This report describes a participatory evaluation of a postgraduate course delivered at the University of Winchester in the UK. The PGCert/MA in Student Engagement in Higher Education utilized sector-leading practices and research to explore student engagement in contemporary higher education. As co-creation, co-design, and staff-student partnerships are integral concepts within student engagement scholarship and practice, a congruent participatory evaluation of the PGCert/MA was conducted. This approach utilized an Advisory Group of current students and graduates to co-construct a Theory of Change, design data-gathering methods, and support the synthesis of findings and associated recommendations. This report provides details of the stages of this evaluation and the participatory activities which were designed and delivered. In addition to providing a robust conclusion on the process, impact, and outcomes of the course, this report discusses the benefits and challenges of participatory evaluation.
{"title":"“Trusted in Being the Experts of Being a Student”: Participatory Evaluation in Higher Education","authors":"Liz Austen, A. Donnelly","doi":"10.35844/001c.75240","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.35844/001c.75240","url":null,"abstract":"This report describes a participatory evaluation of a postgraduate course delivered at the University of Winchester in the UK. The PGCert/MA in Student Engagement in Higher Education utilized sector-leading practices and research to explore student engagement in contemporary higher education. As co-creation, co-design, and staff-student partnerships are integral concepts within student engagement scholarship and practice, a congruent participatory evaluation of the PGCert/MA was conducted. This approach utilized an Advisory Group of current students and graduates to co-construct a Theory of Change, design data-gathering methods, and support the synthesis of findings and associated recommendations. This report provides details of the stages of this evaluation and the participatory activities which were designed and delivered. In addition to providing a robust conclusion on the process, impact, and outcomes of the course, this report discusses the benefits and challenges of participatory evaluation.","PeriodicalId":73887,"journal":{"name":"Journal of participatory research methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48049080","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Early childhood educators are uniquely positioned to advance equity by providing culturally-responsive early learning environments and developing respectful and reciprocal relationships with families. Culturally-responsive teaching practices recognize the diverse cultures of children and families as strengths and empower children through cultural values of their family heritage (Gay, 2010). One early childhood program serving Alaska Native and American Indian (AN/AI) children and families identified a need to more systematically support educators’ reflection on their knowledge, skills, and abilities related to cultural programming. This paper aims to describe the process of and lessons learned from using a participatory, community-based research approach to develop a culturally-responsive early childhood assessment tool. Operating from a postmodern/transformative paradigm, we describe the journey of this process with particular attention to shifting power to the community participants and carefully attending to our own reflexivity as three white researchers collaborating with a tribal non-profit organization.
{"title":"Using Participatory Research to Develop a Culturally Responsive Early Childhood Assessment Tool","authors":"Hattie Harvey, Jennifer Pierce, D. Hirshberg","doi":"10.35844/001c.77624","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.35844/001c.77624","url":null,"abstract":"Early childhood educators are uniquely positioned to advance equity by providing culturally-responsive early learning environments and developing respectful and reciprocal relationships with families. Culturally-responsive teaching practices recognize the diverse cultures of children and families as strengths and empower children through cultural values of their family heritage (Gay, 2010). One early childhood program serving Alaska Native and American Indian (AN/AI) children and families identified a need to more systematically support educators’ reflection on their knowledge, skills, and abilities related to cultural programming. This paper aims to describe the process of and lessons learned from using a participatory, community-based research approach to develop a culturally-responsive early childhood assessment tool. Operating from a postmodern/transformative paradigm, we describe the journey of this process with particular attention to shifting power to the community participants and carefully attending to our own reflexivity as three white researchers collaborating with a tribal non-profit organization.","PeriodicalId":73887,"journal":{"name":"Journal of participatory research methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47800898","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Benjamin Scher, Juliet Scott-Barrett, M. Hickman, B. Chrisinger
In recent years, a range of academic disciplines have emphasized the potential benefits of prioritizing meaningful engagement with individuals and communities who have lived and have living experience with the topics, phenomena and problems researchers seek to study. In March 2022, we were asked to produce a paper to inform a university workshop and training materials to help students and faculty engage with participatory methods. In turn, we conducted a rapid scoping review of reviews to document key recommendations relating to methodology, logistics and ethics within the various modes of participatory research. Searches were conducted in Web of Science, SCOPUS, ProQuest, Pub Med, OVID (including Medline, PschyInfo/EMBASE, APAPsych) to identify published academic reviews (e.g., systematic, scoping, literature reviews and evidence gap maps), for best practices relating to participatory research. This approach drew out aggregated best practices and lessons learned across many primary studies and increased the speed of the review. From 276 studies imported for screening, 43 full-text studies were assessed for eligibility and 28 were deemed relevant for full inclusion. Results are presented as: 1) participatory research recommendations for researchers; and 2) participatory research recommendations for academic institutions. Three sub-themes emerged within the context of suggestions for researchers engaging with participatory methods: 1) early-stage considerations for study design and planning; 2) conducting the research; and 3) dissemination and knowledge exchange. This rapid scoping review highlights key recommendations for researchers interested in using participatory approaches in their own research, and for academic and institutional stakeholders who aim to support these practices.
