Chapter 4.

A Journey through the PAR Process

Overview of the Chapter
This chapter presents the research process that I, together with the co-researchers
(students, teachers, parents, school administrators, and PAR committee members), followed to
explore the psychosocial wellbeing needs of adolescents and collaboratively co-design a
Comprehensive School Counseling Program (CSCP) at Texas International Secondary School,
Kathmandu, Nepal. The chapter sets the scene by describing how the Participatory Action
Research (PAR) approach guided every stage of the inquiry by beginning from initial
engagement and relationship-building to collaborative planning, iterative action cycles, and co-
creation of knowledge.

Participatory Action Research (PAR) Process

This chapter elaborates the Participatory Action Research (PAR) process undertaken to co-
design a culturally grounded Comprehensive School Counseling Program (CSCP) in a private
school in Kathmandu. Building upon the methodological commitments described in Chapter III,
this chapter provides a systematic account of how the action research cycles unfolded, the nature
of participation among stakeholders, and the iterative refinement of interventions designed to
enhance the psychosocial wellbeing of students.

PAR was selected as the research design because it aligns with the transformative and
constructivist paradigms guiding this study. It positions participants not as passive respondents
but as co-creators of knowledge with shared ownership of the process and outcomes. This
methodological choice reflects a profound ethical stance: that sustainable change in school
counseling practices in Nepal cannot emerge from externally imposed solutions but must be co-
constructed with those who live and experience the school environment daily.

The PAR process in this study is grounded in three conceptual anchors:

1. The Buddhist Karuna–Compassion Model, providing philosophical grounding for

empathic, non-harmful, and community-oriented action.
2. Vygotsky’s Social Constructivist Theory, emphasizing collaborative meaning-making
through guided interactions.
 3. Comprehensive School Counseling Program (CSCP) frameworks, offering structural
and strategic direction for counseling interventions.

The following sections present the sequential steps, iterative cycles, and reflective practices that
shaped the co-creation of the school counseling program.

As the researcher, entering the school with the intention of collaboratively building a counseling
program required me to suspend preconceived assumptions about what “should” work. I found
myself continuously negotiating between my professional knowledge and the lived realities of
students and teachers. This balance—between expertise and humility—became a defining theme
of the PAR journey. I realized early on that the most meaningful insights emerged not from
formal interviews, but from spontaneous conversations, hesitant disclosures, and the subtle
emotional cues I observed in classrooms and hallways. This chapter attempts to honor that lived
complexity.

PAR is geared towards planning and conducting the research process with the participants whose
practical actions are included in the study PAR emphasizes conducting research with participants
whose lived experiences, insights, and actions shape the entire inquiry (Baldwin, 2012).
It is an approach that involves democratic participation, shared power, mutual learning,
and collective ownership.
In this study, PAR activities unfolded through several strategic steps:-
1. Developing solidarity/cooperation and partnerships with co-researchers
2. Building trust and respectful relationships
3. Setting common agendas and priorities/ needs of students for psychosocial wellbeing
4. Identifying gaps, interests, multiple perspectives, capacities, areas of improvements and
lived experiences of multiple stakeholders
5. Jointly developing an action plan and conducting dialogue workshops to codesign
comprehensive school counseling framework.
6. Implementing continual action–reflection cycles in classrooms and school settings
Through these steps, both the researcher and co-researchers benefitted from a process that
blended action and reflection, theory and practice, and evidence and lived experience. The PAR
process ensured authentic participation in all phases of the inquiry—needs assessment, planning,
implementation, reflection, and redesign. Initially, I was unsure whether PAR could operate
effectively within a hierarchical institutional structure like a school. However, my engagement
with teachers, students, and parents gradually revealed that the school environment is not only
suitable but ideal for PAR, as it is a lived social ecosystem where relationships, emotions,
learning, and behaviours continuously shape each other.
Thus, this chapter documents our PAR journey—its activities, strategies, components,
challenges, and the methodological insights that emerged as we co-designed a culturally
grounded, context-appropriate Comprehensive School Counseling Program for psychosocial
wellbeing.
Setting the Scene and Informal Talks
Nepal lacks a structured, culturally adapted, and comprehensive school counseling
framework. Because of this gap, I became motivated to investigate the psychosocial wellbeing
needs, daily stressors, emotional struggles, and support systems of school children in the
community where I work. Literature suggests that schools are ideal sites for transformation and
participatory action—spaces where students, teachers, parents, and community members bring
rich knowledge and lived realities.
It is believed that PAR in a school setting is helpful to all stakeholders/research
participants in all collaborative actions (Pine, 2008). Pine explored that school is an ideal site for
social and individual change efforts and that PAR is central to the struggle. He also contends that
the classroom is a radical space of possibility. Further, Pine states that schools are "Research
Goldmines" regarding the variety and richness of data, essential issues, and potential PAR
research (Pine, 2008). He also stated that PAR is a "mental disposition - a way of being in the
classroom and school" (Pine, 2008, p.1). This dynamic moves from an insider view of schools
and classrooms toward a knowledge generation. Stakeholders collaborate to discover, learn, and
understand (Pine, 2008). PAR within school recognises that teachers and students are in a
position of power and privilege. Any community has fundamental value and local knowledge
(Salomaa, 124 2018). Along with creating new knowledge, PAR initiatives can assist schools
and their constituents in advancing change (Pine, 2008).
With this understanding, I initiated the PAR process through informal talks, rapport-
building, empathetic listening, and open dialogue with teachers, students, parents, and the School
Management Committee (SMC).
These conversations focused on identifying urgent psychosocial challenges such as:
1. academic pressure
2. stress and emotional difficulties
3. bullying and peer conflict
4. digital addiction
5. low motivation and lack of belonging
6. communication gaps between students, teachers, and families
7. limited awareness and stigma around mental health
8. lack of proper counseling in various psychosocial wellbeing challenges
Weekly open discussions, informal visits, consultation meetings, and small workshops
created a safe space for stakeholders to express their views without fear of judgement. These
conversations helped stimulate motivation among community members and encouraged them to
visualize the importance of psychosocial wellbeing and structured school counseling.
During the field visits, we also collected photos, videos, and reflective notes documenting the
physical environment, classroom climate, interpersonal dynamics, and existing support
mechanisms. These observations allowed us to understand the lived context of the school more
deeply. After several rounds of visits and discussions, the PAR team collectively identified
psychosocial wellbeing and the need for a structured counseling framework as the priority issue
for intervention.
Formation of PAR committee and student’s Club
PAR is grounded in democratic principles, justice, equality, and inclusion. Enabling actual
participation is about creating access and building trust. It is an inclusive research practice
defined by participation and determination to produce personal and social change (Ozanne &
Saatcioglu, 2008). Thus, one of the first major steps was forming a PAR Committee
representing diverse stakeholders within the school community in Texas International secondary
school with the representation of various groups. A nine-member PAR Committee was
established, consisting of:
1. Students (Grades 9–12)
2. Teachers
3. School Principal
4. School Administrator
 5. Parents’ representative
6. School Management Committee (SMC) member
7. School counselor
8. Researcher (as facilitator)
The PAR committees were on the ground to efficiently carry out the activities during the
research, increase participation of everyone, and take ownership of its achievements. The
committee’s primary purpose was to:
1. ensure active and equitable participation in the research
2. guide decision-making at all stages
3. mobilize stakeholders
4. take ownership of findings and outcomes
5. support field activities, meetings, workshops, and follow-up actions
To strengthen student voice and leadership, a Students’ Psychosocial Wellbeing Club with 5
members was formed. This club became a catalyst for participatory activities, peer engagement,
classroom awareness sessions, and reflective learning. Students were trained in basic
psychosocial literacy, peer-support strategies, and collaborative decision-making, enabling them
to participate confidently as co-researchers. In this school-based PAR, collaboration with the
students, teachers, PAR committee members, and representatives was ensured through
collaborative methodology in baseline and follow-up phases like weekly reflections, focus group
discussion, workshops, PAR activities, participants' classroom observation, record review, and
reflective notes/diary. PAR as a theoretical standpoint and collaborative methodology was
helpful in this process to ensure the voice of students targeted to change agents (Langhout &
Thomas, 2010). From the beginning of the PAR journey, I was engaged mainly with students,
teachers, and PAR committee members to identify the school's ground reality or actual needs on
codesigning comprehensive school counseling framework.
Formation of student’s club
The formation of the Students’ Club followed participatory selection, ensuring representation
from different grades, genders, and academic backgrounds. Students volunteered and were
nominated based on interest, leadership potential, empathy, and willingness to support peers.
After its formation, we conducted orientation sessions on:
1. psychosocial wellbeing concepts
 2. communication and active listening
3. confidentiality and ethical behaviour
4. teamwork and leadership
5. role of students in PAR
6. importance of peer support and compassionate action

The club later helped conduct classroom awareness programs, small group discussions,
reflective journals, and feedback circles—helping bridge communication gaps between students,
teachers, and the administrative team.

Power Dynamics and Relationship with Co-researchers

Recognizing and addressing power dynamics was essential to ensure genuine
participation in PAR. Schools are hierarchical institutions: headteachers hold authority over
teachers, teachers hold authority over students, and parents often hold authority over children.
Such hierarchies can hinder open participation and limit honest expression.
Through regular group conversations and collaborative activities, new levels of intimacy,
empathy, and mutual respect emerged among researchers and co-researchers.
We realised that power neutralisation is the fundamental step of the PAR process (Jacobs, 2016).
The power neutralisation process in the PAR was facilitated by regular group conversation,
establishing new levels of intimacy and collaboration with co-researchers in every step of the
research process and encouraging participation in every activity (Wallerstein et al., 2017).
Likewise, we researchers and co-researchers work as colleagues, combining our different
skills in mutual learning, making it possible to neutralise the power. Further, the literature
suggests that sharing expertise between the researcher and co-researcher is helpful to neutralise
the power. Power discrepancies between teacher and students, headteacher and other teachers,
SMC chair and other members must be discouraged (Hooks, 2000). Rather than power
discrepancy, Hooks advocates for acknowledging this power dynamic and suggests using this
power in non-coercive ways to enhance the PAR process.
Power dynamics between teachers and students normally refer to simply teaching
content, ranking students to be engaged in behaviour change based on their performance and
collaborating in-class engagement. We learn from the literature that researcher needs to take
responsibility for collaborative attainment rather than attempting power over the junior
researchers (Koch & Kralik, 2009). Therefore, a PAR researcher must be acquainted with their
judgment and expectations about the level of participation and how these could result in an
imbalance of power between researcher and co-researchers and anyone else (Koch & Kralik,
2009). PAR initiatives allow the research participants without inferior complexity. Similarly,
Kindon et al. (2007) state that a PAR can reduce the hierarchical scaling of events and offer
processes to proceed practically and be participatory.
It is essential to focus on power dynamics to conduct participatory actions systematically
and achieve the objectives. Headteacher, parents, PAR committee chair, administrator,
counselor, teachers and students must work together. So, the feelings of the superiority and those
with less power need to be discouraged in PAR. Such hierarchies can hinder open participation
and limit honest expression.
From the beginning, we intentionally worked to minimize power imbalances through:
1. treating co-researchers as colleagues rather than subjects
2. encouraging equal speaking opportunities in meetings
3. using participatory seating arrangements (e.g., circles)
4. inclusive decision-making
5. emphasising shared ownership, not researcher dominance
Building Trust and Relationship
Trust forms the basis of every relationship (Kindon et al., 2007). It plays a vital role in
research collaboration. Building trust is essential. Learning communities can accept what they
say about the researcher and co-researchers and their aims. Motivation is impossible without
mutual trust between the researcher and the co researchers (Lind, 2008). Trust impacts vital
social functions, including cooperation, coordination, and performance (Park & Lahman, 2003).
We applied different strategies to develop trust and relationships in this PAR process. As a
researcher, after entering the field, as mentioned previously, I conducted and invested significant
time in relationship-building by:
1. conducting weekly informal talks and dialogue conferences
2. listening deeply to teacher and student concerns
3. showing consistency and transparency in actions
4. respecting local norms, values, and school culture
5. demonstrating empathy and non-judgemental presence
In this PAR, structures for collaboration and processes for communication, the creation of
shared goals and implementation were established. However, as a PAR researcher and in-field
experience, I realised that gaining trust in PAR is difficult. Relationships require many mental
and emotional efforts to establish mutual trust and be together in diversity and difference despite
adversity (Bergum, 2002).
Initially, some participants were hesitant, unsure whether their voices would truly matter. As
the process unfolded, trust grew gradually, allowing co-researchers to openly discuss sensitive
issues such as:
1. students’ hidden emotional struggles
2. teachers’ stress and burnout
3. parents’ expectations and concerns
4. communication breakdowns
5. gaps in the existing support system
Relational learning gradually transformed into reflective knowledge, where co-researchers
became aware of their own roles in shaping a compassionate and supportive school environment.
In this PAR process, I sometimes became a facilitator, sometimes, co-researchers and assisted
the research participants or learning communities in developing friendly relations and conducting
PAR. As a facilitator, I became a team building coach, sometimes a bridge to establish
connections rather than an expert. As a result, researchers and co-researchers have co-owned the
achievement.

Structure of the PAR Cycles

The PAR process was operationalized through three iterative cycles, each consisting of:

1. Planning – jointly identifying problems and setting priorities

2. Action – co-designing and implementing interventions
3. Observation – gathering experiences, feedback, and reactions
4. Reflection – evaluating outcomes and revising strategies

This spiral methodology allowed the research to evolve continually, informed by real-time
experiences and reflections. Each cycle deepened stakeholder engagement and refined the
counseling framework.

Throughout the cycles, I learned that change in school systems is not linear. At times, enthusiasm
was high; at other times, teachers seemed overwhelmed or students reluctant to speak. What kept
the process moving was the shared sense of purpose cultivated through consistent rapport-
building and the unconditional empathy embedded in the Karuna model. I came to understand
that PAR is as much an emotional process as it is a methodological one.

Framing Plan and Strategy of Participatory Action Research

Participatory action research implies that the researcher and co-researcher collaborate
with individuals, groups or communicate who have decided stakeholders in the program,
development strategy or any other entity (Brown et al., 2003).
Participatory action research implies that the researcher and co-researcher collaborate
with individuals, groups or communicate who have decided stakeholders in the program,
development strategy or any other entity (Brown et al., 2003). Based on the priorities identified
from the needs Participatory action research implies that the researcher and co-researcher
collaborate with individuals, groups or communicate who have decided stakeholders in the
program, development strategy or any other entity (Brown et al., 2003). Based on the priorities
identified from the needs assessment, the PAR project was implemented collaboratively,
including observation, planning, acting, and reflecting with stakeholders. In addition, a regular
spot of stakeholders’ meetings and reframing the strategies.

Fig:1 An action–reflection cycle

Source:- (McNiff & Whitehead, 2011, pg.9)

Figure shows the overall process of PAR that we applied in the study.

According to McNiff and Whitehead (2011, p. 9), the action–reflection cycle involves ongoing
processes of observing, reflecting, acting, evaluating, and modifying one’s practice.
The PAR project followed the continual cycle of: Observe → Reflect → Plan → Act → Re-
observe → Re-plan
Based on the needs identified during early engagement, the PAR team collaboratively designed a
working plan which included:
1. baseline assessment through discussions, classroom observations, and review of school
records
2. psychosocial wellbeing mapping
3. co-design workshops for the counseling framework
4. formation of student support structures (Students’ Club)
5. training and capacity-building of teachers
 6. piloting classroom and school-level activities
7. reflective meetings at regular intervals
8. revising strategies based on feedback

This iterative action-reflection cycle made the process responsive, flexible, and naturally
evolving.

Researchers and co-researchers are involved in the iterative cycles of observing, planning,
acting, and reflecting (Heslop et al., 2017). It is often called an action reflection cycle (Kemmis
& McTaggart, 1988). The study involved high school students from 9 to 12 grade, teachers
teaching at the same level, school administration and management committee members, student
club members, PAR committee members and co-researchers.

Steps in the Participatory Action Research Process

1. School Entry and Orientation

School entry was an essential initial phase aimed at establishing trust, clarifying intentions,
and aligning expectations. This phase included:
a. Introductory meetings with school leadership
b. Orientation sessions with teachers and students
c. Presenting the research objectives, processes, and ethical commitments
d. Clear communication about confidentiality and voluntary participation
e. Establishing the PAR Committee representing students, teachers, parents, and the
counselor

The school’s willingness to participate was influenced by the rising psychosocial concerns
among students. Administrators acknowledged gaps in their current system and expressed
readiness for collaborative reform.

This stage required sensitivity. Schools are often wary of external scrutiny, fearing their
weaknesses might be exposed. I had to communicate sincerely that my role was not evaluative
but collaborative. I found myself repeatedly emphasizing compassion, confidentiality, and
partnership. This early openness—built through tea conversations, informal interactions, and
attentive listening—became the emotional foundation for the entire PAR journey.

Rapport Building

Developing rapport was crucial for creating psychological safety, especially in a context where
mental health remains stigmatized. Rapport-building involved:

a. Informal visits to classrooms

b. Conversations with teachers about their challenges
c. Engaging students in non-academic activities
d. Participating in recess interactions and peer dynamics
e. Fostering familiarity through shared experiences, humor, and active listening

The goal was to dismantle hierarchical barriers and create an environment of mutual respect and
openness.

During this phase, I realized how deeply students yearned for a caring adult presence. Their
initial hesitancy gradually dissolved as they saw me regularly in their spaces—not as a researcher
with a clipboard, but as someone willing to sit with them, listen, smile, and be present. Teachers,
too, began sharing stories of burnout, emotional fatigue, and uncertainty about how to support
struggling students. I learned that rapport is not built by methodology but by humanity.

Mobilization of the School Community

Mobilization aimed to generate shared awareness and collective motivation. It involved:

a. Workshops on mental health literacy

b. Group discussions about student stressors
c. Activities encouraging teachers and parents to articulate their concerns
d. Mapping the school’s informal and formal support systems
e. Encouraging community ownership over the need for a counseling framework
Mobilization helped stakeholders see themselves not as passive beneficiaries but as active
contributors to school wellbeing.

In these sessions, I witnessed a powerful shift. Teachers who initially viewed psychosocial issues
as “family matters” began acknowledging their own struggles with student behavior, emotional
burdens, and classroom stress. Parents expressed fears about academic pressure, social media,
and communication breakdowns. Students, surprisingly, articulated their vulnerabilities with
maturity when given a safe platform. These moments reinforced my belief that communities
carry profound wisdom—they simply need spaces to voice it.

Participation and Co-Creation

Participation represents the core ethical and methodological principle of PAR. Co-creation
activities included:

a. Needs identification workshops

b. Participatory mapping of stressors and support gaps
c. Brainstorming culturally aligned strategies
d. Co-developing counseling modules and classroom activities
e. Reflecting on feasibility, acceptability, and cultural relevance

This phase ensured that the counseling program was rooted in lived experience rather than
external theory.

This was perhaps the most transformative stage for me. I watched students confidently propose
peer-support circles, teachers suggest mindfulness routines, and parents advocate for emotional
literacy programs. It reminded me that expertise is distributed—not monopolized by researchers.
My role evolved from instructor to facilitator, and in that shift, the process became genuinely
democratic.

This study followed strategic steps, making the PAR comfortable and practical.

Table - Participatory Action Research (PAR) Strategy for Co-Designing a Comprehensive

School Counseling Framework
S.N Strategic Steps involved in Description
Participatory action research process

01 Setting the Agendas Identification of psychosocial wellbeing

challenges, stressors, behavioural issues, and
counseling needs through consultations with
teachers, students, parents, and School
management committee. Agendas were set
collaboratively rather than imposed.
02 Initial Rapport Building and informal Informal meetings, school field visits,
communication classroom observations and open ended
dialogues with stakeholders to know the
ground realities and the existing gaps in
school counseling services.
03 Bridging Meetings/ Dialogue Regular meeting and workshops with
workshops with PAR teams and the teachers, student representative, parents,
expert involved administrators, and school counselor to build
a shared understanding of psychosocial
wellbeing and the need for the counseling
framework
04 Exploring interests, experiences and Mapping the strengths, motivations, lived
capacities of co-researchers experiences and readiness of teachers,
students, parents and school leaders to engage
in PAR process. Assessment of roles they can
play in co-designing the counseling
framework
05 Formation of the PAR Students’ Establishment of a representative PAR
Club( concerned with Psychosocial committee and a student club to ensure
wellbeing) meaningful participation, shared leadership,
and collective decision- making throughout
 the participatory action research
06 Identifying ethical considerations Ensuring confidentiality, informed consent,
non-hierarchical participation, child
safeguarding principles, and mutual respect.
Special focus on ethical engagement while
discussing students’ emotional wellbeing
07 Documenting psychosocial issues and Systematic documentation of identified
existing school practices problems such as stress, bullying, emotional
difficulties, communication gaps, and absence
of structured counseling systems through
interviews, observations, and reflective notes.
08 Capacity building of co-researchers Orientation and training for teachers, students,
and parents on psychosocial literacy,
supportive communication, peer support, and
basic counseling principles
09 Group work with specific focus areas Themed group discussions focusing on
academic pressure, emotional regulation, peer
conflict, screening/ digital device
engagement, classroom environment, cyber
bullying, and teacher- student relationship
10 Field engagement using participatory Classroom activities, focus groups,
approaches collaborative mapping of psychosocial
challenges, reflective circles, and
participatory learning methods inspired by
child-centered and dialogic pedagogies.
11 Co-developing the action plan Joint creation of a context specific plan for
designing the comprehensive school
counseling framework, including roles,
timelines, PAR prompts and activities and
expected outcomes.
12 Implementation of iterative action- Application of the PAR cycle( observe-
 reflection cycles reflect-plan-act-observe again) in classrooms,
school assemblies, meetings, and
psychosocial literacy sessions with students.
13 Articulating different positions, power, Identifying and addressing power dynamics
and perspectives between teachers- students, administrators-
teachers, parents-children, and researchers-
co-researchers. Promoting equitable and
democratic participation.
14 Maintaining records and reflective Keeping systematic field notes, meeting
journals minutes, reflective diaries, photographs, and
observation logs to support data triangulation.
15 Establishing reflections Weekly reflection meetings with PAR
Committee and Students’ Club to review
progress, challenges, and emerging insights.
Collective reflection guided re-planning.
16 Revising strategies based on reelections Continuous adaptation of the counseling
framework and classroom approaches using
insights from reflection cycles.
17. Co-creation of knowledge Collaborative analysis of findings, synthesis
of themes, and joint interpretation of data to
co-create a culturally grounded counseling
framework.
18. Sharing findings and publications Dissemination of findings with the school
community, preparation of academic outputs,
and documentation of the emerging
Comprehensive School Counseling
Framework for wider use.

