participatory qualitative research methodologies in health

• DOI: 10.4135/9781473919945
• Corpus ID: 156762928

Participatory Qualitative Research Methodologies in Health

• G. Higginbottom , P. Liamputtong
• Published 24 July 2015
• Sociology, Medicine

77 Citations

Collaborative consensus on assistive technology impacts and outcomes: the gaato grand challenges., information relations for social change: exploring the information behaviour of academics undertaking impact work, challenges and opportunities to the flow of communication: online focus groups with parents of young children, professional caregivers, and intermediaries, co-design in the context of universal design: an australian case study exploring the role of people with disabilities in the design of public buildings, a third space approach to integrated academic student success advising (assa), gerontology, art, and activism: can the intersection of art, social research, and community power lead to lasting change, giving birth is like going to war: obstetric violence in public maternity centers in niger, migrant women’s engagement in health-promotive activities through a women’s health collaboration, film as cooperative endeavour: the promises for people living with dementia, their relatives, caregivers and aged care staff, development and usability evaluation of an electronic health report form to assess health in young people: a mixed-methods approach, 60 references, participatory action research, health and social care needs of somali refugees with visual impairment (vip) living in the united kingdom, reframing spaces by building relationships: community collaborative participatory action research with aboriginal mothers in prison, a participatory action research methodology in the management of self-harm in prison, understanding participatory action research: a qualitative research methodology option, uncovering the benefits of participatory research: implications of a realist review for health research and practice, salud sí: a case study for the use of participatory evaluation in creating effective and sustainable community-based health promotion, evaluating the utility of the famchat ethnocultural nursing assessment tool at a canadian tertiary care hospital: a pilot study with recommendations for hospital management, implementation of a nurse education programme in paediatric oncology using appreciative inquiry: a single center experience in belgrade, serbia., identification of nursing assessment models/tools validated in clinical practice for use with diverse ethno-cultural groups: an integrative review of the literature, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

Participatory Research Methods

• Living reference work entry
• First Online: 05 August 2024
• Cite this living reference work entry

• Maaret Jokela-Pansini 2 &
• Susan Thieme 3  

10 Accesses

Action-research ; Co-creative research ; Collaborative research ; Community-based research

Description

A term used to describe methods researchers use to engage with research participants in different stages of the research process and produce knowledge in partnership with those affected by the research.

Introduction

In recent years, participatory methods have emerged as indispensable tools for geographers across various subdisciplines, from indigenous and feminist geographies to inquiries on health, environment, sustainability, migration, urban planning, land and natural resource management, and more-than-human geographies. These approaches have been particularly pivotal in addressing social, political, economic, and environmental inequalities and injustice. Participatory methods are committed to engaging participants in research processes. Unlike conventional methodological approaches, participatory research methods seek to produce knowledge specific to their process and...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Bastian, M., Jones, O., Moore, N., & Roe, E. (2016). Towards a more-than-human participatory research. Participatory research in more-than-human worlds . Routledge.

Book   Google Scholar  

Berardi, A., & Mistry, J. (2012). The challenges and opportunities of participatory video in geographical research: Exploring collaboration with indigenous communities the North Rupununi Guyana. Area, 44 (1), 110–116. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2011.01064.x

Article   Google Scholar  

Bigler, C., Sony, K. C., & Pita, Y. (2022). Women with disabilities in Nepal. Photovoice study on the barriers and enablers to social, economic and political inclusion . Interdisciplinary Centre on Gender Studies (ICFG) at the University of Bern. https://www.leave-no-one-behind.ch/my-lens-my-reality/photovoice-study/

Brabeck, K., Lykes, M. B., Sibley, E., & Kene, P. (2015). Ethical ambiguities in participatory action research with unauthorized migrants. Ethics & Behavior, 25 (1), 21–36.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2014.920707

Bradbury, H. (Ed.). (2014). The Sage handbook of action research . Sage.

Google Scholar  

Brickell, K., & Garrett, B. L. (2015). Participatory politics of partnership: Video workshops on domestic violence in Cambodia. Area, 47 (3), 230–236. https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12149

Brown, G., & Kyttä, M. (2018). Key issues and priorities in participatory mapping: Toward integration or increased specialization? Applied Geography, 95 , 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2018.04.002

Brydon-Miller, M., Kral, M., Maguire, P., Noffke, S., & Sabhlok, A. (2011). Jazz and the Banyan tree: Roots and riffs on participatory action research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 387–400). Sage.

Christensen, J. (2012). Telling stories: Exploring research storytelling as a meaningful approach to knowledge mobilization with Indigenous research collaborators and diverse audiences in community-based participatory research. The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe canadien, 56 , 231–242. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0064.2012.00417.x

Clark-Parsons, R. (2017). Feminist ephemera in a digital world: Theorizing zines as networked feminist practice. Communication, Culture & Critique, 10 (4), 557–573. https://doi.org/10.1111/cccr.12172

Datta, A., & Ahmed, N. (2020). Intimate infrastructures: The rubrics of gendered safety and urban violence in Kerala, India. Geoforum, 110 , 67–76.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2020.01.016

de Leeuw, S., & Hawkins, H. (2017). Critical geographies and geography’s creative re/turn: poetics and practices for new disciplinary spaces. Gender, Place & Culture, 24 (3), 303–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2017.1314947

DePalma, R. (2013). Socially just research for social justice: Negotiating consent and safety in a participatory action research project. In Ethics and academic freedom in educational research (pp. 11–23). Routledge.

Fouqueray, T., Lévesque, A., Turgeon, K., Bissonnette, J. F., Calmé, S., & Dupras, J. (2023). Remote participatory research has logistical benefits, but presents scientific and ethical challenges. Environmental Research Letters, 18 (2), 021002.

Freire, P. (1979). Pedagogy of the oppressed . Herder and Herder.

Goodchild, M. (2007). Citizens as voluntary Sensors: Spatial data infrastructure in the world of Web 2.0. International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research, 2 , 24–32.

Greenhough, B., Jokela-Pansini, M., Kirksey, E., & Lorimer, J. (2024). Mapping microbial selves: field notes from a Dirty Parenting project. Medicine Anthropology Theory . https://doi.org/10.17157/mat.11.1.7057

Hall, J., Gaved, M., & Sargent, J. (2021). Participatory research approaches in times of covid-19: A narrative literature review. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20 . https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211010087

Hawkins, H. (2011). Dialogues and doings: Sketching the relationships between geography and art. Geography Compass, 5 (7), 464–478.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-8198.2011.00429.x

Hu, R. (2020). Reinventing community in COVID-19: a case in Canberra, Australia. Socio-Ecological Practice Research, 2 (3), 237–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-020-00055-2

Jacobs, J. (2016). Filmic geographies: The rise of digital film as a research method and output. Area, 48 (4), 452–454. https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12309

Jokela-Pansini, M. (2021). Body mapping as a feminist visual method: Exploring the field through the body. In R. Kogler & J. Wintzer (Eds.), Raum und Bild-Strategien visueller raumbezogener Forschung (pp. 69–82). Berlin/Heidelberg.

Jokela-Pansini, M. (2022). Beyond “toxic bodies”: Multiplied rationalities of women’s reproductive health in a high-risk environmental area (Taranto, Italy). Health & Place, 77 , 102900.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2022.102900

Kaspar, H., Müller, C., Shkumbin, G., & Kirschsieper, D. (2023). Co-producing knowledge. Reflections from a community-based participatory research project on caring communities to strengthen ageing in place. In Routledge international handbook of participatory approaches in ageing research . Routledge.

Kindon, S. (2016). Participatory video as a feminist practice of looking: “take two!”. Area, 48 (4), 496–503. https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12246

Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. In K. Lewin & G. W. Lewin (Eds.), Resolving social conflicts (pp. 201–216). Harper & Brothers.

Lorimer, J., Hodgetts, T., Grenyer, R., Greenhough, B., McLeod, C., Dwyer, A. (2019). Making the microbiome public: Participatory experiments with DNA sequencing in domestic kitchens. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 44 , 524–541. https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12289

Maguire, P. (1987). Doing participatory research: A feminist approach . The Center for International Education. School of Education University of Massachusetts.

McKittrick, K. (2021). Dear science and other stories . Duke University Press.

Morgan, D., Crossley, M., Stewart, N., Kirk, A., Forbes, D., D’Arcy, C., & Cammer, A. (2014). Evolution of a community-based participatory approach in a rural and remote dementia care research program. Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action 8 (3), 337–345. https://doi.org/10.1353/cpr.2014.0040

Nagar, R. (2014). Muddying the waters: Coauthoring feminisms across scholarship and activism . University of Illinois Press.

National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR). (2022). Payment guidance for researchers and professionals. https://www.nihr.ac.uk/documents/payment-guidance-for-researchers-and-professionals/27392 . Accessed 10 Sept 2023.

Osborne, T., & Jones, P. I. (2017). Biosensing and geography: A mixed methods approach. Applied Geography, 87 , 160–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2017.08.006

Parker, B. (2006). Constructing community through maps? Power and praxis in community mapping. The Professional Geographer, 58 (4), 470–484.

Peluso, N. L. (1995). Whose woods are these? Counter-mapping forest territories in Kalimantan, Indonesia. Antipode, 27 , 383–406. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.1995.tb00286.x

Rambaldi, G., Chamber, R., Mccall, M., & Fox, J. (2006). Practical ethics for PGIS practitioners, facilitators, technology intermediaries and researchers. Participatory Learning and Action, 54 , 106–113.

Raynor, R. (2019). Speaking, feeling, mattering: Theatre as method and model for practice-based, collaborative, research. Progress in Human Geography, 43 (4), 691–710. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132518783267

Sanderson, E., & Kindon, S. (2004). Progress in participatory development: opening up the possibility of knowledge through progressive participation. Progress in Development Studies, 4 (2), 114–126. https://doi.org/10.1191/1464993404ps080oa

Shore, N. (2007). Community-based participatory research and the ethics review process. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 2 (1), 31–41.

Singer, K., Schmidt, K., & Neuburger, M. (Eds.). (2023). Artographies – Kreativ-künstlerische Zugänge zu einer machtkritischen Raumforschung (Creative-artistic approaches to a power-critical spatial research) . Transcript.

Smith, T. S. J. (2019). Therapeutic taskscapes and craft geography: cultivating well-being and atmospheres of recovery in the workshop. Social & Cultural Geography, 22 (2), 151–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2018.1562088

Sudbury, J., & Okazawa-Rey, M. (Eds.). (2015). Activist scholarship: Antiracism, feminism, and social change . Routledge.

Sweet, E. L., & Ortiz Escalante, S. (2017). Engaging territorio cuerpo-tierra through body and community mapping: A methodology for making communities safer. Gender, Place & Culture, 24 (4), 594–606. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2016.1219325

Thieme, S., & Fry, P. (2023). Teaching transdisciplinary competencies for sustainability transformation by co-producing Social Learning Videos. GAIA – Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 32 (1), 154–161. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.32.1.13

Valli, C. (2021). Participatory dissemination: bridging in-depth interviews, participation, and creative visual methods through Interview-Based Zine-Making (IBZM). Fennia - International Journal of Geography, 199 (1), 25–45. https://doi.org/10.11143/fennia.99197

Velasco, G., Faria, C., & Walenta, J. (2020). Imagining environmental justice “Across the street”: Zine-making as creative feminist geographic method. GeoHumanities, 6 (2), 347–370.  https://doi.org/10.1080/2373566X.2020.1814161

Von Unger, H. (2014). Partizipative Forschung: Einführung in die Forschungspraxis. (Participatory research: An introduction in research practice) . Springer VS.

Wright, M. T., Gardner, B., Roche, B., von Unger, H., & Ainlay, C. (2010). Building an international collaboration on participatory health research. Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action, 4 (1), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1353/cpr.0.0102

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Maaret Jokela-Pansini

Institute of Geography, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

Susan Thieme

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maaret Jokela-Pansini .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Lindley Hall 219C, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA

Barney Warf

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Jokela-Pansini, M., Thieme, S. (2024). Participatory Research Methods. In: Warf, B. (eds) The Encyclopedia of Human Geography. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25900-5_257-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25900-5_257-1

Received : 31 October 2023

Accepted : 23 May 2024

Published : 05 August 2024

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-25900-5

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-25900-5

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Humanities, Soc. Sciences and Law

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Find My Rep

You are here

Participatory Qualitative Research Methodologies in Health

• Gina Higginbottom - University of Nottingham, UK
• Pranee Liamputtong - VinUniversity, Vietnam
• Description

-          Ethical issues in Participatory Research

-          Designing and conduction Participatory Research projects

-          Data management and analysis

-          Researching with different populations

-          New technologies

Packed full of up to date and engaging case studies, Participatory Qualitative Research Methodologies in Health offers a wide range of perspectives and voices on the practicalities and theoretical issues involved in conducting participatory research today. It is the ideal resource for students and researchers embarking upon a participatory research project.

With this delightful collection, Higginbottom and Liamputtong advance the art and science of collaborative community based action research. The wisdom in these pages derives from a deeply ethical commitment to social justice grounded in solidly informed and creative methodological technique.

