Abstract
This article interrogates the tension between “having” and “being” orientations in participatory action research (PAR), using Erich Fromm’s philosophical framework to reconceptualize knowledge production, power, and ethics in community-engaged scholarship. Bridging critical theory with on-the-ground PAR practice, the research discusses how the “having” paradigm that focuses on extractive outcomes contrasts with the “being” approach’s emphasis on process, relationality, and existential engagement. In particular, the analysis highlights three critical junctures where the “being” orientation reconfigures PAR practice: (1) co-defining research agendas “with” communities rather than “for” them, (2) privileging longitudinal relationship-building over time-bound deliverables, and (3) reconceiving “data” as emergent wisdom from lived experience. The article concludes with reflexive guidelines for researchers seeking to navigate the “being” paradigm shift in diverse sociocultural settings, as necessary foundation for ethical, contextually grounded social transformation.
Introduction
The humanistic philosopher, Erich Fromm, provocatively questioned the essence of contemporary human existence in his seminal work: to have or to be? He critiques a societal framework that prioritizes material acquisition, where possessions, profit, and power hold paramount importance (Fromm, 2013, p. 79). In the “having” mode of life, individuals derive their identities from external achievements and possessions, pursuing happiness through the accumulation of wealth, influence, and status, often at the expense of others. This “having” perspective confines human experience within rigid structures and mechanistic routines. Conversely, Fromm proposes the “being” mode of existence that emphasizes inner fulfilment and the dynamic expression of human potential. Happiness arises from active engagement with life, utilizing one’s innate faculties, nurturing personal growth, and fostering genuine connections (ibid). A transformative shift is envisioned towards a New Society where individuals actively participate in shaping their communities and lifestyles, advocating a departure from passive consumerism towards more deliberate and conscientious choices.
Fromm’s conception resonates profoundly with participatory action research (PAR). Notably, both emphasize empowerment through engaged practice and align in their commitment to transformative collaboration. PAR operationalizes this vision particularly through its methodology of active co-production with stakeholders and continuous critical reflection, ultimately seeking meaningful social change (Kindon et al., 2007). Yet PAR’s implementation often reveals fundamental tensions between its ideals and practice. The risk of “Faux PAR”, where participation becomes performative without substantive changes, looms large when power-sharing between professionals and community researchers remains nominal rather than structural. Consider these common scenarios: community organizations may invite local representatives to discussions or meetings, yet systematically disregard their input during intervention design, which eventually creates an illusion of inclusion without real decision-making authority. Similarly, researchers might unintentionally privilege more articulate or socially dominant community members, ignoring voices from the powerless and further reinforcing the existing hierarchies (Levinson, 2017). Such practices perpetuate the “usual suspects” phenomenon, where individuals with limited power and resources continue to be marginalized and excluded despite participatory frameworks (Banks et al., 2022).
Consequently, the process of reflection becomes indispensable in the execution of PAR. Key considerations typically include: What is the dynamic of power between the researcher and the subjects of the research? Who retains control throughout the research endeavour? Whose perspectives are considered and whose are disregarded? In light of these complexities, it may be beneficial to introduce an additional inquiry: are our efforts in PAR primarily focusing on “having” or “being”? This article, therefore, aims to dissect, scrutinize, and delve into the concepts of “having” and “being” within the context of PAR, in terms of knowledge generation, research interpretation, ethical considerations, and power dynamics, drawing upon some examples from the author’s research undertakings in Kenya and China.
The Dynamics of Knowledge and Power in Discourse
In the contemporary world, knowledge operates as a complex adaptive system that constantly evolves through dialectical tensions between structure and agency. Building on Mannheim’s (1936) foundational work on the sociology of knowledge, it has been observed how epistemic frameworks are reconstructed through decentralized networks that accelerate knowledge circulation, and through transnational cultural hybridity that challenges knowledge hierarchies significantly. Since the 1970s, many critiques of traditional epistemology reveal that power structures have great impact on the creation and maintenance of knowledge, including scientific paradigms (Bloor, 1976). “Truth” emerges from negotiated consensus rather than institutional authority, and the construction of reality through social interaction has gained new dimensions (Berger & Luckmann, 1966). As is known best, Foucault reconceptualizes power as productive rather than purely repressive, demonstrating its entanglement with knowledge systems that define societal norms and truths (Foucault, 1978). These sparked later critical examinations of epistemic justice or injustice. For instance, Goldman (1986) examines knowledge validation in social contexts, while Latour (1987) expands analysis to non-human actors. Haraway (1988) advocates for situated knowledges, and Fricker (2007) systematizes epistemic injustice into testimonial (credibility deficits) and hermeneutical (conceptual lack) forms.
