Adaptive Methods

  • Leandro Luiz Giatti


Methodological features and a “menu” of tools are explored concerning the cyclical and adaptive approach of participatory research, which relates to understanding structural peculiarities and possibilities. Shedding light on an ongoing process with a myriad of outcomes and feedbacks, the combining of consecutive participatory tools, or the execution of research by collaboration with nonacademic, grow successively, strengthening dialogical interactions, empowerment, and social learning. This text also remarks possibilities to go beyond the dogmatic concern on replicability, typical of conventional scientific approaches. Accordingly, it opens an opportunity to integrate uncertainties in the process of interaction among different social actors, as well as the evolving intersubjectivity enables a worth and distinct production of qualitative information and a distinct sort of meta-information. Participatory research processes are interpreted as systems of interactions with self-organizing capabilities, represented by procedures and dynamics, which perform products inherent to the evolution of integrated actions and interactions.


Adaptive approach Participatory research Participatory methods Dialogical process Meta-information Intersubjectivity 


  1. Akerlof, K., DeBono, R., Berry, P., et al. (2010). Public perceptions of climate change as a human health risk: Surveys of the United States, Canada and Malta. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 7, 2559–2606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Avenier, M.-J., Nourry, L., & Sweeney, M. (1999). Sciences of the artificial and knowledge production: The crucial role of intervention research in management sciences. Design Issues, 15, 55–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baum, F. E. (2016). Power and glory: Applying participatory action research in public health. Gaceta Sanitaria, 30, 405–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brydon-Miller, M., Greenwood, D., & Maguire, P. (2003). Why action research? London: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cargo, M., & Mercer, S. L. (2008). The value and challenges of participatory research: Strengthening its practice. Annual Review of Public Health, 29, 325–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. de Carvalho, C. M., & Giatti, L. L. (2018). Participatory GIS for urban sustainability and resilience: A perspective of social learning and ecology of knowledge. In Lifelong learning and education in healthy and sustainable cities (pp. 21–34). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Faridah Aini, M., Elias, M., Lamers, H., et al. (2017). Evaluating the usefulness and ease of use of participatory tools for forestry and livelihoods research in Sarawak, Malaysia. Forests, Trees and Livelihoods, 26, 29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Findholt, N. E., Michael, Y. L., & Davis, M. M. (2011). Photovoice engages rural youth in childhood obesity prevention. Public Health Nursing, 28, 186–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fouché, C., & Light, G. (2011). An invitation to dialogue: ‘The world Café’ in social work research. Qualitative Social Work, 10, 28–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th anniversary ed.) (M. B. Ramos, Trans., D. Macedo, Intro.) New York City: The Continuum International Publishing Group Inc.Google Scholar
  11. Freire, A. M. A. (2018). Paulo Freire: uma história de vida. Editora Paz e Terra.Google Scholar
  12. Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25, 739–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gibbons, M. (1999). Science’s new social contract with society. Nature, 402, C81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gondim, S. M. G. (2002). Grupos focais como técnica de investigação qualitativa: desafios metodológicos. Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto), 12, 149–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Higgins, M. (1999). Meta-information, and time: Factors in human decision making. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50, 132–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kahila-Tani, M., Broberg, A., Kyttä, M., & Tyger, T. (2016). Let the citizens map—Public participation GIS as a planning support system in the Helsinki master plan process. Planning Practice & Research, 31, 195–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kastelic, S. L., Wallerstein, N., Duran, B., & Oetzel, J. G. (2017). Socio-ecologic framework for CBPR. In Community-based participatory research for health: Advancing social and health equity (p. 77).Google Scholar
