Participatory Action Health Research

Participatory action research (PAR) is a collaborative approach that actively involves community members, including conflict-affected populations, in the research process. This article explores the concept of participatory action health research and highlights its potential for empowering and promoting the well-being of those affected by conflict.

Understanding Participatory Action Health Research: Participatory action health research aims to address the unique needs and challenges faced by conflict-affected populations by actively involving them in all stages of the research process. It goes beyond traditional research methods by emphasizing community participation, empowerment, and social change.

Key Principles of Participatory Action Health Research: 1. Collaboration and Shared Power: Participatory action health research recognizes the expertise and lived experiences of community members. It involves them as equal partners in decision-making processes, ensuring that their voices are heard and their knowledge is valued. 2. Participatory Design and Implementation: Community members actively participate in designing the research project, including the identification of research questions, data collection methods, and analysis. This ensures that research is contextually relevant and meaningful to the community. 3. Capacity Building and Empowerment: Participatory action health research prioritizes the development of community capacity. It provides opportunities for training, skill-building, and knowledge transfer, empowering community members to take an active role in the research process and beyond. 4. Action-Oriented Approach: Participatory action health research seeks to generate tangible and sustainable change. It goes beyond producing knowledge and aims to identify and implement interventions, policies, and practices that address the identified health issues and promote well-being.

Benefits of Participatory Action Health Research in Conflict Settings: 1. Empowerment and Ownership: Participatory action health research empowers conflict-affected populations by giving them agency and ownership over the research process. It allows them to reclaim their narratives and actively participate in decision-making that affects their health and well-being. 2. Contextual Relevance: By involving community members in the research process, participatory action health research ensures that the study design, data collection methods, and interventions are culturally sensitive and contextually relevant. This increases the likelihood of sustainable outcomes. 3. Trust and Relationships: Engaging conflict-affected populations in participatory action health research helps build trust between researchers and the community. Trust is crucial in conflict settings where community members may be wary of external actors. Building strong relationships fosters collaboration and facilitates future research endeavors. 4. Sustainable Change: Participatory action health research focuses on creating sustainable change by working closely with the community. By identifying and implementing interventions that address the root causes of health issues, this approach has the potential to bring about long-term improvements in health outcomes.

References:

Ormel I, Salsberg J, Hunt M, Doucet A, Hinton L, Macaulay AC, Law S. Key issues for participatory research in the design and implementation of humanitarian assistance: a scoping review. Glob Health Action. 2020 Dec 31;13(1):1826730. doi: 10.1080/16549716.2020.1826730. PMID: 33073736; PMCID: PMC7594848.

Afifi RA, Abdulrahim S, Betancourt T, Btedinni D, Berent J, Dellos L, Farrar J, Nakkash R, Osman R, Saravanan M, Story WT, Zombo M, Parker E. Implementing Community-Based Participatory Research with Communities Affected by Humanitarian Crises: The Potential to Recalibrate Equity and Power in Vulnerable Contexts. Am J Community Psychol. 2020 Dec;66(3-4):381-391. doi: 10.1002/ajcp.12453. Epub 2020 Aug 14. PMID: 32797639.

Ford, Nathan, et al. “Ethics of conducting research in conflict settings.” Conflict and health 3.1 (2009): 1-9.