Despite undergoing significant transformations over time, the sociology of knowledge, both in its classical formulations and contemporary iterations, remains anchored in examining the social foundations of human thought. Given cognition and understanding are profoundly shaped by social groups and institutions, this field delves into various sociological inquiries, exploring the scope and constraints of social group influences by scrutinizing the cultural as well as social origins of cognition and perception (McCarthy, 2006). Central to this inquiry is the power-knowledge nexus, not merely as external forces acting upon thought, but as mutually constitutive dimensions. As Foucault (1980) and Mannheim (1936) have demonstrated, ideas, concepts, and belief systems inherently embody social relations, which further reflects the dialectic between dominant paradigms and subjugated knowledges. Based on that, individuals nevertheless exercise epistemic agency, interpreting, synthesizing, and at times transforming the very frameworks that condition their understanding (Bourdieu, 1990).
Moreover, Fromm (2013) introduces this dichotomy between the “having” and “being” models of knowledge. “Having” knowledge entails possessing information, while “knowing” involves a deeper, functionally critical approach. True “knowing” entails an ongoing process of exploration and receptiveness, aiming not for certainty but for a profound comprehension that transcends surface-level appearances (Fromm, 2013). “Being” in knowledge means a deeper integration and engagement between what one knows and what one has experienced. Such principles fundamentally align with participatory action research’s praxis: The “being” mode emphases on non-linear, participatory knowledge co-creation, where meaning arises through action-reflection cycles; It directly informs PAR’s commitment to embedding research within community experience, and catalysing change through epistemic collaboration. Such theoretical synergy significantly underscores the reason why PAR necessitates methodological innovation, but also an ontological shift toward Fromm’s “being” paradigm.
Understanding Participatory Action Research
Participatory action research (PAR) operationalizes knowledge production as a socially just practice. Defined as co-created research that engages subjects as partners in design, analysis, and dissemination, PAR represents a fundamental epistemological shift from conventional research paradigms. Rejecting positivist universalism, it advocates context-specific knowledge co-production through egalitarian academic-community partnerships (Banks & Miller, 2019; Stringer, 2007). The approach transcends methodological technique to embody what might be termed as an ontological stance, echoing the way of “being” in research that transforms traditional power dynamics through its very practice. Grounded in Freire's (1972) critical pedagogy and Foucault’s (1980) power-knowledge analysis, PAR reconceives the research process as a continuous dialogue between lived experience and theoretical understanding. By enabling participants to “re-see” their world through collective critique (Reason & Bradbury, 2001, p. 451), PAR addresses Fricker’s epistemic injustices through methodological innovation, creating spaces where marginalized voices reshape dominant narratives, and thereby enhancing visibility and empowerment throughout the research process (Fricker, 2007).
The practical implementation of these principles, nevertheless, also reveals inherent tensions. While PAR’s theoretical framework challenges academic monopolies over knowledge production (Kindon et al., 2007), this very democratization implies that the flexibility required for authentic co-production frequently conflicts with institutional research expectations. The contradictions manifest most visibly in the gap between process-oriented ideals and institutional demands for measurable outcomes. It is also the disjuncture between community timelines and academic research cycles, as well as the co-option of participatory language without substantive methodology shifts. For example, I once facilitated a PAR project with young people from an informal settlement in Kenya. My goal was to empower them to share their thoughts and ideas about community issues, as well as their needs and expectations for potential solutions. I organized three workshops with 20 participants, using a variety of methods such as dialogues, group discussions, mind-mapping, and debates. Through these sessions, the participant researchers generated valuable insights into their community challenges, offering perspectives that I, as an outsider, could not have accessed on my own otherwise. However, upon reflection, I recognized that I ultimately made decisions regarding the discussion formats, general topics, used tools, and the order of activities. While the approach I undertook aimed to empower the participants, I must question whether the topics of discussion were truly aligned with their interests and whether the methods used reflected their preferences.
Such challenges are not isolated but represent a central debate within the PAR literature concerning power, positionality, and the researcher’s role. A core tenet of PAR is the requirement for researchers to relinquish control and adopt a facilitative rather than directive role (Sense, 2006). It would be a endeavor that inherently involves a continuous and often uncomfortable reckoning with one’s position (e.g. Kindon et al., 2007; Pettican et al., 2022). The consideration manifests in several well-recognized tensions, like scholars have documented the negotiation of the fluid “insider/outsider” dynamic, which can extend into complex relational realms like friendship (e.g. McFarlane & Hansen, 2007). The literature further underscores that attending to shifting power relations through inter-reflexivity calls for a continuous rethinking of positionality, which entails vigilance against the persistence of power even within participatory frameworks (Browne et al., 2010; Fernández & Fine, 2024; Kapoor, 2002). Empirical studies consistently reflect these tensions around relinquishing control. For instance, Hart and Bond’s (1995) work with youth demonstrates that meaningful engagement required the adult researchers to consciously invert the traditional hierarchy by supporting youth-led initiatives, a process that directly confronted and made visible the power imbalances their work sought to redress. Within non-Western settings such as China, a relation-oriented different culture adds another layer of complexity, deeply structuring the researcher’s identity and necessitating ongoing re-negotiation of positionality (e.g., Cui, 2014; Lakhani et al., 2025).
The literature converges to establish the examination of researcher role conflicts as a foundational area of inquiry. This focus, in turn, highlights a core tension within PAR: it strives to be a transformative praxis that democratizes knowledge production and decolonizes methodology; Yet it simultaneously operates as a site of persistent epistemological struggle (Fahlberg, 2023). While participation and action form the foundational pillars of PAR, an excessive focus on these elements without appropriate reflection risks neglecting the essential legitimacy and motivational impetus driving the research. Its radical potential also lies precisely in its capacity to make these tensions productive, to create power spaces where conventional research hierarchies can be interrogated and reimagined (Cornwall & Brock, 2005; Gaventa, 2005). To address this issue, the article introduces the “having” and “being” model as a framework for deeper comprehension, a concept that will be further elucidated in subsequent sections.
The Intersection of “Having” and “Being” in PAR
While some scholars analytically separate “action” from “participation” in PAR, treating the former as concrete social transformation and the latter as collaborative process, this dichotomy risks obscuring PAR’s fundamental dialectical nature. As Wadsworth’s (1998) seminal formulation explains, “there are countless tiny cycles of participatory reflection on action, learning about action and then new informed action which is in turn the subject of further reflection”(p.7). This means actions and changes may not always manifest immediately but evolve throughout the entire research process. Social transformation emerges gradually through cumulative micro-adjustments rather than singular revolutionary acts, challenging linear models of impact. Each reflection-action cycle generates new community knowledge that informs subsequent interventions, and creates an upward spiral of understanding (Borda, 2001). During this process, power dynamics shift through sustained participatory practice itself, making the research process inherently political (Gaventa, 2005). From this perspective, PAR is positioned not to predetermined ends, but as the gradual construction of democratic knowledge ecosystems (Charnley et al., 2009).
Regarding the distinction between “having” and “being” orientations in PAR, the “having” model that reflects conventional research paradigms tends to separate action from participation while prioritizing tangible outcomes and measurable deliverables. This approach aligns with instrumental rationality, where research serves primarily to achieve predetermined ends, such as policy changes or problem resolution. In the having-oriented frameworks, knowledge becomes a commodity to be extracted and possessed, with success measured by discrete outputs rather than processual transformations. In contrast, the essence of PAR’s “being” accentuates the evolution within the research process itself, the relationships formed, and the transformative experiences engendered. It values the subjective journeys of participants and researchers alike, encompassing their lived experiences, personal growth, and mutual comprehension. In this sense, PAR aims not merely for a final product but for the entire journey; its impacts manifest on individuals and communities with fostered dialogues, heightened awareness, and subtle shifts throughout the research process (Kindon et al., 2007). It represents an extended epistemology where knowing becomes a way of “being” with others in shared inquiry.
The implications of this distinction are profound. During my ethnography in Kenya, I investigated a Chinese volunteer tourism organization operating within an informal settlement in Nairobi. The organization tried to address both physical and psychological sides of the local needs that they provide construction assistance, food provisions, scholarships and some informal education projects in cooperation with local schools. My analysis revealed several organizational shortcomings, such as informal processes and inadequate communication channels, which led to unequally distributed power within the community. Although the organization claimed to have “empowerment” as its goal, its informal nature and power imbalances actually reinforce dominant-subordinate relationships. The contradiction between formal outputs and informal power structures created what I conceptualize as “floating spaces” - zones of interaction where participation was nominally encouraged but structurally constrained (Wang, 2024). The organization failed in some ways not because they lacked good intentions, but due to an inability to transition from a mindset of “having” participation to one of “being” with the community. As my ongoing work suggests, the path forward may lie in reconceiving development timelines to value the slow work of relational transformation as an end in itself, rather than as a means to measurable outputs.
