Section 1: About Participatory Action Research

It should be reassuring for you to know that Participatory Action Research (PAR) largely involves what you already do. Lots of writers and practitioners have commented that the foundation processes of Action Research (AR), of learning by doing, make intuitive sense. This is particularly true when we give value to reflection on practice, when we want to work with people rather than over them, when we enjoy some structure, and when we are open to change.

This section provides an overview of the character of PAR and the benefits of using it to improve early intervention outcomes.

1.1 What is Participatory Action Research (PAR)?

1.1.1 What is Action Research?

The best way to learn is to do, and the best way to do is to learn. In AR the learning and the doing inform each other. So research is not separate from practice but woven into it.

There are many definitions of AR. Here are a couple to consider:

Action Research is a systematic approach to investigation that enables people to find effective solutions to problems they confront in their everyday lives.

(Stringer 2007, p.1)

Action Research combines getting a better understanding of issues and using this understanding to change some aspects of practice.

(Action Research Induction Kit 2008, p.1)

Various ‘types’ of AR have been suggested by different writers. Each type has a different understanding of who asks the research question, and who is in the role of ‘Action Researcher’. However they all utilise a systematic process of observation, reflection, planning and action. This process is usually represented as a cycle (see Figure 1 below).

Figure 1: The basic Action Research cycle

This cycle of inquiry is repeated until the conclusion of the Action Research.

The model of Action Research preferred in the Reconnect program is Participatory Action Research (referred to as PAR throughout this manual), though some of the program resources and reports referred to in this manual shorten this to ‘Action Research’.

1.1.2 Why Participatory Action Research?

The unique feature of PAR is the participation of those affected by the issue and the potential for them to be involved in both asking and answering an AR question.

It is a way of working together to make things better.

This definition comes from the … pearls of wisdom report (Frazer, Gehan, Mills & Smart 2003), which reflected on the Reconnect experiences of undertaking PAR in Indigenous contexts. Rather than involve research ‘on’ people, PAR involves research ‘with’ people. It generates knowledge through “the lived experience of participants” (Lennie 2006, p.28).

Yoland Wadsworth says:

Essentially Participatory Action Research is research which involves all relevant parties in actively examining together current action (which they may experience as problematic) in order to change and improve it (1998, p.13)

and involves a shift from:

“I ask … You answer” to “We explore” (2001, p.78).

As Gonzales (2007, p.78) reflects:

PAR is not primarily about a subject observing an object, but a community of subjects reflecting on themselves and their experiences.

The important question is:

Who should be involved to make it participatory?

Essentially PAR is about changing or improving a social situation and involving those most affected in the process of doing this (Alston and Bowles 1998, p.164). So if you undertake service delivery to assist particular people, these are the people ‘most affected’, and they should be involved in order for it to be called ‘participatory’.

The Miimali Report: Yarning about cultural appropriateness is instructive about making sure we explore with the people we seek to assist.

We wanted to ask Aboriginal people what they thought. We believe it is important to hear their ideas, voices and stories on these issues and then to compile these in a way that will be useful for this project and others (locally as well as nationally). Not only will this provide useful data, it will actually allow Indigenous families to become involved in “improving the participation of Indigenous communities in early intervention”. It gives them a platform to express preferences but also to shape provisions and programs for themselves and their communities.
(Naden, Trikilis, Bonser and Boothye 2004, p.4)

Those most affected by a particular practice strategy often include other agencies and practitioners. For example, it may be that to provide better outcomes for young people who are being threatened with eviction from home, you need better relationships and referral processes between family support services and community respite options for young people. In this case those to involve initially in a PAR process to improve inter-service cooperation will be the relevant service providers. The service user’s participation would also be relevant but may not be the central component in this instance.

The key is that the ‘who with’ depends on the topic being explored, the question being asked and the people most affected by any action.

The strength of PAR is that it can be implemented in complex contexts, with service users and stakeholder groups, while maintaining a critical focus on improving local capacity to improve the situations of people. The following set of characteristics summarise the key features of PAR.

If in your practice:

• stakeholders are reflecting on and seeking to improve their own work and/or situation:
  • by tightly interlinking their observations, reflections, plans and actions; and
  • making their learning public through a process of sharing, so others can make use of it

And your practice increasingly…..

• involves stakeholders who are most affected by what you are seeking to improve or change;
• enables stakeholders to participate in identifying questions, answering them and making decisions about action;
• involves stakeholders in gathering data about their own questions;
• works in a collaborative, less hierarchical way, that shares power with all stakeholders;
• encourages stakeholders to take responsibility for their own critical analysis, evaluation and management;
• supports stakeholders to learn progressively and publicly by testing action ideas (…and possibly making mistakes along the way); and
• progressively enables stakeholders to ask and answer the bigger questions,

Then…. Participatory Action Research is happening!

This is a re-development of the definition which emerged at the National Symposium on Action Research, held in Brisbane in 1989, and cited in Altrichter, H. et. al. (1990) Defining, confining or refining Action Research? In Zuber-Skerritt, O. (ed.) Action Research for Change and Development, Centre for the Advancement of Learning and Teaching, Griffith University, Brisbane.

Stakeholder participation is the key distinguishing element between PAR and other forms of Action Research, briefly outlined below.

Emancipatory or critical Action Research has the goal of “liberation through knowledge gathering” (Mills 2003, p.6). This form of Action Research has its roots in critical theory of the social sciences and the work of Paolo Freire (Freire 1972), a Brazilian educationalist who wanted to alter the way education was formulated, away from expert and academic driven and towards the lay person and “building a community of grounded or indigenous experts” (Gonzales et al 2007, p.79).

Practical Action Research takes a ‘how to’ approach and assumes that groups or teams involved in a practice context will choose their own Action Research topics and processes (Mills 2003, p.6).

Technical Action Research involves the co-option of practitioners by facilitators to work on externally developed questions. This can include some university located Action Research studies, and some organisational or management determined processes.

PAR contains elements of the different types of Action Research set out above.

PAR is emancipatory to the extent that it includes as active participants those who are most affected by the issues under investigation, especially the least powerful. In human services this is typically the clients and target groups of service delivery. Social programs should benefit those vulnerable individuals, groups and communities who experience the issue being targeted by the intervention. PAR conceptualises the participation of service users and other target groups of intervention as important for philosophical reasons (respect, voice, rights), to ensure the most responsive strategies are developed and to achieve the best possible outcomes.

PAR, in a human service context, is practical. There are typically a variety of factors which contribute to a particular social problem (such as youth homelessness). Responding in a way that improves the situation of service users often requires support or change from a variety of agencies. Many of you will be familiar with the phrase ‘joined up problems require joined up solutions’. The involvement of a diversity of stakeholders, who may have a wide range of values, institutional locations, and organisational interests, means that PAR in human services will need to have a practical as well as inclusive character.

PAR undertaken as part of government funded social programs could be argued as containing an element of technical Action Research. Those funding the program (usually governments) will have broad goals and legitimate interests in understanding how to improve policy and practice. Whilst the specific questions pursued by a PAR process are left to the funded services and their co-researchers, the institutional context does have an interest in what it takes to achieve the programs goals and objectives. For the Reconnect program these are expressed as Action Research ‘Questions of National Significance’ (see Section 6.1).

1.1.3 What is the relationship between PAR and other forms of social inquiry?

Various forms of inquiry and sources of knowledge can make different but complementary contributions to social policy and programs, and our understandings of what constitutes good practice (Petr, 2009). Rather than getting caught up in the ‘paradigm wars’ that litter the literature on research methods, the focus should be on the contribution particular types of inquiry make in answering particular types of questions in particular types of contexts. How might different forms of inquiry complement and enhance knowledge and understanding? It is in this spirit that PAR has been systematically adopted and implemented in a number of early intervention programs as a form of inquiry that is ‘close to the ground’ which invites and values the contribution of those who experience the social difficulties services seek to assist with.

Figure 2 depicts four broad approaches to inquiry relevant to social policy and programs, distinguished according to who is at the centre of the inquiry process. At the apex of the pyramid is the core logic for a social program, namely the improvement of people’s situations in one or more respects. The broad goals of programs and services are statements about what constitutes an improved situation. Social programs derive their legitimacy from the claim that they will in some way be of community or civic benefit thus justifying the support of governments, citizens through the ballot box, and other institutions.

Figure 2: Complimentary approaches to inquiry

Who is central to the inquiry process? Who decides what the research question is and what was found out?

‘Traditional’ research puts academics and academic-scientific thinking at the centre of the research process, though it varies enormously in underlying assumptions, style, and methods used. The researcher is at the centre of question posing and data interpretation. Knowledge is legitimated through peer review by academics or academic institutions to establish credibility (e.g. via refereed journals, research papers, theses, etc.).

Reflective/reflexive practice puts practitioners and the development of practice knowledge at the centre of the research process. The practitioner is at the centre of the question posing and the interpretation of the practice context. This involves practitioners thinking deeply about their practice situations, their role, the way their own values and assumptions influence their perspectives on clients and their needs, how they understand the intervention options, their professional development and the strategies they can employ to cope with practice challenges that arise. In some human services such reflective inquiry is undertaken with a ‘supervisor’, in team meetings, with a manager, or informally with a peer or colleague. Whilst some professional groups encourage it, there is no requirement to share or ‘publish’ the insights gained.

Agency inquiry processes put those with institutional power (eg. management, funding bodies, etc.) at the centre of the inquiry process. Relevant inquiry strategies can include formal evaluations, data collections, quality assurance processes, strategic planning, and applied research projects. Such inquiries may be required by an external body, be undertaken in-house, or be contracted to consultants. In these processes the topics and questions pursued are moderated by management, or their agents, and the results may or may not be made available more broadly.

Emancipatory Action Research positions the people most affected by a situation and with the least power, at the centre of the inquiry process. It is their questions which drive the process of producing knowledge and they decide what has been found out. In terms of social problems such as homelessness, those ‘most affected’ commonly have relatively little power being variously described as vulnerable, disadvantaged, marginalised or excluded. Emancipatory Action Research may be supported or initiated by others in a community (such as practitioners) but is different to consultation and participation which ‘contributes’.

The approaches to inquiry depicted previously in Figure 2 can be complementary in helping us understand how to improve the situations of the people our programs and services aim to assist. For example, good PAR may usefully draw on relevant academic studies, service data, program data, other statistics, relevant evaluations done on similar practice contexts, and consumer/client feedback. All are viewed as potentially providing contributions to better understandings, better practices, and better outcomes for those people that programs and services are attempting to assist. Considering what other sources of information might assist your PAR process to have the best chance of being well conceived is part of good PAR practice. PAR contributes something that others alone cannot: it enables well-founded change arising from the collaborative effort of those closest to the ground.

PAR uses reflective practice as a foundation. Reflective practice can be used by individual practitioners, across a team of practitioners, and across a whole service. A good starting point for building up your capacity to undertake PAR is to consider your own capacity to undertake reflective practice and build from there.

1.2 Why use Participatory Action Research in Early Intervention?

1.2.1 About early intervention

This manual is broadly oriented to those involved in developing the early intervention capacity of services and communities. Early intervention involves assisting those individuals and groups who are experiencing the early manifestations of a particular difficulty and can be distinguished from broader systemic prevention (see Mallett 2009, Crane and Brannock 1996). Continuing debate exists about how to best define early intervention in relation to different social issues and target groups, and it is beyond the scope of this manual to canvass the details of this. Despite any differences that may exist, to be effective early intervention will need to deal with a number challenges including:

• Most issues, such as homelessness, are manifestations of a potentially wide range of contributing factors that are often inter-related and multi-layered
• The ‘earlier’ the intervention, the more it may look like early intervention into one of several potential issues eg homelessness, early school leaving, family breakdown, mental health crisis, drug dependency, etc.
• The focus of early intervention effort is often on the building of greater connection between people and the key sources of support and opportunity in their lives
• Each community has a character of its own. The existing service mix, their relationship to each other, the community’s demographics, location and cultural norms will indicate the types of services and relationships needed.

Particular principles have emerged which are considered necessary for good early intervention practice. Developed out of a substantial AR process in the late 1990’s, the Reconnect good practice principles are indicative of these (see Section 1.5).

Early intervention services often employ a mix of two inter-related strategies. The first is direct service provision to the particular target group. The second involves supporting and building a community’s capacity to respond to the target issue. This community capacity building role involves supporting other services, encouraging services to talk to each other, negotiating and clarifying roles and finding ways to achieve better outcomes for the particular target group. Undertaking direct practice and community capacity building roles simultaneously has many benefits but is often experienced as a ‘delicate balance’ (Evans and Shaver 2001, p.59).

Figure 3 below depicts early intervention with young people as located in the intersections between young people, family, the realm of learning/earning (which for most under 18 year olds means school and/or vocational training), and community (including access to safe and sustainable accommodation/housing for young people). This model builds on one developed by Community Connections (2009). Depending on the young person’s situation, early intervention may need to engage with, and intervene into, a number of these inter-relationships if a particular destination problem is to be avoided, or moderated.

Figure 3: Early intervention and youth homelessness: Building connections

The model depicted in Figure 3 has relevance to various early intervention areas. This includes early intervention into youth homelessness, aspects of youth mental health, juvenile crime and early school leaving. In respect of youth homelessness, early intervention involves addressing a myriad of factors that affect the young person’s relationship with the key institutions and supports necessary for them to sustain a stable living situation. Situational factors which may trigger early intervention into youth homelessness are often various and inter-related, and can include the loss of ‘home’ or sense of belonging as a result of family conflict, difficulties experienced by themselves, or those they rely on, such as mental health or drug and alcohol related difficulties, a deteriorating relationship with schooling, and/or disconnection from community support and involvement. A holistic view of early intervention recognises that any or all of the inter-relationships in Figure 3 may be a legitimate focus in a particular instance.

While there are broad good practice principles that can apply to different contexts, there is no specific strategy that will ‘fit’ everywhere. PAR provides a framework and the tools for developing responsive and contextually relevant early intervention strategies. The character of PAR and the character of early intervention suit each other.

