Participatory action research with and within community activist groups: Capturing the collective experience of Ireland’s Community and Voluntary Pillar in social partnership
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online September, 2012
Participatory action research with and within community activist groups: Capturing the collective experience of Ireland’s Community and Voluntary Pillar in social partnership
The inclusion of community activists in policy planning is increasingly recognized at the highest international level. This article shows how the use of Participatory Action Research (PAR) can present a deeper and more holistic picture of the experiences of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) in shaping national-level social policy. By utilizing action-based research, the Community and Voluntary Pillar (CVP) of Ireland’s system of social partnership is shown to be an important agent in deliberating national bargaining outcomes (known as the Towards 2016 national agreement). The key contribution of this research is the reflective methodological considerations in terms of PAR design, execution and participant integration in the research process as a way to enrich and develop a deeper and more informed community of practice.
AtaövA.BrøggerB.HildrumJ. S. (2010). An action research approach to the inclusion of immigrants in work life and local community life: Preparation of a participatory realm. Action Research, 8(3): 237–265.
2.
AzizA.ShamsM.KhanK. S. (2011). Participatory action research as the approach for women’s empowerment. Action Research, 9(3): 303–323.
3.
Brydon-MillerM.KralM.MaguireP.NoffkeS.SabhlokA.(2011). Jazz and the banyan tree: Roots and riffs on participatory action research. In: DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (eds). Handbook of qualitative research, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. 387–400.
4.
CarneyG.DundonT.Ni LeimeA.LoftusC. (2011). Community engagement in Ireland’s developmental welfare state: A study of the lifecycle approach. Dublin: ICSG.
5.
ChambersR. (1997). Whose reality counts? Putting the first last. Rugby: Practical Action.
6.
DalyS. (2007). Mapping civil society in the Republic of Ireland. Community Development Journal, 43(2): 157–176.
7.
DenzinN. K.(2011). The politics of evidence. In: DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (eds). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. 645–658.
8.
Department of Taoiseach. (2006). Towards 2016: Ten Year Framework Social Partnership Agreement 2006–2015. Retrieved from: http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie.
9.
DundonT.RyanP. (2010). Interviewing reluctant respondents: Strikes, henchmen and Gaelic games. Organizational Research Methods, 13: 562–581.
10.
DundonT.CurranD.MaloneyM.RyanP. (2006). Conceptualising the dynamics of employee voice: Evidence from the Republic of Ireland. Industrial Relations Journal, 37(5): 492–512.
11.
EriksonF.(2011). A history of qualitative inquiry in social and educational research. In: DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (eds). Handbook of qualitative research, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. 43–60.
12.
FyfeN. R. (2005). Making space for ‘neo-communitarianism?’ The third sector, state and civil society in the UK. Antipode, 37(3): 536–557.
13.
GaynorN. (2009). Deepening democracy within Ireland’s social partnership. Irish Political Studies, 24(3): 303–319.
14.
GomezM. V.KuronenM. (2011). Comparing local practices: Recollections from two qualitative cross-national research projects. Qualitative Research, 11(6): 683–697.
15.
GouinR. R.CocqK.McGavinS. (2011). Feminist participatory research in a social justice organization. Action Research, 9(3): 261–281.
16.
GreenwoodD. J.LevinM. (1998). Introduction to action research: Social research for social change. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
17.
GrootingsP.GustavsenB.HethyL. (1991). New forms of work organization in Europe. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
18.
Gustavsen, B., Colbjornsen, T., & Palshaugen, O. (1997). Development coalitions in working life: The ‘enterprise development 2000’ programme in Norway. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
19.
HeshusiusL. (1994). Freeing ourselves from objectivity: Managing subjectivity or turning toward a participatory mode of consciousness?Educational Researcher, 23(3): 15–22.
20.
KemmisS.McTaggartR.(2000). Participatory action research. In: DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (eds). Handbook of qualitative research, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
21.
LarragyJ. (2006). Origins and significance of the Community Voluntary Pillar’s entry to social partnership. Economic and Social Review, 37(3): 1–23.
22.
McDonoughT.DundonT. (2010). Thatcherism delayed? The Irish crisis and the paradox of social partnership. Industrial Relations Journal, 41(6): 544–562.
23.
MeadeR. (2005). ‘We hate it here, please let us stay!’ Irish social partnership and the community/voluntary sector’s conflicted experiences of recognition. Critical Social Policy, 25(3): 349–373.
24.
MeadeR.O’DonovanO. (2002). Editorial introduction: Corporatism and the ongoing debate about the relationship between the state and community development. Community Development Journal, 37(1): 1–9.
25.
Murphy, A. (2000). The Celtic Tiger – An analysis of Ireland’s economic growth performance. RSC No. 2000/16, EU Working Papers. Retrieved from http://www.eui.eu/RSCAS/WP-Texts/00_16.pdf.
26.
MurphyM. (2002). Social partnership–Is it the ‘only game in town’?Community Development Journal, 37(1): 80–90.
27.
NascholdF.ColeR.GustavsenB.van BeiumH. (1993). Constructing the new industrial democracy. Maastricht: Arbetslivscentrum.
28.
National Economic and Social Council. (2005). The developmental welfare state. Report No. 113. Dublin: National Economic and Social Development Office.
29.
PalshaugenO.(1997). Organization development through development organization. In: GustavsenB.ColbjornsenB.PalshaugenO. (eds). Development coalitions in working life: The ‘Enterprise Development 2000’ programme in Norway. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
30.
Roche, W. K. (2010). The breakdown of social partnership. Industrial Relations Conference 2010/Industrial Relations News, Issue 10 (10 March).
31.
TeagueP.DonagheyJ. (2009). Social partnership and democratic legitimacy in Ireland. New Political Economy, 14(1): 51–71.
32.
ToulminS.GustavsenB. (1996). Beyond theory: Changing organizations through participation. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
33.
United Nations. (2008). People matter: Civic engagement in public governance. World public sector report 2008. New York: United Nations.
34.
WilkinsonA.DundonT.MarchingtonM.AckersP. (2004). The changing patterns of employee voice: Case studies from the UK and Republic of Ireland. Journal of Industrial Relations, 46(3): 298–323.