近年来，一系列学术学科都强调了优先考虑与研究人员寻求研究的主题、现象和问题有过或有过生活经验的个人和社区进行有意义的接触的潜在好处。在2022年3月，我们被要求制作一篇论文，为大学研讨会和培训材料提供信息，以帮助学生和教师采用参与式方法。反过来，我们对审查进行了快速的范围审查，以记录与各种参与式研究模式中的方法，后勤和道德有关的关键建议。在Web of Science、SCOPUS、ProQuest、Pub Med、OVID(包括Medline、PschyInfo/EMBASE、APAPsych)中进行检索，以确定已发表的学术综述(例如，系统性、范围界定、文献综述和证据差距图)，寻找与参与性研究相关的最佳实践。这种方法从许多主要研究中总结出了汇总的最佳实践和经验教训，并提高了审查的速度。从用于筛选的276项研究中，43项全文研究被评估为合格，28项被认为与完全纳入相关。结果呈现为:1)对研究人员的参与性研究建议;2)学术机构参与式研究建议。在研究参与式方法的建议背景下，出现了三个子主题:1)研究设计和规划的早期考虑;2)进行研究;3)传播和知识交流。这一快速的范围审查强调了对有兴趣在自己的研究中使用参与式方法的研究人员以及旨在支持这些实践的学术和机构利益相关者的关键建议。
{"title":"Participatory Research Emergent Recommendations for Researchers and Academic Institutions: A Rapid Scoping Review","authors":"Benjamin Scher, Juliet Scott-Barrett, M. Hickman, B. Chrisinger","doi":"10.35844/001c.74807","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.35844/001c.74807","url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, a range of academic disciplines have emphasized the potential benefits of prioritizing meaningful engagement with individuals and communities who have lived and have living experience with the topics, phenomena and problems researchers seek to study. In March 2022, we were asked to produce a paper to inform a university workshop and training materials to help students and faculty engage with participatory methods. In turn, we conducted a rapid scoping review of reviews to document key recommendations relating to methodology, logistics and ethics within the various modes of participatory research. Searches were conducted in Web of Science, SCOPUS, ProQuest, Pub Med, OVID (including Medline, PschyInfo/EMBASE, APAPsych) to identify published academic reviews (e.g., systematic, scoping, literature reviews and evidence gap maps), for best practices relating to participatory research. This approach drew out aggregated best practices and lessons learned across many primary studies and increased the speed of the review. From 276 studies imported for screening, 43 full-text studies were assessed for eligibility and 28 were deemed relevant for full inclusion. Results are presented as: 1) participatory research recommendations for researchers; and 2) participatory research recommendations for academic institutions. Three sub-themes emerged within the context of suggestions for researchers engaging with participatory methods: 1) early-stage considerations for study design and planning; 2) conducting the research; and 3) dissemination and knowledge exchange. This rapid scoping review highlights key recommendations for researchers interested in using participatory approaches in their own research, and for academic and institutional stakeholders who aim to support these practices.","PeriodicalId":73887,"journal":{"name":"Journal of participatory research methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41889693","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
R. Cadman, J. Snook, Todd Broomfield, J. Goudie, Ron Johnson, Keith Watts, Aaron T. Dale, Megan Bailey
Futures thinking is an increasingly popular approach to solving complex environmental problems because it offers a framework to consider potential and desirable futures. It is also possible to create highly participatory future planning processes that incorporate the perspectives, beliefs, and values of resource users. In 2019, a group of fisheries stakeholders in Nunatsiavut, an Inuit land claim region in northern Labrador, began a target seeking scenario planning process to help them create a vision for the future of commercial fisheries in the region. Through this process, the group hoped to not only create a vision of Inuit-led fisheries but also to advance communication, collaboration, and learning for the group. In this paper, we reflect on the process we underwent over the past few years, including the research design, data collection and analysis, and the results of the project to broadly consider the strengths and weaknesses of participatory scenario planning for Indigenous governance. Reflecting on the process that we undertook provides important, experience-based knowledge for future projects. The elevation of Inuit voices makes this vision specific to the region and reframes fisheries as a tool for cultural and political rejuvenation in the region.
{"title":"Articulating Indigenous Futures: Using Target Seeking Scenario Planning in Support of Inuit-led Fisheries Governance","authors":"R. Cadman, J. Snook, Todd Broomfield, J. Goudie, Ron Johnson, Keith Watts, Aaron T. Dale, Megan Bailey","doi":"10.35844/001c.77450","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.35844/001c.77450","url":null,"abstract":"Futures thinking is an increasingly popular approach to solving complex environmental problems because it offers a framework to consider potential and desirable futures. It is also possible to create highly participatory future planning processes that incorporate the perspectives, beliefs, and values of resource users. In 2019, a group of fisheries stakeholders in Nunatsiavut, an Inuit land claim region in northern Labrador, began a target seeking scenario planning process to help them create a vision for the future of commercial fisheries in the region. Through this process, the group hoped to not only create a vision of Inuit-led fisheries but also to advance communication, collaboration, and learning for the group. In this paper, we reflect on the process we underwent over the past few years, including the research design, data collection and analysis, and the results of the project to broadly consider the strengths and weaknesses of participatory scenario planning for Indigenous governance. Reflecting on the process that we undertook provides important, experience-based knowledge for future projects. The elevation of Inuit voices makes this vision specific to the region and reframes fisheries as a tool for cultural and political rejuvenation in the region.","PeriodicalId":73887,"journal":{"name":"Journal of participatory research methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44363957","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Kathryn Snyder, J. R. HaileSelasse, Girija Kaimal, S. Sood
Participatory research can be used in conjunction with quantitative, other qualitative, and mixed methods research methods to collaboratively address priority global health issues that are greatly influenced by social norms. Social norms have been identified as key components of deeply held beliefs that perpetuate as well as change detrimental health practices. At all levels of global health research, from program development to monitoring and evaluation, participatory tools can be used to honor the ethic of working with the target population, incorporating their needs, and engaging a community to improve health-related behaviors. This paper shows how to use two visually based participatory tools to impact social and behavior change around Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and Menstrual Hygiene Management (MHM). Both FGM and MHM have been identified as critical to UNICEF’s Child Protection and to meeting the United Nations Global Sustainability Goals. We also outline how Social Network Mapping and 2x2 Tables were implemented to address complex social norms around FMG and MHM. The discussion then illustrates how they have been used within research and program development more broadly. These tools are valuable methods to understand and impact social and behavior change in a wide variety of public health issues.
{"title":"Assessing Social Norms, Health Behavior, and Change Using Visually Informed Participatory Research Tools: Social Network Mapping and 2x2 Tables","authors":"Kathryn Snyder, J. R. HaileSelasse, Girija Kaimal, S. Sood","doi":"10.35844/001c.74809","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.35844/001c.74809","url":null,"abstract":"Participatory research can be used in conjunction with quantitative, other qualitative, and mixed methods research methods to collaboratively address priority global health issues that are greatly influenced by social norms. Social norms have been identified as key components of deeply held beliefs that perpetuate as well as change detrimental health practices. At all levels of global health research, from program development to monitoring and evaluation, participatory tools can be used to honor the ethic of working with the target population, incorporating their needs, and engaging a community to improve health-related behaviors. This paper shows how to use two visually based participatory tools to impact social and behavior change around Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and Menstrual Hygiene Management (MHM). Both FGM and MHM have been identified as critical to UNICEF’s Child Protection and to meeting the United Nations Global Sustainability Goals. We also outline how Social Network Mapping and 2x2 Tables were implemented to address complex social norms around FMG and MHM. The discussion then illustrates how they have been used within research and program development more broadly. These tools are valuable methods to understand and impact social and behavior change in a wide variety of public health issues.","PeriodicalId":73887,"journal":{"name":"Journal of participatory research methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48615764","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this paper, we reflect on the use of Participatory Action Research (PAR) as a pedagogy. To do so, we first introduce PAR and review the burgeoning literature discussing PAR as a pedagogical approach at the university level. We then provide vignettes of our independent experiences as college educators facilitating PAR within undergraduate classrooms. Through our stories, we engage with the messy space between our efforts to change unjust systems and the neoliberal constraints of the academy with a chokehold on those efforts. In this narrative reflection, we examine key themes across our experiences, including: 1) relationship development as a political act; 2) the importance of emergent and responsive pedagogy; and 3) the challenges associated with prefiguring democratic practices in the classroom. Altogether, this paper grapples with the value and risk of bringing PAR into university classrooms and urges PAR educators to refrain from tidying up their pedagogy.