Figure 4: A simplified model of PAR: Improving the situations of people through improved practice

Figure 4 depicts the way the PAR inquiry process uses practice as a source of understanding and change. This is a very simplified picture of what actually happens. It might help you see how PAR can use observations about an issue and planned action and evaluation as the basis for improving practice over time.

1.2.2 PAR as a tool for enhancing early intervention capacity and outcomes

In early intervention into youth homelessness PAR has been found to contribute to:

• better client outcomes;
• improved coordination and collaboration;w improved service delivery;
• enhanced community capacity for early intervention, and
• a more responsive, improvement oriented culture in human service organisations and programs.

The case examples of PAR included in Section 5 of this manual each illustrate one or more of these. The following summary, from an early intervention service in the Northern Territory, illustrates the contribution of PAR to improved collaboration and service delivery and, as a result, better outcomes for young clients.

Our specific Action Research question was: What would it take to improve support to young people at the local school?

No school counsellor, small school, small community with many issues, violence, alcohol, suicide. We started working with a couple of young people as individual clients, got some outcomes, and started discussions with the teachers. The teachers invited us to a camp at the school with the students to run some self esteem and safety workshops and make a fun film. Following this, regular meetings were held with the special needs teacher to identify students requiring support. Connect trialled a morning a week at the school when young people could come and chat. As part of this we asked the students what they thought was needed.

The school asked Connect to run some more workshops for the health & wellbeing program on keeping your head healthy. Feedback was positive from the teachers and students involved. Tuesday became the day for running workshops and catching up with anyone who wanted to have a chat. Through the workshops the workers became known to the students, who were more likely to approach the service with difficulties they were facing.

The Action Research question was regularly discussed with the teaching staff and students who were involved, and over time the decisions about students were able to be based on a deeper understanding of their needs and perspectives.

Manager, Connect - East Arneham

Better client outcomes

Services can use PAR to experiment with more flexible and responsive approaches, tailored to suit local circumstances.

Practice is constantly changing and under review as a result of the Action Research process. Client access to the program has improved. In addition, other community minded people now have a greater voice in their community and are more actively involved with the Reconnect. We believe AR to be valuable in relation to good practice and improved outcomes for our clients. It motivates us to target specific issues and focus some of our time and energy to examine an issue that we have wanted to concentrate on.

A Reconnect service

Improved coordination and collaboration

PAR can lead to improved coordination between local projects and services. This enables services to respond more effectively to the needs of target groups.

PAR encourages more involvement, ownership and participation by the community, other agencies, and clients. For instance, young people and their parents can have a greater say in how services are run. PAR can also help resolve issues between different agencies. It can create opportunities to come together, develop relationships, and generate more ideas about how to work collaboratively.

… while proving to be very challenging, (PAR) has brought together services to specifically address referral processes and difficulties as a group for the first time in the local area. Communication between the services from observations gained through Action Research indicate some services are now much more aware of what is available in the community and how to go about tapping in to other services in the most appropriate manner.

Porter Orchard Report 1: 2004: pg. 19

Improved service delivery

Services can change their approaches to service delivery as a result of PAR findings. This includes improving client access, referral systems and service promotion. Services can broaden or modify the types of services offered, including their intervention approaches, or change where their services are located. See Section 5.7 for a good example of this. An analysis of the AR reports of Reconnect services from 2002-2007 concluded that AR:

• encourages a reflective, responsive and often creative approach to service delivery, such that insights are able to be acted upon to improve the quality of service offered to service users
• provides opportunities for continuous evaluation and review of all aspects of the service
• strengthens the relationships with stakeholders including the young people and families that it services both past and present
• enabled the development of many new initiatives and projects by providing the legitimacy through evidence for why they might be necessary and why they ought to be developed in a particular way.

Porter Orchard & Associates 2009: p.19

Enhanced community capacity for early intervention

Services undertaking early intervention often have a dual focus of working to build the capacity of other parts of the community to provide timely support as well as providing direct service delivery to clients.

PAR is an excellent tool for building community capacity as it engages other services in a collaborative process of inquiry where clarifying the contributions each service can make is one outcome of the process. Whether we call it ‘joined up service delivery’ or ‘client-centred’ practice or ‘wrap around’ support, PAR provides a tool for approaching the provision of timely assistance in a more holistic way. A 2001 study by the Social Policy Research Centre investigated the development of early intervention community capacity by Reconnect services (Evans and Shaver 2001, p.59) and commented:

Opinions towards Action Research were very positive and staff considered it as an invaluable aspect of their work for young people and families in the area. They clearly saw a link between the on-going process of Action Research and developing the communities’ capacity for addressing issues for youth at risk.

