To better connect theory and research with practice, educational research organizations such as the American Educational Research Association (AERA) urge scholars to cultivate meaningful partnerships with communities and schools. Despite these efforts, participatory research—especially that which comprehensively advances transformative, relevant, and equity-oriented goals across research processes—remains rare within the field. This meta-methodology analyzes articles published across AERA journals to answer the following question: In what ways do educational research articles braid participatory values discourse (“the talk”) with relational, reciprocal, and responsible methods (“the walk”)? Results illuminate the potential for such work to (1) value relationality through (re)allocation of researcher and participant roles, (2) value reciprocity through construction of community-determined transformative purposes, and (3) value responsibility through legitimization of partner expertise. The study offers implications for co-design, co-implementation, co-interpretation, and co-sharing of research, theory, and practice, as well as methodological recommendations for researchers and community leaders.
AhnS.AmesA.MyersN. (2012). A review of meta-analyses in education: Methodological strengths and weaknesses. Review of Educational Research, 82(4), 436–476. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312458162
2.
AliA.McCartyT. (2020). Centering critical youth research methodologies of praxis and care. In AliA.McCartyT. (Eds.), Critical youth research in education: Methodologies of praxis and care (pp. 3–20). Routledge.
AndersonA. (2020). A qualitative systematic review of Youth Participatory Action Research implementation in U.S. high schools. American Journal of Community Psychology, 65, 242–257. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12389
9.
AnyonY.BenderK.KennedyH.DechantsJ. (2018). A systematic review of Youth Participatory Action Research (YPAR) in the United States: Methodologies, youth outcomes, and future directions. Health Education and Behavior, 45(6), 865–878. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198118769357
10.
AnzaldúaG. (2007). Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza (3rd ed.). Aunt Lute.
11.
ApugoD.CastroA.DoughertyS. A. (2023). Taught in the matrix: A review of Black girls’ experiences in U.S. schools. Review of Educational Research, 93(4), 559–593. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543221125476
12.
ArchibaldJ. (2008). Indigenous Storywork: Educating the heart, mind, body, and spirit. UBC.
13.
Archibald Q’um Q’um XiiemJ.Parent Nox AyaawiltA. (2019). Hands back, hands forward for Indigenous Storywork as methodology. In WindchiefS.San PedroT. (Eds.), Applying Indigenous research methods: Storying with peoples and communities (pp. 3–20). Routledge.
14.
BaldridgeB. (2020). The Youthwork Paradox: A case for studying the complexity of community-based youth work in education research. Educational Researcher, 49(8), 618–625. http://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20937300
15.
BaldridgeB.DiGiacomoD.KirshnerB.MejiasS.VasudevanD. (2024). Out-of-school time programs in the United States in an era of racial reckoning: Insights on equity from practitioners, scholars, policy influencers, and young people. Educational Researcher, 53(4), 201–212. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X24122
16.
BangM.VossoughiS. (2016). Participatory design research and educational justice: Studying learning and relations within social change making. Cognition & Instruction, 34(3), 173–193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2016.1181879
17.
*BartonA. C.GreenbergD.TurnerC.RiterD.PerezM.TaskerT.JonesD.HerrenkohlL. R.DavisE. (2021). Youth critical data practices in the COVID-19 multipandemic. AERA Open, 7(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584211041631
18.
Behar-HorensteinL.FengX. (2015). Emancipatory research: A synthesis of quantitative evidence. Journal of Research and Method in Education, 5(3), 46–56. https://doi.org/10.9790/7388-05334656
19.
BiestaG. (2007). Why “what works” won’t work: Evidence-Based practice and the democratic deficit in educational research. Educational Theory, 57(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.2006.00241.x
20.
BishopR. (2005). Freeing ourselves from neocolonial domination in research: A Kaupapa Māori approach to creating knowledge. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 109–138). Sage.
21.
*BishopR.LadwigJ.BerrymanM. (2014). The centrality of relationships for pedagogy: The Whanaungatanga thesis. American Educational Research Journal, 51(1), 184–214. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831213510019
22.
