Practicing What We Preach: The Possibilities of Participatory Action Research With Faith‐based Organizations

Abstract

This article examines the role and methodologies of the anthropologist as practitioner working in faith‐based development initiatives. In particular, the author discusses attempts to use a participatory action research (PAR) model to examine the current programs, congregational participation, and future community development activities of Saint Andrew African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church. The article examines how the FBO's traditional model of community development interfaced with the university research team's participatory approach and shaped the way that research was carried out. Additionally, the author discusses the varying ways that she, as an anthropologist, and her methods were positioned and the process of negotiating a mutually acceptable methodology. This FBO‐university partnership revealed several key issues that have relevance for anthropologists engaged in work with FBOs and beyond. First, the model of faith‐based community development shapes the possibilities of the work. Second, it shows how the anthropologist, and university partners more generally, are positioned by the organization, informs how and by whom the data is collected, what data is collected, and how it is used. Finally, there is no longer room for anthropologists to work alone; community issues and agency demands are complex and require interdisciplinary collaborative responses.

Community, commons, and degrowth at Dancing Rabbit Ecovillage

“…Ecological footprint tools continue to evolve but in their early incarnations there were so many assumptions built into the measures that it was impossible to accurately reflect the behaviors and lifestyles of people in a place like DR. As our research project evolves, and as ecological footprinting tools become more nuanced, we are considering employing the tool in this project. For now, our data collection and analysis decidedly don't reflect the ecological footprint of DR. 7 See Chambers (1997), Ervin (2000), Lambert-Pennington (2010) and LeCompte and Schensul (2010). communicate with the public about their work, while also opening windows on how communities and economies are being reconstructed as people seek greater justice, sustainability, and fulfillment in the world.…”

Shifting Subjectivities and Shifting Teaching: Participatory Action Research in Prison

“…This process involved both individual and group brainstorming of questions and multiple rounds of revision, leading to the addition and exclusion of questions. Inherent within these negotiations of the interview protocols were the varying, and often competing, agendas and interests, which research team members brought to the study (Lambert‐Pennington 2010; Moreno‐Black and Homchampa 2008). In the end, we developed similar but distinct protocols for students, instructors, and volunteers, recognizing the unique experiences of each of these roles in LP.…”

Participatory Action Research in Education: Benefits and Tensions Across Contexts

“…However, Ayala cautions that PAR is not a "miracle drug that cures or even tries to erase the deepest of society's wounds" (2009,82). The impacts of PAR research can often be uneven as contexts, participants, and larger societal influences contribute to shaping what change is and is not possible (Ayala 2009;Cammarota and Romero 2009;Fine et al 2010;Lambert-Pennington 2010). Ideas concerning what is "action" run throughout each of the studies presented here as each study discusses the impacts for the community, but also shifts attention toward how the community collaborators were also impacted through participating in PAR.…”