“CEDAW is Up in the Sky:” Reimagining Participation in Human Rights Advocacy Through Mechanism-Based Feminist Participatory Action Research (FPAR)

Abstract

Since its adoption in 1979, the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) has provided a critical framework for holding governments accountable for addressing gender discrimination and advancing women’s rights. However, structural inequalities significantly restrict the ability of marginalised groups, particularly Indigenous and Ethnic Minority (IEM) women, to engage with CEDAW and similar high-level advocacy mechanisms. This paper explores the innovative potential of Feminist Participatory Action Research (FPAR) grounded in the CEDAW mechanism as a method for amplifying the voices of young IEM women while engaging them in processes of conscientisation, empowerment, and self-advocacy. FPAR is a community-based methodology rooted in feminist and decolonial theories that allows those most affected by systemic injustices to shape research agendas and produce contextually grounded knowledge. The research focuses on a two-year FPAR study conducted with young IEM women in Cambodia, led by a local women’s rights organisation. The Action Researchers (ARs) received training in human rights norms and mechanisms, including CEDAW, before carrying out fieldwork in their own communities to explore patterns of discrimination and resilience. Findings from a reflective group discussion conducted with the ARs demonstrate the transformative potential of this approach in strengthening advocacy capacities while enhancing self-perception and rights awareness. ARs described how engaging with CEDAW shifted their understanding of justice from abstract to actionable, positioning them not only as knowledge producers but also as emerging advocates. This article argues that mechanism-based FPAR offers an innovative bridge between grassroots realities and high-level rights mechanisms. It promotes an inclusive, decolonised approach to the cyclical processes of evidence gathering that underpin human rights advocacy. The findings highlight why, for IEM women, it is necessary to “bring CEDAW home” in order to make rights a reality and build pathways for meaningful engagement in global advocacy.

Introduction

CEDAW is nice on paper, but it isn’t practiced in the local community. No one knows about the Convention in Cambodia, so most women don’t know what rights they have, and they cannot fully use those rights. Even I, myself, did not know about the CEDAW Convention until I joined the study.

(Ethnic Minority (Khmer Islam) Action Researcher, Phnom Penh).

Feminist participatory action research (FPAR) emerged from the efforts of activist scholars and civil society practitioners seeking to challenge traditional research paradigms that often fail to reflect the agendas, strengths, and needs of marginalised communities (Lorenzetti & Walsh, 2014). Rooted in principles of democratisation, epistemic justice, ¹ and collaboration, FPAR offers an alternative research model that prioritises the lived experiences of those most affected by structural inequalities (Chakraborty et al., 2020; Lykes et al., 2021; Morrow et al., 2022; Pittaway et al., 2010). While community engagement models within FPAR vary, a core principle remains its responsiveness to the intersecting forms of discrimination faced by women and gender-diverse people (Godden, 2018; Morrow et al., 2022).

FPAR, described as a “praxis of possibility,” involves participatory researchers working alongside people and communities with experience of oppression to produce new knowledge and strategies to transform oppressive structures (Goessling, 2024, p. 50). Drawing upon a breadth of intersectional feminist theories, FPAR has been used as a research approach in Cambodia since at least 2017 (Boontinand, 2017; Guy & Arthur, 2021).

In recent years, an increasing number of women’s rights-focused civil society organisations (CSOs) in Southeast Asia have integrated FPAR into their research programmes, often drawing on the leadership of the Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development (APWLD), which has pioneered FPAR practice in the region (APWLD, 2020; Chakma, 2016; Godden et al., 2020; Klahaan, 2024). These organisations recognise its potential to “support young women researchers… to undertake research” within their own communities, and “generate knowledge that empowers collective advocacy… for women’s human rights” (Godden et al., 2020, p. 596).

Despite the growing use of participatory methodologies, their application in the development of full civil society submissions to high-level advocacy mechanisms – such as the UN Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and other treaty bodies – has remained limited. Civil society submissions, referred to as ‘shadow’ or ‘alternative’ reports, are drafted and submitted by local and international NGOs at key phases of each treaty body’s review cycle – for the CEDAW, this is approximately every four years, though delays are common.

While efforts are widely made to involve affected communities, in reality the participation of marginalised groups, such as Indigenous and Ethnic Minority (IEM) young women, is typically limited to surface-level consultations or isolated stakeholder interviews. As a result, the engagement of those “on the periphery” with international human rights mechanisms remains minimal, despite the relevance of these frameworks to their lived experiences (Hodson, 2014).

This article draws on our experiences conducting a two-year, intersectional FPAR project grounded in the articles of the CEDAW Convention and the Committee’s most recent General Recommendation (No. 39), on the Rights of Indigenous Women and Girls. ² We aim to highlight the potential for explicitly mechanism-based FPAR approaches ³ to make international advocacy mechanisms more accessible and relevant to local communities, effectively ‘bringing CEDAW home’ and ‘conscientising’ marginalised groups by enabling them to understand and use these tools for their own empowerment (Freire, 1989). ⁴ Simultaneously, FPAR studies anchored in international mechanisms can serve to enrich and decolonise the evidence base upon which high-level, Geneva-based committees rely when formulating their analyses and concluding observations (COs).

In the remainder of the paper, we examine the role of mechanism-based FPAR in bridging grassroots lived experiences with high-level advocacy spaces, particularly within the CEDAW framework. The analysis highlights how participatory methodologies strengthen rights-based advocacy and shift power dynamics in knowledge production, amplifying the voices of young Indigenous and Ethnic Minority women in Cambodia.

Background and Literature Review

We are living through troubling times marked by intensifying social and ecological crises that demand transformative research [research that is] designed to improve lives and create a more just world (Goessling, 2024, p. 49).

The 1979 UN CEDAW Convention has long been recognised as a cornerstone of global efforts to advance women’s rights. Scholars and practitioners alike have documented its significance in shaping national policies, holding states accountable, and fostering international cooperation on gender equality (Merry, 2011; Vijeyarasa, 2021). At the same time, critiques of CEDAW highlight its limited accessibility for marginalised groups, including Indigenous and Ethnic Minority women, who often encounter systemic barriers to participation in its processes (Lhotsky, 2017; Merry, 2009). These critiques call attention to the disconnect between global advocacy frameworks and local realities, underscoring the need for more inclusive and participatory approaches.

Parallel to these discussions, the rise of participatory research methodologies has challenged traditional notions of evidence and expertise. They recognise and often attempt to correct for power imbalances (Banki & Phillips, 2022; Dudgeon et al., 2017). Specifically, FPAR, rooted in feminist and decolonial theories, centres the voices and experiences of marginalised communities in the research process (Maguire, 1987; Reid & Frisby, 2008). Unlike conventional research methodologies, which often reinforce existing power dynamics, FPAR deconstructs hierarchies of evidence by positioning rights-holders as co-creators of knowledge, emphasising collaboration, empowerment, and the dismantling of traditional researcher-participant roles (Goessling, 2024; Subha Sri, 2022). This approach not only generates actionable insights but also addresses ethical and epistemological concerns about whose knowledge is valued and how it is produced (Gamage, 2023).

In the context of sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) research, participatory methods have gained traction for their potential to address complex, intersectional issues. In challenging the hierarchies of evidence that privilege quantitative over qualitative data, these methodologies create space for localised, experiential knowledge to inform policy and advocacy efforts (Darby, 2017; Jones, 2024; Mcdiarmid et al., 2021). This is particularly relevant for marginalised women, whose experiences are often overlooked in traditional research and advocacy paradigms.

Women’s groups have also increasingly used FPAR to push for changes to domestic and transnational laws, policies, and practices, for example in relation to climate justice and labour rights concerns (Chakma et al., 2023). In Pakistan, the Sindh Community Foundation used FPAR with women agricultural workers to collect data on labour and health issues exacerbated by climate change, contributing to national advocacy on climate policy commitments (Sindh Community Foundation, 2022). Scholars such as Lykes et al. (2021) and Reid (2004) highlight that FPAR distinguishes itself from broader PAR approaches through a deliberate focus on intersectionality, collective empowerment, and sustained engagement, which are key to enabling long-term advocacy outcomes.

Despite their transformative potential, participatory methodologies are not without challenges. Some have pointed to the resource-intensive nature of participatory research and the difficulty of scaling its principles in larger, more formalised advocacy frameworks or technical projects (Cooke & Kothari, 2001; Harrison, 2011; Reid & Frisby, 2008). Moreover, questions remain about how effectively these methodologies can influence policy at the global level, particularly in spaces like CEDAW that are dominated by state-centric approaches and have strict technical criteria for drafting and uploading submissions that further limit their accessibility to grassroots Indigenous and Ethnic Minority women.

This paper builds on these debates by examining the intersection of FPAR and high-level international advocacy. It situates the findings of a mechanism-based participatory study with Indigenous and Ethnic Minority women in Cambodia within broader discussions about power, evidence, and inclusion in global human rights mechanisms. By doing so, it aims to contribute to the evolving discourse on participatory methodologies and their role in bridging local realities with global frameworks.

Methods

This paper describes the methods employed in a long-term FPAR initiative, and draws on a separate reflective group discussion process held in Phnom Penh, designed to explore action researchers’ perceptions of CEDAW-based advocacy and the FPAR methodology.

Methods for the FPAR Project

The FPAR project was a two-year community-based research initiative that engaged young IEM women from across Cambodia as action researchers (ARs). This approach, while considerably more time- and resource-intensive than traditional qualitative studies, was designed to prioritise their lived experiences and expertise, thereby challenging conventional researcher-participant dynamics and enhancing the study’s legitimacy. The ARs were involved at every stage of the research process, from defining research questions to analysing data to shaping advocacy outputs.

The idea to apply a mechanism-based approach to FPAR emerged from the landmark adoption of the CEDAW Committee’s General Recommendation No. 39 (GR39), which marked a significant advancement in international law by explicitly recognising and setting out the rights of Indigenous women and girls–a longstanding advocacy priority for First Nations women’s groups globally (CEDAW, 2022; Cultural Survival, 2022). The study also aligned with Cambodia’s CEDAW review cycle, a process with which the local women’s rights organisation running the FPAR project had a history of active engagement. ⁵

While the specific focus of the research would be shaped by the action researchers themselves, grounding the FPAR study within CEDAW and GR39 was intended to bridge lived experience with international human rights law. This approach sought to ensure that knowledge production and advocacy were not only deeply rooted in the realities of IEM women’s lives, but that ARs would have the opportunity to learn about and engage with the CEDAW mechanism in a sustained and meaningful way.

It is important to note that while the research design was co-created with the ARs, the initial decision to ground the project in CEDAW and GR39 was taken by the external researchers in response to advocacy opportunities and the timing of Cambodia’s review. We acknowledge that this decision was not power-neutral, and sought to mitigate this by ensuring the ARs critically engaged with the mechanism and decided which rights issues were most relevant to their communities.

Study Design and Action Researcher Engagement

The project was designed to build capacity and agency among a group of 15 young women IEM action researchers from across Cambodia, who were recruited through local networks and community-based organisations with whom the local organisation had prior well-established relationships. The ARs comprised young women identifying as Indigenous (either Indigenous Bunong, Prov, Kreung, or Jarai), or Ethnic Minority (Khmer Krom, Cham/Khmer Islam, or Ethnic Vietnamese). ⁶

The FPAR team members from the CSO were primarily Ethnic Khmer, with one foreign team member from Australia. While not members of IEM communities, the research team brought an explicitly feminist, decolonial and solidarity-based lens to the work, actively reflecting on our positionality and power, and drawing on longstanding organisational relationships with recognised IEM groups.

Pre-Field Training and Framework Development

The process began with an in-depth training programme designed to equip ARs with technical research skills to enable them to conduct research confidently within their own communities. The training process was grounded in a feminist, participatory pedagogy that prioritised peer learning, critical reflection, and accessibility. It took place over multiple sessions and combined formal input with interactive activities, including storytelling, rights mapping, and group dialogue. The emphasis was not only on building technical skills in research design and ethics, but also on developing collective analysis and political consciousness (Freire, 1989). Drawing on Freirean education principles, the training created space for ARs to reflect on their own experiences of marginalisation and power, and to connect these with international rights frameworks. Through approaching CEDAW and GR39 as living documents that could be interrogated, interpreted, and adapted, the training encouraged ARs to view themselves as both rights-holders and knowledge producers.

The first full day introduced the CEDAW Convention and the freshly adopted GR39 on the rights of Indigenous women and girls. Given that the ARs themselves identify as Indigenous or from an Ethnic Minority, understanding GR39 was particularly salient for framing the research.

After the participatory training and a reflective discussion, it was agreed that – while it was important to recognise that some of the ARs were not Indigenous, but rather from Ethnic Minority communities – GR39 was capacious and applicable enough to the human rights situation of each AR’s own community, and therefore suitable to ground the research design. For instance, GR39 addresses cross-cutting rights issues such as access to justice, non-discrimination, gender-based violence, and the right to culture. These and other areas were collectively identified by ARs as relevant to their own experiences, regardless of whether they identified as Indigenous or from an Ethnic Minority group.

A core component of the capacity building was a playing card exercise, in which 15 specific rights topics set out in GR39 (for instance, ‘Prevention of Gender-Based Violence,’ ‘Right to Land and Natural Resources,’ or ‘Right to Equality in Marriage and Family Relations,’) were placed onto colourful cards and collectively analysed by the ARs in small groups. ⁷ Participants assessed the relevance and applicability of each provision in their own communities, selecting the rights they deemed most critical for further exploration in our study. The research framework was later co-designed around the selected provisions, ensuring that the study was directly informed by the priorities and analyses of the ARs themselves.

The learning process also covered research design, ethical considerations, and qualitative interview techniques. With their insider positionality, the ARs were already equipped to conduct research in a way that embodied enhanced principles of epistemic justice. As discussed in the findings section, gathering data in their own languages and communities allowed ARs to avoid some of the ethical pitfalls and extractive dynamics risked by conventional fly-in, fly-out research, where ethnic majority (Khmer) or foreign researchers conduct studies without the same level of trust, linguistic fluency, or cultural/religious understanding to elicit meaningful responses. At the same time, insider status could also pose challenges, such as managing community expectations, navigating role duality, or bracketing one’s own experiences when interviewing neighbours or relatives. These dynamics were discussed during training and debriefs, as part of supporting reflexivity throughout the project.

Literature Review

The IEM young women action researchers also conducted the literature review for the study. To ensure accessibility and inclusion, designing this process involved a pre-step whereby articles for review, primarily consisting of grey literature on IEM rights such as CSO blogs, fact sheets, and policy briefs, were first translated from English so that all co-researchers could fully engage in the process. This demonstrates how, on a practical level, FPAR is not the fastest or simplest way to conduct research. Rather than prioritising efficiency, FPAR’s true value lies as much – if not more so – in the research journey, as it does in any ultimate output. Recognising this, we continuously conducted needs assessments throughout the process, and integrated additional steps to enhance meaningful and decolonised participation.

Data Collection and Analysis

Following the pre-field training, the ARs conducted semi-structured interviews and surveys in their own languages and communities, primarily in rural or remote settings that included floating villages and highland Indigenous communities, to capture a wide range of lived experiences.

The FPAR methodology was intended to create conditions for participants, including survivors of sexual abuse and women who had been married as children, to express themselves in ways that resonated with their own worldviews and concepts of justice.

Following transcription, the ARs were trained in thematic analysis based on Braun and Clarke’s approach (2006, 2017). This primarily involved the ARs undertaking six structured processes: becoming familiar with the data (‘immersion’), generating initial codes, searching for themes, collaboratively reviewing themes, defining and naming themes, and producing the final analysis. Rather than using digital tools, the ARs were supported through a manual process of analysis, refined by one of the professional researchers over many years of conducting in-depth FPAR studies with marginalised groups in Cambodia.

This iterative process facilitated group-based qualitative analysis and co-reflection on emergent codes and themes, with the aim of ensuring that the findings were not only analysed by the ARs but also contextualised through their own interpretations and lived realities. As themes were developed, the ARs discussed the relationships between them, identified recurring patterns, and examined contradictions or differences across communities. These interpretive conversations allowed the team to move beyond surface-level categories and co-produce meaning grounded in their social and political contexts.

Research Finalisation and Advocacy Uptake

The depth and wealth of the data collected by the young women ARs was such that in addition to forming the basis for a CEDAW alternative report, it generated a range of additional advocacy outputs. Some of these efforts were planned in advance by the research team, such as the development of policy briefing packs, while others emerged organically from the interests and ideas of the ARs themselves. For example, a series of high-level meetings was designed in large part by ARs, who identified the key messages, audiences, and tactics they wished to pursue, including lobbying foreign ambassadors to exert pressure in relation to key human rights obligations such as birth registration and free education for Ethnic Minority children, and ending child marriage.

The research was also compiled into a 220-page book, which documented the insights and experiences shared by participants. The book was launched at a high-profile event in Phnom Penh in 2024, attended by senior UN officials, ministry representatives, and civil society leaders. The ARs presented the key findings and policy recommendations, and the event featured traditional dancing by Indigenous artists, and ‘forum theatre’ performances in the ‘Theatre of the Oppressed’ style (Boal & McBride, 2020). These performances, designed by the ARs, brought the research findings to life, reinforcing the project’s commitment to rights-based, participatory knowledge production and ensuring that the voices of IEM young women were centred in advocacy efforts. The findings have since featured in Universal Periodic Review (UPR) submissions, and have been cited by UN agencies and others.

Reflective Group Discussion

In addition to the methods used in the CSO-run FPAR project, this paper reflects on the value of conducting FPAR projects with marginalised groups, that are specifically grounded in high-level advocacy mechanisms.

To explore this, a reflective discussion exercise was carried out in Phnom Penh, exploring action researchers’ perceptions and attitudes towards CEDAW and GR39, and the extent to which mechanism-based FPAR could serve as a bridge to ‘bring CEDAW home.’

The discussion was facilitated by members of the original research team, with the aim of ensuring continuity and trust. It was conducted in the action researchers’ preferred languages, with simultaneous peer-to-peer interpretation maintaining both linguistic inclusivity and the safe space that had been developed over time among the cohort. Open-ended questions guided the conversation, allowing participants to share their experiences and reflections freely. The session was audio-recorded, transcribed, translated, and thematically analysed.

Formal ethical approval for the reflective group discussion was obtained, and participants provided informed consent with particular attention given to the sensitive nature of the topics discussed.

Findings

Young ARs’ Experiences With Mechanism-Based FPAR

The findings of the reflective discussion with the young women action researchers indicate the need and potential for ‘mechanism-based FPAR’ to offer an innovative methodological bridge between these worlds. While both CEDAW and FPAR seek to advance women’s rights, they can be seen as operating at different ends of the spectrum – one in international halls of power, the other in community halls and village meetings. As one action researcher framed it in our reflective discussion, while CEDAW’s lofty, or “up in the sky” framework is crucial for setting global standards, it risks remaining abstract unless it connects with ground-level realities.

Overcoming Knowledge Barriers

The reflective discussion revealed that prior to their participation in the FPAR project, none of the IEM action researchers had been familiar with CEDAW. Further, while ARs described viewing CEDAW and GR39 as important frameworks for advancing IEM women’s rights, they emphasised that their relevance remains largely theoretical for most IEM women across Cambodia. ARs expressed a disconnect between the Convention’s legal provisions and their lived realities, highlighting barriers to access, understanding, and implementation:

I feel excited that GR39 has been formally announced by the international community. But until I joined the study, I didn’t know that there was a specific Recommendation for Indigenous women. Mainstream Cambodians still discriminate against us. I feel like I am not treated equally at school, in the workplace, and in my everyday life… I still feel discriminated against by people outside the community. It’s hard for me to express my opinion and make friends because of my ethnicity. Most companies rarely hire Indigenous women… While GR39 is a good sign, the gap between IP [Indigenous Peoples] and the mainstream Khmer community is widening. We still do not have equal rights (Indigenous Action Researcher, Phnom Penh).

Participants also expressed concern about CEDAW being inaccessible to IEM women and those outside the civil society or public sector, with one AR explaining that it is “difficult for people outside the CSO and government sectors to access knowledge about these [high-level] processes… CEDAW is up in the sky” (Ethnic Minority (Ethnic Vietnamese) Action Researcher, Phnom Penh).

This highlights an advantage and methodological innovation of mechanism-based FPAR, in that it disrupts the traditional INGO-led model of human rights reporting by allowing for more meaningful participation by rights-holders than is otherwise possible. Typically, alternative reports are drafted by professional CSO/INGO staff, with only limited input from affected communities, a process that can unintentionally reproduce epistemic injustice by sidelining those most affected by rights violations. In contrast, the mechanism-based FPAR project positioned IEM young women as co-researchers, allowing them to develop interview schedules, collect data, and interpret findings.

It is of course important to note here that FPAR alone cannot remove all barriers to high-level advocacy. While it can make gains towards democratising knowledge production and enabling representatives from marginalised communities to engage with human rights frameworks, there must also be structural changes within those frameworks to create more direct engagement opportunities for marginalised groups.

Several participants suggested that CEDAW should have more accessible mechanisms, such as physical country offices, community liaisons, or online consultation spaces, to allow for more direct participation beyond formal CSO-led processes. Alternative reports should also be permitted in local languages, as there are accessibility barriers for women across the Majority World, in particular for young IEM women, who may need additional support to engage in the CEDAW process.

Similarly, while civil society organisations play a crucial role in facilitating access to the CEDAW reporting process, the requirement that alternative reports be submitted through NGOs or coalitions creates an unavoidable layer of gatekeeping. While community-led and youth-led research methodologies can help to ensure that young action researchers retain ownership over their narratives, the reliance on formal NGO submission channels remains a fundamental challenge to young IEM women’s more direct engagement with the CEDAW Committee.

Empowerment and ‘Conscientisation’ Through Rights Education

While ARs largely agreed that CEDAW remains inaccessible and distant for most young IEM women, the process of learning about their rights through authoritative human rights instruments reportedly had a deeply transformative impact on their self-perception, confidence, and interactions with others. For instance, one AR shared how her understanding of her rights under CEDAW shifted her ability to resist daily discrimination:

Being Ethnic Vietnamese, I have been discriminated against and oppressed by mainstream Cambodians, but I now respond by saying that everyone has rights and should not be discriminated against. I have started sharing my knowledge about basic human rights with others. In the past, I didn’t have the courage to stand up for myself because I didn’t understand my rights… Now, I feel empowered [and] have the courage to talk back to those who bully me (Ethnic Minority (Ethnic Vietnamese) Action Researcher, Phnom Penh).

Some ARs explained that learning about CEDAW and gender equality fundamentally challenged their own internalised gender norms. One young AR from a rural Cham community described how her own perspectives on women’s roles changed after engaging with the CEDAW mechanism:

Before I learned about CEDAW and gender, I always thought that women should not dive deep nor go far from home. ⁸ After being introduced to CEDAW, I realised I was wrong all this time. In my community, most villagers believe that women cannot do the same things as men—that women should stay home, get married, and take care of the house and children rather than go to school (Ethnic Minority (Cham) Action Researcher, Phnom Penh).

These reflections highlight the advantage of grounding FPAR studies within specific human rights frameworks and mechanisms, so that conscientising action researchers for long-term advocacy serves as a core aim of the project.

The process of conscientisation was not only cognitive but also relational and emotional. Several ARs spoke about how being exposed to the global rights framework through group learning, storytelling, and shared discussion helped them move from self-doubt to self-recognition and collective purpose. The ability to connect their own experiences with systemic patterns of inequality fostered a sense of legitimacy and expectation. Conscientisation, in this context, meant more than acquiring legal knowledge: for many ARs, it reportedly catalysed a shift in identity from someone marginalised by hardship or injustice, to a rights-holder entitled to claim obligations from the state.

These reflections also point to a deeper epistemic shift. For ARs who had never encountered CEDAW prior to the project, gaining access to this global rights framework, and being supported to critically engage with it, challenged forms of epistemic injustice that typically marginalise young IEM women as knowers. The process enabled them to locate their own experiences within formal human rights discourse, transforming legal knowledge from something distant and exclusionary into something personally and politically meaningful. In this sense, conscientisation and the disruption of epistemic injustice were not parallel outcomes, but deeply intertwined.

The Transformative Impact of FPAR

As well as conscientising ARs through enhancing their knowledge of CEDAW and rights, a key finding is that the process of conducting FPAR can also have a lasting impact on participants’ empowerment and collective advocacy capacities, extending beyond the research itself. Several ARs discussed how the shift in research dynamics, from participants to co-researchers, was deeply empowering. One participant expressed how listening to the testimonies of other women ignited a sense of responsibility and motivation:

I felt deeply sad when I heard women’s stories about the challenges they face. Many women who experience domestic and psychological violence don’t even realise that it’s a rights issue or that it’s not their fault. But after conducting interviews and hearing all these stories, I felt empowered—I wanted to do something for them (Indigenous Action Researcher, Phnom Penh).

Another participant echoed this sense of empowerment, highlighting how the act of gathering stories from their communities strengthened her own connection to local advocacy:

I also feel empowered by the FPAR process. By gathering these experiences, I am connecting more deeply with the women in my community (Ethnic Minority (Ethnic Vietnamese) Action Researcher, Phnom Penh).

The above highlights an important methodological insight: FPAR not only generates research and advocacy outputs, but can also build a network of empowered and skilled research activists with the potential to continue community-led advocacy beyond the duration of the project.

