Stoecker, R., & Falcón, A. (Eds.). (2022). Handbook on participatory action research and community development. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book is laid out in six different sections.Part one explores the infrastructures that can support the integration of participatory action research (PAR) and community development (CD) effectively for community problem-solving and improvement.Part two focuses on organising communities, emphasising the importance of the community in working together towards change, making sense of community issues, and creating avenues for a systemic change.Part three explores the challenges of building organisations and empowering community by maintaining equitable and collaborative relationships with community stakeholders.Part four highlights the potential in youthdirected community level initiatives.Part Vive focuses on how power dynamics inVluence the incorporation of community development and participatory development practices, and how systematic collaborations can help respond appropriately to overcome crises.And part six illuminates the importance of covivencia, a beautiful Spanish term that describes the culture and signiVicance of living together in community, collaboration, and coexistence.Parts one, two, and three are particularly beneVicial to participatory action researchers as these sections articulate how participatory action research could be carried out in connection with community development to bring about systemic societal changes.However, part four plays a critical role in implementing PAR and CD as it illustrates the subtle nuances of collaborating with government authorities and highlights the importance of receiving funds for the interventions.Many common approaches to PAR and CD, including surveys, story-telling, interviews, case studies, exploring solutions, social mapping, and discussions, are explored throughout the book in connection with socially relevant themes such as housing conditions, neighbourhood health, community knowledge mobilisation, Cuban community development practices through arts, protecting the environment, supporting community organisers in urban planning, and epistemic justice.As a graduate student and doctoral researcher, I found these approaches highly effective as they allowed me to become familiar with their possible uses; this helped me envision how I might use these approaches within my own work.The editors also made it clear that PAR and CD can be used alongside traditional qualitative research methods.In all, the editors have curated this volume as an approachable guide for novice PAR researchers and community engagement.The editors also identify a variety of settings in which this research could take place.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.042 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".