Participatory Action Research: Coproduction, Governance and Care

Abstract

In the wake of recent academic interest in coproduction, engaged research and transdisciplinarity, this article reviews some developments and directions in participatory action research (PAR), mainly within human geography. It examines one response to poststructuralist critiques that PAR either elides power relations or conversely can be equated to tyranny, namely a proposal to view PAR as a form of governance. Spatialising PAR then draws attention to the reach and relational workings of power. Countertopography is discussed as a conceptualisation by which PAR can jump scales to inform theory. Prefiguring the social justice imperative with which it is invested, the potential of practising PAR as an ethics of care is explored. Consideration is given to how PAR's imperative for social change shapes the researcher's responsibilities vis-à-vis representation, political strategy and emotional engagement. Tensions between PAR's social change imperative, the needs of research partners and the institutional constrains of academia are a through-going theme. I conclude that PAR has much to offer research in human geography and, in turn, that work in human geography has provided PAR with spacerelational strategies of engaging with power, which do not preclude emancipatory action.

Prioritizing young people's emotional health support needs via participatory research

“…). Additionally, the study findings came out of participatory research, which adds validity (Mason , Orlowski et al . ).…”

“…Participatory research with young people could play an important role here. Child and youth participation in research is gaining momentum (Mason , Orlowski et al . , D'Amico et al .…”

“…Youth participatory research makes a positive contribution to knowledge (Mill & Ogilvie 2003, Percy-Smith 2010. It can address unhelpful power relations in child and youth services (Mason 2015), enabling an enhanced sense of agency that may also help to build emotional resilience (Hart et al 2007). Thus, the methodology may itself have a role in promoting emotional wellbeing (McAndrew et al 2012).…”

Integrating deliberative monetary valuation, systems modelling and participatory mapping to assess shared values of ecosystem services

“…People may have difficulty understanding the complexity of environmental benefits and may need time to think and deliberate (Alvarez Farizo et al, 2007;Christie et al, 2012;Lienhoop and MacMillan, 2007a;Nunes and van den Bergh, 2001). More fundamentally, the assumption underlying these economic approaches that values are purely individual has been critiqued (Dietz et al, 2009;Kenter et al, 2011;2015;Lo and Spash, 2012;Irvine et al, 2016, in this issue).…”

“…A wide range of deliberative and participatory methods exists that harness shared social processes to engender learning, reflect on and exchange values, consider alternatives, and plan actions (Chambers, 2002;Christie et al, 2012;Fazey et al, 2010;Kallis et al, 2006;Kenter, , 2014aKenter, , 2014bKumar, 2002;Mason, 2015;Reed et al, 2013). Deliberative Monetary Valuation (DMV) has been described as a 'hybrid' analytical-deliberative method (Fish et al, 2011b).…”