Minkler, Meredith. “Using Participatory Action Research to Build Healthy Communities.” Public Health Reports 115 no. 2-3 (Mar–Jun 2000),  191–197, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1308710/pdf/pubhealthrep00022%2D0089.pdf (accessed April 15, 2010). 

This article focuses on justifying the use of Participatory Action Research (PAR) in ‘Healthy Neighbourhood’ projects in America. It provides a historial overview of PAR and defines it as research practices that: position the researcher as a co-learner; rely heavily on community participation; and result in the findings being expressed in the form of education and change. The author notes that this approach can be time consuming and fraught with challenges.

The distinctive aspect of PAR, says Minkler, is not the methods utilised, but the ongoing active involvement in the process of the people being researched. This alters the distribution of power in the project and recognises the value of the “sophisticated knowledge” (of the complexities of their own communities) and skills base that the community members bring to the research table.

Minkler lists parallels between PAR and healthy communities, which I found useful to have laid out in dot points. And just as “no Healthy City prototype exists”, she points out that there is no specific PAR methodology, but rather a mindset that supports community driven, highly participatory projects aimed at catalysing social change.  She does concede, however, that there are allegations this process can also bring “unequal players to an uneven table”, preventing PAR from achieving its ideals.

This article is unapologetically brief and its cursory nature prevents it from exploring issues in any real depth. This is evident in case studies, which while interesting, failed to offer challenging thoughts. However, the list of parallels made it worth the read.

E Wong May 2010