Section 3: Key Considerations in Doing PAR

The previous section of the manual is designed to give you a simplified overview of the PAR process and how you can get started. If only life was so simple! Our experience in the Reconnect program tells us that it takes time to develop a working familiarity with PAR – often one to two years. There are many reasons for this. In this section of the manual we will touch on some of the challenges and complexities that you will most probably experience. Our goal is to provide an introductory discussion of the issues that have emerged during the implementation of PAR in early intervention services for homeless young people over the past 12 years. This discussion is organised under the following headings:

• Working with complexity
• The relationship of PAR to your daily practice – additional or embedded?
• Being ethical
• Developing trustworthy insights and actions
• Resistance and barriers, and
• Developing and maintaining an Action Research ‘system’.

3.1 Working with complexity

The development of services which make a positive difference to people’s lives is located in an ocean of complexity. The human condition is expressed in social, economic and political life - formal and informal, cultural and inter-cultural; it is embedded in history partly told and even less understood; lived out through space and place; in journeys individual and collective; kept going by hope and trust; across a sea of power relations.

Phil Crane 2009, unpublished manuscript

The Australian Community Sector Survey 2008 Report (ACOSS 2008, p.3) which canvassed 725 non-profit community agencies, concluded that complexity of client needs is the real problem with 64% of agencies indicating that their clients had more complex needs.

Engaging with complexity is what human services must do. Collaboration with other services is central in responding to complex needs in a more holistic way. But how do we develop service systems that allow for improved collaboration at the worker, organisation, inter-agency and policy levels? (Beadle 2009). And how do we do this across geographically and culturally diverse contexts where what is an effective intervention in one may not be appropriate or workable in another?

PAR provides a tool that is suited to this challenge of engaging with complexity so we not only identify what might work for people at the front-line, but what barriers exist to effective service delivery in particular contexts.

It is important not to underestimate the challenges inherent in applying participatory approaches to social programs, particularly in those where the target groups include people who are economically and/or socially marginalised.

… the more disempowered you are, the less hope you may have about either the value of participating or even the chances of something good coming out of it.

Wadsworth 1998 p.11

So we need to proceed with a self-critical eye and a deep regard for the complexities, histories, diversities and cultures of the environments we engage with, appreciating that relationship, wellbeing and justice cannot be assumed.

3.2 The relationship of PAR to your daily practice: additional or embedded?

For many of you undertaking PAR for the first time it may feel like an ‘add on’ to practice, quite separate, involving additional strategies and time. Specific PAR strategies and processes are often helpful when you first are exploring what PAR is and means in your context. The experience of many workers has been that this lessens over time as it becomes embedded into their practice. The way you understand and undertake PAR will be affected by where you are on this “PAR is additional” … “PAR is embedded continuum”.

There are a range of strategies for embedding PAR more into your everyday practice. For example some PAR processes have used the strategy of front line workers asking clients each month a particular question as part of their routine case work: We are trying to understand how to better …. Do you have any thoughts on this?

Some services have found it useful to think of their AR as an extension of practice rather than as ‘research’.

The consideration of Action Research as a formalised and documented process of reflecting on the work we do and the outcomes, or lack of, that we achieve, has been useful. It has removed the fear factor from the necessity of viewing ‘research’ as part of our core role, which traditionally practitioners have perhaps avoided. Action Research has instead become a way of taking further the reflections we may have as we consider a visit with a family, an interaction with an outside agency or perhaps noticing patterns emerging in referrals.

A Reconnect service

When the Youth Homelessness Pilot services commenced in 1996, it was indicated that services and workers new to PAR should put aside specific time for their AR. In this admittedly new program environment one day a week, or 20% of a practitioner’s time, was allowed for this. Whilst the amount of time may seem high, it is clear that the benefits and improvements from PAR require time is set aside for induction and further training, agency level discussion and development and the engaging of stakeholders in conversation, planning, reflection and sharing. There is a strong argument that quality human services and greater community capacity to respond do not develop without some clear dedication of time.

One way to work out how to embed PAR in your service is to make this a goal of a PAR process. You could ask: “What would it take for our PAR to become as integrated as possible into our everyday practice?” or “What could we do to embed PAR into our everyday practice?”

You may well wonder at times how ‘tight’ and structured to be during the PAR process, and how strongly to drive through to clear outcomes. One way to think about the management of PAR is striking a ‘soft-hard’ balance. ‘Soft’ in that you value and respect the multi-stakeholder and collaborative character of PAR, that you accept you will refine and change your strategy along the way, and appreciate that many complexities may not be clarified or resolved. This means you don’t force outcomes and resolutions when these are not possible and remain alert to any tendency you have to become overly task oriented. The ‘hard’ side of management is that all processes require forms of leadership, facilitation, structure, role clarity, boundary setting and monitoring. If you or your agency is to ‘lead’ a PAR process there is a need to consider the responsibilities that go with its establishment and with your ongoing participation. Be careful not to be so ‘strengths’ oriented that anything will do.

3.3 Being ethical

The need to be ethical comes from a number of places. In human services we are involved in work that is fundamentally moral in nature (rather than technical or scientific). In saying this we are not suggesting we necessarily do good, rather that the provision of support and care to those who are in difficulty or marginalised is fundamentally a moral concern. As employed professionals we are in positions of trust and routinely have more power in the practice context than the users of our services.

3.3.1 Dealing with the ethical dimensions is not optional

Every PAR project will involve ethical dimensions which should be considered as part of the initial planning and as an ongoing exercise (see the Checklist for Starting PAR in Section 4.2). In undertaking your PAR there are a number of ethical perspectives that are important for you to draw on. These will assist in the identification of the ethical dimensions to your PAR process and will help you to put in place appropriate strategies.

Keep in mind that ‘research’ is generally seen in more traditional terms where there is a clear distinction between ‘researchers’ and ‘the researched on’. In PAR the collaborative and participatory character of the process can mean there is a blurring of researcher and participant roles. There may be times when you assess a situation and need to intervene with one of these hats on - either practitioner or researcher. In PAR the two hats challenge will also exist when service users or people in the target group take on co-researcher roles. For example, one strategy sometimes used in PAR involves young people being peer researchers.   These young people are not just traditional ‘participants’ but have become researchers in their own right and therefore will have responsibilities in relation to how they interact with their peers as part of the research process. These responsibilities will be associated with issues such as privacy and confidentiality. In a situation such as this it will be important there is appropriate support and training for the young people to be able to take on this responsibility and achieve a sense of accomplishment from their contribution. The literature on managing ‘dual relationships’ in human service practice and peer research is useful here.

3.3.2 Professional Codes of Ethics

Codes of Ethics provide practitioners in particular fields with principles, guidance and boundaries. In human services in Australia the most developed of these is the AASW Code of Ethics (2nd Edition 2002) published by the Australian Association of Social Workers. In addition to the five basic values of human dignity and worth, social justice, service to humanity, integrity and competence, Section 4.5.2 of the AASW Code outlines specific responsibilities when engaged in research.

The AASW code is available online.

So you need to make sure you are using your power as a practitioner appropriately. For example, ask yourself if it is appropriate to use information you have acquired through your practice in a report that is distributed more widely, if you did not get permission to use that information for that purpose.

3.3.3 National guidelines for the ethical conduct of research

“We’re working with people because they need support. This implies levels of vulnerability. Most processes are common sense and if I’m unsure, I refer to the Australian National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research.”

Practitioner Colony 47

The current relevant guidelines for the ethical conduct of research in Australia are the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (NHMRC 2007). This states (p.3) that ‘ethical conduct’ is more than simply doing the right thing. It involves acting in the right spirit, out of an abiding respect and concern for one’s fellow creatures. The values underpinning this statement are:

• Respect for human beings
• Research merit and integrity
• Justice, and
• Beneficence.

The National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research states that two themes must always be considered in human research, these being the risks and benefits of the research, and participants consent (NHMRC 2007, p.15).

A risk is a potential harm, discomfort or inconvenience (p.15).

Potential harms in research include (edited from original text p.16):

• Physical harms: including injury, illness, pain;
• Psychological harms: including feelings of worthlessness, distress, guilt, anger, or fear related, for example, to disclosure of sensitive or embarrassing information;
• Devaluation of personal worth: including being humiliated, manipulated or in other ways being treated disrespectfully or unjustly;
• Social harms: including damage to social networks or relationships with others; discrimination in access to benefits, services, employment or insurance; social stigmatisation;
• Economic harms: including the imposition of direct or indirect costs on participants;
• Legal harms: including discovery and prosecution of criminal conduct.

Discomfort is less serious than harm, and includes anxiety. Inconvenience is less serious again. Examples of inconvenience would include being asked to complete forms, to participate in a survey, or to give up time to participate in research (p.16).

‘Low risk research’ is where the only foreseeable risk is discomfort. ‘Negligible risk research’ is where there is no foreseeable risk more than inconvenience (p.16).

The NHMRC Statement indicates that assessments of research that has low and negligible risks should use Chapter 2.1 of the NHMRC Statement to inform the identification of the level of risk (p.17). The National Statement is available online.

Also relevant is the Values and Ethics: Guidelines for Ethical Conduct in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Research (NHMRC 2003) which identifies six Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander values that should lie at the heart of research. These are:

• Spirit and Integrity
• Reciprocity
• Respect
• Equality
• Survival and Protection, and
• Responsibility.

Understanding and putting these principles into practice is the main thrust of these Guidelines. The Guidelines are available online.

In Indigenous contexts, and other contexts where a more collective view of social relationships is held, it may be that informed voluntary consent has both group and individual aspects. For example it may be appropriate to seek permission from elders or community leaders while remaining sensitive to the possibility that particular individuals may have a different view.

3.3.4 Other sources of guidance

The funding program guidelines, your service agreement, quality assurance provisions, community service standards, or your agency may have policies and provisions which are relevant to understand and consider when undertaking activities which have a research character.

3.3.5 Appreciating the ethical dimensions of your PAR

There is no one answer to the question of how to understand the ethical requirements of a particular PAR process. There are however a number of key considerations.

The first is that certain forms of inquiry are an expected part of everyday service delivery and professional practice. In an early intervention service this includes appreciating and distinguishing between individual and group views, need, preference and experience of service delivery. In relation to inquiry and professional practice Stringer (2007, p.55) writes:

In these cases, the systematic processes of inquiry are part of the legal framework of the duty of professional care, and no formal procedures are required to legitimate them.

This places the onus on us as practitioners to understand the standards of care that go with our professional roles. The AASW Code of Ethics outlines this for social workers, and together with other service delivery standards that relate to our particular fields, gives us some clear guidance as to what we should and should not do in practice, including the practice of PAR.

The flip side is we also need to appreciate and assess the various ways a particular PAR process may go beyond the scope of everyday practice and into the realm of ‘research’.

All research (including PAR) requires:

• a broad risk assessment
• respect for participants’ rights to safety
• respect for participants’ rights to informed voluntary consent
• a strategy for personal information to be stored and disposed of.

Those who form the inner core of participants in a PAR process give their consent largely by way of the process being voluntary, open and transparent - at least within that group:

Because of the participatory nature of Action Research, ethical considerations work in a special way. The same provisions for duty of care apply, and all stakeholders have the same rights to safety and informed consent that apply in other forms of research. In addition in Action Research, however, there is a particular imperative to ensure that all participants know what is going on, that the processes are inherently transparent to all. Because participants in an Action Research process have much more control than is normally accorded participants in a study, they are in effect engaging in a mutual agreement about the conduct of a study. Nevertheless, the need for informed written consent is still required for situations where people are at risk because of the sensitive nature of issues involved in the study.

Stringer 2007, p.55; our emphasis

The level of risk that a particular PAR process might pose must be assessed in the planning stage and reassessed every time the circumstances change, for example when a new strategy for ‘finding out’ or ‘publishing’ is considered. In PAR the whole process of inquiry is not generally known in advance so it is important for people to:

• understand and collaboratively negotiate the way the PAR process will work in their context,
• think, in the early planning phase, about any risks and ethical issues that are likely to crop up in their project,
• seek external advice when the PAR process goes beyond the parameters of everyday professional practice,
• develop mechanisms for informed voluntary consent appropriate to the project,
• ensure the ethical dimensions of the PAR process are ‘discussable’ and re-visited regularly and systematically along the way.

‘Publishing’ your PAR will often involve going beyond the core group of PAR participants. You should always have the permission of the people involved before doing this. The identity of a particular person should be not revealed (in word or image) unless they have given specific written consent and there may be situations where this is not appropriate (for example if this posed a risk to them or others). You may also need to be careful that in reporting your PAR you do not reveal details that ‘give away’ someone’s identity. In formal types of publishing (journal articles etc) questions of intellectual property and proper acknowledgement of authorship will need to be addressed.

