A reflection on power dynamics and equality in participatory action research

Participatory action research (PAR) has become an increasingly popular methodology, specifically with marginalised and stigmatised groups (Harding 2021; Bowen and Doherty 2014; Connelly and Sanders 2020; Lobo et al. 2021). PAR involves undertaking a collaborative investigation with the populace being researched. Like other participatory research methods, it seeks insights and expertise through experience and situated knowledge. However, as I discuss in this blog, those recruited to the research team because of their situated knowledge may still feel like outsiders.

During the first year of my PhD, I interviewed for a part-time co-researcher position on a project that sought input from those with expertise by experience. The project hired two researchers with situated knowledge to guide the project. From the start, considerable effort was made to make us feel like we were ‘part of the team’. During the study, we were asked to undertake weekly meetings with the primary research team, review interview questions, give feedback on themes and ensure the correct terminology was used. We were paid for our time and offered extra training in CV writing, qualitative data analysis and research methods. However, despite these considerable efforts to make the work environment equal, those recruited for our situated knowledge still felt distinct from the rest of the research team. In short, we felt like outsiders.

This is not a negative, but a reflection of mine upon the reality of the insider and outsider power dynamics. These power dynamics are inherent in PAR because the primary research team will hold a level of influence and decision-making within the project that co-researchers do not. Thus, whilst a work environment can create inclusivity, it cannot create ‘sameness’ between the primary academic researchers and co-researchers. Upon that reflection, I suggest embracing the power dynamics by placing value on the different skills and unique epistemological insight that co-researchers have. For the other researcher and I, the value given to our voices and expertise by experience made us ‘feel’ more included than the palpable efforts to include us.

Our knowledge, derived from our inequality, became the leading factor in making us feel included in the team because our experience was valued. Once value was given to our knowledge, we felt respected, and upon reflection, that was the key to ensuring a positive experience for co-researchers. In turn, a lack of value could affect these power dynamics negatively. As an early career academic, I am becoming acutely aware of the need to include the voices of the marginalised and stigmatised in our research. If we do not value the knowledge given by co-researchers, their presence becomes a tick-box activity to validate the inclusivity of a research project.

I suggest that when undertaking PAR, we should focus on the level of value given to the knowledge provided. We should further consider how the knowledge provided by peer researchers can be translated into a research project demonstrably. For example, when faced with research results that we felt were not representative, the project lead created space for us to discuss this with the team and write about it in the final paper. Moreover, our epistemological insight was the primary reason we led a presentation regarding PAR at a conference of our choice, to people within our community. This was important to us as our situated knowledge is derived from being part of this community. In these examples, it was our different skills and situated knowledge that underpinned our ability to have influence on the project and be part of the decision-making process.

In conclusion, my experience has shown me that minimising power dynamics is more successful when inequality is embraced rather than considered a barrier to overcome. Giving value to knowledge by experience places value on the disparities between researchers and co-researchers. When that value is translated in tangible ways, co-researchers voices are amplified and validated. Consequently, we can minimise power dynamics in participatory action research by embracing our differences rather than trying to achieve ‘sameness’.