Collaborative,Action-Oriented Research in Asian Psychology: An Example From Singapore

Abstract

Collaborative, action-oriented approaches to research are uncommon in Asian psychology. This is unfortunate as such approaches can support adaptive social change in Asian settings and enrich mainstream psychology by highlighting the values and principles of Asian countries. To address this, we describe a case study of a four-year participatory action research (PAR) project with a farm in Singapore. The first author worked with farm employees and volunteers to jointly determine research directions and measures, involve them in data analysis and share findings through reports to the government and on social media. True to the iterative nature of collaborative research, we continue to engage with the farm to meet their needs. We discuss three cultural considerations for collaborative, action-oriented research in Singapore, namely the (a) emphasis on group harmony, (b) rigid social roles, and (c) state influence on community organisations, and how they inform a Singaporean PAR approach. We also offer recommendations for practitioners seeking to engage in such research in Singapore and beyond.

Keywords

participatory action research Asia Singapore community psychology urban agriculture

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Argyris

Schön

D. A.

(1989). Participatory action research and action science compared: A commentary. American Behavioral Scientist, 32(5), 612–623. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764289032005008

Arieli

Friedman

V. J.

Agbaria

(2009). The paradox of participation in action research. Action Research, 7(3), 263–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750309336718

Berglund

(2025). Going in or going out– practicing embedded research as a true insider. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 38(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-025-09713-6

Blichfeldt

B. S.

Andersen

J. R.

(2006). Creating a wider audience for action research: Learning from case-study research. Journal of Research Practice, 2(1), 1–12.

Brown

L. D.

Tandon

(1983). Ideology and political economy in inquiry: Action research and participatory research. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 19(3), 277–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/002188638301900306

Cahill

Torre

M. E.

(2007). Beyond the journal article: Representations, audience, and the presentation of participatory action research. In Kindon

Pain

Kesby

(Eds.), Participatory action research approaches and methods. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203933671

Chee

T. S.

(1995). Values and national development in Singapore. Asian Journal of Political Science, 3(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/02185379508434058

Chew

P. K. H.

(2018). Racism in Singapore: A review and recommendations for future research. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 12(1), Article e5. https://doi.org/10.1017/prp.2018.3

Cho

I. S.

K. C.

(2020). Participatory design to Co-create community spaces. In Leong

C.-H.

Malone-Lee

L.-C.

(Eds.), Building resilient neighbourhoods in Singapore: The convergence of policies, research and practice (pp. 81–99): Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7048-9_6

10.

Chua

S. K. C.

(2009). A new concept of ‘bilingualism’ for the IT age. Current Issues in Language Planning, 10(4), 442–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664200903554982

11.

Clammer

(1988). Minorities and minority policy in Singapore. Southeast Asian Journal of Social Science, 16(2), 96-110. https://doi.org/10.1163/080382488x00162. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24491111

12.

Coleman

(2015). Core issues in modern epistemology for action researchers: Dancing between knower and known. In Bradbury

(Ed.), The SAGE handbook of action research. SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473921290.n38

13.

Collins

S. E.

Clifasefi

S. L.

Stanton

Straits

K. J.

Gil-Kashiwabara

Rodriguez Espinosa

Nicasio

A. V.

Andrasik

M. P.

Hawes

S. M.

Miller

K. A.

Nelson

L. A.

Orfaly

V. E.

Duran

B. M.

Wallerstein

(2018). Community-based participatory research (CBPR): Towards equitable involvement of community in psychology research. American Psychologist, 73(7), 884–898. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000167

14.

Cornish

Breton

Moreno-Tabarez

Delgado

Rua

de-Graft Aikins

Hodgetts

(2023). Participatory action research. Nature Reviews Methods Primers, 3(1), 34. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43586-023-00214-1

15.

Cunliffe

A. L.

Karunanayake

(2013). Working within hyphen-spaces in ethnographic research: Implications for research identities and practice. Organizational Research Methods, 16(3), 364–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428113489353

16.

Dege

(2023). The Northern tradition of pragmatic action research. In Dege

(Ed.), Action research and critical psychology: An investigation of subjectivity and participation (pp. 97–149). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31197-0_5

17.

Dworski-Riggs

Langhout

R. D.

(2010). Elucidating the power in empowerment and the participation in participatory action research: A story about research team and elementary school change. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45(3), 215–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9306-0

18.

Fals Borda

(1987). The application of participatory action-research in Latin America. International Sociology, 2(4), 329–347. https://doi.org/10.1177/026858098700200401

19.

Fine

Torre

M. E.

(2019). Critical participatory action research: A feminist project for validity and solidarity. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 43(4), 433–444. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684319865255

20.