Blount-HillK.St. JohnV.MotonL.AjilA. (2022). In their experience: A review of racial and sexual minority experience in academe and proposals for building an inclusive criminology. Race and Justice, 12(3), 457–480. https://doi.org/10.1177/21533687221087352
BrayboyB.GoughH.LeonardB.RoehlR.IISolyomJ. (2012). Reclaiming scholarship: Critical Indigenous research methodologies. In LapanS. D.QuartaroliM. T.RiemerF. J. (Eds.), Qualitative research: An introduction to methods and designs (pp. 423–450). Jossey-Bass.
25.
CabreraN.KaramanA.Arambula TurnerT.OregonY.GonellE.LopezJ.Deil-AmenR. (2022). Race without gender? Trends and limitations in the higher education scholarship regarding men of color. Review of Educational Research, 92(3), 331–369. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211054577
26.
CammarotaJ.FineM. (2008). Revolutionizing education: Youth participatory action research in motion. Routledge.
27.
CaraballoL.LozenskiB. D.LyiscottJ. J.MorrellE. (2017). YPAR and critical epistemologies: Rethinking education research. Review of Research in Education, 41, 311–336. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0091732X16686948
28.
*CastilloE.MakrisM. V.DebsM. (2021). Integration versus meritocracy? Competing educational goals during the COVID-19 pandemic. AERA Open, 7(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584211065716
29.
CawthornS.GarberoglioC. (2021). Evidence-Based practices in deaf education: A call to center research and evaluation on the experiences of deaf people. Review of Research in Education, 45(1), 346–371. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X20985070
30.
ChenG.HornI. (2022). A call for critical bifocality: Research on marginalization in mathematics education. Review of Educational Research, 92(5), 786–828. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211070050
31.
ChilisaB. (2012). Indigenous research methodologies. Sage.
32.
*ClayK. (2019). “Despite the odds”: Unpacking the politics of Black resilience neoliberalism. American Educational Research Journal, 56(1), 75–110. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831218790214
33.
CoburnC.PenuelW. (2016). Research-practice partnerships in education: Outcomes, dynamics, and open questions. Educational Researcher, 45(1), 48–54. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16631750
CullenO.WalshC. (2020). A narrative review of ethical issues in participatory research with young people. Young, 28(4), 363–386. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1103308819886470
36.
CutuliJ.Torres SuarezS.TruchilA.YostT.Flack-GreenC. (2024). Strategies to better identify student homelessness using data in an urban school district. Educational Researcher, 53(3), 146–155. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X231215347
*DennerJ.BeanS.CampeS.MartinezJ.TorresD. (2019). Negotiating trust, power, and culture in a research-practice partnership. AERA Open, 5(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419858635
39.
DenzinN.GiardinaM. (Eds.). (2007). Ethical futures in qualitative research: Decolonizing the politics of knowledge. Left Coast Press.
40.
*DraperR.SiebertD. (2004). Different goals, similar practices: Making sense of the mathematics and literacy instruction in a standards-based mathematics classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 41(4), 927–962. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3699468
41.
FierrosC.Delgado BernalD. (2016). Vamos a platicar: The contours of pláticas as Chicana/Latina feminist methodology. Chicana/Latina Studies, 15(2), 98–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613320902995434
42.
FineM. (2006). Bearing witness: Methods for researching oppression and resistance. A textbook for critical research. Social Justice Research, 19(1), 83–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-006-0001-0
43.
FineM. (2008). An epilogue, of sorts. In CammarotaJ.FineM. (Eds.), Revolutionizing education: Youth participatory action research in motion (pp. 213–234). Routledge.
44.
FineM.TorreM. E.BoudinK.BowenI.ClarkJ.HyltonD.MartinezM.Missy RiveraM.RobertsR. A.SmartP.UpeguiD. (2004). Participatory Action Research: From within and beyond prison bars. In WeisL.FineM. (Eds.), Working method: Research and social justice (pp. 95–120). Routledge.
45.
FreireP. (1970) Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum.
46.
