Having written at length ecently on this topic in the context of
evaluation for the WHO Working party on evaluation and having
supervised Msc and Phd student undertaking PAR research aswell as doing
it my self in many contexts may I endorse what is said in the paper
concerning the skills and difficulties that are involved in this type
of research. Those working in health as opposed to other research
fileds like management, education and social work  face particular
probelms stemming from medical hegemony in adopting this style or
approach. Also it seems to be more acceptable in a developing country
context than in the western world with strongly established status
quos. PAR has been used widely in development work and there is
excellent book out published by Zed books called Participatory Action
Research by G. Dockery and K. de Konig which includes a wide range of
such studies. PAR is not an easy option because you cannot control
things and scientists like control, but it is as you point out an
approach which takes a more humanistic apporach and empowering approach
to research which allows other voices to be heard. WE should be
grateful to feminist researchers and others who have critiqued
positivist science which takes such a dictatorial and arrogant approach
to the " objects " of research. While much of what is involved in PAR
can really only be learnt from experience, it can be taught to some
extent . We in fact include a large element of action research
approaches in the research methods module of our postraduate programme
in health Promotion, indeed it is the core of the research we teach.
We have done this for the last five years . When we started it was very
marginal to debates on research in health but has moved to central
stage increasingly, I believe because traditional research approaches
are not generating useful answers. PAR is one form of action research
which has a long history in a variety of disciplines, including most
recently computer science, on a continuum from little participation to
one which is lead by the " community " not the research. During the
research cycle one can move to and fro along that continuum and
experience as a researcher many conflicts. It is frimly palced as an
approach in a hermenutic approach to research whee your concern is
meaning and depth rather than control and prediction. The researcher
thus bcomes a facilitator skilled in the art and craft of facilitation
and group work which is of course what we expect of our health
promoters. As academics I feel we have a duty to provide a beacon of
light to those working in this way even if it does mean not conforming
always to the system. If we were into academic power and ambition we
would not be working in the field of health promotion any way. Thos who
have already "made it" academically have additional responsibility to
argue the corner.It is about giving value to an approach which many of
us intuitively feel is the right way forward. Its promotion may (
ideally ) in the long term bring a better balance in the construction
of knowledge. For at the bottom of it all is power and the battleground
as someone has called it ( name escapes me at the momnet ) of knowledge
development.

I realise now I could go on for pages on this topic. If any one is
interested I can send them the paper that will be appearing next year
in a WHO monograph on PAR approaches to evaluation ( which I maintain
is different from research) A colleague : C Leavey and I have also
published a paper on the approach in which we explore this battle
ground idea. It is in a book published by Avebury : N. Bruce et al
(1995) Research and Change in Urban Community Health.

Is this advertising too?


Looking forward to the debate.

Jane Springett
(Reader)
Institute for Health
SChool of Human Sciences
Liverpool John Moores University
15-21 Webster St
Liverpool
L3 2ET
UK
email [log in to unmask]