Conducting Community Based Participatory Action Research

Decolonizing Power Relations

CBPAR prioritizes the goal of establishing socially just research processes. There often exists power asymmetries between the professional researchers and the people who participate in research, particularly if they are from minoritized social groups (Appadurai, 2006). In HRD research, for example, traditional organizational research approaches often fail to engage with workers, especially those who do not belong to the dominant culture (Bierema & Callahan, 2014). CBPAR prioritizes dismantling structured and hierarchical power arrangements that are the basis of traditional/colonial research relationships (Smith, 1999).

The decolonization of research central to CBPAR askes researchers to think about and ameliorate unequal power relationships between academic scholars and community members; it asks, who is allowed to produce this knowledge and for what purposes is the knowledge produced? Traditional research assumes a ridge opposition between researchers and research participants, which is a central presupposition that supports claims to scientific objectivity (Appadurai, 2006). In contrast, CBPAR is an approach in which community members become members of the research team; and their knowledge (rather than the objectivist knowledge of experts) is epistemologically valued becomes it is grounded and emerges from the social reality of the community or organization under investigation (Fine, 2008). While debate about academic privilege, the emancipatory claims of CBPAR, and the power dynamics between and among academics and community actors does exist (Janes, 2016), several CBPAR projects have demonstrated that participatory methods can help community actors inform and participate in the conduct of research that is grounded within the social realities and needs or their own community (Kervick et al., 2021; Lobb et al., 2018; Ritchie et al., 2010). Whereas the power asymmetries of traditional research tend to delegitimatize other cultural ways of knowing, CBPAR can be used to decolonize research, and to ask questions about whether the knowledge produced was just or would create more harm than good. Through CBPAR, community members “are empowered to become critical inquirers of their lived experiences and producers of knowledge, rather than just consumers of knowledge” (Smolarek & Wolfgram, 2020, p. 2).

Features of an Action Research Approach

One aspect that may cause confusion in conducting any action research paradigm; whether it be traditional action research (AR) or CBPAR, are the two seemingly conflicting concepts of action and research (Burns, 2009). Action involves taking calculated steps toward solving a community, social, or organizational problem. Research on the other hand brings to mind systematic data collection, analysis of such data, and conclusions drawn from it.

Kurt Lewin is often described as the architect of action research; his statement “No action without research; no research without action” is famous, though it is problematic to locate Lewin’s quote firsthand, Marrow’s (1969) review of Lewin’s work seems to be the primary source of the statement. Unlike other research paradigms that attempt to describe generalizations from a data set, action research methodologies “seeks to engage the complex dynamics involved in any social context” (Stringer, 2014, p. 1). At its core action research wants to address practical problems of people and organizations, but also seeks to improve the lives of the participants.

While Whyte (1991) refers to participatory action research as a methodology, others argue that action research is not a methodology but is more aligned with a particular approach to research and knowledge development (Fine, 2008; Stringer, 2014). Stringer (2014) stated: “The primary purpose of action research is to provide the means for people to engage in systematic inquiry to design a way of accomplishing a desired goal, and to evaluate its effectiveness” (p. 6). As in other research paradigms, action research is characterized by a focus on a particular issue or problem, addresses the investigation of that issue in a systematic manner, and attempts to develop explanations that help us better understand the problem.

Action research has long been used in organization development (OD) interventions (McArdle & Reason, 2008; McLean, 1996; Torraco & Hoover, 2005 see action research and OD as a process of “continual inquiry. . .rather than a set of techniques” (p. 123). Action research has several important features that aligns it well with addressing organizational problems; it is pragmatic in that it helps addresses practical questions; it is democratic, involving people who many ways; and it has a value inclination, it asks how we can contribute to the benefit of people and society (McArdle & Reason, 2008).

Emerging in part from the action research traditions, but also from the critical pedagogy tradition of Freire (2018), CBPAR can be considered an action approach to research approach that explicitly problematizes and seeks to decolonize the power relations of research; in particular, decolonizing the power asymmetries between researchers and community members.

