Collaborative, action-oriented approaches to research are uncommon in Asian psychology. This is unfortunate as such approaches can support adaptive social change in Asian settings and enrich mainstream psychology by highlighting the values and principles of Asian countries. To address this, we describe a case study of a four-year participatory action research (PAR) project with a farm in Singapore. The first author worked with farm employees and volunteers to jointly determine research directions and measures, involve them in data analysis and share findings through reports to the government and on social media. True to the iterative nature of collaborative research, we continue to engage with the farm to meet their needs. We discuss three cultural considerations for collaborative, action-oriented research in Singapore, namely the (a) emphasis on group harmony, (b) rigid social roles, and (c) state influence on community organisations, and how they inform a Singaporean PAR approach. We also offer recommendations for practitioners seeking to engage in such research in Singapore and beyond.
ArgyrisC.SchönD. A. (1989). Participatory action research and action science compared: A commentary. American Behavioral Scientist, 32(5), 612–623. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764289032005008
2.
ArieliD.FriedmanV. J.AgbariaK. (2009). The paradox of participation in action research. Action Research, 7(3), 263–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750309336718
3.
BerglundM. (2025). Going in or going out– practicing embedded research as a true insider. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 38(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-025-09713-6
4.
BlichfeldtB. S.AndersenJ. R. (2006). Creating a wider audience for action research: Learning from case-study research. Journal of Research Practice, 2(1), 1–12.
5.
BrownL. D.TandonR. (1983). Ideology and political economy in inquiry: Action research and participatory research. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 19(3), 277–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/002188638301900306
6.
CahillC.TorreM. E. (2007). Beyond the journal article: Representations, audience, and the presentation of participatory action research. In KindonS.PainR.KesbyM. (Eds.), Participatory action research approaches and methods. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203933671
ChewP. K. H. (2018). Racism in Singapore: A review and recommendations for future research. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 12(1), Article e5. https://doi.org/10.1017/prp.2018.3
9.
ChoI. S.HoK. C. (2020). Participatory design to Co-create community spaces. In LeongC.-H.Malone-LeeL.-C. (Eds.), Building resilient neighbourhoods in Singapore: The convergence of policies, research and practice (pp. 81–99): Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7048-9_6
ColemanG. (2015). Core issues in modern epistemology for action researchers: Dancing between knower and known. In BradburyH. (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of action research. SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473921290.n38
13.
CollinsS. E.ClifasefiS. L.StantonJ.StraitsK. J.Gil-KashiwabaraE.Rodriguez EspinosaP.NicasioA. V.AndrasikM. P.HawesS. M.MillerK. A.NelsonL. A.OrfalyV. E.DuranB. M.WallersteinN. (2018). Community-based participatory research (CBPR): Towards equitable involvement of community in psychology research. American Psychologist, 73(7), 884–898. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000167
CunliffeA. L.KarunanayakeG. (2013). Working within hyphen-spaces in ethnographic research: Implications for research identities and practice. Organizational Research Methods, 16(3), 364–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428113489353
16.
DegeM. (2023). The Northern tradition of pragmatic action research. In DegeM. (Ed.), Action research and critical psychology: An investigation of subjectivity and participation (pp. 97–149). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31197-0_5
17.
Dworski-RiggsD.LanghoutR. D. (2010). Elucidating the power in empowerment and the participation in participatory action research: A story about research team and elementary school change. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45(3), 215–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9306-0
18.
Fals BordaO. (1987). The application of participatory action-research in Latin America. International Sociology, 2(4), 329–347. https://doi.org/10.1177/026858098700200401
19.
FineM.TorreM. E. (2019). Critical participatory action research: A feminist project for validity and solidarity. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 43(4), 433–444. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684319865255
20.
GelfandM. J.RaverJ. L.NishiiL.LeslieL. M.LunJ.LimB. C.DuanL.AlmaliachA.AngS.ArnadottirJ.AycanZ.BoehnkeK.BoskiP.CabecinhasR.ChanD.ChhokarJ.D’AmatoA.Subirats FerrerM.FischlmayrI. C.YamaguchiS. (2011). Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study. Science, 332(6033), 1100–1104. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1197754
21.
