Communication Participatory Action Research
by
Dana E. Wright
  • LAST MODIFIED: 24 March 2021
  • DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756841-0257

Introduction

Participatory action research (PAR) represents an epistemological framework, pedagogical approach, research methodology, and process for collaborative social action. PAR processes connect research, education, and action with the aim of addressing inequities to achieve social justice and societal transformation. By disrupting dominant notions of who holds expertise, PAR centers the situated knowledge of marginalized groups who are directly impacted by sociopolitical inequities. Central to PAR are the epistemological questions of whose knowledge counts, what counts as knowledge, who benefits from knowledge, and the purpose and audience for which knowledge is used and disseminated. One of PAR’s central tenets is that the people directly impacted by a societal issue, who must navigate systems of oppression, hold the most knowledge and wisdom regarding the complexities of the issue—and the structures, contexts, processes, and systems that (re)produce it—and how to solve it. PAR acknowledges that those directly impacted by systemic injustices have the most to lose and the most to gain in transforming the root causes of these issues and, therefore, are best positioned to motivate and lead others in partnership to address the root causes of social injustices. While PAR does not represent a collection of discrete practices, various PAR forms and approaches represent contested meanings linked to competing ideological underpinnings, societal interests, purposes, and interpretations depending on the contexts in which it emerges. For example, in some forms of PAR the purpose is to support participants in achieving greater control over their social and economic lives through intergenerational action aiming toward structural change, transforming systemic power relations, social justice that intersects with educational, socioeconomic, gender, queer and trans, disability, and racial justice. PAR recognizes that societal institutions, including schools, typically do not support historically marginalized groups in deepening their analysis of the root causes of injustices they face. The PAR process allows coresearchers to uncover the discourses and ideologies that normalize structural violence. Informed by popular education methods and social movements, PAR employs participatory pedagogical approaches that engage marginalized people in analyzing their lived experiences and contexts to disrupt grand narratives that bolster systems of domination and structural disinvestments in marginalized people’s institutions and communities. As a research methodology, PAR can include qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods and can include creative methods such as PhotoVoice. PAR products draw on research findings and recommendations to call for new initiatives, practices, and policies and can take many forms such as a presentation to powerholders, an art exhibition, a film, an organizing campaign, or a theatrical performance. PAR allows space, opportunities, tools, and structured processes to enable marginalized groups to examine inequities and injustices and to critique the dynamics of power and neoliberal logic that may manifest in their worlds and within the research team.

PAR’s Theoretical and Historical Origins in the Global South

Hall 1992 notes that PAR’s theoretical and historical origins date back to the 1970s, when it emerged within formerly colonized nations in the Global South and was strongly informed by radical social movements. For example, Lomeli and Rappaport 2018 documents the ways in which PAR’s formation and conceptual frameworks were impacted by the 1972 peasants’ movement, in which over 600 peasant families occupied haciendas in Montería, Colombia, to fight against the ongoing encroachment of settlers’ lands into peasants’ lands. Orlando Fals Borda organized the First World Symposium of Participatory Action Research, in Cartagena, Colombia, in 1977—intentionally located not too far from the site of the peasants’ occupation a few years earlier—to study regional problems and their implications. The the symposium convened fifty-six scholar-activists from across the world and peasant leaders. Fals Borda 2013 recalls that participants in the First World Symposium of PAR were sociologists, economists, anthropologists, theologians, farmers, educators, artists, and social workers. Fals Borda 2006 observes that PAR’s first wave in the 1970s was influenced by theoretical contributions that included educator Paulo Freire’s notion of dialogical conscientization in Brazil, economist Samir Amin’s analysis of imperialism in Senegal, sociologist Pablo Gonzalez Casanova’s analysis of exploitation in Mexico, and sociologist Maria Cristina Salazar’s analysis of community action against land ownership inequalities in Colombia. In this first wave, PAR incorporated tools and techniques for research and teaching such as popular theater, drawing, music, and comics. Hall 2008 documents the early leaders in the 1970s, who included Fals Borda in Colombia, Francisco Vio Grossi in Venezuela and Chile, Rajesh Tandon in India, Yusuf Kassam in Tanzania, Budd Hall in Canada, and John Gaventa in Appalachia in the United States. Hall 1992 observes that from its inception, PAR challenged dominant positivist paradigms in social science, which assumed objectivity and scientific credibility. Hall also discusses the alignment of the PAR model and feminist critiques of traditional research paradigms and dominant epistemologies and feminist contributions calling for new research paradigms and new forms of knowledge production that shift the locus of power. Hall 2008 contends that in addition to critiquing positivism, early PAR countered the Marxist-Leninist notion of an intellectual vanguard that assumes to have a more advanced consciousness than the masses and engages in a paternalistic movement role. PAR researchers instead asserted that the role of scholars and researchers was to support everyday people’s social struggles for a more just world. Historically and theoretically, PAR represented an effort to unite social science research and social movements, engaging marginalized groups in collective inquiry and collective action toward liberation from systemic domination. This first wave of the PAR tradition that emerged in the Global South in the 1970s informs the current critical PAR work in the United States and globally.