In summary there are some bottom lines you need to adhere to:

• Participants’ involvement should always be on the basis of informed voluntary consent, written when possible and appropriate – there should always be an explicit invitation to withdraw at any time.
• Participants should always have the contact details of someone they can talk to if they have any concerns, and know who to contact if they wish to make a complaint. This applies to the process as a whole or to a specific event such as a focus group.
• Where broader publication of the process and/or its findings is a possibility participants should be informed of this possibility prior to their involvement.
• Clients and others involved should always have privacy and confidentiality about their situations, experiences, data and views guaranteed. In collaborative and localised contexts there may also need to be group level discussions and agreements.
• When information is recorded and distributed it should be done in a way that protects privacy and confidentiality, unless prior and informed voluntary consent has been given.
• Seeking people’s views and feedback can sometimes raise unexpected issues. You should let people know what to do if this happens for them, support them if they feel concerned or experience distress about any issues that relate to their participation; and inform and support them to raise any grievance they may have.
• If any ethical issues come up you should deal with them quickly in line with professional and organisational standards.
• Ensure that the way you ‘store’ and ‘publish’ information gathered does not compromise the interests of clients and any other people that are involved. Make sure you comply with any privacy provisions that exist in law, and in a particular program and agency context.

Much of what is required for ethical conduct of PAR can be achieved by way of applying good professional practice principles, clear communication and transparency in ways which respect the safety, confidentiality and voluntariness of those involved. However you should be aware that PAR can involve processes that warrant the application of research ethics standards.

Thinking about the ethical dimensions of your PAR is not something you should do by yourself. You should get support by:

• checking out the ethical dimensions of your PAR through appropriate supervision,
• discussing your PAR process with people who have expertise in undertaking research in community service settings (you may have such people inside your organisation or find them externally), and
• openly discussing and debating ethical dimensions with your co-researchers.

3.4 Developing ‘trustworthy’ insights and actions

In traditional scientific research, ‘the truth’ may be thought of as ‘objective’, existing ‘out there’ not coloured by bias, and able to be repeated under the same conditions. To claim that the knowledge generated is valid and able to be generalised, scientific research must be ‘rigorous’.

In PAR, ‘truth’ is not seen as objective and able to be generalised, but is embedded in a particular local and community context, involving jointly developed understandings amongst a group of participants, generated by trying particular strategies and watching what happens. In PAR rather than pursue rigour in the scientific sense, you need to maximise how well founded, or ‘trustworthy’ your insights and actions are. Understandings that are well-founded in a particular context may change over time as the context itself changes. PAR involves asking questions in a particular context and trustworthiness is about the extent the answers you come up fit that context.

Table 12: How trustworthiness (or ‘rigour’) is achieved in PAR

• Participation of those most affected by, and closest to, the situation being investigated in ways that develop mutual trust and open communication
• Multiple sources and methods of ‘finding out’
• Having an evidence base developed from systematic processes of ‘finding out’, documenting, and analysing
• Transparency in the process
• Ongoing critical reflection which includes actively seeking review and disagreement
• Multiple cycles to fine tune and ‘confirm’ insights and actions
• Developing ‘rich’ contextualised answers to questions

3.4.1 Participation

There is an essential link between participation and rigour in PAR. Participation increases commitment. Involving a range of participants who represent the diversity of relevant stakeholders provides the foundation for developing well grounded insights and strategies. Deeper involvement and commitment of participants can increase the diversity of data generated and improve the quality and richness of the understandings (Dick, 1999).

Participation contributes to open and transparent PAR processes. Participation by people most affected and closest to the topic of your PAR provides an important ‘reality check’ for any changes or actions. By bringing together a range of viewpoints you are building a more accurate picture of what is happening.

Participation contributes to open and transparent PAR processes. Participation by people most affected and closest to the topic of your PAR provides an important ‘reality check’ for any changes or actions. By bringing together a range of viewpoints you are building a more accurate picture of what is happening.

3.4.2 Multiple sources and methods

Using multiple methodologies (ways of doing things), multiple sources of information, multiple processes for gathering and analysing information, and comparing data and interpretations to things that have gone before (that is, previous practice experiences and outcomes, as well as literature) enhances rigour.

Collecting a variety of data gives a more diverse and complex picture. It gives a clearer picture of ‘the way things really are’.

If you only use questionnaires to seek the opinion of clients about a practice issue, you are probably limiting and distorting the type of feedback you’ll receive, because questionnaires will suit some sorts of people and some sorts of questions, but not others

YHPP service.

