JOURNAL OF HEALTH PROMOTION ISSN: 2631-2441 (Print)

Volume 12, 2024, pp: 1-8 ISSN: 2822-1591

JOURNAL(Online) DOI:PROMOTION
OF HEALTH Vol. 12 December 2024
https://doi.org/10.3126/jhp.v12i1.72690 1

Editorial
Participatory Action Research: An Emergent Research
Methodology in Health Education and Promotion
Yadu Ram Upreti1; Bhimsen Devkota2; Shyam Krishna Maharjan1
1
Central Department of Education, Tribhuvan University (TU)
2
Mahendra Ratna Campus, Tribhuvan University (TU)
Introduction to Participatory Action Research (PAR)
Available written evidence suggests that Action Research (AR) has its roots in Europe
and the United States, which emerged during the 1930s. The origin of classroom action research
can be traced back to the contributions of Kurt
Figure 1
Lewin, a social scientist who developed the action Lewin Model of Action-Reflection Cycle
research model during the late 1930s. Lewin is
regarded as the pioneer of action research, which is
a methodological approach to problem-solving that
engages both the researcher and a practitioner.
Similarly, John Dewey first used action research in
education in 1933 with the concept of ‘reflective
thinking' in classroom teaching. But John Collier
used the term 'action research' for the first time in
1945. Kurt Lewin developed a model of the
‘action-reflection cycle’ of action research in 1946
(McNiff & Whitehead, 2002)—aimed at solving
problems rather than just producing knowledge (Morales, 2016). A decade later, Stephen Corey
(1953) promoted ‘cooperative action research’ in education in the US that featured extensive
collaboration with school and teachers across the US. Later, in 1970s, Brazilian emancipatory
educator Paulo Freire, an adult educator and critical pedagogue, resurged the concept of AR by
emphasizing the need for raising critical consciousness through critical pedagogy (Freire, 1973).
Through his approach, collaboration, participation, and empowerment were widely used in AR.
The approach of Freire was concerned with empowering the poor and marginalised members of
society through consciousness-raising via sociopolitical actions (Freire, 2000).
Stenhouse (1975) floated his idea of ‘teacher as a researcher’. He argued that teaching
and research are closely related; and he called for teachers to reflect critically and systematically
on their practice as a form of curriculum theorizing. Orlando Fals Borda first coined the term
‘participatory action research (PAR)’ in 1977 (Díaz-Arévalo, 2022; Fals-Borda, 1987). He
focused on the epistemological shift from AR to PAR, known as ‘participatory turn’ (Díaz-
Arévalo, 2022). Stephen Kemmis (1986) made significant contributions by locating AR within
the critical theory framework (Morales, 2016). Kemmis and his associates, as well as the
educational action research team, modified the original AR process. They conceptualized AR as
a recursive process that involves an action-reflection cycle in a spiral design (McNiff &
Whitehead, 2002). Whitehead (1989) promoted ‘educational living theory’ in AR, focusing on
‘how do I improve my practice what I am doing’.
2 Participatory Action Research: An Emergent Research Methodology in Health Education & Promotion

Figure 2.
Spiral Model of PAR Cycle

The PAR is an umbrella term covering a wide array of participatory approaches. It is

variously termed, such as 'participatory research', 'critical participatory action research
(Kemmis, 2006), 'transformative participatory action research' (Mertens, 2008), 'teacher action
research' (Pine, 2000), ‘cooperative action research’ (Corey, 1953), or 'community-based
participatory action research' (Minkler, 2000). PAR is a prototype of action research, which
focuses on making inquiries about the identified problems and taking action to solve them,
where people are fully involved and actively engaged throughout the research process (Brown
& Tandon, 2008). As an applied research, PAR aims to strengthen marginalized peoples'
creativity and wisdom through empowerment (Díaz-Arévalo, 2022; Steven, 2016) by involving
people from the initial phase to the final implications of the research (Whyte et al., 1989).
Thus, PAR is a combination of theory and practice, action and reflection, information
and transformation with the participation of the research stakeholders who seek the practical
solution of the problems in their socio-political, economic, and familial contexts (Steven, 2016).
It differs from conventional research in that it embodies shared ownership of research outcomes,
social and political empowerment, community-based analysis, focusing on social problems, and
(re)orientation towards community action (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). PAR is a participatory,
systematic, dynamic, developmental, and transformative action inquiry (reflection-in-action). It
inherently embodies the ideas of co-learning through critical reflection in practice (Upreti,
2023). Critical reflection is the central tenet of PAR. As critical inquirer, the PAR researchers
use critical reflection as a tool of social inquiry to take action for socio-political change (Baum
et al., 2006). Paulo Freire's concept of ‘praxis’ stems from critical reflection in action, which
further results in pursuing transformation. Freire asserts that human consciousness brings
critical reflection upon the action (Freire, 1973). It further brings improved practices, which is
called as praxis (Kemmis, 2006). Through the praxis, critical awareness develops over the
deeply held false consciousness, which is called transformation (Freire, 1973). PAR, thus,
essentially empowers the participants to reflect on their false consciousness by enabling them to
analyze the real-world situation and consequences of a particular practice (Upreti et al., 2024).
 JOURNAL OF HEALTH PROMOTION Vol. 12 December 2024 3

Participatory Action Research (PAR) Methodology

PAR significantly differs from traditional research approaches since it stems out from
the philosophical root of pragmatism and transformative worldviews (Guba & Lincoln, 1994).
PAR is a participatory, democratic, inclusive, and culturally responsive approach that brings
social change through action (Whyte, 1984). Baldwin (2012) asserts that PAR aims to be
transformative in nature. The transformative lens in PAR is increasingly used in the field of
health and educational research, which improves the socio-political situation of those who are
being researched by participating in the thorough process of action inquiry (Baum et al., 2006).
PAR methodology fosters mutual collaboration with the research participant/s with diverse
knowledge, skills, and expertise that best match the context where the research is conducted.
PAR has been an emergent methodology that works in partnership with stakeholders, leading to
the action for sustainable change (Baum et al., 2006). It prescribes no ‘cookbook methodology’
in advance; instead, it is developed through collaborative efforts by the researcher and co-
researchers based on their communicative action inquiry (Widianingsih & Mertens, 2019).
Jacobs (2016) opines that PAR is an emergent methodology that challenges the traditional
hierarchy between a researcher and one being researched; rather, it assumes that research is
conducted ‘with participants’ (p.49). PAR accepts a multi-paradigmatic approach allowing an
integral perspective (Luitel, 2019; Paul & Marfo, 2001; Peter Charles Taylor & Medina, 2013;
Taylor, 2008) in the process of intervention development, implementation, and data generation –
as PAR accepts the idea of methodological pluralism within a single study (Dhungana & Luitel,
2021; Taylor et al., 2012; Upreti et al., 2024). The complexities of the research problems and
underlying research questions demand a hybrid research methodology (Taylor et al., 2012).
Moreover, multi-paradigmatic space in PAR supports to enhance inclusive practice and nurture
harmony with the research participants (Dhungana & Luitel, 2021).
PAR methodology holds an ontological assumption of ‘co-constructed multiple social
realities’ which are contextual and dynamic (Lincoln et al., 2011). PAR opposes objective or
subjective reality alone, rather it does both (Jacobs, 2016). Contextualized realities emerge from
different groups of people at different times who were distinct from each other with respect to
their social, political, cultural, economic, ethnic, gender, and age group. In PAR methodology,
knowledge is co-constructed through ‘collaborative action inquiry’, ‘participatory inquiry’,
‘action inquiry’, and ‘inquiry of praxis’ between the researcher and the research participants to
explore context-bound solutions to the problem (Morales, 2016; Steven, 2016). PAR enables the
co-researchers to co-construct the knowledge through rigorous collaboration (Denzin &
Lincoln, 2011); and it has a strength for the improvement in practice and co-creation of
knowledge but a non-hierarchical relationship between (co)researchers is a must. PAR
researchers assume that knowledge is deeply rooted in the lived experiences of the people who
are involved in the study. Corresponding to this, Maguire (1987) as cited in Jacobs (2016),
quoted that ‘we both know somethings, neither knows everything’ (p. 49). Axiological
assumption of PAR holds a value-based study, which assumes co-constructed knowledge cannot
be separated from the possession of both researcher(s) and co-researchers (Baum et al., 2006).
Participants in the PAR are recognized and valued as co-researchers since they are the active
change agents of society (Upreti, 2023).
4 Participatory Action Research: An Emergent Research Methodology in Health Education & Promotion

Use of PAR in Educational Research

Several studies in the educational research reveal that PAR methodology has
empowered teachers, students, and school management committees, including parents, to
contextualize school curriculums and classroom teaching practices to implement inquiry-based
learning, experiential learning, participatory action learning, arts-based pedagogies, and
performance-based assessment strategies. These engaged pedagogical approaches not only
increase the meaningful engagement of students in the classroom, but also empower them to
seek solutions to the problems in their real-world situations. The collaborative action research
conducted in Canada among elementary school teachers reveals that the use of action research
enables teachers to foster their expertise, strengths, talents, skills, and knowledge (Jaipal &
Figg, 2011). The study supports and sustains the changes in teaching practice and student
learning. Similarly, a research conducted in the urban middle school of the US reveals that PAR
can promote meaningful engagement of students in school and develops a sense of self-efficacy
(Ozer et al., 2010). A similar study conducted in Europe, which involved eight schools from
three countries, also reveals that PAR develops collaborative and reflective practice among the
teachers and increases students' active participation in learning (Messiou, 2019). Teacher action
research conducted in Chinese schools demonstrates the improvement of teachers’ professional
development in a meaningful and sustained manner with earnest progress in student's learning
endeavors (Liu & Wang, 2018). A study in primary schools of Tanzania highlights that PAR
increases school attendance, confidence, self-esteem, and active engagement among the
primary-level students while teachers incorporate participatory methods in their classroom
teaching (Roberts et al., 2015). A review-based study also argues that P/AR develops teachers'
pedagogical and instructional practice, cultivates students’ better learning outcomes, and
improves the school's teaching environment (James & Augustin, 2018). A study conducted in a
rural school in Bangladesh also illustrates that PAR-based teaching practice in a rural school
improves better educational outcomes (Liu & Wang, 2018). A study conducted in the
Philippines also reveals that PAR boosts teachers' reflective learning practice for their
professional development (Morales, 2016). PAR has been widely utilized in educational
research to examine workplace challenges and overcome them via collaboration, participation,
and action. Its popularity has exploded as a qualitative approach to resolving educational issues.
Use of PAR in Health Education and Health Promotion in Nepal
Though PAR methodology was utilized by some of the NGOs and INGOs in Nepal to
address community health challenges during the 1980s and 1990s (Khadka & Paudyal, 1995;
National Zoonoses and Food Hygiene Research Centre, 2001), to our best knowledge, an
American academia Marion Gibbon conducted her first doctoral study in the late 1990s using a
PAR framework. Her work remains significant for the application of PAR methodology in
addressing public health challenges through a participatory and inclusive approach, particularly
within Nepal's socio-cultural and community-oriented context among the academia (Gibbon,
2002). This pioneering research has inspired Nepali scholars to adopt PAR methodology to
tackle health and educational issues. In Nepal, PAR was formally introduced into educational
research in 2016 through the NORHED Rupantaran academic project (2016–2023). This
initiative was a cross-broader collaborative effort between Tribhuvan University (TU),
Kathmandu University (KU), and the Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU). The
 JOURNAL OF HEALTH PROMOTION Vol. 12 December 2024 5

project aimed to explore innovative strategies for improving quality in teaching and learning in
a few of the resource-constrained schools of Nepal. Researchers working for PhD and master’s
level from TU and KU adopted PAR methodology in their studies, significantly advancing the
field. One notable contribution was made by a TU PhD researcher who explored the impact of
PAR in a public school. His findings suggest that PAR enhances students’ active engagement in
activity-based science learning through school gardening initiatives. These activities improved
students' learning experiences and increased the involvement of parents and the community
(Acharya et al., 2020). Another TU PhD researcher demonstrated how PAR empowers
schoolchildren to adopt better handwashing practices, use human urine as liquid fertilizer in
school gardens, and integrate water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) topics into classroom
teaching sessions (Devkota, 2023).
Similarly, Upreti (2023), a PhD fellow at TU, highlighted that school-based nutrition
education interventions using PAR effectively transformed children’s nutritional behavior. The
intervention activities improved food and nutrition knowledge, fostered positive attitudes
towards healthy eating, and encouraged healthier dietary practices. Participatory learning
allowed students to critically examine the misconceptions about health behaviors, fostering self-
awareness, harvesting positive intentions, and self-efficacy in adopting healthier habits. Ghimire
conducted her PhD study under the same project and concluded that skills-based health
education undergoing PAR methodology fosters health promotion among school-going
adolescents and builds teachers’ capacity in skill development (Ghimire & Devkota, 2022).
Besides, the PAR methodology is gaining popularity among Nepali academia across
multidisciplinary fields. It is increasingly recognized for its participatory and transformative
potential, making it a valuable tool for addressing complex social, cultural, health,
environmental, and language related issues.
Conclusion
PAR methodology in educational research holds significant potential to empower both
researchers and research participants (co-researchers). By fostering critical consciousness and
awareness of their shared context, PAR enables the participants to collaboratively generate
context-specific knowledge and develop strategies to address the challenges within their
practice settings. Although the history of using PAR as a research methodology by university
researchers in Nepal is relatively recent, its application is gaining momentum and popularity
within the academic community. This growing acceptance highlights its relevance and
effectiveness in addressing complex real-world issues through collaborative efforts. PAR is
particularly well-suited for designing, implementing, and evaluating school-based health and
education practices. Its participatory approach ensures that interventions are tailored to the
needs and realities of the target community, making them more sustainable and impactful. By
engaging educators, students and other stakeholders in the research process, PAR not only
enhances the effectiveness of interventions but also fosters a sense of ownership, critical
thinking, and empowerment among all participants. This methodology, therefore, offers a
transformative framework for addressing educational and health challenges in diverse and
resource-constrained settings.
6 Participatory Action Research: An Emergent Research Methodology in Health Education & Promotion

References
Acharya, K. P., Budhathoki, C. B., Bjønness, B., & Devkota, B. (2020). School gardening activities as
contextual scaffolding for learning science: participatory action research in a community school in
Nepal. Educational Action Research, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2020.1850494
Baldwin, M. (2012). Participatory action research. In M. Gray, W. Midgley, & J. A. stephen (Eds.), The
SAGE Handbook of Social Work (pp. 467-481). Sage Publications Ltd.
Baum, F., MacDougall, C., & Smith, D. (2006). Participatory action research. Journal of Epidemiology &
Community Health, 60(10), 854-857. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2004.028662
Brown, L. D., & Tandon, R. (2008). Action research, partnerships and social impacts: The institutional
collaboration of PRIA and IDR. In P. Reason & B. Hilary (Eds.), The Sage handbook of action
research: Participative inquiry and practice (2 ed., pp. 227-235). Sage Publication
Devkota, G. (2023). A participatory action in transforming hygience behaviour of students through
ecological snitation toilet [Docotal dissertation, Tribhuvan Univesristy, Faculty of Eduction,
Kirtipur Kathmandu].
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Sage.
Dhungana, P., & Luitel, B. C. (2021). Mutiparadigmatic participatory action research: A strategic
methodology for common good STAR 2021 Global Conference, Kathmandu
Díaz-Arévalo, J. M. (2022). In search of the ontology of participation in Participatory Action Research:
Orlando Fals-Borda’s Participatory Turn, 1977–1980. Action Research, 20(4), 343-362.
https://doi.org/10.1177/14767503221103571
Fals-Borda, O. (1987). The application of participatory action-research in Latin America. International
Sociology, 2(4), 329-347. https://doi.org/10.1177/026858098700200401
Freire, P. (1973). Education for critical consciousness (Vol. 1). Bloomsbury Publishing.
Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed-1970. Continuum International Publishing Group Inc.
Ghimire, S., & Devkota, B. (2022). Skills-based health education for health promotion among school
adolescents through participatory action research: A case from Nepal. In L. Potvin & D. Jourdan
(Eds.), Global Handbook of Health Promotion Research, Vol. 1: Mapping Health Promotion
Research (pp. 281-294). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-
97212-7_20
Gibbon, M. (2002). Doing a doctorate using a participatory action research framework in the context of
community health. Qualitative Health Research, 12(4), 546-558.
https://doi.org/10.1177/104973202129120061
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In Handbook of
qualitative research (Vol. 2, pp. 105-117).
https://miguelangelmartinez.net/IMG/pdf/1994_Guba_Lincoln_Paradigms_Quali_Research_chapter
.pdf
Jacobs, S. (2016). The use of participatory action research within education-Benefits to stakeholders.
World Journal of Education, 6(3), 48-55. https://doi.org/10.5430/wje.v6n3p48
Jaipal, K., & Figg, C. (2011). Collaborative action research approaches promoting professional
development for elementary school teachers. Educational Action Research, 19(1), 59-72.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2011.547688
James, F., & Augustin, D. S. (2018). Improving teachers’ pedagogical and instructional practice through
action research: potential and problems. Educational Action Research, 26(2), 333-348.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2017.1332655
Kemmis, S. (2006). Exploring the relevance of critical theory for action research: Emancipatory action
research in the footsteps of Jurgen Habermas. In Handbook of action research (Vol. 4, pp. 94-105).
Sage.
Khadka, R., & Paudyal, L. (1995). Lessons learned by communities and the PAR team–Nepal. PLA Notes
35, 74–78. https://www.iied.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/migrate/G01840.pdf
 JOURNAL OF HEALTH PROMOTION Vol. 12 December 2024 7