A more responsive improvement oriented culture in human service organisations

PAR helps in the establishment of a dynamic, change oriented culture in organisations (ARTD 1998). It has been found to promote positive attitudes to change and by regularly reviewing practices, improves internal operations and clarifies people’s roles. PAR makes a positive contribution to program evaluation by providing insights about the effectiveness of particular strategies, and can make an important contribution to policy development (ARTD 1998).

An independent assessment of Reconnect services in 2003 found that effective Action Research:

• was integrated into practice, often with regular scheduling of Action Research sessions
• was used to explore pressing issues and/or questions of national significance
• went beyond the comfort zone of internal staff meetings to risk involving a range of relevant stakeholders (including other services) in each question, using structured discussions or other participatory processes
• drew on client data, quality assurance and client feedback systems
• used the results of Action Research to refine service delivery and develop strategies, reflected in work plans
• documented their processes and results (in work plans and self evaluation reports) to provide a meaningful record for stakeholders (including new managers and staff) and to demonstrate accountability for service changes; and
• ultimately demonstrated a culture of self-reflection and evidence based practice.

ARTD (2003)

1.2.3 Potential benefits for different stakeholders

For young people and their families

PAR values the insights and experiences of the young people and family members whom services are intended to assist. It provides opportunities for young people and parents to influence what issues are seen as important to explore, and what strategies are experienced as helpful or otherwise.

For front-line early intervention practitioners

PAR provides front-line practitioners with a tool to pursue better outcomes for their clients. It encourages the development of local partnerships and collaborative arrangements, and allows workers the opportunity to move from networking to actual collaboration with other agencies.

PAR also helps front-line practitioners clarify and improve relationships between workers and services so they can work together more easily and effectively. It can be a useful tool to identify barriers to and gaps in early intervention. This can add to the evidence base used by workers and other advocates to support individual clients and improve policies and systems.

For management

PAR provides management with well-founded evidence on which to base change and improvement. This can be particularly useful when looking for financial support for services from governments, philanthropic sources, business, other interested stakeholders, and boards of management/ committees.

PAR can also improve a service’s transparency and accountability. It can provide important contributions to strategic planning, review, quality assurance and evaluation.

PAR involves a focused, ‘heads together’ way of thinking. It values people’s inputs, takes advantage of existing skills and resources, and stimulates innovation.

Regular training of new staff in PAR always gets an energy happening that encourages the ‘new’ ideas and different ways of doing things. As a manager it’s great to see everyone get excited about the possibilities for clients, the community and the service as a whole.

Manager of a youth service

PAR helps establish relationships with other agencies and create links which can lead to achieving a clearer picture of the most useful interface with other service providers.

Using PAR can improve efficiency by refining issues and answering questions about what can and cannot be done. Properly supported PAR can be a key strategy in developing a culture of ‘continuous improvement’.

According to one manager of a state-wide multi-service agency:

Participatory Action Research can be more than a methodology. As a set of norms and beliefs it has a capacity to drive organisational culture and development. What’s more in an environment driven by regulation, standardisation, risk management and total quality control adopting and embedding Participatory Action Research as an organisational framework allows concepts such as inclusion, integrity, and innovation, to get equal air time.

For government

PAR can contribute to government policy-making and improve outcomes for young people and their families. As part of the purchaser-provider relationship with government, services can feed insights from PAR into policy development and advice and so contribute evidence for use in developing innovative and responsive new programs or strategies.

Through PAR, services were able to confirm the broad definition of family reconciliation used in the Program. That it wasn’t always appropriate to get recently homeless young people living back at home. In some cases it was dangerous, so the focus on family reconciliation had to be a broad one, maximising their connection to their families and support networks, and getting their living situation stabilised. That meant returning home where appropriate.

Manager of a Reconnect service

Where the character of services is difficult to ascertain due to the complexity of need and/or the diversity of implementation contexts, PAR provides governments with a useful process accountability mechanism (Crane 2006). Where a particular model of service cannot be specified in advance, funding bodies can require services to diligently explore and establish interventions that fit the local context using PAR.

PAR can also help government and non-government organisations to identify and fill gaps, prevent overlaps in services, and engage with each other around complexity. This can mean more efficient and effective services.

For the community

PAR allows communities the opportunity to understand more about the problems early intervention seeks to address. It enables community participation and increases the likelihood that the approach taken will better suit local circumstances, and build real community ‘ownership’ and involvement.

1.3 The PAR cycle of inquiry

The cycle of PAR is typically depicted as including 4 elements: observe, reflect, plan and act. The experience of PAR in the Reconnect program has led us to include a 5th element, ‘share’. The model of PAR presented in this manual emphasises the importance of sharing observations, lessons, practice developments with stakeholders – throughout the cycle – and with stakeholders and broader public at the conclusion of the research. The model presented here also emphasises the importance of commencing each cycle with observation as a way of making sure you pause and look at the context you are in before starting to make plans.