Setting agendas
 Setting agendas in PAR is a collaborative process of outlining forthcoming activities through
dialogue with stakeholders (Koontz & Newig, 2014). At Texas International Secondary School,
agendas for this study were shaped through frequent meetings involving the PAR Committee,
Students’ Psychosocial Wellbeing Club, teachers, and school leaders.
Discussions centred on the results of the participatory needs assessment, which highlighted
major psychosocial challenges such as academic pressure, stress, emotional difficulties,
communication gaps, peer conflict, and limited access to counseling services. These discussions
served as the foundation for identifying actionable steps for strengthening psychosocial support
within the school.
A bottom-up approach ensured that stakeholders—teachers, parents, students, SMC
members, student clubs, and local government representatives—used their local insights and
lived realities to shape agendas. The prioritised agendas included enhancing psychosocial
literacy, improving teacher–student relationships, strengthening classroom support mechanisms,
and co-designing an appropriate school counseling framework. This approach discouraged top-
down implementation and ensured ownership, sustainability, and contextual relevance of the
emerging Comprehensive School Counseling Framework (CSCF).

Bridging workshop with PAR Team and expert community

In PAR, a bridging workshop provides a structured space to discuss experiences, expectations,
needs, and future activities (Maguire, 1987). A two-day bridging workshop was organised with
PAR Committee members, teachers, students, school leaders, parents, and
counseling/psychology experts.
The workshop explored discrepancies between superficial observations of wellbeing challenges
and the deeper psychosocial issues students faced daily. Stakeholders compared the school’s
cultural practices, academic structure, resources, and emotional climate with the needs
highlighted in the assessment phase.
Through this process, the scope and boundaries of the PAR project were mutually defined. The
workshop fostered early relationship-building among researchers, co-researchers, and mental-
health professionals. Its success depended on the depth of dialogue, clarity of agendas, and
openness to collective reflection (Brydon-Miller, 1997).
Students from grades 9 to 12, teachers, SMC/PAR Committee members, local government
representatives, and student clubs participated actively. A participatory approach empowered
them to prioritise psychosocial concerns, envision counseling interventions, and collaboratively
prepare a detailed action plan (Chambers, 2008).
Throughout the workshop, new insights emerged about emotional support systems, peer
dynamics, stigma around counseling, and the school’s readiness for a structured counseling
program. Stakeholders also assessed available human resources, counseling spaces, time
allocation, and existing support practices. Roles, responsibilities, and commitments were clearly
defined for all co-researchers. A collective agreement on priority counseling activities was
reached through democratic discussion.
This bridging workshop ensured that the CSCF was grounded in local knowledge, cultural
sensitivity, and the lived realities of the school community.
Exploring interests, experiences and capacities of co-researchers
The iterative PAR cycle—observing, planning, acting, and reflecting—enabled co-researchers to
collectively identify psychosocial wellbeing issues affecting adolescents. Stakeholders assessed
their own capacities, motivations, and readiness to support the transformation process.
A comprehensive assessment of the school environment was conducted, including:
1. existing counseling practices
2. psychosocial content within the curriculum
3. teachers’ confidence in handling student emotional concerns
4. communication patterns within the school
5. accessibility of support services
6. physical and relational spaces available for counseling

The findings revealed limited mental-health content in the curriculum, low psychosocial literacy
among students, and a need for capacity-building among teachers and parents. Consequently, a
tailor-made psychosocial wellbeing module was developed and used for sensitisation and
training sessions.
Workshops and orientation classes were held on:
1. stress management
2. emotional regulation
 3. active listening and basic counseling skills
4. classroom-based psychosocial support techniques
5. peer-support strategies
6. adolescent development and wellbeing
The Students’ Psychosocial Wellbeing Club, child clubs, and other student organisations were
mobilised to support activities such as:
1. peer motivation and role-modelling
2. sharing psychosocial messages during assemblies
3. assisting in classroom sessions
4. facilitating reflective circles
5. promoting positive behaviour and empathy
6. supporting awareness programs
7. documenting classroom and peer interactions

The PAR Committee collaborated in organising teacher-training sessions, redesigning classroom

management strategies, and strengthening communication mechanisms between teachers and
students. Meetings were also held during breaks, before/after school, and on weekends due to
teachers’ workload.
Through these collaborative engagements, intervention activities such as psychosocial awareness
classes, reflective group sessions, classroom dialogue circles, counseling referral guidelines, and
teacher capacity-building were collectively determined.
Organizing a dialogue conference
Drawing from Freire’s (2000) empowerment model, a dialogue conference was used as a
transformative tool to deepen shared understanding and co-create solutions. Dialogue
conferences are foundational for trust-building and collaboration in PAR (Knowles & Cole,
2008; Wright, 2015).
The conference included:
1. teachers and school leaders
2. students and student clubs
3. parents
4. PAR Committee members
5. local government representatives
6. mental-health professionals
7. social interpreters and educators
Dialogue followed Engelstad’s (1996) three-stage procedure:
1. Briefing: Purpose, group formation, and procedures
2. Intra-group dialogue: Discussion on psychosocial challenges and aspirations
3. Inter-group sharing: Presentations and synthesis of shared insights
The conference yielded intervention suggestions at micro, meso, and macro levels. These
included:
1. psychosocial awareness sessions
2. strengthening teacher–student trust
3. developing psychosocial IEC materials
4. establishing counseling referral pathways
5. organising life-skills activities
6. improving classroom climate and relational safety
7. establishing a dedicated counseling space
8. routine teacher support meetings
9. peer-support activities and mentoring