*GarciaN.Delgado BernalD. (2021). Remembering and revisiting pedagogies of the home. American Educational Research Journal, 58(3), 567–601. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831220954431
47.
*GavinK. (2021). Curating spaces of connection and resisting pandemic isolation through innovative digital practices. AERA Open, 7(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584211067204
48.
GeeJ. P. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. Routledge.
GibbsL.KornbluhM.MarinkovicK.BellS.OzerE. (2020). Using technology to scale up Youth-Led Participatory Action Research: A systematic review. Journal of Adolescent Health, 67, S14–S23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.10.019
51.
GonzálezN.MollL. C.AmantiC. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practice in households, communities, and classrooms. L. Erlbaum Associates.
52.
GrandeS. (2008). Red pedagogy: The un-methodology. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S.SmithL. T. (Eds.), Handbook of critical and Indigenous methodologies (pp. 233–254). Sage.
53.
GreenD.TaddeoC.PriceD.PasenidouF.SpearsB. (2022). A qualitative meta-study of youth voice and co-participatory research practices: Informing cyber/bullying research methodologies. International Journal of Bullying Prevention, 4, 190–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-022-00118-w
54.
GreeneS.BurkeK.McKennaM. (2018). A review of research connecting digital storytelling, Photovoice, and civic engagement. Review of Educational Research, 88(6), 844–878. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0034654318794134
55.
GreenbergD.BartonA. C.TurnerC.HardyK.RoperA.WilliamsC.HerrenkohlL. R.DavisE.TaskerT. (2020). Community infrastructuring as necessary ingenuity in the COVID-19 pandemic. Educational Researcher, 49(7), 518–523. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0013189X20957614
56.
*GuajardoM.GuajardoF. (2004). The impact of Brown on the brown of South Texas: A micropolitical perspective on the education of Mexican Americans in a south Texas community. American Educational Research Journal, 41(3), 501–526. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3699437
57.
GusenbauerM.HaddawayN. (2020). Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Journal of Research Synthesis Methods, 11, 181–217. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1378
*GutiérrezL. A.KimT.PartolaS.KuttnerP.NiangA.YanaguiA.HernándezL.LópezG.Mayer-Glenn (2022). Community-Centered school leadership: Radical care and aperturas during COVID-19. AERA Open, 8(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584221096465
60.
HealeyM.HealeyR. (2023). Searching the literature on Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL): An academic literacies perspective: Part 1. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 11, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.11.4
61.
HopkinsM.WeddleH.GluckmanM.GautschL. (2019). Boundary crossing in a professional association: The dynamics of research use among state leaders and researchers in a research-practice partnership. AERA Open, 5(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419891964
62.
IshimaruA. M.BangM. (2016). Toward a transformative research and practice agenda for racial equity in family engagement. Family Leadership Design Collaborative, University of Washington. http://familydesigncollab.org/
63.
IshimaruA. M.BangM.ValladaresM. R.NolanC. M.TavaresH.RajendranA.ChangK. (2019). Recasting families and communities as co-designers of education in tumultuous times. National Education Policy Center.
64.
IsraelB.SchulzA.ParkerE.BeckerA. (1998). Review of Community-Based research: Assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annual Review of Public Health, 19, 173–202. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.19.1.173
65.
IsraelB.SchulzA.ParkerE.BeckerA.AllenA.GuzmanJ. R.LichtensteinR. (2018). Critical issues in developing and following CBPR principles. In WallersteinN.DuranB.OetzelJ.MinklerM. (Eds.), Community-based participatory research for health (3rd ed., pp. 31–44). Jossey-Bass.
66.
JacobsonM.RugeleyC. (2007). Community-based participatory research: Group work for social justice and community change. Social Work with Groups, 30(4), 21–39. https://doi.org/10.1300/J009v30n04_03
67.
*JimenezR. (2020). Community Cultural Wealth pedagogies: Cultivating autoethnographic counternarratives and migration capital. American Educational Research Journal, 57(2), 775–807. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219866148
68.
*Kana‘iaupuniS. M.LedwardB.MaloneN. (2017). Mohalo i ka wai: Cultural advantage as a framework for Indigenous culture-based education and student outcomes. American Educational Research Journal, 54(1S), 311S–339S. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216664779
69.
KawanoK. (2023). Engaging a Kanako ‘Oiwi literature review methodology through research on Native Hawaiian culture-based education. Review of Educational Research, 93(6), 862–900. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543221149004
70.
KemmisS.McTaggartR (2000). Participatory action research. In DenzinN.LincolnY. (Eds.). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (pp. 559–603). Sage.
71.
KirknessV. J.BarnhardtR. (2001). First Nations and higher education: The four R’s—Respect, relevance, reciprocity, responsibility. In HayoeR.PanJ. (Eds.), Knowledge across cultures: A contribution to dialogue among civilizations. University of Hong Kong. http://www.ankn.uaf.edu/IEW/winhec/FourRs2ndEd.html
72.
*KirshnerB.GaertnerM.PozzoboniK. (2010). Tracing transitions: The effect of high school closure on displaced students. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32(3), 407–429. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373710376823
73.
KovachM. (2009). Indigenous methodologies: Characteristics, conversations, and contexts. University of Toronto Press.
74.
*LópezR.HoneyM.RendonS.Pérez-GillS. (2022). The uncertain path toward college: How intersectionality shaped the experiences of Latinas enrolled at a Hispanic-Serving Institution. AERA Open, 8(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584221101552
75.
*LyonsL.BrasofM.BaronC. (2020). Measuring mechanisms of student voice: Development and validation of student leadership capacity building scales. AERA Open, 6(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858420902066
76.
MachadoE.BenekeM.TaitingfongJ. (2023). “Rise up, hand in hand”: Early childhood teachers writing a liberatory literacy pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 60(3), 486–520. http://doi.org/10.3102/00028312231157661
77.
Mangual FigueroaA. (2014). La carta de responsabilidad: The problem of departure. In ParisD.WinnM. T. (Eds.), Humanizing research: Decolonizing qualitative inquiry with youth and communities (pp. 129–146). Sage.
78.
Martín-MartínAOrduna-MaleaE.ThelwallM.López-CózarE. (2018). Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories. Journal of Informetrics, 12(4), 1160–1177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.09.002
79.
Martinez-VargasC. (2022). Democratising participatory research: Pathways to social justice from the South. OpenBook Publishers.
80.
*Meixi Moreno-DulceyF.AlcaláL.KeyserU.Elliott-GrovesE. (2022). When learning is life giving: Redesigning schools within Indigenous systems of relationality. AERA Open, 8(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584211062587
81.
*MensahF. M. (2019). Finding voice and passion: Critical Race Theory methodology in science teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 56(4), 1412–1456. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831218818093
82.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M.SaldañaJ. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage.
83.
MingN.GoldenbergL. (2021). Research worth using: (Re)Framing research evidence quality for educational policymaking and practice. Review of Research in Education, 45(1), 129–169. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X21990620
84.
*MirraN.GarciaA. (2022). Guns, schools, and democracy: Adolescents imagining social futures through speculative civic literacies. American Educational Research Journal, 59(2), 345–380. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312221074400
85.
MirraN.GarciaA.MorrellN. (2015). Doing Youth Participatory Action Research: Transforming inquiry with researchers, educators, and students. Routledge.
86.
MoralesM. (2016). Participatory Action Research (PAR) cum Action Research (AR) in teacher professional development: A literature review. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 2(1), 156–165. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1105165.pdf
87.
MosurskaA.FordJ. (2020). Unpacking community participation in research: A systematic literature review of Community-Based and Participatory Research in Alaska. Arctic, 73(3), 347–367. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26974910
88.
*NelsonI.LondonR.StrobelK. (2015). Reinventing the role of the university researcher. Educational Researcher, 44(1), 17–26. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15570387
89.
NelsonC.ShottonH. (2022). (Re)Considerations of answerability through gifting. In TachineA.NicolazzoZ. (Eds.), Weaving an otherwise: In-Relations methodological practice (pp. 92–106). Stylus.