Remember one PAR project should generally have multiple cycles. In 2007‑-2008 Reconnect and NAYSS providers reported that continuing the cycle of research for two or more cycles and trying refined or new methods based on the insights generated was particularly effective (ARTD Report to FaHCSIA 2009).

Figure 5 below represents the basic PAR cycle. The term ‘Share’ refers to the informal sharing of new actions and new understandings with all your stakeholders. It is also refers to the formal sharing of your documented research process with its questions, actions, findings, conclusions and recommendations for new action. Sharing can also involve the publication of your PAR report.

Figure 5: The PAR cycle

The following explanation of observe, reflect, plan and act is extracted from the Action Research Induction Kit (2008, p.8-11).

Observe
Some stages of observation are:

1. Look at what is happening
2. Describe what has happened
3. Record what has happened

Good observation requires looking at what is happening and describing it accurately.   Its purpose is to provide a sound base for reflection by producing a widely accepted understanding of what actually happened
(Quixley, 1997).

The observe stage can be a good place to start an Action Research cycle by:

• considering something that is happening or not happening
• using available information
• finding out new information
• involving a range of people to describe what they think is occurring

Reflect

Stages of Reflection include:

1. Standing back even more and reflecting on what happened.

Take time:

• involve and listen to stakeholders for their different perspectives and interpretations

2. Developing ideas or ‘theories’ about what happened.

Brainstorm by:

• talking it over
• sharing insights
• piecing things together or ‘jigsawing’

3. Sharing ideas with others so that a range of interpretations and ‘meanings’ can be considered.

Float ideas by:

• making informed guesses based on the information gathered
• comparing what you have observed with competing evidence
• looking at alternative explanations

This is the stage in the cycle where you need to spend time thinking about the findings of the observations, negotiating meaning with stakeholders and building a shared understanding.

Plan

Planning includes:

1. Clarifying the questions being asked
2. Identifying the actions to be tried out
3. Developing an action plan

All stages should be participatory and collaborative and the planning stage is no different. At this point, stakeholders should come together to talk about what they will do and how they will do it. It is important at this point to directly involve those affected by the research question. Each member of the group undertaking the Action Research itself should make active contributions to the plan and work collaboratively with one another.

You will find that a well thought out, flexible and coordinated action plan will prove effective, particularly in serving a wide range of stakeholders. For example, if workers across five community organisations are involved in trialing a new approach under a particular AR project, it is critical that they have a clear, agreed action plan that all are committed to implementing.

Act

Action includes:

1. Do what you said you were going to do - systematically and creatively implement plans
2. Communicate with others and involve them in the process
3. Keep track of what happens

Having tried out the strategy (action), observed what happened, and reflected on what this means, you will be able to draw up your tentative answers to the question you posed.

In addition it is important to:

Share

Sharing includes:

1. putting your tentative answers to your question/s, and conclusions into a form that can be shared, within your PAR group and where possible beyond your PAR group;
2. inviting others to reflect on what you have found and suggest areas they confirm and dispute. The timing and the publicness of this will depend on your context;
3. refine the scope of your conclusions and consider the implications for your subsequent plan (the start of a new PAR cycle).

As explained later in this manual the process of sharing is an important step in enhancing the trustworthiness of what you find out and of the usefulness of the strategies you develop.

1.4 Summarising the key characteristics of PAR

PAR is:

• cyclical
• participatory
• systematic
• dynamic
• developmental
• critical.

1.4.1 PAR is cyclical

The basic cycle of PAR is depicted in Figure 1. This sequence has been extended in light of experiences in undertaking PAR in the Reconnect program. The sequence on the next page is extended and is particularly useful as a way of thinking about how to start a PAR process.

An extended cycle

• Observe (what is happening in your practice context)
• Reflect (develop an understanding of the context and one or more questions to begin with)
• Plan (a strategy that you think provides the answer, or part of it)
• Act (the strategy)
• Observe (describe what happened)
• Reflect (analyse and develop your ‘theory’/insights about what this means. Check out by sharing and seeking feedback)

then Plan (using your insights outline changes to your strategy, your question, your stakeholders)

and Act (try it again)

and so on improving your understandings, your practices, and the outcomes for those you are trying to assist.

The final step is to share publicly (allowing the broader public to hear and engage with your story).

Figure 6: An extended PAR cycle

In this sequence observe and reflect are undertaken twice, once to investigate your context and come up with an initial question, and then again to evaluate the strategy you tried out.

The idea is that you and your ‘co-inquirers’ keep going through this cycle until you decide you have sufficiently answered your question. Repeating the cycle allows you to check your conclusions and build a stronger evidence base.