Participatory Action Research (PAR)

PAR is an epistemological framework, pedagogical approach, research methodology, and process for collaborative social action. Incorporating research, education, and collective action, PAR focuses on issues of power and its relationship to knowledge and social transformation. Fals Borda 1996 observes that PAR draws attention to the production, function, and dissemination of knowledge and that PAR approaches are concerned with the epistemological questions, “Knowledge for what? Knowledge for whom?” Rahman 1985 stresses that PAR acknowledges that the subordination of marginalized people by dominant groups is reinforced through a monopoly over the process and forms of material production as well as through a monopoly over the process and forms of knowledge production, including the societal power to establish what knowledge is valid and useful. PAR disrupts the hegemony of knowledge production and traditional notions of who holds expertise and centers the situated knowledge of those directly impacted by systems of domination. Early PAR contributors used the terms “PAR” and “participatory research” interchangeably. PAR enables populations under focus in a research study to be coresearchers as experts who question, produce knowledge, and participate in collective action as agents of societal change. Noffke 1997 finds that PAR does not represent a set of discrete practices, but rather the various PAR forms and approaches reflect contested meanings linked to competing societal interests and ideological underpinnings; therefore, PAR can represent divergent goals, assumptions, ideological foundations, and interpretations depending on the contexts in which it emerges. In a review of the literature, Noffke 1997 finds that the strand of action research associated with Kurt Lewin often does not aim to address “issues of structural change toward greater social and economic justice” (p. 319). Drame and Irby 2016 focuses on Black PAR collectives with coresearchers from local communities and academic institutions and analyzes the importance of discussing the tensions and contradictions that can surface due to differing positionalities among coresearchers in order to avoid reproducing the forms of oppression the PAR initiative aims to disrupt. Similarly, Lykes and Mallona 2008 asserts that PAR processes allow coresearchers to uncover the discourses and ideologies that normalize oppression, poverty, and structural violence, which deny the subjectivity of marginalized people as social change agents. Brydon-Miller and Maguire 2009 discusses ways in which PAR can be a site of a critical analysis of systems of power and privilege, collaborative relationships, and research as a form of political engagement. Quijada, et al. 2013 discusses the ways in which PAR recognizes the wealth of knowledge held by those who have experienced historic oppression and repositions them as coresearchers who identify urgent issues, frame the questions that are investigated, document and analyze conditions in their environments, critique institutional arrangements, and create and execute collective action plans for change in their communities.

  • Brydon-Miller, Mary, and Patricia Maguire. 2009. Participatory action research: Contributions to the development of practitioner inquiry in education. Educational Action Research 17.1: 79–93.

    DOI: 10.1080/09650790802667469Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    The authors discuss the origins, purpose, and contributions of PAR in the field of education. The article examines the ways in which PAR can deepen educators’ practices and discusses research as a form of political engagement.

    Find this resource:

  • Drame, Elizabeth R., and Decoteau J. Irby, eds. 2016. Black participatory research: Power, identity, and the struggle for justice in education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    This book explores PAR partnerships with Black researchers, who often hope to advocate for change to ensure educational institutions support Black students to thrive academically, socio-emotionally, and culturally. The editors discuss PAR’s potential to counter the dehumanization and devaluing of knowledge held by Black people by valuing and supporting their localized knowledge, which often holds an accurate understanding of the structures and processes that produce and reproduce inequity.