90.
NorthwayR. (2010). Participatory research: Part 1: Key features and underlying philosophy. International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, 17(4), 174–79. https://doi.org/10.12968/ijtr.2017.24.10.443
91.
OakesJ. (2017). 2016 AERA presidential address: Public scholarship. Education research for a diverse democracy. Educational Researcher, 47(2), 91–104. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0013189X17746402
92.
OngM.Jaumot-PascualN.Torres-GeraldL.SilvaC. (2021, May20). Introduction to qualitative meta-synthesis methods: Achieving STEM equity and inclusion through syntheses [AERA Professional Development Webinar]. TERC Institute for Meta-Synthesis.
93.
ParisD. (2014). Introduction to Part III. In ParisD.WinnM. (Eds.), Humanizing research: Decolonizing qualitative inquiry with youth and communities (pp. 125–128). Sage.
94.
ParisD.WinnM. (Eds.). (2014). Humanizing research: Decolonizing qualitative inquiry with youth and communities. Sage.
95.
ParkerM. (2018). CBPR principles and research ethics in Indian Country. In WallersteinN.DuranB.OetzelJ.MinklerM. (Eds.) Community-based participatory research for health: Advancing social and health equity (3rd ed., pp. 207–214). Jossey-Bass.
96.
PatelL. (2016). Decolonizing educational research: From ownership to answerability. Routledge.
97.
PatersonB. L.ThorneS. E.CanamC.JillingsC. (2001). Meta-study of qualitative health research: A practical guide to meta-analysis and meta-synthesis. Sage.
98.
PenuelW. R.FishmanB. J.ChengB. H.SabelliN. (2011). Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Educational Researcher, 40(7), 331–337. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0013189X11421826
99.
PenuelW. R.RiedyR.BarberM.PeurachD.LeBouefW.ClarkT. (2020). Principles of collaborative education research with stakeholders: Toward requirements for a new research and development infrastructure. Review of Educational Research, 90(5), 627–674. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320938126
100.
PetersH.PetersonT., & The Dakota Wicohan Community. (2024). A Dakota cultural intervention’s influence on Native students’ sense of belonging: A CBPR case study. AERA Open, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584231221793
101.
PetroneR.StantonC. (2021). From producing to reducing trauma: A call for “trauma-informed” research(ers) to interrogate how schools harm students. Educational Researcher, 50(8), 537–545. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0013189X211014850
102.
ReasonP. (1994). Three approaches to participative inquiry. In LincolnY. S. (Ed.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 324–339). Sage.
103.
ReasonP.BradburyH. (2008). The SAGE handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice. Sage.
RíosF. A.McDanielJ. E.StowellL. P. (1996). Making the path by walking it. Teacher Education Quarterly, 23(3), 23–36. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23477784
106.
RixJ.Garcia-CarrizosaH.HayhoeS.SealeJ.SheehyK. (2021). Emergent analysis and dissemination within participatory research, International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 44(3), 287–302, https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2020.1763945
107.
RousellD.HarrisD.WiseK.MacDonaldA.VaggJ. (2022). Posthuman creativities: Democratizing creative educational experience beyond the human. Review of Research in Education, 47(1), 374–397. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X221084316
SaldañaJ. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.
110.
*SánchezG. K. (2021). “If we don’t do it, nobody is going to talk about it”: Indigenous students disrupting Latinidad at Hispanic-Serving Institutions. AERA Open, 7(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584211059194
111.
San PedroT. (2013). Understanding youth cultures, stories, and resistances in the urban southwest: Innovations and implications of a Native American literature classroom. ProQuest Digital Dissertations.
112.
*San PedroT. (2018). Abby as ally: An argument for culturally disruptive pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 55(6), 1193–1232. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831218773488
113.
*San PedroT.KinlochV. (2017). Toward projects in humanization: Research on co-creating and sustaining dialogic relationships. American Educational Research Journal, 54(1S), 373S–394S. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216671210
114.
