Participatory action research (PAR)
Cycles of reflection, action and review carried out with participants rather than on them. Useful where the goal is both knowledge and change within the same setting.
Qualitative · Participatory · Context-driven
Participatory research methods involve the people affected by an issue in shaping the question, producing the evidence and interpreting what it means. This guide sets out the main approaches, how to choose between them, and the ethical commitments that make participation real rather than decorative.
Conventional research designs often measure what is easy to measure and miss the context that determines whether a service, policy or technology actually works. Participatory approaches keep that context intact. They are particularly suited to questions about children and young people, climate adaptation in specific places, and the design and governance of AI systems — settings where the people with the most at stake usually have the least say.
The practical pay-off is better validity and better uptake: findings that hold up because participants have checked them, and recommendations that people recognise as their own.
Cycles of reflection, action and review carried out with participants rather than on them. Useful where the goal is both knowledge and change within the same setting.
Participants map places, services, risks and relationships in their own environment. Surfaces spatial and environmental realities that surveys often miss.
Participants document their conditions through images and narrate what those images mean. Strong for children, young people and multilingual groups.
Facilitated group conversation that builds shared meaning. Circles work well where hierarchy or power imbalance would otherwise silence people.
Groups work through trade-offs and design options together — useful when technology, climate adaptation or policy choices affect people directly.
Long-form qualitative interviewing that keeps context, sequence and lived experience intact rather than reducing them to variables.
Start from the concerns people already name. A question set entirely by an institution usually produces findings the community cannot use.
Clarify who decides, who owns the data, what will be published, and how someone withdraws. With children and young people, consent is ongoing, not a one-off signature.
Match method to language, literacy, age, time and safety. Visual and spatial methods often reach further than written instruments.
Bring themes back to participants for interpretation. Sense-checking meaning with the people who produced the data improves validity.
Plain-language summaries, workshops and briefs — not only an academic output. Participation without return is extraction.
Participation is a power question before it is a method question. Ask who set the agenda, who is paid, who can say no, and who benefits from the output. Where participants are children, or where climate and technology decisions are being made about a community rather than with it, those questions matter more, not less. Ethical Landscapes works from eco-social systems thinking: rights, environment and technology are treated as one landscape rather than separate silos.
Ethical Landscapes is led by Erica Rabe, who brings fifteen years of social work practice and qualitative, participatory research on the links between environmental rights and children's rights into work on responsible AI.
ericarabe22@gmail.com