    Find this resource:

  • Fals Borda, Orlando. 1988. Knowledge and people’s power: Lessons with peasants in Nicaragua, Mexico and Colombia. New York: New Horizons.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    The author reflects on the tensions and contributions of PAR since the Cartagena World Symposium of 1977.

    Find this resource:

  • Fals Borda, Orlando. 1996. A North-South convergence on the quest for meaning. Qualitative Inquiry 2.1: 76–87.

    DOI: 10.1177/107780049600200111Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    The author discusses the First World Symposium of Action Research held in Cartagena, Colombia, in 1977 as an intervention in the field to counter positivism and communicate PAR approaches. The author discusses the importance of an intellectual convergence within qualitative research approaches across the Global North and the Global South in the quest for meaning.

    Find this resource:

  • Lykes, M. Brinton, and Amelia Mallona. 2008. Towards transformational liberation: Participatory and action research and praxis. In The SAGE handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice. Edited by Peter Reason and Hilary Bradbury, 106–120. London: SAGE.

    DOI: 10.4135/9781848607934.n13Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    This book chapter explores the transformational potential of PAR and the ways in which this approach offers possible resources for engaging with communities in challenging structural inequities. The authors situate PAR within its historical roots in the Global South and within both social movements and critical pedagogy and emphasize the radical societal transformation to build the more socially just societies envisioned by PAR’s founders.

    Find this resource:

  • Noffke, Susan. 1997. Professional, personal, and political dimensions of action research. Review of Research in Education 22.1: 305–343.

    DOI: 10.3102/0091732X022001305Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    This review of the action research literature discusses the ways in which the various forms of PAR and action research reflect distinct purposes that reflect conflicting societal interests, ideologies, and interpretations. Noffke discusses the ways in which both action research and PAR can represent a new paradigm challenging existing epistemologies and also engage in collective action to support PAR participants in achieving greater control over their lives and education.

    Find this resource:

  • Quijada, Cerecer, David Alberto, Caitlin Cahill, and Matt Bradley. 2013. Toward a critical youth policy praxis: Critical youth studies and participatory action research. Theory into Practice 52.3: 216–223.

    DOI: 10.1080/00405841.2013.804316Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    This article focuses on ways in which PAR can be employed to change policymakers’ perspectives. The authors discuss the ways in which critical youth studies may help change perceptions of youth as well as critique institutional arrangements that shape educational reform and policy. The article contends that including youth as coresearchers is important, as youth are directly impacted by the resulting policies and educational reforms.

    Find this resource:

  • Rahman, Muhammad Anisur. 1985. The theory and practice of participatory action research. In The challenge of social change. Edited by Orlando Fals Borda, 107–132. London: SAGE.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Rahman discusses PAR methods, tensions, and approaches as part of both research and social transformation. The author provides several examples of PAR practices in India, Colombia, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka.

    Find this resource:

Youth Participatory Action Research (YPAR)

As an epistemology and approach, YPAR centers pedagogical approaches to enable young people—particularly marginalized young people—to investigate the systemic causes of issues in their environments in order to improve them. YPAR draws on PAR processes and approaches and deploys Freire’s notion of praxis—critical reflection and action— in which coresearchers contribute their localized expertise regarding systemic oppression in order to take collective action to dismantle systems of domination, create a more just world, and improve their lives. Cammarota and Fine 2008 analyzes the ways in which YPAR projects engage in a process of inquiry into the root causes and ideologies that shape their communities’ current conditions and access to societal resources and then develop political power and embark on research-based collective action to improve those conditions. Wright 2007 explains that YPAR centers the learning process through employing a participatory curriculum and pedagogical approach, including discussions of possible power imbalances among youth and adult coresearchers in order to institutionalize youth participation, knowledge, power, and agency in the research cycle. Mirra, et al. 2016 observes that YPAR recognizes and helps realize the full humanity and expertise of young people through opportunities to analyze and explore their experiences with the support and humility of adult researchers in a collective struggle toward social justice. For example, McIntyre 2000 examines a YPAR project in which primarily working-class Black and Latinx youth coresearchers developed strategies for promoting nonviolence in their school and community and disrupted mainstream Western psychological discourses—influenced by the medical model—that typically overlook the relationship of violence to sociohistorical, political, and economic contexts. YPAR coresearchers countered dominant discourses through contributing their own discourse on violence as socially (re)produced, pervasive, chronic, and state sanctioned in their environments. Cammarota 2017 asserts that YPAR can enable youth and adult coresearchers across a range of social positions of privilege and marginalization to work collectively to theorize, question, and resist institutional and social injustices through a transformational pedagogy. Rodríguez and Brown 2009 asserts that YPAR frameworks view youth as change agents, validate local knowledge and their authority to determine the truth, and consider institutional racism, classism, and language bias. Tuck 2009 explores the limits of the reform-versus-revolution paradox within YPAR theories of change and finds that YPAR projects that evaluate established systems and confront issues of control in schools and promote human rights-based public schooling can create opportunities for both reform and transformation of school institutions and policies. Ginwright 2008 finds that YPAR projects can involve the intersections of art, science, and a collective imagination to develop skills to analyze systemic causes of conditions that shape young people’s lives and support them to act to transform those conditions to help achieve greater control over their social and economic lives.

  • Cammarota, Julio. 2017. Youth Participatory Action Research: A pedagogy of transformational resistance for critical youth studies. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies (JCEPS) 15.2: 188–213.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    This article discusses the ways in which young people come to understand social reproduction and ways to counter reproductive schooling and transform their subjectivities through participating in a pedagogy of transformational resistance. This article describes a YPAR project within the Tucson Unified School District (TUSD) in which young people engage as both researchers and subjects in a process of critical inquiry to address social injustices in their schools and communities.

    Find this resource:

  • Cammarota, Julio, and Michelle Fine, eds. 2008. Revolutionizing education: Youth participatory action research in motion. New York: Routledge.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    This groundbreaking book is the first edited volume to examine YPAR in the field of education. Across its chapters by various scholars, this book brings together emerging scholars, student contributors, and major scholars in the field to examine the possibilities for YPAR in theory and practice and reflect on methodological challenges in qualitative research. This seminal book contributes an important foundational conceptual framework of YPAR for the field of education.

    Find this resource:

  • Ginwright, Shawn. 2008. Collective radical imagination. In Revolutionizing education: Youth participatory action research in motion. Edited by Julio Cammarota and Michelle Fine, 13–22. New York: Routledge.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Ginwright explores the ways in which researchers can expand traditional notions of research through employing YPAR approaches. The research collective aims to create a Youth Bill of Rights through the development of a youth rights report card and in the creation of a youth rights handbook to present study findings and recommendations to encourage political support for a Youth Bill of Rights.

    Find this resource:

  • McIntyre, Alice. 2000. Constructing meaning about violence, school, and community: Participatory action research with urban youth. The Urban Review 32.2: 123–154.

    DOI: 10.1023/A:1005181731698Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    McIntyre examines a YPAR project in a Northeastern urban context in which primarily working-class Black and Latinx youth researchers occupied roles as agents of inquiry. McIntyre finds that through participatory and creative methods that included storytelling, photography, community resource inventories, and creating symbolic art, the YPAR project supported youth-initiated strategies for promoting and sustaining nonviolence in their school and community to strengthen community well-being.

    Find this resource:

  • Mirra, Nicole, Antero Garcia, and E. Ernest Morrell. 2016. Doing youth participatory action research: Transforming inquiry with researchers, educators, and students. New York: Routledge.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    This book draws on the voices of students and educators to explore YPAR as a possibility to challenge traditional notions of who produces knowledge and address social and educational inequities. The book discusses the historical traditions of critical research and draws on research, policy, and practices to discuss the possibilities in engaging young people in examining the conditions that impact them.

    Find this resource:

  • Rodríguez, Louie F., and Tara M. Brown. 2009. From voice to agency: Guiding principles for participatory action research with youth. New Directions for Youth Development 123.11: 19–34.

    DOI: 10.1002/yd.312Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    The authors assert that research should shift from a student voice framework to a framework that views youth as change agents and considers institutional racism, language bias, and classism. The article challenges the “culture of poverty” theory, which views poverty as a logical consequence of cultural deficits. Guiding principles are suggested for PAR pedagogy and methodology to support empirical investigations, youth development, and educational transformation.

    Find this resource:

  • Tuck, Eve. 2009. Re-visioning action: Participatory action research and Indigenous theories of change. The Urban Review 41.1: 47–65.

    DOI: 10.1007/s11256-008-0094-xSave Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    This article analyzes two YPAR projects—one that focuses on supporting students in obtaining their GED and another that centers youth engagement in a mayoral campaign. The article finds that high schools benefit from young people’s evaluations of the systems that are established in high schools through PAR, which can create opportunities to reform and transform current institutions and policies.

    Find this resource:

  • Wright, Dana. 2007. ¡Escuelas, Si! ¡Pintas, No! (Schools, Yes! Prisons, No!) Connecting Youth Action Research and Youth Organizing in California. In Special issue: Pushing the boundaries: Critical international perspectives on child and youth participation—Focus on the United States, Canada, and Latin America. Edited by Caitlin Cahill and Roger A. Hart. Children, Youth and Environments 17.2: 503–516.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    This article describes the first youth-led partnership between PAR and youth organizing in California’s Central Valley. Analyzing the continuum of youth participation in YPAR projects, the author describes interactive trainings that include activities about adultism. The article discusses structures of support for youth in positions on decision-making bodies in the YPAR project to institutionalize youth knowledge, participation, power, and agency as part of the PAR design, goals, and planning.

    Find this resource:

Critical Participatory Action Research (CPAR)

Critical PAR with youth intentionally aligns strongly with the early PAR tradition and is an epistemological, pedagogical, and research methodology for collective, local action for equity and justice. From its inception, PAR is inherently a critical pedagogy that questions the status quo and aims to enable participants to better their lives and work collectively toward social change. Some researchers use the term “critical PAR” to explicitly distinguish it from forms of PAR that have been essentially coopted by institutions, particularly schools, or appropriated within the behavioral sciences or in certain youth engagement contexts. Caraballo, et al. 2017 contends that critical PAR and YPAR can be used interchangeably when these projects draw on critical epistemologies and critical pedagogy in the framing and design of the PAR project to redistribute “methodological and analytical power to those who hold an intimate knowledge of the struggles of navigating systemic oppression” (p. 331). Caraballo, et al. 2017 describes four entry points for critical PAR with youth: (1) building academic skills to address structural inequities in schools that limit support for critical thinking; (2) critical epistemologies that draw from Indigenous, African, Latinx, Asian, feminist, and queer knowledge systems to inform PAR projects; (3) youth development and leadership skills to promote questioning, healing, and strength; and (4) youth organizing and activism to transform policies and practices. Ayala, et al. 2018 describes ways in which critical PAR can counter historical trends in which academic research has operated as a way to study and understand people of color and other marginalized groups and used against them to justify practices and policies that reproduce and maintain domination. Irizarry and Brown 2014 notes that critical PAR attempts to honor the local knowledge of youth—particularly those who are economically, socially, and politically marginalized—and engage them in transformational resistance, concurrently transforming themselves and the educational system. Wright 2015 finds that critical PAR builds coresearchers’ sociopolitical analysis capacities to connect their micro-level experiences, contexts, emotions, and creativity in order to analyze and disrupt grand narratives and power arrangements that uphold structural violence and naturalize intersecting systems of domination. Torre, et al. 2012 argues that critical PAR draws on critical theory—critical race, feminist, queer, disability, neo-Marxist, and post-structural theories—to confront the ways in which scientific knowledge has historically legitimated dominant discourses, policies, and practices. Tuck and Guishard 2013 discusses a decolonial PAR (DPAR) framework that centers accountability, relational ethics, social justice, partnership, and the redistribution of knowledge and power to delegitimize and dismantle settler colonialism. Wright 2019 discusses the possibilities for critical PAR to counter the subordination of historically marginalized groups and to promote marginalized people’s subjectivity, power, critical inquiry, knowledge production, and transformative agency.