Methodological Issues in CBPAR

One of the strengths of a participatory action research approach is it diversity in methods, and CBPAR studies employ both quantitative and qualitative research methods (Fine, 2008). This section provides a summary of some methodological that may be important to consider when planning and conducting a CBPAR project.

In any research paradigm we are interested in developing a greater understanding of the phenomenon at hand, whether that be social, educational, or organizational in nature. When we use CBPAR, who better to help us gain that understanding are those most impacted by that phenomenon? This valuing of grounded and community knowledge is the central epistemological commitment of CBPAR and other participatory approaches to research (Fine, 2008). Engaging community members to become active participants in the research process is a superior way to acquire such knowledge (Whyte, 1991), as stated in “the participatory process itself raises the consciousness of participants so that they might move toward constructive action” (p. 821).

CBPAR involves academic researchers working along with community actors, engaging as equal partners or as co-researchers in the research process. Ideally, everyone contributes knowledge, experiences, and resources to the work; and in this way, CBPAR can disrupt the structured asymmetry between researcher and research participant and establish a shared collaborative environment for learning and critical inquiry. For example, in one of our CBPAR projects (Arman et al., 2020), the authors collaborated with Muslim American college students who were members of the Muslim Student Association at Northeastern Illinois University, to investigate the sociocultural and institutional factors that impact the success of Muslim American college students. The students, although clearly nervous at first engaged enthusiastically, in part because the research addressed issues that they were concerned as student activists on campus, to identify ways that campus could be made to be a more welcoming environment for religious minorities. These students and the researchers read and discussed research literature that related to our research questions. Multiple meetings led to the creation of central research questions and an interview protocol. The students then used their social networks to recruit interview participants. They conducted the interviews, analyzed the data, and then had several opportunities to disseminate their findings to the campus community through a cultural competence workshop and a student research symposium.

CBPAR claims to be more democratic than other research traditions, though Janes (2016) cautions CBPAR practitioners that the social relations within conducting this type of research “be interrogated to reveal how power is negotiated in these epistemological encounters” (p. 73). Despite the researcher wishing to be a community ally, in many projects they are an outsider; and in others often one in a position of power (as examples: professor-student; educational administrator-parent; manager-laborer) (Herr & Anderson, 2005). There must be an awareness of this power differential, researchers must be mindful and work to reduce the disparity with a commitment to reflect the experiences and perspectives of the community partners (Paris & Winn, 2013).

The term community referenced in CBPAR refers to people with a sense of shared identity. PAR approaches require engagement with community actors and not using them as subjects, participation should be meaningful and shun patronizing community members to share information that furthers the researcher’s goals but does not involve them once data are collected (McKay, 2011).

Engagement of community actors involves identifying stakeholders and power-structures within a group. A grounded and community-based understanding of the problem under investigation, along with an active interest and willingness to work with the various stakeholders, are necessary team member characteristics. When referring to community participants, Fine (2008) advised that those who have been the most ignored, subjugated, and denied often possess some of the most critical information. These community stakeholders along with researchers jointly determine the problem in the community/organization and establish an appropriate, “culturally relevant research method for gathering and analyzing data” (Fernández et al., 2020, p. 183).

CBPAR and PAR projects use a wide variety of tools; semi-structured interviews, participant observation, and artifacts such as photos and documents are common (Budig et al., 2018). There are also participatory processes that several HRD scholars and practitioners may be familiar with; focus groups (Fenwick & Bierema, 2008); action plans for organization development (Swanson & Holton, 2009); opportunities for workers to effect job design (Foss et al., 2009); and engaging with organizational stakeholders (Garavan & McGuire, 2010) being just a few.

There are challenges in having community actors with little to no experience in areas such as interviewing or conducting focus groups collecting data. In our research with Muslim American students (Arman et al., 2020), our team members begin the process by interviewing each other, then reflecting on that experience in their research journals. The team then met and discussed the interviews; the sharing of successes and challenges strengthened the participants’ understanding of data collection and reinforced their commitment to the project, thus allowing them to continue interviewing others.