{"title":"Participatory Action Research as Pedagogy: Stay Messy","authors":"Julia S. Dancis, B. R. Coleman, Erin Rose Ellison","doi":"10.35844/001c.75174","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.35844/001c.75174","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, we reflect on the use of Participatory Action Research (PAR) as a pedagogy. To do so, we first introduce PAR and review the burgeoning literature discussing PAR as a pedagogical approach at the university level. We then provide vignettes of our independent experiences as college educators facilitating PAR within undergraduate classrooms. Through our stories, we engage with the messy space between our efforts to change unjust systems and the neoliberal constraints of the academy with a chokehold on those efforts. In this narrative reflection, we examine key themes across our experiences, including: 1) relationship development as a political act; 2) the importance of emergent and responsive pedagogy; and 3) the challenges associated with prefiguring democratic practices in the classroom. Altogether, this paper grapples with the value and risk of bringing PAR into university classrooms and urges PAR educators to refrain from tidying up their pedagogy.","PeriodicalId":73887,"journal":{"name":"Journal of participatory research methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44508140","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Nita Vangeepuram, K. Fei, Crispin N. Goytia, Devin Madden, G. Corbie-Smith, C. Horowitz
Employment of community-based participatory research (CBPR) strategies has helped address limitations of traditional research approaches, but we still do not have a full understanding of how study teams successfully conduct research with populations who experience health disparities. To gain insights into the unique successes and challenges of research teams conducting National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded community-engaged research studies, we conducted an online survey with 120 investigators identified through NIH RePORTER and 106 members of the academic study team (research staff) who assisted with recruitment. We examined descriptive statistics and used Chi-square analysis to compare responses between investigators and staff. Most studies targeted low-income, racial/ethnic minority populations and reported high recruitment and retention rates. The most common collaborators were community-based organizations, and the most common study purpose was to evaluate an intervention. There was generally consensus between investigators and staff about effective recruitment and retention strategies, barriers, and facilitators. However, there were also some critical differences, including perceptions about community partner roles and the value of staff input into study design and methods. After the presentation of our key findings, we share best practices for successful recruitment and retention in health disparities research using CBPR approaches.
{"title":"Community-Based Participatory Research: Insights, Challenges, and Successes From the Perspectives of Frontline Recruiters and Investigators","authors":"Nita Vangeepuram, K. Fei, Crispin N. Goytia, Devin Madden, G. Corbie-Smith, C. Horowitz","doi":"10.35844/001c.77399","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.35844/001c.77399","url":null,"abstract":"Employment of community-based participatory research (CBPR) strategies has helped address limitations of traditional research approaches, but we still do not have a full understanding of how study teams successfully conduct research with populations who experience health disparities. To gain insights into the unique successes and challenges of research teams conducting National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded community-engaged research studies, we conducted an online survey with 120 investigators identified through NIH RePORTER and 106 members of the academic study team (research staff) who assisted with recruitment. We examined descriptive statistics and used Chi-square analysis to compare responses between investigators and staff. Most studies targeted low-income, racial/ethnic minority populations and reported high recruitment and retention rates. The most common collaborators were community-based organizations, and the most common study purpose was to evaluate an intervention. There was generally consensus between investigators and staff about effective recruitment and retention strategies, barriers, and facilitators. However, there were also some critical differences, including perceptions about community partner roles and the value of staff input into study design and methods. After the presentation of our key findings, we share best practices for successful recruitment and retention in health disparities research using CBPR approaches.","PeriodicalId":73887,"journal":{"name":"Journal of participatory research methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41492392","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This project sought to co-design a data collection tool with students disenfranchised with mainstream schooling, that could be used to find out from other students why school works for some students but not others. Young people often think about and experience school differently and may have different ideas about what is important to ask and how experiences could be changed. Engaging with those for whom school was not working provides invaluable insight into what they feel matters about the school experience and potential opportunities where trajectories could be changed. Insights from staff supporting these students are also included. This project placed student views and experiences as central to the project and co-developed through student-centred co-design a ‘Talking Tree’ tool that can be used to facilitate complex conversations in a variety of contexts about why school works for some students, but not others.
