See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/312368169

Participatory action research as a platform for community engagement in

higher education

Article · January 2012

CITATIONS READS

22 185

1 author:

Godwell Nhamo
University of South Africa
231 PUBLICATIONS   2,394 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

COVID-19 and tourism destinations: Impacts and prospects for recovery Book Abstract and Chapter Call View project

Evidence and potential impacts of climate variability and change on water based tourism : Case of Kariba Resort Town, Zimbabwe View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Godwell Nhamo on 09 February 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 JHEA/RESA Vol. 10, No. 1, 2012, pp.1–21
© Council for the Development of Social Science Research in Africa 2013
(ISSN 0851–7762)

Participatory Action Research

as a Platform for Community Engagement
in Higher Education

Godwell Nhamo*

Abstract
Institutions of higher education throughout the world have reached con-
sensus in terms of their core business, defined through: (1) teaching and
learning, (2) research and (3) community engagement. Of these three areas of
focus, community engagement has posed serious challenges in terms of
clear cut methodologies and measurability. While the ‘why’ question of com-
munity engagement may be understood, the ‘how to do it’ questions need
attention. This has also raised anxiety amongst staff, who are expected to
perform and get rewards for community engagement. It is against this back-
ground that this article argues for Participatory Action Research (PAR) as an
enabling platform for community engagement in higher education.
The argument and assumption is that PAR provides a two-way engagement
process that locks in both the researchers and communities they will be
reaching, in seeking to solve community problems. PAR moves higher edu-
cation from linear-oriented research to web-oriented systematic cycles of
inquiry that involve planning, asking questions, taking action, observing,
evaluating and critically reflecting, prior to planning the next cycles. Com-
munity problems that could be addressed through PAR include those aris-
ing from environmental damage (including climate change), HIV and AIDS,
lack of service delivery, politics and many more.
Résumé
Les établissements d’enseignement supérieur du monde entier sont parve-
nus à un consensus autour de leurs activités principales, définies par:
(1) l’enseignement et la formation, (2) la recherche et (3) l’engagement
communautaire. De ces trois domaines d’intérêt, l’engagement communautaire
est celui qui a posé le plus de défis en termes de méthodologies et de me-
surabilité. Si la question de l’engagement communautaire peut être

* University of South Africa, [email protected]

1-Nhamo.pmd 1 18/03/2013, 16:22

 2 JHEA/RESA Vol. 10, No. 1, 2012

comprise, la façon de le pratiquer requiert plus d’attention. Ceci a également

soulevé l’inquiétude du personnel prévu pour effectuer et obtenir des
récompenses pour l’engagement communautaire. C’est dans ce contexte
que cet article plaide en faveur de la Recherche-Action Participative (RAP)
comme plate-forme propice à l’engagement communautaire dans
l’enseignement supérieur.
L’argument est que la RAP fournit un processus d’engagement bi-directionnel
qui oblige les chercheurs autant que les communautés à résoudre les
problèmes communautaires. La RAP déplace l’enseignement supérieur d’un
modèle de recherche linéaire vers un modèle de réseaux de cycles d’enquêtes
qui impliquent planification, mesure, observation, évaluation et réflexion cri-
tique avant de planifier les cycles suivants. Les problèmes communautaires
qui pourraient être traités à travers la RAP découlent notamment des atteintes
à l’environnement (y compris le changement climatique), le VIH et le sida, le
manque de prestation de services, la politique et bien d’autres.

Introduction
Many questions can be asked with regards to the subject of community
engagement. What is community engagement? Who is the community? How
do we engage the community? Is community engagement a discipline? What
forms of community engagement exist? Is there any particular form of com-
munity engagement? When do we engage the community? Why do we
engage the community? Which methodologies are most appropriate to fa-
cilitate community engagement in institutions of higher education? All these
questions cannot be answered in a single article. This article presents Par-
ticipatory Action Research (PAR) as one of the many dimensions of Action
Research. Institutions of higher education are faced with a huge challenge
in terms of making their research and teaching relevant in practice. To this
end, research methods such as PAR can provide a platform upon which the
relevance of university research and teaching to communities can be im-
proved (Baskerville & Myers 2004). Popularised in the 1990s, PAR has its
roots in Action Research that emerged in the 1940s.
Institutions of higher education define their core business through three
major lenses: teaching and learning, research and community engagement.
However, due to the traditional orientation in terms of perspectives that
viewed institutions of higher education as faculties that generate knowledge
through research to be distributed to those without, there has always been a
power gradient in favour of university communities. Even the teaching and
learning models were mainly based on chalk and talk, with the lecturers
having overwhelming power in final decisions regarding the fate of learners.