Indeed, given the intensive and time-consuming nature of mechanism-based FPAR, its application is best suited to contexts where the goal is not only to generate data but to foster long-term empowerment, capacity-strengthening, and rights-based advocacy among marginalised groups. This approach is particularly valuable for CSOs, feminist researchers, and human rights practitioners who are working with communities that have historically been excluded from formal knowledge production and advocacy processes—such as young IEM women. While it may not be feasible for all research initiatives, it is a powerful option when the aim is to both document lived realities and equip participants with tools for political engagement, especially in alignment with international human rights mechanisms like CEDAW or the UPR. Its use is most impactful when sufficient time, trust, and funding are available to support meaningful co-production and follow-through beyond data collection.

Speaking Truth to Power: Bottom-Up Advocacy

As well as bringing CEDAW home by making international human rights frameworks more accessible at the community level, the discussion explored how ARs perceive significant value in FPAR’s ability to amplify grassroots voices within high-level advocacy spaces. Several ARs underscored this bottom-up advantage, highlighting the value in bringing their communities’ realities to those in positions of influence:

We are very proud of ourselves for bringing the community's voice to those who work above (Ethnic Minority (Khmer Krom) Action Researcher, Phnom Penh).

ARs suggested that international women's rights experts must be informed about on-the-ground realities to effectively pressure governments to fulfil their obligations under CEDAW. One clearly expressed the way that these local realities can translate into global advocacy in order to ensure domestic accountability:

Women's rights experts [in Geneva] must know what’s happening on the ground so they can use it to pressure the government to implement. If pressure doesn’t come from the international level, the government will not feel motivated to enforce CEDAW obligations at home (Ethnic Minority (Cham) Action Researcher, Phnom Penh).

Beyond its potential advocacy impact, mechanism-based FPAR has significant methodological advantages in terms of the depth and richness of data collected. ARs described how embedding research within marginalised communities enables a level of trust and openness that externally led studies often fail to achieve:

I am trusted by my community, [so] they tell me… their stories and experiences. Community members don’t trust outsiders in the same way, and so they wouldn’t have been able to gather the same depth of information… A huge level of trust comes from being from the same community and ethnicity (Ethnic Minority (Cham) Action Researcher, Phnom Penh).

This highlights how mechanism-based FPAR strengthens both the quality and legitimacy of research for advocacy purposes. The approach has the potential not only to capture lived realities more accurately, but can also serve to enhance the relevance and specificity of the CEDAW Committee’s recommendations to states in their concluding observations at the end of the mechanism review process. As such, there is significant potential for direct engagement with CEDAW through participatory approaches to strengthen the evidentiary base of international human rights mechanisms.

Conclusion

This article has explored the potential of mechanism-based FPAR to bridge the gap between grassroots lived experiences and high-level human rights advocacy. Its findings show that centring young Indigenous and Ethnic Minority women as co-researchers, rather than passive subjects, can challenge traditional top-down human rights reporting models and offer a participatory alternative that strengthens both the validity of research findings and the empowerment of rights-holders.

The findings also showcase the current inaccessibility of CEDAW to young IEM women in Cambodia, highlighting structural barriers such as language exclusion, reliance on NGO intermediaries, and limited direct engagement opportunities. At the same time, the study demonstrates that FPAR can facilitate rights conscientisation, build advocacy capacities, and enhance the local relevance of human rights frameworks. Action researchers described a profound shift in their confidence, self-perception, and ability to challenge discrimination, reinforcing the transformative impact of participatory methodologies in human rights research.

While mechanism-based FPAR offers important advantages in terms of epistemic justice and rights-holder-led advocacy, it is not without limitations. The time, labour, and resources required can be prohibitive, particularly for underfunded grassroots organisations. Additionally, while efforts were made to support shared ownership and decision-making, the process was not power-neutral; aspects of the design, such as grounding the research in CEDAW and GR39, were initiated by the professional research team. Language barriers and differing levels of research literacy among ARs were key dynamics that shaped the research process and required ongoing reflection and adaptation.

This article contributes to ongoing debates about epistemic justice in human rights research and advocacy. It reinforces the argument that rights-holders themselves can and should play central roles in producing knowledge about their own realities. While the structural barriers to direct engagement with human rights mechanisms persist, mechanism-based FPAR presents a tangible, disruptive model for democratising international advocacy and ensuring that human rights bodies are more meaningfully informed by the voices of those they aim to protect.