Involving people and communities in research has never been as important or as challenging. This accessible and comprehensive step-by-step guide provides vital clarity and essential help to researchers across disciplines, methods and cultures.

This book offers an excellent introduction to participatory research. It guides the reader full circle from the historical roots to the implementation of findings. It covers project planning and organization, a detailed discussion of ethical issues, and issues around methods of data collection, data management and analysis. This is complemented by chapters on special topics like working with elderly, children and youth or ethno-cultural groups and the implementation of new technologies. I recommend the book for both the use in the classroom as well as for researchers who are interested in conducting participatory community research.

Engaging individuals, families and communities in the development of programs and services is increasingly important in our culturally diverse and pluralistic global community. This text provides crucial information for individuals hoping to make a difference and increase access to health care, particularly for marginalized and vulnerable populations.

The book has a clear and understandable style: each chapter follows a set format, setting out aims, objectives, practical tips and recommendations. Short vignettes bring the text alive, with extensive bibliographies accompanying each chapter.

This book did not fit the research necessary for the module studied

Excellent Book for both undergraduate and postgraduate students.

Very good book desined to help students grasp the concept of Qualitattive research.

Preview this book

Sample materials & chapters.

Chapter One: What is Participatory Research? Why do it?

For instructors

Select a purchasing option, order from:.

• VitalSource
• Amazon Kindle
• Google Play

Related Products

SAGE Research Methods is a research methods tool created to help researchers, faculty and students with their research projects. SAGE Research Methods links over 175,000 pages of SAGE’s renowned book, journal and reference content with truly advanced search and discovery tools. Researchers can explore methods concepts to help them design research projects, understand particular methods or identify a new method, conduct their research, and write up their findings. Since SAGE Research Methods focuses on methodology rather than disciplines, it can be used across the social sciences, health sciences, and more.

With SAGE Research Methods, researchers can explore their chosen method across the depth and breadth of content, expanding or refining their search as needed; read online, print, or email full-text content; utilize suggested related methods and links to related authors from SAGE Research Methods' robust library and unique features; and even share their own collections of content through Methods Lists. SAGE Research Methods contains content from over 720 books, dictionaries, encyclopedias, and handbooks, the entire “Little Green Book,” and "Little Blue Book” series, two Major Works collating a selection of journal articles, and specially commissioned videos.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Gen Fam Med
• v.19(5); 2018 Sep

Participatory research—A modernizing science for primary health care

Neil andersson.

1 CIET‐Participatory Research at McGill, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, ON, Canada

2 Centro de Investigación de Enfermedades Tropicales, Universidad Autónoma de Guerrero, Acapulco, México

Participatory research is the science of partnerships underlying research, concerned with research governance, ownership of research products, and relationships behind research objectives and methods. The common strand behind the quite different schools of participatory research is that research should be in respectful partnership with people; it is not about researchers working on, for, or about people. Modern participatory research embraces different philosophies through several applications. The first application addresses research objectives, with participation at different points in the research cycle. Second, modern participatory research is relevant in adaptive management, including management of primary health care. Third, participatory research is a tool for patient engagement and patient‐centered outcomes in the clinical context. A fourth application is participatory research as an intervention: Participatory research moves people, and it mobilizes resources and can thus be pivotal to sustainability and for health‐promoting intersectoral linkages. As primary health care is a family medicine responsibility, participatory research offers family medicine a valuable toolbox complementing the accepted clinical toolboxes. Through shared identification of problems and decisions about solutions, participatory research increases participant capacity to identify and address their own issues. Among clinicians, it enhances professional practices. In the bigger social picture, all this promotes social justice, self‐determination, and knowledge utilization.

1. THE SCIENCE OF RESEARCH PARTNERSHIPS

If there is uncertainty about quite what participatory research is—science, discipline, philosophy, objective, method, or branded research procedure—there should be little doubt about what it is not. Responding to a questionnaire is not participatory research. Taking part in a focus group is not participatory research and nor is serving as a key informant in a semistructured interview. These examples of participation in research are methods that can be used in participatory research and that are also useful in highly conventional investigator‐led research that treats participants as objects.

Participatory research is more than a method, more than an objective, and much more than a branded research procedure like Participatory Action Research or Community‐based Participatory Research; it is a science and a discipline of knowledge creation and use. More specifically, participatory research is the science of partnerships underlying research, concerned with research governance, ownership of research products, and relationships behind research objectives and methods. 1

As a science, modern participatory research has objectives—and consequently the methods to meet objectives—that vary, just as they do in other sciences like epidemiology or sociology or anthropology.

As a discipline or set of methods, modern participatory research is concerned with systematic cocreation of new knowledge by equitable partnerships between researchers and those affected by the issue under study, or those who will benefit from or act on its results. 2 , 3 Related disciplines, methods, branded procedures, and terminology include “Community‐Based Participatory Research, Participatory Rural Appraisal, empowerment evaluation, Participatory Action Research, community‐partnered participatory research, cooperative inquiry, dialectical inquiry, appreciative inquiry, decolonizing methodologies, participatory or democratic evaluation, social reconnaissance, emancipatory research, and forms of action research embracing a participatory philosophy”. 4

There are several common assertions and preoccupations about participatory research that merit discussion to draw out the essence of the science. Some point out that participant views might challenge or inappropriately controvert accumulated scientific evidence from conventional sources. Some see it as a variant of qualitative research. Some practitioners see participatory research as necessarily small scale. And, in one view, it is not truly participatory research if participants do not set the research question, design and do the research, and own the results and the interpretations.

I do not believe any one of these assertions is true for modern participatory research, and I do believe discussion of the preoccupations can help to characterize the science more accurately and to understand its boundaries.

2. DOES IT CONTRADICT EVIDENCE‐BASED MEDICINE?

In an age of evidence‐based medicine and evidence‐based public health, what is the role of participatory research?

The weigh‐up of local experiential knowledge with existing knowledge from conventional scientific research (perhaps a meta‐analysis of published studies) depends on the mindset of the researcher or family doctor. The professional modesty implicit in evidence‐based medicine (we do not know because we are superior, we know because we have evidence) could be extended easily to other kinds of evidence generated by interaction with stakeholders. It is possible to take an extreme position, of course, ignoring published evidence in the face of local experience, or vice versa. But treating participatory research as a science implies there is a discipline and there are methods to collate and build on accumulating knowledge from different sources.

Participatory research proposes an alternative to two‐stage knowledge translation where a researcher passes research products to a knowledge user who acts on the evidence. Participatory research integrates knowledge translation and exchange by engaging the end users who would ordinarily take up the evidence for action, throughout key stages of the research. 5 In this integrated knowledge translation, dialogue about evidence is the immediate tool for rational persuasion 6 , 7 and thus for motivated evidence‐based action. Just as people tend to be more open to evidence when they see its subject as something that affects their lives, their responsiveness increases when they experience this evidence as actionable, 8 , 9 and more so when they see the consequence of their own actions.

Viewed this way, far from increasing the potential tension between existing scientific evidence and local experience, participatory research provides a framework for collating and contextualizing knowledges. 10 In fact, one participatory method called Weight of Evidence 11 uses Bayesian updating to combine existing scientific knowledge from systematic reviews with local lived experience of stakeholders—healthcare providers and patients. The combined knowledges, in effect a highly contextualized and digested appreciation of published evidence, are much more likely to be locally relevant and actionable.

In summary, there is no contradiction between evidence‐based medicine and participatory research. Participatory research offers a powerful vehicle for contextualizing evidence from multiple sources, adapting it for local conditions.

3. THE TRADITIONS INSPIRING PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH

While very different traditions underlie the lexicon of participatory research and branded research procedures that apply to it, most imply the systematic cocreation of new knowledge with people affected or those who will benefit from or act on it. 12 Our understanding builds on four distinct scientific traditions:

The “northern tradition , ” building on the pioneering work of Lewin 13 and the Tavistock Institute, is often utilitarian—to achieve something specific, like diabetes prevention—and focussed on objectives set by researchers (though these might be shared by other stakeholders). This approach has received a massive boost in the last decade, through evidence‐based management 14 and patient‐oriented outcomes. 15 The widely recognized branded research procedures, like Community‐Based Participatory Research (CBPR), 16 , 17 cooperative inquiry, 18 appreciative inquiry, 19 and Participatory Rural Appraisal, 20 are heavily informed by this northern tradition.

A “southern” or conscientizing educational tradition, advanced in Latin America by Freire 21 , 22 and Fals Borda, 23 centers on participant authorship with transformative learning. In contrast to the utilitarian motivation of the northern tradition, the southern tradition is about how participating in fact‐finding and generating solutions empowers and changes the participants. Branded research procedures like Empowerment Evaluation, 24 Participatory Action Research, 25 , 26 Community‐Partnered Participatory Research, 27 and also dialectical inquiry, 28 decolonizing methodologies, 29 , 30 participatory or democratic evaluation 31 have roots in this tradition.

In addition to these prominent traditions, both of which are well recognized in the participatory measurement sciences, two other influences inform my own participatory research practice and teaching.

The Italian labor movement's alternative operaia or workers’ model 32 has lessons about ownership of research tools and products. In this approach, measurement specialists are political allies who help stakeholders (the trade unions) gain competence in using the tools of measurement and assessment. This has important implications. First, skilled researchers do not come to the table with nothing; they bring much‐needed research skills and their own experience. Second, the participant skill level in epidemiological methods might start off at a rudimentary level but it is not fixed at zero forever; participants are alive and interested, and their skill sets can evolve with time and training. Third, the value of experience and the methods for collating it have no assumed primacy over “statistics.” If the argument needs numbers and statistics, the task is to provide these through allied researchers skilled in epidemiology and statistics. If the issue calls for narrative and experiential accounts, the task is to provide these with appropriate qualitative techniques. The ownership and governance remain clear, with workers pivoting from being objects of research to research protagonists, and that's what makes it participatory research.

The key message is that method is a function of the research objective , not of the ownership and governance of the research. Participatory research can be qualitative and it can be quantitative, depending on the objectives. What makes it participatory research is not the research method, but the ownership and governance framework.

The fourth influence is a set of theories that help to understand how research does not happen in a vacuum, but in social contexts that define and are defined by relationships. Postcolonial theory, critical theory, and intersectional feminist theory all have implications for the texture and detail of partnerships, the power relations between researchers and participants, how researchers see themselves, behave, and grapple with issues of power, and how they in turn are seen and engaged by their partners. Modern participatory research has a special concern for grappling with issues of cultural safety and intercultural dialogue 33 , 34 which, in conventional research, are at best a meta‐level ethical concern of researchers.

There will undoubtedly be many other influences across the wide community of participatory research practice. The common strand behind nearly all influences is that research should be in respectful partnership with people; it is not about researchers working on, for, or about people.

4. APPLICATIONS OF PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH IN PRIMARY HEALTH CARE

Participatory research is an umbrella term for a wide range of partnered research. 35 Embracing this diverse background, modern participatory research can be small‐scale, involving a single patient group or segment of a single community; it can be multicentered, national, or international in scope. It can involve qualitative research, mixed methods, or multinational community‐led randomized control trials. It can be utilitarian, a way to push an agenda, and it can be liberating and empowering.

Modern participatory research embraces these different objectives and philosophies through several areas of application.

The first application addresses research objectives. Participatory methods can improve many research questions and thus help to set the research design. 36 Meeting contemporary research objectives typically calls for mixed methods (combining qualitative and quantitative techniques), with participation at different points in the research cycle. Much research addresses complex problems, with a high degree of customization of complex interventions. Hawe and colleagues argue that the function and process (the protocol) of a complex intervention should be standardized, rather than the components or steps of the intervention, thus allowing tailoring of the form to local conditions. 37 This is the work of participatory research. Modern participatory research does not propose participation as the method , but it offers a partnership and governance framework for appropriately tooled moments—quantitative methods where appropriate and qualitative methods where appropriate—in the research cycle. 38 This is especially important in intercultural research, where the way researchers acquire knowledge may be as critical for eliminating health disparities. 39

Second, modern participatory research is highly relevant in adaptive management, including management of primary health care. The issue here is that national‐level programs and norms are designed to fit the average setting; on either side of that average, adaptation is necessary. There are also very few programs that work equally from their initiation to their conclusion; they need to be fine‐tuned to keep fitting. And even when the programs and norms do fit a given setting, there will be outliers and marginal groups in that setting for whom the program must be adapted. Conventionally, these are within the domain of improvement science and quality improvement, but modern participatory research offers an alternative framework and methods for local experience to meet collated scientific experience. This is relevant to the management of primary health care and to provincial and national health programs.

Third, participatory research is a lens for patient engagement and patient‐centered outcomes in the clinical context. 40 A concern here is the replacement of authentic patient engagement by rent‐a‐patient schemes, token inclusion of patient advocates, and professional patient representatives who add “the patient voice”. 41 Viewing patient engagement and patient‐centered outcomes through a participatory research lens brings authenticity of the partnership into focus. Participatory research methods make space for genuine patient authorship and contrast with approaches where the patient is co‐opted into a conventional executive boardroom. In the context of conventional executive management and the unidirectional and exquisitely unequal doctor‐patient relationship, patient representation is only one small step into issues in fully informed patient engagement. Several influential authors have drawn attention to the need for evolution of patient engagement along a spectrum, 42 , 43 and modern participatory research offers a scientific framework for that to happen.

