Advertisement

American Journal of Community Psychology

, Volume 19, Issue 5, pp 757–768 | Cite as

Participatory action research with self-help groups: An alternative paradigm for inquiry and action

  • Mark A. Chesler
Methods

Conclusion

I have not sought here to make a case for participatory action research as theonly mode for inquiry and action with self-help groups, but to raise issues that may help counter the dominance of the conventional model and encourage a more pluralistic scientific enterprise. Researchers must be competent in and free to use (or try to use) whatever paradigms and techniques best fit their own epistemological preferences, the phenomena they wish to understand, and the goals and resources they and their coparticipants have. In particular, the assumptions and operating styles associated with PAR seem especially relevant and useful for inquiry and action that can advance knowledge about, and contribute to the effectiveness of, self-help groups. Dogma about “the proper scientific method” may suit the current scientific establishment and governmental funding agencies, but it does not necessarily lead to good research, research that is valid and useful to the scholarly community and to the self-help movement.

Keywords

Social Psychology Health Psychology Scientific Method Scientific Establishment Participatory Action 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, B. (1988).Considering whether to participate in research. Boston: Federation for Children with Special Needs. [mimeo]Google Scholar
  2. Bickman, L. (Ed.) (1982).Applied social psychology annual (Vol. 3). Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Borkman, T. (1984). Mutual self-help groups: Strengthening the selectively unsupporting personal and community networks of their members. In A. Gartner & F. Riessman (Eds.),The self-help revolution. New York: Human Sciences.Google Scholar
  4. Borkman, T. (1990). Experiential, professional and lay frames of reference. In T. Powell (Ed.),Working with self-help. Washington, DC: National Association of Social Workers.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, D., & Kaplan, R. (1981). Participative research in a factory. In P. Reason & J. Rowan (Eds.),Human Inquiry. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, D., & Tandon, R. (1983). Ideology and political economy in inquiry: Action research and participatory research.Journal of Applied Behavioral Science.19, 277–294.Google Scholar
  7. Cancian, F., & Armistead, C. (1990).Participatory research: An introduction. Irvine, CA: Department of Sociology, UC-Irvine. [mimeo]Google Scholar
  8. Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1983).Becoming critical: Knowledge through action research. Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Chein, I., Cook, S., & Harding, J. (1948). The field of action research.American Psychologist, 3, 43–50.Google Scholar
  10. Chesler, M. (1990). Action research in the voluntary sector: A case study of scholar-activist roles in self-help groups. In S.. Wheelan, E. Pepitone, & V. Abt (Eds.),Advances in field theory. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Chesler, M. (1991). Mobilizing consumer activism in health care: The role of self-help groups. InResearch in social movements, Conflict and change, 13, 275–305.Google Scholar
  12. Elden, M. (1981). Sharing the research work: Participative research and its role demands. In P. Reason & J. Rowan (Eds.),Human inquiry. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  13. Fals-Borda, O. (1984). Participatory action research.Development: Seeds of Change, 2, 18–20.Google Scholar
  14. Freeman, H., Dynes, R., Rossi, P., & Whyte, W. (Eds.). (1983).Applied sociology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  15. Freire, P. (1973).Education for critical consciousness. New York: Seabury.Google Scholar
  16. Gaventa, J. (1988). Participatory research in North America.Convergence, 21(2/3), 41–46.Google Scholar
  17. Gaventa, J. (in press). The powerful, the powerless and the experts: Knowledge struggles in an information age. In P. Park, B. Hall, & T. Jackson (Eds.),Participatory research in America.Google Scholar
  18. Hall, B., Gillette, A., & Tandon, R. (1982).Creating knowledge: A monopoly. New Delhi and Toronto: Society for Participatory Research and International Council for Adult Education.Google Scholar
  19. Israel, B., Schurman, S., & House, J. (1989). Action research on occupational stress: involving workers as researchers.International Journal of Health Seivices, 19, 135–155.Google Scholar
  20. Jacobs, J., & Dopkeen, L. (1990). Risking the qualitative study of risk.Qualitative Sociology, 13(2), 169–181.Google Scholar
  21. Jacobs, M., & Goodman, G. (1989). Psychology and self-help groups.American Psychologist, 44, 536–545.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Katz, A. (1981). Self-help and mutual aid: An emerging social movement?Annual Review of Sociology, 7, 129–155.Google Scholar
  23. Keller, E. (1985).Reflections on gender and science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Killilea, M. (1976). Mutual help organizations: Interpretations in the literature. In R. Caplan & M. Killilea (Eds.),Support systems and mutual help. New York: Grune & Stratton.Google Scholar
  25. Lavoie, F. (1984). Action research: A new model of interaction between the professional and self-help groups. In A. Gartner & F. Riessman (Eds.),The self-help revolution. New York: Human Sciences.Google Scholar
  26. Levy, L (1984). Issues in research and evaluation. In A. Gartner & F. Riessman (Eds.),The self-help revolution. New York: Human Sciences.Google Scholar
  27. Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems.Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34–46.Google Scholar
  28. Lidz, C., & Ricci, F. (1990). Funding large-scale qualitative sociology.Qualitative Sociology, 13(2), 113–126.Google Scholar
  29. Lieberman, M., & Borman, L. (Eds.) (1979).Self-help groups for coping with crisis. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  30. Lincoln, Y., & Cuba, E. (1985).Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. Meehl, P. (1986). What social scientists don't understand. In D. Fiske & R. Schweder (Eds.),Metatheory in social science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  32. Patton, M. (1978).Utilization-focused evaluation. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  33. Powell, T. (1987).Self-help organizations and professional practice. Silver Spring, MD: National Association of Social Workers.Google Scholar
  34. Rappaport, J., Seidman, E., Toro, P., McFadden, L., Reischel, T., Roberts, L., Salem, D., & Zimmerman, M. (1985). Collaborative research with a mutual help organization.Social Policy, 15(3), 12–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Report of Consensus Conference on Principles of Family Research. (1989). Lawrence, KS: National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitative Programs and the Beach Center on Families and Disability.Google Scholar
  36. Rossi, P., Wright, J., & Wright, S. (1978). The theory and practice of applied social research.Evaluation Quarterly, 2(2), 171–192.Google Scholar
  37. Rowan, J. (1981). A dialectical paradigm for research. In P. Reason & J. Rowan (Eds.),Human inquiry. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  38. Sanford, N. (1970). Whatever happened to action research?Journal of Social Issues, 26, 3–23.Google Scholar
  39. Susman, G., & Evered, R. (1978). An assessment of the scientific merits of action research.Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 582–603.Google Scholar
  40. Tichy, N., & Friedman, S. (1983). Institutional dynamics of action research. In R. Kilman & C. Thomas (Eds.),Producing useful information for organizations. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  41. Whyte, W., Greenwood, D., & Lazes, P. (1989). Participatory action research.American Behavioral Scientist, 32, 513–551.Google Scholar
  42. Whyte, W. (1986). On the uses of social science research.American Sociological Review, 51, 551–563.Google Scholar
  43. Wollert, R., Knight, B., & Levy, L. (1984). Make today count: A collaborative model for professionals and self-help groups. In A. Gartner & F. Riessman (Eds.),The self-help revolution. New York: Human Sciences.Google Scholar
  44. Yoak, M., & Chesler, M. (1985). Alternative professional roles in health care delivery: Leadership patterns in self-help groups.Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 21, 427–444.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark A. Chesler
    • 1
  1. 1.Program on Conflict Management Alternatives, Center for Research on Social OrganizationThe University of MichiganAnn Arbor

Personalised recommendations