creative participatory method in qualitative research

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

A Guide to Selecting Participatory Research Methods Based on Project and Partnership Goals

Stephanie r. duea.

1 School of Nursing, University of North Carolina at Wilmington

Emily B. Zimmerman

2 Department of Family Medicine and Population Health, Division of Epidemiology, VCU Center on Society and Health, Virginia Commonwealth University

Lisa M. Vaughn

3 College of Medicine, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center/University of Cincinnati

Sónia Dias

4 Public Health Research Center, NOVA National School of Public Health

Janet Harris

5 School of Health & Related Research, University of Sheffield

Participatory research engages community stakeholders in the research process, from problem identification and developing the research question, to dissemination of results. There is increasing recognition in the field of health research that community-engaged methods can be used throughout the research process. The volume of guidance for engaging communities and conducting participatory research has grown steadily in the past 40+ years, in many countries and contexts. Further, some institutions now require stakeholder engagement in research as a condition of funding. Interest in collaborating in the research process is also growing among patients and the public. This article provides an overview for selecting participatory research methods based on project and partnerships goals.

Participatory research engages community stakeholders to work alongside academics across all stages of the research process, from problem identification and developing the research question to the dissemination of results. Community and stakeholder engagement can be defined as the involvement of relevant stakeholders as full partners in all phases of research, requiring relationships built on trust and respect regardless of partners’ training or experience in science or research ( Woolf et al., 2016 ). In this context, and throughout the research process, participation is the defining principle “recognizing the value of each person’s contribution to the co-creation of knowledge in a process that is not only practical, but also collaborative and empowering” ( ICPHR, 2013 , p. 5). Cornwall and Jewkes (1995) compare participatory and conventional research processes and note that “the key difference between participatory and other research methodologies lies in the location of power in the various stages of the research process.” Authentic engagement in the research process develops community capacity to be co-producers of the research process and outcomes.

Participatory Health Research (PHR) is a research paradigm whereby the research process, in its entirety, is a partnership between stakeholders with different backgrounds and perspectives, such as researchers, professionals, community members, policy makers, and others ( ICPHR, 2013 ). The collaborative nature of participatory research necessitates a trustful relationship between the researchers and community partners, which in turn can promote the community’s acceptance of the study. Community acceptance may improve participation, data quality, and uptake of results ( Abma et al., 2019 ; Balazs & Morello-Frosch, 2013 ; Ramsden et al., 2010 ).

The use of a participatory research approach enables the integration of stakeholder perspectives and research on questions prioritized by communities that are often not considered by researchers. Hence, the engagement of communities in the study design contributes to production of data that are more adequate and relevant for them ( Balazs & Morello-Frosch, 2013 ; Vaughn & Jacquez, 2020 ). This engagement is also valuable in the development and validation of data collection instruments, development of tailored recruitment approaches, and data collection ( Vaughn & Jacquez, 2020 ). By having a deep knowledge of the community context, community partners can help researchers identify locations and social networks to facilitate participant recruitment and data collection. This is particularly true with underrepresented populations as these groups might be more reluctant to participate in research studies ( Dias et al., 2018 ; Rodriguez Espinosa & Verney, 2020 ). Additionally, the participatory research process contributes to the promotion of capacity building, empowerment of communities to address their health needs and priorities, and an increased sense of ownership of the project ( Dias & Gama, 2014 ; Israel et al., 2010 ). Finally, the participatory processes can stimulate the receptiveness of communities to policies and recommendations that arise from the research results—but engaging with policymakers can also be a key strategy for translating research into policy development and implementation ( Ogbe et al., 2018 ).

There is increasing recognition in the field of health research that community-engaged methods can be used throughout the research process (e.g., when developing the research question, designing and conducting the study, dissemination of findings) ( Vaughn & Jacquez, 2020 ). The volume of guidance documents for engaging communities and conducting participatory research has grown steadily in the past 40+ years. This trend has occurred in many countries and contexts. Further, some institutions now require stakeholder engagement as a condition of funding. Interest in collaborating in the research process is also growing among patients and the public ( Rutten et al., 2015 ). To move in this direction, both researchers and communities need to develop the capacity for conducting participatory research and need to be able to identify useful and appropriate methods suited to their partnerships, project goals, and processes.

PHR has integrated a wide range of existing research methods and approaches. While participatory research includes both quantitative and qualitative methods, these methods are often adapted for the participatory research process ( ICPHR, 2013 ), which sometimes raises questions about the methodological rigor of PHR. These challenges have been met by the recognition that PHR can be judged by its “adherence to validity criteria specific to participatory research approaches: participatory, intersubjective, contextual, catalytic, ethical, and empathic validity” ( ICPHR, 2013 , pp. 19–20). Another important remedy is the use of methods for engaging stakeholders and co-producing research that have developed along with the growing interest in participatory research. These methods reflect PHR’s diverse goals and the wide range of contexts in which it is conducted.

The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of participatory research methods for researchers new to PHR and for experienced PHR researchers seeking information about methods they have not used before. The authors selected a diverse range of participatory research methods and provide examples of how they can be used for different research goals (see Tables 1 –5). We derived our categories and examples from collective experience, the existing research methods literature, and through the iterative process described below. Our resulting categorization is not intended to provide a comprehensive catalog of methods. Further, we recognize that the selected categorization is just one way of organizing these methods and that in many, if not all, cases, these methods overlap and could be utilized in other ways and other phases of the research process.

Engagement and Capacity Building

The International Collaboration for Participatory Health Research (ICPHR) was founded in 2009 and is a scientific, nongovernmental network and a community of practice focused in part on synthesizing the knowledge and experience of PHR in different countries, addressing issues of quality, credibility, and impact ( ICPHR, 2020 , p. 3). Members meet annually to discuss issues of common concern and convene workgroups on specific topics and projects. This work originated at the ICPHR annual meeting in 2019. At that time, ICPHR members interested in PHR methods formed a working group on methods and discussed the need for sharing resources related to methods that were developed or adapted for participatory research and collaboration. The working group included faculty members from the United States, Portugal, and England whose work focused on implementing, advancing, and evaluating PHR methods. Having used and written about a wide variety of PHR methods (e.g., Dias et al., 2018 ; Dias & Gama, 2014 ; Harris, Booth, et al., 2018 ; Harris, Cook, et al., 2018 ; Harris et al., 2019 ; Jacquez et al., 2013 ; Smith et al., 2020 ; Vaughn et al., 2009 , 2016 ; Vaughn & DeJonckheere, 2019 ; Vaughn & Jacquez, 2020 ; Vaughn & Lohmueller, 2014 ; Zimmerman, 2021 ; Zimmerman et al., 2020 ), the authors began the process of developing this article by creating an annotated list of methods they were aware of and creating a matrix to identify different characteristics of these methods. Next, we grouped the methods into the domains presented here and then conducted literature reviews within each domain to identify additional methods and relevant literature, including foundational articles and more recent implementation studies. For each method, we refer readers to a select list of articles that highlight the background of each method and implementation examples.

Our overview of participatory methods is organized in five domains: 1) Engagement and capacity building; 2) Exploration and visioning; 3) Visual and narrative; 4) Mobilization; and 5) Evaluation. Below, we define each domain and provide examples of methods within each. We describe the type of method, typical goals for which the method is employed, participants engaged, and some strengths and weaknesses that users of these methods have identified. This summary is meant to orient readers to the types of methods employed and their potential uses and does not aim to provide any definitive description or assessment. We also include citations that provide examples of how the different types of methods have been used and urge readers who are learning about these methods to seek out the depth of information needed for their purposes by further exploring the literature.

Categorization of the methods into the five domains was conceived as a way to link each method to a collaborative goal rather than a specific stage in the research process, reflecting the flexibility to be useful at various research stages. For example, the community consultation provided by a Community Engagement Studio may be useful during research development to refine questions, identify ethical issues, and identify partners, but may also be useful later in the research process to address dissemination and translation. Similarly, a Photovoice project may help identify community priorities at the beginning of research or may spur advocacy or policy initiatives at later stages.

Domain: Engagement and Capacity Building

Engagement of stakeholders encompasses a spectrum of participation that ranges from one-off consultation and short-term intensive workshops to periodic engagement to ongoing and active collaboration and ownership of the research process. The establishment of partnerships and networks is more likely to build capacity for doing participatory research than one-off or short-term engagement. While engagement is often described as a process where academic researchers attempt to involve other stakeholders, in participatory research, communities may take the lead by identifying issues that require research and approaching academics and health practitioners to explore collaborations.

Researchers who are applying for funding often use one-off engagement at the research planning stage. At the planning stage, people with lived experience of a health condition may be asked to critique proposed research designs ( Shippee et al., 2015 ). Community engagement (CE) studios are one approach where focused engagement is used to obtain feedback on existing ideas for research ( Joosten et al., 2015 , 2018 ). In a brief (usually two hour) CE Studio session, a skilled and neutral moderator facilitates discussion between stakeholders and researchers with the aim of promoting co-learning and obtaining project-specific input that increases the relevance and acceptability of the proposed research. The contributions are used to refine research design, modify patient information and patient consent, and inform recruitment processes and patient compensation ( Shippee et al., 2015 ).

CBPR charettes , in contrast, aim for more intense engagement through facilitated, transdisciplinary workshops lasting for three to five days. Days may be split, or interspersed with small group work, to promote knowledge exchange and discourse on specific issues ( Kennedy, 2017 ). In CBPR, charrettes have been used to convene participants from diverse fields and knowledge bases, with the aim of identifying issues that need to be addressed through research, assessing the feasibility of proposed projects, and developing a plan that can be used as the basis of a more detailed roadmap for a transdisciplinary research project ( Samuel et al., 2018 ). These projects may be broader than clinical research, encompassing health and the environment, vulnerable groups, public health issues such as violence, community development and planning ( Kennedy, 2017 ; Smith et al., 2020 ). Charettes use a specific objective to build intergroup collaboration, which in turn serves to build capacity for developing longer-term partnerships ( Smith et al., 2020 ). They do this by leveraging participants’ expertise to set up Community Advisory Boards and establish governance and decision-making structures, while clarifying initial expectations and roles ( Samuel et al., 2018 ). Consistent participation in the charette and communication of charette activities to a wider stakeholder group are important in terms of fostering longer-term engagement.

Over the longer term, patient research networks (PRNs) enhance research relevance and usefulness throughout a clinical research study by coordinating patient involvement at different project stages, including recruiting participants for studies, partnering with researchers to coordinate the collection and analysis of data, and developing strategies for disseminating results. The common aim across patient research networks is to ensure that patients are included as partners across all stages, including their position in leadership and decision-making roles ( Marschhauser et al., 2021 ). One of the benefits of early engagement has been establishing what matters to patients when they take part in research ( Natafgi et al., 2019 ). Patient-powered research networks (PPRNs) share the aims of other PRN models, but also strive to create a national data and engagement infrastructure across diverse United States health institutions ( Marschhauser et al., 2021 ). PPRNs enlist patients to collect and share their data, primarily with academic researchers, in order to create large data sets. Individuals with one condition or a set of related conditions contribute self-reported data gathered via remote monitoring devices, or share data from their electronic health records, with the PPRN, which coordinates large-scale data collection for researchers ( Fleurence et al., 2014 ).

Community Advisory Boards (CABS) aim to solidify partnerships through deeper participation and ongoing stakeholder contribution to and co-production of research ( Dias et al., 2018 ; Pratt & Hyder, 2016 ). Successful partnerships engage people who are committed to reducing health disparities, for example, and who have reputations as doers and consensus makers ( Horowitz et al., 2011 ). Incorporating regular discussion where members can express concerns and negotiate conflict is key ( Rowe & Frewer, 2005 ), in addition to formal and informal training where different skills and expertise are shared. These activities can enable CAB members to recognise and value diverse opinions and skills while developing a shared purpose and solidarity, which further builds capacity and sustainability of the partnership ( Harris et al., 2019 ).

