scholarly journals Expand – Research in Norwegian science centers

1970 ◽  
pp. 85
Author(s):  
Dagny Stuedahl ◽  
Merethe Frøyland ◽  
Ingrid Eikeland
Keyword(s):  
Science Education ◽  
Action Research ◽  
Participatory Action Research ◽  
Research Methods ◽  
Research Design ◽  
Research Program ◽  
Participatory Action ◽  
Science Center ◽  
Science Centers

The research program Expand – Research in Norwegian Science Centers, (UtVite in Norwegian) was initiated as a collaboration between Inspiria Science Center, and three research partners in science education.1 The project collaboration has as its main objective to understand the role of science centers for young people’s engagement, interest and recruitment to science. Further, the aim of Expand is to explore research methods suitable for participatory action research approaches to design-based studies of learning in science centers. This is a presentation of the research design of Expand in the first funding period 2011–2016. 

Participatory Action Research: A Protective Research Design

2005 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate McPhaul ◽  
Jane Lipscomb
Keyword(s):  
Action Research ◽  
Participatory Action Research ◽  
Research Methods ◽  
Participatory Research ◽  
Research Design ◽  
Human Subject ◽  
Ethical Principles ◽  
Participatory Action ◽  
Ethical Considerations ◽  
Participatory Research Methods

This commentary briefly reviews the ethical considerations for protection of workers participating in research. We argue that many IRBs may not fully understand the nature of collaborative and participatory research methods; consequently, this may delay IRB approval or worse, reduce the effectiveness of IRB oversight. A U.S. workplace participatory action research (PAR) project with which we are involved illustrates how researcher-worker-employer teams can navigate human subject oversight procedures (IRB approval). By design, successful and effective PAR projects incorporate, and often exceed the ethical principles espoused by current IRB principles.

Actieonderzoek in leefstijlonderzoek is geen sinecure

KWALON ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Famke van Lieshout ◽  
Gaby Jacobs ◽  
Shaun Cardiff
Keyword(s):  
Action Research ◽  
Participatory Action Research ◽  
Healthy Lifestyle ◽  
Multiple Perspectives ◽  
Participatory Action ◽  
Action Research Project ◽  
Research Project ◽  
Clinical Practice Setting ◽  
Learning Together

Action research in lifestyle research is no sinecure. Response to Kromme et al.: ‘Changing together is learning together’, a participatory action research project This is a reply to the contribution entitled: ‘Learning together is changing together: A participatory action research project on the role of the internist in promoting a healthy lifestyle’. Here the authors highlight the complexity of facilitating participatory action research (PAR) in a clinical practice setting and reflect on the first three stages of their research through eight principles that could guide PAR, as described by Van Lieshout et al. (2017). As we developed these principles, we explain the principles of participation, reflexivity, contextuality and transformation in greater detail in relation to the context of this study. The authors made suggestions to change the five-phased model of PAR to get a better grip on the process. The authors rightly highlighted some limitations in the labeling of some phases. However, it is the reflexivity on the multiple perspectives that facilitators encounter and the relationships they engage with during the process, as well as acknowledging the iterative process of PAR, which needs to be embraced and experienced during the entire process of study.

scholarly journals Youth Have A Voice - Qualitative Exploration Of A Participatory Action-Research Program

2018 ◽  
Vol 04 (04) ◽  
Author(s):  
Catia Branquinho ◽  
Ana Cerqueira ◽  
Lucia Ramiro ◽  
Margarida Gaspar de Matos
Keyword(s):  
Action Research ◽  
Participatory Action Research ◽  
Research Program ◽  
Participatory Action ◽  
Qualitative Exploration

Getting beneath the surface in program planning, monitoring and evaluation: Learning from use of participatory action research and theory of change in the CGIAR Research Program on Aquatic Agricultural Systems

2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
J Marina Apgar ◽  
Will Allen ◽  
Joelle Albert ◽  
Boru Douthwaite ◽  
Rodrigo Paz Ybarnegaray ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Action Research ◽  
Participatory Action Research ◽  
Research Program ◽  
Agricultural Research ◽  
Program Planning ◽  
Theory Of Change ◽  
Agricultural Systems ◽  
Participatory Action ◽  
Development Interventions ◽  
Starting Point

Many rural poor and marginalized people strive to make a living in social-ecological systems that are characterized by multiple and often inequitable interactions across agents, scale and space. Uncertainty and inequality in such systems require research and development interventions to be adaptive, support learning and to engage with underlying drivers of poverty. Such complexity-aware approaches to planning, monitoring and evaluating development interventions are gaining strength, yet, there is still little empirical evidence of what it takes to implement them in practice. In this paper, we share learning from an agricultural research program that used participatory action research and theory of change to foster learning and support transformative change in aquatic agricultural systems. We reflect on our use of critical reflection within participatory agricultural research interventions, and our use of theory of change to collectively surface and revisit assumptions about how change happens. We share learning on the importance of being strengths-based in engaging stakeholders across scales and building a common goal as a starting point, and then staging a more critical practice as capacity is built and opportunities for digging deeper emerge.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document