Gelfand

M. J.

Raver

J. L.

Nishii

Leslie

L. M.

Lun

Lim

B. C.

Duan

Almaliach

Ang

Arnadottir

Aycan

Boehnke

Boski

Cabecinhas

Chan

Chhokar

D’Amato

Subirats Ferrer

Fischlmayr

I. C.

Yamaguchi

(2011). Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study. Science, 332(6033), 1100–1104. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1197754

21.

Gergen

K. J.

Gergen

M. M.

(2008). Social construction and research as action. In Reason

Bradbury

(Eds.), The Sage handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (Second Edition ed, pp. 159–171). Sage Publications.

22.

Glassman

Erdem

(2014). Participatory action research and its meanings: Vivencia, praxis, conscientization. Adult Education Quarterly, 64(3), 206–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713614523667

23.

Goh

R. B. H.

(2016). The anatomy of singlish: Globalisation, multiculturalism and the construction of the ‘local’ in Singapore. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 37(8), 748–758. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2015.1133628

24.

Grice

Drakakis-Smith

(1985). The role of the state in shaping development: Two decades of growth in Singapore. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 10(3), 347–359. https://doi.org/10.2307/622183

25.

Hairon

(2017). Action research in Singapore: Where are we now? Asia-Pacific Science Education, 3(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41029-017-0016-x

26.

Han

Chew

Tan

(2001). Singapore: Values education for a knowledge-based economy. In Cummings

W. K.

Tatto

M. T.

Hawkins

(Eds.), Values education for dynamic societies: Individualism or collectivism (pp. 267–282). Comparative Education Research Centre (CERC), The University of Hong Kong.

27.

Han

(2022). Singapore’s elastic band of a public order act. Index on Censorship, 51(4), 34–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/03064220221144884

28.

Harré

(2019). Let’s assume people are good: Rethinking research in community psychology. The Australian Community Psychologist, 30(1), 81–91.

29.

Harré

Blythe

McLean

Khan

(2022). A people-focused systems approach to sustainability. American Journal of Community Psychology, 69(1), 114–133. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12550

30.

Kanuha

V. K.

(2000). “Being” native versus “going native”: Conducting social work research as an insider. Social Work, 45(5), 439–447. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/45.5.439

31.

Katsui

Koistinen

(2008). The participatory research approach in non‐western countries: Practical experiences from central Asia and Zambia. Disability & Society, 23(7), 747–757. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687590802469248

32.

Khanlou

Peter

(2005). Participatory action research: Considerations for ethical review. Social Science & Medicine, 60(10), 2333–2340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.10.004

33.

Kidd

Davidson

Frederick

Kral

M. J.

(2018). Reflecting on participatory, action‐oriented research methods in community psychology: Progress, problems, and paths forward. American Journal of Community Psychology, 61(1), 76–87. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12214

34.

Kidd

S. A.

Kral

M. J.

(2005). Practicing participatory action research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 187. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.187

35.

Kindon

Pain

Kesby

(2007). Participatory action research: Origins, approaches and methods. In Kindon

Pain

Kesby

(Eds.), Participatory action research approaches and methods. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203933671

36.

Kitayama

Berg

M. K.

Chopik

W. J.

(2020). Culture and well-being in late adulthood: Theory and evidence. American Psychologist, 75(4), 567–576. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000614

37.

Kitayama

Salvador

C. E.

(2024). Cultural psychology: Beyond east and west. Annual Review of Psychology, 75(1), 495–526. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-021723-063333

38.

Kloos

Hill

Thomas

Wandersman

Elias

M. J.

Dalton

J. H.

(2012). Community psychology. Cengage Learning.

39.

Kofod

(2012). Building community through meals in the care home setting: Experience from Denmark. Food, Culture and Society, 15(4), 665–678. https://doi.org/10.2752/175174412X13450256411376

40.

Kuwabara

Willer

Macy

M. W.

Mashima

Terai

Yamagishi

(2007). Culture, identity, and structure in social exchange: A web-based trust experiment in the United States and Japan. Social Psychology Quarterly, 70(4), 461–479. https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250707000412

41.

Lake

Wendland

(2018). Practical, epistemological, and ethical challenges of participatory action research: A cross-disciplinary review of the literature. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 22(3), 11–42.

42.

Lee

Y.-J.

(2022). Basic education in Singapore. In Symaco

L. P.

Hayden

(Eds.), International handbook on education in Southeast Asia (pp. 977–1001). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-8136-3_6-1

43.

Le Grange

(2009). Participation and participatory action research (PAR) in environmental education processes: For what are people empowered? Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 25(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0814062600000367

44.

Levinson

(2017). When participants don’t wish to participate in participatory action research, and when others participate on their behalf: The representation of communities by real and faux participants. The Urban Review, 49(3), 382–399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-016-0390-9

45.

Lewin

(1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1946.tb02295.x

46.