GergenK. J.GergenM. M. (2008). Social construction and research as action. In ReasonP.BradburyH. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (Second Edition ed, pp. 159–171). Sage Publications.
22.
GlassmanM.ErdemG. (2014). Participatory action research and its meanings: Vivencia, praxis, conscientization. Adult Education Quarterly, 64(3), 206–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713614523667
23.
GohR. B. H. (2016). The anatomy of singlish: Globalisation, multiculturalism and the construction of the ‘local’ in Singapore. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 37(8), 748–758. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2015.1133628
24.
GriceK.Drakakis-SmithD. (1985). The role of the state in shaping development: Two decades of growth in Singapore. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 10(3), 347–359. https://doi.org/10.2307/622183
HanC.ChewJ.TanJ. (2001). Singapore: Values education for a knowledge-based economy. In CummingsW. K.TattoM. T.HawkinsJ. (Eds.), Values education for dynamic societies: Individualism or collectivism (pp. 267–282). Comparative Education Research Centre (CERC), The University of Hong Kong.
HarréN. (2019). Let’s assume people are good: Rethinking research in community psychology. The Australian Community Psychologist, 30(1), 81–91.
29.
HarréN.BlytheC.McLeanL.KhanS. (2022). A people-focused systems approach to sustainability. American Journal of Community Psychology, 69(1), 114–133. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12550
30.
KanuhaV. K. (2000). “Being” native versus “going native”: Conducting social work research as an insider. Social Work, 45(5), 439–447. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/45.5.439
31.
KatsuiH.KoistinenM. (2008). The participatory research approach in non‐western countries: Practical experiences from central Asia and Zambia. Disability & Society, 23(7), 747–757. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687590802469248
KiddS.DavidsonL.FrederickT.KralM. J. (2018). Reflecting on participatory, action‐oriented research methods in community psychology: Progress, problems, and paths forward. American Journal of Community Psychology, 61(1), 76–87. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12214
KindonS.PainR.KesbyM. (2007). Participatory action research: Origins, approaches and methods. In KindonS.PainR.KesbyM. (Eds.), Participatory action research approaches and methods. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203933671
36.
KitayamaS.BergM. K.ChopikW. J. (2020). Culture and well-being in late adulthood: Theory and evidence. American Psychologist, 75(4), 567–576. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000614
KuwabaraK.WillerR.MacyM. W.MashimaR.TeraiS.YamagishiT. (2007). Culture, identity, and structure in social exchange: A web-based trust experiment in the United States and Japan. Social Psychology Quarterly, 70(4), 461–479. https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250707000412
41.
LakeD.WendlandJ. (2018). Practical, epistemological, and ethical challenges of participatory action research: A cross-disciplinary review of the literature. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 22(3), 11–42.
42.
LeeY.-J.HoJ. (2022). Basic education in Singapore. In SymacoL. P.HaydenM. (Eds.), International handbook on education in Southeast Asia (pp. 977–1001). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-8136-3_6-1
43.
Le GrangeL. (2009). Participation and participatory action research (PAR) in environmental education processes: For what are people empowered?Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 25(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0814062600000367
44.
LevinsonM. (2017). When participants don’t wish to participate in participatory action research, and when others participate on their behalf: The representation of communities by real and faux participants. The Urban Review, 49(3), 382–399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-016-0390-9
LiuJ. H. (2017). Neo-confucian epistemology and Chinese philosophy: Practical postulates for actioning psychology as a human science. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 20(2), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12168
47.
LiuJ. H.BernardoA. B. (2016). What should a social psychology for social change look like in Asia? Reflections on scientific research, aimed at solving social problems and generating new knowledge with ‘a theory of culture change at its centre’. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 10(1), e14. https://doi.org/10.1017/prp.2016.11
48.
LohJ.LloydD.RestubogS.GalloisC. (2010). Attitudinal outcomes of boundary permeability: A comparison of Australian and Singaporean employees. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 17(2), 118–134. https://doi.org/10.1108/13527601021038697
49.