Seeking out a number of voices and in a range of different ways that suit various groups assists in making well-founded ‘rigorous’ conclusions. Looking at an issue from a range of perspectives is a bit like colouring in a picture. You might start out with a sketchy, black and white outline of what something ‘looks like’. Then, as people provide their own views and input, the issue comes into clearer focus and the picture becomes more complex and three-dimensional with subtle shadings and colour.

A variety of data gathering strategies can be used, including conversations with young people and their families, brainstorming, examining client data, interviews, focus groups, surveys, forums and researching published reports (ARTD 2009, p.iii).

The trustworthiness of what you find through a PAR process is boosted when you use a variety of methods that are locally and culturally appropriate to flexibly explore multiple aspects of an issue.

3.4.3 Having an evidence base

The conclusions you draw need to be supported by evidence. Evidence can be found in a variety of places and include the observations recorded of what happened when you tried something. Evidence also includes the feedback you get from those involved or affected by an action, whether this is client feedback via standard processes used in an agency, or via specially developed strategies to fit a particular part of your inquiry. Getting feedback on several occasions over time can help provide the evidence that shows outcomes are sustainable.

Whilst PAR most obviously involves qualitative information, it can be very useful to seek and use quantitative data in your PAR. For example, client and service level data can show particular trends or outcomes. It can also be very useful to draw on data from the agencies you are collaborating with - agencies that have ‘part of the picture’. Other useful statistics may exist to help you map or better understand an issue including local government, regional, state or national statistics.

Other sources of evidence include a wide variety of reports and studies, as well as letters, minutes of meetings, newsletters, and web postings. In using any information as evidence you need to consider what it is evidence of, and whether it is sufficiently trustworthy to use in your PAR.

Systematically recording your PAR process preserves information, experiences and insights so these can be treated as evidence during the reflection phase. Without this you are relying on memory and only those records which can be located at a later date. To have good quality evidence you need to record the process in a way that is faithful to the participants, that captures the complexity and detail, and can provide a basis for analysing and summarising each phase of the PAR cycle. Section 4.6 contains a number of templates for recording and summarising PAR.

Keep in mind there are ethical issues associated with gathering, recording and distributing information. See Section 3.3 ‘Being Ethical’.

3.4.4 Transparency

In PAR the process of reviewing understandings, interpretations and findings provides a system of ‘checks and balances’.

At the end of the day, interpretation is about what something means to those who have experienced it. Transparency means people keeping an eye on what is going on and asking - ‘what is the evidence for developing certain interpretations, how were interpretations translated into strategies for change, and do they actually address the issues which have emerged from reflection?’

PAR processes should be constantly open to scrutiny—that is, letting a range of people observe, reflect, question, and interpret what is happening as it goes along. This means that sometimes participants can claim their input was misinterpreted and say ‘no that's not what we meant' before a strategy is developed and implemented. An open process also allows for monitoring of who is involved and consulted, and what their input actually means.

One project devoted an office wall in a public area to AR, and mapped their emerging AR questions, processes and outcomes on a day-to-day basis.

Quixley, 1998, p. 33

3.4.5 Ongoing critical reflection including seeking disagreement

Critical reflection is like looking down at something from high – getting a bird’s eye view. You can better see how something relates to its context. From this vantage point you can ask broader questions such as ‘How are we doing this?’, ‘What does this mean in the broader scheme of things?’, ‘If we look at this from another perspective what would that tell us?’ and ‘Have we sought out contradictory views or are we just confirming what we want to find?’

Life would be a lot easier if everyone could agree on everything, on what things mean, and on what and how things should be done. Usually, the more open you are and the more willing you are to involve people, the more perspectives and disagreement will surface. It is easy to ask a question and then go and look for the information that provides the answer that you want to hear. What’s not so easy is to actively look for information that contradicts or challenges what you think is true, to come up with a range of alternate explanations – in fact, to seek to contradict your interpretations.

Seeking ‘disagreement’ (or ‘disconfirming’ evidence) is an important part of achieving rigour in your PAR. This is because ‘disconfirming’ evidence tells you something about the issue you are looking at that you may never have considered. It also tells you something about the issue from another perspective.

In turn, this disagreement can put the pressure on you to make sure that the explanation or meaning you think is most correct, is grounded in ‘good evidence’ and more trustworthy than other, alternate explanations and meanings. It also challenges you to come up with really good reasons for what you believe to be true and to take into account other ‘evidence’ like the views and experiences of a range of stakeholders, the published literature and reports, and so on, which you may not have previously considered.

