Both Collaborative Action Research (CAR) and Participatory Action Research

(PAR) are forms of Action Research (AR) that emphasize collective engagement
and aim to bring about positive change within communities or specific groups.
While they share many common features, they differentiate in their historical
roots, the intensity of their focus on power dynamics, and the degree of
participant control.
Collaborative Action Research (CAR)
CAR focuses on developing a "professional learning community" (PLC)
where individuals or teams engage in collaborative research.
 Purpose and Process: CAR is designed to assist a facilitator in planning
and working in ways that are responsive to the participants'
expressed needs. It involves evolving reflective cycles that are
reflexive (reflecting on practice and applying theory) and democratic,
based on dialogues. The core idea is to foster a supportive environment
where participants can discuss ideas, options, and solutions, leading to
greater self-understanding and practical problem-solving.
 Researcher's Role: In CAR, the researcher, often with more research
experience, is encouraged to foster collaboration from each participant
rather than assuming the role of an "expert". Every step of the process
needs to be open-ended to allow for situation-specific planning and
activities.
 Key Habits of Inquiry: Successful CAR involves five "Habits of Inquiry":
o Clarifying a shared vision of success.

o Articulating theories informing actions.

o Team action planning.

o Purposeful collection of data.

o Collaborative analysis of data.

 Outcomes: CAR aims to enhance participants' work through successful

cooperation, with the overall goal of change for the participants'
benefit and improvement in their circumstances. The knowledge
produced can be used to evaluate programs and their impact on
participants' lives. Some forms of AR, including those that illustrate CAR,
aim to work in cooperative ways, where practitioners study their own
work-related activities ("done with" others rather than "done to" others).
Participatory Action Research (PAR)
PAR is identified as the "most firmly participatory form of AR". It has distinct
historical and ideological foundations.
 Origins and Core Commitment: PAR originated from the liberation
struggles of people in Latin America. It is fundamentally committed
to furthering the interests of exploited groups and classes and
explicitly challenges established academic routines to construct a more
comprehensive and human paradigm in the social sciences.
  Confronting Power Differentials: A central aim of PAR is to explicitly
confront the differentials in knowledge and power between
researchers and community partners who have experienced oppression or
exploitation. It views participation as a means to "break up the
asymmetrical relationship of submission and dependence" between
the researcher and the people being researched, striving to produce more
equitable authentic relationships.
 Social Change from the "Bottom Up": PAR advocates for social
change from the "bottom up," with academics standing in solidarity
with people experiencing oppression. It aims to promote a personal
sense of power, as well as the facilitation of a collective and
political power to address social issues.
 Emancipatory Character: PAR has an "emancipatory character,"
through which people gain a greater sense of their own agency, taking
action to acquire resources and to negotiate assertively for their rights.
Experiencing success through such actions can then strengthen their
positioning in civic society and further enhance democratic activism.
 Comprehensive Participant Involvement: In PAR, all participants
are involved in each step of the research process. This includes the co-
construction of knowledge, where participants bring their lived
experiences, expectations, skills, and concerns, and the team engages in
co-production through each step of the AR cycles towards solving
problems of mutual concern. This fully participative approach, covering
decisions on research focus, methods, data collection, analysis, and
dissemination, is much more likely to lead to emancipatory
research.
 Social Justice Agenda: Engaging in PAR means the researcher makes a
deliberate and conscious effort to design an inquiry that involves a
community or group in exploring critical issues for the purpose of actively
advancing a social justice agenda.
Key Differences and Similarities
While both CAR and PAR are collaborative forms of action research, their distinct
characteristics can be summarized as follows:
Key Differences:
 Philosophical Roots and Explicit Aim: PAR is explicitly rooted in
liberation struggles and critical theories, with a primary and
fundamental aim to confront and transform oppressive power
structures and social injustices. CAR, while collaborative and democratic,
is described more in terms of fostering supportive learning environments
and shared problem-solving within a group or organization.
 Depth of Power Analysis and Challenge: PAR has a deeper and more
explicit focus on dismantling asymmetrical power relations and
challenging the "submission and dependence" often present in traditional
research. It seeks to create truly equitable relationships where knowledge
and power are fundamentally rebalanced. While CAR aims for democratic
 processes, the sources do not describe it with the same level of explicit,
foundational intent to disrupt existing power hierarchies.
 Degree of Participant Control and Empowerment: PAR involves the
highest degree of participant control, with community members and
stakeholders acting as full partners in all stages of the research, from
identifying the issue to disseminating findings. This makes it more likely to
be emancipatory research. While CAR encourages collaboration and
shared decision-making, the sources imply PAR represents the ultimate
level of participant ownership and agency.
 Scope of Social Justice Agenda: PAR's very essence is defined by its
active advancement of a social justice agenda, explicitly aiming to
transform power structures and practices that perpetuate social
inequalities and deny human rights. While CAR results in benefits for
participants, the broad, explicit social justice mandate is a defining feature
of PAR.
Key Similarities:
 Focus on Change: Both CAR and PAR are fundamentally oriented towards
change and improvement, whether it's personal, relational, or societal.
 Collaborative Engagement: Both approaches value and involve the
active collaboration and participation of individuals or groups in the
research process, moving away from viewing community members as
vulnerable or powerless.
 Reflexivity and Dialogue: Both emphasize reflexivity and the creation
of dialogical spaces for critical inquiry, allowing for shared meaning-
making and the re-examination of assumptions.
 Co-construction of Knowledge: Both approaches recognize the value of
knowledge generated by ordinary people and strive to empower
participants as co-inquirers or co-researchers who co-construct
knowledge.
 Bridging Theory and Practice: In both CAR and PAR, the academic and
practical dimensions of research become inseparable, with the aim that
the research process and its outcomes directly contribute to real-world
change and action.
The sources distinguish between "research for social change" and "research as
social change," particularly in the context of transformative research. While both
aim for positive societal impact, they differ significantly in their focus and the
locus of change within the research process itself.
Research for Social Change
"Research for social change" describes most traditional qualitative approaches
where the goal is to bring about change in prevailing social and political systems.
 Purpose and Process: In this approach, there is a commitment among
all involved to collaboratively dialogue, reflect on, and pursue
action. The researcher often has established ties to the community,
 sometimes being an insider or member, and engages with participants as
equal stakeholders who share a collective vision and goal for the research
outcomes. Power and decision-making are dynamic and shared,
encompassing identifying the issue, planning, designing, and
implementing various stages of the inquiry. This form of inquiry focuses on
chipping away at social norms and inequalities within institutions
and communities to enhance economic, cultural, and political participation
for all members of society.
 Outcomes: The research process is viewed as a means to an end, with
the end typically being an actionable result. This often includes products
such as intervention programs, strategies or tools, action plans or
recommendations, or educational materials designed to create awareness
and open dialogue in other contexts. The aim is to bring about systemic or
social change by using the produced outcomes to influence
decision-makers at a policy level, or to promote collective behavioral
change through awareness campaigns and resource provision. Activist
research, as described by Dyrness (2008), is often designed to provide
products and expertise to marginalized groups to help them achieve
tangible changes at the policy level.
Research as Social Change
"Research as social change" is a concept deeply embedded within transformative
research, where the process of inquiry itself takes center stage as the
significant determinant of the study's outcome.
 Focus of Change: Unlike "research for social change," the focus of
change in "research as social change" is not primarily on the
knowledge or outcome produced, but rather on embedding change
within the relational process of dialogue, reflection, and action
required to reach those outcomes.
 Dual Agenda: While the researcher and participants critically engage
with their lived experiences and the social conditions affecting them to
produce ideas for change, the researcher also has a parallel, deliberate,
and respectful agenda. This agenda involves creating opportunities for
participants to delve into the "hidden aspects of self" – deeper influences
like judgments, beliefs, values, and sense of identity – as described by
Schratz and Walker (1995). This can create an "invisible discomfort" that
leads to shifts in personal beliefs and identity.
 Comprehensive Contribution to Transformation: The aim is to make
a valuable contribution to social transformation in two simultaneous ways:
1. Producing practical recommendations or tangible artifacts
that can be presented back to the community and used as
knowledge resources.
2. Activating the agency and transformative potential of the
participants to become agents of change.
 Ripple Effect: Social change is understood to begin by affecting and
transforming the interpersonal relationships fostered within the
 research space. This expands the capacity of participants to make
changes in their own lives, which can then ripple out into the broader
community.
Key Distinctions
The fundamental distinction lies in where the primary site of change is
located and how transformation is conceptualized:
 Locus of Change:
o Research for social change primarily focuses on external,
systemic, or policy-level changes brought about by the results
or products of the research.
o Research as social change emphasizes internal, personal, and
relational shifts that occur during the research process itself,
viewing the inquiry process as the mechanism for transformation.
 Emphasis on Process vs. Outcome:
o Research for social change sees the research process as a
means to an end (actionable results).
o Research as social change places the process of inquiry itself
at the center, seeing it as the significant determinant of the
