Date: Wed, 5 Jul 1995 10:40:18 -0500 From: gary.chapman@mail.utexas.edu (Gary Chapman) Subject: Participatory Action Research PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH: TRADITIONS AND MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS David Deshler and Merrill Ewert Cornell University DEFINITIONS The term "participatory action research" is an umbrella term that includes several traditions of theory and practice. Definitions vary according to traditions and users (Brown, 1993; Selener, 1992). Other terms, including participatory research, action research, praxis research, participatory inquiry, collaborative inquiry, action inquiry, and cooperative inquiry, are also used in the literature (Whyte, 1991). This article will provide a brief overview of a few of the traditions, a summary of what they have in common, and their relevance to community and rural development. The term "participation" represents a democratization thrust in research, especially in social science practice, that recognizes the value of including practitioners, community members, citizens, employees, and volunteers as essential to the generation of useful knowledge regarding major social, political, economic, technical, cultural, and organizational problems. The term "action" indicates that the research is intended to contribute directly to change efforts on the part of participants in specific situations. The term "research" indicates a systematic effort to generate knowledge. It could include historical literary, as well as scientific forms. However, the major thrust is not primarily to create generalizable knowledge or "basic" research that is unattached to particular circumstances, but to focus the knowledge generation on specific desired changes in a specific, often unique, situation. Although there are variations, participatory action research (PAR) is defined as a process of systematic inquiry, in which those who are experiencing a problematic situation in a community or workplace participate collaboratively with trained researchers as subjects, in deciding the focus of knowledge generation, in collecting and analyzing information, and in taking action to manage, improve, or solve their problem situation. TRADITIONS At least five fields of practice or traditions have made contributions to participatory action research approaches: (1) action research in organizations; (2) participatory research in community development; (3) action research in schools; (4) farmer participatory research and technology generation; and (5) participatory evaluation. PAR also has been used in conjunction with architecture and community planning, landscape ecology design, and environmental and land use planning (Saegert, 1993; Schneekloth, 1993; Shibley, 1993), and in building communication linkages. Although the latter are important, this paper will focus only on the first five traditions. Each of these will be briefly described in turn. Action research in Organizations: Action research was originally used by John Collier to improve race relations at the community level when he was the Commissioner of Indian Affairs during the Roosevelt Administration from 1933 to 1945. Collier found that to act effectively in the area of race relations involved a very complex process that required a joint effort by researchers, practitioners, and people at the community level. As early as 1933, the Soil Conservation Service used action research in its work with Navajo Indian communities. In 1946, Kurt Lewin suggested learning about social systems by trying to change them. He proposed iterative cycles of fact finding, analysis, conceptualization, planning, implementation, and evaluation to simultaneously solve problems and generate new knowledge (Brown, 1983; Lewin, 1946; Marrow, 1969). Lewin used action research in his studies on authoritarian, democratic, and leaderless groups; in studies of food habits in a community; and in efforts to reduce prejudice and discrimination problems suffered by minority groups in communities. Lewin founded the Committee on Community Interrelations for the American Jewish Congress, and the Center for the Study of Group Dynamics at MIT, which later moved to the University of Michigan. Elton Mayo (1933) and William Foot Whyte (1964) also were among the early proponents of action research. They both came from the field of applied anthropology. Mayo worked in the Hawthorne Plant of the Western Electric Company. Whyte addressed many community and organization issues with action research, including management labor relations with the "Tremont Hotel" and a number of other organizations. Action research is extensively used in the field of organizational behavior and organizational development in industry and business organizations by management embracing human resource theories, specifically associated with the socio-technical systems perspective that has focused on the fit between technical and social systems. The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in London and the Work Research Institute in Oslo are some of the organizations that have done extensive work in studying and promoting action research. Many techniques for engaging members of organizations and groups in collectively identifying concerns and problems have been developed including the "search conference" process that has been used to focus commitment leading to action research. The underlying assumptions of action research include: (l) systems theory in organizations; (2) humanistic values and the development of human potential; and (3) democratic decision making. Its philosophical