The qualitative method of inquiry participatory action research By: Saed Kakei, Ph.D. Student (No1144759), CARD 7110 DL1/A midterm essay paper. Jason J. Campbell, Ph.D. Nova Southeastern University Department of Conflict Analysis & Resolution PhD Program November 27, 2011

1

The qualitative method of inquiry involving participatory action research

Abstract This paper explains the qualitative method of inquiry involving participatory action research. While reviewing and discussing the growing soft literatures on various forms of action research, the author of this paper will try to answer questions relating to the historical development of participatory action research, it nature, tenets, and advantages as well as disadvantages. In so doing, this paper uses the authors personal lived-experience as a method to explore the possibilities of developing a theoretical framework to utilize PAR in communal conflict settings.

Introduction Relationship is essential for qualitative inquiry. As we involve in qualitative research, we have to relate ourselves to the topic of our research. We have to also build relationships with those who participant in our research team. As with any relationship,this trilateral relationship requires a qualitative plan or design which can vary in time, focus, energy, and outcomes.

As I am learning about qualitative inquiry, I have been experiencing all kinds of emotions. At the start of my introductory course to qualitative research, I was excited, yet confused. Excited because this course would be the first research course I have ever taken in my academic life; and, confused as I am learning various terminologies and paradigms with most of which often meaning the same thing but with a slight touch of variations. For instance, forms of the emerging participatory research are almost similar but not identical to the various forms of actions research

2

which I will discuss and explain them later in this paper. These painstaking variations often times frustrated me and made me hopeless and sad. However, knowing that the inquiry of knowledge is not a simple and convenient task, I became hopeful by the inspiring surprises which are layered within the methods of qualitative approach. Fortunately, as I have been building my relationship with the discourse of qualitative research, I have already made my mind to go along with the emerging qualitative research methods, specifically the participatory action research (PAR). As a doctoral student studying conflict analysis and resolution, this qualitative study of mine is informed by postpositivist action research perspectives where central to the inquiry is my attempt to seek a correct answer to a practical problem and my assumption that the solution is best found by studying the problem in the real world (Willis, 2007, p. 265). Ever since I identified myself as a Kurd, I have seen and experienced problems in my living environments almost on daily bases. In fact, I intensely do remember that in my first week of going to elementary school at grade one in the province of Kirkuk in Iraqi Kurdistan region, I had an elementary sports teacher who instructed me and my classmates to greet all teachers when we approach them in Arabic language with either Sabah-ul-Khair UstadhGood Morning Teacher or Masa-ul-Khair UstadhGood evening Teacher. The next day, when I ran into that teacher who was a non-Arab of Turkoman origin, I saluted him in half Kurdish and half Arabic as: Bayani Bash UstadhGood Morning Teacher. Just as I finished my salutation, a painful and powerful slap landed on left side of my face triggering a long lasting high pitch ringing in my left ear. As I started crying, that teacher, who was known by his first name as Raza Efendi, grabbed my ringing ear and then kicked me

3

hard in my rear end with his left foot as though he was kicking a soccer ball, and as a result I urinated myself. Once I fell on my right side on the cement floor about two meters away from him with burning bruises on my right side of the body, he grabbed me from my collar and dragged me into the teachers office in front of at least 50 elementary students. Eventually, the school principal, an Arab originally from Baghdad, came out of his office yelling at Raza Efendi for what he did to me and asking one of the maintenance guys to get me a pair of school uniform pants and a white shirt to wear for the day. At that point Appo QadirUncle Qadir, a Kurd from Kirkuk, hurried into the teachers office grabbing me up from the floor and rushed me into the principals office. From there, Uncle Qadir took me to the principals private washroom asking me in Kurdish to stop crying while he was wiping out my tears mixed with my runny noise. Then, when I stopped crying, Uncle Qadir asked me why did I misbehave? Sobbingly, I replied that I didnt do any wrong doing aside from greeting him in mixed Arabic and Kurdish. At this point Uncle Qadir hugged me as one of his own children and asked me to calm down, take off my clothes, and try to take quick shower while he will go to get me some new clothes. Shortly thereafter, I heard Uncle Qadir telling the principal what I told him about the greeting incident. Then I heard the principal calling my name and asking me in a broken Kurdish if I was able to wash myself by my own. Not knowing how to lie, I asked for Uncle Qadir to come to my help. As he did, Uncle Qadir gave me a quick shower, dried me with a towel, and had me wear new underwear. Afterwards, he asked the principal to come and see my bleeding right elbow. Once the principal saw the wound and the other bruises on my body, he got really angry and started name calling and stereotyping Raza Efendi who was not at the presence of the principal. In short, as my right elbow

4

would got bandaged and I was putting on my new pants and shirt with the help of Uncle Qadir, I heard the principal saying that Raza Efendis behavior was based on his hatred towards the Kurds. The principal was frustratingly asking: How could you do this to an innocent and politely respectful child? How could you justify the death of your soldier brother in the hands of the Kurdish Peshmargas (Freedom fighters) by taking your outrageous revenge on a Kurdish child? When I reflect on this story which happened to me in 1965, it is very hard to find an answer to it in the very well established forms of qualitative research such as ethnography, interviews, case studies, and historiography (Willis, 2007, p. 260). For me, the qualitative method of inquiry involving ethnographic research is not only insufficient, but also it covers a comprehensive field of wide diffusion leading to endless debates. Paul Atkinson et al. stated that the intellectual terrain of ethnographic diversity is usually challenged: authority and tradition are constantly undermined (Atkinson et al., 2010, p. 1). Accordingly, any observation, which Jerry Willis considers them to be at the core of what qualitative research is (2007, p. 233), to collect data from an interested subject matter utilizing the ethnographic methods could render the outcomes as incomplete. Furthermore, since a number of observations are currently used in various disciplines of social sciences, I am hesitant to submit my story to any one of the well-established forms of qualitative research simply because none of these observations are technical in nature. In other words, they do not provide me with needed grounds for reflection to seek a correct answer to my problem, nor they do prepare me to assume a solution for my real world problem. In a status of hopelessness and frustration, I turned to biographical research for readings on the narrative inquiry as a possible methodology for its apparent

5

trajectory toward the possibilities of a resolution or conclusion (Toolan, 1988, p. 4). Reading the definitions for narrative analysis cited by Brian Roberts (2002), I learned that Clandinin and Connelly (1994), Josselson (1995), Muller (1999), and Toolan (1988) had all focused on the importance of storying human life-experiences as actions which get narrated by researchers who then must decode, recognize, recontextualize, or abstract that life in the interest of reaching a new interpretation of raw data of experience (Josselson and Lieblich, 1995, p. ix in Roberts, 2002, p.p. 119-20). The methodology of data interpretation encouraged me to look deeper into the narrative inquiry as yet another approach by which I could find meanings for the revenge which is often associated with ethnic and communal conflicts. But, to my surprise, very little and sometimes narrowly provided sketches were available, mainly in studies covering interpersonal conflict analyses. For example, Jessica H. Muller (1999) offers that the main principle of narrative philosophy provides a way of understanding the world and ordering experience that contrasts with the prevalent positivist scientific paradigm (Muller, 1999, p. 223). She goes on to say that the idea of narrative method is firmly grounded in qualitative traditions and stresses the lived experience of individuals, the importance of multiple perspectives, the existence of context-bound, constructed social realities, and the impact of the researcher on the research process (Muller, 1999, p. 223). With such a limitation, I turned to the phenomenological research in pursuit of understanding the root-causes of ethnic hatred and revenge. Croswell (2007) defines phenomenological research as a phenomenological study [which] describes the meaning of several individuals of their lived experience of a concept or phenomenon

6

(2007, p. 57). This expanded version of narrative research had me reflect on the phenomenon which I had experience with Raza Efendi. Initially, I thought that choosing the phenomenological approach would lead to a satisfactory resolution to my long lasting grievances. Then, as I expanded my readings on this method, I come to realize that the essence of my lived experience would merely be a combined description of what happened to me and how I experienced it without explanations or analyses. With phenomenological approach, I would not be able to explain why it happened to me and what remedies could I find to treat my experienced childhood trauma. While this conclusion aggravated my frustrations, I was lucky to learn that there still remain relatively a few more emerging research approaches grouped into two sets: participatory qualitative research and emancipatory qualitative research (Willis, 2007). This set me quickly look into the participatory action research.

Participatory qualitative research As a qualitative research student, I did not wish to give up on understanding which research design could best fulfill my research objectives. Therefore, I expanded my readings to include methods of research beyond the traditional forms of qualitative inquiry. In so doing, I did not wish to separate myself from individuals or communal groups who have experienced events similar to that of mine in 1965. If any, this means that I am strongly interested in doing research with those who either have instigated events like the one that I lived through or have experienced occurrences similar to that of mine. My reason for this position is that I want to value their knowledge, expertise and opinions. I want to comprehend their lived experience.

7

Most importantly, I want to participate and engage in dialogues and conversations that would shed light on how to investigate and address the research goals that would seek a correct answer to a practical problem (Willis, 2007, 265). I must say that I have arrived at this stage because of two reasons. First, the postpositivist paradigm imposes structural laws and theories that do not fit marginalized individuals like me (Croswell, 2007, p. 21). Second, the worldviews of the constructivists do not go far enough in advocating for action to help individuals caught in situations similar to my lived one (Croswell, 2007, p. 21). Therefore, I am advocating a worldview that promotes enabling over blinding (Bernstein, 1983, p.128). I think that by enabling myself to interact with participants in a research containing an action agenda would highly increase chances of finding solutions for my research issue. Moreover, by bringing together different participants and by giving them a chance to investigate their different interpretations for what happened, how it happened, and why it happened, I believe it would potentially create new roles and priorities with required change in behaviours/attitudes and understanding of the dynamics of such change. This process, according to Mac Naughton (2001), is called an action research which it can produce changed ways of doing things and changed ways of understanding why we do what we do (2001, p. 208). In order words, action research is a cyclical process simultaneously undertaking an action causing changeimprovement and a research producing understandinggaining knowledge. The understanding or gaining knowledge creates a more improved change while allowing a better understanding. This spiral procedure is similar to the natural tempo by which most of us practically behave. For example, we do something and we check if it works as expected. If it doesnt, then we analyze what happened, how it happened, and why is not working

8

the way we want it to work. That been said, we must not forget the fact that only those who are affected by the change are usually involved in action research. This brings us to recognize that the affected people are the participants in the action research.

Historical backgrounds of the Participatory Action Research A passing examination of the history of action research explains the development of the PAR. The origins of the action research can be linked to Kurt Lewins earliest writings on action research. According to Willis (2007), While he was in the United States, Lewin was a psychologist who instead of focusing on a single component in a social state of affairs, had underlined the importance of understanding the meaning in context (2007, p. 264). By arguing so, Lewin was able to create a theory of action research defined by Willis as a spiral approach that proceeds through a series of steps that include planning, action, evaluation of the action, and then another cycle through the process (2007, p. 264). Lewin had tested his theory in many community action research projects at the time. However, because of the inclusion of community practitioners in the research process and because the positivists were dominating the research paradigms in the United States, action research was weakened in research studies (Kemmis, 1981). Yet, since action research puts emphasis on real-world problems (2007, p. 264) and advocates change and understanding simultaneously, the second forms of action research involving structural development began in Britain in the early 1970s.

9

However, influenced by neo-Marxism and the interpretive worldviews, European action researchers initiated the third form of action research encouraging a more accessible, critical and emancipatory action research (Carr and Kemmis, 1986). The fourth form of action research appeared in the South American social movements. Paulo Freire (1971), a Brazilian adult educator, argued that the researcher/participant modes of identification should be dissolved and that researchers and participants should become subjects of their own history (Freire, 1971. Cited in Campbell, 2011). Freire (1971) suggested that a culture of silence comprehends the poor who have little voice in the political process and often imposes the dominant groups negative images of them as unworthy and powerless. Mac Naughton asserts that the South American forms of action research should embody educational transformation and emancipation by working with others to change existing social practices and by using critical reflection and social criticism as key research processes. It is therefore collaborative, change-orientated and overtly political (2001, p. 210). Reason & Bradbury (2001) have described action research as:

"a participatory, democratic process concerned with developing practical knowing in the pursuit of worthwhile human purposes, grounded in a participatory worldview It seeks to bring together action and reflection, theory and practice, in participation with others, in the pursuit of practical solutions to issues of pressing concern to people " (2001, p.1).

10

However, Reason and McArdle (2004) have underlined Freires (1971) action research strategies as the bases for the emergence of Participative Action Research. As for PAR, they have emphasized its explicit political nature which is:

aiming to restore to oppressed peoples the ability to create knowledge and practice in their own interests and as such has a double objective. One aim is to produce knowledge and action directly useful to a group of people The second aim is to empower people at a second and deeper level through the process of constructing and using their own knowledge... (Reason and McArdle, 2004, p. 3).

Insofar, I envision that either one of these two forms of PAR would easily incorporate my childhood lived experience. In fact, the culture of silence is overwhelmingly important to comprehend. Personally, I am still affected by its devastation and it has occasionally made me to second-guess the validities of my national, blood, and belonging identities. As a Kurd born to have Iraqi state identity cards, I was surrounded with ridiculous Arab historical claims tracing my origins back to two roots: pre-Islamic Bedouin families from the Arab Peninsula, or Jinn (Genies) of the Mountains. In Iran, Persians consider Kurds as a branch of Pars race. In Turkey, however, Kurds are considered as Mountain Turks. Ironically though, western literatures describe the Kurds as aggressive warriors. Associated with the culture of silenceas apparent aboveare the stereotyping and the belittlement of the Kurds by the dominant sociopolitical groups. Therefore, to be liberated from these devastating problem-posting environments, Mac Naughtons (2001) assertion on educational transformation and emancipation

11

would certainly align the central idea of conscientization, a method of selfawareness encompassing the transformation from seeing myself as an object responding to the world to seeing myself as a subject who can transform the world (Freire 1971). Lastly, Kemmis and McTaggart (2005) have identified a new generation of critical participatory action research (2005, p. 563) aimed at evaluating itself through dialogue and providing a frame of reference for greater understanding. This critical thinking would also solidify my orientation to conduct a research inquiry with emphasis placed on collaborate integration of actions and reflections of those who might participate in my possible research project.

Features of PAR PAR is relatively a new and a collective approach to action research and it is influential in the social justice movement (Torres, 2004). PAR is a research process which directly involves both the researcher and the participants in the research project. This rather general definition distinguishes PAR from the narrative research and phenomenological research. The data given by the participants from questions supplied by the researcher will be assessed to give some meanings to life experience. The researcher and the participants are separate and the data of the research becomes a product (Campbell, 2011). In PAR, the researcher becomes a participant in the research and the participant becomes a researcher in the research. So, it is more of a collaborative emersion research (Campbell, 2011). The researcher participates with the participants in becoming part of the solution for the communal problems and the final

12

product becomes a community based research. There is no single authorship of the PAR. Rather, there would be a collective authorship of group data. As provided in the participatory research section of this paper, the central feature of PAR is its spiral approach that continues over a series of phases that include planning, action, and evaluation of the action; and, if a resolution is not attainable, then another cycle will begin. Kemmis and McTaggart (2005) have recognized seven further key features of PAR that provide greater depths to my orientation to start a research inquiry. These PAR features are as follows: 1. PAR is a social procedure: It asserts that no individuation is possible without socialisation, and no socialisation is possible without individuation (Habermas, 1992, p. 26). 2. PAR is participatory: It is an orientation to fully collaborate with the participants of the willing in order to examine their knowledge and the ways in which they express themselves and interpret their action in their practical social worlds. 3. PAR is practical and collaborative: PAR is a process in which participants examine the social actions that bond them with others in group interaction. 4. PAR is emancipatory: PAR aims to help people recover, and release themselves from, the constraints of irrational, unproductive, unjust, and unsatisfying social structures that limit self-development and self-determination (Kemmis & McTaggart, 2005, p. 567; emphasis in original).

13

5. PAR is critical: It is a critical dialogue to examine real-world issues deliberately in order to expose, challenge and reconstruct unjust, unsatisfying and unproductive practices. 6. PAR is reflexive: It is a conscious procedure with which people try to study their real-world actions in a cyclical, spiralling process of collective reflection through critical dialogue. 7. PAR aims to be transformative in both theory and practice: It tries to articulate and improve both researchers and participants theories and practices through critical reasoning about both theory and practice and their consequences (Kemmis & McTaggart, 2005, p. 568). Denzin and Lincoln (2005) confirm that work in this tradition attempts to make qualitative research more humanistic, holistic, and relevant to the lives of human beings. This worldview sees human beings as co-creating their reality through participation, experience and action (2005, p. 568).

The four principles of PAR: In his outline prepared for online video lectures on Introduction to methods of qualitative research, Dr. Jason J. Campbell (2011) provides four tenets of PAR as following: 1. Collective commitment to investigate an issue or problem (McIntyre, 2008, p. 1). The collective commitment of PAR is a combined examination of the researcher and participants. When I decide to begin my inquiry in one of Kirkuks multiethnic communities to study one of its pressing issues, I then must be committed

14

to become a participant and engage in critical dialogue with the participants on exploring a possible problem solving. Critical dialogue is essential for problem solving. Otherwise, I may not develop a good understanding of the problem. 2. Inclusion of self and collective reflection as a mode of research. Collective reflection means the process to analyze and re-evaluate as a group in terms of reflecting on the outcomes, results, and consequences of errors in the process to problem solving (Campbell, 2011, p. 6). 3. Mutually beneficial collective or individual action. PAR has to have a mutual benefit (2011, p. 6). Therefore, the greater my emersion is the greater my chances would be to become part of the community. 4. Alliance building between researchers and participant (2011, p. 6). Participants have to feel that I am there to help and to give a lending hand to solve their problem rather than ask them to narrate their story for me or others. I have to believe that the participants are smart enough to understand the problem. Otherwise, the participants may feel as though I am not respecting them.

The distinction between engagement and involvement Engagement in the research project addresses the research process (Campbell, 2011, p. 6). Anytime Im talking about research, I have to recognize that the research itself is always going to be framed. Thus, it is in the framing of the research that I understand and able to identify the type of research whether it is framed by the data, interpretation, or analysis. This is to say that the process is facilitated by mutual engagement which yields ownership over or in the project (McIntyre, 2008, p. 15). When I am not engaged, I might be seen as a third-person because of the distance that

15

separates me from the research project. However, if I get involved, I will be seen as a first person because of my emersion in the research process.

Context-Specificity of PAR: Since PAR is not a research methodology, the general framework for PAR is to have one or multiple researchers to select participants from a research targeted community to discuss problems that are troubling the community and coming up with a number of potential remedies, implementing, rating, and picking a solution (Campbell, 2011, p. 6-7). By so doing, the targeted community will be grateful for my help and I would be thankful for the communitys help in forming my theory or model for the research. Each instance of PAR is specific to the environment and the research objective. In other words, PAR would be defined by the research environment. Both, the environment and the level of involvement, will define our research. Community based critical reflection is indicative of PAR. A targeted community doesnt have to be made of a small group of people. Community based critical reflection creates a counter hegemonic narrative and suggest the necessary conditions for change, all of which are necessarily context specific. Basically, we can have hegemonic narrative that reinforces a balance of power. The community engages the researcher and then together, chip away at the hegemonic narrative of oppression (2011, p. 7). In so doing, Freire (1971) warned not become or create of oneself an oppressive hegemonic force replacing what has been chipped away.

The role of participant-generated actions:

16

By tempting to attain an outcome, a collective identification addressing the problem would be my desired outcome. This outcome will help me and the participants to problem solve. If it doesnt, then we will know in our research that there is a problem. As provided earlier, collective reflection combined with critical dialogue as the most important methods for assessment, would be used to assess the outcomes of our research. All outcomes will and must, eventually, undergo assessment. I need to create this system of assessment for efficiency and for the effectiveness of our research process. In so doing, we would recognize if our process will follow through. Once again, the effectiveness of our outcomes must dependent on the critical dialogue and collective reflection. Anytime I mention PAR outcomes, I am concerned about the problem solving process which requires organizing; which in turn requires policy changes and the implementation of recommendations. The latter requirement would be very challenging because involves government and established regulations. Lastly, the requirement for awareness and education is PARs best means for deconstructing the dominant groups oppression or hegemonic power. That been said, the best way to counter-act the narrative oppression is to make people aware that we are as a species of the same (Campbell, 2011, p. 7). It is worth mentioning that my research questions should arise from the PAR process. The narrative that emerges from the research will serve as a basis for the research questions. The last thing need to do, would be to go into the process and tell my co-researchers: By answering these research questions, I will be able to address your problems.

17

Participants should always be encouraged to critically reflect on the research questions and the emergent research questions. We have to reflect on the questions. Both the participants and I are researcher participant and the participating researchers. We should ask ourselves questions like: Are we getting closer? Are we further away? Where are we going? We need to have answers on how to solve the problem.

Advantages and disadvantages of a PAR Model: 1. Conducive to social and community based research: it is good for community research. PAR model is a research approach that is a theory of possibility rather than a theory of predictability (Wadsworth, 1998). When talking about PAR, what is a possibility in that community, these things are possible. The important thing I have to recognize is that we can do very dense research. It is our own research with our own spin on it. We can arrive alongside the community at a solution for the good of the community. 2. Highly Context Specific Community Research. PAR is a very highly context specific. The research community is composed of many complex structures (Campbell, 2011, p. 8). I can pick on a facet of a community which might interest me and go find out what their problem is. Depending on my interests and the needs of the community, it is the consolidation of the interest and the needs to uncover a profound solution. 3. Facilities an overall demystification of what research is and how it can relate to peoples lives (McIntyre, 2008, p. 67). I need to avoid showing how smart I am and how dumb the participants are. The participants and I need to become subjects of their own history (Freire, 1971). This will help to recognize that the

18

research inquiry is motivated by keen interests to make the research targeted community a better place. To this end, I believe that the cyclical and the spiral nature of PAR would provide me a theoretical ground to develop a framework through which I can apply PAR as a problem-solving method in communal conflict situations. I recognize the fact that communal conflict involves complex sociopolitical and socioeconomic issues. However, I also believe that root-causes of a conflict could easily be identified with the cyclical model of PAR; and, oncewith changebetter understanding is achieved, the platform for conflict resolution, conflict transformation, and conflict management methods would be viable to perform. Finally, I must acknowledge that PAR has some potential criticisms. A major obstacle, and a large deterrent for potential participant co-researchers, is the time commitment involved in participation. Also, PAR may be affected by the human condition, especially sickness and loss of enthusiasm. Denzin and Lincoln (2005) have cautioned that social justice orientated research requires its co-researchers to assume a moral obligation that support one another and all participants (2005, p. 1118).

Conclusion: PAR approaches and models have seen a growing of recent interest in the social justice and conflict transformation fields. PAR involves collaborative research, critical dialogue and action oriented towards democratic social change, representing a foremost epistemological challenge to conventional research traditions. PAR is a suitable research orientation model to examine various aspects of communal conflicts.

19

It can provide a practical setting to solve real-world communal issues and problems. PAR can easily align with qualitative inquiries into interpersonal, intergroup, and intrastate conflicts. However, since the growing body of literature on PAR is soft and it has not been institutionalized, it has been the subject of heated critique and debate, and rapid theoretical development. As a qualitative research student, I believe the cyclical nature of PAR would provide me a theoretical ground to develop a framework through which I can apply PAR as problem-solving method in communal conflict situations.

20

References: Atkinson, P. Coffey, A. Delamont, S. Lofland, J. and Loftland, L. (2010). Handbook of ethnography. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Bernstein, R. (1983). Beyond objectivism and relativism: Science, hermeneutics, and praxis. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Carr, W & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. London: Falmer. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative approaches to inquiry. In Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed., pp. 53-84). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Campbell, J. J. (2011). Introduction to methods of qualitative research. (Outline). Retrieved on 30 August 2011 from:http://www.jasonjcampbell.org/uploads/Methods_of_Qualitative_Research_and_Inquiry.pdf

Clandinin, D. J. and Connelly, F. M. (1994). Personal experience methods. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (Eds.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (2005). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Freire, P. (1971). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Herder & Herder. Habermas, J. (1992). Postmetaphysical thinking: philosophical essays (W.M. Hohengarten, Trans.). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. Josselson, R. (1995). Imagining the real: empathy, narrative, and the dialogic self. In R. Josselson and A. Lieblich (eds). The narrative study of lives, 3. London: Sage Publications.

21

Josselson, R.and Lieblich, A. (1995). The narrative study of lives: Making meaning of narratives, 6. London: Sage Publications. Kemmis, S. (1981). Action research in prospect and retrospect. In S. Kemmis, C. Henry, C. Hook, & R. McTaggart (Eds.), The action research reader. (pp. 1131). Geelong Australia: Deakin University Press. Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R. (2005). Participatory action research: Communicative action and the public sphere. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed. pp. 559-603). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Mac Naughton, G. (2001). Action research. In G. Mac Naughton, S.A. Rolfe, & I. Siraj-Blatchford (Eds.), Doing early childhood research: International perspectives on theory and practice. (pp. 208-223). Crows Nest Australia: Allen & Unwin. McIntyre, A. (2008). Participatory action research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Muller, J. H. (1999). Narrative approaches to qualitative research in primary care. In B. F. Crabtree and W. L. Miller (Eds.) Doing qualitative research. (2nd ed. pp. 221-238). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Reason, P. & Bradbury, H. (2001). Inquiry and participation in search of a world worthy of human Aspiration. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice. London: Sage. Reason P, & McArdle, K. L. (2004). Brief notes on the theory and practice of action research. In Becker S, & Bryman (eds.) Understanding research methods for social policy and practice. London: The Polity Press Roberts, B. (2002). Biographical research. London: Open University Press. Toolan, M. J. (1988). Narrative: A critical linguistic introduction. London: Routledge.

22

Torres, M. (2004). The role of participatory democracy in the critical praxis of social justice. In J. ODonnell, M. Pruyn, & R. Chavez Chavez (Eds.), Social justice in these times. Greenwich Connecticut: Information Age Publishing. Wadsworth, Y. (1998). What is participatory action research? Action research international, paper 2. Retrieved on November 18, 2011 from: http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/ari/p-ywadsworth98.htm Willis, J. W. (2007). Foundations of qualitative research: Interpretive and critical approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

23