outcome and the driver of change.
 Depth of Personal Transformation:
o While "research for social change" involves collaborative dialogue, it
does not explicitly delve into the deeper, often unconscious,
personal levels of change (identity, beliefs) in the same way.
o Research as social change deliberately seeks to create
opportunities for participants to explore and shift their personal
beliefs and identity, aiming for profound inner change that then
catalyzes outer action. This aligns with the idea that "Without inner
change, there can be no outer change".
In essence, "research for social change" seeks to influence change through its
findings, while "research as social change" aims to be the change by
transforming individuals and relationships during the research journey itself.
Participatory Action Research (PAR) is a collaborative approach deeply rooted in
transformative research, aiming for social change by involving participants as
active co-researchers throughout the entire inquiry process. Unlike "research for
social change," which views the process as a means to an end, PAR, as a form of
"research as social change," emphasizes embedding change within the relational
process of dialogue, reflection, and action itself.
Here are practical steps and key considerations for using PAR, drawing on the
sources:
1. Fostering Collaborative Relationships and Shared Vision
  Establish Collaborative Commitment: Begin with a deliberative
commitment to collaboration between the researcher and community
members. The researcher often has established ties to the community and
engages with participants as equal stakeholders.
 Acknowledge All Forms of Knowledge: Challenge the notion that only
those with academic qualifications can make meaningful judgments and
recommendations. Recognize that all human beings have the ability and
obligation to engage in democratic and informed thinking, accepting and
acknowledging all forms of knowledge.
 Shift from Deficit View: Move away from the view that community
members are vulnerable and powerless. Instead, believe that people are
capable of understanding the issues affecting their lives and devising
strategies to address them.
 Build Alliances and Equitable Relationships: Actively build alliances
through planning and conducting the research together. The aim is
to produce more equitable and authentic relationships by breaking
up the asymmetrical relationship of submission and dependence that can
exist between researchers and participants. Researchers should work
"alongside" participants, sharing skills, knowledge, and experiences based
on authentic connections.
 Clarify a Shared Vision of Success: As part of collaborative action
research, it's crucial to clarify a collective vision of what success looks like
for the project.
2. Cyclical Process of Inquiry and Action
PAR, as a form of Action Research (AR), is fundamentally cyclic, orientated
towards real-life problems, and focuses on change and improvement. It
oscillates between reflection and action. While the sources don't detail every
step of a specific cycle (like Lewin's, beyond noting its expanded four steps), the
overall approach involves continuous learning and adaptation:
 Problem Identification and Framing: The topics of research need to
be grounded in the interests and perspectives of the participants,
rather than being determined by an outside researcher. Power and
decision-making are dynamic and shared from identifying the issue and
focus of the study.
 Team Action Planning: Develop action plans collaboratively.
 Purposeful Data Collection: Participants should be involved in deciding
the best methods for collecting data and the types of data to be collected.
Data may be both qualitative and quantitative.
 Collaborative Data Analysis and Interpretation: Participants extend
their involvement beyond co-construction of knowledge to collective
analysis and interpretation of the data. Ensure research findings and
conclusions are reached by consensus, making knowledge "communally
owned".
  Reflection and Critical Awareness: Promote self-awareness and critical
awareness to initiate change and activism. Critical reflection involves
questioning presuppositions on which beliefs and behaviors are built,
examining and re-examining taken-for-granted assumptions. This also
involves asking sub-questions like: "What specifically did I (we) do?",
"What improvement occurred?", and "What was the relationship between
my (our) actions and changes in performance?".
 Action and Application: Participants use their findings to promote
positive change. This can involve developing programs, strategies, action
plans, or educational materials.
3. Deepening Personal and Relational Transformation
 Delve into "Hidden Aspects of Self": Beyond surface-level discussions,
the researcher has a parallel agenda to deliberately and respectfully
create opportunities for participants to explore deeper influences like
judgments, beliefs, values, and sense of identity, which can create
"invisible discomfort" leading to shifts in personal beliefs and identity.
 Activate Agency and Transformative Potential: The research aims to
activate the agency and transformative potential of participants to
become agents of change. This involves making a conscious effort to
foster the personal, relational, and social strengths and agency of
participants.
 Highlight Overlooked Strengths: Engage with participants in a manner
that highlights and reveals their inherent strengths and capacities to
address challenges. This can be achieved through asking unconditionally
positive questions and fostering relational spaces that reinforce mutual
commitment, trust, and respect.
 Provide Opportunities for Practice and Feedback: Simply
encouraging reframing ways of being will not necessarily lead to
behavioral change; participants need opportunities to practice their new