A fourth application of participatory research is as an intervention. Whether the objectives are those of research, system management, or clinical, the common denominator is that participatory research moves people. It mobilizes resources for health objectives and can thus be pivotal to program sustainability and for forging health‐promoting intersectoral linkages like environment, education, and employment. Management of informed engagement and the mobilizing dynamic of participatory research is the focus of community‐led randomized controlled trials 44 ; participatory research is part of the modern battery of scientific tools.

If primary health care is a family medicine responsibility, participatory research offers family medicine a valuable science and toolbox complementing the accepted clinical toolboxes.

Primary health care involves a range of complex interventions bridging clinical, psychological, and social dimensions. Some interventions address behavior change, and others address disease processes—but all can be difficult to replicate from setting to setting. 45 The approach to dealing with this highly local character, improving and expanding primary care, can come from an institutional (system) or participant perspective. Institutional perspectives 46 assume that improvement can be based on detailed centrally designed manuals or norms for replicating interventions.

In family practice and at the community level, there are gaps between national and provincial norms for program delivery and the local needs or ways of seeing things in everyday primary health care practice. National and provincial programs are designed for “average” people in mainstream settings, and adaptation to other settings requires method and rigor. Participatory research informs managerial strategies to close the gaps, to find the fit between national or provincial programs and the local skill base and local needs. This is relevant across the board, in nearly all primary health care practices, but especially so in rural and remote areas, and in primary health care involving the indigenous peoples and economically marginalized who contribute disproportionately to morbidity and mortality.

Not incidentally, family doctors and their teams are particularly well placed for participatory research because they usually have good local partnerships, trust, and understanding with patients, community organizations in their practice area, and local policy makers. 47

5. ETHICS IN PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH

Participatory research approaches can add value to informed consent, community review and approval of research, improve recruitment, disclosure and comprehension. 48 , 49 These aspects can only increase the quality of research and increase its impact as end users are brought on board early in the process.

Particularly stringent in randomized controlled trials where informed consent is a central concern, 50 ethical codes play out very differently in conventional researcher‐led and in participatory research—where stakeholders essentially choose what they want to do. 51 In participatory research, there are seldom concerns about placebos and issues of withholding interventions in controls 52 can be settled by randomizing the delay among all eligible participants, as in a stepped wedge design.

There are residual ethical problems. For example, some individuals might disagree with or feel put upon by decisions made by a group in a participatory research context or the subsequent action. The challenge for the outside researcher is to demonstrate respect for participant and community autonomy when, in cases like this, the locus of research shifts from the individual to community or group level. 53 Another issue is that of confidentiality, especially in participatory research addressing sensitive themes like mental health or gender violence. In this setting, the external researcher can add value through data stewardship, holding, and anonymizing participants’ data.

6. CONCLUSION

Participatory research has three core dynamics: engagement in governance and co‐ownership of the research, the primacy of local evidence or experience, and innovation by participants (Figure ​ (Figure1). 1 ). As we start to understand the dynamics within this evolving science, participatory and nonparticipatory methods stand out as responses to objectives, which are in turn responses to the ownership and governance of the research. Modern participatory research can use quantitative methods, even randomized controlled trials, and qualitative methods are not by definition participatory. So, a first step in modernizing participatory research sets a hierarchy of concepts and processes—what is the science, what are objectives, what are methods, and what is no more than the branding of procedures with participation terminology.

Three defining dynamics of authentic participatory research

A second and related step in modernization recognizes that scale is not at all part of the definition or character of the science. An action research project might address an issue in a single community or segment of a community, but a much larger domain—a district, province, country, or several countries—can also implement a participatory research protocol.

While participation is intensely local, it can happen in more than one place.

How participatory research gets the job done is a third modernization. A conventional research to action dynamic involves knowledge translation from the researchers, who bundle their results for easier understanding, and transmit the bundle to users who interpret and then implement the results. Modern participatory research engages the users from the beginning, largely eliminating the need to “translate” findings for users.

There may be a perceived tension between participatory research and conventional research, or concerns about giving primacy to the views of participants over existing evidence. I believe these are better viewed as terms of reference than as irreconcilable differences. These are the issues that modern participatory research must resolve (and is resolving).

The big‐ticket item in modernization is ownership. If participation in research leaves people in no greater control of the research or its products, the counterpoint is participatory research—initiatives with the users or intended beneficiaries—which should eventually leave people in greater control. The time dimension here (eventually) is not trivial. Participation is not an on/off light switch, but a dimension of and process in governance. And governance is a way of doing things that leads to different results, not a full and final outcome in its own right.

Transformation through research is the outcome and modernization that matters. Through shared conceptualization of problems and decision making about solutions, participatory research increases participants’ capacity to identify and address their own issues. 54 It increases decision maker and service provider ability to mobilize resources and to improve policies. 55 Among clinicians, it enhances professional practices. 56 In the bigger social picture, all this promotes social justice, self‐determination, and knowledge utilization.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors have stated explicitly that there are no conflicts of interest in connection with this article.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author is grateful for the comments received on this from the 2016 and 2017 PhD classes in the Department of Family Medicine, McGill University.

Andersson N. Participatory research—A modernizing science for primary health care . J Gen Fam Med . 2018; 19 :154–159. 10.1002/jgf2.187 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 28 August 2024

Linking affected community and academic knowledge: a community-based participatory research framework based on a Shichigahama project

• Shuji Seto 1 ,
• Junko Okuyama 2 ,
• Toshiki Iwasaki 3 ,
• Yu Fukuda 4 ,
• Toru Matsuzawa 5 ,
• Kiyoshi Ito 6 ,
• Hiroki Takakura 7 , 8 ,
• Kenjiro Terada 8 , 9 &
• Fumihiko Imamura 9 , 10  

Scientific Reports volume  14 , Article number:  19910 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

106 Accesses

Metrics details

• Environmental impact
• Psychology and behaviour

Earthquakes that cause extensive damage occur frequently in Japan, the most recent being the Noto Peninsula earthquake on January 1, 2024. To facilitate such a recovery, we introduce a community-based participatory research program implemented through cooperation between universities and local communities after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake. In this project, the university and the town of Shichigahama, one of the affected areas, collaborated to hold annual workshops in the target area, which evolved into a climate monitoring survey. Even in Japan, where disaster prevention planning is widespread, various problems arise in the process of emergency response, recovery and reconstruction, and building back better when disasters occur. As is difficult for residents and local governments to solve these problems alone, it is helpful when experts participate in the response process. In this study, we interviewed town hall and university officials as representatives of local residents regarding this project and discussed their mutual concerns. The community-based participatory research framework developed in the Shichigahama project could be used in the recovery from the Noto Peninsula Earthquake as well as in future reconstruction and disaster management projects.

Similar content being viewed by others

Citizen science and the right to research: building local knowledge of climate change impacts

Participatory action research

Advancing neighbourhood climate action: opportunities, challenges and way ahead

Introduction.

Japan is a country often subject to natural disasters. In the Noto region of Ishikawa Prefecture, earthquakes (in the crust) have been on the increase since around 2018, and seismic activity has been active since December 2020, and became more active around May 2023. The area of earthquake occurrence has expanded with further increase in seismic activity. The largest earthquake to date was an M7.6 earthquake on January 1, 2024 (depth of 16 km, intensity 7 in Wajima City and Shiga Town, Hakui County) 1 . Support for victims in the affected areas is currently being provided by the government and medical personnel, among others. The reconstruction of the Noto Peninsula following the earthquake will be led by local governments 2 . The recovery process requires interventions that focus on the participation of the affected communities and the strengthening of local resources 3 .

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) has been identified as an important approach to promote recovery from and resilience after disasters 4 . Several regions have successfully identified and addressed disaster recovery issues through community-based approaches 5 . Globally, the importance of and need for community-based research is increasingly recognized in the context of disasters such as the Iraq War 6 , landslides 7 , floods 8 , hurricanes 9 , 10 , 11 , and bushfires 12 , 13 . In the Japanese context, awareness of the importance of CBPR has increased since the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake 14 , 15 and has been reported in relation to the Kumamoto earthquake 16 and floods 17 (Fig.  1 A). In general, recovery from natural disasters such as major earthquakes take about ten years 18 , 19 . The period from the time of the disaster to the year in which the CBPR was implemented is shown: Fig.  1 b shows the survey for the non-Japan cases, and Fig.  1 c shows the survey for the Japan cases. As can be seen in Figs.  1 b,c, most studies were conducted within ten years of disasters and many were launched within a few years after the disaster. Conducting CBPR within a few years after a disaster is suitable for examining problems and the progress of reconstruction in the acute and mid-term post-disaster period, but a comprehensive evaluation of reconstruction is not possible because the affected area is still in the process of recovery.

( A ): Examples of the use of community participatory surveys in disaster recovery. ( B ): Time elapsed between the occurrence of disasters around the world and the implementation of community participatory surveys. ( C ): Time elapsed between the occurrence of disasters in Japan and the implementation of community participatory surveys.

Here, we introduce the CBPR efforts conducted by the Tohoku University Core Research Cluster for Disaster Science in the town of Shichigahama, one of the areas affected by the Great East Japan Earthquake, eight to nine years after the disaster. The Core Research Cluster of Disaster Science is a new discipline established at Tohoku University, a designated national university. The discipline was born in June 2017 in recognition of the importance of interdisciplinary approaches to hazards and recovery 20 . The research cluster is composed of eight institutions: the Graduate School of Arts and Letters; Graduate School of Natural Science; Graduate School of Environmental Science; Institute of Development, Aging and Cancer; International; Research Institute of Disaster Science; Center for Northeast Asian Studies; and the Hospital and School of Medicine 21 . The research cluster has two overall purposes: (1) to develop and systematize disaster science and (2) to contribute to support for recovery, reconstruction, and building back better in affected areas; disaster risk reduction and mitigation; and the development of human resources in international societies 22 .

The research cluster recognizes the importance of the CBPR approach in the field of hazards and recovery. As Tohoku University has long had a research base in the town of Shichigahama, which faces Sendai Bay, the approach has been applied to studying seaweed producers and their lifestyles in the town for a year and a half 23 . Additionally, Plaza et al. analyzed the reproductive performance of female specimens of black sea bream collected from Shichigahama from October 2000 to March 2001 24 . Following the Great East Japan Earthquake, the Disaster Psychiatry Department at Tohoku University and the International Research Institute of Disaster Science collaborated with the Shichigahama Town Hall over ten years to observe and improve community health 25 , 26 , 27 .

After the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, the Shichigahama Town–Tohoku University partnership was developed in the context of this larger movement utilizing CBPR approaches to intervention research in recovery and disaster prevention. Figure  2 A shows earthquakes and affected prefectures in Japan as a whole, and Fig.  2 B shows the town of Shichigahama in Miyagi Prefecture and the areas inundated by the Great East Japan Earthquake tsunami. The International Research Institute of Disaster Science, Tohoku University, has been involved in mental health activities in the town of Shichigahama since the Great East Japan Earthquake 28 , 29 . Annual surveys were conducted over a ten-year period from November 2011, eight months after the disaster, to 2020 for residents of Shichigahama Town (2,282 adults; 106 minors) whose houses had been severely damaged or partially or entirely destroyed. The results of the posttraumatic stress reaction survey 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 and psychological distress as indicators of mental disorder are shown in Fig.  2 (Panels C and D). The percentage of respondents with a posttraumatic stress reaction above a certain level (score of 25 or higher) on the Impact of Event Scale-Revised 34 and the percentage of those with a relatively mild posttraumatic stress reaction (score of less than 25) are shown in Fig.  2 C. The proportion of those showing a certain level of posttraumatic stress reaction peaked at 32% in FY2011 and 33% in FY2012, with a gradual improvement in FY2013 and a decrease to 6% in FY2020. Psychological distress was assessed using the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale 35 . Figure  2 D shows the percentages and trends for each of the four severity levels. The proportion of respondents who scored less than 5 points and were in relatively good mental health was 50% in FY 2011 and increased from FY 2012 to 2014; after leveling off in FY 2015–2017, it increased again from FY 2018 onward.

( A ): Earthquakes in Japan and affected prefectures from 1995 to 2024. The base map was created with Frame illust, 2014 software, a free opensource software https://frame-illust.com/?cat=256 , color-coding Japanese regions. ( B ): Damage to Shichigahama Town by the Great East Japan Earthquake. Left inset: Japan and the location of the epicenter of the Great East Japan Earthquake. Right inset: Areas of Shichigahama Town flooded by the Great East Japan Earthquake. Map background image source and license: Maps were created using ArcGIS Pro (ver. 3.3.1, https://www.esri.com/en-us/arcgis/products/arcgis-pro/overview ) and the prefecture level boundaries of Japan in ArcGIS Hub. ArcGIS are the intellectual property of Esri and are used herein under license. Copyright (c) 2024 Esri Inc. All rights reserved. For more information about Esri software, please visit www.esri.com . Fukkou Shien Chosa Archive: Shichigahama town – Inundated Area, City Bureau of the Land, Infrastructure and Transportation Ministry of Japan and the Center for Spatial Information Science of the University of Tokyo (2012) (in Japanese) http://fukkou.csis.u-tokyo.ac.jp/ , Accessed Aug 2023. ( C,D ): The results of the post-traumatic stress reaction survey and psychological distress as indicators of mental disorder (modified from Tomita et al. 2020 and Hamaie et al. 2022).