Liu

J. H.

(2017). Neo-confucian epistemology and Chinese philosophy: Practical postulates for actioning psychology as a human science. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 20(2), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12168

47.

Liu

J. H.

Bernardo

A. B.

(2016). What should a social psychology for social change look like in Asia? Reflections on scientific research, aimed at solving social problems and generating new knowledge with ‘a theory of culture change at its centre’. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 10(1), e14. https://doi.org/10.1017/prp.2016.11

48.

Loh

Lloyd

Restubog

Gallois

(2010). Attitudinal outcomes of boundary permeability: A comparison of Australian and Singaporean employees. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 17(2), 118–134. https://doi.org/10.1108/13527601021038697

49.

Low

L. L.

Maulod

Lee

K. H.

(2017). Evaluating a novel integrated community of care (ICoC) for patients from an urbanised low-income community in Singapore using the participatory action research (PAR) methodology: A study protocol. BMJ Open, 7(10), Article e017839. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017839

50.

Macaulay

A. C.

(2016). Participatory research: What is the history? Has the purpose changed? Family Practice, 34(3), 256–258. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmw117

51.

Maiter

Simich

Jacobson

Wise

(2008). Reciprocity: An ethic for community-based participatory action research. Action Research, 6(3), 305–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750307083720

52.

Mathews

Hou

Tan

E. S.

Chua

(2021). Making identity count in Singapore: Understanding singaporeans’ national pride and identity (IPS Working Papers No. 41). Institute of Policy Studies. https://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/docs/default-source/ips/working-paper-41_making-identity-count-in-singapore_understanding-singaporeans-national-pride-and-identity.pdf.

53.

McTaggart

(1994). Participatory action research: Issues in theory and practice. Educational Action Research, 2(3), 313–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965079940020302

54.

McTaggart

(1997). Guiding principles for participatory action research. In McTaggart

(Ed.), Participatory action research: International contexts and consequences (pp. 25–43). State University of New York Press.

55.

Moore

R. Q.

(2000). Multiracialism and meritocracy: Singapore's approach to race and inequality. Review of Social Economy, 58(3), 339–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/00346760050132364

56.

Nasir

K. M.

(2016). Sustainability studies and the changing landscape of social science research in Singapore. International Social Science Journal, 65(217), 159–169. https://doi.org/10.1111/issj.12082

57.

Toh

H. J.

Lee

W. S. V.

George

E. R.

Philip

(2025). The garden as the field: Following soil regeneration practices with participatory soil science in Singapore. Agriculture and Human Values, 42, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-025-10757-6

58.

H. L.

Poon

C. L.

Pang

(2020). Using IEA studies to inform policymaking and program development: The case of Singapore. In Wagemaker

(Ed.), Reliability and validity of international large-scale assessment: Understanding IEA’s comparative studies of student achievement (pp. 245–259). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53081-5_14

59.

Chow

T. Y. J.

Yang

(2022). The impact of aging policy on societal age stereotypes and ageism. The Gerontologist, 62(4), 598–606. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnab151

60.

Nicholas

S. O.

Groot

Harré

(2023). Understanding urban agriculture in context: Environmental, social, and psychological benefits of agriculture in Singapore. Local Environment, 28(11), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2023.2238721

61.

Ogihara

Uchida

(2014). Does individualism bring happiness? Negative effects of individualism on interpersonal relationships and happiness. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(1), 00135. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00135

62.

Pae

H. K.

(2020). The East and the West. In Script effects as the hidden drive of the mind, cognition, and culture (pp. 107–134). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55152-0_6

63.

Pain

Kindon

Kesby

(2007). Participatory action research: Making a difference to theory, practice and action. In Kindon

Pain

Kesby

(Eds.), Participatory action research approaches and methods. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203933671

64.

Paiva-Silva

(2022). Understanding the Singaporean approach to state ownership: ‘Commercially viable strategic alignment’ in historical perspective. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 61(1), 43–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2021.10.014

65.

Pang

E. F.

Lim

L. Y. C.

(2015). Labor, productivity and Singapore's development model. Singapore Economic Review, 60(03), Article 1550033. https://doi.org/10.1142/s0217590815500332

66.

Perkins

D. D.

Sonn

C. C.

Lenzi

Carolissen

Portillo

Serrano‐García

(2023). The global development of community psychology as reflected in the American journal of community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 72(3), 302–316. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12696

67.

Puerta

L. L.

Bartlam

Smith

H. E.

(2019). Researchers' perspectives on public involvement in health research in Singapore: The argument for a community-based approach. Health Expectations, 22(4), 666–675. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12915

68.

Rappaport

(1987). Terms of empowerment/exemplars of prevention: Toward a theory for community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 15(2), 121–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00919275

69.