Regular dialogue strengthened shared ownership and deepened understanding of the emotional
needs of adolescents. It promoted empathy and transparency among stakeholders, improving
their readiness to engage in counseling activities.
Forming a collaborative action group
PAR is a collective endeavour where participants share responsibility, power, and resources (Oh,
2003; Mattessich & Monsey, 1992). For three years, the researcher and co-researchers worked
collaboratively in all phases of the project.
With previous experience in teacher education, school research, and psychosocial interventions, I
recognised the need to move from traditional lecture-based practices toward participatory,
relational, student-centred approaches that support emotional wellbeing. Nepali schools often
lack structures for psychosocial support, and mental-health discussions are minimal in
classrooms.
Through the PAR process, we jointly engaged in:
1. classroom wellbeing activities
2. reflective teaching practices
3. peer support
4. counseling orientation sessions
5. school counseling framework design
6. life-skills workshops
7. awareness programs with parents and teachers

Conducting Need Assessment

The engagement gradually moved from the known to the unknown (Reza, 2007), helping co-
researchers collectively discover emotional realities and unmet counseling needs. Early
fieldwork focused heavily on trust-building, as recommended in PAR literature (Habermas,
1975). Through daily conversations, seating arrangements that reduced hierarchy, and
participatory interactions, power dynamics were softened, and co-researchers felt more
comfortable sharing their perspectives (Ozano & Khatri, 2018).
These collaborative activities laid the foundation for designing the school’s counseling
framework using the cyclical PAR model (Susman & Evered, 1978).
A participatory needs assessment (PNA) was undertaken to identify psychosocial needs,
emotional stressors, and gaps in school support systems (Ledwith, 2020). The PNA explored:
1. students’ stress, anxiety, and coping patterns
2. communication and relationship dynamics
3. teachers’ confidence in offering emotional support
4. parents’ perceptions of student wellbeing
5. classroom climate and behavioural patterns
6. existing mechanisms for addressing psychosocial issues
Several methods includes:
1. Interview guidelines questionnaires with students
2. focus group discussions
3. in-depth interviews
4. classroom observations
 5. record review of discipline cases, attendance, referral patterns
6. reflective notes and session observations

The results showed:

1. high academic pressure
2. emotional distress among students
3. limited teacher training in psychosocial support
4. stigma related to seeking help
5. inadequate time/space for emotional expression
6. communication gaps between students and teachers
7. absence of a structured counseling system

These findings were presented in a workshop, where stakeholders collaboratively prioritised

needs and designed intervention strategies.

Intervention Mapping
Intervention mapping was conducted following Eldredge et al. (2016). Stakeholders identified
key focus areas:
1. Strengthening psychosocial literacy among students and teachers
2. Enhancing classroom counseling practices
3. Developing a school counseling referral pathway
4. Creating peer-support systems
5. Establishing a counseling room and resources
6. Integrating socio-emotional regulation skill into classroom practices
7. Conducting awareness and capacity-building sessions

Through multiple workshops and meetings, expected outcomes were identified, and a cyclical
plan was developed involving observation, planning, action, and reflection.

Regular reflection meetings with national/international advisors from the NORHED project,
expert community, and PAR Committee ensured contextual refinement of activities.
Participatory Evaluation
Participatory evaluation followed Reason & Bradbury (2001) and involved shared assessment of
changes in:
1. Knowledge and awareness of psychosocial wellbeing
2. Perception and attitudes toward counseling
3. Behavioural changes in students and teachers
4. Dialogical or emergent change—improved communication, empathy, and ownership
5. Structural/situational improvements such as counseling spaces, materials, systems
Several other methods were used:
1. classroom observations
2. evaluation interviews and FGDs
3. reflective notes
4. psychosocial assessment tools
5. documentation of Socio-emotional regulation activities
6. photos, videos, and artefacts

Key outcomes included:

1. improved stress-coping skills
2. enhanced classroom climate
3. increased teacher confidence
4. reduced stigma toward counseling
5. stronger peer-support networks
6. improved communication among stakeholders
7. establishment of counseling structures and referral systems

Intervention Design and Implementation

Using co-created insights, the study developed interventions across the three tiers of a CSCP:

Tier 1: Universal Interventions

 a. SEL (Social Emotional Learning) activities
b. Compassion-based classroom routines
c. Awareness sessions on stress, bullying, digital habits
d. Teacher sensitization workshops
e. Whole-school wellbeing practices

Tier 2: Targeted Interventions

 Small-group counseling
 Peer-support and safe-circle sessions
 Workshops on coping skills, exam anxiety, conflict resolution
 Teacher mentoring and classroom behavior plans

Tier 3: Individual/Intensive Interventions

 One-on-one counseling
 Crisis and emotional first-aid support
 Structured referral systems
 Collaboration with families and external mental health professionals

Researcher Reflection

Implementing interventions revealed the realities of school life. Time constraints, examination
schedules, and teacher workload often delayed activities. Some interventions flourished; others
required modification. Yet, even small improvements—like students expressing themselves more
openly or teachers trying compassionate language—felt like significant victories. I learned that
meaningful change in schools happens gradually, quietly, and relationally.

Reflection, Evaluation, and Revision

Reflection was conducted through:

a. Weekly PAR Committee meetings

b. Ongoing informal feedback
 c. Student journals and teacher observations
d. Revisiting assumptions and refining strategies

Reflections were guided by the “Act–Reflect–Revise” cycle, supporting the iterative

strengthening of the CSCP framework.