roots are in Aristotelian praxis, hermeneutics, existentialism, pragmatism, and phenomenology. Among the major authors representing this tradition are: Clayton Alderfer, Chris Argyris, David Brown, Peter Clark, Davydd Greenwood, Bjorn Gustavsen, Elliot Jaques, Ken Reardon, Peter Reason, Einer Thorsrud, and William Foot Whyte. Participatory Research in Community Development: This tradition, with its roots in Latin America, was strongly influenced by concepts such as critical thinking, critical consciousness, conscientization, and empowerment by Paulo Freire in the late 1960s (Selener, 1992, p. 4). Similar approaches to research emerged and evolved, sometimes independently, in Africa and Asia in the 1970s and led to the establishment of the International Participatory Research Network of the International Council of Adult Education (Hall, 1979). It has been considered a process of combining education, research, and collective action on the part of oppressed groups working with popular educators, and community organizers. The knowledge that is generated is intended to help solve practical problems within a community and, ultimately, contribute to a fairer and more just society. Its primary purpose is to encourage the poor and oppressed and those who work with them to generate and control their own knowledge. It assumes that knowledge generates power and that people's knowledge is central to social change. Therefore, it promotes a collective process of inquiry, as opposed to the individualistic nature of classical research methodology. This tradition emphasizes full and active participation of powerless people, and a stress on ideological, political, and economic dimensions. Participatory researchers view society and social change from a radical structural perspective embracing a conflict rather than an equilibrium perspective on behalf of those who are socially and economically marginalized. The philosophical origins of participatory research can be traced to the tradition of pragmatism, idealism, and the democratic dialectical unification of theory and practice. Authors that represent the participatory research literature are: Orlando Fals Borda, Marcela Gajardo, Budd Hall, Yussuf Kassam, Patricia Maguire, Keimal Mustafa, Rajesh Tandon, and Francisco Vio Grossi. Action Research in Schools: The origins of this tradition can be traced to Buckingham (1926) who questioned the assumption that if traditional educational researchers reported their findings to practitioners, the latter will modify their practices to make them conform to the newly discovered research findings. He claimed that there was evidence to discount the effectiveness of transferring research findings into practical actions. The main thesis behind this approach is that educational practitioners are likely to make better decisions and engage in more effective practices if they are participants in their own research activities. It has been used mainly in school-based curriculum development, teachers' in-service education or professional development, and projects to improve a school or school systems. It also has been used by parents to work together to improve school educational practices and administration. Kemmis (1982) credits Dewey (1929) with advocating that teachers should control the educational research agenda and participate in conducting inquiry to test the worth of educational knowledge. Stephen Corey (1953), from the Teachers' College at Columbia University, also was an early advocate of action research in schools. However, during the 1950s and 1960s, interest in action research declined in U.S. schools due to methodological attacks and the infusion of federal funding for externally controlled research on a large scale without much attention to dissemination of findings. Action research in schools reemerged in the 1970s in England during the teacher-as-researcher movement that was characterized by school-based curriculum reforms. This movement was a reaction to measurable learning outcomes, and it emphasized the importance of process values as a basis for designing the curriculum. Action research is consistent with the view that practice should be reflective (Elliot, 1991). Since the 1980s, action research practice in schools has been reintroduced in Australia and in the United States (Kemmis, 1989; McTaggart & Garbutcheon-Singh, 1986). Since the 1970s, action research has been practiced as central to organizational development activities to improve higher education. One form of organizational development was introduced to many campuses by the Society for Values in Higher Education as the "values audit" approach (Smith, 1985). Underlying assumptions of action research in schools include: (1) action research will improve practice through scientific problem solving; (2) teachers and other educational practitioners are central to the research process; (3) the research follows a flexible and inductive process; (4) theory and practice can be linked through action research; (5) the process requires the link between reflection and action; (6) the research is focused on a single unique situation; and (7) methods are eclectic and innovative to specific situations. Some major authors identified with action research in schools are: Wilfred Carr, Stephen Corey, Michelle Fine, Stephen Kemmis, Robert McTaggart, Abraham Shumsky, Hilda Taba, and Richard Winter. Farmer Participatory Research: Farmer participatory research is also known as "participatory technology development." This approach was developed gradually, mainly by agriculture researchers and other international rural