1-Nhamo.pmd 2 18/03/2013, 16:22

 Nhamo: Participatory Action Research as a Platform for Community Engagement 3

Assumptions of prior learning were ignored and learners were viewed as

empty vessels. In terms of research, communities were viewed as incuba-
tors of research through their involvement in a passive nature that required
them to answer questions and provide answers required by academics. PAR
has been widely used across disciplines within institutions of higher educa-
tion. The Global Alliance on Community Engagement Research – GACER
(2009) views community engagement in higher education as providing an
incubator for knowledge creation and mobilisation in response to the global
sustainable development challenges.
In South Africa, as is the case globally, the concept community engage-
ment is still under refinement. This is true, given that the latest publication
from the South African Council of Higher Education (CHE) is still seeking
clarity on the subject matter. Professor Martin Hall (Vice Chancellor of the
University of Salford and Professor Emeritus with the University of Cape
Town) in his paper entitled ‘Community engagement in South African higher
education’ writes:
The objective of this paper is to bring together perspectives on community
engagement in South African Higher Education in order to assist the Na-
tional Research Foundation (NRF) in drawing up a programme for funding
research in this area, to inform the further development of the Council on
Higher Education’s (CHE) quality evaluation criteria for community engage-
ment, and to contribute to the CHE’s advice to the Minister of Education on
the appropriate place of community engagement in the national Higher Edu-
cation system (Hall 2010:1).
Hall goes further and warns that there are questions still being raised in
terms of the scope and definition of community engagement. Such is the
contested nature of community engagement and the quest for more clarity.
There could be as many definitions in terms of community engagement as
there are communities themselves. However, if community engagement
means everything, then it probably means nothing at all.

The Place of Community Engagement in Universities

The ranking in terms of especially academic staff in universities is primarily
based on what an academic has published. Since measuring progress is
quantitative (probably drawing from the predominantly quantitative ap-
proaches to research), the number of publications earns one’s promotion
from junior lecturer, to lecturer, to senior lecturer, to associate professor and
full professor. In other instances, the rank of senior professor is accorded.
The academic promotions criteria means that even the tuition aspect gets

1-Nhamo.pmd 3 18/03/2013, 16:22

 4 JHEA/RESA Vol. 10, No. 1, 2012

affected negatively as many universities find it difficult to assess tuition for

promotion purposes. Hence, recognition for researchers of the year, unlike
educator of the year and community engagement personality of the year,
usually takes priority. To date, very few lecturers have been promoted based
on excellence in tuition or community engagement. However, many univer-
sities set promotion criteria that recognise the three core business areas.
For the purposes of this work, a model depicting the three pillars of univer-
sity core business is presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1 presents a scenario in which, for budgetary purposes, commu-
nity engagement must be viewed and represented as the third independent
arm of university core business. In terms of implementation, community
engagement should be considered as cross cutting. This implies that univer-
sity staff, especially the academic ones, should integrate community en-
gagement into teaching and learning, as well as into research. This way,
community engagement becomes a pillar and foundation to university core
business. Universities must be relevant to the local, national, regional and
international communities. Institutions of higher education are therefore com-
munities within communities.
Figure 1: University Core Business Model

University Core business 

University as a Community in Communities 
Developm ent 
Research and 
Teaching and 

Engagem ent 
Com m unity 
Learning  

Community Engaged University 

Local/Regional/International Communities 

Source: Author

1-Nhamo.pmd 4 18/03/2013, 16:22

 Nhamo: Participatory Action Research as a Platform for Community Engagement 5

Methodological Orientation
This article is largely a survey of literature on methodologies that facilitate
effective community engagement between institutions of higher education
(particularly, universities) and their communities. The article is based on an
assumption that a university is a community within a community. Among
some of the communities that universities interact with are its own students,
businesses, governments, non-governmental organisations, political parties,
other universities, donors, media, etc. Aspects of Critical Discourse Analy-
sis as well as Critical Document Analysis methodologies inform the manner
in which the literature survey has been enriched in terms of analysis (Van
Dijk 1997; Sandig & Selting 1997). A reflexive approach was also embarked
on in order to tease out new insights from the documentation of PAR as a
platform for community engagement in institutions of higher education.

Unpacking Community Engagement

This article will not devote much space to defining the concept community
engagement as there will probably be no consensus in this regard. Instead,
an attempt will be made to describe the meaning of community engage-
ment. In simple terms, a community refers to a group of people within a
socio-political context, but also to non-living things like soil, rocks, air and
water. When one talks of community engagement, many are quick to think
of a poor community; a community that requires help. Depending on the
focus of one’s work and form of engagement, a community also refers to
very rich groups and also professional clusters. Engagement could be thought
of as commitment. Holland (2005) suggests that in the USA the term en-
gagement entered higher education vocabulary in 1994. This was when the
then President of the American Association of Higher Education focused on
the topic ‘engaged institutions’.
In my view, the notion of community engagement brings into the picture
aspects of: citizenship, relationships, democracy, diversity, partnerships, his-
tories, collaboration, conflicts, entertainment, power, politics, money, rule of
law, governance, accountability, social contexts, winners, losers, knowledge
construction, protectionism, dominance, competition, poverty encounters,
desire to solve problems and many more facets of life. The terms noted
above are the reason why it will be futile to try and get to an agreed defini-
tion of community engagement. To simplify the realities associated with
community engagement in institutions of higher education, a number of models
have emerged. Some are briefly considered in the following paragraphs.

1-Nhamo.pmd 5 18/03/2013, 16:22

 6 JHEA/RESA Vol. 10, No. 1, 2012

Bender (2008) observes that there is a huge gap in terms of structural

and functional conceptual models for community engagement in South Afri-
can higher education. This is not a problem for South Africa alone, as GACER
(2009) made a similar observation concerning higher education and commu-
nity engagement at a global level. The GACER proposes an Action Plan for
University-Community Engagement for Societal Change and Development.
This model, it is portrayed, ‘unleashes the resources of higher education and
government, in collaboration with civil society and its socio-economic devel-
opment actors to create the sustainable world we want’ (ibid. 1). The GACER
is the creation of representatives of universities, networks and civil society.
Bender (2008) further identifies three models for community engage-
ment in higher education namely: the Silo, Intersectional and Infusion (cross-
cutting) models. From her perspective, the Silo model recognises commu-
nity engagement as a separate and mainly voluntary activity for the university
academics. Within this set-up, the greater allocation of resources (including
money, staff and time) goes to research, followed by teaching and learning
and a small portion left for community service. The use of the term commu-
nity service (outreach) as opposed to engagement denotes the predomi-
nantly one-way type of association mentioned in the University of South
Africa Community Engagement and Outreach Policy (Unisa 2008).
The Intersectional Model for Community Engagement Acknowledges
that the three core businesses of the university have an intersection that can
be illustrated in a Venn diagram. Where tuition, research and development
as well as community service intersect, there will be service-learning and
community-based research (Bender 2008). In the event that there is no
intersection, this results in community outreach and volunteerism which con-
tinues in discrete forms. The Intersection Model conceptualises community
engagement as an irreducible and inevitable component of the ongoing uni-
versity activities. Hence, the assumption is that all university tuition and
research takes some form of community engagement, be it direct or indi-
rect. Contested features like scholarly publications, research technical re-
ports, media coverage and public forums all become community engage-
ment ventures. From this model, Bender concurs that universities will not
require a radical transformation towards community engagement as they
have been, they are and they always will be engaging the communities through
the nature of their core business. The third model – Infusion (cross-cutting)
or ‘Community-engaged university’, identifies universities as fulfilling twin
core businesses: tuition as well as research and development. From this

