The American Sociologist

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 27–37 | Cite as

Participatory action research: Easier said than done

  • Lynnell Simonson
  • Virginia Bushaw
Article

Abstract

This article describes participatory action research as an alternative methodology for conducting community needs assessment. The research model empowers individuals by recognizing they have the ability to identify their own needs, and to generate practical long lasting solutions (Rappaport, 1981). A case study is presented in which two community members attempted a participatory community needs assessment. The article concludes with a discussion of how this attempt deviated from the ideal participatory action research model, and the consequences of the compromises made during the research process.

Keywords

Child Care City Council Community Psychology Participatory Action Research Senior Citizen 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brown, David L. and Rajesh Tandon. 1983. “Ideology and Political Economy in Inquiry: Action Research and Participatory Research.”The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 19(3): 277–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Clark, P. 1972.Action Research and Organizational Change. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  3. Elden, M. 1979. “Three Generations of Work Democracy Experiments in Norway.” In C. Cooper and E. Mumford (eds.),The Quality of Work in Eastern and Western Europe. London: Associated Business Press.Google Scholar
  4. Elden, M. 1981. “Political Efficacy at Work: The Connection Between More Autonomous Forms of Workplace Organization and a More Participatory Politics.”American Political Science Review 75(1): 43–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fumagalli, A. and R. Oritz, et al. 1985. “A New Model for Technology Transference Within Farming Systems and Extension.” InFarming Systems Research Symposium Proceedings. Manhattan, Kansas: Kansas State University.Google Scholar
  6. Goodwin, Leonard. 1965. “Science, History and Social Change: Toward a Program of Research.”Sociology and Social Research 49: 129–142.Google Scholar
  7. Hall, B.L. 1981. “Participatory Research, Popular Knowledge and Power: A Personal Reflection.”Convergence 14(3): 6–17.Google Scholar
  8. Horton, D.E. 1984. Social Scientists in Agricultural Research: Lessons from the Mantaro Valley Project, Peru. Ottawa: IDRC.Google Scholar
  9. McMillan, David W. and David M. Chavis. 1986. “Sense of Community: A Definition and Theory.”Journal of Community Psychology 14 (January): 6–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Oritz, R. and A. Meneses. 1989. “Increasing the Adoption Rates of New Technologies with a New Technology Transfer Model.” InFarming Systems Research and Extension Symposium Proceedings. Fayetteville, AK: University of Arkansas.Google Scholar
  11. Oritz, R. and S. Ruano et al. 1989. “Closing the Gap Between Research and Limited Resource Farmers.” The Hague, The Netherlands: International Service for National Agricultural Research.Google Scholar
  12. Rappaport, Julian. 1981. “In Praise of Paradox: A Social Policy of Empowerment Over Prevention.”American Journal of Community Psychology 9: 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Rappaport, Julian. 1987. “Terms of Empowerment/Examples of Prevention: Toward a Theory for Community Psychology.”American Journal of Community Psychology 15: 121–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Riger, S. and P.J. Lavrakas. 1981. “Community Ties: Patterns of Attachments and Social Interactions in Urban Neighborhoods.”American Journal of Community Psychology 9: 55–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rowan, J. 1981. “A Dialectical Paradigm for Research.” In P. Reason and J. Rowan,Human Inquiry. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. Susman, G. and R.D. Evered. 1978. “An Assessment of the Scientific Merits of Action Research.”Administrative Science Quarterly. 23(4): 582–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Trist, E. 1981.The Evolution of Socio-technical Systems: A Conceptual Framework and Action Research Program. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Labour.Google Scholar
  18. Whyte, William Foote. 1991.Participatory Action Research. London: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lynnell Simonson
    • 1
  • Virginia Bushaw
    • 2
  1. 1.the sociology department of Iowa State UniversityUSA
  2. 2.the University of North DakotaUSA

Personalised recommendations