development workers as an alternative to the traditional "transfer of technology" or "top-down" approach to agricultural research and extension. It emerged from farming systems research and emphasizes the participation of farmers in technology generation, testing, and evaluation to increase or promote sustainable agricultural production and natural resource management (Selener, 1992). Another form within this tradition is "participatory rural appraisal," a process that involves villagers in a situation analysis (Chambers, 1992) that can lead to further participatory documentation of local knowledge and agricultural and natural research management experiments. The acknowledgement of the value and importance of indigenous or local knowledge accompanied the formulation of participatory technology generation. Major assumptions include: (1) an emphasis on farmers' indigenous knowledge; (2) farmer capacity for experimentation; and (3) appreciation of interdisciplinary collaboration between researchers and farmers. Major authors associated with this tradition include: Jacqueline Ashby, S. Biggs, Roland Bunch, Robert Chambers, John Farrington, Janice Jiggins, Clive Lightfoot, and R. Rhoades. Participatory Evaluation: This tradition within the practice of evaluation research has been influenced by the participatory research tradition of Freire as well as the action research tradition of Lewin. It emerged in response to concerns that program evaluations were being under-utilized and that participation on the part of stakeholders could increase their use (Patton, 1978). Reflection on the relationship of program evaluation practice to serving the public's interest led to participatory evaluation that could serve democratic ideals of social justice and equity (Brunner & Guzman, 1988; House, 1978; MacDonald, 1977; Patton, 1978; Scriven, 1972). A similar recognition occurred in the evaluation of international programs of community health, rural development, literacy, agriculture, and natural resource management that involving people who are on the receiving end of development in evaluation is likely to assure the most efficient allocation of scarce resources and the early identification of ineffective or wasteful use of those resources. This tradition emphasizes that people on the receiving end are ultimately the best judges of whether or not benefits have been produced (Uphoff, 1989, 1992). Among the major authors representing this tradition are: Jennifer Greene, Ernest House, Michael Patton, Michael Scriven, and Norman Uphoff. MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS OF PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH The following assumptions are drawn from the various traditions of PAR: Common Values: Values underlying PAR research include: (1) the democratization of knowledge production and use; (2) ethical fairness in the benefits of the knowledge generation process; (3) an ecological stance toward society and nature; (4) appreciation of the capacity of humans to reflect, learn, and change; and (5) a commitment to nonviolent social change. Ownership: The community's interests are identified and defined as a starting point rather than beginning with the interests of external researchers. Impetus for inquiry may come from a variety of sources, including external persons or groups. However, the community's ownership of the focus of research is central. It is assumed that the participating community in the research has experience and knowledge that is relevant to the issue. Commitment to Action: The research process is aligned with potential for community action and reflects a commitment by researchers and community participants to individual, social, technical, or cultural actions consequent to the learning acquired through research. The use of the findings and their implications for action should be explicit and evident. Participants' Role: Community participants engage in all stages of the research process (decision to do research, identification of the research focus, selection of methods, implementation of inquiry, analysis, interpretation, synthesis, verification of conclusions, and decisions to take action). Attention is given to reduce barriers to participation, especially for those who have been excluded or under-represented in the past. External Researcher Role: The formally trained researcher stands with and alongside the community, not outside as an objective observer or external consultant. The researcher contributes expertise when needed as a participant in the process. Community participants contribute their physical and/or intellectual resources to the research process. The Scope of the Research: The scope of the research is holistic. It encompasses a combination of technological, political, social, and economic aspects as well as relationships between the local and the external. Multiple perspectives and sources of knowledge are valued. Learning about Research: The research process allows and encourages the community to learn about research methods and knowledge generation so that further inquiry can be undertaken without dependency upon external research expertise. Procedures for appraising and reflecting on experiences during the research process contribute to the quality and relevance of the findings as well as to learning about the research process itself. Research Methods: The research process allows for flexibility or change in research methods and focus, as necessary. Methods are selected for their appropriateness to issues and types of data that serve learning and action purposes. Benefits: Research outcomes are intended to benefit the community. Risks are acknowledged and shared among trained researchers and the community. Resolution of Differences: Differences between researchers and community From gary.chapman@mail.utexas.edu Wed Jul 5 09:00:10 1995 Return-Path: Received: from mail.utexas.edu by mail4.