1-Nhamo.pmd 6 18/03/2013, 16:22

 Nhamo: Participatory Action Research as a Platform for Community Engagement 7

perspective, community engagement becomes a fundamental idea and di-

mension infused in and integrated within the twin core businesses. Commu-
nity engagement therefore becomes the foundation of all university busi-
ness.
A review of the three models presented by Bender points us to two
fundamentals: (1) there is no one, true model of community engagement,
and (2) we need to consider community engagement on a continuum as
universities aim to move from low community engagement to the highest
form of community engagement. Issues with regard to who is driving the
process of community engagement and for what reason come into play as
well. In addition, issues of participation, power play, actors, actants, net-
works and the social contexts also emerge. Bender goes further and notes
that community engagement provokes change management within institu-
tions of higher education. Both the academic and non-academic staff should
be involved in this change process. Challenges associated with financing
(both within and outside the university) need to be addressed. In the South
African context, the question then arises: How can community engagement
be measured and subsidised under the outputs and subsidy policy? This is a
question that lies outside the scope of this article. Challenges within global
universities also emerge concerning the hiring and promotion criteria.
Given that communities will never be homogenous, there will be no strait
jacket in terms of community engagement. Usually, the ‘rich’ within a given
social context, be it in terms of financial resources, political power and other
linkages, call the shots. One should also realise the richness in community
diversity and the dynamics thereof. Borrowing from the Actor/Actant Net-
work Theory (Nhamo 2006) this article advocates an understanding of
community engagement by identifying three major facets that drive the
process, namely: actors (humans), actants (non-humans) and their net-
works (Figure 2).

1-Nhamo.pmd 7 18/03/2013, 16:22

 8 JHEA/RESA Vol. 10, No. 1, 2012

Figure 2: Actors, Actants and Networks in Communities

Source: Author

Examples of non-human elements include mobile phones, documents, meet-

ing places, computers, water, rail and road networks, historical contexts that
shape narratives by the communities and serve as reference points. The
three facets interact in space and over time to discursively construct their
realities and knowledge forms. The actors, actants and networks within the
community are highly complex. These have relational orientations that oper-
ate at various geographical and spatial levels. Hence what could be identi-
fied as a localised network can be linked to regional and international net-
works. Information flow within communities is not only limited to the smaller,
local unit that an institution of higher education could be interested in dealing
with.

Action Research
PAR is one dimension of Action Research (Checkland & Holwell 1998).
Action research is defined in simple terms as ‘learning by doing’ (O’Brien
1998:2) as a group of people that identify a problem and do something about
it. O’Brien identifies other terms used to refer to Action Research, including

1-Nhamo.pmd 8 18/03/2013, 16:22

 Nhamo: Participatory Action Research as a Platform for Community Engagement 9

participatory research, collaborative research, emancipatory research, ac-

tion learning and contextual action research. Action research also has many
dimensions (Baskerville & Myers 2004; Bender & Carvalho-Malekane 2010;
Cornwall & Jewkes 1995) and these are presented in Figure 3. For the
purposes of this study, only the generic components of Action Research as
well as PAR will be discussed.
Figure 3: Dimensions of PAR

Source: Author

Action Research originated in the social sciences after World War II in the
1940s and it ‘aims to solve current practical problems while expanding sci-
entific knowledge’ (Baskerville & Myers 2004:329). In action research, the
researcher engages the community with a pre-agreed and defined agenda
to create organisational change through collaboration. Action research (ibid.)
becomes a two-way stage process which is diagnostic and therapeutic. The

1-Nhamo.pmd 9 18/03/2013, 16:22

 10 JHEA/RESA Vol. 10, No. 1, 2012

diagnostic stage encompasses a collaborative analysis of social situations by

researchers and the community. During the therapeutic stage, remedial
measures are undertaken and effects of such new changes studied.
Essentially, Action Research draws from pragmatism, a philosophy that
concentrates on interrogation, asking the right questions and retrieving em-
pirical answers to the questions (Baskerville & Myers 2004). This way,
researchers in community engagement are able to explain why certain things
work or why certain things do not work. From a pragmatist perspective,
four basis of argument could be drawn (ibid. 331): (1) all human concepts
are defined by their consequences; (2) truth is embodied in practical out-
comes; (3) rational thought is interspersed with action – logic of controlled
inquiry; and (4) human action is contextualised socially and human
conceptualisation is also social reflection (ibid.). Hence if one is to conduct
Action Research in order to facilitate community engagement, the purpose
of any action needs to be defined beforehand. In addition, there should be a
practical action in problem setting that must inform the inquiry and be a
social construct. The context of Action Research in a social setting implies
that researchers must be participant observers (Baskerville & Myers 2004;
Creswell 2003). The community can no longer be passive.

Participatory Action Research

Three major terms are associated with PAR and these are: collaborative,
relevance and action research (White et al. 2004). To these key terms other
authors add cycles of inquiry (Bacon et al. 2005; Lupele 2003), an aspect
that presents PAR as a research, planning and problem-solving tool. Col-
laboration involves co-inquiry and equitable engagement resulting in positive
change (Bailey et al. 2009). Baskerville and Myers (2004) as well as Bacon
et al. (2005) acknowledge that Action Research became highly participa-
tory during the 1990s and researchers started applying the methodology
regularly (Santelli et al. 1998). Bacon et al. (2005) indicate that PAR was
associated specifically with research related to rural and agricultural devel-
opment in developing countries. Hence, one often reads about other related
methodologies like Participatory Rural Appraisal. The authors draw from
Biggs’s 1989 writings (Cornwall & Jewkes 1995) and come up with a con-
tinuum of typologies of participation which they indicate range from con-
tractual (ranked lowest), through consultative, to collaborative and ultimately
collegial (ranked highest). Participatory approaches brought closer partner-
ships and synergies between the researcher and the researched. Within the
focus of this article, participatory approaches bring institutions of higher

1-Nhamo.pmd 10 18/03/2013, 16:22

 Nhamo: Participatory Action Research as a Platform for Community Engagement 11

education close to the communities in which they engage. The historical

evolution of participatory research methodologies and PAR is shown
in Figure 4.
Figure 4: Historical Evolution of PAR

Source: Author, based on Bailey et al., (2009:9).

The participation typologies identified by Biggs (cited in Cornwall & Jewkes

1995:669) are explained as:
 Contractual: people are contracted into the projects of researchers to
take part in their enquiries or experiments.
 Consultative: people are asked for their opinions and are consulted by
researchers before interventions are made.
 Collaborative: researchers and the community work together on
projects designed, initiated and managed by researchers.
 Collegiate: researchers and community work together as colleagues
with different skills to offer, in a process of mutual learning where
local people have control over the process.
In my view, participation does not have single entry and exit points. Hence,
it should be viewed on a continuum, ranging from limited participation to full
participation. Readers could also choose to use other qualitative variables
such as low to high, or passive to active. Bacon et al. (2005) found PAR

1-Nhamo.pmd 11 18/03/2013, 16:22

 12 JHEA/RESA Vol. 10, No. 1, 2012

useful as it meets the twin objectives of research and action for positive
community engagement and change. Brydon-Miller et al. (2003) see PAR
facilitating the integration of theory and practice. Drawing from the Univer-
sity of Minnesota Task Force on Community Research report, Bailey et al.
(2009) present the Continuum of Community Engaged Research with the
following aspects:

 Basic Research Outside of Community Involvement: e.g. secondary

data analysis of reading programme scores.
 Community-Placed Research: e.g. one-time community survey of
children’s reading ability.
 Basic Community Partnership Research: tracking children’s reading
abilities over time in cooperating school.
 Close Community Partnership Research: long-term collaborative
project to improve reading scores in school.
 Community-Based Participatory Research: co-created community
intervention to improve community capacity for reading programme
at library.
 Community-Based Participatory Action Research (highest rank and
focus of this work): e.g. co-created research initiative of parents,
students, school and university researchers to improve reading in school
that results in a policy and practice change.
The Community Engaged Research continuum presented implies that at
any one stage, university academics are involved in some form of Commu-
nity Engaged Research. What differs is the extent to which the academic
members are involved. The notion of a continuum presents the research
community with challenges associated with a chance to oscillate within the
continuum. In action research, university staff involved in the community as
researchers have a major role to nurture local leaders to a threshold where
they can take responsibility for the process (O’Brien 1998). This means that
the researchers can wear many hats during community engagement proc-
esses varying from being planner, to leader, catalyser, teacher, listener, ob-
server, synthesiser, facilitator, designer, reporter, etc.
There is evidence of university engagement in community engagement
research from Africa and Asia. The Sub-Saharan Africa Participatory Re-
search Network (SSAPAN) promotes the use of PAR in meeting the needs

1-Nhamo.pmd 12 18/03/2013, 16:22

 Nhamo: Participatory Action Research as a Platform for Community Engagement 13

of people and communities to achieve sustainable development (Global Alli-

ance on Community Engaged Research 2009). Popular knowledge is being
developed through university community partnerships in the fields of com-
munity development, women issues, poverty alleviation, health, education
and literacy, sustainable development and culture. The SSAPAN has been
particularly successful in Senegal, Gambia, Mauritania and Chad. In Asia,
the society for Participatory Research in Asia has been working on similar
initiatives like those from the SSAPAN (ibid.).
Authors have also tried to come up with definitions of what PAR is.
However, for the purposes of simplicity and clarity, this article focuses on
the identification and description of the key features of the methodology and
how it acts as a platform for community engagement from a university per-
spective. White et al. (2004:3) concur that despite differences in definitions
of PAR, convergences exist. Among such key commonalities are included:
(1) meaningful consumer involvement in all phases of the research process,
(2) power sharing between researchers and consumers, (3) mutual respect
for the different provinces of knowledge that the team members have,
(4) bidirectional education of researchers and consumers, (5) conversion
of results of research into new policy, programmatic, or social initiatives,
and (6) the fact that PAR stands in stark contrast to the traditional standard
for conducting research in which participants are treated as passive objects
of study. Following White et al.’s (2004) observations, four key implementa-
tion parameters facilitating the application of PAR are:
 participant selection and recruitment: this involves the identification
of potential team members, advertising PAR opportunities, gaining
entry into a setting, group or network, developing participatory
relationships, orienting potential team members, recruiting team
members and retaining team members.
 role and relationship clarification for researchers and
participants: involves defining the scope of PAR, defining member
roles, identifying member responsibilities and sharing power.
 research team education: encompassing addressing learning needs
of the researchers and consumers as well as structuring learning
opportunities.
 management and support: looks at the determination of management
needs, support needs and the assignment of responsibilities and
resources.

1-Nhamo.pmd 13 18/03/2013, 16:22

 14 JHEA/RESA Vol. 10, No. 1, 2012

Cornwall and Jewkes (1995) go further and differentiate participatory from

conventional research (Table 1). In their comparison, they focus on answer-
ing a series of questions, including: What is the research for? Who is the
research for? Whose knowledge counts? They also focus on methodology
choice, problem identification, data collection, analysis and interpretation.
The comparison in Table 1 does not necessarily mean that researchers uti-
lising PAR cannot integrate and utilise some of the conventional methodolo-
gies when applying PAR.
Table 1: Comparing Participatory and Conventional Research

Parameter Participatory Research Conventional Research

Upfront questions
What is the research for? Action Understanding with perhaps action later
Who is the research for? Local people Institutional, personal and professional interests
Whose knowledge counts? Local people’s Scientists
Topic choice influenced by? Local priorities Funding priorities, institutional agendas,
professional interests
Methodological underpinnings
Methodology chosen for? Empowerment, mutual learning Disciplinary conversation, ‘objectivity’ and ‘truth'
Who takes part in the stages of the research process?
Problem identification Local community people Researcher
Data collection Local community people Researcher, enumerator
Interpretation Local concepts and frameworks Disciplinary concepts and frameworks
Analysis Local community people Researcher
Presentation of findings Locally accessible and useful By researcher to other academics or funding body
Action on findings Integral to the process Separate and may not happen
Who takes action? Local community people, External agencies
with/without external support
Who owns the results? Shared Researcher
What is emphasised? Process Outcomes

Source: Modified after Cornwall and Jewkes (1995:1669).