Nevertheless, when attempting to implement PAR workshops as an intervention strategy, I encountered new challenges that revealed the deeper complexities. The obstacles shifted focus from tangible outputs to fundamental questions of researcher positionality and the phenomenological transformation of participant consciousness. Since local people perceived the Chinese as funders and providers, they often felt compelled to comply with requests from Chinese volunteers or practitioners. A school principal candidly explained, “We don’t want to say no. We can’t say no. Even if what we’re given isn’t ideal, we try to cooperate so that at least you get what you want.” Despite my explicit efforts to position myself as an independent researcher committed to participatory principles, I sensed that they extended the same attitude toward me as to Chinese development actors. This dynamic persisted even after I repeated clarifications about my collaborative research intentions. Such experience then forced me to think about the risks of over-involvement. Meanwhile, I reflected on the purpose of doing PAR. I believed that greater engagement could foster trust and facilitate positive change, yet I also worried that excessive involvement might compromise research integrity or introduce bias, influencing local practices. While taking on a practitioner-researcher role, it could reinforce their perception of me as part of the Chinese group rather than as someone conducting research “for” them.
This situation compelled me to re-examine our conception of change within participatory action research and social inquiry more broadly. Through critical self-reflection, I recognized that my reluctance to fully engage with my positionality and social identity, which stemmed from apprehensions about unintended consequences, betrayed a deeper epistemological tension: my methodological approach had become paradoxically aligned with the very “having” mode I sought to critique. By privileging research outcomes over process, I had unconsciously replicated what Fromm identifies as the dominant societal orientation toward possession rather than “being”. Forde’s (2013) auto-ethnographic insights resonate profoundly here, particularly his identification of “a form of escapism that allowed me to engage with what I thought of as authentic emotion. Underlying this escapism is the desire to both collect experiences as well as avoid responsibilities” (p12). My retrospective analysis also reveals how this manifested in my own practice as a form of epistemic hypocrisy, advocating for participatory values while remaining cognitively invested in predetermined results.
However, it is crucial to remember that the pursuit of research is not driven by personal gain, but rather by a desire to get a deeper understanding of the world and contribution to its betterment. As Hart & Bond (1995) aptly point out, research serves as merely one catalyst within broader social ecosystems, helping recalibrate expectations; True transformation emerges not from singular studies or researchers, but through the slow accumulation of emancipatory practices within communities. To a certain extent, this perspective liberates the researcher from self-aggrandizing narratives of change while recentring PAR’s ultimate purpose: not personal achievement, but the cultivation of conditions where communities can name their world through sustained collective praxis, as the spirit of Freire’s (1972) original conception.
The “being” of PAR, therefore, includes the acceptance of multiple ways of “being”, actively incorporating diverse perspectives and lived experiences to collectively identify and address challenges. In this paradigm, the authority of knowledge transcends traditional academic boundaries, valuing instead the insights gained from individuals’ daily lives as crucial foundations for meaningful change and advancement (Banks et al., 2013; Stringer, 2007). For PAR practitioners, it also means a requirement of deep introspection into one’s own subjective “being” as a crucial step toward achieving intersubjectivity that shared space of mutual understanding with research participants. Referring to this, a poignant Chinese proverb comes to mind: “Viewed from the perspective of change, the universe is in constant flux; viewed from that of constancy, all - including ourselves - attain immortality”. The essence of PAR’s “being” mode mirrors such dialectical wisdom: Authentic social transformation emerges not from fixed formulas but through the continuous process of making conscious choices, which demand both the courage to embrace diverse possibilities and the accountability to uphold their consequences.
Facilitate a Conceptual Transition From “Having” to “Being”
As Iphofen (2011) noted, ethical quandaries in research rarely yield absolute resolutions. Instead, they demand ongoing negotiation across shifting methodological, cultural, and temporal landscapes. This inherent fluidity assumes particular significance when analyzing power configurations within PAR. While Gaventa’s (2006) powercube framework of closed, invited, and claimed spaces usefully maps formal power structures, my fieldwork reveals additional “floating power spaces”, referring to emergent, undefined arenas where stakeholder relationships and protocols remain in formation (Wang, 2024). As a PAR practitioner operating within these “floating spaces”, I find myself constantly navigating ambiguous ethical terrain, compelled to act yet constrained by undefined parameters and my own positional uncertainties. Questions come sequentially including: At what point does meaningful participation truly commence? How might equitable partnerships form when pre-existing power asymmetries permeate the research context? These questions foreground the critical but under-examined dimension of temporal ethics in PAR, which requires careful consideration of intervention timing, strategic disengagement moments, and opportunities for complete methodological reconfiguration.
In 2021, I embarked on an ethnographic study in a rural Chinese community. Immersing myself in local life by residing in a farmhouse and volunteering in village affairs, I integrated into the community as a member of “new villager”. Over the course of four-year ethnography, I actively participated in local activities and attended numerous community meetings. Meanwhile, I experienced firsthand the tension between PAR’s theoretical commitment to power-sharing and the messy realities of fieldwork. I found myself grappling with significant reservations about launching a fully-fledged PAR initiative yet caught between the methodology’s transformative potential and my own uncertainties about its practical implementation. At the critical juncture, a fellow new villager from a community organization approached me and proposed that we collaborate to revitalize local networks through participatory methods. So, drawing on longitudinal observations, we co-created a village newspaper as a platform for collective issue identification and knowledge sharing. Within this framework, I facilitated, rather than directed, a series of workshops, using my research expertise to scaffold community-led discussions while resisting the impulse to impose external agendas.
For example, many young people who left their hometowns to study or work in cities later expressed interest in contributing to the village’s development after witnessing its progress. In response, we organized a participatory workshop, utilizing the dialogical platform enabled young villagers to connect with one another and explore opportunities to engage in future community initiatives. Several of their perspectives and personal narratives were later featured in a special edition of the local newspaper, significantly amplifying the returned villagers’ voices within the community. The newspaper project, to a certain extent, became what Gaventa’s (2006) powercube framework would classify as a “claimed space”, though whose development revealed the nuanced challenges of maintaining such spaces amid existing power structures. This process also fundamentally transformed my researcher role from knowledge-extractor to discussion scaffolder, a shift that required constant negotiation between academic expertise and community ownership (Gaventa, 2019). The transition proved particularly meaningful when working with returning villagers, whose hybrid perspectives bridged village traditions and modern urban experiences. Yet this outcomes only emerged after I embraced what felt like professional vulnerability: surrendering control over both research timelines and deliverables, the crucial transition occurred from “having” to “being”.
Upon reflection, this experience demonstrated how participatory architectures can convert latent community capital into structured civic engagement. More importantly, it made me reconsider the timing of doing academic research and engaging in PAR. I realized that the ideal authentic participation timelines rarely align with academic project cycles but require a kind of ethical patience that denotes the capacity to honor community rhythms over institutional deadlines. In this way, researcher authority turns to responsibility for creating and sustaining equitable dialogue spaces. The research, therefore, thrives on identifying practical issues and empowering processes from the bottom-up. In another sense, it can also be arguable that the most significant impacts of PAR often manifest indirectly - Grounded in local priorities rather than external research objectives, the “being” orientation fosters a capacity for more profound structural transformation.
Moreover, by situating research within wider socio-historical contexts and committing to longitudinal engagement, optimal opportunities for meaningful participation emerge organically as social conditions mature. Within PAR specifically, the pivotal moments when community needs and readiness converge allow researchers to assume facilitative positions, offering responsive support that aligns with locally defined aspirations. My own PAR experience demonstrates this principle. As my methodology was fundamentally shaped by community-identified priorities, effective facilitation entailed creating inclusive spaces for dialogue, collectively reframing issues to reflect local perspectives, and nurturing equitable partnerships to sustain collaborative action. These observations, in return, affirm PAR’s core proposition: Significant impact stems not from methodological perfection, but from the engaged pedagogy that highlights the researcher’s capacity to maintain presence amid uncertainty while honoring the collective wisdom born of authentic participatory processes.
Contrasting the “Having” and “Being” Paradigms in Participatory Action Research
Foremost, it is essential for researchers to recognize that knowledge and research authority are not monopolized by academia, but rather distributed among various stakeholders who each contribute their unique perspectives. The role of researchers is to “be” a part of participatory process that embraces action and change as intrinsic to the research itself. The emphasis on “being” places value on the journey of research as much as the results, fostering a collaborative environment for shared learning and knowledge exchange. While this approach may appear passive when contrasted with the extractive “having” paradigm that dominates conventional social science, it is, in fact, a commitment to long-term, cyclical engagement that aligns with community rhythms and emergent possibilities. Where possession-driven research objectifies participants and centralizes control to efficiently harvest data, the “being” mode reorients the epistemological focus toward the research process itself as the primary site of meaning-making. This shift is inherently political that rebalances power from upholding institutional authority to co-creating it through everyday democratic practice and dialogue.
Again, drawing on Fromm’s dialectic of human nature, which acknowledges both self-interest and altruism while critiquing society’s systematic distortion of truth, PAR’s “being” mode values deep relationships and shifts in awareness more than tangible results. It would be a shared journey of “verstehen” (interpretive understanding) rather than architects of “erklären” (detached explanation), a mindset entails “being-there” (Heidegger’s “Dasein”) through sustained co-presence rather than “having-something” through extraction. Such an approach necessarily embraces the full complexity of the research journey, including its creative tensions, unpredictable developments, and mutual transformations between all participants. Through this commitment, the very process of inquiry becomes a “participatory worldview” imbued with a significance that surpasses conventional outcome measures, actualizing PAR’s core principles not as abstract ideals but as lived experiences (Banks et al., 2013). What emerges is a dynamic, non-linear pathway toward epistemic justice, where equity, respect, and transformative potential are continually negotiated and reaffirmed through shared practice.
Conclusion
This research journey has ultimately revealed that meaningful scholarship transcends mere social analysis or problem-solving; It constitutes an ontological engagement with the very nature of inquiry itself. As articulated by Williams (2002, p. 138), “the social world is such that in social science, one needs both the richness of interpretation and the ability to move beyond this to make claims about processes and structures”, thereby asserting “being”. The essence of the PAR paradigm lies precisely in this existential mode of knowledge production. Research transforms into an act of co-presence, where knowledge is not received but actively co-created through participatory reflection. As Erich Fromm characterizes, the engagement is a process of self-renewal, growth, revelation, love, and overcoming the isolation of self (Fromm, 2013). It encompasses enthusiasm for exploration, eager anticipation of discovery, and a readiness to contribute wholeheartedly. Integral to this process is the integration of knowledge and practice, ensuring alignment between one’s understanding and actions.
Henceforth, researchers employing PAR shall embrace this “being” orientation, a continuous process of mutual revelation that overcomes epistemic isolation through shared truth-seeking. It transcends artificial boundaries between self and other, recognizing the fundamental interdependence of all participants in the knowledge-making. Grounded in participatory epistemology, this approach requires sustained temporal engagement, allowing research to unfold organically alongside community rhythms. To “be” with research means fully inhabiting its contexts, being attentive to relationships, open to emergent possibilities, and responsive to the local needs. It emphasizes relational ethics of mutual understanding over extraction, recognizing equitable participation itself as transformative. Only through such committed presence can we cultivate the nuanced insights and emancipatory theories that complex social issues demand. More importantly, we should embrace this “being” orientation not as a methodological preference, but as an ethical necessity. By acknowledging knowledge-making as an interdependent process, prioritizing relationships over outputs, and aligning with community timelines, we honor PAR’s most radical proposition that transformation begins within the research process itself.
Looking ahead, several pathways emerge to deepen PAR’s transformative potential. In my ongoing work with rural communities in China, for instance, I would keep the long-term participatory ethnography, documenting how the “being-oriented” PAR affects intergenerational knowledge transmission and community resilience across decade-long horizons. Future studies might also investigate how prolonged temporal engagement in PAR impacts on epistemic outcomes across different cultural contexts, particularly in settings where Western and non-Western knowledge systems intersect. The exploration of epistemic interdependence’s limit could possibly be expanded by examining cases where PAR’s ideals confront institutional barriers or cultural norms resistant to participatory knowledge production. To a certain extent, these directions also affirm that PAR’s most radical proposition is not merely methodological but ontological; it calls on us to reconceive research as a way of “being” in solidarity with communities, where the process itself becomes the foundation for meaningful, sustainable change.
Footnotes
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the National Social Science Fund of China (Grant No. 25CSH015).
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.