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom) id JAA18982; Wed, 5 Jul 1995 09:00:06 -0700 Received: from [128.83.226.158] (21cp.lbj.utexas.edu [128.83.226.158]) by mail.utexas.edu (8.6.9/8.6.6) with SMTP id KAA24355; Wed, 5 Jul 1995 10:40:18 -0500 Date: Wed, 5 Jul 1995 10:40:18 -0500 Message-Id: <199507051540.KAA24355@mail.utexas.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: sylviac@netcom.com, mberger@cts.com, jtifft@aed.org, cyd@ix.netcom.com, RHackett@Bonner.org, billp@kaiwan.comxpymp@whx.whyalla.unisa.edu.au, gsa1001@cus.cam.ac.uk, palacios@ufba.br, jashmore@genesee.freenet.org, p+t@awaken.com, naylor@wcc.govt.nz, dwilcox@pavilion.co.uk, zmoon@intellinet.com, rose@Informatik.Uni-Bremen.DE, P.Day@bton.ac.uk, memery@lcsc.edu, nonprofit@teleport.com, P.G.Davis@open.ac.uk, Blochvt@aol.com, robertr@shadow.net From: gary.chapman@mail.utexas.edu (Gary Chapman) Subject: Participatory Action Research Status: RO PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH: TRADITIONS AND MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS David Deshler and Merrill Ewert Cornell University DEFINITIONS The term "participatory action research" is an umbrella term that includes several traditions of theory and practice. Definitions vary according to traditions and users (Brown, 1993; Selener, 1992). Other terms, including participatory research, action research, praxis research, participatory inquiry, collaborative inquiry, action inquiry, and cooperative inquiry, are also used in the literature (Whyte, 1991). This article will provide a brief overview of a few of the traditions, a summary of what they have in common, and their relevance to community and rural development. The term "participation" represents a democratization thrust in research, especially in social science practice, that recognizes the value of including practitioners, community members, citizens, employees, and volunteers as essential to the generation of useful knowledge regarding major social, political, economic, technical, cultural, and organizational problems. The term "action" indicates that the research is intended to contribute directly to change efforts on the part of participants in specific situations. The term "research" indicates a systematic effort to generate knowledge. It could include historical literary, as well as scientific forms. However, the major thrust is not primarily to create generalizable knowledge or "basic" research that is unattached to particular circumstances, but to focus the knowledge generation on specific desired changes in a specific, often unique, situation. Although there are variations, participatory action research (PAR) is defined as a process of systematic inquiry, in which those who are experiencing a problematic situation in a community or workplace participate collaboratively with trained researchers as subjects, in deciding the focus of knowledge generation, in collecting and analyzing information, and in taking action to manage, improve, or solve their problem situation. TRADITIONS At least five fields of practice or traditions have made contributions to participatory action research approaches: (1) action research in organizations; (2) participatory research in community development; (3) action research in schools; (4) farmer participatory research and technology generation; and (5) participatory evaluation. PAR also has been used in conjunction with architecture and community planning, landscape ecology design, and environmental and land use planning (Saegert, 1993; Schneekloth, 1993; Shibley, 1993), and in building communication linkages. Although the latter are important, this paper will focus only on the first five traditions. Each of these will be briefly described in turn. Action research in Organizations: Action research was originally used by John Collier to improve race relations at the community level when he was the Commissioner of Indian Affairs during the Roosevelt Administration from 1933 to 1945. Collier found that to act effectively in the area of race relations involved a very complex process that required a joint effort by researchers, practitioners, and people at the community level. As early as 1933, the Soil Conservation Service used action research in its work with Navajo Indian communities. In 1946, Kurt Lewin suggested learning about social systems by trying to change them. He proposed iterative cycles of fact finding, analysis, conceptualization, planning, implementation, and evaluation to simultaneously solve problems and generate new knowledge (Brown, 1983; Lewin, 1946; Marrow, 1969). Lewin used action research in his studies on authoritarian, democratic, and leaderless groups; in studies of food habits in a community; and in efforts to reduce prejudice and discrimination problems suffered by minority groups in communities. Lewin founded the Committee on Community Interrelations for the American Jewish Congress, and the Center for the Study of Group Dynamics at MIT, which later moved to the University of Michigan. Elton Mayo (1933) and William Foot Whyte (1964) also were among the early proponents of action research. They both came from the field of applied anthropology. Mayo worked in the Hawthorne Plant of the Western Electric Company. Whyte addressed many community and organization issues