Enacting the Principles of Participatory Action Research (PAR): Reflections From the Initial Stages of a Project With Older Adults With Vision Loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: While existing reflections on participatory action research (PAR) emphasize the benefits experienced by participants in such studies, they often fail to critically interrogate the PAR process. This gap underscores the significance of process-oriented papers that illuminate the dynamics, supports, and hurdles of PAR, crucial for aligning scholarly endeavors with its fundamental principles of equitable participation, social transformation, and reflexivity. This paper aimed to bridge these gaps by presenting insights from both older adults with age-related vision loss (ARVL) and university researchers, shedding light on their application of PAR principles during the initial stages of a project focused on identifying research priorities. Methods: The foundational PAR study, forming the basis of this paper, involved eight older adults aged 65 and above with ARVL. Additionally, three university researchers participated, including a faculty member and two students (one pursuing a PhD and the other an MSc). The PAR process encompassed three half-day meetings, dedicated to investigating how environmental factors (physical, social, cultural, political, and institutional) influence the engagement of older adults with ARVL in their daily activities. Following completion of the three half-day meetings, the university co-researchers conducted individual interviews with each older adult, as well as a collective reflexive exercise involving the university co-researchers, to delve into their personal journey through the PAR process, encompassing achievements, challenges, and encountered tensions. Results: The study’s outcomes were distilled into three central thematic domains: (1) attentiveness to power differentials; (2) realization of personal and social transformation; and (3) a steadfast commitment to reflexivity. Discussion: This paper endeavors to fill a void within the existing PAR landscape by providing process-oriented insights that spotlight the intricacies of the PAR journey, inclusive of encountered challenges. By candidly acknowledging these challenges, future scholars will be better equipped to harness PAR in a manner that is truly aligned with its core principles.
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 | 0.055 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".