In recent years, both the international development sector, and the participatory action research (PAR) community have explored challenging questions around power dynamics. As a privileged White male working in both spaces, reflections on power and positionality have played a major role in both my individual practice and my research with others. Between 2021 and 2023, I co-convened two virtual PAR groups engaging 34 colleagues from 15 countries. With each group, we adapted and used the Gender at Work Analytical Framework as a tool for eliciting reflections and catalyzing discussions around power dynamics. This participatory approach to power analysis helped render dynamics of power and privilege more visible, even as some aspects remained hidden. My paper shows how engaging with power dynamics early in a PAR cycle can help to open up difficult discussions and stimulate conditions for change.
BourdieuP. (1998). Practical reason: On the theory of action. Stanford University Press.
3.
Brydon-MillerM.KralM.Ortiz AragónA. (2020). Participatory action research: International perspectives and practices. International Review of Qualitative Research, 13(2), 103–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940844720933225
4.
Butler-KisberL.PoldmaT. (2010). The power of visual approaches in qualitative inquiry: The use of collage making and concept mapping in experiential research. Journal of Research Practice, 6(2), 18.
DoaneD. (2023). The INGO problem: Power, privilege and renewal. Practical Action Publishing.
8.
EasterlyW. (2013). The tyranny of experts: Economists, dictators, and the forgotten rights of the poor. Basic Books.
9.
EybenR. (2014). International aid and the making of a better world: Reflexive practice (ser. Rethinking development). Routledge.
10.
EybenR. (2019). Reflexive aid practice: Naming and dealing with power. In McGeeR.PettitJ. (Eds.), Power, empowerment and social change (ser. Rethinking development) (pp. 229–235). Routledge.
11.
FechterA. M. (2012). The personal and the professional: Aid workers' relationships and values in the development process. Third World Quarterly, 33(8), 1387–1404. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2012.698104
FriedmanV. J.SimonovichJ.BitarN.SykesI.Abboud-ArmaliO.ArieliD.Tannous-HaddadL.RothmanJ.ShdemaI.DarM.Desivilya SynaH. (2020). Self-in-Field action research in natural spaces of encounter: Inclusion, learning, and organizational change. International Review of Qualitative Research, 13(2), 247–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940844720934369
GaventaJ. (2019). Applying power analysis: Using the ‘powercube’ to explore forms, levels and spaces. In McGeeR.PettitJ. (Eds.), Power, empowerment and social change (ser. Rethinking development) (pp. 117–138). Routledge.
16.
GaventaJ.CornwallA. (2015). Power and knowledge. In BradburyH. (Ed.), The sage handbook of action research (3rd ed., pp. 465–471). Sage.
GrantJ.NelsonG.MitchellT. (2013). Negotiating the challenges of participatory action research: Relationships, power, participation, change, and credibility. In Bradbury-HuangH.ReasonP. (Eds.), The sage handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (2nd ed., pp. 589–601). Sage.
HealyK. (2001). Participatory action research and social work: A critical appraisal. International Social Work, 44(1), 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/002087280104400108
21.
HeronJ.ReasonP. (2013). Extending epistemology within a Co-operative inquiry. In ReasonP.BradburyH. (Eds.), The sage handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (2nd ed., pp. 366–380). Sage.
KurlandH.FriedmanV.SykesI.LichtensteinR. D.MelamedT. (2021). A participatory self-in-field inquiry method. In BurnsD.HowardJ.OspinaS. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of participatory research and inquiry (1st ed., pp. 608–620). Sage. https://www.perlego.com/book/2969120
24.
LeavyP. L. (2017). Research design: Quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, arts-based, and community-based participatory research approaches. The Guilford Press.
25.
LenetteC. (2022). Participatory action research: Ethics and decolonization (ser. Research to the point). Oxford University Press.
26.
LewinK. (1951). In CartwrightD. (Ed.), Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. Harpers.
27.
MacmillanR.TaylorR.ArvidsonM.Soteri-ProctorA.TeasdaleS. (2013). The third sector in unsettled times: A field guide. University of Birmingham. Third Sector Research Centre Working Paper 109.
28.
McGeeR.PettitJ. (2019). Power, empowerment and social change (ser. Rethinking development). Routledge.
29.
Ortiz AragónA.HoetmerR. (2020). Flowing with the river’s go: Seeking ethical, pragmatic, and strategic participation in the design of a regional funding strategy. International Review of Qualitative Research, 13(2), 112–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940844720933217
30.
PettitJ. (2019). Transforming power with embodied practice. In McGeeR.PettitJ. (Eds.), Power, empowerment and social change (ser. Rethinking development) (pp. 68–82). Routledge.
31.
RaoA.SandlerJ. (2019). Critical reflections on shifting the toxic alchemy of power. In McGeeR.PettitJ. (Eds.), Power, empowerment and social change (ser. Rethinking development). Routledge, an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group.
32.
ReevesM. W.TimokhinaE. (2025). Journeys in the imaginal realm: How writing and sharing fairy tales with groups can generate ‘moments of magic. Journal of Participatory Research Methods, 6(1), pp. 73-93. https://doi.org/10.35844/001c.128511
ScharmerC. O.PomeroyE.KauferK. (2021). Awareness-based action research: Making systems sense and see themselves. In BurnsD.HowardJ.OspinaS. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of participatory research and inquiry (1st ed.). Sage Publications Ltd. https://www.perlego.com/book/2969120
38.
StaceyR. (2007). The challenge of human interdependence: Consequences for thinking about the day-to-day practice of management in organizations. European Business Review, 19(4), 292–302. https://doi.org/10.1108/09555340710760125
39.
Strumińska-KutraM.SchollC. (2022). Taking power seriously: Towards a power-sensitive approach for transdisciplinary action research. Futures, 135, 102881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2021.102881
40.
SuzukiN. (1998). Inside NGOs: Learning to manage conflicts between headquarters and field offices. Intermediate Technology Publications.
WilliamsB. T. (2022). Writing centers, enclaves, and creating spaces of change within universities. The Writing Center Journal, 40(3), 6–20. https://doi.org/10.7771/2832-9414.1015
44.
WoolcockM. (2007). Higher education, policy schools, and development studies: What should masters degree students be taught?Journal of International Development, 19(1), 55–73. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.1300