roles and receive affirming feedback from others.
4. Dissemination and Sustaining Change
 Make Knowledge Public and Accessible: Research can only have a
transformative impact when its process and knowledge creation are made
public and accessible to others.
 Collective Dissemination: Participants should be involved in the
dissemination of the findings.
 Creative Sharing: Sharing knowledge beyond the research space can
take many forms, such as songs, poems, artwork, drama, and
storytelling.
 Plan for Sustained Impact: Incorporate discussions with participants
around the importance of learning and recommendations, inviting creative
ideas on how to contribute to greater social change. Prompt questions like:
"How can the findings benefit you?", "How will our work be used to make a
 difference in the community?", "Who needs to hear/see the outcome?",
and "What are we going to do with the findings?".
 Ethical Accountability: The researcher has an ethical obligation to make
explicit the connection between the research process and outcomes
towards furthering a social justice agenda. This goes beyond institutional
requirements, requiring deliberate and reflexive actions to foster the
transformative potential of the study for the benefit of those involved.
5. Methodological Considerations
 Methodological Pluralism: Use a variety of research methods and forms
of expression to activate transformative potential.
 Mixed Methods Design: Mertens (2009) often aligns transformative
research with mixed methods design, where the qualitative dimension
integrates community perspectives, and the quantitative dimension adds
credibility through statistical outcomes.
 Confer with Participants on Methodology: Researchers should confer
with participants in selecting a methodology that will best capture the
type of data and findings they collectively wish to produce.
 Arts-Based Methods: Examples like body mapping and participatory
video production have been used in PAR to reduce power differentials and
share experiences, sometimes without words.
 Ethical Clearance: In projects with student co-researchers, ethical
clearance should be completed, and co-researchers may waive anonymity
to be acknowledged.
By following these practical steps, PAR aims to empower individuals and
communities, facilitating deep personal and systemic change that ripples out
into broader society.
In transformative research, particularly within Participatory Action Research
(PAR), ethics extends beyond traditional compliance to encompass reflexive,
relational, and responsible ethics. These three aspects are deeply
intertwined, emphasizing the researcher's role in fostering genuine and impactful
social change through the research process itself.
Here's a differentiation of each:
 Reflexive Ethics: This aspect underscores the researcher's continuous
self-awareness and critical examination of their own role, biases,
and influence within the research process. It acknowledges that
researchers are "individuals immersed in their own learning and
becoming" and that social contexts are dynamic. Therefore, it's not always
possible to predetermine or even fully understand the impact one person
has on another. The key lies in "always being reflexive". Romm (2015)
highlights this by stating that researchers must be mindful that they
"make, rather than find, realities," and Mertens (2009) adds that
"there are no value-free interactions between two human beings". This
means actively questioning the presuppositions on which beliefs and
behaviors are built and examining taken-for-granted assumptions.
  Relational Ethics: This emphasizes the quality and nature of the
relationships forged between the researcher, participants, and
their communities. It is founded on a "relational ontology or worldview"
where knowledge and knowing are interconnected with all living and non-
living things, seeing the individual, knowledge, and context as
inseparable. The aim is to break down "asymmetrical relationship[s]
of submission and dependence" between researchers and participants,
fostering "more equitable and authentic relationships". Researchers are
encouraged to work "alongside" participants, "sharing their skills,
knowledge and experiences and based upon authentic connections". This
involves establishing "mutual commitment to building trust and
maintaining mutual respect". Ultimately, social change is seen as
beginning by affecting and transforming the interpersonal
relationships fostered within the research space.
 Responsible Ethics: This refers to the researcher's ethical obligation
to explicitly connect the research process and its outcomes to
furthering a social justice agenda. Mertens (2009) and Romm (2015)
term this "ethical accountability". It goes beyond meeting institutional
ethics requirements, demanding "deliberate and reflexive actions" to
foster the study's transformative potential for the benefit of those
involved. This means consciously inspiring and guiding participants to
use the knowledge generated within their communities for personal,
relational, or social change. It acknowledges that "knowledge only
becomes powerful when it is shared," and participants should be involved
in the "collective analysis and interpretation of the data, as well as the
dissemination of the findings," with knowledge being "communally
owned". The goal is not just to describe lived realities but for knowledge to
serve "as a catalyst for change and hope for a better future".
In essence, these ethical considerations are not distinct silos but rather
interconnected aspects of a holistic approach to transformative research.
Reflexive ethics (self-awareness of influence) guides how the relational space
(authentic, equitable connections) is built, which then enables the responsible
pursuit of social justice (conscious action for the benefit of participants and
community).