This study aimed to assess whether CBPR engaging affected communities and professionals improves their resilience to disasters long after the disaster has passed. This paper first introduces the Shichigahama Town project, a collaborative study with Tohoku University focusing on the town of Shichigahama after the Great East Japan Earthquake. Next, we present the results of the analysis of CBPR conducted after the disaster, a discussion of CBPR, and the conclusions of this study.

Relationship between Shichigahama and academia

Overview of shichigahama town.

The town of Shichigahama faces the sea on three sides and is located on a peninsula. The population was 18,358 as of June 1, 2023. The fishing industry has flourished there since ancient times, with nori (seaweed) cultivation being a representative basic industry of the region. Abalone, sea urchins, and fish are abundantly available in the region.

As a result of the tsunami triggered by the Great East Japan Earthquake on March 11, 2011, 36.4% of the urban area was inundated and suffered enormous damage, and there were 99 fatalities (Fig.  2 B). The maximum height of the tsunami inundation was 12.1 m. After this incident, the Shichigahama Town Earthquake Reconstruction Basic Policy was formulated on April 25, 2011, aiming to “create a comfortable and livable town in which people can live in harmony with nature, taking into account safety and security.” In addition, the Disaster Recovery Early Basic Plan (2011–2015) was formulated on November 8, 2011. Based on this, the policy and priority actions for recovery were formulated. On April 6, 2012, a policy on land use rules for the affected areas was formulated, dividing the town and use into four categories and presenting their reconstruction measures.

Shichigahama town workshop

A practical workshop was developed for Shichigahama Town Hall and the Tohoku University Disaster Science Designated National College Core Research Cluster. The first workshop was held on September 12–13, 2019, with twenty-three participants from Tohoku University and six from the town hall. This was followed by the second (September 24, 2020) and third (September 17, 2021) workshops, which were held remotely to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2.

The first workshop introduced Shichigahama Town Hall staff and Tohoku University researchers to the research related to Shichigahama Town that Tohoku University had conducted up to that point. On the morning of the second day, the staff of Shichigahama Town Hall presented the disaster prevention facilities. The Tohoku University researchers traversed Shichigahama Town to improve their understanding of the facilities by entering the shelters and checking the breakwater height. In the workshop that followed, the researchers discussed potential methods for improving Shichigahama Town's resilience to disasters. The content of the workshop was shared by the researchers and Shichigahama Town Hall (Fig.  3 ).

( A ): Three layers of the Shichigahama Town Project. Overview of the Shichigahama Town project over a three-year period from 2019 to 2021. ( B ): Summary of findings related to the interview. Summary of the Shichigahama Town project findings identified using the grounded theory method coding paradigm. Green boxes indicate the period; light blue boxes indicate what was done during the period.

To answer our research questions, we used a qualitative approach, specifically the grounded theory method (GTM) for data collection and analysis 36 , 37 . The GTM is an inductive approach commonly used with participant observation and interview data 38 . Interviews were the primary source of data: from January 12–March 28, 2022, the authors interviewed six officials from Shichigahama Town and the designated national college, the Core Research Cluster for Disaster Science, and staff from Tohoku University.Table 1 shows the roles of the interviewees, indicating their function within the project in the case of town officials and their specialty in the case of university faculty. Supplementary file 1 shows what they were doing at the time of the Great East Japan Earthquake.

The interviews focused on the respondents’ satisfaction with the workshop in Shichigahama Town. We asked about the community’s general perception of what they expected from disaster preparedness and response, what information they needed, why they needed information and how they wished to receive it, and their thoughts about a future collaboration between the community and the university. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Qualitative analysis (including coding and note-taking) followed the axiality coding paradigm according to the GTM 39 .

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All methods including experiments, analyses, and interviews were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the International Research Institute of Disaster Science, Tohoku University (approval number: 2021–039). All experimental protocols were approved by the Ethics Committee of the International Research Institute of Disaster Science, Tohoku University, and all human participants gave informed consent.

Theme 1: first workshop as a collaboration between the community and academia

Regarding the first Shichigahama workshop, Tohoku University faculty members said, “From the very beginning, I thought Shichigahama was a bit of a mystery, and as I mentioned at the time, we were talking about Tohoku and Japan at the most. Even in Miyagi Prefecture, we were only talking about the Miyagi earthquake, and I did not know what we could talk about or what we could contribute at the municipal level” (Professor B, Tohoku University); “Shichigahama had a major tsunami disaster, but very few weather-related disasters, so it was difficult to find a connection in terms of what we could do” (Professor C, Tohoku University). A Shichigahama Town official said, “No, when we were first approached, one of the things we were wondering about was what we could do. It would be nice if we were in a situation where we could get some advice” (Shichigahama Town Official B).

Regarding the first Shichigahama town workshop, one participant said, “We met with everyone and had the mayor and other stakeholders with us, and we asked them, ‘What are you doing?’ We brainstormed about what we were doing and how we were going to work together, and we compiled a list of keywords” (Professor A, Tohoku University).

At the same workshop, Staff Member A said, “I accompanied the teachers on their site visit. I was glad to guide them and tell them that although the area was damaged at the time, it has recovered to what it is today.” Staff Member F said, “I was happy to be able to show them around the site and tell them that although the area was damaged at the time, it has now been restored. That was very reassuring. We were very grateful to be able to talk directly to people who specialize in this kind of research.” Staff Member B said, “At the time, we felt that we could not enter the site.”

During the first Shichigahama town workshop, Tohoku University teachers said: “We were able to hear many things directly from the staff at that time, weren’t we? It’s not often you get a chance to hear such real voices” (Professor D, Tohoku University) and “The local government officials gave presentations that gave me a sense of fulfillment that they had already done what they could do, and I felt both envious and distressed” (Professor B, Tohoku University).

Theme 2: one example introduced from the “weather observation equipment” workshop

After the first workshop, Professor B said, “Apparently, there is no Automated Meteorological Data Acquisition System (AMeDAS) there. If there is an AMeDAS, we could check it. By contrast, since there is no AMeDAS, I thought it would be worthwhile to see,” and the weather observation equipment was installed in Shichigahama Town. According to data reported by the Fire and Disaster Management Agency of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, the number of people transported to emergency hospitals for heat stroke in Japan during the period from June to September has increased significantly since 2010, with 92,710 in 2018, a particularly extremely hot summer, followed by 66,869 in 2019 and 64,869 in 2020. Although the town of Shichigahama has made progress in reconstruction after the Great East Japan Earthquake, this workshop found that the town had not been able to observe the recent weather disasters.

At the second and third Shichigahama Town symposiums, Professor C had a dialogue with town officials: “We made contacts to talk with local people. Then, on the third occasion, they told us many stories from the other side. When I explained that this is how the data shows the weather in Shichigahama Town, it did not appear unusual to them; but since it is my town’s weather observation, they were interested in it. Then they would mention all sorts of problems.” “At the third Shichigahama Town workshop, we were told that although there are no weather disasters, there are two problems: one is that high levees have been built, and the water rises inside, causing problems such as inland flooding. As for global warming, it seems that the types of fish that can be caught are changing rapidly.”

Shichigahama Town Staff Member A said of the weather observation equipment, “We had it installed on the rooftop. I was personally informed of this at the time, and the current department is the one that orders contractors to remove typhoon rains and snow, like today, and to spread snow-melting agents. So, we are using them for such things.”

Regarding the weather observation, Professor C said, “It would be great if the town of Shichigahama said they would maintain the weather measurement equipment in Shichigahama as well. The one for the sea is going to be discontinued. I wanted them to provide information to tourists and other visitors, but they did not raise awareness to that extent. Of course, there is the budget problem as well.” Professor D said, “That person has been there all along taking measurements and local data. In a sense, he must have a close relationship with Shichigahama, but I don’t see what kind of communication or involvement he has with the residents and the local government office.”

Theme 3: evaluation of the Shichigahama town project

Professor A said, “First of all, to listen to the real needs of the people in the town hall, we need to talk to them a little more frequently, rather than just meeting them at events, and it is still difficult to make progress without someone who understands the situation.” He continued, “Even now, people are looking for ways to make Shichigahama a better community. Even back then, we had several goals, such as valuing health and history, and because Shobuta-beach is so attractive, I wish I could have contributed a little more here.”

Professor E said, “There was talk of gender, and there was talk of weather; both are important, but I’m not sure where the integral part of what we are doing with Shichigahama lies. I think it would be fine to say that we are taking action with regard to both areas. I was a little unclear about that when I participated last year.”

The Shichigahama Town staff said: “Although we understand what we are doing now internally, I really feel that we need to let the residents know more about what we are doing” (Staff Member A); “I was hoping that people would learn more about the self-help part I mentioned earlier while listening to those workshops. I think it is difficult to connect with the public if they are not able to participate in the workshops” (Staff Member B).

Future development from the perspective of Shichigahama town and Tohoku university staff

Shichigahama Town Official F said, “Surprisingly, even if the administrative part can be organized at the government office, it is hard to have this kind of analytical ability.” “What about the review? We can compare with other municipalities, but I wonder if there is a part of the verification of recovery that can be done objectively; not immediately, but after 10 or 20 years,” said Shichigahama Town official E.

“Of course, the residents of the city are involved in this project. Nevertheless, I wondered if it would be possible to hold workshops or trainings for elementary and junior high school students instead of disaster preparedness or disaster education or teaching children the concept of disaster preparedness,” said Shichigahama Town Official A. “I still think it would be best if they looked at Shichigahama and then got that kind of advice,” said Shichigahama Town Official D. “I hope some of the content will be useful for residents, and I also hope there will be some advice for the government and county disaster management associations that run the evacuation centers,” said Shichigahama Town Official C.

Tohoku University Staff Member C said, “It will be very important to do so after a disaster has occurred to get into the community. Shichigahama’s experience was good. It was very interesting because it was an approach that I did not know much about.”

The population of the four cities and towns in Okunoto 40 , which were severely damaged by the 2024 Noto Peninsula earthquake, is as follows: Wajima City: 23,192 (December 1, 2023); Suzu City: 12,610 (November 30, 2023); Noto Town: 15,187 (January 1, 2024); Anamizu Town: 7326 (December 1, 2023). All of these cities and towns are recognized as “wholly depopulated” under the “Act on Special Measures Concerning Support for Sustainable Development of Depopulated Areas.” A municipality is considered depopulated if it meets the requirements below a certain level in terms of population decline rate, ratio of older adults, and financial strength index. Shichigahama Town had an estimated population of 17,429 on December 1, 2023, and had a day–night population ratio of 65.0% in the 2010 census, the lowest of any municipality in Japan. Thus, the population of the Noto earthquake-stricken area and the town of Shichigahama are similar, and we believe that CBPR targeting the Shichigahama town for reconstruction after the Great East Japan Earthquake may be helpful for Noto.

Flicker 41 stated about CBPR, “It can (and often does) benefit everyone involved in the research process. But the benefits do not come without significant investment, nor are they necessarily equitably distributed.” This study evaluates CBPR conducted in Shichigahama and uses the GTM to analyze the data from twelve semi-structured interviews with CBPR recipients and implementers. Professor C, who participated in this survey, felt the need to convey academic knowledge to the general public in an easy-to-understand manner through the Shichigahama Town project and published a book intended for that population after the project was completed. The Shichigahama Town staff felt that having the support of university staff could make the explanations they provided to the general public more persuasive. However, questions remain regarding the sustainability of these and other effects. By contrast, the benefits secured by the new partnership between the university and the community may be seen as more sustainable.

Professor C and his colleagues in CBPR for the Shichigahama Town project found evidence that weather observations were not conducted in Shichigahama Town. This included problems such as not knowing the actual weather in Shichigahama Town because of the use of the nearby AMeDAS. Academic researchers have an ethical obligation to equip the community with the tools needed to sustain an intervention or become successful change agents beyond the project period 42 . During this project in Shichigahama Town, two meteorological instruments were adapted under a grant from the designated national college, the Core Research Cluster of Disaster Science. Unfortunately, the grant has since expired, and only one instrument was retained in Shichigahama Town. After establishing a community and academic partnership with a common goal, obtaining grants to fund the academic and community teams is necessary 42 . Academics have been made aware of the fact that community partner organizations often have little additional funding or resources to contribute to unfunded pilot projects, and this may be one such example.

