This dissertation examines the processes by which multiple positioned actors in Participatory Action Research or Community-Based Participatory Research (PAR/CBPR) understand, reproduce, and contest systems of power and oppression in the context of their relationships and collaborations to support community-driven change efforts. The first chapter serves as a preface by reviewing relevant literature on participatory action research and power. The rest of the dissertation consists of three empirical papers.
The first of these papers examined the extent to which scholars interrogate systems of power and oppression in (PAR/CBPR) to advance social justice. Scoping review methodology was employed to systematically review scholarly literature written in English and published between 2010 and 2020 across 5 databases. Thematic analysis and data charting yielded six scholarly articles using critical self-reflexive qualitative methodologies to explore manifestations of power within the partnership. Articles describe researchers employing individual critical reflections to confront individual assumptions, modify individual collaboration practices, and identify multilevel structures restraining participatory action approaches to research.
The second paper explored the perceptions of researchers and community stakeholders regarding key processes questioning and addressing power issues within the (PAR/CBPR) collaborations. Individual in-depth semi-structured interviews (n=23) were conducted with social work researchers (n=13) and community stakeholders (n=10) with current or prior experience engaging in (PAR/CBPR) to examine the ways they define, negotiate, and address power differentials and oppression within their collaborations. Key emerging themes and discourses merged into a conceptual model illustrated with a metaphor of a river to highlight key social sites, paradigms of knowledge production, and the degree to which it aligns with the pursuit of social justice. Downstream strategies that sustain colonial forms of knowledge production included othering, disembodiment, and extraction. Conversely, upstream approaches underscored the centrality of redefining social relationships and ethical commitments within PAR/CBPR collaborations through the cultivation of unsettling counterspaces, counternarratives, and dialogical brave spaces.
Finally, the third paper explored researchers and community stakeholders’ conceptualization and understanding of social justice as well as recommendations for social work research, practice, and policy to contest power and oppression in the context of PAR/CBPR. A second wave of individual in-depth semi-structured interviews with social work researchers (n=11) and community stakeholders (n=11) with current or prior experience engaging in PAR/CBPR were conducted and analyzed using thematic analysis. Findings illustrated converging and diverging understandings of social justice, in particular, community stakeholders emphasized an understanding of social justice interdependent of systemic transformations through dialogical processes among stakeholders, researchers, and social institutions. PAR/CBPR was described as a facilitating factor of social justice by fostering counterspaces and counternarratives. Additionally, PAR/CBPR was defined as a factor limiting the pursuit of social justice and deeply entrenched with tenure-track promotion and funding mechanisms perpetuating top-down configurations of power.
Together and independently these papers further our understanding of the ways in which structural oppression and power in (PAR/CBPR) can be addressed. Research findings from all three studies highlighted participatory action research is not exempt from power hierarchies, and that multilevel strategies promoting counterspaces, counternarratives, and institutional changes are essential when redressing, negotiating, and contesting power and oppression. Findings inform best practices for the development of PAR/CBPR collaborations embodying ethical relationality across social work research, practice, education, and policy. Future studies should consider the use of longitudinal and critically in-depth dialogical approaches between multiple positioned actors in PAR/CBPR when defining social justice, PAR/CBPR, and power. / 2028-04-30
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:bu.edu/oai:open.bu.edu:2144/44429 |
| Date | 13 May 2022 |
| Creators | Tang Yan, Catalina |
| Contributors | Sprague Martinez, Linda S. |
| Source Sets | Boston University |
| Language | en_US |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis/Dissertation |
| Rights | Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ |
Page generated in 0.0019 seconds