SchwandtT. (2007). The SAGE dictionary of qualitative inquiry. Sage.
115.
ShamrovaD.CummingsC. (2017). Participatory action research (PAR) with children and youth: An integrative review of methodology and PAR outcomes for participants, organizations, and communities. Children and Youth Services Review, 81, 400–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childy-outh.2017.08.022
116.
SmithL. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples. Zed Books.
117.
SmithK.BuchananP.McDonaldP. (2017). How easy is it for a lay audience to read medical journal? A survey of the readability scores of a sample of research papers on diabetes. The Lancet, 390(3), S82. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)33017-9
118.
*Sosa-ProvencioM. A. (2019). A Revolucionista ethic of care: Four Mexicana educators’ subterraneous social justice revolution of fighting and feeding. American Educational Research Journal, 56(4), 1113–1147. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831218814168
StantonC.BenallyC.HallB. (Eds.). (2024). Relational scholarship with Indigenous communities: Confronting setterl colonial social studies. Information Age Publishing.
121.
*StinsonD. (2008). Negotiating sociocultural discourses: The counter-storytelling of academically (and mathematically) successful African American male students. American Educational Research Journal, 45(4), 975–1010. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831208319723
122.
SupraptoN.SunartiT.Suliyanah WulandariD.HidayaatullaahH.AdamA.MubarokH. (2020). A systematic review of Photovoice as Participatory Action Research strategies. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 9(3), 675–683. http://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v9i3.20581
123.
SuriH.ClarkeD. (2009). Advancements in research synthesis methods: From a methodologically inclusive perspective. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 395–430. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0034654308326349
124.
TabronL.ThomasA. (2023). Deeper than wordplay: A systematic review of critical quantitative approaches in education research (2007–2021). Review of Educational Research, 93(5), 756–786. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543221130017
125.
*TachineA.CabreraN. (2021). “I’ll be right behind you”: Native American families, land debt, and college affordability. AERA Open, 7(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584211025522
126.
TachineA.NicolazzoZ. (Eds.). (2022). Weaving an otherwise: In-Relations methodological practice. Stylus.
127.
ThompsonJ.RichardsJ.ShimS-YLohwasserK.Soo Von EschK.ChewC.SjobergB.MorrisA. (2019). Launching networked PLCs: Footholds into creating and improving knowledge of ambitious and equitable teaching practices in an RPP. AERA Open, 5(3), 1–22. http://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419875718
128.
TuckE. (2009a). Re-visioning action: Participatory action research and Indigenous theories of change. The Urban Review, 41, 47–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-008-0094-x
TuckE.GuishardM. (2013). Uncollapsing ethics: Racialized sciencism, settler coloniality, and an ethical framework of Decolonial Participatory Action Research. In KressT.MalottC.PorfilioB. (Eds.), Challenging status quo retrenchment: New directions in critical research (pp. 3–27). Information Age Publishing.
131.
TuckE.McKenzieM. (2015). Place in research: Theory, methodology, and methods. Routledge.
132.
van LeeuwenT. (2008). Discourse and practice: New tools for critical discourse analysis. Oxford University Press.
133.
VetterA.FairclothB.HewittK.GonzalezL.HeY.RockM. (2022). Equity and social justice in Research Practice Partnerships in the United States. Review of Educational Research, 92(5), 829–866. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211070048
134.
VossoughiS.ZavalaM. (2020). The interview as pedagogical encounter. In AliA.McCartyT. (Eds.), Critical youth research in education: Methodologies of praxis and care (pp. 136–154). Routledge.
135.
WallersteinN.DuranB.OetzelJ.MinklerM. (2018). On community-based participatory research. In WallersteinN.DuranB.OetzelJ.MinklerM. (Eds.), Community-based participatory research for health: Advancing social and health equity (3rd ed., pp. 3–16). Jossey-Bass.
WilsonS. (2008). Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Fernwood Publishing.
139.
WindchiefS.San PedroT. (2019). Applying Indigenous research methods: Storying with peoples and communities. Routledge.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