  18. Klinke, A., & Renn, O. (2012). Adaptive and integrative governance on risk and uncertainty. Journal of Risk Research, 15, 273–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2, 34–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: II. Channels of group life; social planning and action research. Human Relations, 1, 143–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. List, D. (2006). Action research cycles for multiple futures perspectives. Futures, 38, 673–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lynam, T., De Jong, W., Sheil, D., et al. (2007). A review of tools for incorporating community knowledge, preferences, and values into decision making in natural resources management. Ecology and Society, 12(1), 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Maturana, H.R., Varela, F.J., (1992). The tree of knowledge (rev. ed.). Boston: Shambala.Google Scholar
  24. Mayoux, L. (2001). Participatory methods. EDIAIS Application Guidance Note.Google Scholar
  25. Michener, W. K. (2006). Meta-information concepts for ecological data management. Ecological Informatics, 1, 3–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moura, A. F., & Lima, M. G. (2014). A Reinvenção da Roda: Roda de Conversa, um instrumento metodológico possível. Revista Temas em Educação, 23, 95–103.Google Scholar
  27. Oettle, N., Koelle, B., Law, S., et al. (2014). Participatory adaptation handbook: A practitioner’s guide for facilitating people centered adaptation. Cape Town, South Africa: Indigo Development & Change.Google Scholar
  28. Pfautz, J., Roth, E., Bisantz, A., et al. (2006). The role of meta-information in C2 decision-support systems. Cambridge, MA: Charles River Analytics.Google Scholar
  29. Rabiee, F. (2004). Focus-group interview and data analysis. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 63, 655–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ravetz, J. (2004). The post-normal science of precaution. Futures, 36, 347–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sampaio, J., Santos, G. C., Agostini, M., & Salvador, A. d. S. (2014). Limites e potencialidades das rodas de conversa no cuidado em saúde: uma experiência com jovens no sertão pernambucano. Interface-Comunicação, Saúde, Educação, 18, 1299–1311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. San Sebastián, M., & Hurtig, A. K. (2005). Oil development and health in the Amazon basin of Ecuador: The popular epidemiology process. Social Science & Medicine, 60, 799–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sardar, Z. (2010). Welcome to postnormal times. Futures, 42, 435–444. Scholar
  34. Sardar, Z. (2015). Postnormal times revisited. Futures, 67, 26–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Serrao-Neumann, S., Di Giulio, G. M., Ferreira, L. C., & Choy, D. L. (2013). Climate change adaptation: Is there a role for intervention research? Futures, 53, 86–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tanaka, L. H., & Santana, C. L. A. (2018). Grupo focal como importante ferramenta de pesquisa participativa em saúde. In R. F. de Toledo et al. (Eds.), Pesquisa Participativa em Saúde: Vertentes e Veredas. São Paulo: Instituto de Saúde.Google Scholar
  37. Thiollent, M. (2011). Metodologia da Pesquisa-Ação (18th ed.). São Paulo: Cortez.Google Scholar
  38. Toledo, R. F., & Giatti, L. L. (2014). Challenges to participation in action research. Health Promotion International, 30, 162–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Toledo, R., & Pelicioni, M. (2009). A educação ambiental e a construção de mapas-falantes em processo de pesquisa-ação em comunidade indígena na Amazônia. Revista Interacções, 5, 193–213.Google Scholar
  40. Toledo, R. F. d., Giatti, L. L., & Pelicioni, M. C. F. (2012). Social mobilization in health and sanitation in an action research process in an indigenous community in northwestern amazon. Saúde e Sociedade, 21, 206–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Trajber, R., Walker, C., Marchezini, V., et al. (2019). Promoting climate change transformation with young people in Brazil: Participatory action research through a looping approach. Action Research, 17, 87–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wallerstein, N., Duran, B., Minkler, M., & Oetzel, J. G. (2017a). Community-based participatory research for health: Advancing social and health equity. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  43. Wallerstein, N., Giatti, L. L., Bógus, C. M., et al. (2017b). Shared participatory research principles and methodologies: Perspectives from the USA and Brazil—45 years after Paulo Freire’s “pedagogy of the oppressed”. Societies, 7, 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wildemeersch, D. (2007). Social learning revisited: Lessons learned from north and south. In Social learning towards a more sustainable world (pp. 99–116).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leandro Luiz Giatti
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Public HealthUniversity of São PauloSão PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations