Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2021-6
Confronting espoused theories with theories-in-use: Challenges of participatory action research with marginalized communities in contributing to social change and theory building
This article reflects on a participatory action research process in partnership with segregated Roma communities in Hungary. It will focus on the “non-positivist good theory”-building capacity of participatory action research in situations where social distance between participants is high and where action-oriented cooperation involves numerous actors, continuously extends to new stakeholders and areas, and aims to contribute to long-term and general social goals. Special attention will be paid to the effects of three phenomena: extreme poverty, extreme egalitarianism, and community hierarchy. We show that as cooperation shifts from discussions to actions and theories-in-use start dominating the process, PAR might become a complex and fuzzy process, characterized by numerous pragmatic and ethical challenges and contradictions. Thus, in a setting described above, it is a rather challenging task for PAR to create a “non-positivist good theory”: one which enables and empowers community members to make pragmatic and sustainable changes in their lives.
ArieliD.FriedmanV. J.AgbariaK. (2009).
The paradox of participation in action research. Action Research,
7(3), 263–290.
2.
AzizA.ShamsM.KhanK. S. (2011).
Participatory action research as the approach for women’s empowerment. Action Research,
9(3), 303–323.
3.
BradburyH.ReasonP. (2003).
Action research. An opportunity for revitalizing research purpose and practices. Qualitative Social Work,
2(2), 155–175.
4.
Bradbury-HuangH. (2010).
What is good action research? Why the resurgent interest?Action Research,
8(1), 93–109.
5.
BodorkósB.PatakiG. (2009).
Local communities empowered to plan?Action Research,
7(3), 313–334.
6.
CloverD. (2011).
Successes and challenges of feminist arts- based participatory methodologies with homeless/street-involved women in Victoria. Action Research,
9(1), 12–26.
7.
CrondahlK.KarlssonL. E. (2015).
Roma empowerment and social inclusion through work-integrated learning. SAGE Open, 5(1), 1–10.
8.
DickB. (2015).
Reflections on the SAGE encyclopedia of action research and what it says about action research and its methodologies. Action Research,
13(4), 431–444.
9.
DomokosV.HerczegB. (2010).
Terra Incognita: Magyarországi szegény- és cigánytelepek felmérése—első eredmények. Szociológiai Szemle,
3, 82–99.
10.
DurstJ. (2002).
“Innen az ember job hogyha meg is szabadul”. Megélhetési stratégiák egy kisfalusi cigány közösségben. Esély, 13(4), 99–121.
11.
FriedmanV. J.RogersT. (2009).
There is nothing so theoretical as good action research. Action Research,
7(1), 31–47.
12.
GrillJ. (2012).
Going up to England’: Exploring mobilities among Roma from Eastern Slovakia. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies,
38, 1269–1287.
13.
JacobsG. (2010).
Conflicting demands and the power of defensive routines in participatory action research. Action Research,
8(4), 367–386.
14.
JohanssonA. W.LindhultE. (2008).
Emancipation or workability?: Critical versus pragmatic scientific orientation in action research. Action Research,
6(1), 95–115.
15.
LadányiJ.SzelényiI. (2004). A kirekesztettség változó formái.
Budapest, HU:
Napvilág Kiadó.
16.
LancioneM. (2017).
Revitalising the uncanny: Challenging inertia in the struggle against forced evictions. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space,
35(6), 1012–1032.
17.
LetiecqB.SchmalzbauerL. (2012).
Community-based participatory research with Mexican migrants in a new rural destination: A good fit?.Action Research,
10(3), 244–259.
18.
LewinK. (1946).
Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues,
2, 34–46.
19.
LockwoodD. (1964). Social integration and system integration. In: ZollshauK. G.HirshH. W. (Eds.), Explorations in social change (pp. 244–257).
Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
20.
MacQueenK. M.McLellanE.MetzgerD. S.KegelesS.StraussR. P.ScottiR.TrotterR. T. I. I. (2001).
What is community? An evidence-based definition for participatory public health. American Journal of Public Health,
91(12), 1929–1938.
21.
MarinaroC. I. (2003).
Integration or marginalization? The failures of social policy for the Roma in Europe. Modern Italy,
8, 203–218.
22.
MarinaroC. I. (2015).
The rise of Italy’s neo-ghettos. Journal of Urban History,
41, 368–387.
23.
MarinaroC. I. (2017).
The informal faces of the (neo-) ghetto: State confinement, formalization and multidimensional informalities in Italy’s Roma camps. International Sociology,
32(4), 545–562.
MinklerM. (2004).
Ethical challenges for the “outside” researcher in community-based participatory research. Health Education & Behavior,
31, 684–697.
26.
MullettJ. (2015).
Issues of equity and empowerment in knowledge democracy: Three community based research examples. Action Research,
13(3), 248–261.
27.
PowellR. (2008).
Understanding the stigmatisation of Gypsies: Power and the dialectics of (dis)identification. Housing, Theory and Society,
25, 87–109.
28.
PowellR.LeverJ. (2017).
Europe’s perennial “outsiders”: A processual approach to Roma stigmatisation and ghettoization. Current Sociology,
65, 680–699.
29.
PutnamR. D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy.
Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
30.
ReasonP.Bradbury-HuangH. (Eds.). (2008). The SAGE handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (2nd ed.).
London, UK:
SAGE.
31.
SeidmanI. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research. A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences.
London, UK:
Teachers College Press.
32.
SenA. K. (1999). Development as freedom.
Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
33.
SmithL.BratiniL.ChambersD.-A.JensenR. V.RomeroL. (2010).
Between idealism and reality: Meeting the challenges of participatory action research. Action Research,
8(4), 407–425.
34.
SnoerenM. M. W. C.NiessenT. J. H.AbmaT. A. (2012).
Engagement enacted: Essentials of initiating an action research project. Action Research,
10(2), 189–204.
SzombatiK. (2011). A részvétel problémája az akciókutatásban: A mezőcsáti fejlesztőmunka tanulságai. In: Pataki Gy & Vári A (szerk.): Részvétel—akció—kutatás. Magyarországi tapasztalatok a részvételi-, akció és kooperatív kutatásokból. MTA Szociológiai Kutatóintézet, Budapest, pp. 52–83.
37.
TitscherS.MeyerM.WodakR.VetterE. (2000). Methods of text and discourse analysis.
London, UK:
Sage.
38.
ToftengD.HustedM. (2011).
Theatre and action research: How drama can empower action research processes in the field of unemployment. Action Research,
9(1), 27–41.
39.
TraversR.PyneJ.BauerG.MunroL.GiambroneB.HammondR.ScanlonK. (2013).
Community control’ in CBPR: Challenges experienced and questions raised from the Trans PULSE project. Action Research,
11(4), 403–422.
van BaarH. (2011).
Europe’s romaphobia: Problematization, securitization, nomadization. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space,
29, 203–212.
42.
van der MeulenE. (2011).
Action research with sex workers: Dismantling barriers and building bridges. ActionResearch,
9(4), 370–384.
43.
WacquantL. (2012). A Janus-faced institution of ethnoracial closure: A sociological specification of the ghetto. In: HutchinsonR.HaynesB. D (Eds.), The ghetto. Contemporary global issues and controversies (pp. 1–32). Boulder, CO, USA:
Westview Press.
