionalization of participatory re
search. In P. Park, M. Bryden-Miller, B. Hall, &
T.Jackson (Eds.), Voices of change: Participatory
research in the United States and Canada (pp. 41
46). Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey.
Jackson, T. (1993). Away of working: Participa
tory research and the aboriginal movement in
Canada. In P. Park, M. Bryden-Miller, B. Hall,
This content downloaded from 94.230.84.27 on Wed, 20 Apr 2016 08:48:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
&T.Jackson (Eds.), Voices of change: Participatory
research in the United States and Canada (pp. 47
74). Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey.
Jackson, T., & McKay, G. (1982). Sanitation and
water supply in Big Trout Lake: Participatory
research for democratic technical solutions.
Canadianjoumal ofNative Studies, 2(1), 129-145.
Kassam.Y., & Mustafa, K. (Eds.). (1982). PR:An
emerging alternative methodology in social science
research. New Delhi: Society for Participatory
Research in Asia.
Kent, J. (1996, July). Group inquiry: A demo
cratic dialogue? Paper presented at the Fourth
International Social Science Methodology
Conference, Colchester, UK.
Maguire, P. (1987). Doingparticipatory research: A
feminist approach. Amherst: Center for Interna
tional Education, University of Massachusetts.
Maguire, P. (1993). Challenges, contradictions
and celebrations: Attempting participatory
research as a a doctoral student. In P. Park, M.
Bryden-Miller, B. Hall, & T.Jackson (Eds.),
Voices of change: Participatory research in the United
States and Canada (pp. 157-176). Westport, CT:
Bergin and Garvey.
Martin, M. (1996a, July). Teaching and learning in
participatory research: Issues and experiences from
practice. Paper presented at the Fourth Interna
tional Social Science Methodology Confer
ence, Colchester, UK.
Martin, M. (1996b). Issues of power in the par
ticipatory research process. In K. de Koning &
M. Martin (Eds.), Participatory research in health:
Issues and experiences (pp. 82-93). London: Zed
Books.
Mason, R., & Boutilier, M. (1996). The challenge
of genuine power-sharing in participatory re
search: The gap between theory and practice.
Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health,
15(2), 145-152.
Meulenberg-Buskens, I. (1996). Critical aware
ness in participatory research: An approach
towards teaching and learning. In K. de Koning
& M. Martin (Eds.), Participatory research in
health: Issues and experiences (pp. 40-49). Lon
don: Zed Books.
Morrell-Bellai, T„ & Boydell, K. (1994). The
experience of mental health consumers as re
searchers. Canadian Journal of Community Men
tal Health, i5(l),97-110.
Mwansa, L. K, Mufune, P., & Osei-Hwedie, K.
(1994). Youth policy and programmes in the
SADC countries of Botswana, Swaziland and
Zambia: A comparative assessment. Interna
tionalSocial Work, 37(3), 239-263.
Nadeau, D. (1996). Counting our victories: Popular
education and organizing. Vancouver: Repeal
the Deal Productions.
 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION

Noel, L. (1993). Intolerance: A general survey. Ritchie, J. E. (1996). Using participatory re

Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press.
Park, P. (1993). What is participatory research?
A theoretical and methodological perspective.
In P. Park, M. Bryden-Miller, B. Hall, & T.
Jackson (Eds.), Voices of change: Participatory
search to enhance health in the work setting:
An Australian experience. In K. de Koning & M.
Martin (Eds.), Participatory research in health: Is
sues and experiences (pp. 204-215). London: Zed
Books.

research in the United States and Canada (pp. 1
19). Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey.
Park, P., Bryden-Miller, M., Hall, B., &Jackson,
T. (Eds.). (1993). Voices of change: Participatory
research in the United States and Canada. Westport,
CT: Bergin and Garvey.
Reason,P. (Ed.). (1988). Human inquiry in action:
Developments in a new paradigm of research. Lon
don: Sage.
Reinharz, S. (1992). Feminist action research. In
S. Reinharz (Ed.), Feminist methods for social
research (pp. 175-196). New York: Oxford.
Schutzman, M., & Cohen-Cruz,J. (Eds.). (1994).
PlayingBoal: Theatre, therapy, activism. New York:
Routledge.
Stanley, L., & Wise, S. (1983). Breaking out: Femi
nist consciousness and feminist research. London:
Routledge, Kegan and Paul.
Tandon, R. (1996). The historical roots and
contemporary tendencies in participatory re
search: Implications for health care. In K. de
Koning & M. Martin (Eds.), Participatory research
in health: Issues and experiences (pp. 19-26). Lon
don: Zed Books.

Ristock, J. L., & Pennell.J. (1996). Community
research as empowerment: Feminist links, postmodern
interruptions. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University
Press Canada.
Tolley E. E., & Bentley, M. E. (1996). Training
issues for the use of participatory research
methods in health. In K. de Koning & M. Martin
(Eds.), Participatory research in health: Issues and
experiences (pp. 50-61). London: Zed Books.

Accepted 5/98.

Address correspondence to: Paule McNicoll, University of British Columbia, School of Social Work,
2080 West Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z2.

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Family Life Faculty Position

Assistant (tenure track) or Associate Professor/Extension Specialist (tenured),

full-time position available August 1999, the University of Illinois at Urbana
Champaign. PhD in human development, family studies, or related field with
emphasis on family relationships or human development in the context of
families required. Areas of specialization might include: parenting, caregiving,
marriage and family relations, families in transition, intergenerational
relationships, prevention of family violence, etc. Candidates must demonstrate
ability to develop community-based outreach/education to address family issues,
conduct a program of applied research, and provide resources and training
for field-based staff. Experience or familiarity with Extension is desirable. To
receive full consideration, applications must be received by January 15, 1999.
Send a letter of application, including a statement of outreach, research, and
teaching interests, curriculum vitae, and three letters of reference to: HCD
Family Life Search, #6333, Attn: Dr. Constance H. Shapiro, University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign, 274 Bevier Hall, 905 South Goodwin Avenue, Urbana,
IL 61801. For more information, contact Dr. Aaron Ebata, (217) 333-2912, e
mail: a-ebata@uiuc.edu. The University of Illinois is an AA/EOE. Women and
candidates from minority and other designated classes are encouraged to apply.

This content downloaded from 94.230.84.27 on Wed, 20 Apr 2016 08:48:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms