Abstract
Keywords
Introduction
[October 2024, 09:09 AM] A: Does anyone from our group actually have the key to [the location]? D: Not me, and I think it’s not easily opened either. … B: Good morning. I’m on my way. S: Dear fellow researchers, I would have loved to join you this morning. Unfortunately, for health reasons, I can’t make it. F: Get well soon, S […] A: The door is open! F: I’m on my way now; it’s a 3-min walk! … T: I’m currently at the dentist. T: I’ll be a bit late; I’m at the dentist just around the corner. … I forgot the appointment. If I don’t go, I’ll have to pay. O: I’m coming now; sewer repairs have just started inside our place (conveniently AFTER the renovation, even though I asked multiple times if it could be done during the renovation, when all the stuff was gone and covered A: See you all soon! [11:49 AM] O: I didn’t come back because I had to choose between you and the inspector from [organisation] who came by to talk (and I really needed him because there is still some damage caused by the renovation that needs to be fixed). A: I understand, O[…]! O: Thank you. Still dealing with the aftermath almost daily, and having workers over 3 weeks after the handover is not ideal when you have ADD.
).
The WhatsApp conversation above offers a vibrant yet messy snapshot of the morning of a scheduled meeting for academic researchers and co-researchers involved in a participatory action research (PAR). What looks like a mundane exchange of delays and apologies in fact captures a key feature of PAR: the everyday entanglements that continually shape whether and how co-researchers -single parents living in a disadvantaged neighbourhood-can engage the project and collective action. Drawing on the concept of the capability approach (Sen, 1999), this study examines co-researchers’ capability for collective action in a health disparity project within the contexts of their daily lives, relationships, and environments.
PAR is widely recognized as a methodology oriented towards empowerment and action, in which academic researchers and community members collaborate to generate knowledge and drive change (Dingenen, 2023; Freire, 1970; Loewenson et al., 2014; Reason & Bradbury, 2008). It positions participants as equal contributors in the process in which community members bring in their knowledge and ‘act on that knowledge to bring about change’ (Loewenson et al., 2014, p. 12). Yet, as a growing body of literature shows, PAR does not take place in a vacuum. On the contrary, it foregrounds lived experience, and PAR cycles are rarely smooth and often messy (Abma et al., 2019; Banks & Brydon-Miller, 2018; Bendien et al., 2023; Cook, 2009; Dingenen, 2023; Duijs et al., 2019).
The cyclical process of PAR entails an iterative sequence of plan, act, observe, reflect, and repeat, in which insights from one cycle inform the next cycle (first described by Lewin, 1946). This recursive structure supports both knowledge generation and social change (Loewenson, 2014; Noone & Kong, 2025). In this iterative sequence, PAR typically begins with strong attention for the lived experiences of participants, as meanings are explored and the origins of social problems are traced (Reason & Bradbury, 2008). In our research on syndemic vulnerability (cf. Mendenhall, 2016; cf. Slagboom, 2023), this focus on the everyday life proved essential for understanding how health and social challenges intersect in the lives and context of single parents (Breed, Schrevel, de Vries, Bussemaker, & Slagboom, forthcoming). Yet, when reflecting on the action phase of our project, we observed that the context of co-researchers’ daily lives, relationships, and environments received less attention once collective initiatives were about to be developed, even though these everyday factors continued to strongly influence and often hampered their capability for action.
Other studies have similarly stressed the role of contextual factors in PAR such as local power dynamics, cultural norms and historical injustices in shaping the experiences and contributions of co-researchers (Bendien et al., 2023; Bennett, 2004; Bwirire et al., 2022; Duijs et al., 2019; Reid et al., 2006). Duijs et al. (2019) stated that PAR should focus not only on action but also on creating spaces for the relational and contextual dynamics that influence co-researchers’ engagement. Despite this attention, the specific constraints faced by co-researchers in the phase of collective action remains understudied. This study therefore turns the spotlight on the constraints and enablers -conversion factors-embedded in the daily lives of co-researchers that shape their capability for collective action.
Research Context
This PAR project forms part of Countering Syndemics a larger mixed-methods study. This PAR project focuses on reducing health disparities among single-parent families in a disadvantaged neighborhood (population 21.555) of a major Dutch city (population 568.945). 1 Residents of low-SES neighborhoods in this city have a markedly lower healthy life expectancy −11 years shorter for men and 13 years shorter for women-compared to residents of higher-SES areas and they also score lower on nearly all health indicators. 2 Moreover, in this neighborhood, 54% of residents live on an income at or below 110% of the social minimum. 3 The PAR project focused specifically on syndemic vulnerability, referring to the “predisposition to the development of clustering and interacting diseases or health conditions that result from shared exposure to a set of adverse social conditions” (Slagboom et al., 2022, p. 1). To provide some context on health policy in the Netherlands; all residents are required to purchase a basic health insurance package from private insurers, who are legally obliged to accept all applicants regardless of health status. At the same time, welfare and care reforms in 2015 have increasingly emphasized the self-reliance of people, shifting responsibilities for care and support from national and local authorities more to citizens themselves (Bussemaker & Goijaerts, 2023; cf. Breed et al., 2025).
The PAR process began in 2022 with an initial phase of exploration and mutual acquaintance led by the first author. During this phase, academic researchers and -later- co-researchers gradually started to build relationships, to share first impressions of the issues at stake, and to identify common ground. In 2023, following the establishment of trust with the first author, single parents interested in contributing to the project joined as co-researchers. Together, we discussed practical matters such as financial compensation for participation and the frequency of meetings, agreeing on bi-weekly gatherings with reimbursement provided in the form of gift vouchers. A space in a community centre was made available through one of the co-researchers, who at that time was also employed there.
The co-researchers spend 10 months investigating and analysing syndemic vulnerability among single parents (Breed et al., forthcoming). During this explorative phase, constraints already surfaced, as co-researchers were at times delayed or unable to participate due to the pressures of everyday life. Moving into the ‘action’ phase of the PAR cycle, similar challenges reappeared in retrospect. Although the co-researchers expressed strong motivation to pursue an initiative that had emerged both from the findings and their lived experiences -namely, a low-threshold peer support initiative for newly arrived single parents in the area-our collective attempts to establish it remained unsuccessful. In about 12 months, across roughly six iterative cycles of acting, observing, reflecting, and re-planning, we faced recurring barriers: issues of trust, limited time and energy, and competing priorities in daily life. Moreover, it became clear that past experiences with institutions, professionals or in their daily life continued to shape the willingness and ability of co-researchers to come to collective actions. As the process unfolded, the fragile basis of collaboration was further undermined by a wider lack of action due to a mutual fragility of trust between the co-researcher and other stakeholders such as the municipality, housing corporations, and primary schools.
The Capability to Control One’s Environment
In summary, participating in, and striving for collective action in our PAR project was not simply a matter of ‘taking action’. Rather, it involved navigating the everyday constraints and raised the question: What freedom and opportunity do people have to achieve what they value? (Nussbaum, 2006, 2011).
To study the constraints and enablers for collective action in the daily lives of the co-researchers, we draw on the capability approach developed by Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum. Nussbaum identified ten central capabilities necessary for human flourishing (Nussbaum, 2006, 2011). In this study, we focus on one of those capabilities; to have ‘control over one’s environment’. To deepen our understanding of the freedom and capability to control one’s environment, we explore what affects co-researchers prior to having the opportunity to gain this capability. In doing so, we focus, in particular, on the positive and negative ‘conversion factors’ that influence the possibility of transforming a resource into a capability (Sen, 1999). Following Sen (1999), Ingrid Robeyns distinguished three sources of conversion factors: (1) personal conversion factors, which are internal to the person (e.g. physical conditions or skills); (2) social conversion factors, which stem from the society in which one lives (e.g. local policies, social norms and power relations); and (3) environmental conversion factors, which emerge from the built environment (e.g. buildings, transportation and roads) (Robeyns, 2017, p. 46). In this study, we explore the influence of these three sources of conversion factors on the possibility of collective action, including their positive and negative influences (Byskov et al., 2024) and their tangibility and intangibility (Byskov et al., 2024; Frediani, 2010).
Therefore, this article puts a spotlight on the everyday life’s and context of co-researchers in preparing for collective action in this PAR project. By analysing which personal, social and environmental conversion factors affect co-researchers prior to having the capability to control ones environment, this study explores the real freedoms and opportunities co-researchers experience when preparing for collective action in a PAR project.
Methods
Study Participants
This PAR project was conducted by three academic researchers -of whom the first author organized the meetings and served as the main contact person- and seven co-researchers, who consisted of single parents (n = 4), a married parent and daughter of a single parent (n = 1) and adult children of a single parent (n = 2).
Positionality of the (co)-Researchers
The seven co-researchers (six female and one male, aged 23–47 years) all lived in social rental apartments, except for one who resided in a private rental apartment. All of the co-researchers had multiple responsibilities in life, including family, work, study and caring for others in the community. Additionally, they all contributed to neighbourhood activities in some way. Four actively organised community events, and all supported local initiatives and volunteered whenever possible. Two had started a volunteer-based organisation. They all spent a significant amount of time caring for others. Besides their own families, they also supported other residents and volunteers in the neighbourhood.
As well as their strong commitment to caring for others, they experienced various health issues, including stress, headaches, attention deficit disorder, difficulty sleeping and back pain. Financially, they described their situations as unstable, due to frequent changes in community initiatives, jobs and governmental benefits. As previously described, most of the co-researchers were actively engaged in their neighbourhood and maintained broad networks. As a result, they had prior experience collaborating with other organizations and the municipality. At the same time, they had also experienced what it means not to be taken seriously. This history made them highly aware and cautious in sharing information and in deciding whom to trust.
The first author (40 years old and female) is living in a owner-occupied house in a another large city in The Netherlands. She grew up -and still lives-in a stable (social) environment. This relatively secure background stands in contrast to the everyday realities of the co-researchers, most of whom were single parents facing structural disadvantages and instability in their lives. As an academic researcher, the first author has prior experience across multiple research sites and Participatory Action Research (PAR) projects, which shaped her sensitivity to issues of trust, recognition, and collaboration. At the same time, the differences in social and economic position inevitably informed the research encounter. While the PAR project could be presented as a series of multiple meetings and interviews -outcomes that were often celebrated-the process of moving from insights to action was more challenging. Competing priorities, shifting circumstances, and the frustrations of co-researchers, who strongly desired tangible outcomes, placed pressure on the academic researchers. For the first author, this tension was compounded by an awareness that many previous studies in the neighbourhood had not led to visible change. Navigating these dynamics produced a sense of responsibility and urgency to achieve meaningful outcomes while simultaneously safeguarding collaboration and collective inquiry in PAR.
Data Collection
Data were collected between December 2023 and April 2025 from four primary sources: co-researcher meeting transcripts (n = 12), fieldnotes by the first author (2022–2025), personal WhatsApp conversations with the first author and WhatsApp group conversations (2023–2025).
Data Management
All research data were managed in full compliance with national and international standards and regulations. The study adhered to the principles of the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki (last amended October 2013). Data were stored on a secure, password-protected server at Leiden University Medical Centre, with access strictly limited to members of the project team. To safeguard confidentiality, all personal identifiers were removed and replaced with pseudonyms and document codes created by the first author. A key file linking pseudonyms to participants was stored separately under restricted access. All transcripts, notes, and related documents were anonymized before analysis and dissemination. In accordance with the institutional policy, anonymized data will be retained for a legally required period.
Data Analysis
The analysis focused on the personal, social and environmental conversion factors (Robeyns, 2017) that may have influenced the possibility for collective action among the co-researchers. Such conversion factors can be positive or negative and tangible or intangible (Byskov et al., 2024; Frediani, 2010). Data analysis involved several coding rounds using Atlas. ti online. The first author began with open coding, which was followed by a second round of coding paying particular attention to personal, social and environmental conversion factors. The results were discussed and enriched in a member-check meeting with the co-researchers (February 2025), whose input was of considerable value since the results could be enriched and interpreted through their examples. The authors met monthly to discuss the process and the analysis.
Ethical Considerations
All co-researchers were fully informed about the aims and procedures of the PAR project, and their voluntary participation was emphasized at each stage. Meetings were planned ahead due to logistical challenges of being a single parent. Building relationships and trust was regarded as an ethical condition for collaboration, as has been emphasized in PAR literature (Banks & Brydon-Miller, 2018). Co-researchers were not positioned as research subjects but as partners in knowledge production, with shared decision-making about the focus and practical organization of the project. In addition, all co-researchers were asked permission to use the WhatsApp data and invited to review and comment on preliminary findings and quotes through a member-checking session for the use of this article. Their feedback was incorporated into the analysis and led to further refinement of the results.
Results
To explore the conversion factors influencing the capability to control one’s environment among the co-researchers, this section is organised into two parts. First, an example is presented of a recent meeting with the co-researchers to illustrate how personal, social and environmental conversion factors played out in practice. Second, a more structured overview is provided of the various conversion factors identified throughout the project and their interrelatedness.
A Meeting Full of Conversion Factors
The meeting took place at a new location on a Monday morning with seven co-researchers and two academic researchers. By that point, we had been collaborating for over a year and had collectively agreed to initiate a pilot of our community initiative. The agenda for the meeting was set to determine concrete responsibilities and to plan the practical steps required to launch the pilot. On the morning of the meeting, a message was posted in the WhatsApp group: Good morning [first author]. Can we meet half an hour earlier? I just heard that I had to be somewhere else at 1 p.m. You guys can stay, but I want to stress that I also want to join.’ The first author responded, ‘Unfortunately, I cannot be there earlier. But let’s make it an efficient one and a half hours:)’
Upon the first author’s arrival, some co-researchers were struggling to find the location. One co-researcher talked about her sleeping troubles and concerns about co-parenting. The first author listened while making coffee. Meanwhile, other co-researchers arrived. About 10 minutes later, the coffee was handed out to the group.
The group was still not fully assembled 20 minutes after the scheduled starting time when another co-researcher entered the building, saying, ‘I’m sorry, my scooter had trouble again. I had to walk.’ The group welcomed her and encouraged her to rest, while another co-researcher offered her something to drink. After some small talk, the same co-researcher shared her concerns about her young child: ‘He is tired all the time and is often not eager to go to school, … but he has to. I have to work and do my internship.’ The group listened and reacted empathetically.
Just as the meeting was about to start, almost 30 minutes late, two other co-researchers arrived with cake and rusks with pink sprinkles. The whole group cheered: ‘Who is pregnant?!’ One of them announced her pregnancy and, of course, was congratulated. A little later, the first author attempted to start the meeting by reading the agenda.
With only 45 minutes left, the first author shifted the focus to the actions the group wanted to take and how everyone could start working as a team. We discussed potential partners and working methods for our plans. When talking about partners, some co-researchers reiterated the importance of keeping our action plans ‘safe’ with community partners: ‘We do not want our plans to be incorporated by an organisation once again!’ The co-researchers described previous experiences in which their own initiatives, or those originating from the community, were taken over and implemented by organizations or the municipality without the community’s consent. As this topic regularly surfaced within the group, instead of pushing for action, the first author wrote down some ‘rules’ for cooperating with organisations to protect the group’s plans.
Then, the co-researcher who needed to leave early packed her bag and apologised for leaving. Although the meeting continued for another 20 minutes, we were interrupted twice by other community members and professionals who assumed we had finished our meeting and wanted to use the room: ‘Oh, we saw her leaving, so we thought you were done’ (field notes, first author).
Conversion Factors Influencing the Control of One’s Environment
Conversion Factors Among Co-researchers (Layout Inspired by Byskov et al., 2024)
Personal Conversion Factors
Personal conversion factors frequently shaped the co-researchers’ ability to participate in the meetings. Tangible personal factors that negatively influenced the co-researchers’ capability to control their environment included illness (of themselves or their children), caregiving responsibilities and limited access to resources such as transportation and functioning computers. Four co-researchers said that they either did not have a computer or had a poorly functioning device. Co-researchers regularly missed meetings due to medical appointments, such as dental appointments and surgery. Another main reason for being unavailable was caring for a sick child. Since most of the co-researchers were single parents, they bore sole responsibility for the care of their children. This resulted in many missed meetings and pictures or reports of sick children in the WhatsApp group. Also, during holidays and afternoon meetings, the issue of not having a babysitter often surfaced. Lastly, tangible challenges included oversleeping or dealing with minor domestic disruptions: ‘Something fell over, but it’s now been cleaned up’ (WhatsApp group).
Intangible negative personal factors were presumably more influential on the capability to control one’s environment, although they were harder to observe. Emotional exhaustion, worry about children and mental strain surfaced repeatedly. On multiple occasions, co-researchers were concerned about their children. For example, one stated after a meeting, ‘I am sorry I was not entirely present today. I’m just so tired. The issues with my son are wearing me out’ (field notes). Another, in the middle of a custody dispute, expressed resignation: ‘It has been going on for a year and a half already. Appealing in divorce cases is completely pointless’ (meeting, 080,424). This co-researcher explained being tired and sometimes ‘not entirely present’, leading to less focus during the meetings.
Despite these burdens, positive personal conversion factors were also visible. Intangible factors, such as intrinsic motivation, responsibility and being heard, kept the co-researchers returning. Even when availability was limited, there was eagerness to participate and strive for action. A co-researcher: ‘Of course we go on! We really want to do something good for the people here!’ (field notes). Tangible positive factors, such as being physically well enough and having time to attend, were present most of the time, but they were also easily overturned by other conversion factors.
Social Conversion Factors
While personal conversion factors are related to individuals, families and personal skills, social conversion factors concern the influence of local organisations, policies and conflicting demands.
Positive tangible factors, such as financial support from organisations and fixed incomes, gave the co-researchers clearer minds. ‘Now I know what I can expect every month; it is less than before, but at least it is fixed,’ one a co-researcher said after his financial support changed (field notes). Intangible positive social conversion factors often emerged during the project. In the group, emotional support was present and growing. Moments of joy, solidarity and empathy were common. During meetings, when co-researchers shared their worries, they supported each other, leading to the group sharing trust and backing each other up. For example, in the meeting vignette, a co-researcher shared her worries with the group. In an earlier meeting, when she also shared her concerns about her son, one of the other co-researchers said, ‘You are a good mother; remember that! You can always call me if you have doubts – you know that, don’t you?’ (field notes).
Although they supported each other, the co-researcher daily lives were also marked by negative tangible social conversion factors, such as competing responsibilities that often hindered their ability to join our meetings. For example, in the WhatsApp group alone, there were 20 reports of ‘having another appointment’. The nature of these appointments varied and included commitments to other projects, work-related obligations, study-related responsibilities and care-related appointments. One co-researcher had to drop out of our meetings after a schedule change to her studies. Pop-up meetings in the neighbourhood by other organisations (mostly due to research projects or meetings organised by the municipality) caused co-researchers to miss out on our meetings on six occasions. For example, three co-researchers had to miss our meeting because of a ‘storytelling workshop’: ‘On the 27th, another meeting is scheduled, and as far as I know, people from this group have also been invited’ (WhatsApp group).
Another reason for being late or interrupting our meetings was taking care of other citizens, such as providing mental support, reading organisational letters or making phone calls. Co-researchers attended our meetings late multiple times because they were supporting volunteers or others at the community centre. A co-researchers who was a project staff member for a period of time was often late or interrupted by volunteers or interns: ‘They just need my emotional support’ (Fieldnotes). One co-researcher meeting was even paused due to a citizen visiting the community centre with a highly complex letter from the municipality. ‘We all paused to discuss what to do with the letter. Some co-researchers tried to identify the message; others were thinking about solutions’ (field notes).
A next reason for not joining our meetings was the frequent changes in community staff during the project. Five co-researchers were also involved in community initiatives or as staff members in community centres. During our project, one co-researcher involuntary changed jobs and one became a paid staff member at a community centre. A community initiative and a community centre each got a new coordinator, while one initiative had to stop because of disagreement over the location (field notes). As a consequence of new regulations, new schedules and the locations of co-researchers’ new (voluntary) jobs, our fixed meeting places had to be replaced four times. Every change caused co-researchers to be late due to confusion or not knowing the way: ‘Where is [the location]?’ was asked twelve times on WhatsApp, causing meetings to start late on several occasions (field notes).
As we neared the collective action phase of the project, intangible negative factors became increasingly visible, shaping the dynamics of our meetings and influencing discussions in ways that were not always expected beforehand. Power imbalances, particularly in interactions with external stakeholders, emerged as a persistent factor. Co-researchers frequently articulated concerns about not being taken seriously by professionals and local authorities. One participant encapsulated this sentiment, stating, ‘Our experiences are just less worthy’ (meeting 071,024), referring to past encounters with the municipality in which they felt that their voices and perspectives had not been taken seriously. This led to co-researchers often being silent or changing action plans during meetings with other stakeholders. One meeting to which we invited external stakeholders from the municipality to discuss our concrete idea for collective action was exemplary. In it, all co-researchers would nod, but no one said a word about the struggles of starting and sustaining a community initiative. The first author reflected on this: ‘How is this possible, as we firmly discussed everything that needed to be different and needed to change beforehand?’ (field notes, reflection 071,024). One co-researcher later explained the ongoing influence of power imbalance: ‘It feels like we always have to tiptoe around professionals to avoid hurting their feelings, but this means we can’t say what really matters’ (field notes). As another co-researcher explained fairly bluntly, ‘We know where the money [funding] comes from’ (field notes).
Environmental Conversion Factors
A positive tangible environmental factor for the capability to control one’s environment was the opportunity to have accessible spaces to sit down with the group. Since all co-researchers lived nearby, they could all walk or cycle to the locations, even when we had to change them. Positive intangible factors were the flexibility of the co-researchers and the flexibility of the different locations and staff.
Environmental factors also constrained the possibility of collective action in this PAR project. Tangible negative environmental factors included prolonged housing renovations, ongoing construction at community centres and unstable infrastructure. Four co-researchers had to undergo mandatory renovations of their homes and pack up their belongings and ensure they were kept safe in a storage box. Moreover, the aftermath of renovations often kept them occupied, leading to five missed meetings or departures during meetings due to phone calls: ‘Going home turned out to be useful after all. I went to check on the progress of the pipework when the externally hired inspector (appointed by [organisation]) for the renovations stopped. He came inside my house and fully agreed with me regarding the damages that had been discussed during the handover’ (WhatsApp group). Also, during the project, two community centres were under renovation and four community initiatives in which co-researchers participated had to relocate, either due to ongoing renovations or because they were situated in temporary anti-squat buildings. The process of moving and adjusting to these changes led to co-researchers missing meetings on five occasions.
Moreover, most renovations took longer than expected. One co-researcher voiced ongoing frustration about renovations at the community centre: ‘They said the renovations would be done by now, but we’re still waiting. It’s affecting everything’ (meeting 071,024). This led to missed meetings and co-researchers feeling that they needed to support other volunteers and staff at that locations: ‘I am sorry, they are still renovating here. They need my support’ (WhatsApp group).
Another negative and intangible environmental conversion factor was funding flowing into other initiatives while the co-researchers’ own projects struggled to secure financial support. This created a sense of frustration and inequity: ‘If they put all the money that flows in [location] into [initiative] for this neighbourhood, it would all be different’ (meeting 071,024). Additionally, a competitive atmosphere among community groups exacerbated tensions. One co-researcher remarked, ‘There’s another group working on something similar, but instead of supporting each other, it feels like we’re competing’ (field notes). These dynamics not only weakened opportunities for collective action but mostly led to feelings of discouragement, making it increasingly difficult to stay motivated and engaged in collective action. As one co-researcher reflected after a meeting, ‘We’ve all seen other groups start with a lot of enthusiasm, but they couldn’t keep it going. It makes us wonder if we’ll face the same fate’ (field notes).
The Everyday Meaning of ‘I’m on my way’
In retrospect, no phrase encapsulated the interconnectedness of the above-mentioned conversion factors better than ‘I’m on my way’, which appeared regularly in WhatsApp conversations, often signalling a delay. In the member-check meeting, this sentence was discussed, with one co-researcher explaining, ‘Yes, that could be anything. But mostly what happens is that I’m ready to go, and then I get a call from an organisation or the municipality.’ Other co-researchers agreed by explaining, ‘That’s so often the case! They [organisations] always call us and need something from us right away!’ Another reason for being late concerned the responsibility for children, either because ‘my son sometimes has difficult mornings’ or because co-researchers needed to clean up after children. Or, according to a divorced single parent, ‘Because I have to take my daughter to school in another part of the city. [Her other parent] lives there.’ Moreover, the co-researchers again reported in the member-check meeting instances of taking care of others – citizens or volunteers – which caused them delay: ‘That is the work I do. People cannot separate when I am on duty and when I am not.’ Renovations to apartments and community centres also surfaced in the this member-check meeting. One of the co-researchers said, ‘It is not only that I am late due to waiting or organising stuff for these renovations; it is also keeping your mind occupied during meetings, you know?’ Lastly, the co-researchers affirmed that changes in location also caused them to be ‘on their way’ few times.
Discussing this most cited sentence showed how interrelated conversion factors confined the co-researchers’ opportunities for collective action in the PAR project. We recognised personal conversion factors (family life demands), social conversion factors (demands from other organisations and for supporting other citizens) and environmental conversion factors (extended renovations). These different conversion factors influenced the conditions needed to come to collective action, or to control one’s environment.
As we were talking about the most common conversion factors and their interrelatedness in the member-check meeting, one of the co-researchers’ phones rang. After a brief interruption, she reported, ‘I am sorry. I have to leave early because the mayor is visiting our location, and the time of visit has just changed.’ After she left, another co-researcher said, ‘Now you see it once again: we are pulled and pushed over and over again. That’s our life!’
Discussion
At its core, PAR seeks to foster empowerment and to promote collective action to address social challenges and structural inequalities, outcomes that inherently require the ability to influence and shape one’s surroundings and to control one’s environment. This study explored conversion factors (Robeyns, 2017; Sen, 1999) that influenced the co-researchers’ capability to control their environments during the action phase in our PAR project on syndemic vulnerability. The analysis identified a range of interconnected personal, social and environmental conversion factors that shaped the conditions under which collective action could either be supported or constrained.
The results showed positive conversion factors that supported conditions for action but also many different negative conversion factors. For example negative personal conversion factors, such as health problems, caregiving duties and emotional fatigue, co-occurred with negative social conversion factors, including conflicting schedules, institutional instability and ongoing power asymmetries. These were further compounded by negative environmental conversion factors, such as renovations, relocations and funding streams, which collectively eroded stability and predictability. Crucially, these factors did not act independently. Instead, they formed a web of interrelated conversion factors that continuously disrupted routines, undermined momentum and rendered planning precarious.
The Fragility of Capabilities
The use and operationalisation of the capability approach has been discussed extensively in the literature (Boni & Walker, 2016; Pham, 2019; Rauschmayer et al., 2018; Robeyns, 2003; Walker, 2006). While capabilities are widely employed to conceptualise and assess human dignity, Nussbaum (2011) emphasised that they are not stable possessions but are fragile achievements continually shaped by relational and structural conditions (p. 40–42). This fragility was evident in our study, in which the capability to control one’s environment also proved precarious.
To better understand this fragility, the concepts of conversion factors elaborated on by Byskov et al. (2024) and Robeyns (2005, 2017) were particularly instructive. These conversion factors mediated the transformation of resources into the ability to control one’s environment and thus prepare for collective action. In our findings, conversion factors revealed the instability of the context, especially through their interrelation with social and environmental conditions. This is in line with the results of this PAR study on syndemic vulnerability among single parents in this deprived neighbourhood, which showed that many had experienced turbulent and unstable life courses in a context of ongoing uncertainty (Breed et al., forthcoming), shaping the conditions for collective actions.
Relation Work in PAR
This study also shows the importance of relation work in PAR, emphasizing that PAR must be grounded in an understanding of people’s everyday lives (Banks, 2016; Banks & Brydon-Miller, 2018; Duijs et al., 2019). Our findings show that positive social conversion factors were particularly linked to mutual support and care within the group, broadening the notion of collective action beyond discrete outcomes (Duijs et al., 2019; Reid et al., 2006). Moreover, the analysis shows that relation work extends beyond research meetings: it requires attentiveness to how lived realities, past experiences, and ongoing vulnerabilities shape the possibilities for trust and collaboration (cf. Groot, 2021). The impact, or actions within PAR can therefore be understood not only through visible outcomes, but equally through the ongoing mutual support, dialogue, and trust, while taking existing conversion factors seriously (cf. Numans et al., 2023).
Collective Action in PAR
This bring us back to the core of collective action and reflection in PAR, particularly to the question how the theoretical model of iterative cycles -plan, act, observe, reflect-aligns with the complexity of everyday life in PAR studies (Noone & Kong, 2025; Reid et al., 2006). Since PAR is often conducted in precarious contexts, this calls for a broader understanding of what collective action entails under such conditions (Cook, 2009; Han, 2018). This insight aligns with a growing literature showing that creating space for both the empowerment process and the barriers that hinder it is essential in PAR (Abma et al., 2019; Duijs et al., 2019; Ferdiani, 2010; Groot, 2021; Juujärvi & Lund, 2016; Reid et al., 2006). Based on PAR projects with minority groups, Duijs et al. (2019), for example, highlights the necessity of cultivating space for compassion that acknowledges participants’ experiences of powerlessness and suffering. Without addressing these emotional and psychological dimensions, they argue, PAR risks becoming an instrumental process that overlooks the deeper needs of participants (Duijs et al., 2019). Similarly, Juujärvi and Lund (2016) stressed that empowerment in PAR should not be seen just as an outcome but also as an ongoing process, requiring continuous attention to avoid actions becoming mere ‘empty’ activities (Juujärvi & Lund, 2016, p. 11).
While our findings resonate with the abovementioned perspectives, we extend the discussion on collective action in precarious contexts by foregrounding insights in the -understudied- everyday conversion factors in the action and reflection phases of our PAR project. In PAR, much attention is typically given to the lived experiences during the early research stages, when meanings are explored and the origins of problems are analysed. In contrast, once the process moves into collective action and reflection, the influence of everyday life tends to receive less systematic attention, even though, as shown in this study, it remains highly consequential. Moreover, our findings show that due to all the conversion factors the dynamics of engagement from co-researchers fluctuate over time, and that moments of collective action may not always coincide with the right timing for co-researchers (cf. Noone & Kong, 2025).
Together, these insights underscore the importance of recognizing and reflecting on contextual and temporal constraints in daily life’s when striving for collective action in PAR. This emphasis also speaks to broader debates, as the recent WHA resolution on social participation (WHO, 2024) calls for institutionalized and sustained community involvement, an ambition that is important but that our findings also nuance by showing how everyday conversion factors both enable and constrain ongoing community involvement and collective action.
Strengths and Limitations
This study provides in-depth and contextual insight into the everyday constraints shaping co-researchers’ opportunities for collective action, made possible through long-term engagement and the trust-based relationships developed within the team and with the academic researchers. At the same time, despite the emphasis on relation work, the analysis mainly draws on moments when co-researchers arrived late, were absent, or were distracted during meetings, which offers only a partial view of the challenges they face in daily life.
Moreover, conversion factors affecting the academic researchers, other stakeholders and the project itself -such as institutional timelines, funding cycles, and organizational demands-were not systematically included in this study. Yet, these factors undoubtedly influenced both the process and its outcomes. Future research could therefore examine these dimensions more explicitly.
Future research could also focus on how co-researchers deal and respond to these constraints, for example through dramaturgical concepts such as facework and spoiled identity. Such an approach could provide deeper insight into how collective action is shaped, negotiated, and performed in practice under precarious and power-laden conditions.
Implications
For PAR projects, an important implication of this study is the need to take everyday life seriously across all phases of the PAR cycle, including the action and reflection stages, where it often receives less attention. The everyday constraints that appear as cancellations, delays, or shifting commitments should not be dismissed as incidental disturbances, but understood as structural conditions that shape the possibilities for collective action in contexts of syndemic vulnerability. Attending to this structural instability requires a methodological stance that is flexible and reflexive, recognizing that PAR cycles rarely unfold in linear ways. Moreover, creating the possibility to analyze and reflect on these dynamics, presupposes relations of trust between co-researchers and academic researchers.
For local policy and neighborhood projects, this calls for greater attention to stability as a precondition for residents to shape their lives and futures. The prevailing policy logic, which often relies on transactions, efficiency, and short-term cycles, stands in tension with the lived experiences of residents, whose lives are shaped by longer trajectories of uncertainty and instability. For policies and interventions to have impact, it is important to consider lived experience as a meaningful and ongoing basis for design, implementation, and evaluation (cf. Breed et al., 2025).
Conclusion
This study has demonstrated that the conditions for collective action by co-researchers in PAR are not linear or guaranteed. Rather, ‘taking action’ within PAR is a precarious process shaped by interrelated conversion factors. Our findings show that, while the everyday life of co-researchers mostly receives attention in the early phases of PAR, it is equally crucial in the action and reflection phases. In the context of syndemic vulnerability, recognizing how everyday conversion factors shape the capability to control one’s environment, proved to be important not only for strengthening the action and reflection phases of PAR, but also for advancing wider debates on what meaningful community involvement and collective action entails under precarious conditions.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
We extend our deep gratitude to the co-researchers for their time, trust and commitment to this project. Not only this article but also our research would not have been possible without their commitment in all phases of our project. We would also like to thank our colleagues; Sam Schrevel for his valuable contributions during the meetings and thoughtful reflections, and Matty Crone her insightful feedback on earlier drafts of this article.
Ethical Considerations
The study protocols were reviewed by the Medical ethical committee of the Leiden University Medical Centre (commissie Medische ethiek), whichgave the studies a statement of no objections. Reference number 23-3102.
Author Contributions
MB: Facilitating meetings, participant observations, analysis, member check, writing of the original draft and rewriting. NS: Supervision, writing, reviewing and editing. SdV: Supervision, writing, reviewing and editing. JB: Supervision, writing, reviewing and editing. All authors have approved the submission of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This publication is part of the project ‘countering syndemics’ with project number 21776 of the research programme health inequalities which isfinanced by the Dutch Research council (Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek, NWO).
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.