LowL. L.MaulodA.LeeK. H. (2017). Evaluating a novel integrated community of care (ICoC) for patients from an urbanised low-income community in Singapore using the participatory action research (PAR) methodology: A study protocol. BMJ Open, 7(10), Article e017839. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017839
50.
MacaulayA. C. (2016). Participatory research: What is the history? Has the purpose changed?Family Practice, 34(3), 256–258. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmw117
51.
MaiterS.SimichL.JacobsonN.WiseJ. (2008). Reciprocity: An ethic for community-based participatory action research. Action Research, 6(3), 305–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750307083720
McTaggartR. (1994). Participatory action research: Issues in theory and practice. Educational Action Research, 2(3), 313–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965079940020302
54.
McTaggartR. (1997). Guiding principles for participatory action research. In McTaggartR. (Ed.), Participatory action research: International contexts and consequences (pp. 25–43). State University of New York Press.
55.
MooreR. Q. (2000). Multiracialism and meritocracy: Singapore's approach to race and inequality. Review of Social Economy, 58(3), 339–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/00346760050132364
56.
NasirK. M. (2016). Sustainability studies and the changing landscape of social science research in Singapore. International Social Science Journal, 65(217), 159–169. https://doi.org/10.1111/issj.12082
57.
NgH.TohH. J.LeeW. S. V.GeorgeE. R.PhilipV. (2025). The garden as the field: Following soil regeneration practices with participatory soil science in Singapore. Agriculture and Human Values, 42, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-025-10757-6
58.
NgH. L.PoonC. L.PangE. (2020). Using IEA studies to inform policymaking and program development: The case of Singapore. In WagemakerH. (Ed.), Reliability and validity of international large-scale assessment: Understanding IEA’s comparative studies of student achievement (pp. 245–259). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53081-5_14
59.
NgR.ChowT. Y. J.YangW. (2022). The impact of aging policy on societal age stereotypes and ageism. The Gerontologist, 62(4), 598–606. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnab151
60.
NicholasS. O.GrootS.HarréN. (2023). Understanding urban agriculture in context: Environmental, social, and psychological benefits of agriculture in Singapore. Local Environment, 28(11), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2023.2238721
61.
OgiharaY.UchidaY. (2014). Does individualism bring happiness? Negative effects of individualism on interpersonal relationships and happiness. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(1), 00135. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00135
62.
PaeH. K. (2020). The East and the West. In Script effects as the hidden drive of the mind, cognition, and culture (pp. 107–134). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55152-0_6
63.
PainR.KindonS.KesbyM. (2007). Participatory action research: Making a difference to theory, practice and action. In KindonS.PainR.KesbyM. (Eds.), Participatory action research approaches and methods. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203933671
64.
Paiva-SilvaJ. (2022). Understanding the Singaporean approach to state ownership: ‘Commercially viable strategic alignment’ in historical perspective. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 61(1), 43–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2021.10.014
65.
PangE. F.LimL. Y. C. (2015). Labor, productivity and Singapore's development model. Singapore Economic Review, 60(03), Article 1550033. https://doi.org/10.1142/s0217590815500332
66.
PerkinsD. D.SonnC. C.LenziM.XuQ.CarolissenR.PortilloN.Serrano‐GarcíaI. (2023). The global development of community psychology as reflected in the American journal of community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 72(3), 302–316. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12696
67.
PuertaL. L.BartlamB.SmithH. E. (2019). Researchers' perspectives on public involvement in health research in Singapore: The argument for a community-based approach. Health Expectations, 22(4), 666–675. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12915
68.
RappaportJ. (1987). Terms of empowerment/exemplars of prevention: Toward a theory for community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 15(2), 121–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00919275
69.
RaynorK. (2019). Participatory action research and early career researchers: The structural barriers to engagement and why we should Do it anyway. Planning Theory & Practice, 20(1), 130–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2018.1556501
70.