You may find that other evidence allows you to identify a more productive line of inquiry. Or you may find that alternate explanations are not as robust, and the one you have reached is even further supported. Often seeking disagreement results in new detail and perspectives becoming apparent that were not previously covered, making the improved analysis more robust than it was previously.

3.4.6 Multiple cycles

Maintaining focus on a question or question ‘tree’ (outlined in Section 2.2) over time and refining the action you try out is critical to undertaking good quality PAR. This means you are really learning through doing, and so developing a stronger basis for the conclusions you draw. With multiple cycles it will become clearer what dominant themes emerge from your collective experience. Your understandings have the chance to develop greater complexity and detail, as well. These qualities protect you against accusations that you just thought up the response ‘on the hop’.

Conversely single cycle PAR, where you try something once then move onto something else, has less lived experience to base your conclusions on.

3.4.7 Developing ‘rich’ contextualised answers to questions

Believability in PAR is enhanced when you tell the story well. That means telling a rich story that captures the essence of what you have looked at and found out. A ‘thick’ detailed description provides evidence about what took place and gives the context of the experience (Denzin 1994, p.505, Hill 2002). In telling the story of a PAR project it is not your job to tell others what your story means for them – that is, it is not your job to generalise from your context to other people’s. If you tell your story well, others will be able to judge whether there are insights and strategies that might apply or be worth trying in their context.

So when you tell others about your PAR remember that it is often the detail that conveys the embedded ‘truthfulness’. If you are concerned about including identifying material edit it. You might consider negotiating ‘representative’ stories which capture the essence of what is being experienced and communicated. A wonderful example of using representative stories to communicate understanding can be found in the report from the Miimali Aboriginal Community Association (Naden et.al. 2004) Yarning About Cultural Appropriateness.

In writing up your PAR feel free to be tentative (“it seems like …”), to make qualifying statements (“this strategy worked well in supporting parents but mostly involved mothers and female care-givers”); and to avoid categorisations and overstatements that go beyond the scope or contexts of your focus.

The following article is worth a read: Lennie, J. (2006). Increasing the rigour and trustworthiness of participatory evaluations: learnings from the field, Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 6 (1), p.27-35.

3.5 Resistance and barriers

On occasions you may have found that some stakeholders “with the power to direct or significantly influence the development of the service actively resisted attempts to function in a flexible, creative manner which valued the expertise of all stakeholders (including parents and/or young people” (Quixley 1998, p. 23–24).

Resistance to change can come from a number of sources and from a number of levels. Drawing on Crane and Richardson (2000) there may be:

• Concerns about relevance - other stakeholders who have had less involvement may not fully understand or support the need for change
• Concern about agency interests - some agencies may feel it is not in their best interests to be involved in a process which has the level of collaboration and transparency of PAR
• Concern about practicalities including the resources to undertake a PAR process or implement changes
• Concern about who is responsible for what is found, including implications for workers, organisations, communities or governments
• Concern about ‘opening up a can of worms’
• A lack of confidence in the contribution PAR can make
• Concerns about the involvement of clients or client groups seen as vulnerable.

Strategies you might utilise if you experience resistance to PAR include:

Invest in people who have the energy and enthusiasm for the process. Not everyone or every organisation will want to engage in the PAR process. Be aware of the time, energy and resources spent to entice, force or convince people/organisations to participate. Ask the question for what benefit? Work with those who are committed and use your resources to foster positive and collaborative allies. When it is strategically important to engage a reluctant party, identify what the barrier might be to their participation and deliberately design in opportunities, resources and supports that will make participation worthwhile. Accept that some people just aren’t into it and that’s OK.

Actions rather than words. People’s willingness to participate is more likely to be changed by demonstrations of success rather than theoretical arguments – that is, by action rather than words.

Participation can often be built into everyday practice, as well as heightened through events and processes. For instance, if you suggest seeing someone in the own ‘territory’ they might be more prepared to be part of a meeting. Or they might be happy to talk over the phone for half an hour, rather than meet in person.

People need to know their contribution is valued. There is more chance they will participate in future if you keep them up to date on issues and progress. And if you adopt another idea, rather than theirs, you need to explain.

Always do what you say, and when you say you’ll do it. Follow up every key interaction, formally or informally. Actively acknowledge all contributions.

