Advertisement

Participatory Action Research in Pharmacy Practice

  • Hazel BradleyEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Participatory action research is part of a broad family of approaches and includes as its distinctive features action, reflection and partnership. In participatory action research, knowledge is created in the interplay between research and practice, thus requiring researchers to work with practitioners as active researchers and agents of change through iterative cycles of action and reflection. The purpose of participatory action research is to understand and effect change through generating new learning and knowledge whilst empowering participants. The approach facilitates in-depth understanding of issues in complex settings, which is perhaps not possible with narrower, traditional research approaches. Participatory action research's emergent nature is particularly suited to research in changing circumstances, such as professional development of pharmacists or developing pharmacy services in new settings.

This chapter describes the key features of the participatory action research approach, describes innovative participatory processes and methods and discusses critical issues of the approach including ethical concerns, quality and generalisability. The benefits and challenges and application of participatory action research are highlighted. Finally, I illustrate the application of the participatory action research approach through my own experience of conducting a case study to identify roles and competencies of district and sub-district pharmacists in Cape Town.

Keywords

Participatory action research Action Reflection Participation Emergence Quality Pharmacy practice 

References

  1. Baum F, MacDougall C, Smith D (2006) Participatory action research. J Epidemiol Community Health 60(10):854–857. doi: 10.1136/jech.2004.028662 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bless C, Higson-Smith C (2004) Fundamentals of social research methods: an African perspective, vol 3. Juta, Cape TownGoogle Scholar
  3. Boud D, Keogh R, Walker D (1985) Reflection: turning experience into learning. Kogan Page, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Bradley HA (2013) Roles and competencies of district pharmacists: a case study from Cape Town. University of the Western Cape. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11394/3255
  5. Calnan M, Rowe R (2006) Researching trust relations in health care: conceptual and methodological challenges–an introduction. J Health Organ Manag 20(5):349–358CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Davis E, Chandler C, Innocent S, Kalumuna C, Terlouw D et al (2012) Designing adverse event forms for real-world reporting: participatory research in Uganda. PLoS One 7(3):e32704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Koning K, Martin M (1996) Participatory research in health: issues and experiences. Zen Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Dick B, Stringer E, Huxham C (2009) Final reflections, unanswered questions. Action Res 7(1):117–120. doi: 10.1177/1476750308099601 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gilson L (2012) Health policy and systems research: a methodology reader. WHO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  10. Greenwood D, Levin M (1999) Introduction to action research: social research for change. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Herr K, Anderson G (2005) The action research dissertation: a guide for students and faculty. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  12. Huang HB (2010) What is good action research. Action Res 8(1):93–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Iles V, Sutherland K (2001) Organisational change: a review for health care managers, professionals and researchers. Service Delivery and Organisation Research and Development Programme, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Khresheh R, Barclay L (2007) Practice-research engagement. Action Res 5(2):123–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Laws S, Harper C, Marcus R (2003) Research for development: a practical guide. SAGE, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Loewenson R, Flores W, Shukla A, Kagis M, Baba A, Ryklief A, Mbwili-Muleya C, Kakde D (2011) Raising the profile of participatory action research at the 2010 global symposium on health systems research. MEDICC Rev 13(3):35–38, Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rzh&AN=2011218020&site=ehost-live CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Loewenson R, Laurell AC, Hogstedt C, D’Ambruoso L, Shroff Z (2014) Participatory action research in health systems: a methods reader. EQUINET, Harare, p 336Google Scholar
  18. Mann K, Gordon J, MacLeod A (2009) Reflection and reflective practice in health professions education: a systematic review. Adv Health Sci Educ 14(4):595–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Marti J, Villasante T (2009) Quality in action research: reflections for second-order inquiry. Syst Pract Action Res 22(5):383–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McNiff J, Whitehead J (2010) Doing and writing action research. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Meyer J, Pope C, Mays N (2000) Using qualitative methods in health related action research. Br Med J 320(7228):178–181, Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=2895217&site=ehost-live CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Minkler M, Wallerstein N (eds) (2003) Community based participatory research for health. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CAGoogle Scholar
  23. Reason P (2006) Choice and quality in action research practice. J Manag Inq 15(2):187–203, Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=21000778&site=ehost-live Google Scholar
  24. Reason P, Bradbury H (2008) Concluding reflections: whither action research? In: Reason P, Bradbury H (eds) The SAGE handbook of action research, 2nd edn. SAGE, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Reed MS (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol Conserv 141(10):2417–2431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schon D (1983) The reflective practitioner. Basic Books, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  27. Tanna N, Pitkin J, Anderson C (2005) Development of the specialist menopause pharmacist (SMP) role within a research framework. Pharm World Sci 27(1):61–67CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Viswanathan M, Ammerman A, Eng E (2004) Community-based participatory research: assessing the evidence report/technology assessment no 99. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MDGoogle Scholar
  29. Waterman H, Tillen D, Dickson R, de Koning K (2001) Action research: a systematic review and guidance for assessment. Health Technol Assess 5(23)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Public HealthUniversity of the Western CapeBellvilleSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations