Reflections on Implementing Participatory Action Research in Engineering

Abstract

Participatory Action Research (PAR) is a research approach that utilizes collaborative relationships between researcher and stakeholders in order to solve a problem and generate knowledge (Coghlan & Brannick, 2010). Within the engineering space, PAR is beginning to gain steam and approval as a valid approach to research. More specifically, PAR is an ideal approach to understanding the experiences of marginalized populations. It can be argued that PAR methods and more feminist approaches are necessary within an engineering context, if we hope to make progress in regard to equity and inclusion in the engineering field. This paper provides an overview of PAR, while also discussing the need for positionality and reflection embedded in the research process. Each of the authors share a narrative reflection on their experiences within the PAR space and the challenges that accompany the action implementation phase of PAR. Additionally, example action items from a recent study are shared to provide context to the feasibility of PAR action. The goal of this paper is to raise awareness around PAR as a preferred approach when working with marginalized populations and the necessary resources researchers need to execute action items.

Full text

Journal of Education and Development; Vol. 7, No. 3; August, 2023
ISSN 2529-7996 E-ISSN 2591-7250
Published by July Press
18
Reflections on Implementing Participatory Action Research in
Engineering
Whitney Gaskins1, Batsheva Guy2 & Brittany Arthur3
1 Assistant Dean of Inclusive Excellence, Engineering, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, USA
2 Adjunct Professor, Psychology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, USA
3 Associate Professor, Career Education, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, USA
Correspondence: Dr. Brittany Arthur, Associate Professor, Career Education, University of Cincinnati,
Cincinnati, OH 45220, USA. E-mail: Brittany.arthur@uc.edu
Received: July 17, 2023 Accepted: August 12, 2023 Online Published: August 18, 2023
doi:10.20849/jed.v7i3.1369 URL: https://doi.org/10.20849/jed.v7i3.1369
Abstract
Participatory Action Research (PAR) is a research approach that utilizes collaborative relationships between
researcher and stakeholders in order to solve a problem and generate knowledge (Coghlan & Brannick, 2010).
Within the engineering space, PAR is beginning to gain steam and approval as a valid approach to research.
More specifically, PAR is an ideal approach to understanding the experiences of marginalized populations. It can
be argued that PAR methods and more feminist approaches are necessary within an engineering context, if we
hope to make progress in regard to equity and inclusion in the engineering field. This paper provides an
overview of PAR, while also discussing the need for positionality and reflection embedded in the research
process. Each of the authors share a narrative reflection on their experiences within the PAR space and the
challenges that accompany the action implementation phase of PAR. Additionally, example action items from a
recent study are shared to provide context to the feasibility of PAR action. The goal of this paper is to raise
awareness around PAR as a preferred approach when working with marginalized populations and the necessary
resources researchers need to execute action items.
Keywords: feminist qualitative research, participatory action research, women in engineering, engineering
education
1. Introduction
1.1 Participatory Action Research (PAR)
PAR challenges structures of power, by creating opportunities for communities to participate in the creation of
innovative and effective solutions. The PAR tradition affirms “the notion that ordinary people can understand
and change their own lives through research, education, and action” (Brydon-Miller & Maguire, 2009, p. 81). A
main goal of PAR is to empower individuals who experience powerlessness to “use their own knowledge” to
create action and change in their community (Coghlan & Brannick, 2010, p. 45). PAR is more of a stance than a
methodology, stressing the importance of the research process and inclusion of participants (Herr & Anderson,
2015).
PAR is grounded in the lived experiences and knowledge of the participants (Wicks, Reason, & Bradbury, 2008).
The “enlightenment and awakening of common peoples” (Fals-Borda & Rahman, 1991, p. vi) has been
mentioned as being the primary role of PAR. By emphasizing collaboration, specifically within oppressed
communities, PAR strives to confront the causes of injustice and inequality, while focusing specifically on
finding solutions (Williams & Brydon-Miller, 2004).
The PAR approach places a great deal of emphasis on the collaboration with participants, with collaboration
being an overarching value throughout the entire research process. PAR requires the respect of people,
acknowledging the experiences and knowledge that people bring to the research process (Brydon-Miller,
Greenwood, & Maguire, 2003). Power sharing changes the dynamic of the research as it allows for research with
the community as opposed to on the community. The PAR process is a collaborative experience, with the intent
of creating transformative change through a commitment to action (Brydon-Miller & Maguire, 2009).

http://jed.julypress.com Journal of Education and Development Vol. 7, No. 3; August, 2023
19
Coghlan and Brannick (2010) explain that PAR “has a subversive quality about it. It examines everything. It
stresses listening. It emphasizes questioning. It fosters courage. It incites action. It abets reflection, and it
endorses democratic participation” (p. 35). PAR strategies have two objectives: (1) “produce knowledge and
action directly useful to a group of people” (Reason, 1994, p. 12), and (2) empower participants by increasing
self-awareness through reflection and self-inquiry (Reason, 1994). The benefit of PAR is that it lends itself “to
the emergent processes of collaboration and dialogue which empower, motivate, increase self-esteem, and
develop community solidarity” (p. 15).
Because PAR is participant-led and focuses on social justice and change, it paves the way for equitable research
practices when working with marginalized populations (Málovics, 2021). Providing communities that have
historically been oppressed with the opportunity to reclaim their stories, knowledge, and experiences—this is the
beauty of PAR. Empowering communities to own their lived experiences and take action on behalf of
themselves and their community—this is the power of PAR (Budig et al., 2018).
PAR is research “in real-life action” causing it to have a great deal of messiness and unpredictability (Coghlan &
Brannick, 2010), due to the nature of collaborating with people in community to create real change. Although
fostering positive change and instigating action is a key tenet of PAR, the execution of action is rarely critically
discussed in the literature, and, furthermore, it is difficult to reach the point of action and determine how to
measure it (Reid et al., 2006). The definition of action in itself is nuanced and tricky to determine, leading to
challenges in understanding exactly when action has been reached or completed (McIntyre, 2008; Reid et al.,
2006). According to Guy et al. (2019), approaching the action phase is difficult in that it relies on engagement,
having realistic expectations, and agreement in the team on when to officially begin the „action‟ and how to
determine when that has happened.
In the landscape of prior research on PAR, several studies have made significant strides in understanding the
dynamics of implementing PAR. However, a critical examination of these earlier works reveals certain
limitations that warrant acknowledgment. Many of the previous studies tended to focus primarily on the process
but they are potentially overlooking the nuance of action implementation especially the interplay of policy and
practice in STEM, especially in engineering. Building upon these insights, our current paper aims to provide
insight on the action steps. We discuss the challenges and limitations of action step implementation using
reflection, allowing us to provide insider knowledge of PAR. Furthermore, our paper details the experiences with
multiple points of view of higher education professionals, an administrator, professor, and staff member. By
reflecting on our experiences, we contribute to the field by providing a more complete understanding of PAR
and its intricate mechanisms. In the current paper, we discuss our experiences on implementing actions and the
challenges that arise as a result, as well as outline actions we have taken in our own PAR work.
2. Methods
2.1 The Importance of Reflection & Positionality: Feminist Qualitative Research
Olesen (2005) highlights that within feminist qualitative research we must reflect on “the nature of research, the
definition of and relationship with those with whom research is done, the characteristic and location of the
researcher, and the creation and presentation of knowledge” (p. 238). Feminist researchers must accept that
conducting feminist research is taking an ethical and political stance (McHugh, 2014), by seeking social justice
and challenging social biases (Jaggar, 2008). Qualitative research methods are preferred by many feminist
researchers because they allow marginalized groups “to have a voice and to impact the conduct of research”
(McHugh, 2014, p. 145). In doing feminist qualitative research we must analyze our values and positionality,
acknowledging that objective and unbiased research is not possible (McHugh, 2014). Within feminist
qualitative research the voice of the participants is most often the focus, however the researcher is also invited to
reflect on their positionality throughout the process (Martin et al., 2022, McHugh, 2014).
Feminist research grew out of a need for research practices and methods that do not “produce, promote, or
privilege sex/gender inequalities” (McHugh, 2014, p. 137), but that actively “puts gender at the center of one‟s
inquiry” (McHugh, 2014, p. 137). After recognizing that traditional research approaches are biased and can
contribute to the disenfranchisement of women, feminist research grew. More traditional experiments replicate
the power dynamics that exist in our social and institutional settings (McHugh, 2014), where the interest of the
researcher dominates over the interests or wellbeing of the participant (Unger, 1983). Hubbard (1988) helps us
understand why prior research approaches may be contributing to bias and sexism by stating, “by claiming to be
objective and neutral, scientists align themselves with the powerful against the powerless” (p. 13). Feminist
research is designed to examine the gendered context of the lives of women, advocating for social change,
exposing gender inequalities, and empowering women (McHugh & Cosgrove, 2002). Letherby (2003) highlights,

http://jed.julypress.com Journal of Education and Development Vol. 7, No. 3; August, 2023
20
feminist research has a “political commitment to produce useful knowledge that will make a difference in
women‟s lives through social and individual change” (p. 4).
However, we must recognize that feminist research cannot be described by any singular epistemology, method,
or position (Jaggar, 2008a). But rather, feminist research is an approach to research that “seeks knowledge for
the liberation and equality of women'' (McHugh, 2014, p. 138). Additionally, feminist research is unique in that
it is dedicated to creating gender justice in the knowledge creation process (Jaggar, 2008a). Hawkesworth (2006)
captures three commitments of feminist research, “to struggle against coercive hierarchies linked to gender (and
other statuses); to revolt against practices; values and knowledge systems that subordinate and denigrate women;
and to promote women's freedom and empowerment” (p. 7).
3. Results
3.1 Reflection and Positionality on Implementing Action
As Participatory Action Researchers we include a reflexive process throughout our research study. Each of these
narratives highlight the benefits and challenges of doing PAR from three different perspectives-- an
administrator, a faculty member, and a staff member. Although we highlight challenges in these narratives, we
would be remiss not to mention that we deeply believe in PAR and its ability to empower participants and
generate actionable knowledge and change.
3.1.1 Administrator Perspective
As a campus administrator, I believe that action-based research is more intentional in gathering data than our
traditional qualitative methodologies. We are able to find codes and themes that can help our researchers
understand on the surface level what may be happening. Utilizing action-based research allows us to dig deeper
into the stories of those who are being impacted. It helps center the population and develop action steps on how
to move forward. It has not been adopted into the engineering education field. As a result, we are missing
richness in our data.
As we work with students from marginalized groups to document their experience, we often force them to relive
traumatic experiences multiple times from participating in focus groups. These focus groups are generally
well-intentioned as the goal is to identify hostile campus climates as well as areas of micro aggressive and
harassing/threatening behaviors. Participants are asked to relive and reshare their traumatic experiences multiple
times, for the purposes of data collection. While data is collected, little action is taken in response to the
outcomes. This further retraumatizes students, as they believed sharing their stories would bring change,
however, they do not see change in the climate. To adequately prepare to do or conduct a participatory
methodology you need to have adequate time allotted to the project. The timeline is generally longer than a one
or two session interview or focus group. It takes planning coordination. Oftentimes, due to the length of time
needed to conduct proper methodology, researchers turn to other, more time-effective methodologies. To
improve the climate on campus, it means that university administrators, deans and department heads must be
willing to listen to the outcomes that represent the voices of their students. Once these voices are heard, it is
critical that leadership take action steps to change the culture. They need to accept and adopt change at the
highest levels and present the changes from top down to their faculty, staff and students. Because participatory
research ends with action items developed by populations who are impacted, they should be easily implemented.
However, because the methodology is not well understood and accepted in engineering, we are slow to
implement changes that come directly from the populations. Participatory methods are becoming more accepted
in the field of engineering education and as time goes on I am hopeful that our understanding will evolve as we
have learned that we can make great changes by working with the very populations we choose to study, not only
to develop solutions but also to build trust. We are working with marginalized populations to get their stories and
input on how they would like the field to evolve and grow. Instead of doing things to people we have the
opportunity to get to work in concert with people to understand the structural obstacles and barriers that are
preventing some from thriving in engineering.
3.1.2 Faculty Perspective
I deeply believe in the power of Participatory Action Research. I believe in the process and I believe in the
results it yields. However, I‟m hyper aware of the inferiority that PAR experiences compared to more traditional
methods. I find myself not only being mindful of this, but constantly trying to combat it by methodically making
all the “right” moves when conducting research. Over the past several years I have progressed in various PAR
studies. The work is invigorating, but also time intensive and at some points emotionally exhausting. The beauty
(and curse) of PAR is that it is messy, but with the messiness comes the celebration that life is also messy.

http://jed.julypress.com Journal of Education and Development Vol. 7, No. 3; August, 2023
21
Working with people is messy and we don‟t fit neatly into small boxes. The messiness and embracing it allows
for the beautiful end result of any PAR study. Facilitating PAR research requires that we make our voice as the
researcher small, in order to leave ample space for the voice of our participants. This practice takes a significant
amount of reflection and self-awareness at every step of the research process, to ensure I in fact am mindfully
removing myself wherever possible.
Each time I facilitate a PAR study I‟m always blown away by the participants and their willingness to use their
imagination and expertise to solve problems. The action items developed through the process are always so
moving, most often I think to myself “duh” of course that is a great solution. Again, the beauty of PAR is
bringing the problem to the stakeholders experiencing it and empowering them to come up with the solutions.
Although the process itself can be exhilarating and eye opening, the implementation phase can be slow and
frustrating. As an academic I am mindful of the snail's pace that higher education can display, this slower pace
can also be the reality of the implementation phase of a PAR study. It‟s important to help your
participants/co-researchers through the slowness, to ensure that although implementation may be slow,
momentum should not be lost or defeat accepted. Attention should also be paid to which action items to work to
implement first. Being mindful about order of operations/implementation can be critical to success. Taking the
time to build relationships and allies can also assist with the speed in which action items can be accomplished.
3.1.3 Staff Perspective
Participatory Action Research is many things-- it is inclusion, it is empowerment, it is action, and I find the
process to be beautiful, impactful, and powerful. That being said, as a Participatory Action Researcher, I feel as
if I am constantly arguing for and defending the legitimacy of the work, while concurrently executing complex,
messy PAR processes. Although PAR is becoming more widely accepted within higher education, it is a slow
acceptance. Even within the field of educational studies, PAR is seen as inferior in comparison to more
traditional, positivist methods of carrying out educational research. Compounded with attempting to do PAR in a
STEM space that is historically very white and very male, fighting for the process is exhausting and sometimes
demeaning. But, at the end of the day, I believe in the impact of PAR and the action that can come from it, and
so I persevere. I tailor my presentations to include as much empirical data and quantitative measures as possible.