Design meetings and agendas to be responsive to people’s needs and priorities. Understand that stakeholders can be highly committed people, but they don’t always share your priorities and concerns. So, focus on people’s specific interests. Don’t expect them to sit around for a three-hour meeting that spends five minutes on their pet topic. In fact, several short and focused meetings with small groups are usually more efficient than long meetings with large groups (Quixley 1997, p.46).

Be alert to any undercurrent of agendas and politics. Be aware that there are many reasons, not always what you might think of as the right reasons, for participation. Some of the less noble reasons might be that someone may want to be seen as being important in the community; or they come because they think they might be missing out on something; or because they want to control the agenda; or are distrustful of another organisation. Some may come because their management told them to. These agendas tend to be hidden and guarded yet do add to the politics of engagement. As a consequence we don’t always know what we are dealing with or what impact the unspoken politics will have on the process. The key is to remain aware and alert to the possibilities but not immobilised by any fear. Keep the process transparent and the communication open so that dealing with emerging issues remains a collective responsibility. Focus energy on maximising the strengths and the positive contributions to be made, and appreciate that good quality engagement may make future participation more likely.

3.6 Developing and maintaining an Action Research ‘system’

There are a range of considerations which relate to the support and sustainability of PAR. The notion of an AR system is useful to help map the flow of communication and support necessary for a program to use PAR sustainably and effectively as a tool for continuous improvement (Crane 2006). Well founded insights generated from front line experience are important for understanding what constitutes good practice and effective policy.

Cycles of PAR can occur at a number of levels from the individual practitioner, to the program level (across individually funded services), to the policy level. These different levels of action-reflection can be linked so as to inform and converse with each other. Figure 9 provides a simple model for different levels of practice in an AR system, together with key tasks. Each of these tasks requires practical mechanisms be developed that suit the context. The core tasks of an AR system are to endorse and allow space for the undertaking of PAR; foster communication and sharing across services and stakeholders; provide training to those new to and experienced in PAR , and support those undertaking PAR to deal with various challenges they confront.

Depending on your location you may be able to identify, participate in or develop some of these.

Figure 9: Elements of an Action Research system

Since inception, the Reconnect program has had a program wide Action Research Committee (ARC) to advise FaHCSIA on the use of PAR. Consisting of service providers, Departmental officers located at national and state levels, and an academic with expertise in PAR, this Committee provides a collaborative point for considering a wide variety of issues regarding the ongoing use of PAR. These include:

• Insights generated by services about their use of PAR
• Reflecting on the way AR is being undertaken in services and providing this feedback to services
• Advising on training needs
• Advising on resource development e.g. induction manual on PAR for new workers

Various evaluations and studies into Reconnect have indicated the value of the enabling elements in Figure 9. Developing and sustaining as many of these elements as possible in your practice context is challenging but worthwhile.

3.7 Summary and reflections

This section has considered some of the complexities and challenges which come with undertaking PAR. It has underlined the importance of participation by all affected stakeholders and acknowledged that multiple motivations and agendas may be operating in any one process – some less explicitly than others. It has reflected on key ethical considerations and provided strategies to assist you understand, respect and account for these in all phases of the research process. You are encouraged to remain alert to power differentials between stakeholders – ensuring the least powerful have a voice – and that you embrace disagreement. Multiple sources of information and multiple perspectives will enable you to better understand the contexts in which you practice, as well as recognise the variety of ideas, assumptions and possibilities at play. PAR is complex but you can still aspire to keep it simple, open and honest. PAR is simply seeking to answer pressing and relevant questions, via multiple strategies, collaboratively with others in a way that builds well-founded interventions and insights.

Some questions to consider

• Do you have a copy of the relevant professional codes of ethics? Do you have an agency based code of conduct for practice? Are there practice standards that apply to your program/ field of practice?
• How can these assist your thinking and planning about PAR in your workplace?
• What ethical issues might you need to consider in undertaking PAR in your context?
• How can you build trust and safety so a diversity of people can participate in a PAR process?
• What barriers or resistance are you likely to encounter as you endeavour to initiate and implement a PAR process? What could you do to minimise these barriers?
• What aspects of PAR present the greatest challenge to you?
• In your PAR process how could you maximise the trustworthiness of your reflections and conclusions?
• In your PAR process how could you maximise the trustworthiness of your reflections and conclusions?

Section 4 of this manual provides you with a range of practical strategies and tools for undertaking a PAR process.