These reflection meetings were deeply humbling. Students spoke honestly about what felt
supportive and what felt superficial. Teachers expressed exhaustion but also hope. Parents shared
anxieties that often went unspoken in formal settings. I found myself learning more about
Nepal’s school culture through these reflections than through any literature review. It became
clear that compassion—Karuna—was not merely a theoretical influence but a living principle
influencing every decision.

Summary of PAR Contributions

The PAR process made the following contributions:

a. Created a shared understanding of psychosocial issues in the school.

b. Empowered stakeholders to become co-researchers and co-designers.
c. Developed a culturally grounded counseling program, rooted in compassion and
collaboration.
d. Enhanced capacity among teachers, parents, and students to recognize and respond to
emotional needs.
e. Strengthened school culture by promoting empathy, communication, and collective care.
f. Generated a sustainable model that the school can continue implementing beyond the
research period.

Reflecting on the entire PAR journey, I understand now that the heart of school counseling does
not lie in techniques or frameworks alone, but in the courage to witness suffering and respond to
it compassionately. Working with adolescents, teachers, and parents in this participatory process
reshaped not only the counseling program but also my identity as a researcher. I learned that
genuine transformation emerges when people feel seen, heard, and respected. The PAR process
taught me that research is most powerful when it becomes a shared human endeavor—a
collective act of healing, understanding, and hope.

Participatory Action Research Cycle 1: Planning and Initial

Action

Cycle 1 began with joint planning based on PNA findings. The PAR Committee prioritized
universal interventions to build foundational awareness. Actions included pilot SEL sessions in
classrooms, where students engaged in reflective circles and "Draw Your Day" activities to
express stressors visually.

Observations noted increased openness: students shared more freely, teachers reported higher
engagement. Initial reflections in weekly meetings highlighted successes—like reduced stigma—
and challenges, such as time constraints during exams. This cycle refined strategies, emphasizing
cultural integration (e.g., incorporating storytelling from Nepali traditions).

As Cycle 1 concluded, stakeholders expressed growing confidence, setting the stage for deeper
iterations.

Participatory Action Research Cycle 1: Planning, Initial

Action, Outcomes, and Reflections

Cycle 1 commenced with collaborative planning sessions rooted in the Participatory Needs
Assessment (PNA) findings, where the PAR Committee—comprising students, teachers, parents,
counselors, and school administrators—prioritized Tier 1 (universal) interventions to establish
foundational psychosocial awareness across the school community. This choice reflected a
strategic emphasis on preventive measures, aligning with CSCP principles that advocate for
whole-school approaches to foster resilience before escalating to targeted or intensive supports
(ASCA, 2019; Gysbers & Henderson, 2012). The action plan, co-developed during bridging
workshops, incorporated culturally sensitive elements from the outset, drawing on the Buddhist
Karuna-Compassion Model to infuse activities with empathy and non-harmful engagement
(Pynnardipal & Chandrakitti, 2024).

Implementation of Initial Actions

Actions in Cycle 1 focused on pilot Social Emotional Learning (SEL) sessions conducted in
selected classrooms over a four-week period. These sessions, facilitated jointly by the researcher,
teachers, and student club members, included interactive activities such as reflective circles—
where participants sat in non-hierarchical arrangements to share experiences—and "Draw Your
Day" exercises, encouraging students to visually depict daily stressors like exam anxiety or peer
conflicts using chart paper, markers, and sticky notes. To ensure inclusivity, sessions were
adapted for diverse learning needs, with multilingual prompts in Nepali and English to
accommodate the school's multicultural student body.

Cultural adaptations were integral to these activities, transforming standard SEL frameworks into
contextually relevant practices. For instance, traditional Nepali storytelling (katha) was woven in
as a medium for exploring emotions, drawing from indigenous knowledge systems where
narratives from folklore (e.g., tales of compassion from Buddhist Jataka stories) helped students
relate psychosocial concepts to familiar cultural motifs (World Health Organization, 2013). This
adaptation addressed the limitations of Western-centric models, which often overlook collectivist
values in Nepali society, such as family harmony and community support (Sue & Sue, 2016).
Additionally, elements of Sahakarya (cooperation) were emphasized through group-based peer
reflections, fostering a sense of shared responsibility rather than individualistic coping strategies.
Parents were invited to observe select sessions, integrating familial perspectives and reducing
stigma by framing counseling as a communal effort aligned with cultural norms of elder
guidance and mutual care.

Outcomes of Cycle 1

The outcomes of Cycle 1 were multifaceted, demonstrating early shifts in psychosocial

awareness and school climate, as captured through participatory evaluation methods including
classroom observations, FGDs, reflective journals, and psychosocial assessment tools (Reason &
Bradbury, 2001). Key outcomes included:

 Improved Student Openness and Emotional Expression: Students exhibited greater

willingness to share vulnerabilities, with observations noting a 30-40% increase in
voluntary participation during reflective circles (based on session logs). For example,
adolescents who initially remained silent began articulating stressors like cyberbullying
and family expectations, attributing this to the safe, non-judgmental spaces created.
 Enhanced Classroom Climate and Engagement: Teachers reported higher student
engagement, with reduced instances of disruptive behaviors (e.g., inattention or isolation)
documented in discipline records. The integration of Karuna-inspired routines, such as
starting sessions with a short compassion meditation, contributed to a calmer
environment, aligning with findings that culturally attuned practices improve emotional
regulation (Upadhaya et al., 2019).
 Reduced Stigma Around Counseling: Initial attitudes shifted, as evidenced by pre- and
post-session surveys showing a decrease in perceptions of mental health support as
"weakness" (from 60% to 25% among participants). This was particularly evident among
parents, who noted the value of indigenous elements like storytelling in making
counseling feel "familiar and respectful" rather than foreign.
  Strengthened Peer-Support Networks: The Students’ Psychosocial Wellbeing Club
gained momentum, with members facilitating peer-led discussions that built empathy and
collective coping skills. This outcome echoed Vygotsky’s emphasis on social interactions
for development, as students co-constructed knowledge through shared experiences
(Vygotsky, 1978).
 Increased Teacher Confidence: Capacity-building components empowered teachers,
with self-reflections indicating greater comfort in addressing emotional needs (e.g., using
active listening techniques). However, challenges like time constraints during exam
periods limited full implementation, highlighting the need for structural adjustments.