There are no reports of cases in which CBPR has been used for post-disaster recovery and disaster prevention in Japan. In Nepal, community-led reconstruction activities have been conducted at various monuments immediately after earthquakes, and they have played an important role in preserving and maintaining cultural heritage 43 , 44 . Previous studies in Japan have used the CBPR approach to identify community health needs 45 , 46 or to understand community perceptions of a particular health problem 47 . However, there are no reports of cases in which CBPR has been used for post-disaster recovery and disaster prevention in Japan.

One of the challenges for younger faculty actively involved in the community during CBPR is the time the process requires. This is particularly relevant for careers in CBPR, where it can (reportedly) take years to build and secure trust between academic and community partners 48 . Only one (Faculty F) of the three young faculty members on our academic team from the first term remained for the second and third terms.

An evaluation of CBPR efforts should include a community assessment 49 :

(1) Have new community structures or problem-solving mechanisms been introduced?; (2) Have new leaders emerged?; and (3) Is there evidence of a greater sense of community ownership or citizen participation? 50 , 51 , 52 . Suggestions for the future (disaster education for elementary and middle school students; direct communication with citizens) were made in this project, but the CBPR assessment scores indicate that they have not yet been achieved. One reason the suggestions have not been fully implemented may be related to COVID-19. During the second and third phases of the pandemic, scientists could not visit the communities directly, but were involved remotely.

Limitations

Our study used interviews with both Shichigahama Town officials and university faculty to test the effectiveness of CBPR in the Shichigahama Town workshop project. Although interviews with local residents would ensure the generalizability of our results regarding the effectiveness of CBPR, the second and third Shichigahama Town workshops and our interviews were conducted at a time when human contact was restricted to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Therefore, we focused on interviews with Shichigahama town officials who accepted the CBPR because they were unable to have contact with the general population. The fact that the evaluator was a town employee rather than a local resident could introduce bias, but we mitigated this by ensuring there was sufficient interview time. (Supplementary table)

Conclusions

The application of CBPR principles is essential to translate knowledge into sustainable community-level action through empowerment and collaboration. Further long-term research using the CBPR approach is needed to provide additional evidence of returns, which will facilitate investment and broader implementation.

Data availability

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available owing to privacy and ethical restrictions but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Kanazawa Local Meteorological Office. “Seismic Activity and Disaster Prevention Matters Portal Site for the 2024 Noto Peninsula Earthquake”. https://www.data.jma.go.jp/kanazawa/shosai/notojishinportal.html . Accessed July 7, 2024.

Pearce, L. Disaster management and community planning, and public participation: How to achieve sustainable hazard mitigation. Nat. Hazards 28 , 211–228. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1022917721797 (2003).

Article   Google Scholar  

Cueto, R. M., Fernández, M. Z., Moll, S. & Rivera, G. Community participation and strengthening in a reconstruction context after a natural disaster. J. Prev. Interv. Community 43 , 291–303 (2015).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Israel, B. A., Schulz, A. J., Parker, E. A. & Becker, A. B. Review of community-based research: Assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annu. Rev. Public Health 19 , 173–202. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.19.1.173 (1998).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Sadiqi, Z., Trigunarsyah, B. & Coffey, V. A framework for community participation in post-disaster housing reconstruction projects: A case of Afghanistan. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 35 , 900–912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.11.008 (2017).

Shabila, N. P., Al-Tawil, N. G., Al-Hadithi, T. S. & Sondorp, E. Post-conflict health reconstruction: where is the evidence?. Med. Confl. Surviv. 29 , 69–74 (2013).

Kabunga, A., Okalo, P., Nalwoga, V. & Apili, B. Landslide disasters in eastern Uganda: post-traumatic stress disorder and its correlates among survivors in Bududa district. BMC Psychol. 10 , 287. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-022-01001-5 (2022).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Hakkim, A. & Deb, A. Empowering local response and community-based disaster mitigation through legislative policies: Lessons from the Kerala floods of 2018–19. J. Emerg. Manag. 21 , 347–353 (2023).

Bushong, L. C. & Welch, P. Critical healthcare for older adults post Hurricane Ian in Florida. U. S. J. Public Health Policy 44 , 674–684. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41271-023-00444-3 (2023).

Stukova, M. et al. Mental health and associated risk factors of Puerto Rico Post-hurricane María. Soc. Psychiatry Psychiatr. Epidemiol. 58 , 1055–1063. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-023-02458-4 (2023).

Engelman, A., Guzzardo, M. T., Muñiz, M. A., Arenas, L. & Gomez, A. Assessing the emergency response role of community-based organizations (CBOs) serving people with disabilities and older adults in Puerto Rico post-Hurricane María and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 19 , 2156. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19042156 (2022).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Watts, R. et al. Incidence and factors impacting PTSD following the 2005 Eyre Peninsula bushfires in South Australia—a 7 year follow up study. Aust. J. Rural Health 31 , 132–137. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajr.12909 (2023).

Fitzpatrick, K. M. et al. Health systems responsiveness in addressing indigenous residents’ health and mental health needs following the 2016 Horse river wildfire in Northern Alberta, Canada: Perspectives from health service providers. Front. Public Health 9 , 723613. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.723613 (2021).

Saito, Y. et al. Outpatient rehabilitation for an older couple in a repopulated village 10 years after the Fukushima nuclear disaster: an embedded case study. Fukushima J. Med. Sci. https://doi.org/10.5387/fms.2023-01 (2023).

Tashiro, A. et al. Coastal exposure and residents’ mental health in the affected areas by the 2011 great East Japan earthquake and tsunami. Sci. Rep. 11 , 16751 (2021).

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Matsuoka, Y. et al. Does disaster-related relocation impact mental health via changes in group participation among older adults? causal mediation analysis of a pre-post disaster study of the 2016 Kumamoto earthquake. BMC Public Health 23 , 1982. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-16877-0 (2023).

Kitagawa, K. & Samaddar, S. Widening community participation in preparing for climate-related disasters in Japan. UCL Open Environ. 4 , e053. https://doi.org/10.14324/111.444/ucloe.000053 (2022).

Kates, R. W., Colten, C. E., Laska, S. & Leatherman, S. P. Reconstruction of New Orleans after hurricane Katrina: A research perspective. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 103 , 14653–14660. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0605726103 (2006).

Iwasaki, K. Damage, living environment, and reconstruction under the Great East Japan Earthquake. The 6th Survey of Nuclear Disaster Evacuees from Futaba, Fukushima, summary of results 2020. NLI Research Institute . https://www.nli-research.co.jp/report/detail/id=68303?pno=2&site=nli (2021).

Imamura, F. Mini special issue on establishment of interdisciplinary research cluster of disaster science. J. Disaster Res. 14 , 1317. https://doi.org/10.20965/jdr.2019.p1317 (2019).

Okuyama, J. et al. WBF-2019 core research cluster of disaster science planning session as disaster preparedness: Participation in a training program for conductor-type disaster healthcare personnel. J. Disaster Res. 15 , 900–912. https://doi.org/10.20965/jdr.2020.p0900 (2020).

Okuyama, J. et al. Establishment of a post-disaster healthcare information booklet for the Turkey-Syrian earthquake, based on past disasters. Sci. Rep. 14 , 1558. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-52121-4 (2024).

Delaney, A. Setting Nets on Troubled Waters: Environment, Economics, and Autonomy among Nori Cultivating Households in a Japanese Fishing Cooperative. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh (2003).

Plaza, G., Katayama, S. & Omori, M. Spatiotemporal patterns of parturition of the black rockfish Sebastes inermis in Sendai Bay, Northern Japan. Fish. Sci. 70 , 256–263. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1444-2906.2003.00799.x (2004).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Kunii, Y. et al. Review of mental health consequences of the Great East Japan earthquake through long-term epidemiological studies: The Shichigahama health promotion project. Tohoku J. Exp. Med. 257 , 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1620/tjem.2022.J039 (2022).

Suzuki, T. et al. Impact of type of reconstructed residence on social participation and mental health of population displaced by disasters. Sci. Rep. 11 , 21465. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-00913-3 (2021).

Akaishi, T. et al. Five-year psychosocial impact of living in postdisaster prefabricated temporary housing. Disaster Med. Public Health Prep. 20 , 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2021.214 (2021).

Tomita, H. A Study on the Changes in the Health Status of Disaster Victims in Shichigahama Town. Survey on the Health Status of the Victims of the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami in Miyagi Prefecture, FY2019 Summary and Subcommittee Research Report. Subsidy for Health and Labor Administration Promotion Research Project (Health Safety and Crisis Management Measures Comprehensive Research Project), 90–98 (2020).

Hamaie, Y., Kunii, Y. & Tomita, H. Anxiety-related symptoms, anxiety reactions, and coping strategies during disasters. Jpn J. Clin. Psychiatry 51 , 989–996 (2022).

Google Scholar  

Fairbrother, G., Stuber, J., Galea, A., Fleischman, A. & Pfefferbaum, B. Posttraumatic stress reactions in New York city children after the september 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Ambul. Pediatr. 23 , 304–311 (2003).

Bugge, I. et al. Physical injury and posttraumatic stress reactions. A study of the survivors of the 2011 shooting massacre on Utøya Island. Nor. J. Psychosom. Res. 79 , 384–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2015.09.005 (2015).

Matsubara, C. et al. Prevalence and risk factors for post-traumatic stress reaction among resident survivors of the tsunami that followed the Great East Japan earthquake, March 11, 2011. Disaster Med. Public Health. Prep. 10 , 746–753. https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2016.18 (2016).

Okuyama, J., Funakoshi, S., Tomita, H., Yamaguchi, T. & Matsuoka, H. School-based interventions aimed at the prevention and treatment of adolescents affected by the 2011 Great East Japan earthquake: A three-year longitudinal study. Tohoku J. Exp. Med. 242 , 203–213. https://doi.org/10.1620/tjem.242.203 (2017).

Weiss, D. S. & Marmar, C. R. The Impact of Event Scale-Revised. In Assessing Psychological Trauma and PTSD (eds Wilson, J. P. & Keane, T. M.) (Guilford Press, 1997).

Kessler, R. C. et al. Screening for serious mental illness in the general population. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 60 , 184–189. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.60.2.184 (2003).

Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory 4th edn. (SAGE Publications Inc, 2015).

Harrison, S. E., Potter, S. H., Prasanna, R. & Doyle, E. E. H. ‘Sharing is caring’: A socio-technical analysis of the sharing and governing of hydrometeorological hazard, impact, vulnerability, and exposure data in Aotearoa New Zealand. Prog. Disaster Sci 13 , 100213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pdisas.2021.100213 (2022).

Mullen, P. D. & Reynolds, R. The potential of grounded theory for health education research: Linking theory and practice. Health Educ. Monogr. 6 , 280–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019817800600302 (1978).

Phillips, L. R. & Rempusheski, V. F. Caring for the frail elderly at home: Toward a theoretical explanation of the dynamics of poor quality family caregiving. ANS Adv. Nurs. Sci. 8 , 62–84. https://doi.org/10.1097/00012272-198607000-00008 (1986).

Kato, A. Implications of fault-valve behavior from immediate aftershocks following the 2023 Mj6 5 earthquake beneath the Noto Peninsula. Central Jpn. Geophys. Res. Lett. 51 , e2023GL106444. https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GL106444 (2024).

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Flicker, S. Who benefits from community-based participatory research? A case study of the positive youth project. Health Edu. Behav. 35 , 70–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198105285927 (2008).

Israel, B. A., Eng, E., Schulz, A. J. & Parker, E. A. Methods for Community-Based Participatory Research for Health, 2nd edition (Springer, 2012).

Lekakis, S., Shakya, S. & Kostakis, V. Bringing the community back: A case study of the post-earthquake heritage restoration in Kathmandu valley. Sustainability 10 , 2798. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082798 (2018).

Tiwari, S. R. Community Participation in Heritage Affairs in Revisiting Kathmandu: Safeguarding Living Urban Heritage 189–197 (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2013).

Li, Y. et al. Community health needs assessment with precede-proceed model: A mixed methods study. BMC Health Serv. Res. 9 , 181. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-9-181 (2009).

Velonis, A. J. et al. ‘One program that could improve health in this neighbourhood is ____?’ using concept mapping to engage communities as part of a health and human services needs assessment. BMC Health Serv. Res. 18 , 150. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-2936-x (2018).

Crankshaw, T. L. et al. ‘As we have gathered with a common problem, so we seek a solution’: Exploring the dynamics of a community dialogue process to encourage community participation in family planning/contraceptive programs. BMC Health Serv. Res. 19 , 710. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4490-6 (2019).

Springer, M. V. & Skolarus, L. E. Community-based participatory research. Stroke 50 , e48–e50. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.118.024241 (2019).

Minkler, M., Blackwell, A. G., Thompson, M. & Tamir, H. Community-based participatory research: Implications for public health funding. Am. J. Public Health 93 , 1210–1213. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.93.8.1210 (2003).

Maltrud, K., Polacsek, M. & Wallerstein, N. Participatory evaluation work book for community initiatives (University of New Mexico, 1997).

Kreuter, M. W., Lezin, N. A. & Young, L. A. Evaluating community-based collaborative mechanisms: Implications for practitioners. Health Promot. Pract. 1 , 49–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/152483990000100109 (2000).