I focus on creating positive programmatic changes in a way that is efficient and fiscally responsible. At times,
working towards change and implementing action items requires choosing the „low-hanging fruit‟ of action, so
to speak, building my case of the effectiveness of said action, and moving forward with more impactful action
and larger „asks‟. The process is long, cyclical, iterative, and rigorous to the point of exhaustion, but it is worth it
in the long run when action is implemented and positive change is made. That said, as a staff member in
STEM-focused academic spaces, engineering nonetheless, with a shaky background in STEM at best, the
imposter syndrome is real. I feel my expertise is constantly challenged by the ideals and perspectives of
engineers who resist acknowledging their own privilege and believe they are the elite of the elite among STEM
fields. I do not want to discount the expertise of engineering faculty, but I also seek to make them understand
that I have my own expertise, as well. In my time working with informatics and engineering faculty, I have been
told that my PhD isn‟t a „real‟ degree, that my research is soft, that it‟s inferior, and that it isn‟t scientific or
rigorous. I‟ve also been brushed off in faculty spaces as a staff member, making me feel as if I am a second-class
citizen amongst faculty and administrators, despite my degrees and experience. As such, being told such
demeaning things about my work and identity as a Participatory Action Researcher is degrading and
discouraging to say the least. Despite everything, I persevere. I deeply believe in the impact of PAR, with the
understanding that traditional scientific methods leave out the voices of our marginalized and underserved
populations. I seek to inform others about PAR processes, and seeing is believing. I once hosted a participatory
method during a Biomedical Informatics faculty meeting, and was told by „that guy‟ -- that one white, male
faculty member that always has an opinion and has to shout it any chance he gets -- that “this is silly-- can‟t you
just send us a survey?” I felt the blow, but maintained composure. I shared evidence-based data about the
legitimacy of PAR, provided concrete data, and shared my own successes. He huffed, but seemed impressed and
surprised that I came back with hard facts. After carrying out the method, I received an email from that same
faculty member thanking me for carrying out the process, singing my praises, and apologizing for his crassness.
While this was a win, it took a battle to get one person to see the value in my work. Being a Participatory Action
Researcher requires me to be constantly informed and well-versed in current data and trends, and keep these in
my back pocket, in order to prove the validity and significance of the work. Again, it is worth it when you see
the work in action, whether it be programmatic change, seeing students excited about participating and
highlighting their individual voices, or empowering the community to take research into their own hands.

http://jed.julypress.com Journal of Education and Development Vol. 7, No. 3; August, 2023
22
3.2 Examples of PAR Action Items
To provide context to those unfamiliar with PAR, we‟ve included examples of action items developed from our
most recent study that used Group Level Assessment to explore the experiences of women engineering students
participating in cooperative education. In conducting PAR studies, the action is an essential part of the work and
action items are developed in collaboration with the involved stakeholders (participants). The action items
developed through our study can help co-op institutions and co-op employers make impactful changes to better
support women co-ops in engineering. In figure one below, you will find the determined action items from our
work; the following sections details which actions were already taken and how we reached those goals.
Table 1. Action Items Developed
Stakeholder
Action Items
Employers
Encourage students to become socially involved with colleagues and in the company
Educate employees on working within a multigenerational workforce
Assign both a supervisor and mentor to co-op
Give women the option to have a male or female supervisor
Create resource and affinity groups within the company
Ensure all employees are supporting the growth and learning of co-op students
Be intentional on providing support to students who have had to relocate for co-op and
are away from friends/family
Co-op Advisors
Provide FAQ resources for students around co-op experiences
Provide active data of co-op employers so students can make informed decisions
Educate students on how to become part of the company‟s culture
3.3 Actions Taken Thus Far
Over the past year, our research team has collaborated on the implementation of action items. Our research has
been shared with stakeholders at our institution, including the Dean of the College of Engineering, Vice Provost
for Academic Affairs, engineering co-op advisors, engineering academic advisors, and the Office of Inclusive
Excellence and Community Engagement within the College of Engineering and Applied Sciences. The hope is
that by sharing our findings we can create a dialogue and raise awareness around the issues facing women in
engineering. At this time we have received a positive response from the college and Dean and hope we can
continue this momentum to bring about real change. Specific action items that have been accomplished thus far
include: the development of a relocation workshop to support students with information and resources on how to
relocate successfully and things to consider through the relocation process, a one page document to be shared
with employers on the findings of this study and the importance of relationships, and a one page document to be
shared with students on how to more easily navigate developing relationships on co-op and how to incorporate
yourself within the company culture. Additionally, we are in the process of creating training for co-op employers

http://jed.julypress.com Journal of Education and Development Vol. 7, No. 3; August, 2023
23
to support them in the creation of more equitable co-op programs. The research team is also conducting
additional research to explore options for the creation of a male allies group, to help continue to support this
work and the creation of a more equitable and welcoming environment within the College of Engineering for
women students.