Keep in mind that PAR is not a tidy linear process - you will jump around between different elements in the cycle and sometimes even be doing them all at once. Something might have changed in your context and you need to adjust what you are doing and away you go again but this time with a lot more understanding and relationships to build on.

A word on cycles within cycles. Participants in PAR have often commented that as they follow a cycle through, other (micro) questions and issues may emerge that need to be explored in order to answer their larger (more macro) question. They have also said that as well as their question related to early intervention (the content), they need to explore how they do their PAR (the process).

For those of you who appreciate a circus metaphor it’s a bit like juggling different objects in the air simultaneously. Except just when you think you are getting it another object is tossed in for you to juggle!

There will always be a number of ‘balls in the air’, and from time to time you will drop one. But you are not supposed to be doing PAR alone. Doing and learning together - with people - is the critical ingredient. Remember complexity can be moderated by sharing roles, by documenting each question and cycle separately, and by keeping it all as simple and small as possible. You do not have to solve all the problems of the world. So keep an eye on what is your group’s main focus, and stay relaxed.

1.4.2 PAR is participatory

The focus of PAR is on ‘people changing their own practices and behaviours, not those of others (Stringer 2004, p.5). Those who are affected by the practice should be engaged and involved in the process of understanding and change. This makes PAR a tool that can be used to enhance social inclusion and social justice.

Various metaphors have been used to describe what you might do to build this participatory character, including being a ‘go-between’, and a dinner party convenor (Wadsworth 2001, p.48). Certainly you will be looking for ways to invite people’s potential contributions, communicating a lot, explaining, reframing, seeking common ground and language, facilitating and encouraging, even marketing and ‘selling’, all the time trying to respect those you engage with, and do what you can to set up an environment for ‘good conversation’. One service in a particular cultural community discovered the value of engaging ‘cultural brokers’ to enhance the participation.

Through our Action Research we found we needed to use key people in the particular cultural community to act as ‘cultural brokers’. We found that participation in forums and events hosted by us improved dramatically when we involved key people to get the invitation out. They know who to ask, and the right time, and are able to do whatever it takes to get everyone there. Instead of just a few turning up now we get lots of people and huge discussion.

A NAYSS provider

1.4.3 PAR is systematic

While flexibility is essential, it is also really important that your PAR process is sufficiently systematic to produce the understandings and improvements you seek.

The framework of PAR provides a structure for exploring practice. You will need to establish or use a number of mechanisms to get stakeholders’ views, facilitate collaboration, gather information, analyse and share. Being systematic allows you to work through a PAR process in a way that others involved can understand and engage with, and which addresses the key challenges in undertaking an inquiry process.

You should also try to be logical in your PAR. By this we mean you should ‘join the dots’ as you move from one part of the PAR process to another. For example make sure that the question you are trying to answer doesn’t get forgotten and that you keep asking what you have learnt about it so far. If the question needs changing, change it! If it doesn’t, try to answer it in a deliberate way. Some people have found it useful to post their question up large on the wall in front of their desk or in the foyer of the service.

Make sure your PAR group explicitly discusses and documents the links between each element of the PAR cycle. In particular, make sure you have paused to observe before you start making interpretations about the meaning of what happened.

Systematically recording your PAR allows it to be adequately described, analysed and shared. This is critical if you are to produce trustworthy insights and conclusions. This is covered in more detail in Sections 3 and 4.

It is not only your PAR that should be systematic. To be sustainable in human service programs, PAR needs to be located within a broader AR system. An AR system links cycles of inquiry at the service level with cycles of inquiry between services, and between services and both program management and policy development. Mechanisms are needed for sharing PAR across services so they can benefit from and reflect on the insights of others, for contributing to, and hearing about, program and policy level deliberations, and for the training and support of those undertaking PAR.

See Section 3.6 of this manual for more on the components of an AR system.

1.4.4 PAR is dynamic

PAR needs to have an ‘elastic quality’ which means it can be adapted, changed and redesigned as the process goes along (Grant 2008, p.266). This is why you should not adopt an unchangeable formula for doing PAR but rather start simply and develop your confidence in thinking about what process best fits your context.

What might you need to change along the way? Well, just about anything. There are some wonderful accounts by Reconnect services of starting out in a particular direction only to end up changing dramatically along the way. What is important is to learn through this process. Each challenge is a potential source of insight and each twist and turn brings you closer to understanding what will be a more useful approach.

It was not until I was able to more fully comprehend the value of reflection that I began to appreciate the contributions each detour in my research journey made, both to the research and my own development. I was learning through ‘being’ and ‘doing’ (Grant 2008, p.268).

1.4.5 PAR is developmental

PAR is not operated by an on-off switch. It is strengths oriented, starts where people are at, and should try to maximise participation and scope over time.