Members of the community who are conducting a research inquiry about problems in their own community must be mindful of their positionality (Herr & Anderson, 2005). CBPAR often engages with sensitive topics such as racism, sexism, or other forms of minoritization. Topics that reach deeply into personal life and experiences have the potential to be emotionally stressful, and also researchers must be able to make an assessment of the impact of the research on both the participants and themselves. Dickson-Swift et al. (2007) advised: “Researchers also face ongoing challenges such as dealing with developing attachments, hearing untold stories, feelings of guilt, vulnerability and exhaustion, and issues related to both transcribing and analyzing data” (p. 344). These feelings and vulnerabilities can be especially concerning for researchers who are also members of the community, which calls for ongoing and open discussion of these issues among the research team to ensure that all team members are supported during the research process.

Participatory approaches vary widely, as do their tools. As Creswell (1998) stated: “no consensus exists for the analysis of the forms of qualitative data” (p. 140). Since CBPAR is a collaborative endeavor that aims to reduce or even eliminate the control of a professional researcher, one must consider the research knowledge and skills of the team members. For example, Bailey Smolarek, Matthew Wolfgram, and MaiNeng Vang from the University of Wisconsin-Madison have developed the use of autoethnographic journaling as a CBPAR tool (Smolarek et al., 2021). Research team members journal about their own experiences as a member of the community and with the research process, to inform the development of research questions data collection, analysis, and writing, and help in the development of research-informed advocacy for policies to support community members. During weekly meetings the team revisits the themes narrated in the journals, making connections with the literature, identifying similarities and differences in the data, and refining themes in an iterative process. Through this process of documenting and theorizing the community researchers’ own experiences, the community actors and their partners together can develop research questions and data collection strategies.

Dissemination, following the CBPAR approach, needs to go beyond the traditional notion that the primary goal of research is to lead to publications in academic journals. It is clear that “the audience for such journals generally does not include study participants or the general public—the people who research ultimately aims to affect” (Chen et al., 2010, p. 372). CBPAR offers a provoking and needed approach to studying social issues in the workplace because it not only includes the perspectives and experiences of stakeholders. Thus, CBPAR favors an approach to dissemination that impacts communities, rather than only impacting the conduct of more research.

Discussion

Critical HRD is an important area of HRD research and practice (Callahan, 2007; Fenwick, 2004), and we feel that PAR approaches are in congruence with Critical HRD; they both acknowledge, respect, and place value upon the knowledge and experiences of those oppressed (Genat, 2009). While HRD has been criticized for its adherence to performance theories and practices and its “drift away from the original ethos of valuing humanism” (Bierema & Callahan, 2014, p. 430); CBPAR can help organizations in their rational desire of performance and honor the capacity of workers to participate in the democratic research process at the same time (Kemmis et al., 2014).

While CBPAR and other action research projects have been extremely useful in schools and other grassroots efforts to change educational and social policy, we believe that CBPAR can also be used to address organizational performance issues. There are many examples of participatory action research projects addressing organizational concerns. We have seen work on improving work life (Pace & Argona, 1991), organizational culture (Sparre, 2020), and work stress interventions (Dollard et al., 2008). The possibilities are great; think about how managers and workers can work together to not only improve performance but also socially just management practices; how the allied health professions can improve patient care, especially in marginalized populations; how non-for-profit social service organizations can better help their communities, the possibilities are limited only by our imagination.

We can easily see CBPAR being used to investigate issues that Critical HRD wishes to address such as workplace racism and sexism, underemployment, labor rights, and religious minoritization, as well as many others. In a systematic literature review of PAR studies in organizations in Canada, McVicar et al. (2013) determined several commonalties among them: poor relationships between management and workers, poor communications, and perceived lack of control by employees of their workload. These are the types of organizational problems HRD can address with CBPAR methods, ones where we can see positive change and practical solutions for both people and organizations.