Volume 10, Number 2, April 2009

Volume 10, Number 1, February 2009

Volume 9, Number 4, November 2008

Local communities empowered to plan?: Applying PAR to establish democratic communicative spaces for sustainable rural development

This article presents the second cycle of an ongoing participatory action research (PAR) project that aimed at facilitating bottom-up, sustainability planning and development in one of the most socio-economically disadvantageous micro-regions of Hungary. The process at the very beginning started as conventional qualitative research, and gradually emerged to a PAR process as deeper relationships with local people were developed and previous research practices and research focus were questioned. Current institutional changes, such as the availability of European Union funding for rural development and the micro-regional re-districting driven both by top-down and bottom-up processes, were structural factors that created a more promising context for participatory planning. Although a PAR project generally targets silenced groups, for this to happen it is arguably necessary to legitimize such development work in the eyes of local decision-makers and funding organizations, in order to establish more inclusive communicative spaces around future rural development. However, this also creates a controversial situation: breaking away from prevailing structural inequalities and hierarchies remains difficult through a process which is designed around consensus-building.

The paradox of participation in action research

Although participation is widely discussed in the action research literature, relatively few studies deal with building the participative relationship itself. This article attempts to fill that gap through a ‘first-person action research’ involving a relationship between Jewish researchers and a Palestinian Arab non-governmental organization in Israel that failed to live up to our espoused values of participation. It employs an action science method for joint critical reflecting on this relationship and analyzing the data from the reflection. It presents two ‘theories of action’: one aimed at explaining the paradox of participation and one for dealing with it more effectively. By opening our learning, including our errors, to the scrutiny of other action researchers, we hope to generate actionable knowledge that can contribute to building genuinely participative relationships in action research.

Only to connect: Systems psychodynamics and communicative space