with action research, including management labor relations with the "Tremont Hotel" and a number of other organizations. Action research is extensively used in the field of organizational behavior and organizational development in industry and business organizations by management embracing human resource theories, specifically associated with the socio-technical systems perspective that has focused on the fit between technical and social systems. The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in London and the Work Research Institute in Oslo are some of the organizations that have done extensive work in studying and promoting action research. Many techniques for engaging members of organizations and groups in collectively identifying concerns and problems have been developed including the "search conference" process that has been used to focus commitment leading to action research. The underlying assumptions of action research include: (l) systems theory in organizations; (2) humanistic values and the development of human potential; and (3) democratic decision making. Its philosophical roots are in Aristotelian praxis, hermeneutics, existentialism, pragmatism, and phenomenology. Among the major authors representing this tradition are: Clayton Alderfer, Chris Argyris, David Brown, Peter Clark, Davydd Greenwood, Bjorn Gustavsen, Elliot Jaques, Ken Reardon, Peter Reason, Einer Thorsrud, and William Foot Whyte. Participatory Research in Community Development: This tradition, with its roots in Latin America, was strongly influenced by concepts such as critical thinking, critical consciousness, conscientization, and empowerment by Paulo Freire in the late 1960s (Selener, 1992, p. 4). Similar approaches to research emerged and evolved, sometimes independently, in Africa and Asia in the 1970s and led to the establishment of the International Participatory Research Network of the International Council of Adult Education (Hall, 1979). It has been considered a process of combining education, research, and collective action on the part of oppressed groups working with popular educators, and community organizers. The knowledge that is generated is intended to help solve practical problems within a community and, ultimately, contribute to a fairer and more just society. Its primary purpose is to encourage the poor and oppressed and those who work with them to generate and control their own knowledge. It assumes that knowledge generates power and that people's knowledge is central to social change. Therefore, it promotes a collective process of inquiry, as opposed to the individualistic nature of classical research methodology. This tradition emphasizes full and active participation of powerless people, and a stress on ideological, political, and economic dimensions. Participatory researchers view society and social change from a radical structural perspective embracing a conflict rather than an equilibrium perspective on behalf of those who are socially and economically marginalized. The philosophical origins of participatory research can be traced to the tradition of pragmatism, idealism, and the democratic dialectical unification of theory and practice. Authors that represent the participatory research literature are: Orlando Fals Borda, Marcela Gajardo, Budd Hall, Yussuf Kassam, Patricia Maguire, Keimal Mustafa, Rajesh Tandon, and Francisco Vio Grossi. Action Research in Schools: The origins of this tradition can be traced to Buckingham (1926) who questioned the assumption that if traditional educational researchers reported their findings to practitioners, the latter will modify their practices to make them conform to the newly discovered research findings. He claimed that there was evidence to discount the effectiveness of transferring research findings into practical actions. The main thesis behind this approach is that educational practitioners are likely to make better decisions and engage in more effective practices if they are participants in their own research activities. It has been used mainly in school-based curriculum development, teachers' in-service education or professional development, and projects to improve a school or school systems. It also has been used by parents to work together to improve school educational practices and administration. Kemmis (1982) credits Dewey (1929) with advocating that teachers should control the educational research agenda and participate in conducting inquiry to test the worth of educational knowledge. Stephen Corey (1953), from the Teachers' College at Columbia University, also was an early advocate of action research in schools. However, during the 1950s and 1960s, interest in action research declined in U.S. schools due to methodological attacks and the infusion of federal funding for externally controlled research on a large scale without much attention to dissemination of findings. Action research in schools reemerged in the 1970s in England during the teacher-as-researcher movement that was characterized by school-based curriculum reforms. This movement was a reaction to measurable learning outcomes, and it emphasized the importance of process values as a basis for designing the curriculum. Action research is consistent with the view that practice should be reflective (Elliot, 1991). Since the 1980s, action research practice in schools has been reintroduced in Australia and in the United States (Kemmis, 1989; McTaggart & Garbutcheon-Singh, 1986). Since the 1970s, action research has been practiced as central to organizational development activities to improve higher education. One