RodanG. (2013). State—society relations and political opposition in Singapore. In RodanG. (Ed.), Political oppositions in industrialising Asia (pp. 78–103). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203441145
71.
SimJ. B. Y.ChowL. T. (2020). The development of civic participation among youth in Singapore. In PetersonA.StahlG.SoongH. (Eds.), The palgrave handbook of citizenship and education (pp. 759–777): Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67828-3
72.
StajcicN. (2013). Understanding culture: Food as a means of communication. Hemispheres, 28(1), 77.
TanH. S.LiN. (2006). Journey of an action research project on teaching reading skills: A learning process for teachin celebrating learning through active research: CLEAR symposium 2006.
75.
TanL. L.NgW. F.SimA. C. C.RahimS. B. (2021). Adopting a palliative approach to dementia care in the community: A participatory action research. Singapore Medical Journal, 62(5), 240–243. https://doi.org/10.11622/smedj.2021064
TanW. K.MacdonaldD.RossiT. (2009). Educational action research in Singapore: To prove or improve?Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 29(3), 357–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188790903100333
78.
TebesJ. K. (2016). Reflections on the future of community psychology from the generations after swampscott: A commentary and introduction to the special issue. American Journal of Community Psychology, 58(3), 229–238. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12110
79.
TeoT. W.ChoyB. H. (2021). STEM education in Singapore. In TanO. S.LowE. L.TayE. G.YanY. K. (Eds.), Singapore math and science education innovation: Beyond PISA (pp. 43–59). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-1357-9_3
TurmusaniM. (2003). Disabled people and economic needs in the developing world: A political perspective from Jordan (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315257730
82.
van der VeldeJ.WilliamsonD. L.OgilvieL. D. (2009). Participatory action research: Practical strategies for actively engaging and maintaining participation in immigrant and refugee communities. Qualitative Health Research, 19(9), 1293–1302. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732309344207.
83.
van GrunsvenL. (1992). Integration versus segregation: Ethnic minorities and urban politics in Singapore. Journal of economic and social geography, 83(3), 196–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9663.1992.tb00780.x
84.
van UchelenC. (2000). Individualism, collectivism, and community psychology: Individualism, collectivism, and psychological research. In RappaportJ.SeidmanE. (Eds.), Handbook of community psychology (pp. 65–78). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4193-6_3
85.
VasooS. (2001). Community development in Singapore: New directions and challenges. Asian Journal of Political Science, 9(1), 4–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/02185370108434179
86.
WeeC. J. W. L. (1999). “Asian values”, Singapore, and the third way: Re-working individualism and collectivism. Sojourn: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia, 14(2), 332–358. https://doi.org/10.1355/sj14-2d
87.
WeeL. (2014). Linguistic chutzpah and the speak good singlish movement. World Englishes, 33(1), 85–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12055
88.
WhiteG. W.SuchowierskaM.CampbellM. (2004). Developing and systematically implementing participatory action research. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 85(4), S3–S12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2003.08.109
89.
WongJ. O. (2006). Social hierarchy in the “Speech culture” of Singapore. In CliffG. (Ed.), Ethnopragmatics (pp. 99–126). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110911114.99
90.
WongP. T. P.CowdenR. G. (2022). Accelerating the science and practice of psychology beyond WEIRD biases: Enriching the landscape through Asian psychology. Frontiers in Psychology, 13(1), Article 1054519. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1054519
91.
YuanL. (2012). Older Miao People and Rural Health Policy in China: The University of Sydney.
92.
YuanL. (2017). The status of action research in the people’s Republic of China: A review of recent literature. In RowellL.BruceC.ShoshJ.RielM. (Eds.), The Palgrave international handbook of action research (pp. 299–309). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-40523-4_19
93.
ZimmermanM. A. (1995). Psychological empowerment: Issues and illustrations. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23(5), 581–599. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02506983
94.
ZimmermanM. A.IsraelB. A.SchulzA.CheckowayB. (1992). Further explorations in empowerment theory: An empirical analysis of psychological empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 20(6), 707–727. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01312604
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