Minkler, M., Thompson, M., Bell, J. & Rose, K. Contributions of community involvement to organizational-level empowerment: The federal Healthy Start experience. Health Educ. Behav. 28 , 783–807. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019810102800609 (2001).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Shichigahama Town Hall in Miyagi Prefecture for their cooperation.

This work was supported by Innovative Research Program on Suicide Countermeasure Grant Number JPSCIRS20220301.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Office for Establishment of New Faculty, Akita University, Akita, Japan

Health Service Center, Tokyo of Agriculture and Technology, 2-24-16 Naka-cho, Koganei-shi, Tokyo, 184-8588, Japan

Junko Okuyama

Atmospheric Science Laboratory, Department of Geophysics, Graduate School of Science, Tohoku University, Miyagi, Japan

Toshiki Iwasaki

Notre Dame Seishin University, Okayama, Japan

Research Center for Prediction of Earthquakes and Volcanic Eruptions, Graduate School of Science, Tohoku University, Miyagi, Japan

Toru Matsuzawa

Miyagi Cancer Society, Miyagi, Japan

Kiyoshi Ito

Core Research Cluster of Disaster Science, Tohoku University, Miyagi, Japan

Hiroki Takakura

Center for Northeast Asian Studies, Tohoku University, Miyagi, Japan

Hiroki Takakura & Kenjiro Terada

Computational Safety Engineering Lab, International Research Institute of Disaster Science, Tohoku University, Miyagi, Japan

Kenjiro Terada & Fumihiko Imamura

Tsunami Engineering Lab, International Research Institute of Disaster Science, Tohoku University, Miyagi, Japan

Fumihiko Imamura

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Conception or design of the work: S.S., J.O., F.I.; Data cleaning: T.H., T.K.; Data analysis and interpretation: I.T., F.Y.; Drafting the article: S.S., J.O.: Critical revision of the article: M.T., I.K.; All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Junko Okuyama .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary tables., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Seto, S., Okuyama, J., Iwasaki, T. et al. Linking affected community and academic knowledge: a community-based participatory research framework based on a Shichigahama project. Sci Rep 14 , 19910 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-70813-9

Download citation

Received : 26 January 2024

Accepted : 21 August 2024

Published : 28 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-70813-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Community participation research
• Project benefits and stakes
• Structured analysis and design technique
• University-community collaborations

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 12 December 2018

Participatory action research, mixed methods, and research teams: learning from philosophically juxtaposed methodologies for optimal research outcomes

• Marguerite C. Sendall   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1239-9173 1 ,
• Laura K. McCosker   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9107-9401 1 ,
• Alison Brodie   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2786-8152 1 ,
• Melissa Hill   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8077-0889 1 &
• Phil Crane   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9105-1089 2  

BMC Medical Research Methodology volume  18 , Article number:  167 ( 2018 ) Cite this article

22k Accesses

22 Citations

10 Altmetric

Metrics details

Workplace health interventions incorporating qualitative and quantitative components (mixed methods) within a Participatory Action Research approach can increase understanding of contextual issues ensuring realistic interventions which influence health behaviour. Mixed methods research teams, however, face a variety of challenges at the methodological and expertise levels when designing actions and interventions. Addressing these challenges can improve the team’s functionality and lead to higher quality health outcomes. In this paper we reflect on the data collection, implementation and data analysis phases of a mixed methods workplace health promotion project and discuss the challenges which arose within our multidisciplinary team.

This project used mixed methods within a Participatory Action Research approach to address workers’ sun safety behaviours in 14 outdoor workplaces in Queensland, Australia, and elucidate why certain measures succeeded (or failed) at the worker and management level. The project integrated qualitative methods such as policy analysis and interviews, with a range of quantitative methods – including worker surveys, ultraviolet radiation (UVR) exposure measurement, and implementation cost analyses.

The research team found the integration of qualitative and quantitative analyses within the Participatory Action Research process to be challenging and a cause of tensions. This had a negative impact on the data analysis process and reporting of results, and the complexity of qualitative analysis was not truly understood by the quantitative team. Once all researchers recognised qualitative and quantitative data would be equally beneficial to the Participatory Action Research process, methodological bias was overcome to a degree to which the team could work cooperatively.

Conclusions

Mixed methods within a Participatory Action Research approach may allow a research team to discuss, reflect and learn from each other, resulting in broadened perspectives beyond the scope of any single research methodology. However, cohesive and supportive teams take constant work and adjustment under this approach, as knowledge and understanding is gained and shared. It is important researchers are cognisant of, and learn from, potential tensions within research teams due to juxtaposed philosophies, methodologies and experiences, if the team is to function efficiently and positive outcomes are to be achieved.

Peer Review reports

In health outcomes research, it is important to use appropriate methods to obtain the best possible data with minimal bias [ 1 ]. Previous research to improve sun safety in the workplace has predominately used quantitative methods to study improvement in sun safety behaviours [ 2 , 3 ], however, quantitative research alone does allow complex issues like sun safety behaviour to be fully understood. It offers little contextualised evidence explaining why certain sun safety interventions have or have not worked, and it cannot help identify essential elements to be included in multi-component sun safety health promotion interventions [ 2 ]. Mixed methods within a Participatory Action Research (PAR), as applied to workplace health promotion for sun safety, can provide a greater understanding which ensures realistic interventions to influence behavioural change in specific in settings [ 4 ]. However, the mixed methods approach can raise several challenges during planning, implementation and analysis stages [ 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ].

In particular, teamwork has been identified as a key issue impacting on the potential effectiveness of mixed methods research [ 11 ]. Mixed methods teams can face a variety of challenges while designing actions and interventions at the methodological and expertise levels. Qualitative and quantitative researchers hold juxtaposed ontological or epistemological stances which make teamwork difficult or impossible [ 11 , 12 ]. To overcome potential challenges, a successful mixed methods research team requires a good understanding of the nature of the research questions and the expertise required to address them [ 13 ]. Team members must be willing to learn each other’s approach to share knowledge, build trust, and develop a common language [ 13 ].

In this paper we reflect on the data collection, implementation and data analysis phases of a mixed methods workplace health promotion project addressing sun safety behaviours in outdoor workers. We discuss the challenges which arose within our multidisciplinary team in designing and implementing intervention components, and explain how we learnt to effectively minimise or overcome these challenges.

Project description

The aim of this project was to implement a comprehensive health promotion intervention using mixed methods within a Participatory Action Research (PAR) approach to influence the sun-related attitudes and behaviours of outdoor workers in workplace settings in Queensland, Australia. Recruitment and baseline characteristics are described in detail previously [ 14 ]. Briefly, 14 workplaces were recruited. These included small and large organisations across the rural, building and construction, public and local government sectors in geographically dispersed regions of Queensland. All the organisations employed outdoor workers, defined as individuals who work outdoors for most of the day on at least 5 days per week.

Each workplace nominated a workplace representative as a champion. The champions, with other workers, were invited to participate in the development of a plan for the suite of sun-safe health promotion interventions for the workplace. These plans were referred to as Sun Protection Action Plans and were developed over time in partnership with the research team. They encompassed six domains, as appropriate to, and based on data from, each workplace: policy, structure and environment, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), education and awareness, role modelling, and skin examinations.

Using the principles and processes of a PAR approach, mixed methods were applied concurrently throughout the development of the Action Plans and data collection stages [ 9 ]. Two preliminary tools were used to engage workers and workplaces, identify the priority given to sun safety within each organisation, and gather a policy baseline. The first was a telephone-based screening tool, comprised of quantitative and qualitative questions about workplace demographics, locations and structures and existing workplace policies and procedures related to sun safety and UVR exposure. A second, more comprehensive situational analysis tool, conducted in person with the representative in each workplace, involved the systematic collection of detailed information about existing workplace sun safety policies, procedures and strategies,

The combination of data from these tools enabled a comprehensive picture of existing sun safety strategies and culture to be developed, to inform the sun safety interventions for each workplace. As the researchers were on-site to conduct the more comprehensive situational analysis, it was prudent to integrate additional research strategies targeting workers. For example, a discussion group with outdoor workers from each site was undertaken. The discussion group was guided by PAR principles to allow the discovery of information grounded in the workers’ realities. The discussion groups involved generating ideas from workers about strategies to promote and increase sun safety practices in their workplace. The discussion was transparent, free-flowing and allowed a ‘heads together’ way of thinking. It valued the workers’ inputs, took advantage of their existing skills, knowledge and resources and stimulated ideas. In most cases, supervisors were excluded from the discussion to allow workers to speak openly. All discussions were documented and transcribed to identify key themes.

Quantitative measures employed as the project developed included 1) the distribution of ultraviolet radiation (UVR) dosimeters to workers to measure their UVR exposure across one working day, and 2) a telephone survey with a sample of the workers from each workplace, to collect information about workers’ demographics, behaviours and attitudes related to sun exposure and protection in the workplace, knowledge of workplace sun protection policy, and perception of their workplaces’ level of support for sun protection. Similar data was collected during the research evaluation stage to allow for pre and post-intervention comparisons. Additional questions about workers’ perception of changes to workplace sun safety protocols were asked.

Working with a diverse team

This project was conducted by a multidisciplinary team of quantitative and qualitative researchers with various expertise in epidemiology, public health, health promotion, health economics, and the social sciences.

The team consisted of eight researches and two professional staff. All researchers held a doctoral degree. Five researchers were quantitative experts, including the Project Lead. The three qualitative methodologists were assigned an equal number of geographically feasible and like workplaces to undertake fieldwork with a Research Assistant. The Project Office consisted of two contracted professional staff – a Project Manager and a Research Assistant. Casual professional support staff was provided when needed, for example, undertaking surveys. Six researchers were located within travelling distance of the project office. One researcher was located in another Australian city and one researcher was located in Canada. The team met once a fortnight in the planning phase, and once a month during fieldwork. Six team members attended in person and two team members attended by Skype. Most team members attended most meetings. Two team members attended meetings irregularly. Each meeting was guided by an agenda developed by the project lead.

Before the project commenced, the research team set the foundation for how they would use mixed methods within the PAR approach to address the research question. The research team needed to collectively define the meaning of mixed methods and PAR to create a common language. This was complicated by the diversity of methodological expertise and experience with PAR as a research approach. Through early discussions, the researchers learnt from each other to achieve an understanding and consensus about what data each method was collecting within the PAR process, and how this information would be useful to all relevant parties: the funding body, the health promotion community, the workers and the workplaces and the skin cancer research community. This was a healthy debate which required researchers from both methodologies to consider the scope and sequence of the research. Once all researchers recognised qualitative and quantitative data would be equally beneficial to the PAR process, methodological bias was overcome to a degree to which the team could work cooperatively.

A methods paper for use by the research team was then drafted by the project manager to outline the selected mixed methods, explain how these would be integrated, and indicate the logical sequence of PAR activities. This paper allowed the research team to conceptualise the mixed methods not as designs, but as a set of interactive parts [ 15 ]. This methods paper was crucial in guiding the research team in applying the principles and processes of PAR in the project.

Researchers were encouraged to contribute to conversations from their own methodological perspective, and make these perspectives available for discussion and debate. These shared learnings fostered respect amongst the team and enabled effective information sharing because researchers felt safe voicing concerns [ 16 ]. As respect from learning grew among the team, leadership became more collaborative and the hierarchy underpinning the team dissolved. A separate language was not created but the focus remained on understanding and learning the language used by other researchers to keep the underlying methodologies of qualitative and quantitative research clear. This process of learning was a fundamental step in facilitating the team’s effective use of the mixed methods within the PAR approach.

There was, however, tension within the research team about how best to integrate qualitative and quantitative data collection methods without exceeding the project timeline. Such tension regarding data methods integration is common in mixed methods research and is an often-cited barrier to conducting research of this type [ 5 , 9 ]. After listening, reflecting and learning it was agreed data collection had to be resilient and flexible [ 16 ], combining qualitative and quantitative methods to ensure each was not wholly dependent on the other. For example, as the team became aware of rising tensions, ‘methodology’ was tabled as an agenda item at each team meeting. This ensured there was explicit permission and opportunity for team members to ask questions and clarify concerns about underlying methodological reasoning, engage in discussion about integrating approaches and ensuring rigour. This helped avoid the added complexity of problems and potential setbacks normally associated with the interdependency of multiple methods [ 16 ] throughout the PAR process.

The team’s different approaches to mixed methods had a negative impact on the data analysis process and reporting of results. The complexity of qualitative analysis was not truly understood and recognised by the quantitative team. For example, analysis of quantitative results was prioritised to meet the final report deadline. The analysis of qualitative findings was left until the quantitative results were completed. The limited time for qualitative analysis impacted a rigorous analytical process and the opportunity to present quantitative and qualitative outcomes as a comprehensive integrated whole. Subsequently, the project’s qualitative and quantitative outcomes were reported separately in the final report [ 17 , 18 ].