Lincoln, Y. S., Lynham, S. A., & Guba, E. G. (2011). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and
emerging confluences, revisited. The Sage handbook of qualitative research, 4, 97-128.
Liu, W., & Wang, Q. (2018). The processes of teachers’ engagement in action research: an ethnographic
study in Beijing. Educational Action Research, 26(2), 258-272.
Luitel, B. C. (2019). Journeying towards a multi-paradigmatic transformative research program: An East-
West symbiosis. In Research as transformative learning for sustainable futures (pp. 19-37). Brill.
McNiff, J., & Whitehead, J. (2002). Action research: Principles and practice (2ed.). Routledge.
https://bit.ly/3go3Xzj
Mertens, D. M. (2008). Transformative research and evaluation. Guilford press.
Messiou, K. (2019). Collaborative action research: facilitating inclusion in schools. Educational Action
Research, 27(2), 197-209. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2018.1436081
Minkler, M. (2000). Using participatory action research to build healthy communities. Public Health
Reports, 115(2-3), 191. https://doi.org/10.1093/phr/115.2.191
Morales, M. P. E. (2016). Participatory action research (PAR) cum action research (AR) in teacher
professional development: A literature review. International Journal of Research in Education and
Science (IJRES), 2(1), 156-165. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1105165
National Zoonoses and Food Hygiene Research Centre. (2001). Participatory action research on urban
ecosystem health in Kathmandu inner city neighborhoods. National Zoonoses and Food Hygiene
Research Centre. https://shorturl.at/LGjlE
Ozer, E. J., Ritterman, M. L., & Wanis, M. G. (2010). Participatory action research (PAR) in middle
school: Opportunities, constraints, and key processes. American Journal of Community Psychology,
46(1-2), 152-166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9335-8
Paul, J. L., & Marfo, K. (2001). Preparation of educational researchers in philosophical foundations of
inquiry. Review of Educational Research, 71(4), 525-547.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543071004525
Peter Charles Taylor, & Medina, M. N. D. (2013). Educational research paradigms: From positivism to
multiparadigmatic. Journal for Meaning-Centered Education, 1-14.
Roberts, D. M., Brown, A. M., & Edwards, L. (2015). Participatory action research in two primary
schools in a rural Tanzanian village: An exploration of factors to cultivate changes in teaching and
learning. Educational Action Research, 23(3), 366-382.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2015.1009925
Stenhouse, L. (1975). An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development. Heinemann.
Steven, J. (2016). The use of participatory action research within education-benefits to stakeholders.
World Journal of Education, 6(3), 48-55.
Taylor, P. C. (2008). Multi-paradigmatic research design spaces for cultural studies researchers
embodying postcolonial theorising. Culture Studies of Science Education 4(4).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-008-9140-y
Taylor, P. C., Taylor, E. L., & Luitel, B. C. (2012). Multi-paradigmatic transformative research as/for
teacher education: An integral perspective. In Barry J. Fraser, Kenneth Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie
(Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 373-387). Springer.
Upreti, Y. R. (2023). Transforming nutritional behaviors in schoolchildren thorugh a school-based
participatory nutirtion education intervention [Docotal dissertation, Tribhuvan Univesristy, Faculty
of Eduction, Kirtipur Kathmandu]. (PDF) Transforming Nutritional Behaviors in Schoolchildren
through a School-Based Participatory Nutrition Education Intervention
Upreti, Y. R., Devkota, B., Bastien, S., & Luitel, B. C. (2024). Developing a school-based nutrition
education programme to transform the nutritional behaviours of basic-level schoolchildren: a case
from participatory action research in Nepal. Educational Action Research, 32(3), 528–547.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2023.2206580
8 Participatory Action Research: An Emergent Research Methodology in Health Education & Promotion

Whitehead, J. (1989). Creating a living educational theory from questions of the kind, ‘how do I improve
my practice?’. Cambridge Journal of Education, 19(1), 41-52.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764890190106
Whyte, W. F. (1984). Learning from the field: A guide from experience. Sage.
Whyte, W. F., Greenwood, D. J., & Lazes, P. (1989). Participatory action research: Through practice to
science in social research. American Behavioral Scientist, 32(5), 513-551.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764289032005003
Widianingsih, I., & Mertens, D. M. (2019). Transformative research and the sustainable development
goals: challenges and a vision from Bandung, West Java. International Journal for Transformative
Research, 6(1), 27-35. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijtr-2019-0005