Raynor

(2019). Participatory action research and early career researchers: The structural barriers to engagement and why we should Do it anyway. Planning Theory & Practice, 20(1), 130–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2018.1556501

70.

Rodan

(2013). State—society relations and political opposition in Singapore. In Rodan

(Ed.), Political oppositions in industrialising Asia (pp. 78–103). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203441145

71.

Sim

J. B. Y.

Chow

L. T.

(2020). The development of civic participation among youth in Singapore. In Peterson

Stahl

Soong

(Eds.), The palgrave handbook of citizenship and education (pp. 759–777): Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67828-3

72.

Stajcic

(2013). Understanding culture: Food as a means of communication. Hemispheres, 28(1), 77.

73.

Tan

(2012). “Our Shared Values” in Singapore: A Confucian perspective. Educational Theory, 62(4), 449–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.2012.00456.x

74.

Tan

H. S.

(2006). Journey of an action research project on teaching reading skills: A learning process for teachin celebrating learning through active research: CLEAR symposium 2006.

75.

Tan

L. L.

W. F.

Sim

A. C. C.

Rahim

S. B.

(2021). Adopting a palliative approach to dementia care in the community: A participatory action research. Singapore Medical Journal, 62(5), 240–243. https://doi.org/10.11622/smedj.2021064

76.

Tan

Preece

(2021). Ethnic quotas, political representation and equity in Asia Pacific. Representation, 58(3), 347–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/00344893.2021.1989712

77.

Tan

W. K.

Macdonald

Rossi

(2009). Educational action research in Singapore: To prove or improve? Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 29(3), 357–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188790903100333

78.

Tebes

J. K.

(2016). Reflections on the future of community psychology from the generations after swampscott: A commentary and introduction to the special issue. American Journal of Community Psychology, 58(3), 229–238. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12110

79.

Teo

T. W.

Choy

B. H.

(2021). STEM education in Singapore. In Tan

O. S.

Low

E. L.

Tay

E. G.

Yan

Y. K.

(Eds.), Singapore math and science education innovation: Beyond PISA (pp. 43–59). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-1357-9_3

80.

Teo

(2010). Shaping the Singapore family, producing the state and society. Economy and Society, 39(3), 337–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2010.486215

81.

Turmusani

(2003). Disabled people and economic needs in the developing world: A political perspective from Jordan (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315257730

82.

van der Velde

Williamson

D. L.

Ogilvie

L. D.

(2009). Participatory action research: Practical strategies for actively engaging and maintaining participation in immigrant and refugee communities. Qualitative Health Research, 19(9), 1293–1302. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732309344207.

83.

van Grunsven

(1992). Integration versus segregation: Ethnic minorities and urban politics in Singapore. Journal of economic and social geography, 83(3), 196–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9663.1992.tb00780.x

84.

van Uchelen

(2000). Individualism, collectivism, and community psychology: Individualism, collectivism, and psychological research. In Rappaport

Seidman

(Eds.), Handbook of community psychology (pp. 65–78). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4193-6_3

85.

Vasoo

(2001). Community development in Singapore: New directions and challenges. Asian Journal of Political Science, 9(1), 4–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/02185370108434179

86.

Wee

C. J. W. L.

(1999). “Asian values”, Singapore, and the third way: Re-working individualism and collectivism. Sojourn: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia, 14(2), 332–358. https://doi.org/10.1355/sj14-2d

87.

Wee

(2014). Linguistic chutzpah and the speak good singlish movement. World Englishes, 33(1), 85–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12055

88.

White

G. W.

Suchowierska

Campbell

(2004). Developing and systematically implementing participatory action research. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 85(4), S3–S12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2003.08.109

89.

Wong

J. O.

(2006). Social hierarchy in the “Speech culture” of Singapore. In Cliff

(Ed.), Ethnopragmatics (pp. 99–126). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110911114.99

90.

Wong

P. T. P.

Cowden

R. G.

(2022). Accelerating the science and practice of psychology beyond WEIRD biases: Enriching the landscape through Asian psychology. Frontiers in Psychology, 13(1), Article 1054519. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1054519

91.

Yuan

(2012). Older Miao People and Rural Health Policy in China: The University of Sydney.

92.

Yuan

(2017). The status of action research in the people’s Republic of China: A review of recent literature. In Rowell

Bruce

Shosh

Riel

(Eds.), The Palgrave international handbook of action research (pp. 299–309). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-40523-4_19

93.

Zimmerman

M. A.

(1995). Psychological empowerment: Issues and illustrations. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23(5), 581–599. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02506983

94.

Zimmerman

M. A.

Israel

B. A.

Schulz

Checkoway

(1992). Further explorations in empowerment theory: An empirical analysis of psychological empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 20(6), 707–727. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01312604

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.16 MB