A key philosophy of this project was the participatory and collaborative nature of planning between workers and each workplace and the research team. The qualitative methodologist worked directly with workplaces acting as a link to the project office. Over the 12-month intervention period, these team members developed rapport with the workplaces arriving at a deep understanding of the workplace context. This is consistent with the PAR approach. Time was taken to consider outcomes from the situational analysis tools and discussion groups, to negotiate meaning with stakeholders, to build a shared understanding of the pre-intervention data and to decide upon the most effective strategies for the workplace. This involved the research team sharing and learning from insights of existing practices and piecing together a plan which best suited individual workplaces. Throughout the intervention period, the research team met regularly to discuss fieldwork progress. This process was challenged however, because 1) some team members did not attend meetings, 2) team meetings were dominated by quantitative experts and 3) the same challenges were discussed from one meeting to the next.

The Sun Protection Action Plans were implemented and progress monitored by the research team, with all nuances, key outcomes, barriers and facilitating factors documented in a case study design. This created further discussion and learning amongst the research team. Team members were required to ‘step back’ from their own area of expertise and genuinely endeavour to understand another’s view and to situate that view within the projects. This was often difficult because not all team members had the experience of working in mixed methods teams. The team faced the challenges of being true to the PAR process by not confining the development of case studies to rigid boundaries, yet ensuring the case studies reflected consistent themes. For example, a proposed research design involved grouping workplaces to control and case. Case workplaces would be assigned a suite of interventions. This design is not viable due to the highly contextual nature of workplaces but remained on the team meetings’ agenda despite discussions. The case studies aimed to consider the voice and perspective of management (policy analysis, the relevant groups of workers (survey research) and the interaction between them. Case study development was a joint exercise between the workers and each workplace and the research team and no unresolved conflicts arose during their construction.

There is a lack of research about optimal ways for teams to function in mixed method studies [ 19 ]. A significant learning from this project which could benefit the functionality and cohesiveness of mixed methods research teams is an understanding of the importance of commencing from a platform of social inquiry and extending to a common analytical space, rather than relying on individual investigators’ philosophical assumptions. For example, there was no early discussion about the weighting of methodologies – was this a quantitative project, with some qualitative injury, or was this a qualitative project, with some quantitative inquiry? Team members may have assumed equal or unequal weighting. Either way, the integration of these analyses within the PAR process was challenging. For example, there was an unspoken but obvious positioning between the methodologies. Qualitative methodology was highly positioned within each workplace and fieldwork and quantitative methodology was highly positioned in the project office and the project our-outcomes. The analysis strategy originally involved use of qualitative data to interpret the quantitative results and then the integration and comparison of qualitative and quantitative phases at the beginning and the end of the project. As the project developed, the reporting of quantitative results was prioritised, particularly at the evaluation stage.

Lessons learnt and future challenges

Ineffective communication underpinned by a lack of a shared language or ‘methodological disrespect’ may impede successful teamwork [ 16 ]. This issue of compatibility between research philosophies arose while the project was being designed, and required the research team to listen, reflect and learn about each other’s perspectives. Although consensus was reached about the integration of quantitative and qualitative methodologies within a PAR approach, there was general learning amongst the researchers that a shift away from a preoccupation with explicit assumptive differences among paradigms, and toward other characteristics of social inquiry traditions was required. Paradigms are not universally accepted as necessary among mixed methods researchers as they can marginalise other beliefs or force researchers to adhere rigidly to a set of beliefs [ 20 ]. However, they are useful to guide inquiry, especially for novice mixed methods researchers or teams. Where paradigms are applied, they are regarded as not static, concrete entities which restrict a research process [ 21 ] but rather, a system of beliefs and practices which influence what questions are asked [ 21 ]. Moving away from qualitative or quantitative methodologies and towards those inherent in mixed methods within a PAR approach allows researchers to transition beyond the methodological binary and ‘paradigm wars’ that have characterised social science research for several decades [ 20 ].

This project subscribed most fully, though not in a contrived way, to the transformative-emancipatory paradigm as outlined by [ 22 ]. This perspective is characterised by the intentional collaboration with minority and marginalised groups to address a research problem [ 22 ]. While it was not the intention of the research team to subscribe to a paradigm, the use of action research to guide this project meant this happened incidentally. Purposeful use of a guiding paradigm may have allowed the research team to learn from one another and reach a consensus about the use of qualitative and quantitative methods earlier in the planning stages of the project.

The use of mixed methods within a PAR approach will continue to expand across disciplines and fields. It is important researchers are cognisant of, and learn from, potential tensions within research teams due to juxtaposed philosophies, methodologies and experiences. If positive outcomes are to be achieved, learning from each other for the efficient functioning of the research team is just as important as the effective integration of qualitative and quantitative research methods. Cohesive and supportive teams take constant work and adjustment as knowledge and understanding is gained and shared. Discussion of strategies to facilitate team cohesiveness in mixed methods projects is still widely unavailable in the literature.

Even though challenges were faced by our research team at every phase of the project, mixed methods within a PAR approach allowed the team to discuss, reflect and learn from each other, resulting in broadened perspectives beyond the scope of any single research methodology.

Abbreviations

Participatory action research

Personal protective equipment

Ultraviolet radiation

Rutherford C, Nixon J, Brown J, Lamping DL, Cano S. Using mixed methods to select optimal mode of administration for a patient-reported outcome instrument for people with pressure ulcers. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:22.

Article   Google Scholar  

Horsham C, Auster J, Sendall MC, Stoneham M, Youl P, Crane P, Tenkate T, Janda M, Kimlin M. Interventions to decrease skin cancer risk in outdoor workers: update to a 2007 systematic review. BMC Res Notes. 2014;7(1):10.

Glanz K, Buller DB, Saraiya M. Reducing ultraviolet radiation exposure among outdoor workers: state of the evidence and recommendations. Environ Health. 2007;6(1):22.

Kramer DM, Tenkate T, Strahlendorf P, Kushner R, Gardner A, Holness DL. Sun safety at work Canada: a multiple case-study protocol to develop sun safety and heat protection programs and policies for outdoor workers. Implement Sci. 2015;10:97.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Bryman A. Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. J Mix Methods Res. 2007;1:8–22.

Johnson RB, Onwuegbuzie AJ. Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Educ Res. 2004;33:14–26.

Hesse-Biber SN. Mixed methods research: merging theory with practice. New York: Guilford Press; 2010.

Google Scholar  

Regnault A, Willgoss T, Barbic S, The International Society of Quality of Life Research Mixed Methods Special Interest Group. Towards the use of mixed methods inquiry as best practice in health outcomes research. JPRO. 2018;2:19.

Tariq S, Woodman J. Using mixed methods in health research. JRSM Short Rep. 2013;4(6):2042533313479197.

Yardley L, Bishop F. Using mixed methods in health research: benefits and challenges. Health Psychol. 2015;20:1–4.

O’Cathain A, Murphy E, Nicholl J. Multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, or dysfunctional? Team working in mixed-methods research. Qual Health Res. 2008;18(11):1574–85.

O'Cathain A, Nicholl J, Murphy E. Structural issues affecting mixed methods studies in health research: a qualitative study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009;9:82.

Creswell JW. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2009.

Janda M, Stoneham M, Youl P, Crane P, Sendall MC, Tenkate T, Kimlin M. What encourages sun protection among outdoor workers from four industries? J Occup Health. 2014;56:62–72.

Tashakkori A, Teddlie C. Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (Vol. 2nd). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications; 2010.

Book   Google Scholar  

Curry LA, O’Cathain A, Clark VLP, Aroni R, Fetters M, Berg D. The role of group dynamics in mixed methods health sciences research teams. J Mixed Method Res. 2012;6(1):5–20.

Rye S, Janda M, Stoneham M, Crane P, Sendall M, Youl P, Tenkate T, Baldwin L, Perina H, Finch L, Kimlin M. Changes in outdoor workers’ sun-related attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors: a pre-post workplace intervention. J Occup Environ Med. 2014;56(9):e62–72.

Stoneham M, Sendall MC, Crane P, Janda M, Kimlin M. Promoting sun safety in the workplace - what works? J Health Safety Environ. 2015;32(2):141–53.

Bowers B, Cohen LW, Elliot AE, Grabowski DC, Fishman NW, Sharkey SS, Zimmerman S, Horn SD, Kemper P. Creating and supporting a mixed methods health services research team. Health Serv Res. 2013;48(6pt2):2157–80.

Shannon-Baker P. Making paradigms meaningful in mixed methods research. J Mix Methods Res. 2016;10(4):319–34.

Bergman MM. On concepts and paradigms in mixed methods research. J Mix Methods Res. 2010;4(3):171–5.

Mertens DM. Transformative paradigm: mixed methods and social justice. J Mix Methods Res. 2007;1(3):212–25.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This discussion paper is based on a research project which was funded by the State Government of Queensland acting through Health Promotion (QCHO/002068), Tender Offer No. 00.01/026. The funding body supported the proposed study but had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis or writing of manuscripts.

Availability of data and materials

The final report from this project is available publicly or from the corresponding author on request.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Public Health and Social Work / Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Victoria Park Road, Kelvin Grove, QLD, 4159, Australia

Marguerite C. Sendall, Laura K. McCosker, Alison Brodie & Melissa Hill

School of Social Science, University of the Sunshine Coast, Room D1.32, Locked Bag 4, Maroochydore DC, QLD, 4558, Australia

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

MCS, PC and LKMC developed the original idea for this paper. MCS and LKMC, with help from MH, contributed to the acquisition, analysis and interpretation of the survey data. MCS, MH and LKMC wrote the first and successive drafts of the paper. MCS and AB made substantial revisions for publication. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marguerite C. Sendall .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Ethical approval for this project was obtained from the Queensland University of Technology Human Research Ethics Committee (approval number 1000000968). All participants gave their informed written consent.

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Competing interests

The authors declare they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Sendall, M.C., McCosker, L.K., Brodie, A. et al. Participatory action research, mixed methods, and research teams: learning from philosophically juxtaposed methodologies for optimal research outcomes. BMC Med Res Methodol 18 , 167 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0636-1

Download citation

Received : 25 June 2018

Accepted : 03 December 2018

Published : 12 December 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0636-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Quantitative
• Qualitative
• Mixed methods
• Participatory action research (PAR)
• Research paradigms
• Outdoor workers
• Workplace health promotion
• Sun protection

Participatory Research Methods – Choice Points in the Research Process

• Citation (BibTeX)

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

If this problem reoccurs, please contact Scholastica Support

Error message:

View more stats

Participatory research (PR) encompasses research designs, methods, and frameworks that use systematic inquiry in direct collaboration with those affected by an issue being studied for the purpose of action or change. PR engages those who are not necessarily trained in research but belong to or represent the interests of the people who are the focus of the research. Researchers utilizing a PR approach often choose research methods and tools that can be conducted in a participatory, democratic manner that values genuine and meaningful participation in the research process. This article serves as an introduction to participatory research methods, including an overview of participatory research, terminology across disciplines, elements that make a research method participatory, and a model detailing the choice points that require decisions about which tools and methods will produce the desired level of participation at each stage of the research process. Intentional choices of participatory research methods, tools, and processes can help researchers to more meaningfully engage stakeholders and communities in research, which in turn has the potential to create relevant, meaningful research findings translated to action.

Participatory Research

Participatory Research (PR) is a research-to-action approach that emphasizes direct engagement of local priorities and perspectives (Cornwall & Jewkes , 1995) . PR can be defined as an umbrella term for research designs, methods, and frameworks that use systematic inquiry in direct collaboration with those affected by the issue being studied for the purpose of action or change (Cargo & Mercer , 2008) . PR prioritizes co-constructing research through partnerships between researchers and stakeholders, community members, or others with insider knowledge and lived expertise (Jagosh et al. , 2012) . Simply put, PR engages those who are not necessarily trained in research but belong to or represent the interests of the people who are the focus of the research. Instead of the “subjects” of traditional research, PR collaborates with stakeholders, community, constituents, and end-users in the research process.

By sharing leadership in research, PR “contributes directly to the flourishing of human persons, their communities, and the ecosystems of which they are part” (Reason & Torbert , 2001 , p. 6) . PR has a multitude of benefits including research that is informed by and relevant to real-world contexts, results that can be more effectively translated into community and non-academic settings, and research quality and rigor that is improved by the “integration of researchers’ theoretical and methodological expertise with nonacademic participants’ real-world knowledge and experiences into a mutually reinforcing partnership” (Balazs & Morello-Frosch , 2013; Bush et al. , 2017; Cargo & Mercer , 2008 , p. 327; International Collaboration for Participatory Health Research (ICPHR) , 2013; Warren et al. , 2018) . Increasingly, PR is used and valued across disciplines as a way to solve complex problems; however, the nomenclature of the specific PR approaches varies widely. As can be seen in Table 1 , the breadth of terms describing the PR orientation is vast, but they share in common a value in doing research with those who are typically the subjects of research, rather than on them (Reason & Torbert , 2001) . Table 1 is not intended to be an exhaustive list of the frameworks, approaches, and orientations that utilize PR, but it demonstrates that there are researchers within almost every discipline that view research as a collaborative inquiry process with research goals that go beyond knowledge generation and into real-world impact.