  • Ayala, Jennifer, Julio Cammarota, Margarita I. Berta-Ávila, Melissa Rivera, Louie F. Rodriguez, and Maria Elena Torre. 2018. PAR entremundos: A pedagogy of the Américas. New York: Peter Lang.

    DOI: 10.3726/b11303Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    This anthology applies critical race theory, histories of social movements, and the notion of Paulo Freire’s praxis to propose a set of principles for employing PAR as a pedagogical strategy to support marginalized students in collective action toward educational justice.

    Find this resource:

  • Caraballo, Limarys, Brian D. Lozenski, Jamila J. Lyiscott, and Ernest Morrell. 2017. YPAR and critical epistemologies: Rethinking education research. Review of Research in Education 41.1: 311–336.

    DOI: 10.3102/0091732X16686948Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    This article outlines YPAR’s conceptual origins to advocate for its role in education research. The findings demonstrate that in order to disrupt inequality, education researchers must continue to explore using YPAR as an alternative to traditional research. The authors conclude that education research cannot continue to allow the privileged to define how to improve the conditions of the historically marginalized.

    Find this resource:

  • Irizarry, Jason G., and Tara M. Brown. 2014. Humanizing research in dehumanizing spaces: The challenges and opportunities of conducting participatory action research with youth in schools. In Humanizing research: Decolonizing qualitative inquiry with youth and communities. Edited by Django Paris and Maisha T. Winn, 63–80. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    This book chapter examines three PAR projects with youth and discusses the possibilities and tensions in conducing PAR with youth in schools. The authors discuss their positionalities of being university-based faculty researchers not embedded in school structures while engaging in PAR work in schools. The chapter examines the challenges in navigating political institutions and facing resistance and the benefits of autonomy in their PAR work with students.

    Find this resource:

  • Torre, Maria Elena, Michelle Fine, Brett G. Stoudt, and M. Madeline Fox. 2012. Critical participatory action research as public science. In APA handbook of research methods in psychology. Vol. 2, Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological. Edited by Harris Cooper, 171–184. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    This book chapter discusses the history of critical PAR through the lenses of several legacies. The authors discuss the commitments of critical PAR as a public science, issues of validity, the notion of deep participation, epistemological commitments, and accountability to social change and social movements.

    Find this resource:

  • Tuck, Eve, and Monique Guishard. 2013. Uncollapsing ethics: Racialized sciencism, settler coloniality, and an ethical framework of decolonial participatory action research. In Challenging status quo retrenchment: New directions in critical qualitative research. Edited by Tricia M. Kress, Curry Stephenson Malott, and Brad J. Porfilio, 3–27. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    This book chapter asserts that an extended consideration of ethics is needed in research beyond the institutional review board (IRB) process. The authors discuss DPAR and present an analysis of ethical considerations for research highlighting relational ethics, accountability, social justice, commitment, and partnership. The authors present a DPAR framework intended to produce research that centers the redistribution of knowledge and power that delegitimizes and dismantles settler colonialism.

    Find this resource:

  • Wright, Dana E. 2015. Active learning: Social justice education and participatory action research. New York: Routledge.

    DOI: 10.4324/9781315743141Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    This book proposes critical PAR with youth as a viable approach to teaching and learning in the context of neoliberal reforms. The author discusses the “pedagogy of praxis” method and the project’s successful development of students’ “sociopolitical analysis” capacities and agency. Active Learning provides an analysis of the challenges for adults in sharing power within youth and adult partnerships and implications for transforming educational policies and practices.

    Find this resource:

  • Wright, Dana E. 2019. Imagining a more just world: Critical arts pedagogy and youth participatory action research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 33.1: 32–49.

    DOI: 10.1080/09518398.2019.1678784Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    This article explores the ways in which dominant conceptions of youth shape and limit research questions and policy solutions. The article applies frameworks from both critical youth studies (CYS) scholarship and social justice arts education to analyze a research vignette of a PAR project. The author proposes a multidimensional critical arts education framework that can engage youth in knowledge production and systemic analysis as transformative change agents.

    Find this resource:

back to top

Article

Up

Down