{"title":"Engaging With Children and Young People About Their School Experience: Co-designing a ‘Talking Tree’ Research Tool to Investigate Why School Works for Some Students, but Not Others","authors":"Jenna K. Gillett-Swan, Abigail Winter, A. Radovic","doi":"10.35844/001c.75239","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.35844/001c.75239","url":null,"abstract":"This project sought to co-design a data collection tool with students disenfranchised with mainstream schooling, that could be used to find out from other students why school works for some students but not others. Young people often think about and experience school differently and may have different ideas about what is important to ask and how experiences could be changed. Engaging with those for whom school was not working provides invaluable insight into what they feel matters about the school experience and potential opportunities where trajectories could be changed. Insights from staff supporting these students are also included. This project placed student views and experiences as central to the project and co-developed through student-centred co-design a ‘Talking Tree’ tool that can be used to facilitate complex conversations in a variety of contexts about why school works for some students, but not others.","PeriodicalId":73887,"journal":{"name":"Journal of participatory research methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45941150","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Liza Lorenzetti, A. Jamal, Rita Dhungel, G. Hosein, Sarah Thomas, Jeffery Halovorsen
Interdisciplinary, local, regional, and cross-regional efforts are required to further men’s gender justice engagement on a global scale. There is limited understanding of how cross-regional collaborations account for intersectionality, geo-political differences among stakeholders, and the value of local strategies when designing and sharing prevention frameworks. Catalyzed by emerging and long-standing gender equity movements, our interdisciplinary research team from Canada, the Caribbean, Nepal, and Pakistan employed a community of practice (CoP) framework to share and mobilize research and experiential knowledge with the purpose of promoting regional and cross-regional strategies to involve men in gender justice efforts. Through a collective process, we co-created position statements, process dimensions, and key CoP activities to root our international collaboration. In this article, we emphasize the unique local contexts for our work and the learnings that emerged from our CoP. We propose a framework that can be used to advance collective and interdisciplinary agendas across global contexts and further the work of groups committed to transformative social change.
{"title":"Transforming Masculinities Through Cross-Cultural Collaboration: Reflections on Building a Community of Practice Framework","authors":"Liza Lorenzetti, A. Jamal, Rita Dhungel, G. Hosein, Sarah Thomas, Jeffery Halovorsen","doi":"10.35844/001c.77373","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.35844/001c.77373","url":null,"abstract":"Interdisciplinary, local, regional, and cross-regional efforts are required to further men’s gender justice engagement on a global scale. There is limited understanding of how cross-regional collaborations account for intersectionality, geo-political differences among stakeholders, and the value of local strategies when designing and sharing prevention frameworks. Catalyzed by emerging and long-standing gender equity movements, our interdisciplinary research team from Canada, the Caribbean, Nepal, and Pakistan employed a community of practice (CoP) framework to share and mobilize research and experiential knowledge with the purpose of promoting regional and cross-regional strategies to involve men in gender justice efforts. Through a collective process, we co-created position statements, process dimensions, and key CoP activities to root our international collaboration. In this article, we emphasize the unique local contexts for our work and the learnings that emerged from our CoP. We propose a framework that can be used to advance collective and interdisciplinary agendas across global contexts and further the work of groups committed to transformative social change.","PeriodicalId":73887,"journal":{"name":"Journal of participatory research methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43086452","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this research brief, the author describes the traditional Group Level Assessment (GLA), an in-person participatory research method, and its reshaping into an online participatory method. The research brief describes the initial modifications needed for a succinct online GLA, as well as the dilemmas surfacing within the online modifications. The author also shares key considerations the participants described as necessary for a more just online study. The brief closes with reflections on the process and suggestions for future participant-centered online research.
{"title":"Making Plan B Work: Group Level Assessment Modified for Online Research","authors":"Lesley Dorhout","doi":"10.35844/001c.57699","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.35844/001c.57699","url":null,"abstract":"In this research brief, the author describes the traditional Group Level Assessment (GLA), an in-person participatory research method, and its reshaping into an online participatory method. The research brief describes the initial modifications needed for a succinct online GLA, as well as the dilemmas surfacing within the online modifications. The author also shares key considerations the participants described as necessary for a more just online study. The brief closes with reflections on the process and suggestions for future participant-centered online research.","PeriodicalId":73887,"journal":{"name":"Journal of participatory research methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46258911","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：