Over the last decade, researchers across disciplines have increasingly engaged all types of stakeholders, including consumers, end-users, patients, youth, and individuals from marginalized communities to have active roles in the research process, sharing decision-making to ensure research is relevant and translational in their lives (Vaughn et al. , 2018) . The way that these stakeholders are engaged is not conceptualized as a dichotomous distinction, but rather as a continuum ranging from academic-driven research to equitable shared decision making between academic and community partners. For example, a report from the National Institutes of Health describes community-engaged health research as a continuum with increasing involvement, impact, trust, and communication flow that ranges from outreach (i.e., researchers provide communities with information) to shared leadership (i.e., strong bidirectional partnership where final decision making is at the community level) (CTSA Community Engagement Key Function Committee Task Force on the Principles of Community Engagement , 2011) . Key and colleagues (2019) describe research engagement as ranging from community informed to community driven. Similarly, from the field of civic engagement, the Spectrum of Public Participation describes a continuum of engagement ranging from inform , in which information is provided to the public to help communities understand a complex topic, to empower , in which decisions made by stakeholders are implemented into practice (International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) , 2018) . The terms and definitions differ in these three frameworks, but the implications for PR are the same: the choice of participation level is closely tied to the impact research will have in real world settings.

Research Methods

A research method is typically thought of as a means of data collection or data generation. Conventionally, research methods are categorized as quantitative methods (i.e., surveys, questionnaires), qualitative methods (i.e., interviews, focus groups), or some combination of the two in mixed methods research. Research methods vary considerably and can include written, visual, verbal, observational, arts-based, and active strategies. Within PR, the process of engaging people in each step of the research process includes tools, tasks, and structured activities that are used to facilitate participation, shared decision-making and mutual learning. Thus, we define research methods broadly to include those concrete tools, techniques and processes used throughout the entire research process not just at the point of data collection. For instance, a particular method could be developed or adapted for use when forming a research partnership or to co-design research questions. Furthermore, research methods can include the processes and techniques for data collection, data analysis and interpretation, dissemination, and enacting change.

Participatory Research Methods

In contrast to more traditional research design strategies, researchers utilizing a PR approach often choose research methods and tools that can be conducted in a participatory, democratic manner. The foundational premise of participatory research methods is the value placed on genuine and meaningful participation – methods that offer “the ability to speak up, to participate, to experience oneself and be experienced as a person with the right to express yourself and to have the expression valued by others” (Abma et al. , 2019 , p. 127) . The ways in which stakeholders participate will vary at each step of the research process, and there are infinite options as to how to share decision making in each research task. Figure 1 depicts “choice points” – the intersection between participation and steps in the research cycle. During each and all phases of research, decisions must be made about which tools and methods will produce the desired level of participation. First, stakeholders must identify their needs and goals of the research process. Second, researchers must identify the fundamental needs of research to provide the desired evidence, outcome, or impact. Ideally, academic-community partnerships will work together to make choices that will best meet the needs of both the research and those involved in the research. These choices might lead to highly participatory strategies for some steps in the research process, and more researcher-driven strategies at others. For example, an academic-community partnership focused on environmental justice might use a citizen science approach to collect soil samples, interpret results in the context of local environments, and disseminate results back into the community. In contrast, the partnership might decide that researchers have the equipment, skills, and tools to analyze the soil samples so the data analysis stage will be conducted by the researchers. Figure 1 emphasizes a foundational principle of participatory research methods – there is no prescription for the “right” way to do PR; instead, research partners must collaborate to prioritize what’s most important and choose methods that best represent stakeholder interests and maximize the potential for real-world impact.

Two important considerations should be made when conceptualizing choice points in participatory research design, or instances where choices about level of participation must be made. First, research tools and methods can vary in the degree of participation. The “inform” level of participation is usually associated with traditional research outreach, but could be more participatory if stakeholders ask to be informed about a particular topic. Traditional focus groups often function at the “consult” level of participation described in the Figure 1, with stakeholders providing feedback that researchers consider when making their research decisions. Community Advisory Boards tend to operate on the “involve” level, with community members providing feedback throughout the research process. At the “collaborate” and “empower” levels of participation, a decision to work with non-academic co-researchers would indicate a choice of research methods, tools and processes that prioritize shared decision making and co-leadership in their very structure. For example, a project that partners directly with residents of a neighborhood and trains them to be co-researchers in a project that benefits the local community could exemplify the “collaborate” level. If these residents truly led the decision making throughout the research process, this project would be functioning at the “empower” level. Notably, the potential for immediate and sustainable impact and social change are thought to rise with increasing stakeholder participation in the research process (CTSA 2011; IAP2 2018) .

Second, although there are many methods and tools that are participatory by design, more conventional research methods used in quantitative and qualitative research like surveys and focus groups are not off the table. Rather, they can be adapted and re-thought so they are approached in a participatory way. For instance, focus groups can be co-designed, co-facilitated, and collaboratively analyzed by community co-investigators (see for example , Johnson & Martínez Guzmán , 2013; McElfish et al. , 2016) . Other research partnerships have collaboratively developed and administered surveys as part of a community needs assessment (e.g. , Goodman et al. , 2014) or worked with community co-researchers to develop questions and conduct qualitative interviews (Watson & Marciano , 2015) . The distinguishing feature of participatory research is stakeholder power in decision making and implementation; therefore, any research method or tool can be participatory if chosen and/or utilized collaboratively between academic and community partners.

Collaborative researchers have many points throughout the research process that require choices about which method will provide the desired results, in terms of both research evidence and community impact. The participatory research literature provides rich and diverse examples to help guide partnerships through these choice points. Figure 2 contains examples of participatory research methods and tools that have been used at various steps in the research process. Researchers new to participatory research might use this figure to identify examples of the type of participatory tools that can be used for various research tasks. For example, if a partnership is looking for concrete strategies to involve community members in analyzing data, they might look to Jackson’s (2008) work with marginalized women to analyze qualitative data, Main and colleagues (2012) data collection, analysis, and dissemination of health data in urban Denver neighborhoods, or Cashman and colleagues (2008) overview of four public health case studies that involved stakeholders in data analysis and interpretation. Although the results of participatory research are prolific in the literature, it can be difficult to isolate concrete descriptions of how the research was collaboratively conducted. We offer these examples as a starting point to inspire future use of participatory research methods and tools.

The focus on participatory research methods is necessary to truly actualize the dual goals of PR: knowledge production and real-world action conducted in a democratic, collaborative manner. A deliberate choice of participatory research methods can help researchers more deeply engage stakeholders and communities at each step of the research process. Such engagement allows research to benefit from the collective wisdom of both researchers and communities which in turn creates more meaningful findings translated to action. Researchers across many disciplines have a long history of working with non-academic stakeholders in PR, but the nuts-and-bolts description of how to do this work is often minimal to non-existent. Explicit description of the participatory research methods, tools, and processes along with documentation of the challenges and facilitators to implementation will strengthen PR and broaden its impact.

Understanding participatory action research: A qualitative research methodology option

• January 2012
• The Canadian Journal of Action Research 13(2):34-50
• 13(2):34-50

• St. Francis Xavier University

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• Shabnam Wahed

• Jennifer Case

• BMC Emerg Med
• Alireza Shafiei

• Hamid Reza Khankeh
• SUPPLY CHAIN MANAG

• Daniel Møller Clausen
• Hala Mreiwed
• Laura H. V. Wright
• Kate Butler

• Mahsa Kashkooli

• Theresia Mushaandja
• Susanna Maria Oksanen

• Mark Daniel
• Michel O'Neill
• K.R. Gilbert
• Ernie Stringer

• Edward F. McQuarrie
• Catherine Marshall

• I. Harkavay
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

• Kindle Store
• Kindle eBooks
• Medical eBooks

Promotions apply when you purchase

These promotions will be applied to this item:

Some promotions may be combined; others are not eligible to be combined with other offers. For details, please see the Terms & Conditions associated with these promotions.

• Highlight, take notes, and search in the book
• In this edition, page numbers are just like the physical edition

Buy for others

Buying and sending ebooks to others.

• Select quantity
• Buy and send eBooks
• Recipients can read on any device

These ebooks can only be redeemed by recipients in the US. Redemption links and eBooks cannot be resold.

Sorry, there was a problem.

Image unavailable.

• To view this video download Flash Player

Participatory Qualitative Research Methodologies in Health 1st Edition, Kindle Edition

-          Ethical issues in Participatory Research

-          Designing and conduction Participatory Research projects

-          Data management and analysis

-          Researching with different populations

-          New technologies

Packed full of up to date and engaging case studies, Participatory Qualitative Research Methodologies in Health offers a wide range of perspectives and voices on the practicalities and theoretical issues involved in conducting participatory research today. It is the ideal resource for students and researchers embarking upon a participatory research project.

• ISBN-13 978-1446259061
• Edition 1st
• Sticky notes Not Enabled
• Publisher SAGE Publications Ltd
• Publication date June 18, 2015
• Language English
• File size 4039 KB
• See all details

Fire Tablets

• Fire HD 8 (8th Generation)
• Fire 7 (9th Generation)
• Fire HD 10 (9th Generation)
• Fire HD 8 (10th Generation)
• Fire HD 10 (11th Generation)
• Fire HD 10 Plus
• Fire 7 (12th Generation)
• Fire HD 8 (12th Generation)
• Fire HD 8 Plus

Free Kindle Reading Apps

• Kindle for Android Phones
• Kindle for Android Tablets
• Kindle for iPhone
• Kindle for iPad
• Kindle for Mac
• Kindle for PC
• Kindle for Web

Editorial Reviews

With this delightful collection, Higginbottom and Liamputtong advance the art and science of collaborative community based action research. The wisdom in these pages derives from a deeply ethical commitment to social justice grounded in solidly informed and creative methodological technique.

Engaging individuals, families and communities in the development of programs and services is increasingly important in our culturally diverse and pluralistic global community. This text provides crucial information for individuals hoping to make a difference and increase access to health care, particularly for marginalized and vulnerable populations.

About the Author

Gina Higginbottom holds a Tier II Canada Research Chair in Ethnicity and Health and is Professor in the Faculty of Nursing, at the University of Alberta. Gina′s research portfolio focuses on ethnic minority populations and immigrant health using participatory models of research and ethnography. She has a particular focus on the broad issue of social exclusion and equity in health care, lay understandings of health and illness. A second theme in her research portfolio has focused on maternal health and well being including parenting issues, early parenthood and postnatal depression in different ethnic minority groups. Gina has been Principal Investigator on 17 nationally and internationally funded qualitative research studies, currently she holds three Canadian Institute for Health grants. Gina is Assistant Editor of Ethnicity and Health journal and co-chair of the IIQM′s 2013 Thinking Qualitative Conference 2013 and an Affiliate Scholar of IIQM as well as an advisory board member of IIQM. Gina is an experienced educator with a professional teaching qualification who has facilitated many undergraduate, graduate and doctoral programs in the UK and Canada. 

Pranee is a medical anthropologist and has interests in the health of women, children, immigrants, refugees, older people, and transgender individuals. In terms of health issues, Pranee is very interested in issues relating to motherhood, reproductive health, sexuality, sexual health, mental health and chronic illnesses. Recently, Pranee has focused her research on sexuality and sexual health issues of Asian women, refugee/immigrant women, young people, and trans women of colour. She has written a number of textbooks and research articles on health-related issues. Pranee is also a qualitative researcher and has written many textbooks on this approach. Some of her textbooks (Qualitative Research Methods, Research Methods in Health and  Evidence-Based Practice, Social Determinants of Health, & Public Health) have been adopted widely, both in Australia and overseas. Previously, Pranee held the position of Professor of Public Health at Western Sydney University and Personal Chair of Public Health at La Trobe University, in Australia. She is now a Professor of Behaviour Sciences at the College of Health Sciences, VinUnivesity in Hanoi where she continues her research with marginalised groups in Vietnam and other groups in Asia.

Product details

• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B01416VNAY
• Publisher ‏ : ‎ SAGE Publications Ltd; 1st edition (June 18, 2015)
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ June 18, 2015
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 4039 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Not enabled
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 264 pages
• Format ‏ : ‎ Print Replica

Customer reviews

• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 5 star 49% 51% 0% 0% 0% 49%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 4 star 49% 51% 0% 0% 0% 51%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 3 star 49% 51% 0% 0% 0% 0%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 2 star 49% 51% 0% 0% 0% 0%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 1 star 49% 51% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.

To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.

No customer reviews

Report an issue.

• About Amazon
• Investor Relations
• Amazon Devices
• Amazon Science
• Sell products on Amazon
• Sell on Amazon Business
• Sell apps on Amazon
• Become an Affiliate
• Advertise Your Products
• Self-Publish with Us
• Host an Amazon Hub
• › See More Make Money with Us
• Amazon Business Card
• Shop with Points
• Reload Your Balance
• Amazon Currency Converter
• Amazon and COVID-19
• Your Account
• Your Orders
• Shipping Rates & Policies
• Returns & Replacements
• Manage Your Content and Devices

• Conditions of Use
• Privacy Notice
• Consumer Health Data Privacy Disclosure
• Your Ads Privacy Choices