These outcomes were documented systematically in a shared PAR table, as outlined below, to
ensure transparency and collective ownership:

S.N. Outcome Area Description and Evidence Cultural Adaptation Involved

Student Emotional Increased sharing in circles; journal Nepali storytelling to relate
1
Expression entries showing reduced isolation. emotions to cultural narratives.
Classroom Fewer disruptions; calmer sessions Karuna meditations drawing from
2
Climate per observations. Buddhist practices for empathy.
Survey shifts; parent feedback on Framing support as communal
3 Reduced Stigma
acceptability. (Sahakarya) rather than individual.
Incorporation of family and
Peer-Support Club activities leading to informal
4 community rituals for group
Networks mentoring.
bonding.
Reflective notes on improved skills;
Teacher Training in indigenous knowledge
5 challenges noted in time
Confidence systems for contextual relevance.
management.

While quantitative metrics were preliminary, qualitative data from FGDs underscored
transformative changes, such as a student remarking, "For the first time, I felt my story
mattered," illustrating the power of culturally grounded approaches.

Researcher Reflections and Cultural Adaptations

Reflecting on Cycle 1, I was struck by the profound interplay between global CSCP frameworks
and local cultural nuances. Initially, I grappled with suspending my preconceptions—shaped by
years in Nepal's mental health sector—about what "effective" counseling should look like.
Witnessing students light up during katha sessions, where they connected personal anxieties to
ancient tales of resilience, reminded me that adaptation is not dilution but enrichment. This
process challenged hierarchical norms in Nepali education; by prioritizing student voices in
planning, we disrupted traditional power dynamics, fostering a sense of agency that Vygotsky
would describe as scaffolding toward collective growth.

However, adaptations were not without hurdles. Integrating Karuna required navigating cultural
sensitivities—some parents initially viewed mindfulness as "too spiritual," prompting us to
reframe it as practical stress relief aligned with everyday Nepali values like family unity. These
moments humbled me, revealing that true PAR demands humility and flexibility; failures, like a
session disrupted by exams, taught us to align interventions with school rhythms. Personally, this
cycle reshaped my researcher identity—from expert to co-learner—echoing hooks' (2000) call
for margin-to-center dialogues. As stakeholders expressed growing confidence, I felt a quiet
hope: that this foundation could evolve into sustainable change, honoring Nepal's rich heritage
while addressing modern psychosocial needs.

As Cycle 1 concluded, these outcomes and reflections informed refinements, setting a robust
stage for subsequent iterations focused on targeted and intensive tiers.

References
Baldwin, M. (2012). Participatory action research. The SAGE handbook of social work, 467-
481.
Bergum, V. (2002). Discourse-Ethical Challenges of the 21st Century: Attending to Relations.
Canadian Journal of Nursing Research Archive.
Berwick, Richard. "Needs Assessment in Language Programming: From Theory to Practice".
The Second Language Curriculum. Ed. Robert Keith Johnson. New York: CUP (The
Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series) 1989. 48-62.
Brown, L. D., Bammer, G., Batliwala, S., & Kunreuther, F. (2003). Framing practice research
engagement for democratizing knowledge. Action Research, 1(1), 81 102.
Heslop, C. W., Burns, S., Lobo, R., & McConigley, R. (2017). Developing a framework for
community-based sexual health interventions for youth in the rural setting: protocol for a
participatory action research study. BMJ open, 7(5).
Hooks, B. (2000). Feminist theory: From margin to center. Pluto Press.
Jacobs, S. (2016). The Use of Participatory Action Research within Education- Benefits to
Stakeholders. World Journal of Education, 6(3), 48-55.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). Action research planner 3rd edition Deakin University
Press. In: Geelong.
Kindon, S., Pain, R., & Kesby, M. (2007 p.112). Participatory action research approaches and
methods: Connecting people, participation and place (Vol. 22). Routledge Routledge
Tayler & Frances Group,
Kindon, S., Pain, R., & Kesby, M. (2007). Participatory action research approaches and methods:
Connecting people, participation and place (Vol. 22). Routledge.
Koch, T., & Kralik, D. (2009). Participatory action research in health care. John Wiley & Sons.
Langhout, R. D., & Thomas, E. (2010). Imagining participatory action research in collaboration
with children: An introduction. American journal of community psychology, 46(1), 60-
66.
Lind, C. (2008). Knowledge development with adolescents in a PAR process. Educational
Action Research, 16(2), 221-233.
McNiff, J., & Whitehead, J. (2011). All you need to know about action research. Sage
Publications.
Ozanne, J. L., & Saatcioglu, B. (2008). Participatory action research. Journal of consumer
research, 35(3), 423-439.
Park, S., & Lahman, M. K. (2003). Bridging perspectives of parents, teachers and co researchers:
methodological reflections on cross-cultural research. Reflective Practice, 4(3), 375-383.
Pine, G. J. (2008). Teacher action research: Building knowledge democracies. Sage.
Salomaa, A. (2018). Co-production for fundamental change: a response to Sutherland et al. Oryx,
52(4), 617-617.
Wallerstein, N., Duran, B. J. C.-b. p. r. f. h. A. s., & equity, h. (2017). The theoretical, historical
and practice roots of CBPR. 17-29.