form of organizational development was introduced to many campuses by the Society for Values in Higher Education as the "values audit" approach (Smith, 1985). Underlying assumptions of action research in schools include: (1) action research will improve practice through scientific problem solving; (2) teachers and other educational practitioners are central to the research process; (3) the research follows a flexible and inductive process; (4) theory and practice can be linked through action research; (5) the process requires the link between reflection and action; (6) the research is focused on a single unique situation; and (7) methods are eclectic and innovative to specific situations. Some major authors identified with action research in schools are: Wilfred Carr, Stephen Corey, Michelle Fine, Stephen Kemmis, Robert McTaggart, Abraham Shumsky, Hilda Taba, and Richard Winter. Farmer Participatory Research: Farmer participatory research is also known as "participatory technology development." This approach was developed gradually, mainly by agriculture researchers and other international rural development workers as an alternative to the traditional "transfer of technology" or "top-down" approach to agricultural research and extension. It emerged from farming systems research and emphasizes the participation of farmers in technology generation, testing, and evaluation to increase or promote sustainable agricultural production and natural resource management (Selener, 1992). Another form within this tradition is "participatory rural appraisal," a process that involves villagers in a situation analysis (Chambers, 1992) that can lead to further participatory documentation of local knowledge and agricultural and natural research management experiments. The acknowledgement of the value and importance of indigenous or local knowledge accompanied the formulation of participatory technology generation. Major assumptions include: (1) an emphasis on farmers' indigenous knowledge; (2) farmer capacity for experimentation; and (3) appreciation of interdisciplinary collaboration between researchers and farmers. Major authors associated with this tradition include: Jacqueline Ashby, S. Biggs, Roland Bunch, Robert Chambers, John Farrington, Janice Jiggins, Clive Lightfoot, and R. Rhoades. Participatory Evaluation: This tradition within the practice of evaluation research has been influenced by the participatory research tradition of Freire as well as the action research tradition of Lewin. It emerged in response to concerns that program evaluations were being under-utilized and that participation on the part of stakeholders could increase their use (Patton, 1978). Reflection on the relationship of program evaluation practice to serving the public's interest led to participatory evaluation that could serve democratic ideals of social justice and equity (Brunner & Guzman, 1988; House, 1978; MacDonald, 1977; Patton, 1978; Scriven, 1972). A similar recognition occurred in the evaluation of international programs of community health, rural development, literacy, agriculture, and natural resource management that involving people who are on the receiving end of development in evaluation is likely to assure the most efficient allocation of scarce resources and the early identification of ineffective or wasteful use of those resources. This tradition emphasizes that people on the receiving end are ultimately the best judges of whether or not benefits have been produced (Uphoff, 1989, 1992). Among the major authors representing this tradition are: Jennifer Greene, Ernest House, Michael Patton, Michael Scriven, and Norman Uphoff. MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS OF PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH The following assumptions are drawn from the various traditions of PAR: Common Values: Values underlying PAR research include: (1) the democratization of knowledge production and use; (2) ethical fairness in the benefits of the knowledge generation process; (3) an ecological stance toward society and nature; (4) appreciation of the capacity of humans to reflect, learn, and change; and (5) a commitment to nonviolent social change. Ownership: The community's interests are identified and defined as a starting point rather than beginning with the interests of external researchers. Impetus for inquiry may come from a variety of sources, including external persons or groups. However, the community's ownership of the focus of research is central. It is assumed that the participating community in the research has experience and knowledge that is relevant to the issue. Commitment to Action: The research process is aligned with potential for community action and reflects a commitment by researchers and community participants to individual, social, technical, or cultural actions consequent to the learning acquired through research. The use of the findings and their implications for action should be explicit and evident. Participants' Role: Community participants engage in all stages of the research process (decision to do research, identification of the research focus, selection of methods, implementation of inquiry, analysis, interpretation, synthesis, verification of conclusions, and decisions to take action). Attention is given to reduce barriers to participation, especially for those who have been excluded or under-represented in the past. External Researcher Role: The formally trained researcher stands with and alongside the community, not outside as an objective observer or external consultant. The researcher contributes expertise