PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 15083417

Developing and systematically implementing participatory action research.

Abstract

Participatory Action Research (PAR) is a collaborative approach to conducting research that recently emerged as a paradigm for bridging science and clinical practice. The key characteristic of this approach--collaboration between consumers and researchers--often increases the relevance of research while maintaining the standards of scientific rigor. Although PAR is receiving increased attention from researchers and consumers in social science and public health, it has not been implemented widely. Some of the reasons for a limited application of PAR in the field include lack of knowledge about PAR and strategies for its implementation. This article defines PAR, provides an overview of the characteristics of this approach, and discusses 4 elements for systematic incorporation of the PAR approach into the research process. The elements are (1) participant selection and recruitment, (2) role and relationship clarification for researchers and participants, (3) research team education, and (4) management and support.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Glen W White, Monika Suchowierska, Margaret Campbell. 2004. Developing and systematically implementing participatory action research.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2003.08.109

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Making big tobacco give in: you lose, they win.

OBJECTIVES: To better understand how the tobacco industry responds to tobacco control activists, we explored Philip Morris's response to demands that consumers in developing countries be informed about smoking risks, and analyzed the implications of negotiating with a tobacco company. METHODS: We reviewed internal tobacco industry documents and related materials, constructed a case history of how Philip Morris responded to a shareholder campaign to require health warnings on cigarettes sold worldwide, and analyzed interactions between (1) socially responsible investment activists, (2) Philip Morris management, (3) institutional investors, and (4) industry competitors. RESULTS: After resisting for 11 years, Philip Morris unilaterally reversed direction, and proposed its own labeling initiative. While activists celebrated, Philip Morris's president detailed privately how the company would yield little and benefit disproportionately. Activists portrayed the tobacco industry as preying on the poor and uneducated and used delegitimization to drive a wedge between the industry and its financial and political allies. When Philip Morris "gave in" to their demands, it exchanged negative publicity for positive public relations and political credibility. CONCLUSIONS: Tobacco companies can appear to accommodate public health demands while securing strategic advantages. Negotiating with the tobacco industry can enhance its legitimacy and facilitate its ability to market deadly cigarettes without corresponding benefits to public health.

Community Participation↗

Bringing 'the public' into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: from principles to practice.

Those making health care coverage decisions rely on health technology assessment (HTA) for crucial technical information. But coverage decision-making, and the HTA that informs it, are also inherently political. They involve the values and judgments of a range of stakeholders as well as the public. Moreover, governments are politically accountable for their resource allocation decisions. Canadian policy makers are at an early stage in the design of legitimate mechanisms for the public to contribute to, and to be apprised of, HTA and coverage decisions. As they consider the options, questions arise about whom to involve (e.g., which publics), how to engage them (e.g., through what public involvement or accountability mechanisms), and for what purpose (e.g., to inform the public of decisions and their rationales, or to have the public directly affect those decisions). Often key concepts, such as the difference between public accountability and public participation, are not well articulated or distinguished in these debates. Guidance is needed regarding both rationales and methods for involving the public in HTA and technology coverage decisions. We offer a framework that clearly distinguishes specific roles for the public, and relates them to several layers of policy analysis and policy making where 'the public' may engage in different tasks. The framework offers a menu of choices for policy makers contemplating changes to public involvement, as well as a model that can be used to characterize and analyze different approaches across jurisdictions.

Community Participation↗