Abstract
The rapid growth in digital technologies continues to accelerate, bringing not only new opportunities, but also new challenges and needs to the field of education. As educational technologists design research to improve the implementation of learning technologies, they must adapt their research approaches to social and cultural contexts. In Participatory Action Research (PAR), teachers, students, or other members of the educational community participate as co-researchers who collaborate with researchers to build understanding and solve problems that are relevant to the school or community. This article describes the purpose, background, characteristics, and potential applications of PAR methods. It employs a meta-synthesis approach to investigate five adult-youth PAR collaborations that implement educational technology to meet needs in diverse educational and community settings. The main questions asked are:
-
How can PAR advance educational technology research?
-
In educational technology research, how can adult and youth collaborations in PAR benefit learning and the community?
Results show that PAR collaborations not only provide opportunities to gather and assess information, but can also increase dialogue that leads to meaningful understanding, insightful action, and positive change in the community and digital environments. Findings suggest that, in educational technology research that is focused on improving learning or addressing a community need, combining technology with adult/youth collaborative research relationships can increase insights and understanding while moving community members to actively address the issue.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.References
Adelman, C. (1993). Kurt Lewin and the origins of action research. Educational Action Research, 1(1), 7–24.
Aguilera, E. (2019). On disruption and integration: two views of digital media technologies in K-12 schools. Pedagogies: an International Journal, 14(1), 78–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2019.1565668
Aguirre, R. T., & Bolton, K. W. (2014). Qualitative interpretive meta-synthesis in social work research: Uncharted territory. Journal of Social Work, 14(3), 279–294.
Akom, A., Shah, A., Nakai, A., & Cruz, T. (2016). Youth participatory action research (YPAR) 2.0: How technological innovation and digital organizing sparked a food revolution in East Oakland. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 29(10), 1287–1307.
Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16–25.
Arief, N. N., Famiola, M., Pratama, A. P., Anggahegari, P., & Putri, A. N. A. (2022). Sustainability communication through bio-based experiential learning. Sustainability, 14(9), 5204.
Baldwin, M. (2012). Participatory action research. In M. Gray, J. Midgley, & S. Webb (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social work (pp. 467–481). SAGE Publications Ltd.
Besenyi, G. M., Schooley, B., Turner-McGrievy, G. M., Wilcox, S., Wilhelm Stanis, S. A., & Kaczynski, A. T. (2018). The Electronic Community Park Audit Tool (eCPAT): Exploring the use of mobile technology for youth empowerment and advocacy for healthy community policy, systems, and environmental change. Frontiers in Public Health, 6, 332.
Bolmsten, J., & Manuel, M. E. (2020). Sustainable participatory processes of education technology development. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(5), 2705–2728.
Brites, M. J., & Castro, T. S. (2022). Digital rights, institutionalised youths, and contexts of inequalities. Media and Communication, 10(4), 369–381.
Burnes, B. (2007). Kurt Lewin and the Harwood studies: The foundations of OD. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43(2), 213–231.
Cancian, F. M. (1993). Conflicts between activist research and academic success: Participatory research and alternative strategies. The American Sociologist, 24(1), 92–106.
Clark, A. T., Ahmed, I., Metzger, S., Walker, E., & Wylie, R. (2022). Moving from co-design to co-research: Engaging youth participation in guided qualitative inquiry. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 21, 16094069221084792.
Cook, P. H., Heykoop, C., Anuntavoraskul, A., & Vibulphol, J. (2012). Action research exploring information communication technologies (ICT) and child protection in Thailand. Development in Practice, 22(4), 574–587.
Cunningham, C. A. (2009). Transforming schooling through technology: 21stcentury approaches to participatory learning. Education and Culture, 25(2), 46–61.
Dewey, J. (2010). The need for a philosophy of education (1934). Schools, 7(2), 244–245.
Dudgeon, P., Scrine, C., Cox, A., & Walker, R. (2017). Facilitating empowerment and self-determination through participatory action research: Findings from the National Empowerment Project. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1609406917699515.
Fakin Bajec, J., Pogačar, M., & Straus, M. (2021). Stories, Objects, Interfaces: Digital Technology and Cultural Heritage Among the Young. An Introductory Comment, 51.
Freeman, S., Martin, J., Nash, C., Hausknecht, S., & Skinner, K. (2020). Use of a digital storytelling workshop to foster development of intergenerational relationships and preserve culture with the Nak’azdli First Nation: Findings from the Nak’azdli Lha’hutit’en Project. Canadian Journal on Aging/la Revue Canadienne Du Vieillissement, 39(2), 284–293.
Freire, P. (2020). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Bloomsbury Academic.
Gallerani, D. G., Besenyi, G. M., Stanis, S. A. W., & Kaczynski, A. T. (2017). “We actually care and we want to make the parks better”: A qualitative study of youth experiences and perceptions after conducting park audits. Preventive Medicine, 95, S109–S114.
Galletta, A., & Jones, V. (2010). “Why are you doing this?” Questions on purpose, structure, and outcomes in participatory action research engaging youth and teacher candidates. Educational Studies, 46(3), 337–357.
Glassman, M. (2020). The internet as a context for participatory action research. Education and Information Technologies, 25(3), 1891–1911.
Glassman, M., & Burbidge, J. (2014). The dialectical relationship between place and space in education: How the internet is changing our perceptions of teaching and learning. Educational Theory, 64(1), 15–32.
Guishard, M., & Tuck, E. (2013). Youth resistance research methods and ethical challenges. Youth Resistance Research and Theories of Change (pp. 181–194). Routledge.
Hadjichambi, D., Hadjichambis, A. C., Adamou, A., & Georgiou, Y. (2023). A systematic literature review of K-12 environmental citizen science (CS) initiatives: Unveiling the CS pedagogical and participatory aspects contributing to students’ environmental citizenship. Educational Research Review, 39, 100525.
Hamilton, J., Purdy, N., Willems, R. A., Smith, P. K., Culbert, C., Brighi, A., & Völlink, T. (2020). Using the quality circle approach to empower disadvantaged youth in addressing cyberbullying: an exploration across five European countries. Pastoral Care in Education, 38(3), 254–272.
Heidegger, M. (1954). The question concerning technology. Technology and Values: Essential Readings, 99, 113.
Holquist, S. E., & Walls, J. (2021). “Not present in our ranks”: Exploring equitable representation in student voice efforts for policy change. Teachers College Record, 123(8), 3–30.
Honebein, P. C., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2021). To prove or improve, that is the question: The resurgence of comparative, confounded research between 2010 and 2019. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(2), 465–496.
Hoon, C. (2013). Meta-synthesis of qualitative case studies: An approach to theory building. Organizational Research Methods, 16(4), 522–556.
Hostetler, K. (2005). What is “good” education research? Educational Researcher, 34(6), 16–21.
Hughes, H., Wolf, R., & Foth, M. (2017). Informed digital learning through social living labs as participatory methodology: The case of Food Rescue Townsville. Information and Learning Science, 118(9/10), 518–534.
Hunter, J. E., Schmidt, F., & Jackson, G. (1982). Meta-analysis: Cumulating research findings across studies. Sage.
Jacobs, S. (2016). The use of participatory action research within education–benefits to stakeholders. World Journal of Education, 6(3), 48–55.
Jacquez, F., Vaughn, L., Deters, A., Wells, J., & Maynard, K. (2020). Creating a culture of youth as co-researchers: The kickoff of a year-long stem pipeline program. Journal of STEM Outreach. https://doi.org/10.15695/jstem/v3i1.02
Jensen, L. A., & Allen, M. N. (1996). Meta-synthesis of qualitative findings. Qualitative Health Research, 6(4), 553–560.
Kidd, S. A., & Kral, M. J. (2005). Practicing participatory action research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 187.
Kindon, S., Pain, R., & Kesby, M. (2008). Participatory action research. International Encyclopaedia of Human Geography (pp. 90–95). Elsevier.
King, A. C., Odunitan-Wayas, F. A., Chaudhury, M., Rubio, M. A., Baiocchi, M., Kolbe-Alexander, T., members of Our Voice Global Citizen Science Research Network. (2021). Community-based approaches to reducing health inequities and fostering environmental justice through global youth-engaged citizen science. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(3), 892.
Könings, K. D., & McKenney, S. (2017). Participatory design of (built) learning environments. European Journal of Education, 52(3), 247–252.
McIntyre, A. (2007). Participatory action research. Sage Publications.
McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. (2013). Systematic review of design-based research progress: Is a little knowledge a dangerous thing? Educational Researcher, 42(2), 97–100. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463781
Mehra, D., Östergren, P. O., Ekman, B., & Agardh, A. (2014). Inconsistent condom use among Ugandan university students from a gender perspective: A cross-sectional study. Global Health Action, 7(1), 22942.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994a). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (pp. 107–119). London: Sage.
Mills, M., & Goos, M. (2017). The place of research in teacher education? An analysis of the Australian teacher education ministerial advisory group report action now: Classroom ready teachers. In M. A. Peters, B. Cowie, & I. Menter (Eds.), A companion to research in teacher education (pp. 637–650). Springer.
Morales, M. P. (2019). Participatory action research (PAR) in education. In C. A. Mertler (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of action research in education (pp. 317–341). Wiley.
Monteiro, E. M. L. M., Neto, W. B., de Lima, L. S., de Aquino, J. M., Gontijo, D. T., & Pereira, B. O. (2015). Culture Circles in adolescent empowerment for the prevention of violence. International journal of adolescence and youth, 20(2), 167–184
Pais, S. C., Rodrigues, M., & Menezes, I. (2014). Community as locus for health formal and non-formal education: The significance of ecological and collaborative research for promoting health literacy. Frontiers in Public Health, 2, 283.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: A personal, experiential perspective. Qualitative Social Work, 1(3), 261–283.
Ranieri, M., & Bruni, I. (2013). Mobile storytelling and informal education in a suburban area: A qualitative study on the potential of digital narratives for young second-generation immigrants. Learning, Media and Technology, 38(2), 217–235.
Rapp, D. N., & Salovich, N. A. (2018). Can’t we just disregard fake news? The consequences of exposure to inaccurate information. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5(2), 232–239.
Reason, P. (1994b). Participation in human inquiry. Sage Publications Inc.
Reeves, T. C., & Lin, L. (2020b). The research we have is not the research we need. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(4), 1991–2001.
Reeves, T. C., & Oh, E. G. (2017). The goals and methods of educational technology research over a quarter century (1989–2014). Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(2), 325–339.
Reigeluth, C. M., & An, Y. J. (2009). Theory building. Instructional-Design Theories and Models: Building a Common Knowledge Base, 3, 365–386.
Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective thinking. Teachers College Record, 104(4), 842–866.
Römer, L., Supa, M., & Hodboď, V. (2022). Media literacy education nurturing civic participation of disadvantaged youth, or not?. Learning, Media and Technology, 1–15
Savin-Baden, M., & Wimpenny, K. (2007). Exploring and implementing participatory action research. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 31(2), 331–343.
Scharber, C., Isaacson, K., Pyscher, T., & Lewis, C. (2016). Participatory culture meets critical practice: Documentary film production in a youth internship program. English Teaching: Practice & Critique, 15(3), 355–374.
Sciacchitano, E. (2019). European year of cultural-heritage. A laboratory for heritage-based innovation. SCIRES-IT-Scientific Research and Information Technology, 9(1), 1–14.
Sensiper, S., & Barragán, C. A. (2017). The Guardian professions program: Developing an advanced degree mentoring program for California’s foster care alumni. Children and Youth Services Review, 82, 329–336.
Simovska, V., & Jensen, B. B. (2008). On-line learning environments and participatory health education: Teachers’ reflections. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40(5), 651–669.
Smith, R., Danford, M., Darnell, S. C., Larrazabal, M. J. L., & Abdellatif, M. (2021). ‘Like, what even is a podcast?’ Approaching sport-for-development youth participatory action research through digital methodologies. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 13(1), 128–145.
Stapleton, A., & Mayock, P. (2023). Structured ethical reflection as a tool to recognise and address power: a participatory action research study with separated young people in France. Educational Action Research, 31(4), 670–690.
Stornaiuolo, A., & Thomas, E. E. (2017). Disrupting educational inequalities through youth digital activism. Review of Research in Education, 41(1), 337–357.
Tokunaga, T., Machado Da Silva, I., & Fu, M. (2022). Participatory action research with immigrant youth in Tokyo: possibilities and challenges of Ibasho creation project. Annals of Anthropological Practice, 46(1), 40–51.
Tracy, N. R., Sieber, T., Phillips, A., Leondar-Wright, B., Alatorre, L. M., Ali, B. M., & Underriner, J. (2020). Collaborating for change: A Participatory Action Research casebook. Rutgers University Press.
UNESCO (2015). Rethinking education: Towards a global common good? Retrieved from https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/rethinking-education-towards-global-common-good. UNESCO.
