Doing Participatory Action Research and Doing a PhD: Words of Encouragement for Prospective Students

Abstract

Participatory action research (PAR) carries the promise that academics can make a difference, an appealing prospect for many postgraduate students. This paper is written by an early career researcher who ‘survived’ a PAR PhD. Despite acknowledging the unique challenges faced by students attempting PAR, it argues that these have been overstated in much of the literature. This paper offers a detailed personal insight into the ways in which PAR and PhDs do (and do not) mix, and argues that successful PAR PhDs can be undertaken, contra the prevailing despondent rhetoric. It concludes with suggestions for ‘energizing’ PAR in graduate geographical education.

Keywords:

• Participatory action research
• PhD
• postgraduate

Acknowledgements

The research project on which this paper is based was undertaken whilst the author was a PhD student at the University of New South Wales, Australia. I would like to thank Faidha Mlossi, Vaileth Mvena, Amina Haule, Paul Mbenna and Esther John for their participation in this project; and Professors Kevin Dunn and Chris Gibson for their supervision. I would also like to thank Professors Chris Gibson and Rachel Pain for their comments on an earlier draft of this paper, and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions.

Notes

¹ Child domestic workers ‘work in other people's households doing domestic chores, caring for children, and running errands’ (UNICEF, 1999, p. 2). They work for pay in cash or kind, are employed by adults who are not their parents and usually live in their employers’ homes (Kifle, 2002).

² Amina Haule is a pseudonym as this young researcher did not want her real name included. Former child domestic workers were recruited rather than current child domestic workers because those who are still employed have insufficient spare time to engage in research.

³ Data were collected from June 2005 to October 2006 via 30 interviews with current child domestic workers and 34 interviews with former child domestic workers; 25 personal narratives written by former child domestic workers; 57 interviews with employers of child domestic workers and four focus group discussions with 29 local leaders in Iringa Municipality. All data were collected in Kiswahili.

⁴ Even for those fortunate enough to receive scholarships, the time frame over which they are supported is limited. Australian Government PhD scholarships (Australian Postgraduate Awards) are limited, in the first instance, to three years. A candidate can apply for an extra six months if there are adequate grounds for an extension.

⁵ This comment was made by an anonymous examiner of my PhD thesis.

⁶ This dual focus created its own challenges. It can be difficult to structure a PAR PhD experience into a traditional thesis format (Fisher & Phelps, 2006). In the case of my thesis, the story of its methodology was weaved throughout the thesis, rather than being confined to a methodology chapter. A similar ‘weaving’ process is described in insightful detail by Fisher and Phelps (2006), and the narrative style of PAR PhDs in McNiff and Whitehead (2009).

⁷ The relevance of this issue is not limited to students undertaking PAR PhDs—it is, for instance, a common issue for physical geographers who regularly work in teams when conducting field and laboratory work. The more general challenges of writing a PhD thesis, which are faced by all doctoral students, have been widely documented, including in this journal, and there are numerous textbooks, manuals and journal articles to assist students in this task (see for instance DeLyser, 2003; Ferguson, 2009).

⁸ I distinguish here between ‘practical’ analysis and ‘academic’ analysis. The practical component involved working through interview and focus group transcripts and pulling out key issues, ideas and suggestions that would help us in developing an agenda for change. This was something in which the young researchers were involved, and which they appeared to enjoy. The academic component of the analysis involved entering data into the N6 and SPSS data analysis packages, coding data according to themes and engaging in manifest and latent content analysis. This was required for my PhD, but not for the practical objectives of our participatory project. I completed this academic analysis independently.

⁹ The ‘practical’ outputs of the research—that is, the draft regulatory instruments created by the research team—were all written in Kiswahili and were thus accessible to the young researchers.

¹⁰ For example, Arnstein's (1969) ladder of citizen participation and Hart's (1992) ladder of children's participation.