It can take quite a long time to develop your confidence in PAR and to develop a clear PAR project.

In PAR, people are often keen to start with a big and meaningful question. To develop confidence in the research though, it is sometimes better to start with quite small, concrete and localised questions, so that several cycles can be tried quickly. For more information about starting PAR see Section 2.3.

1.4.6 PAR is ‘critical’

This doesn’t mean being negative. Rather it means PAR is questioning or ‘self-skeptical’ (Wadsworth 1997, p.31). Being critical also means we recognise that people’s situations are not only a result of their own actions and relationships, but arise from the social and economic structures around them. It means that PAR appreciates that some people get less say in things than others and that the people who are most affected should have a voice and a role in the process of working out what to do. In this sense PAR is underpinned by values of relationship, inclusion and justice. Critical reflection includes examining our own assumptions and norms, appreciating the nature of your own agency’s interests and acknowledging the broader systemic factors that maintain vulnerability and undermine the wellbeing of particular individuals and groups.

Whilst PAR is inherently optimistic it also appreciates there are limits to what local practitioners and agencies can do to bring about change. In respect of homelessness, there are structural and systemic contributing factors that early intervention is not capable of addressing. A range of responses are required if the prevention of homelessness is to be realised, one of which is effective early intervention (Australian Government The Road Home 2008). PAR is a tool for continuous service improvement which can identify systemic and structural barriers to improving the situations of people. PAR can help build the evidence base needed for systems advocacy and broader change.

1.5 PAR is good human services practice

A great strength of PAR is that it is entirely consistent with what is now considered good social work and human services practice. This includes but is not limited to:

• recognising and building on the strengths and expertise of individuals, families and communities
• appreciating the importance of relationships and connection in people’s wellbeing
• understanding the importance of the specific practice context if a service or strategy is to be effective.

In an Indigenous context, key elements and processes of Action Research have parallels with processes that have been shown to work and are cemented in culture. They work because they involve people. They work because they use people’s strengths. They work because they are based on practice.

… pearls of wisdom, Frazer et.al. 2003, p.4

Good practice within the Reconnect program is summarised within the Reconnect Good Practice Principles (available at www.fahcsia.gov.au). These Principles are:

• accessibility of service
• client-driven service delivery
• holistic approaches to service delivery
• working collaboratively
• culturally and contextually appropriate service delivery
• ongoing review and evaluation
• building sustainability.

These principles were originally developed through an AR process. PAR is a key mechanism in the Reconnect program for ‘ongoing review and evaluation’. It has been used to examine and deepen understandings of what constitutes good practice. The following summarises what one service learnt from their PAR processes over a number of years. They wanted to investigate what it would take for generalist services to work in a culturally appropriate way.

The service’s research investigations involved numerous discussions with their team and key Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CaLD) agencies, web-based searches on the barriers faced by young people from CaLD communities, analysis of the findings or outcomes from previous project work they had done in this area and reflections on what was learnt in recent CaLD forums and in cultural awareness training. Some of the key insights made from their investigations in this area included that:

1. A generalist service should not presume to know what the needs of a CaLD community is and must seek to engage with the community and its representatives in order to firstly establish what their needs are. From this engagement a service will begin to know the CaLD community and are then able to provide community-building activities that are inclusive, accessible and equitable;
2. As a service, knowledge, skills and experience in working cross-culturally are required and culturally sensitive, responsive, appropriate, relevant and safe work practices are also needed. These may include using interpreters and being mindful of religious and cultural practices in planning and the delivery of programs; and
3. For a generalist service it is important to go into partnership with expert stakeholders, sharing knowledge, skills, experience and resources for running groups before embarking on other community initiatives.

From Porter Orchard Report 2: 2008 pg 21

Overall PAR is viewed very positively by services, particularly once they have had the opportunity to develop a familiarity with it. In surveys of Reconnect services from 2003-2008 more than half regarded AR as ‘very useful’ and between 79% and 90% of services, depending on the year, rated AR as either ‘useful’ or ‘very useful’ (Porter Orchard Report 5 2006/2007, p.19).

1.6 Summary and reflections

This section has:

• introduced you to Participatory Action Research and compared it to other forms of Action Research and social inquiry
• highlighted the value of PAR in developing and improving strategies for early intervention, and
• outlined the cyclical nature of PAR and its key characteristics.

Some questions to consider

• How do you currently reflect on your practice?
• What would it take for you to better understand PAR?
• How might PAR contribute to better outcomes for the people you work with?
• What aspects of PAR are the same as/ similar to ‘good’ practice in your field?
• What would it take to incorporate, or better incorporate, PAR into aspects of your practice?

Section Two walks you through the PAR process, identifying the contextual and practical dimensions of commencing, implementing and concluding a PAR project in your community.