Zimmer, L. (2006). Qualitative meta-synthesis: a question of dialoguing with texts. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 53(3), 311–318.
Funding
No funding was received to assist in the preparation of this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author has no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Research involving human and animals participants
This manuscript is a conceptual paper based on the literature. No new research was done with human participants or animals for the purposes of this paper. As such, IRB approval or consent form was not required.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
Web of science search results.
Title | Author/Date | Setting or type of study | Participant base | Unmet criteria |
|---|---|---|---|---|
‘Like, what even is a podcast?’ Approaching sport-for-development youth participatory action research through digital methodologies | Smith et al. (2021) | Community center | Four 18 to 25-year-olds | Met all criteria |
Participatory action research and its meanings: Vivencia, praxis, conscientization | Glassman & Erdem (2014) | Historical overview of PAR with implications for beneficial practices | NA | 1—This manuscript focuses on the history of PAR |
“Why are you doing this?” Questions on purpose, structure, and outcomes in participatory action research engaging youth and teacher candidates | Galletta and Jones (2010) | High school and elementary/middle public schools | Undergraduates led adolescents | 2—Authors noted that the PAR experience was compromised and that students did not have the opportunity to fully participate in a PAR approach |
Youth Participatory Action Research (YPAR) 2.0: how technological innovation and digital organizing sparked a food revolution in East Oakland | Akom et al.(2016) | High school | 90 high school students | Met all criteria |
Participatory action research with immigrant youth in Tokyo: Possibilities and challenges of Ibasho creation project | Tokunaga, Da Silva, Fu (2022) | University students led high school students in an after-school program. Technology was not mentioned as part of the research | University students worked with high school students | 4–Technology was not integral to the research |
Structured ethical reflection as a tool to recognise and address power: a participatory action research study with separated young people in France | Stapleton & Maycock (2023) | Immigrants who, as children, had migrated to France without parents but were now over age 18 | 12 18–24 year-old youth immigrants | 4—Technology was not integral to the research |
The Electronic Community Park Audit Tool (eCPAT): Exploring the use of mobile technology for youth empowerment and advocacy for healthy community policy, systems, and environmental change | Besenyi et al. (2018) | Greenville park system | 124 11- to 18-year-olds | Met all criteria |
Moving From co-design to co-research: Engaging youth participation in guided qualitative inquiry | Clark et al. (2022) | Center for Science and the Imagination, Arizona State University | 12 eighth grade students | Met all criteria |
Media literacy education nurturing civic participation of disadvantaged youth, or not? | Römer et al. (2022) | Youth received weekly interventions | Researchers conducted the research. Youth ages 17–19 were educated through the intervention | 2—Participants were not co-researchers 4—Technology was not an integral part of the research |
Disrupting educational inequalities through youth digital activism | Stornoiuolo & Thomas (2017) | Systematic literature review | 1—This manuscript is a review of scholarly articles | |
Participatory culture meets critical practice: Documentary film production in a youth internship program | Scharber et al. (2016) | This project was designed to educate you in a community-based learning program. The study was action research, but not PAR | Twelve youth were participants, but adults conducted the research | 3—The project was designed to educate youth, but did not involve youth participants in the research process |
Digital rights in digital exclusion settings: The experiences of institutionalised youth in Portuguese detention centres | Brites and Castro (2022) | Workshops were conducted for youth in detention centers | Forty participants aged 12–17 | 3—Workshops involved participants in educational activities, but the youth were not co-researchers |
Action research exploring information communication technologies (ICT) and child protection in Thailand | Cook et al. (2012) | This project was described as a child-centered partnership. Children and adolescents were participants, but not co-researchers | 108 youth aged 10–19 Local businesses and nonprofits National agencies | 2—Data was gathered from youth participants, but they were not co-researchers |
Community-based approaches to reducing health inequities and fostering environmental justice through global youth-engaged citizen science | King et al. (2021) | Systematic review of 20 published manuscripts | NA | 1—This manuscript is a systematic review |
Informed digital learning through social living labs as participatory methodology: The case of food rescue townsville | Hughes et al. (2017) | The manuscript uses the case study as an example to illustrate the concept of social living labs | Adults involved in a volunteer community organization (number not specified) | 1—The case study is used only as an example 2—The study did not involve PAR |