The goal of sharing the action items and the actions taken thus far is to help readers understand that PAR is
doable. Developing action items from the viewpoint of stakeholders who are most impacted by this problem is
an effective way to instigate meaningful change. PAR empowers people and provides them the resources they
need to solve problems within their own communities.
4. Discussion
We firmly believe that holding space for women and other historically marginalized populations to share their
experiences, while also welcoming them into the problem-solving process, has the power to change our
community. Systemic change is a long and difficult process, but only by acknowledging the messiness and
complexities of the human experience can we move the needle and create lasting change (Coghlan & Brannick,
2010). PAR acknowledges and welcomes the messiness of doing research with the community, while explicitly
acknowledging power relationships (Littman et al., 2021).
Additional Participatory Action Research and Feminist Research studies need to be conducted to help us better
understand the experiences of those not traditionally welcomed to the research table and seek to improve those
experiences. We must strive for systemic change that addresses power and privilege in the research space, while
also acknowledging the ways in which our research continues to contribute to the marginalization of populations.
We suggest that in order to create lasting change in our communities and in our world that we must invite those
most impacted to the table to help solve the complex problems facing our world. Acknowledging that change is
difficult and implementing action items will be time consuming, but this is the work we are being called to do as
researchers working to make a positive change.
There are multiple avenues to incorporate the tenets of PAR into any human-centered research projects. First and
foremost, always develop a positionality statement as part of your publications and other forms of dissemination;
this recognizes that all forms of research come with researcher bias that needs to be acknowledged. We also
encourage you to challenge fellow researchers within your community of practice to reflect on their positionality
in their research. Furthermore, incorporating reflective practices as part of your research process promotes
reflexivity and equity. This could look like conducting voice-recorded reflections at various points in the
research process, memoing written reflections, and could even involve creating artwork. Incorporating a
structured ethical reflection, which involves developing an ethical framework with participants, is also an
essential aspect of reflection (Brydon-Miller et al., 2015). Ultimately, there are many aspects of PAR that can
easily be incorporated into any research project with a bit of time, intentionality, and reflective practice.
References
Brydon-Miller, M., Rector Aranda, A., & Stevens, D. M. (2015). Widening the circle: Ethical reflection in action
research and the practice of structured ethical reflection. The SAGE handbook of action research, 596-607.
Budig, K., Diez, J., Conde, P., Sastre, M., Hernán, M., & Franco, M. (2018). Photovoice and empowerment:
evaluating the transformative potential of a participatory action research project. BMC public health, 18(1),
1-9.
Greenwood, D. J., & Levin, M. (2006). Introduction to Action Research: Social Research for Social Change.
Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE publications.
Guy, B., Feldman, T., Cain, C., Leesman, L., & Hood, C. (2020). Defining and navigating „action‟ in a
participatory action research project. Educational Action Research, 28(1), 142-153.
Littman, D. M., Bender, K., Mollica, M., Erangey, J., Lucas, T., & Marvin, C. (2021). Making power explicit:
Using values and power mapping to guide power-diverse Participatory Action Research processes. Journal
of Community Psychology, 49(2), 266-282.
Málovics, G., Juhász, J., Méreiné Berki, B., Mihók, B., Szentistványi, I., Pataki, G., ... Tóth, J. (2021).
Confronting espoused theories with theories-in-use: Challenges of participatory action research with
marginalized communities in contributing to social change and theory building. Action research, 19(2),
255-276.
Martin, J. P., Desing, R., & Borrego, M. (2022). Positionality statements are just the tip of the iceberg: Moving
towards a reflexive process. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 28(4).

http://jed.julypress.com Journal of Education and Development Vol. 7, No. 3; August, 2023
24
McIntyre, A. (2008). Participatory Action Research, Vol. 52. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications
Reid, C., Tom, A., & Frisby, W. (2006). Finding the „action‟ in feminist participatory action research. Action
Research, 4(3), 315-332. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750306066804
Copyrights
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).