when needed as a participant in the process. Community participants contribute their physical and/or intellectual resources to the research process. The Scope of the Research: The scope of the research is holistic. It encompasses a combination of technological, political, social, and economic aspects as well as relationships between the local and the external. Multiple perspectives and sources of knowledge are valued. Learning about Research: The research process allows and encourages the community to learn about research methods and knowledge generation so that further inquiry can be undertaken without dependency upon external research expertise. Procedures for appraising and reflecting on experiences during the research process contribute to the quality and relevance of the findings as well as to learning about the research process itself. Research Methods: The research process allows for flexibility or change in research methods and focus, as necessary. Methods are selected for their appropriateness to issues and types of data that serve learning and action purposes. Benefits: Research outcomes are intended to benefit the community. Risks are acknowledged and shared among trained researchers and the community. Resolution of Differences: Differences between researchers and community participants regarding research processes, interpretation of results, ownership of research products, or dissemination of results are to be acknowledged, negotiated at the outset, or resolved through a fair and open process. BIBLIOGRAPHY Alderfer, C. P. (1977). "Organization development."Annual Review of Psychology, 28, 197-223. Argyris, C., and Schon, D. A. (1989). "Participatory action research and action science compared: A commentary." American Behavioral Scientist, 32 5, 512-623. Ashby, J. A. (1991). "Small farmers' participation in the design of technologies." In Altieri, M. A., and Hecht, S. B. (eds.), Agroecology and Small Farm Development (pp. 245-253). Florida: CRC Press. Biggs, S. D. (1989). "Resource-poor farmer participation in research: A synthesis of experiences from nine national agricultural research systems." OFCOR Comparative Study No. 3. The Hague: International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR). Brown, L. David. (1983). "Organizing participatory research: Interfaces for joint inquiry and organizational change." Journal of Occupational Behavior, 4, 4-19. Brown, L. David. (1993). "Becoming a PAR practitioner." In Forester, J., Pitt, J., and Welsh, J. (eds.), Profiles of Participatory Action Researchers. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, Einaudi Center for International Studies, and Department of City and Regional Planning,. Brunner, I., and Guzman, A. (1989). "Participatory evaluation: A tool to assess projects and empower people." In Conner, R. F., and Hendricks, M. (eds.), International Innovations in Evaluation Methodology: New Directions for Evaluation Methodology. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Buckingham, B. R. (1926). Research for Teachers. New York: Burdett and Company. Bunch, R. (1982). Two Ears of Corn. A Guide to People-Centered Agricultural Improvement. Oklahoma City, OK: World Neighbors. Carr, W. (1989). "Action research: Ten years on." Journal of Curriculum Studies, 21,1, 85-90. Chambers, R. (1992). "Relaxed and participatory rural appraisal on practical approaches and methods." Chiang Mai, Thailand: Social Research Institute, Chiang Mai University. Clark, P. (1972). Action Research and Organizational Change. New York: Harper and Row. Corey, S. M. (1953). Action Research to Improve Schools Practices. New York: Columbia University, Teachers College. Dewey, J. (1929). The Sources of a Science of Education. New York: Liverright Publishing Company. Elliot, J. (1991). Action Research for Educational Change. Philadelphia: Open University Press. Emery, F. E., and Thorsrud, E. (1969). Form and Content in Industrial Democracy: Some Experiences from Norway and Other European Countries. London: Tavistock Publications. Fals Borda, O. (1986). "On people's power and participatory research in three Latin American countries." In Levi, Y., and Litwin, H. (eds.), Community and Cooperatives in Participatory Development (pp. 119-124). Hants, UK: Gower Publishing Co. Farrington, J., and Martin, A. (1988). "Farmer participatory research: A review of concepts and recent fieldwork." Agricultural Administration and Extension, 29, 247-264. Fine, M. (1993). "Inquiring institutions: Transformation through critical inquiry." In Forester, J., Pitt, J., and Welsh, J. (eds.), Profiles of Participatory Action Researchers. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, Einaudi Center for International Studies, and Department of City and Regional Planning,. Gajardo, M. "Investigacion participativa en America Latina, Documento de Trabajo # 261." Santiago de Chile: FLACSO. Greenwood, D., and Gonzalez, J. L. (1989). Culturas de Fagor: Estudio Antropologico de las Cooperativeas de Mondragon. Editorial Txertao: Donostia, Esana. Gustavsen, B. (1986). "Evolving patterns of enterprise organisation: The move towards greater flexibility." International Labour Review, 125, 4, 367-382. Hall, B. (1979). "Knowledge as a commodity and participatory research." Prospects: Quarterly Review of Education, 9, 4, 393-408. House, E. R. (1978). "Justice in evaluation." In Glass, G.V. (ed.), Evaluation Studies Review Annual, Vol. 1. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Jaques, E. (1951). The Changing Culture of a Factory. London: Tavistock Publications Ltd. Jiggins, J. (1989). "Farmer participatory research and technology development." Occasional papers in rural extension, No. 5. Guelph, Canada: University of Guelph, Department of Rural Extension Studies. Kassam, Y. (1982). Participatory Research: An Emerging Alternative Methodology in Social Science Research. New Delhi: Society for Participatory Research in Asia. Kemmis, S. (1982). "Action research in retrospect and prospect." In Kemmis, S., and McTaggart, R., The Action Research Planner. Waurn Ponds, Victoria, Australia: Deakin University. Kemmis, S. (1989). "Metatheory and Metapractice in Educational Theorising and Research." Waurn Ponds, Victoria, Australia: Unpublished manuscript, Deakin University. Lewin, K. (1946). "Action research and minority problems." Journal of Social Issues, 2, 34-46. Lightfoot, C., and Minnick, D. R. (1991). "Farmer-first qualitative methods: Farmers' diagrams for improving methods of experimental design in integrated farming systems." Journal for Farming Systems Reseach-Extension, 2, 1, 57-70. Maguire, P. (1987). Doing Participatory Research: A Feminist Approach. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Center for International Education, School of Education. Marrow, A. J. (1969). The Practical Theorist: The Life and Work of Kurt Lewin. New York: Basic Books. Mayo, E. (1933). The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization. New York: Macmillan. McDonald, B., and Walker, R. (1977). "Case study and the social philosophy of educational research." In Hamilton, D., and others (eds), Beyond the Numbers Game. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan. McTaggart, R., and Garbutcheon-Singh, M. (1986). "New directions in action research." Curriculum Perspectives, 6, 2, 42-46. Mustafa, K., and Bryceson, D. (1982). "The concept of development in the social sciences." In Kassam, Y., and Mustafa, K. (eds.), Participatory Research: An Emerging Alternative Methodology in Social Science Research. New Delhi: Society for Participatory Research in Asia. Patton, M. Q. (1978). Utilization Focused Evaluation. Beverly Hills: Sage. Reardon, K. (1993). "PAR and community development practice." In Forester, J., Pitt, J., and Welsh, J. (eds.), Profiles of Participatory Action Researchers. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, Einaudi Center for International Studies, and Department of City and Regional Planning. Reason, P., and Rowan, J. (1981). Human Inquiry: A Sourcebook of New Paradigm Research. Chichester: John Wiley. Rhodes, R. E. (1989). "The role of farmers in the creation of agricultural technology." In Chambers, R., Pacey, A., and Thrupp, L.A. (eds), Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research. London. Intermediate Technology Publications. Saegert, S. (1993). "Amplifying voices: Tenants' associations in New York." In Forester, J., Pitt, J., and Welsh, J. (eds.), Profiles of Participatory Action Researchers. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, Einaudi Center for International Studies and Department of City and Regional Planning. Schneekloth, L. (1993). "Crossing boundaries: Environmental planning across communities." In Forester, J., Pitt, J., and Welsh, J. (eds.), Profiles of Participatory Action Researchers. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Einaudi Center for International Studies, and Department of City and Regional Planning. Scriven, M. (1972). "The pros and cons about goal-free evaluation." Evaluation Comment, 3, 1-7. Selener, D. (1992). Participatory Action Research and Social Change: Approaches and Critique. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. Shibley, R. (1993). "Participatory design in a learning laboratory." In Forester, J., Pitt, J., and Welsh, J. (eds.), Profiles of Participatory Action Researchers. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, Einaudi Center for International Studies, and Department of City and Regional Planning. Shumsky, A. (1958). The Action Research Way of Learning: An Approach to In-Service Education. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University. Smith, D. (1985). "Values audits in higher education." In Deshler, J. D. (ed.), Evaluation for Program Improvement. New Directions for Continuing Education, No. 24. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Taba, H., and Noel, E. (1957). Action Research: A Case Study. Washington, DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Tandon, R. (1993). "PAR and popular knowledge: Creating a different world view." In Forester, J., Pitt, J., and Welsh, J. (eds.), Profiles of Participatory Action Researchers. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, Einaudi Center for International Studies, and Department of City and Regional Planning. Uphoff, N. (1989). "A field methodology for participatory self-evaluation of Peoples Participation Programme Group and Inter-Group Association Performance." Ithaca, NY: Rural Development Committee, Cornell University. Vio Grossi, F., Martinic, S., Tapia, G., and Pascal, I. (1983). Participatory Research: Theoretical Frameworks, Methods, and Techniques. Toronto: International Council of Adult Education. Winter, R. (1987). Action Research and the Nature of Social Inquiry: Professional Innovation and Educational Work. Averbury, England: Aldershot. Whyte, W. F. (1964). Action Research for Management. Homewood, Ill: Irwin-Dorsey. Whyte, W. F. (1991). Participatory Action Research: New Forms of Participation in Industry and Agriculture. New York. DAVID DESHLER 410 KENNEDY HALL DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CORNELL UNIVERSITY ITHACA, NEW YORK, 14853 FAX 607 2557905 PH 607 533 4146