On disruption and integration: Two views of digital media technologies in K-12 schools | Aguilera & De Roock (2019) | This article compares the texts of two books | NA | 1—This manuscript was not a case study |
Two-row wampum reimagined: Understanding the hybrid digital lives of contemporary Kanien’ keha:ka youth | Jacobs (2016) | This is an educational narrative detailing the digital life of one individual | One adolescent, age 13 | 2—The study did not involve PAR |
On-line learning environments and participatory health education: teachers' reflections | Simvoska & Jensen (2008) | Teachers participated in interviews examining their experiences with and opinions | Teachers | 2—The methods are described as qualitative, but not as PAR |
Culture Circles in adolescent empowerment for the prevention of violence | Monteiro et al. (2015) | This action project focused on an intervention. Data was gathered from participants, but they were not included as co-researchers | Eleven adolescents aged 15–19 | 3—The research focused on an intervention and was described by authors as “action research” rather than as PAR |
"We actually care and we want to make the parks better": A qualitative study of youth experiences and perceptions after conducting park audits | Gallerani et al. (2017) | Data was gathered through focus groups | Fifty adolescents aged 11–15 | 2—Participants were not co-researchers |
A systematic literature review of K-12 environmental Citizen Science (CS) initiatives: Unveiling the CS pedagogical and participatory aspects contributing to students environmental citizenship | Hadjichambi et al. (2023) | Systematic review | NA | 1—This is a systematic review |
The Guardian Professions Program: Developing an advanced degree mentoring program for California's foster care alumni | Sensiper & Barragan (2017) | The manuscript describes an intervention that supported former foster youth in being accepted into graduate school | 74 undergraduate students and other young adults | 2—The method, Participant Action Research, was described as “akin to” PAR. Participants provided data, but did not participate as co-researchers |
Stories, objects,iInterfaces: Digital technology and cultural heritage among the young | Fakin Bajec et al. (2021) | This study investigated digital tools that could support cultural heritage challenges. Children provided feedback on apps and websites | Children (ages and number not specified) | 1—The manuscript focused on evaluating digital tools 2—The study did not take a PAR approach |
Use of a digital storytelling workshop to foster development of intergenerational relationships and preserve culture with the Nak'azdli First Nation: Findings from the Nak'azdli Lha'hutit'en Project | Freeman et al. (2020) | Elementary school | 31 upper elementary school children (ages not specified) 13 elders | Met all criteria |
Community as locus for health formal and non-formal education: The significance of ecological and collaborative research for promoting health literacy | Pais et al. (2014) | This is a comparative investigation of two separate research studies | Two research studies | 1—The manuscript uses a case study only as a comparative example |
Sustainability communication through bio-based experiential learning | Arief et al. (2022) | In this educational intervention, children attended workshops and then designed and presented projects | 74 children ages 9–11 | 3—Children created projects, but did not participate as co-researchers |
Editorial: The European Year of Cultural Heritage 2018. A Laboratory for Heritage-Based Innovation | Schiacchitano (2019) | This editorial presents an informational essay rather than a research study | NA | 1—This manuscript is an informational essay |
Using the quality circle approach to empower disadvantaged youth in addressing cyberbullying: An exploration across five European countries | Hamilton et al. (2020) | This multifaceted project primarily gathered data from participants | Phase 1: 2,637 youth aged 14–16 Phase 2: Participants created and shared projects | 3—Youth contributed feedback and prepared projects, but did not participate in the research |
"Not present in our ranks": Exploring equitable representation in student voice efforts for policy change | Holquist et al. (2021) | This study was a qualitative secondary analysis of two previous studies | Adolescents participated in each study | 2—Participants did not participate as co-researchers |
Mobile storytelling and informal education in a suburban area: A qualitative study on the potential of digital narratives for young second-generation immigrants | Ranieri and Bruni (2013) | This intervention was described by authors as an action research study | Fifteen youth aged 11–15 | 3—The action research method focused on an intervention rather than on participatory research |
Inconsistent condom use among Ugandan university students from a gender perspective: A cross-sectional study | Mehra et al. (2014) | This research involved a survey of participants | 1,954 college students | 1—This was a large-scale study rather than a case study 2—No participatory methods were involved 4—Technology was only used for completing the survey |
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Cockerham, D. Participatory action research: building understanding, dialogue, and positive actions in a changing digital environment. Education Tech Research Dev 72, 2763–2791 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10294-1
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10294-1