Domain: Exploration and Visioning

Participatory methods that we classified in the Exploration and Visioning domain support various stages of research development, such as community dialogue, stakeholder priority setting, developing research questions, and exploring the meaning, causes, or solutions to specific problems. All methods categorized in the Exploration and Visioning domain support a wide range of group involvement and are intended to benefit from relevant stakeholder representation across a group or system (e.g., patients, physicians, other healthcare providers, clinic administrators, staff, and family/community members for a research study about a chronic disease for which patients are seen in a specialty clinic).

An example of an Exploration and Visioning process method that can be used to support research development is the multi-stakeholder SEED Method ( Zimmerman et al., 2020 ; Zimmerman & Cook, 2021 ), which brings in multiple groups of patient and stakeholder participants in the research team, by creating “topic groups” that build conceptual models and develop research questions or strategies, and also through consultation such as focus groups or interviews. The SEED Method has been used to develop and prioritize research questions on lung cancer disparities ( Rafie et al., 2019 ), diet and behavioral management of diabetes and hypertension ( Zimmerman et al., 2017 ), and to develop strategies for addressing the opioid crisis and working with stakeholders to develop and implement action plans ( Zimmerman et al., 2020 ).

Concept mapping methodology is a mixed-methods research approach that integrates qualitative and quantitative data collection methods of brainstorming, card sorting, and ratings with the multivariate statistical techniques of multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis to create a data-driven visual representation of thoughts or ideas of a group ( Kane & Trochim, 2007 ; Trochim, 1989 ). Concept mapping ( Jackson & Trochim, 2002 ; Rosas & Kane, 2012 ) works well within a participatory framework because of the structured steps that include diverse perspectives of multiple constituencies within a group or community ( Vaughn et al., 2017 ). Concept mapping has been used widely in PHR as a foundation for evidence-based action planning or program and policy development that can be co-created with stakeholders. For instance, Szaflarski and colleagues (2015) used concept mapping to explore HIV-related stigma in the Cincinnati Black Faith community, and Ahmad et al. (2012) used concept mapping methodology working with South Asian immigrant women to identify barriers to mammography and solutions. Methodological studies support the validity and utility of concept mapping ( Jackson & Trochim, 2002 ; Rosas & Kane, 2012 ).

Many of the Exploration and Visioning methods are intended to engage large groups in a process where all stakeholders can participate and be heard, with an emphasis on action planning and areas of agreement/consensus (e.g., community forums, Future Search Conference, Group Level Assessment, World Café). For instance, Future Search Conference (FSC) is a large-group methodology that brings a whole system into the room to work on a task-focused agenda ( Serrat, 2017 ; Weisbord & Janoff, 2000 , 2010 ). FSCs have been used in a variety of settings with successful results, including enhanced participant involvement and awareness, confirmation of mutual values, and increased commitment to future action ( Magnus et al., 2016 ). FSCs are most commonly used in organizational settings to facilitate collective strategic planning and visioning, leaving opportunities for wider usage in PHR.

The World Café invites stakeholders to engage in small group discussions by rotating tables where specific questions and ideas are discussed and then shared with the larger group. Conversations are encouraged through a social café style setting and the use of Appreciative Inquiry. Although conversations take place in small groups, a relatively large number of people can come together at one World Café event ( Fouché & Light, 2011 ). MacFarlane et al. (2017) held World Cafés with community organizations, community participants, academics, clinicians, and health service planners/policy makers in Ireland to prioritize research questions for a primary health care research group. The two sessions engaged 63 participants in all. They also report on a series of five World Cafes held in the U.S. with refugee and immigrant communities, each with approximately 45 to 55 participants, to develop research questions on diabetes mellitus.

Another Exploration and Visioning method is Group Level Assessment (GLA) . Qualitative and participatory, GLA is intended for research and evaluation with large groups of stakeholders who have an equal voice in data generation, data analysis, and action planning ( Vaughn & DeJonckheere, 2019 ; Vaughn & Lohmueller, 2014 ). GLA utilizes an action-based, collaborative research process and is popular across a wide variety of disciplines to assess and explore various topics. GLA proceeds through seven structured steps that vary in terms of individual, small group, and large group activities: 1) Climate Setting; 2) Generating; 3) Appreciating; 4) Reflecting; 5) Understanding; 6) Selecting; and 7) Action. GLA is useful across a variety of settings and allows diverse stakeholders to work together to identify, prioritize, and take action about issues of importance ( K. E. Graham et al., 2015 ; Vaughn et al., 2011 ). In the health arena, examples where GLA has been used include factors influencing the use of physiological monitors for hospitalized children ( Schondelmeyer et al., 2019 ); African American fathers’ perceptions of involvement in the pediatric medical home ( Bignall et al., 2018 ); and communication when caring for children with limited English proficiency during inpatient hospital stays ( Choe et al., 2019 ).

Domain: Visual and Narrative

The Visual and Narrative domain includes participatory research methods that use visual and narrative approaches to data collection, analysis, and interpretation. The methods in this domain generally emphasize the sharing and co-production of stakeholder experiences and ideas through alternative, multimodal approaches to data collection and interpretation. Participatory visual and narrative methods are guided by stakeholder interests and priorities, “putting the methods literally in the hands of participants themselves and allowing for greater access to social research knowledge beyond the academy” ( Gubrium et al., 2016 , p. 13).

Mapping methods include participatory GIS mapping, asset mapping, food mapping, and other techniques that engage the public in visual mapping, planning, and decision making related to social and cultural environments/contexts. Participatory mapping has been used in a wide variety of disciplines to frame health, educational, and organizational issues within the context of spatial information (e.g., understanding public safety and community violence, informing the development of place-based interventions, mapping the “hot spots” of disease transmission) and can be a powerful approach to engaging underrepresented communities in learning, decision making, planning, and advocacy ( S. R. Graham et al., 2011 ; Larrain & McCall, 2019 ; Letsela et al., 2018 ).

Participatory methods such as Photovoice and Videovoice incorporate photography and/or video into data collection and analysis and can promote self-reflection, dialogue, collaboration, power sharing, and voice among stakeholders who are normally not involved in research ( Gubrium & Harper, 2016 ; Lorenz & Kolb, 2009 ; Packard, 2008 ). Photovoice and Videovoice go beyond the written word and have the potential to engage people with varying literacy levels, different languages, ages, and cognitive abilities. Photovoice is a well-known and widely-used participatory visual method that engages community members by utilizing photography to identify community strengths and challenges ( Catalani & Minkler, 2010 ; Wang, 2006 ; Wang & Burris, 1997 ). Reflection and dialogue based on the photographs lead to community-identified priorities and ultimately a platform for advocacy and social action.

Participatory methods such as digital storytelling, participatory oral history, and participatory theatre-based methods emphasize the narrative aspect of data collection and interpretation. They encourage personal and social change through the sharing of stories and personal and public narrative. Such methods can be used to prompt community dialogue and engagement in decision-making processes ( Aranda & Street, 2001 ; Harper et al., 2004 ). A “storied approach to research” provides opportunities for stakeholder participation in research by drawing on lived experiences and diverse perspectives ( Goodley & Clough, 2004 , p. 331). Digital storytelling is used to capture participants’ lived experiences and engage them in making meaning of that experience (e.g., Carlson et al., 2021 ; Fiddian-Green et al., 2019 ).

Participatory art-making methods, including collage, drawing, tapestry, murals, and mandalas, utilize arts-based modalities to evoke diverse expression and tap into the “everyday knowledge,” multiple ways of knowing, and creativity of stakeholders ( Swantz, 2008 , p. 38). In these participatory art-making methods, stakeholders engage in creating and interpreting art as a form of data collection and analysis ( Carter & Ford, 2013 ; Coemans & Hannes, 2017 ; Jones & Leavy, 2014 ; Van der Vaart et al., 2018 ). For instance, Yuen (2016) used collage as a method of inquiry collaborating with Aboriginal women to explore the meaning of leisure and their experiences of healing, and Dutton et al. (2019) used biographical collage with Inuit women to foster capacity building and as a decolonizing process. Mental health studies on anxiety and depression have also used the creation of mandalas in research ( Henderson et al., 2007 ; Lee, 2018 ; Palmer et al., 2014 ).

Domain: Mobilization

Research methods that we classified in the Mobilization domain are those that mobilize action in participatory research by providing tools for decision making, action planning, translation, policy change, and dissemination. All methods categorized in this section provide a specific framework for mobilization that reflects the perspectives and priorities of diverse stakeholders. This domain includes Boot Camp Translation, which aims to promote the translation of evidence-based practices by creating community-focused messages and communication tools. Methods focused on decision making included deliberative methods and the Delphi Process, which bring together diverse stakeholders to reach consensus on important health-related issues. These methods can be used to identify and prioritize health spending, research priorities, and other normative decisions ( Burchardt, 2014 ).

Boot Camp Translation (BCT) , developed by the High Plains Research Network (HPRN), is a participatory process to “translate medical information and clinical guidelines into concepts and messages that are understandable, meaningful, and engaging to community members” ( Zittleman et al., 2021 , p. 339). Working together using a CBPR approach and facilitation team model, community members, researchers, and health experts learn about the health issue and create new paths for community engagement, with an emphasis on creating culturally-relevant messages and changing the local conversation. BCT has been used to address a variety of health issues (e.g., colon cancer screening, asthma, diabetes self-management, high blood pressure, and opioid use disorder and treatment) ( Allison et al., 2014 ; Zittleman et al., 2021 ). By digging into patient perspectives, the BCT process helps create communication that resonates with communities. For example, in a patient-centered medical homes project, BCT participants engaged in appreciative inquiry to better understand aspects that are salient to patients and tailored messages around those components ( Allison et al., 2014 ). Generally, the BCT process takes 4 to 12 months, including education for participants on the health topic, brainstorming, developing key messages, and dissemination planning ( Norman et al., 2013 ).

A variety of participatory methods fall into the category of consensus approaches that bring diverse stakeholders together to deliberate and identify priorities. Deliberative methods promote informed discussion and consideration of different points of view on specific topics, leading to a decision or recommendation acceptable to all participants. Deliberation as research, Burchardt (2014) points out, generally aims to obtain the informed and considered judgements of participants through a process of public reasoning, with information provided to participants and an expectation that participants’ beliefs and values may change as a result of the deliberation exercise.

Deliberative participatory methods include citizens’ juries, consensus conferences, and citizens’ panels ( Abelson et al., 2003 ). The Deliberative Democracy Forum (DDF), developed by the Kettering Foundation, is one example. Procedures for conducting a DDF include several key steps such as framing sessions, facilitated forums (including deliberation), and identifying actions. Cheney et al. (2021) describe a project using DDF to identify community priorities and engage Latinx communities in Riverside, California. After a series of in-home meetings to identify community concerns, stakeholders participated in framing sessions to sort and categorize the community-identified issues. The four final categories that emerged from this process were developed into an Issue Book to help guide the deliberation step. Deliberation was held in four 90-minute forums with community members. Through the forums, community participants were able to reach a consensus on which topic had the most importance.

The Delphi process is another consensus method that is often used to elicit and prioritize stakeholder ideas for research-related issues (e.g., research agendas and questions, outcomes). The process involves repeated questioning of selected experts—generally through several rounds of surveys ( Hasson et al., 2000 ). Unlike many participatory methods, Delphi participants may provide their input anonymously via questionnaires, but in-person consensus meetings and workshops are also common. Although the Delphi process has been in use since the 1950s, it is more recently used in participatory research with stakeholders such as patients and service users and incorporated into participatory frameworks such as community-based participatory research or participatory action research. Used in participatory research, stakeholders may be involved beyond answering questionnaires, including collaboration on design and analysis aspects of the research. Fletcher and Marchildon (2014) discuss the Delphi Method’s use in Participatory Action Research (PAR) and the impact of anonymous participation on reducing power differentials among participants. Kezar and Maxey (2016) describe how the Delphi Method can be used in participatory research and introduce the idea of a change-oriented Delphi . The Delphi Process has been used in participatory research to elicit consensus on a wide variety of topics, such as research priorities for mental health ( Owens et al., 2008 ), cerebral palsy ( Gross et al., 2018 ), and self-management strategies for bipolar disorder ( Michalak et al., 2016 ). Khodyakov et al. (2017) used a modified online Delphi process to gain patients’ and professionals’ consensus on priorities for comparative effectiveness research on three health conditions. They assessed participants’ experiences using the online process and found that participants were willing to use the process again, felt it was easy to use, and had positive online discussion experiences.

Domain: Evaluation

Research methods in the Evaluation domain include participatory methods for evaluating partnerships and project processes or outcomes with stakeholders and program participants as active collaborators. Although participatory evaluation can be useful in many contexts, it is a particularly important method for assessing participatory research projects. It provides continuity with the core processes and values that undergird these projects and is well suited for assessing how project outcomes are linked to participatory processes. This is especially important because the distinctive values and processes of participatory research can create challenges for evaluators. For example, these processes increase the complexity inherent in identifying and measuring outcomes, which may occur more gradually than traditional health intervention projects and may include non-traditional outcomes (e.g., community empowerment) ( Springett, 2017 ). Participatory evaluation, therefore, requires a distinct approach to method and metrics, with stakeholder collaboration throughout. The Center for Community Health and Development (n.d.) also emphasizes the importance of making participatory evaluation part of a project from the beginning, so that “beneficiaries become the copilots of a project, making sure that their real needs and those of the community are recognized and addressed.”

Participatory evaluation approaches vary on key dimensions such as who is engaged, how, and for what purpose. Cousins and Whitmore (1998) distinguished between participatory evaluation that supports practical decision making and problem solving (practical participatory evaluation) and that which focuses on empowerment of those who are less powerful or oppressed (transformative participatory evaluation). Our table groups different approaches together under the label participatory evaluation, but we acknowledge that there are many different types and that evaluation teams have many options regarding approach, project design, governance, engagement, and data collection. For example, Fetterman (2019) distinguishes between collaborative, participatory, and empowerment evaluation approaches, based on who is in control of the evaluation process and the role of the evaluator. Chouinard and Milley (2018) reviewed 51 reports describing international participatory evaluation projects. They report that governance arrangements often took the form of stakeholder inclusion in steering committees, research teams, design workshops, task forces and committees, consultation, and participatory planning processes. In addition to these governance arrangements, collaborative evaluation work often occurred through events and meetings, such as workshops, trainings, and other events focused on project activities such as identifying questions, building stakeholder capacity, and interpreting data.

Partnership evaluation puts the focus on the process and outcomes of community-based participatory research by assessing partnership functioning and ability to meet objectives (Detroit Community-Academic Urban Research Center, n.d.). The Community-Based Participatory Research Conceptual Model developed by the University of New Mexico Center for Participatory Research (UNM-CPR) and University of Washington’s Indigenous Wellness Research Institute (UWIWRI) provides a conceptual evaluation model that focuses on contexts, group dynamics, research and intervention designs, and outcomes. The model provides specific constructs within each of these levels, but also posits the processes and practices that may influence CBPR outcomes ( Wallerstein et al., 2008 ). Oetzel et al. (2015) validated the psychometric properties of 22 measures related to the CBPR model, including proximal, intermediate, and distal outcome measures. The model was tested by a sample of CBPR partnerships and participants verified and expanded upon previous concepts ( Belone et al., 2016 ), resulting in an evaluation framework that highlights important influences at different levels of the socio-ecological model (e.g., individual, group, community) and by different actors (e.g., community and university). Important factors include socio-economic, cultural, and historical contexts; community capacity and university readiness; trust; reflection; power relations; and mutual learning ( Roura et al., 2021 ). A study of 294 participatory research projects examined the relationship between contextual and partnership practices and partnership outcomes, identifying specific practices that were associated with project outcomes ( Duran et al., 2019 ). The conceptual model and a repository of evaluation tools are available at the Engage for Equity website ( Engage for Equity, 2021 ). An example of application of the model is provided by the Rochester Healthy Community Partnership (RHCP). RHCP’s evaluation process moved through steps of: 1) development of a partnership timeline; 2) facilitated discussion of the CBPR conceptual model to discuss partnership constructs and consider how the constructs influenced the partnership’s work; 3) interviews and surveys using adapted instruments guided by the CBPR conceptual model; and 4) participatory data analysis ( Reese et al., 2019 ).

Ripple Effects Mapping (REM) is a retrospective, qualitative evaluation approach that brings together project stakeholders to map the chain of effects of a program or collaboration in complex, real-life settings ( Chazdon et al., 2017 ). Four essential components of REM include Appreciative Inquiry, a participatory approach, interactive group interviewing and reflection, and radiant thinking (Mind Mapping) ( Chazdon & Langan, 2017 ). Evaluations often incorporate the Community Capitals Framework (CCF) and employ approaches such as “web mapping” and “in-depth rippling.” REM has been used in a variety of fields. Welborn et al. (2016) used it in six project sites to assess a civic dialog process that engaged residents to explore poverty in their community and act on identified concerns. They concluded that the process was easy for participants to understand and provided real-time deliberation about responses. They also found that the process helped participants recognize and appreciate program impacts, spurring new energy among the groups. Washburn et al. (2020) used REM to evaluate a health education program and capture program impacts beyond participant behavior change to identify community-level ripple effects. Others have used similar approaches to capture ripple effects of participatory research ( Dias et al., 2021 ; Zimmerman et al., 2019 ).

Despite its positive contributions to research and partnership, conducting PHR also entails many challenges. Since a community is not a purely geopolitical nor homogeneous entity, collaboratively defining who comprises the community and its stakeholders is a critical first step that has consequences throughout the project ( MacQueen et al., 2001 ; Roura et al., 2021 ). Although the active participation of community partners and stakeholders is essential to PHR, managing power relations, conflicts of interests, and diverse perspectives requires attention, time, and continuous dialogue and negotiation efforts throughout the research process to ensure equitable involvement of all partners (both academic and non-academic) ( Dias et al., 2018 ; Newman et al., 2011 ). Additionally, conducting participatory research involves working closely with non-academic partners with different backgrounds and competencies regarding research activities, such as data collection and analysis. In practice, it is often difficult to ensure equitable involvement of different partners throughout project activities ( Dias & Gama, 2014 ; Ramsden et al., 2010 ). Differences in competencies, commitment, interests, motivations, expectations, and the need for continued adjustments to the project add to the necessary commitment of time and resources ( Abma et al., 2019 ).

Using research methods developed or adapted for stakeholder engagement and collaborative research does not guarantee that these challenges will be reduced or eliminated, but should provide the foundation needed to plan for and implement strategies to address these issues. We have highlighted a range of methods for: 1) collaborative participation in the processes of engaging stakeholders and building capacity; 2) facilitating group processes for exploration, dialogue, priority setting, and question development; 3) sharing and co-production of stakeholder experiences and ideas through alternative, multimodal approaches to data collection and interpretation; 4) mobilizing for decision making, action planning, translation, policy change, and dissemination; and 5) evaluating participatory research. Researchers and their partners must evaluate the suitability of PHR methods for their project goals and purposes based on available resources (e.g., time, expertise, funding) and assess relevant tradeoffs. For example, while more time consuming, longer-term engagement may help build trust and capacity and is critical to achieving co-production of research. However, shorter-term engagement may be a better fit for some projects or a starting point for those new to PHR.

Limitations

This article was prepared largely for other researchers seeking to familiarize themselves with a range of PHR methods and did not involve collaboration with different types of stakeholders; however, we welcome feedback from all stakeholders as well as suggestions related to methods that were not covered here. This overview contains examples in each of the five domains presented and does not aim to provide an exhaustive list of relevant methods. In addition, we decided to limit the scope to methods and have not included the many useful tools that are available for PHR. Beyond noting some of the strengths and challenges related to each method that have been reported in the literature, we did not evaluate the effectiveness of the methods, nor did we discuss ethical challenges associated with the methods. Our categorization of methods into the five domains is meant to help readers match partnership and project goals with available methods, but we fully acknowledge that the methods presented here are useful in multiple contexts and to accomplish a variety of goals.

Conclusion and Implications for Future Research

Research methods can be effectively implemented in participatory ways. It is key to nurture a collaborative environment that embodies PHR principles, such as the active engagement of stakeholders and communities in the conceptualization of research questions and in the choice of methodological approaches. The promotion of all partners’ engagement encourages openness and opportunity for continuous dialogue, exchange of knowledge, respect and trust, and self-reflexivity. Echoing the words of Wallerstein (2020) , “the commitment to practice participatory methods is critically important to ensure genuine engagement” as we collectively work towards achieving health and social justice and eliminating inequities. Opportunities for future research include process and outcome evaluation of participatory health research using established and emerging participatory research methods.

Exploration and Visioning

Visual and Narrative

Mobilization

• Abelson J, Forest P-G, Eyles J, Smith P, Martin E, & Gauvin F-P (2003). Deliberations about deliberative methods: Issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes . Social Science & Medicine , 57 ( 2 ), 239–251. 10.1016/s0277-9536(02)00343-x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Abma T, Banks S, Cook T, Dias S, Madsen W, Springett J, & Wright MT (2019). Participatory Research for Health and Social Well-Being . Springer Nature. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ahmad F, Mahmood S, Pietkiewicz I, McDonald L, & Ginsburg O (2012). Concept mapping with South Asian immigrant women: Barriers to mammography and solutions . Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health , 14 ( 2 ), 242–250. 10.1007/s10903-011-9472-7 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Allison C, Zittleman L, Ringel M, Felzien M, Bennett C, Cowart S, Flores M, Flores R, Hernandez M, Norman N, Rodriquez M, Sanchez N, Sanchez S, Winkelman K, Winkelman S, Sutter C, Gale S, & Westfall JM (2014). Translating the medical home into patient-centered language . London Journal of Primary Care , 6 ( 6 ), 124–130. 10.1080/17571472.2014.11494363 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aranda S, & Street A (2001). From individual to group: Use of narratives in a participatory research process . Journal of Advanced Nursing , 33 ( 6 ), 791–797. 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01719.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Balazs CL, & Morello-Frosch R (2013). The three Rs: How community-based participatory research strengthens the rigor, relevance, and reach of science . Environmental Justice , 6 ( 1 ), 9–16. 10.1089/env.2012.0017 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Becker DR, Harris CC, McLaughlin WJ, & Nielsen EA (2003). A participatory approach to social impact assessment: The interactive community forum . Environmental Impact Assessment Review , 23 ( 3 ), 367–382. 10.1016/s0195-9255(02)00098-7 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Belone L, Lucero JE, Duran B, Tafoya G, Baker EA, Chan D, Chang C, Greene-Moton E, Kelley MA, & Wallerstein N (2016). Community-based participatory research conceptual model: Community partner consultation and face validity . Qualitative Health Research , 26 ( 1 ), 117–135. 10.1177/1049732314557084 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bignall ON-R, Raglin Bignall WJ, Vaughn LM, & Unaka NI (2018). Fathers know best: Inner-city African American fathers’ perceptions regarding their involvement in the pediatric medical home . Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities , 5 ( 3 ), 617–622. 10.1007/s40615-017-0407-4 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown G, Schebella MF, & Weber D (2014). Using participatory GIS to measure physical activity and urban park benefits . Landscape and Urban Planning , 121 , 34–44. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.09.006 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Burchardt T (2014). Deliberative research as a tool to make value judgements . Qualitative Research , 14 ( 3 ), 353–370. 10.1177/1468794112469624 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Burke JG, O’Campo P, Peak GL, Gielen AC, McDonnell KA, & Trochim WMK (2005). An Introduction to Concept Mapping as a Participatory Public Health Research Method . Qualitative Health Research , 15 ( 10 ), 1392–1410. 10.1177/1049732305278876 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carlson LM, Ridgeway JL, Asiedu GB, Wieland ML, Sia IG, Porraz Capetillo G, Bernard ME, Hanza MM, & Njeru JW (2021). Facilitated stories for change: Digital storytelling as a tool for engagement in facilitated discussion for reduction of diabetes-related health disparities among rural Latino patients with diabetes . Journal of Transcultural Nursing , 32 ( 6 ), 707–715. 10.1177/1043659620980816 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carter B, & Ford K (2013). Researching children’s health experiences: The place for participatory, child-centered, arts-based approaches . Research in Nursing & Health , 36 ( 1 ), 95–107. 10.1002/nur.21517 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Catalani CECV, & Minkler M (2010). Photovoice: A review of the literature in health and public health . Health Education & Behavior , 37 ( 3 ), 424–451. 10.1177/1090198109342084 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Catalani CECV, Veneziale A, Campbell L, Herbst S, Butler B, Springgate B, & Minkler M (2012). Videovoice: Community assessment in post-Katrina New Orleans . Health Promotion Practice , 13 ( 1 ), 18–28. 10.1177/1524839910369070 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Center for Community Health and Development. (n.d.). Community Tool Box . University of Kansas. https://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-of-contents/evaluate/evaluation/participatory-evaluation/main [ Google Scholar ]
• Chalmers I, Atkinson P, Fenton M, Firkins L, Crowe S, & Cowan K (2013). Tackling treatment uncertainties together: The evolution of the James Lind Initiative, 2003–2013 . Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine , 106 ( 12 ), 482–491. 10.1177/0141076813493063 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chazdon S, Emery M, Hansen D, Higgins L, & Sero R (2017). A field guide to ripple effects mapping . University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chazdon S, & Langan S (2017). The core ingredients of ripple effects mapping . University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cheney AM, Haynes TF, Olson M, Cottoms N, Bryant K, Reaves CM, Reich MR, Curran GM, & Sullivan G (2018). Using deliberative and qualitative methods to mobilize community around the mental health needs of rural African Americans . Health Systems & Reform , 4 ( 1 ), 8–18. 10.1080/23288604.2017.1404180 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cheney AM, Reaves CM, Figueroa M, Cabral A, & Sullivan G (2021). Grassroots to grasstops: A stepwise approach to identify community health priorities. In Zimmerman EB (Ed.), Researching health together: Engaging patients and stakeholders in research, from topic identification to policy change (pp. 25–44). Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Choe AY, Unaka NI, Schondelmeyer AC, Bignall WJR, Vilvens HL, & Thomson JE (2019). Inpatient Communication Barriers and Drivers When Caring for Limited English Proficiency Children . Journal of Hospital Medicine , 14 ( 10 ), 607–613. 10.12788/jhm.3240 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chouinard JA, & Milley P (2018). Uncovering the mysteries of inclusion: Empirical and methodological possibilities in participatory evaluation in an international context . Evaluation and Program Planning , 67 , 70–78. 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2017.12.001 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Coemans S, & Hannes K (2017). Researchers under the spell of the arts: Two decades of using arts-based methods in community-based inquiry with vulnerable populations . Educational Research Review , 22 , 34–49. 10.1016/j.edurev.2017.08.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cornwall A, & Jewkes R (1995). What is participatory research? Social Science & Medicine , 41 ( 12 ), 1667–1676. 10.1016/0277-9536(95)00127-s [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cousins JB, & Whitmore E (1998). Framing participatory evaluation . New Directions for Evaluation , 1998 ( 80 ), 5–23. 10.1002/ev.1114 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• de Jager A, Fogarty A, Tewson A, Lenette C, & Boydell KM (2017). Digital Storytelling in Research: A Systematic Review . The Qualitative Report , 22 ( 10 ). 10.46743/2160-3715/2017.2970 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dean M, Friedman SJ, Sutphen R, Bourquardez-Clark DD, & Rezende LF (2021). Partners, not participants: Engaging patients in the American BRCA Outcomes and Utilization of Testing (ABOUT) Network. In Zimmerman EB (Ed.), Researching health together: Engaging patients and stakeholders in research, from topic identification to policy change (pp. 158–173). Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Detroit Community-Academic Urban Research Center. (n.d.). CBPR Glossary. https://www.detroiturc.org/about-cbpr/cbpr-glossary [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dias S, & Gama A (2014). Community-based participatory research in public health: Potentials and challenges . Revista Panamericana de Salud Publica , 35 ( 2 ), 150–154. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24781097/ [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dias S, Gama A, Sherriff N, Gios L, Berghe WV, Folch C, Marcus U, Staneková DV, Pawlęga M, Caplinskas S, Naseva E, Klavs I, Velicko I, Mirandola M, Nöstlinger C, & Sialon II Network. (2021). Process evaluation of a bio-behavioural HIV research combined with prevention among GBMSM in 13 European countries . Global Public Health , 18 , 1–16. 10.1080/17441692.2021.1874469 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dias S, Gama A, Simões D, & Mendão L (2018). Implementation Process and Impacts of a Participatory HIV Research Project with Key Populations . BioMed Research International , 2018 , 1–9. 10.1155/2018/5845218 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Duran B, Oetzel J, Magarati M, Parker M, Zhou C, Roubideaux Y, Muhammad M, Pearson C, Belone L, Kastelic SH, & Wallerstein N (2019). Toward Health Equity: A National Study of Promising Practices in Community-Based Participatory Research . Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action , 13 ( 4 ), 337–352. 10.1353/cpr.2019.0067 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dutton S, Davison CM, Malia M, Bartels S, Collier K, Plamondon K, & Purkey E (2019). Biographical collage as a tool in Inuit community-based participatory research and capacity development . International Journal of Qualitative Methods , 18 , 1–10. 10.1177/1609406919877307 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elwood S (2006). Critical Issues in Participatory GIS: Deconstructions, Reconstructions, and New Research Directions . Transactions in GIS , 10 ( 5 ), 693–708. 10.1111/j.1467-9671.2006.01023.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Engage for Equity. (2021). Combining Knowledge and Action for Social Change . https://engageforequity.org
• Fetterman D (2019). Empowerment evaluation: A stakeholder involvement approach . Health Promotion Journal of Australia , 30 ( 2 ), 137–142. 10.1002/hpja.243 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fiddian-Green A, Kim S, Gubrium AC, Larkey LK, & Peterson JC (2019). Restor(y)ing health: A conceptual model of the effects of digital storytelling . Health Promotion Practice , 20 ( 4 ), 502–512. 10.1177/1524839918825130 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fletcher AJ, & Marchildon GP (2014). Using the Delphi Method for Qualitative, Participatory Action Research in Health Leadership . International Journal of Qualitative Methods , 13 ( 1 ), 1–18. 10.1177/160940691401300101 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fleurence RL, Beal AC, Sheridan SE, Johnson LB, & Selby JV (2014). Patient-powered research networks aim to improve patient care and health research . Health Affairs , 33 ( 7 ), 1212–1219. 10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0113 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fouché C, & Light G (2011). An Invitation to Dialogue: “The World Café” In Social Work Research . Qualitative Social Work , 10 ( 1 ), 28–48. 10.1177/1473325010376016 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goodley D, & Clough P (2004). Community projects and excluded young people: Reflections on a participatory narrative research approach . International Journal of Inclusive Education , 8 ( 4 ), 331–351. 10.1080/1360311042000259139 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Graham KE, Schellinger AR, & Vaughn LM (2015). Developing strategies for positive change: Transitioning foster youth to adulthood . Children and Youth Services Review , 54 , 71–79. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.04.014 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Graham SR, Carlton C, Gaede D, & Jamison B (2011). The benefits of using geographic information systems as a community assessment tool . Public Health Reports , 126 ( 2 ), 298–303. 10.1177/003335491112600224 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gross PH, Bailes AF, Horn SD, Hurvitz EA, Kean J, & Shusterman M (2018). Setting a patient-centered research agenda for cerebral palsy: A participatory action research initiative . Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology , 60 ( 12 ), 1278–1284. 10.1111/dmcn.13984 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gubrium A, & Harper K (2016). Participatory visual and digital methods . Routledge. 10.4324/9781315423012 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gubrium A, Harper K, & Otañez M (Eds.). (2016). Participatory visual and digital research in action . Routledge. 10.4324/9781315422978 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harper GW, Lardon C, Rappaport J, Bangi AK, Contreras R, & Pedraza A (2004). Community narratives: The use of narrative ethnography in participatory community research . American Psychological Association. 10.1037/10726-011 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harris JL, Booth A, Cargo M, Hannes K, Harden A, Flemming K, Garside R, Pantoja T, Thomas J, & Noyes J (2018). Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series—paper 2: Methods for question formulation, searching, and protocol development for qualitative evidence synthesis . Journal of Clinical Epidemiology , 97 , 39–48. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.10.023 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harris JL, Cook T, Gibbs L, Oetzel J, Salsberg J, Shinn C, Springett J, Wallerstein N, & Wright M (2018). Searching for the Impact of Participation in Health and Health Research: Challenges and Methods . BioMed Research International , 2018 , 1–12. 10.1155/2018/9427452 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harris JL, Haltbakk J, Dunning T, Austrheim G, Kirkevold M, Johnson M, & Graue M (2019). How patient and community involvement in diabetes research influences health outcomes: A realist review . Health Expectations , 22 ( 5 ), 907–920. 10.1111/hex.12935 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hasson F, Keeney S, & McKenna H (2000). Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique . Journal of Advanced Nursing , 32 ( 4 ), 1008–1015. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11095242/ [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Henderson P, Rosen D, & Mascaro N (2007). Empirical study on the healing nature of mandalas . Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts , 1 ( 3 ), 148–154. 10.1037/1931-3896.1.3.148 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Horowitz CR, Eckhardt S, Talavera S, Goytia C, & Lorig K (2011). Effectively translating diabetes prevention: A successful model in a historically underserved community . Translational Behavioral Medicine , 1 ( 3 ), 443. 10.1007/s13142-011-0067-6 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• ICPHR. (2013). Position Paper No. 1 . International Collaboration for Participatory Health Research. http://www.icphr.org/position-papers--discussion-papers/position-paper-no-1 [ Google Scholar ]
• ICPHR. (2020). Terms of Reference . International Collaboration for Participatory Health Research. http://www.icphr.org/structure.html [ Google Scholar ]
• Israel BA, Coombe CM, Cheezum RR, Schulz AJ, McGranaghan RJ, Lichtenstein R, Reyes AG, Clement J, & Burris A (2010). Community-based participatory research: A capacity-building approach for policy advocacy aimed at eliminating health disparities . American Journal of Public Health , 100 ( 11 ), 2094–2102. 10.2105/ajph.2009.170506 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jackson KM, & Trochim WMK (2002). Concept mapping as an alternative approach for the analysis of open-ended survey responses . Organizational Research Methods , 5 ( 4 ), 307–336. 10.1177/109442802237114 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jacobi J, Wambugu G, Ngutu M, Augstburger H, Mwangi V, Zonta AL, Otieno S, Kiteme BP, Delgado Burgoa JMF, & Rist S (2019). Mapping food systems: A participatory research tool tested in Kenya and Bolivia . Mountain Research and Development , 39 ( 1 ), R1–R11. 10.1659/mrd-journal-d-18-00024.1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jacquez F, Vaughn LM, & Wagner E (2013). Youth as Partners, Participants or Passive Recipients: A Review of Children and Adolescents in Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) . American Journal of Community Psychology , 51 ( 1–2 ), 176–189. 10.1007/s10464-012-9533-7 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jones K, & Leavy P (2014). A Conversation Between Kip Jones and Patricia Leavy: Arts-Based Research, Performative Social Science and Working on the Margins . Qualitative Report , 19 ( 38 ), 1–7. 10.46743/2160-3715/2014.1232 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Joosten YA, Israel T, Dunkel L, Sims J, & Wilkins CH (2021). The Community Engagement Studio: Tapping into the lived experience of community members to enhance research. In Zimmerman EB (Ed.), Researching health together: Engaging patients and stakeholders in research, from topic identification to policy change (pp. 119–140). Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Joosten YA, Israel TL, Head A, Vaughn Y, Villalta Gil V, Mouton C, & Wilkins CH (2018). Enhancing translational researchers’ ability to collaborate with community stakeholders: Lessons from the Community Engagement Studio . Journal of Clinical and Translational Science , 2 ( 4 ), 201–207. 10.1017/cts.2018.323 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Joosten YA, Israel TL, Williams NA, Boone LR, Schlundt DG, Mouton CP, Dittus RS, Bernard GR, & Wilkins CH (2015). Community Engagement Studios: A structured approach to obtaining meaningful input from stakeholders to inform research . Academic Medicine , 90 ( 12 ), 1646–1650. 10.1097/acm.0000000000000794 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jorgenson J, & Steier F (2013). Frames, Framing, and Designed Conversational Processes: Lessons From the World Café . The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science , 49 ( 3 ), 388–405. 10.1177/0021886313484511 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kane M, & Trochim WMK (2007). Concept mapping for planning and evaluation . Sage Publications, Inc. 10.4135/9781412983730 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kennedy A (2017). Scotland’s approach to participatory planning: Characterising the charrette . International Journal of Architectural Research , 11 ( 2 ), 101. 10.26687/archnet-ijar.v11i2.1265 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Keygnaert I, Dias SF, Degomme O, Devillé W, Kennedy P, Kováts A, De Meyer S, Vettenburg N, Roelens K, & Temmerman M (2015). Sexual and gender-based violence in the European asylum and reception sector: A perpetuum mobile? European Journal of Public Health , 25 ( 1 ), 90–96. 10.1093/eurpub/cku066 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kezar A, & Maxey D (2016). The Delphi technique: An untapped approach of participatory research . International Journal of Social Research Methodology , 19 ( 2 ), 143–160. 10.1080/13645579.2014.936737 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Khodyakov D, Grant S, Meeker D, Booth M, Pacheco-Santivanez N, & Kim KK (2017). Comparative analysis of stakeholder experiences with an online approach to prioritizing patient-centered research topics . Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association , 24 ( 3 ), 537–543. 10.1093/jamia/ocw157 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kramer S, Amos T, Lazarus S, & Seedat M (2012). The philosophical assumptions, utility and challenges of asset mapping approaches to community engagement . Journal of Psychology in Africa , 22 ( 4 ), 537–544. 10.1080/14330237.2012.10820565 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Larrain AÁ, & McCall MK (2019). Participatory mapping and participatory GIS for historical and archaeological landscape studies: A critical review . Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory , 26 ( 2 ), 643–678. 10.1007/s10816-018-9385-z [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee S-L (2018). Why color mandalas? A study of anxiety-reducing mechanisms . Art Therapy , 35 ( 1 ), 35–41. 10.1080/07421656.2018.1459105 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Letsela L, Weiner R, Gafos M, & Fritz K (2018). Alcohol availability, marketing, and sexual health risk amongst urban and rural youth in South Africa . AIDS and Behavior , 23 ( 1 ), 175–189. 10.1007/s10461-018-2250-y [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Li EPH, Prasad A, Smith C, Gutierrez A, Lewis E, & Brown B (2019). Visualizing community pride: Engaging community through photo- and video-voice methods . Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal , 14 ( 4 ), 377–392. 10.1108/qrom-03-2018-1621 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lightfoot E, McCleary JS, & Lum T (2014). Asset mapping as a research tool for community-based participatory research in social work . Social Work Research , 38 ( 1 ), 59–64. 10.1093/swr/svu001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lorenz LS, & Kolb B (2009). Involving the public through participatory visual research methods . Health Expectations , 12 ( 3 ), 262–274. 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2009.00560.x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• MacFarlane A, Galvin R, O’Sullivan M, McInerney C, Meagher E, Burke D, & LeMaster JW (2017). Participatory methods for research prioritization in primary care: An analysis of the World Café approach in Ireland and the USA . Family Practice , 34 ( 3 ), 278–284. 10.1093/fampra/cmw104 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• MacQueen KM, McLellan E, Metzger DS, Kegeles S, Strauss RP, Scotti R, Blanchard L, & Trotter RT II. (2001). What is community? An evidence-based definition for participatory public health . American Journal of Public Health , 91 ( 12 ), 1929–1938. 10.2105/ajph.91.12.1929 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Magnus E, Knudtsen MS, Wist G, Weiss D, & Lillefjell M (2016). The Search Conference as a Method in Planning Community Health Promotion Actions . Journal of Public Health Research , 5 ( 2 ), 621. 10.4081/jphr.2016.621 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marschhauser K, Grossman C, & Zirkle M (2021). The History of PCORnet. In Zimmerman EB (Ed.), Researching health together: Engaging patients and stakeholders in research, from topic identification to policy change (pp. 141–157). Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Michalak EE, Suto MJ, Barnes SJ, Hou S, Lapsley S, Scott MW, Murray G, Austin J, Elliot NB, Berk L, & Crest BD (2016). Effective self-management strategies for bipolar disorder: A community-engaged Delphi Consensus Consultation study . Journal of Affective Disorders , 206 , 77–86. 10.1016/j.jad.2016.06.057 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Monroe MC, Oxarart A, Mcdonell L, & Plate R (2009). Using Community Forums to Enhance Public Engagement in Environmental Issues . Journal of Education for Sustainable Development , 3 ( 2 ), 171–182. 10.1177/097340820900300212 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mosavel M, Gough MZ, & Ferrell D (2018). Using asset mapping to engage youth in community-based participatory research: The WE project . Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action , 12 ( 2 ), 223–236. 10.1353/cpr.2018.0042 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Natafgi N, Tafari AT, Chauhan C, Bekelman JE, & Mullins CD (2019). Patients’ early engagement in research proposal development (PEER-PD): Patients guiding the proposal writing . Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research , 8 ( 6 ), 441–453. 10.2217/cer-2018-0129 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Newman SD, Andrews JO, Magwood GS, Jenkins C, Cox MJ, & Williamson DC (2011). Community advisory boards in community-based participatory research: A synthesis of best processes . Preventing Chronic Disease , 8 ( 3 ), A70. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21477510/ [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Norman N, Bennett C, Cowart S, Felzien M, Flores M, Flores R, Haynes C, Hernandez M, Rodriquez MP, Sanchez N, Sanchez S, Winkelman K, Winkelman S, Zittleman L, & Westfall JM (2013). Boot camp translation: A method for building a community of solution . Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine , 26 ( 3 ), 254–263. 10.3122/jabfm.2013.03.120253 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nowell WB, Curtis JR, & Crow-Hercher R (2018). Patient governance in a patient-powered research network for adult rheumatologic conditions . Medical Care , 56 ( 10 Suppl 1 ), S16–S21. 10.1097/mlr.0000000000000814 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Oetzel JG, Zhou C, Duran B, Pearson C, Magarati M, Lucero J, Wallerstein N, & Villegas M (2015). Establishing the Psychometric Properties of Constructs in a Community-Based Participatory Research Conceptual Model . American Journal of Health Promotion , 29 ( 5 ), e188–e202. 10.4278/ajhp.130731-quan-398 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ogbe E, Van Braeckel D, Temmerman M, Larsson EC, Keygnaert I, De Los Reyes Aragón W, Cheng F, Lazdane G, Cooper D, Shamu S, Gichangi P, Dias S, Barrett H, Nobels A, Pei K, Galle A, Esho T, Knight L, Tabana H, & Degomme O (2018). Opportunities for linking research to policy: Lessons learned from implementation research in sexual and reproductive health within the ANSER network . Health Research Policy and Systems , 16 ( 1 ), 123. 10.1186/s12961-018-0397-7 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Owens C, Ley A, & Aitken P (2008). Do different stakeholder groups share mental health research priorities? A four-arm Delphi study . Health Expectations , 11 ( 4 ), 418–431. 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2008.00492.x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Packard J (2008). “I’m gonna show you what it’s really like out here”: The power and limitation of participatory visual methods . Visual Studies , 23 ( 1 ), 63–77. 10.1080/14725860801908544 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Palmer VJ, Dowrick C, & Gunn JM (2014). Mandalas as a visual research method for understanding primary care for depression . International Journal of Social Research Methodology , 17 ( 5 ), 527–541. 10.1080/13645579.2013.796764 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pratt B, & Hyder AA (2016). Governance of transnational global health research consortia and health equity . The American Journal of Bioethics , 16 ( 10 ), 29–45. 10.1080/15265161.2016.1214304 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rafie CL, Zimmerman EB, Moser DE, Cook S, & Zarghami F (2019). A lung cancer research agenda that reflects the diverse perspectives of community stakeholders: Process and outcomes of the SEED Method . Research Involvement and Engagement , 5 ( 3 ). 10.1186/s40900-018-0134-y [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ramsden VR, McKay S, & Crowe J (2010). The pursuit of excellence: Engaging the community in participatory health research . Global Health Promotion , 17 ( 4 ), 32–42. 10.1177/1757975910383929 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reese AL, Hanza MM, Abbenyi A, Formea C, Meiers SJ, Nigon JA, Osman A, Goodson M, Njeru JW, Boursaw B, Dickson E, Wieland ML, Sia IG, & Wallerstein N (2019). The Development of a Collaborative Self-Evaluation Process for Community-Based Participatory Research Partnerships Using the Community-Based Participatory Research Conceptual Model and Other Adaptable Tools . Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action , 13 ( 3 ), 225–235. 10.1353/cpr.2019.0050 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rieger KL, West CH, Kenny A, Chooniedass R, Demczuk L, Mitchell KM, Chateau J, & Scott SD (2018). Digital storytelling as a method in health research: A systematic review protocol . Systematic Reviews , 7 ( 1 ), 41. 10.1186/s13643-018-0704-y [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rodriguez Espinosa P, & Verney SP (2020). The underutilization of community-based participatory research in psychology: A systematic review . American Journal of Community Psychology , 67 ( 3–4 ), 312–326. 10.1002/ajcp.12469 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosas SR, & Kane M (2012). Quality and rigor of the concept mapping methodology: A pooled study analysis . Evaluation and Program Planning , 35 ( 2 ), 236–245. 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2011.10.003 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roura M, Dias S, LeMaster JW, & MacFarlane A (2021). Participatory health research with migrants: Opportunities, challenges, and way forwards . Health Expectations , 24 ( 2 ), 188–197. 10.1111/hex.13201 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rouse LJ, Bergeron SJ, & Harris TM (2007). Participating in the geospatial web: Collaborative mapping, social networks and participatory GIS. In The geospatial web (pp. 153–158). Springer; London. 10.1007/978-1-84628-827-2_14 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rowe G, & Frewer LJ (2005). A typology of public engagement mechanisms . Science, Technology, & Human Values , 30 ( 2 ), 251–290. 10.1177/0162243904271724 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rutten LJF, Morris MA, Schrader LM, Manemann SM, Pathak J, Dimler R, & Roger VL (2015). Approaching patient engagement in research: What do patients with cardiovascular disease think? Patient Preference and Adherence , 9 , 1061–1064. 10.2147/ppa.s84980 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Samuel CA, Lightfoot AF, Schaal J, Youngue C, Black K, Ellis K, Robertson L, Smith B, Jones N, Foley K, Kollie J, Mayhand A, Morse C, Guerrab F, & Eng E (2018). Establishing New Community-Based Participatory Research Partnerships using the Community-Based Participatory Research Charrette Model: Lessons from the cancer health accountability for managing pain and symptoms study . Progress in Community Health Partnerships , 12 ( 1 ), 89–99. 10.1353/cpr.2018.0010 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schondelmeyer AC, Daraiseh NM, Allison B, Acree C, Loechtenfeldt AM, Timmons KM, Mangeot C, & Brady PW (2019). Nurse responses to physiologic monitor alarms on a general pediatric unit . Journal of Hospital Medicine , 14 ( 10 ), E1–606. 10.12788/jhm.3234 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Serrat O (2017). Future search conferencing. In Knowledge Solutions (pp. 229–236). Springer. 10.1007/978-981-10-0983-9_23 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shippee ND, Domecq Garces JP, Prutsky Lopez GJ, Wang Z, Elraiyah TA, Nabhan M, Brito JP, Boehmer K, Hasan R, Firwana B, Erwin PJ, Montori VM, & Murad MH (2015). Patient and service user engagement in research: A systematic review and synthesized framework . Health Expectations , 18 ( 5 ), 1151–1166. 10.1111/hex.12090 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith S, Winkler S, Towne S, & Lutz B (2020). Utilizing CBPR Charrette in community-academic research partnerships-what stakeholders should know . Journal of Participatory Research Methods , 1 ( 1 ). 10.35844/001c.13179 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Springett J (2017). Impact in participatory health research: What can we learn from research on participatory evaluation? Educational Action Research , 25 ( 4 ), 560–574. 10.1080/09650792.2017.1342554 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Swantz MI (2008). The SAGE handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (Reason P & Bradbury H, Eds.; 2nd ed.). Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sweeney G, Hand M, Kaiser M, Clark JK, Rogers C, & Spees C (2016). The state of food mapping: Academic literature since 2008 and review of online GIS-based food mapping resources . Journal of Planning Literature , 31 ( 2 ), 123–219. 10.1177/0885412215599425 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Szaflarski M, Vaughn LM, McLinden D, Wess Y, & Ruffner A (2015). Using concept mapping to mobilize a black faith community to address HIV . International Public Health Journal , 7 ( 1 ), 117–130. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28239439/ [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Trochim WMK (1989). An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation . Evaluation and Program Planning , 12 ( 1 ), 1–16. 10.1016/0149-7189(89)90016-5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Trochim WMK, & Kane M (2005). Concept mapping: An introduction to structured conceptualization in health care . International Journal for Quality in Health Care , 17 ( 3 ), 187–191. 10.1093/intqhc/mzi038 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Van der Vaart G, van Hoven B, & Huigen PPP (2018). Creative and arts-based research methods in academic research. Lessons from a participatory research project in the Netherlands . Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research , 19 ( 2 ). 10.17169/FQS-19.2.2961 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vaughn LM, & DeJonckheere M (2019). Methodological Progress Note: Group Level Assessment . Journal of Hospital Medicine , 14 ( 10 ), 627–629. 10.12788/jhm.3289 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vaughn LM, Forbes JR, & Howell B (2009). Enhancing home visitation programs: Input from a participatory evaluation using Photovoice . Infants & Young Children , 22 ( 2 ), 129–142. 10.1097/01.iyc.0000348054.10551.66 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vaughn LM, & Jacquez F (2020). Participatory research methods–choice points in the research process . Journal of Participatory Research Methods , 1 ( 1 ). 10.35844/001c.13244 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vaughn LM, Jacquez F, Marschner D, & McLinden D (2016). See what we say: Using concept mapping to visualize Latino immigrant’s strategies for health interventions . International Journal of Public Health , 61 ( 7 ), 837–845. 10.1007/s00038-016-0838-4 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vaughn LM, Jacquez F, Zhao J, & Lang M (2011). Partnering with students to explore the health needs of an ethnically diverse, low-resource school: An innovative large group assessment approach . Family & Community Health , 34 ( 1 ), 72–84. 10.1097/fch.0b013e3181fded12 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vaughn LM, Jones JR, Booth E, & Burke JG (2017). Concept mapping methodology and community-engaged research: A perfect pairing . Evaluation and Program Planning , 60 , 229–237. 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.08.013 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vaughn LM, & Lohmueller M (2014). Calling all stakeholders: Group-level assessment (GLA)—A qualitative and participatory method for large groups . Evaluation Review , 38 ( 4 ), 336–355. 10.1177/0193841×14544903 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wallerstein N (2020). Commentary on Community-Based Participatory Research and Community Engaged Research in Health for Journal of Participatory Research Methods . Journal of Participatory Research Methods , 1 ( 1 ). 10.35844/001c.13274 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wallerstein N, Oetzel J, Duran B, Tafoya G, Belone L, & Rae R (2008). CBPR: What predicts outcomes? In Minkler M & Wallerstein N (Eds.), Community-Based Participatory Research for Health: From Process to Outcomes (2nd ed., pp. 371–392). Jossey-Bass. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang CC (2006). Youth participation in photovoice as a strategy for community change . Journal of Community Practice , 14 ( 1–2 ), 147–161. 10.1300/j125v14n01_09 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang CC, & Burris MA (1997). Photovoice: Concept, methodology, and use for participatory needs assessment . Health Education & Behavior , 24 ( 3 ), 369–387. 10.1177/109019819702400309 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang CC, Yi WK, Tao ZW, & Carovano K (1998). Photovoice as a participatory health promotion strategy . Health Promotion International , 13 ( 1 ), 75–86. 10.1093/heapro/13.1.75 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Warren CM, Knight R, Holl JL, & Gupta RS (2014). Using videovoice methods to enhance community outreach and engagement for the national children’s study . Health Promotion Practice , 15 ( 3 ), 383–394. 10.1177/1524839913503470 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Washburn LT, Traywick L, Thornton L, Vincent J, & Brown T (2020). Using ripple effects mapping to evaluate a community-based health program: Perspectives of program implementers . Health Promotion Practice , 21 ( 4 ), 601–610. 10.1177/1524839918804506 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weisbord MR, & Janoff S (2000). Future search: An action guide to finding common ground in organizations and communities (3rd ed.). Berrett-Koehler Publishers. [ Google Scholar ]
• Weisbord MR, & Janoff S (2010). Future search: Getting the whole system in the room for vision, commitment, and action . Berrett-Koehler Publishers. [ Google Scholar ]
• Welborn R, Downey L, Dyk PH, Monroe PA, Tyler-Mackey C, & Worthy SL (2016). Turning the tide on poverty: Documenting impacts through ripple effect mapping . Community Development , 47 ( 3 ), 385–402. 10.1080/15575330.2016.1167099 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Woolf SH, Zimmerman E, Haley A, & Krist AH (2016). Authentic Engagement Of Patients And Communities Can Transform Research, Practice, And Policy . Health Affairs , 35 ( 4 ), 590–594. 10.1377/hlthaff.2015.1512 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yuen F (2016). Collage: An arts-based method for analysis, representation, and social justice . Journal of Leisure Research , 48 ( 4 ), 338–346. 10.18666/jlr-2016-v48-i4-6922 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zimmerman Emily B. (Ed.). (2021). Researching health together: Engaging patients and stakeholders in research, from topic identification to policy change . Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zimmerman Emily B., & Cook SK (2021). The SEED Method: A multi-level stakeholder approach to research question development and prioritization. In Zimmerman EB (Ed.), Researching health together: Engaging patients and stakeholders in research, from topic identification to policy change (pp. 92–116). Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zimmerman Emily B., Cook SK, Haley AD, Woolf SH, & Price SK (2017). A patient and provider research agenda on diabetes and hypertension management . American Journal of Preventive Medicine , 53 ( 1 ), 123–129. 10.1016/j.amepre.2017.01.034 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zimmerman Emily B., Haley A, Creighton GC, Bea C, Miles C, Robles A, Cook S, & Aroche A (2019). Assessing the impacts and ripple effects of a community-university partnership: A retrospective roadmap . Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning , 25 ( 1 ), 62–76. 10.3998/mjcsloa.3239521.0025.106 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zimmerman Emily B., Rafie CL, Moser DE, Hargrove A, Noe T, & Mills CA (2020). Participatory Action Planning to Address the Opioid Crisis in a Rural Virginia Community using the SEED Method . Journal of Participatory Research Methods , 1 ( 1 ). 10.35844/001c.13182 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zittleman L, Espinoza E, & Westfall JM (2021). Boot Camp Translation. In Zimmerman EB (Ed.), Researching health together: Engaging patients and stakeholders in research, from topic identification to policy change . Sage Publication. [ Google Scholar ]

Understanding participatory action research: A qualitative research methodology option

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

• St. Francis Xavier University

Discover the world's research

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

• Theresia Mushaandja
• Juhani Heikka
• Sanna Heikkinen

• Bahar Heidari

• Caroline Mahon

• Fitria Khairunnisa
• BMC Emerg Med
• Alireza Shafiei

• Hamid Reza Khankeh
• SUPPLY CHAIN MANAG

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

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

• Edward F. McQuarrie
• Catherine Marshall

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

Principles of Participatory Research

• First Online: 29 November 2017

Cite this chapter

• Catherine Wilkinson 3 &
• Samantha Wilkinson 4  

1881 Accesses

11 Citations

6 Altmetric

This chapter details the participatory approach to research, with an emphasis on active participation. The authors recognise the charm of participatory research as a process of mutual learning, whereby researchers become co-learners in children and young people’s everyday lifeworlds, and children and young people become knowledgeable about social research methods, thereby developing their capacity and competence. Despite the benefits of participatory research, including claims that it is a more fair and equitable approach to research, the authors remain critical of the unresolved challenge of creating research equity. In particular, the authors are mindful of power structures in participatory research between adult researchers and children/young people participants, which are difficult to negotiate. This leads the authors to argue that participatory research should not be considered a cure-all for adult-dominated research processes. The concerns documented throughout this chapter do not devalue the important role a participatory approach can play in knowledge exchange and action. Rather, they emphasise that implementation should not be without careful thought.

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

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Essential Ingredients in Child- and Young-Person-Led Research

Participatory Action Research: Challenges and Rewards in Fifteen Field Lessons

The Meaning of Participation: Reflections on Our Study

Weller S. Tuning-in to teenagers! Using radio phone-in discussions in research with young people. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2006;9(4):303–15.

Article   Google Scholar  

Pain R. Youth, age, and the representation of fear. Cap Class. 2003;27(2):151–71.

Holloway S, Valentine G. Children’s geographies: playing, living and learning. London: Routledge; 2000.

Google Scholar  

Wright D, Corner J, Hopkinson J, Foster C. Listening to the views of people affected by cancer about cancer research: an example of participatory research in setting the cancer research agenda. Health Expect. 2006;9(1):3–12.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Gallagher M. ‘Power is not an evil’: rethinking power in participatory methods. Child Geogr. 2008;6(2):137–50.

Pain R. Social geography: participatory research. Prog Hum Geogr. 2004;28(5):652–63.

Cahill C. Including excluded perspectives in participatory action research. Des Stud. 2007a;28(3):325–40.

Pain R, Francis P. Reflections on participatory research. Area. 2003;35(1):46–54.

Crivello G, Camfield L, Woodhead M. How can children tell us about their wellbeing? Exploring the potential of participatory research approaches within young lives. Soc Indic Res. 2009;90(1):51–72.

Grasser S, Schunko C, Vogl CR. Children as ethnobotanists: methods and local impact of a participatory research project with children on wild plant gathering in the grosses Walsertal biosphere reserve, Austria. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2016;12(46):1–16.

Clark A. Young children as protagonists and the role of participatory, visual methods in engaging multiple perspectives. Am J Community Psychol. 2010;46(1–2):115–23.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

United Nations Convention on the rights of the child. 1989. http://353ld710iigr2n4po7k4kgvv-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/UNCRC_PRESS200910web.pdf . Accessed 12 Jan 2017.

Graham A, Powell MA, Truscott J. Exploring the nexus between participatory methods and ethics in early childhood. Aust J Early Child. 2016;41(1):82–9.

Holland S, Renold E, Ross NJ, Hillman A. Power, agency and participatory agendas: a critical exploration of young people’s engagement in participative qualitative research. Childhood. 2010;17(3):360–75.

Vromen A. People try to put us down…participatory citizenship of generation x. Aust J Political Sci. 2003;43(1):79–97.

Paradiso de Sayu R, Chanmugam A. Perceptions of empowerment within and across partnerships in community-based participatory research: a dyadic interview analysis. Qual Health Res. 2016;26(1):105–16.

Foth M, Azup J. Participatory design and action research: identical twins or synergetic pair? In: Jacucci G, Kensing F, Wagner I, Blomberg J, editors. Proceedings participatory design conference 2006: expanding boundaries in design 2. Italy: Trento; 2006. p. 93–6.

Orlowski SK, Lawn S, Venning A, Winsall M, Jones GM, Wyld K, Damarell RA, Antezana G, Schrader G, Smith D, Collin P, Bidargaddi N. Participatory research as one piece of the puzzle: a systematic review of consumer involvement in design of technology-based youth mental health and well-being interventions. JMIR Human Factors. 2015;2(2):1–21.

Sutton L. ‘They’d only call you a scally if you are poor’: the impact of socio-economic status on children’s identities. Child Geogr. 2009;7(3):277–90.

Franks M. Pockets of participation: revisiting child-centred participation research. Child Soc. 2011;25(1):15–25.

Barreteau O, Bots PWG, Daniell KA. A framework for clarifying “participation” in participatory research to prevent its rejection for the wrong reasons. Ecol Soc. 2010;15(2):1–22.

Le De L, Gaillard JC, Friesen W. Academics doing participatory disaster research: how participatory is it? Environ Hazards. 2015;14(1):1–15.

Clark A, Moss P. Listening to young children: the mosaic approach. London: National Children’s Bureau; 2001.

Wilkinson S. Young people, alcohol and urban life. PhD thesis. University of Manchester; 2015a.

Pinter A, Zandian S. ‘I thought it would be tiny little one phrase that we said, in a huge big pile of papers:’ children’s reflections on their involvement in participatory research. Qual Res. 2015;15(2):235–50.

Waller T, Bitou A. Research with children: three challenges for participatory research in early childhood. Eur Early Child Educ Res J. 2011;19(1):5–20.

Randall D. Revisiting Mandell’s ‘least adult’ role and engaging with children’s voices in research. Nurse Res. 2012;19(3):39–43.

Phelan SK, Kinsella EA. Picture this... safety, dignity, and voice—ethical research with children: practical considerations for the reflexive researcher. Qual Inq. 2013;19(2):81–90.

Ansell N. Producing knowledge about ‘third world women’: the politics of fieldwork in a Zimbabwean secondary school. Ethics, Place Environ. 2001;4(2):101–16.

Bird D, Culley L, Lakhanpaul M. Why collaborate with children in health research: an analysis of the risks and benefits of collaboration with children. Arch Dis Child Educ Pract Ed. 2013;98:42–8.

McCartan C, Schubotz D, Murphy J. The self-conscious researcher – post-modern perspectives of participatory research with young people. Forum Qual Soc Res. 2012;13(1):1–18.

Hart R. Children’s participation from tokenism to citizenship. Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre; 1992.

Funk A, Borek NV, Taylor D, Grewal P, Tzemis D, Buxton JA. Climbing the “ladder of participation”: engaging experiential youth in a participatory research project. Qual Res. 2012;103(4):288–92.

Hart R. Children’s participation: the theory and practice of involving young citizens in community development and environmental care. London: Earthscan; 1997.

Hart J, Newman J, Ackerman L, Feeney T. Children changing their world: understanding and evaluating Children’s participation in development. Woking: Plan International; 2004.

Gristy C. Engaging with and moving on from participatory research: a personal reflection. Int J Res Method Educ. 2015;38(4):371–87.

Treseder P. Empowering children and young people. London: Save the Children; 1997.

Shier H. Pathways to participation: openings, opportunities and obligations. Child Soc. 2001;15(2):107–17.

Shier H. Pathways to participation revisited: Nicaragua perspective. NZAIMS. 2006;2:13–8.

Sinclair R. Participation in practice: making it meaningful, effective and sustainable. Child Soc. 2004;18(2):106–18.

Horowitz CR, Robinson M, Seifer S. Community-based participatory research from the margin to the mainstream: are researchers prepared? Circulation. 2009;119(19):2633–42.

Israel BA, Parker EA, Rowe Z, Salvatore A, Minkler M, López J, Butz A, Mosley A, Coates L, Lambert G, Potito PA, Brenner B, Rivera M, Romero H, Thompson B, Coronado G, Halstead S. Community-based participatory research: lessons learned from the Centers for Children’s environmental health and disease prevention research. Environ Health Perspect. 2005;113(10):1463–71.

Tucker MT, Lewis DW Jr, Foster PP, Lucky F, Yerby LG, Hites L, Higginbottom JC. Community-based participatory research – speed dating: an innovative model for fostering collaborations between community leaders and academic researchers. Health Promot Pract. 2016;17(2):775–80.

Mayan MJ, Daum CH. Worth the risk? Muddled relationships in community-based participatory research. Qual Health Res. 2016;26(1):69–76.

Jagosh J, Bush PL, Salsberg J, Macaulay AC, Greenhalgh T, Wong G, Cargo M, Green LW, Herbert CP, Pluye P. A realist evaluation of community-based participatory research: partnership synergy, trust building and related ripple effects. BMC Public Health. 2015;15(725):1–11.

Jacquez F, Vaugn LM, Wagner E. Youth as partners, participants or passive recipients: a review of children and adolescents in community-based participatory research. Am J Community Psychol. 2013;51(1):176–89.

Flicker S. Who benefits from community-based participatory research? A case study of the positive youth project. Health Educ Behav. 2008;35(1):70–86.

Khanlou N, Peter E. Participatory action research: considerations for ethical review. Soc Sci Med. 2005;60(10):2333–40.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Baldwin M. Participatory action research. In: Gray M, Midgley J, Webb SA, editors. The SAGE handbook of social work. London: Sage; 2012. p. 467–81.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Langhout RD, Thomas E. Imagining participatory research in collaboration with children: an introduction. Am J Community Psychol. 2010;46(1–2):60–6.

Guishard M. The false paths, the endless labours, the turns now this way and now that: participatory action research, mutual vulnerability, and the politics of inquiry. Urban Review. 2009;41(1):85–105.

Berger R. Now I see it, now I don’t: researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qual Res. 2015;15(2):219–34.

Warin J. Ethical mindfulness and reflexivity: managing a research relationship with children and young people in a 14-year qualitative longitudinal research (QLR) study. Qual Inq. 2011;17(2):805–14.

Cammarota J, Fine M. Youth participatory action research: a pedagogy for transformational resistance. In: Cammarota J, Fine M, editors. Revolutionizing education: youth participatory action research in motion. Oxon: Routledge; 2008.

Wilkinson C. Babe, I like your lipstick: rethinking researcher personality and appearance. Child Geogr. 2016;14(1):115–23.

Chávez V, Soep E. Youth radio and the pedagogy of collegiality. Harv Educ Rev. 2005;75(4):409–34.

Mason J, Danby S. Children as experts in their lives: child inclusive research. Child Indicators Res. 2011;4(2):185–9.

Ho PSY. Researching with a broken arm: finding sisterhood in injury. Sexualities. 2013;16(1/2):78–93.

Minkler M, Fadem P, Perry M, Blum K, Moore L, Rogers J. Ethical dilemmas in participatory action research: a case study from the disability community. Health Educ Behav. 2002;29(1):14–29.

Dorozenko KP, Bishop BJ, Roberts LD. Fumblings and faux pas: reflections on attempting to engage in participatory research with people with an intellectual disability. J Intellect Develop Disabil. 2016;41(3):197–208.

Dentith AM, Measor L, O’Malley MP. Stirring dangerous waters: dilemmas for critical participatory research with young people. Sociology. 2009;43(1):158–68.

DeLemos JL. Community-based participatory research: changing scientific practice from research on communities to research with and for communities. Local Environ. 2006;11(3):329–38.

Cahill C. Doing research with young people: participatory research and the rituals of collective work. Child Geogr. 2007b;5(3):297–312.

Sime D. Ethical and methodological issues in engaging young people living in poverty with participatory research methods. Childr Geogr. 2008;6(1):63–78.

Jagosh J, Macaulay AC, Pluye P, Salsberg J, Bush PL, Henderson J, Sirett E, Wong G, Cargo M, Herbert CP, Seifer SD, Green LW, Greenlaugh T. Uncovering the benefits of participatory research: implications of a realist review for health research and practice. Milbank Q. 2012;90(2):311–46.

Kellett M, Forrest R, Dent M, Ward S. ‘Just teach us the skills please, we’ll do the rest’: empowering ten-year olds as active researchers. Child Soc. 2004;18(5):329–43.

Christensen P, Prout A. Working with ethical symmetry in social research with children. Childhood. 2002;9(4):477–97.

Grover S. Why won’t they listen to us? On giving power and voice to children participating in social research childhood. SAGE. 2004;11(1):81–93.

Thomson F. Are methodologies for children keeping them in their place? Child Geogr. 2007;5(3):207–18.

Smyth J, McInerney P. Whose side are you on? Advocacy ethnography: some methodological aspects of narrative portraits of disadvantaged young people, in socially critical research. Int J Qual Stud Educ. 2013;26(1):1–20.

Morrow V. Ethical dilemmas in research with children and young people about their social environments. Child Geogr. 2008;6(1):49–61.

Gallacher L, Gallagher M. Methodological immaturity in childhood research? Thinking through “participatory methods”. Childhood. 2008;15(4):499–516.

Mohan G. Not so distant, not so strange: the personal and the political in participatory research. Ethics, Place Environ. 1999;2(1):41–54.

Muhammad M, Wallerstein N, Sussman AL, Avila M, Belone L, Duran B. Reflections on researcher identity and power: the impact of positionality on community based participatory research (CBPR) processes and outcomes. Crit Sociol. 2015;41(7–8):1045–63.

Wilkinson C. Connecting communities through youth-led radio. PhD thesis. University of Liverpool; 2015b.

Noske-Turner J. Making one blood: a journey through participatory radio documentary production. J Media Prac. 2012;13(2):177–87.

Lushey CJ, Munro ER. Participatory peer research methodology: an effective method for obtaining young people’s perspectives on transitions from care to adulthood? Qual Soc Work. 2014;14(4):522–37.

Hill M. Children’s voices on ways of having a voice: children’s and young people’s perspectives on methods used in research and consultation. Childhood. 2006;13(1):69–90.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Health and Social Care, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, UK

Catherine Wilkinson

Faculty of Science and Engineering, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK

Samantha Wilkinson

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Catherine Wilkinson .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Trinity College Dublin, School of Nursing & Midwifery, Dublin, Ireland

Imelda Coyne

Edge Hill University, Faculty of Health and Social Care, Ormskirk, Lancashire, United Kingdom

Bernie Carter

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Wilkinson, C., Wilkinson, S. (2018). Principles of Participatory Research. In: Coyne, I., Carter, B. (eds) Being Participatory: Researching with Children and Young People. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71228-4_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71228-4_2

Published : 29 November 2017

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-71227-7

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-71228-4

eBook Packages : Medicine Medicine (R0)

Share this chapter

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Creative methods: How to capitalise on creativity in participatory research

How can creative methods be presented as a valid tool in participatory research? And what are the empirical implications? If these questions draw your attention to creative methods, you will feel inspired by the second Critical Conversations meeting of NCRM’s Collaborative and Participatory Methodological Special Interest Group . Before discussing some of the critical issues, we started by acknowledging the benefits of creative methods for their potential to:

• fight familiarity – participants use creativity to show their unique views, and equally, they may gain new perspectives about their own lives
• move research beyond the academic article – visual artistic outputs (for example, word clouds, posters, poetry, music, film) make research accessible and create connections with public
• take researchers to new directions linked with unintended outcomes. In an example shared during the event, participants were drawing stars and the moon during interviews about education and employment and it was felt by the researcher that the night sky gave a participant an escape. Although the researcher would not have asked about a night sky, this illustration opened new directions of researching ‘means to escape’ in their study.

Our focus on creative methods in participatory research brought up invigorating discussions that can inspire your approach to adopting or evaluating creative methods in research. There were too many avenues to explore in this one session alone. Instead, I will now briefly introduce the debates that stick with me. Warning: the following content may not hold answers but will likely pose more critical questions instead.

What is the role of art in creative methods? Is it purely to give stimuli, or can it be interpreted into findings, and to what extent?

These questions are essential for delivering a rigid creative methods study while avoiding the underrepresentation of the creative work. We discussed whether it is even valid for researchers to introduce their own analysis of a creative piece of work and how we can make analysis rooted in views of those who have participated. We considered the following options of how creative methods can be applied in research:

• Researchers can include creative methods in elicitation interviews and meaning making. In this case, they would conduct a content analysis of what participants say about their work. More specifically, researchers would examine different aspects of participants’ creations and explore the meanings and associations participants share about these aspects (for example, participants may associate the colour blue with sadness or peace). To do this, you may want to have an interview schedule designed with prompts enquiring about the meanings and creative aspect relevant to your research question.
• Creative methods can be part of the research dissemination. For example, the creations can be published in videos or compilations of photos. Alternatively, researchers can describe pictures or enter them in reports and academic publications to let the creations speak for themselves. There are visual studies journals that look for the outputs of creative methods.

How do you overcome the resistance to eliminate the barrier between art and science?

This is a very legitimate question. As you know, some researchers who describe themselves as positivist in their understanding of social science may feel that ‘art’ and ‘creativity’ offer limited, if any, contributions to the methods of research. The critical conversation group agreed on two important points that will aid your work.

The first of these was that we should focus our energy on finding our own tribe, so that we can capitalise on the strengths and insights of other creative methods researchers. We should collaborate, build something new together and be more creative and accountable.

The second point was to spend time meeting with those who disagree, listening and taking note of their expertise and insight. We should also read broadly across methodological literature so we can challenge collegially and also defend in good grace.

How do you eliminate the power-dynamics and related barriers, especially when involving children and young people in studies?

I should note here that many participants in the discussion group were interested in hearing from young people; hence, the focus on this population. However, before we start in engaging with them, we need to recognise the power-dynamic and consider what it means to be a participant in an action-research project.

First of all, let it be clear that using creative methods does not automatically mean removing the power-dynamics between researcher(s) and participant(s). In simple terms, a researcher’s agenda to use creative methods may not sit well with the participants. To illustrate, sometimes young people prefer talking. Even if researchers may want everyone to draw (for example), the participatory approach should take priority over creative methods. To tackle this situation, consider:

• having a number of creative tools ready (for example, sandboxing, collage making, photovoice) and letting participants decide on their preferred creative method;
• demonstrating and/or joining the creative activity to eliminate participants’ possible perceptions that ‘art’ is what you are looking for;
• conducting an interview without any creative methods – be prepared for this scenario (for example, prepare an interview schedule and discussion or activity prompts to ensure you can engage the participants in the research).

To use ‘art’ or ‘creativity’ for removing the potential power-dynamics, you could consider young people as collaborators and not participants. This is especially important for action research, where the researcher and co-researcher(s) need to be deemed as partners.

Lightening talks

As usual, these critical conversations started off with lightening talks that introduced speakers. Topics were then elaborated on in separate Zoom rooms, where guest speakers introduced us to a variety of fascinating approaches.

Tyra Amofah-Akardom ’s discussion was on the use of storytelling, art and film as methods in the topic of Black Feminist Activism. She shared insight from her own work and research undertaken at the University of Cambridge, itself a place worthy of critique through the lens of intersectional Black Feminist Activism.

Dawn Mannay talked about the use of unusual forms, such as word cloud, posters, poetry, music and film, which can be used to elicit data from individuals and connect with public at the dissemination stage.

Martin Robertson and Katey Warran described their powerful experience of matching creative processes with the needs of those being researched. Being diagnosed with dementia and having joined a dementia study as a participant, Martin revealed that you don’t need to be artistic to join research.

Gil Dekel offered insights from conducting studies with individuals with autism. Gil’s work seeks to understand how autistic people get into the zone of creativity. What do they see and feel. How do they come back? Importantly, Gil highlighted the value of engaging in conversations with people who disagree with the view that creativity is a useful research tool.

Bridget Handley gave an illustration of a creative research output based on creative data: poems. Bridget played her film of a poem, which was an output of data coming from her participants, who are seeking wellbeing and mental health support.

With such a colourful selection of discussions on offer, it was almost impossible to decide which to join. In the end, I went for Bridget’s room, as the theme of wellbeing and mental health was the closest to my own work and interests. If you’d like to look at the ideas presented in the remaining lightening talks, check the Padlet . You can also catch up on our first critical conversation meeting by reading the blog post or checking out the Padlet on ethics in participatory research.

Research Method: Participatory Qualitative Interviews

7th April 2021

Funded Project: Methods for Change

This ‘how to’ guide outlines the Participatory Qualitative Interviews research method used by Lucy Jackson from the University of Sheffield. The booklet was created in collaboration with Jack Brougham.

Social scientists from the Methods for Change project came together to discuss the research methods they use and how methods create change in society. Drawing from the expertise in the Aspect network, they collaborated on a series of ‘how to’ guides which are step-by-step instructions and top-tips for adopting these methods in a range of sectors. Visual and multisensory pieces, including comics, illustrations, posters, booklets, short films and animations were then developed in collaboration with creatives to capture the key value of these research methods with a view to being able to convey them to a variety of audiences.

It is hoped that these resources will be useful for people in higher education, commercial, public sector, third sector and community organisations who are interested in experimenting with, and expanding professional skills in, the adoption of social science research methods.

This method offers a creative alternative to qualitative interviews – often understood as a ‘conversation with a purpose’- by asking participants to take part in an activity whilst engaged in conversation. Introducing a fun, interactive, participatory dimension can make interviews feel less intimidating for both the interviewer and respondent, and can disrupt established power relations. Participatory Qualitative Interviews are less formulaic than standard semi-structured interviews, and can be carried out with individuals or groups.

Rather than following a predetermined interview schedule, conversations unfold in a more fluid way. The researcher may have a list of prompts or themes, but it is the activity that structures the research encounter. As participants become immersed in the activity, they may feel more comfortable and open to talking about topics that might be sensitive or less easy to discuss in a formal interview. This approach could involve, for example, asking participants to produce or comment on something such as an artwork, a piece of music, or a video. Or, it might involve taking part in a shared activity such as dancing, knitting, singing, or storytelling, which may be related to the research topic. This method can therefore produce interesting data drawn from the conversations that take place around activities, as well as valuable alternative data and outputs in the form of images, film, song or collage.

You can find all the research outputs from the Methods for Change series  here

Explore more

FastFrame, Templates for Prototyping Software Apps

The aim of the FastFrame project is to allow innovation offices to provide better support for academics that are creating innovative apps e.g. a data dashboard, a training app or an interactive journey.

Announcing The Social Venture Pathway

The Social Venture Pathway offers a toolkit of resources to guide you through the process of creating a social venture. This self-guided pathway aims to fill the gaps missing from traditional innovation processes by providing a clear and comprehensive training resource for starting your first social venture.

Members only

Train the Trainer 

This is an overview of the methods used to obtain relevant information for the Train the Trainer project.

Building on ABCs – Phase 3 Expansion: Creating Collaborations

Modular Knowledge-Exchange Training Course that gives insights into processes and requirements to developing business partnerships.

The Aspect Network welcomes applications from like-minded organisations across the world to become members

Join us in contributing to solutions for the global challenges we encounter. Reach out to us today to discover how the Aspect Network can support you

Participatory Research Methods

The objective of participatory methods is to gain insights and information through engaging researchers and/or participants in activities, learning not only from talking to people but also from observing their actions or even participating in them. They are particularly important for ethnographic research and PAR.

Discover other methods

Participatory workshops.

Participatory workshops bring people together to seek their opinion or try to solve issues in collaborative and creative ways. Such workshops are used in a variety of different contexts, most often in the context of Participatory Action Research or design research.

Participatory workshop Image courtesy of My Body | My Future

Farmer field schools

They are group-based learning processes used in agricultural settings to educate and empower workers. Participants are guided to take a leading role in changing their own practices and defining their own futures.

Co-creation workshop Image courtesy of Cyber Rwanda

Co-creation workshops

Co-creation workshops are often used to bring designers and/or researchers together with potential users of a product or service to co-design or test out their features and processes.

Participatory visual methods

Visual mapping.

This method asks participants to generate ideas in response to particular questions or prompts and to organize and connect them visually. The researcher and participant then map relationships between various ideas, images, and words to facilitate sharing ideas and attitudes toward a given topic. The techniques can involve participants creating their own maps or using pre-existing maps such as a city plan or architectural drawings and drawing on these.

Visual mapping Courtesy of DxData Insights

Journey mapping Courtesy of Birth Companion project

Body mapping

This method involves drawing the outline of a human body and then filling it out with words, colors, images etc that speak to particular experiences. It is well suited to talk about the experiences of illnesses (for example HIV/AIDS) and their treatments, or to explore how social processes such as power relations are manifested in physical bodies.

Life mapping

Also known as Life Course Mapping

This method is used to trace how research participants think about their life journey and how past experiences have influenced current events or might shape future possibilities. They often take the form of a timeline on which key life moments are noted.

Journey mapping

This method entails drawing diagrams or other visual representations of the process an individual goes through to complete a goal. It is often used to document health-seeking journeys.

Empathy mapping

This method is used especially by design-led researchers to articulate what is known about a particular type of user. It creates a shared understanding of user needs and can help inform design decisions.

Community mapping

This method is used to better understand how a community is organized and operates. It involves community members coming together with researchers to explore assets, key stakeholders and institutions, the presence or absence of infrastructures and community dynamics.

Participatory photography and video-making

Participatory photography

This method uses photography to help participants tell stories or share their experiences. It usually involves giving participants cameras and training and then asking them to take pictures in response to particular questions. Participants then explain their images and, through this, reflect on what they have captured and why. The photographs become research objects that can be analyzed. An example of this method is a proprietary technique called Photovoice.

Participatory video-making

For this method, researchers ask participants to use hand-held video devices or phones to make short videos that document particular aspects of their lives. The process is similar to participatory photography.

Participatory video-making Image courtesy of David Mowbray, CIMMYT

Mobile visual methods

This method involves participants being given the tools to visually record a particular journey (using photography, film, drawing, map making) they undertake, without the researcher being present. They are useful for understanding participants’ everyday lived experiences in an unbiased way.

Participant observation

Observation only.

also known as Field Observation or Shadowing

This method involves researchers deriving understanding about a group or activities by watching them without actively engaging. This method can be limited because researchers do not have the opportunity to understand the perspective of the research participants themselves and is therefore best followed by some sort of interviewing.

Participant observation Image courtesy of Cyber Rwanda

Online research

Cyberethnography.

Also known as Online, Digital or Virtual Ethnography

This method is an online research method that adapts ethnographic methods to the study of communities created through computer-mediated interactions. It is useful when physical access to a field site is limited or when interactions among participants take place online only.

Social media research

This method includes the use of social media sites and their analytics to learn about people’s opinions and attitudes. Post and comment sections can be used to access pre-existing discussions. Researchers can also post their own questions or prompts to elicit more targeted responses to specific research topics. Using social media as a research tool raises new ethical questions that are still being explored.

Verbal research

Reflective research, gamified research, data analysis.