Dean Whitehead, your question is very interesting. It depends on how carefully the methodology is constructed and executed (when it comes to participatory action research). Just participation in research doesn't entail any research to be participatory. It is how the subject is scientifically integrated into the study process right from hypothesis to arriving at conclusion.

Hi J Ravi (if that's the correct address),

I take your points - but I'm not sure that it is about methodology per se - but how the process is applied. On the other hand, I agree it is about to what extent the 'subject' (by subject, I assume that you mean participant/co-researcher) is 'integrated' into the process. I would argue, however, that while 'scientific integration' may be an indicator of participation - does that apply to action research?

Yes! Ravi is right...Thank you. I suppose scientific integration(borrowing from participatory research theories) is needed in 'participatory' action research to ensure the processes participatory in its true spirit (by definition) while arriving at a conclusion. I haven't mastered this (so I can be corrected) subject but practiced in few of my studies.

Dear Rajendra singh, That's very thoughtful insights. Thank you. The stakeholder involvement as of 6th element (Susman and Evered 1978) is equally important to that of research...(if I am not wrong) all through the process.

Rajendra - a considered and measured response. Many thanks. Your comments are established and correct for action research in its 'true' context. I suppose that part of my argument is that 'to what extent or context does 'participation' have to be in place? There is 'action research' and there is 'participatory action research'; where is the specific cut-off - or is it another semantic argument where the terms are used interchangeably?

hey Dean,

"does organisational and individual emancipation and empowerment need to be in place for it to be 'truely' participatory?"

Depends on the level of empowerment and emancipation(the reasons for them as well). Im using Particpatory Design in a context of preserving indigenous knowledge by designing IT with a marginalized tribe.

For the project to be truly participatory requires(at least) mutual learning from both sides. That domain knowledge is shared within the process...not restricted to the owner.

That inquiry is not limited to reflect if the researcher is 'right', but to question the foundation of concepts the researcher in my case applies his knowledge in an unfamiliar context.

Participation is not simply an interview/usability test where the researchers investigates their standpoints. And I completely agree with you, I have seen many participatory projects that merely involved users at the end.

And as an underlying ideology in PAR I believe that change is a vital component, but it does not necessary make it more participatory.

This comment is getting muddy, sorry for that.

I usually consider my methods as a core point for making a process participatory.

This might be linked to how actors can articulate and take part, you should also consider how that knowledge is handled.

Kasper,

An informed viewpoint. I can see that you use AR/PAR in a meaningful manner. From a critical social theory paradigm perspective - emancipation and empowerment are supposed to be in place for PAR. If it's AR itself, as a 'purer' from it could be argued that 'change for change sake' is required (not necessarily needing emancipation, empowerment, impowerment etc). From this position - 'the end justifies the means' perspective (such as any change/action is better than no change) - then the 'journey' may actually be dis-empowering. However, as with 'participatory' action research approaches - I suppose it is about contextualising what 'participatory' means?

I think that this is a really interesting thread, one thing that I've been going on about for a while is the in-situ nature of the participation. What do other people think about this? Is participation always the same, or can soft-systems, ethno understandings and "hanging about" :) with people give us greater insights into the ways that people "do" participation?

It's all up for grabs I suppose Alan. I've been involved in AR projects whereby people 'hang around'. Personally, I'm fine with that. Learning, even at a base-level, can be participatory, emancipatory etc.

Action research requires the researcher(s) to use the results of the research to act upon and change the situation being studied. The action intervention may be part of the research design.

Participatory action research requires the people who are the subject of the study both to take part in making the analysis and then to use the findings to (a) understand and interpret the situation (b) make decisions and (c) act upon and change the situation they have analyzed.

Correct Jacqueline - many thanks for the feedback

PAR is a kind of action research where the participants selected the topic for investigation according to their needs to be met and action capacity, formulate questions to investigate the topic, determine how to answer to research problem, and evaluate the findings of the study. The researcher serves as facilitator in the conduct of PAR. The purpose of PAR is to empower the participants in the community or organization

Correct Flor!!

I am a novice when looking at action research. I have found you questions & answers most useful in my own project proposal design. Thank you. You question re participation would it not be prudent benchmark participation against Hart's ladder of participation?

I think that one of the problems that you might have is one of context. As each case is different there are different approaches used and instances that are acted up, so really I would think that having a benchmark wouldn't be useful, per se. Also the fact that participation is not really a uniform phenomenon. Just go out there and start doing : ) In many respects AR is non-theoretical. I'd look at ethnomethodology too, particularly where it informs ethnography.

I agree with you Alan.

A thing about context is who defines it? If the researcher frames discourse within the problem domain s/he is interested in, valuable insights might be overlooked - that could actually contribute to a further understanding. I like Grudin's notion of context and selectivity, where another (new) context is also defined on the basis of what is not selected.

Alan: regarding your questions above. I believe that the notion of concepts i.e. in intercultural HCI design is a valuable beginning point for discourse. Thus any information source that enables us to evaluate/distance ourselves from our own concepts lead to better understanding of participants' perspectives. When these concepts are anchored in participatory work we might unlock some of the differences between actors. This in turn is vital for a change that is line with the objectives from the starting point. Else it becomes a power struggle that the researchers easily win because they define the context.

These principles and the ongoing evolution of Participatory' action research (PAR ) have had a lasting legacy in fields ranging from problem solving in the workplace to community development and sustainable livelihoods, education, public health, feminist research and civic engagement. It is important to note that these contributions are subject to many tensions and debates on key issues such as the role of clinical psychology, critical social thinking and the pragmatic concerns of organizational learning in PAR theory and practice. Labels used to define each approach (PAR, critical PAR, action research, psychosociology, sociotechnical analysis, etc.) reflect these tensions and point to major differences that may outweigh the similarities. While a common denominator, the combination of participation, action and research reflects the fragile unity of traditions whose diverse ideological and organizational contexts kept them separate and largely ignorant of one another for several decades. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_action_research

KS Al-Niaeem

A blog-answer not directly to this question but borrowing from and adding to this thread. http://www.daktre.com/2018/06/sciencing-up-participation-and-participationing-science/

Prashanth N Srinivas Thank you for an interesting link.