Bacon et al. (2005:2) maintain that PAR is ‘a cyclical approach that at-
tempts to involve a wider diversity of stakeholders as active participants in a
process of both research activities and efforts to act for positive change’.
To this end, the traditional cyclical process of PAR encompasses ‘looking’
(I would call this problematisation), ‘thinking (reflecting)’, ‘acting’ and ‘sharing
and expanding the network’. Bailey et al. (2009) identify five stages that
include: dialogue, discovery, data review and dissemination, developing plans
and taking action as well as delivering results. O’Brien (1998) further stipu-
lates four stages that include: planning, acting, observing and reflecting. The
three sets of authors view PAR as a continuous cyclical process with distin-
guishable, but networked stages. In the context of this article, I have harmo-
nised the stages from authors under investigation to come up with a ‘new’
orientation to the PAR cycles (Figure 5). PAR also encompasses what Bai-

1-Nhamo.pmd 14 18/03/2013, 13:30

 Nhamo: Participatory Action Research as a Platform for Community Engagement 15

ley et al. (2009) term core values, namely: inclusion, integration, apprecia-
tion of multiple understandings through dialogue, equity (shared power), trans-
parency, accountability as well as positive change and mutual benefit. Usu-
ally, communities and individuals find it difficult to account. Hence, I realise
aspects of good governance and good citizenship come into play when deal-
ing with community engagement in higher education. Participants must be
fully engaged in all the stages of the cycle for the process to be truly partici-
patory (Wiber et al. 2004).
Figure 5: PAR’s Continuous Cyclical Nature

Source: Author
PAR can be initiated by the community or by the university (Bailey et al.
2009). The community might be seeking to address an issue to foster change,
an aspect that compels it to seek university interests, resources and partici-
pation. On the other hand, the university might desire to investigate an issue
and help the community. This way, the university likewise seeks community
interest, resources and participation. Hence, research adds value to the tra-
ditional way of doing things (action) in the community whilst action adds
value to the traditional research in the university. At the centre of PAR is the

1-Nhamo.pmd 15 18/03/2013, 16:22

 16 JHEA/RESA Vol. 10, No. 1, 2012

desire by equal partners to continue to widen and deepen engagement, un-

derstanding and change.
In as much as PAR has its major advantages, researchers and the com-
munity should take note of challenges associated with the presence of the
history of lack of trust and low respect within relationships (Bailey et al.
2009). Other issues the authors raise include contested community bounda-
ries; fuzzy and unrealistic expectations; miscommunication and inadequate
communication; under-developed research skills and network and partner-
ship building; new recruitment processes as participants move in and out
and the associated costs, including skill gaps and possibility of collapsing
partnerships; and conflict and time commitment. The PAR process is, by its
nature, time consuming. In the process, actors and networks may grow
weary. To facilitate smoother PAR, Bailey et al. (2009) warns that one
takes cognisance of power considerations as knowledge is power and it
drives change and ethical considerations, including commitments to drive
and sustain inclusiveness. The various stages in the PAR model shown in
Figure 5, including: Looking and Dialoguing; Problematisation, Reflecting
and Research; Acting - Developing Plans and Taking Measures; and Shar-
ing and Delivering Results will now be discussed in more depth in the
following sections.

Looking, Problematisation and Dialoguing

Looking, problematisation and dialoguing mark the entry point into the PAR
continuous cyclical process. During this stage, the researchers put together
a group to be involved in the entire PAR process (Bacon et al. 2005). The
group of actors is normally embedded in a local organisation or a forum
integrating multi-stakeholder organisations and individuals that are interested
and affected parties. In this regard, PAR means government bodies; civil
society and business should have a voice from the initial stages of the process.
Pain and Francis (2003) refer to the group as the ‘steering group’. They
steer the process and this does not imply that the group hijacks the process.
The initial probing questions during the entry point focus on which actors
should be involved in defining the problem and agenda setting. After the
formulation of the group, the university and community brainstorm and iden-
tify an issue of concern or opportunities for constructive transformation. In
the context of higher education in South Africa, the problem is lack of effec-
tive community engagement. For Unisa, the current opportunity is that an
initiative to work through the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) frame-
work to facilitate community engagement is in place (Steyn 2010). Research

1-Nhamo.pmd 16 18/03/2013, 16:22

 Nhamo: Participatory Action Research as a Platform for Community Engagement 17

areas could then emerge from the identified problem, including an investiga-
tion into how the model being proposed will play out in the community as
well as within Unisa. As the problem gets more refined, the group needs to
include weaker voices, especially the most vulnerable – women, children
and the poor. The group should also visualise the nature of questions that the
bigger community and its networks will ask. The concept ‘participation’
should be avoided at all cost if the research will prove otherwise. In the
event that the community of interest has some formal institutions in place,
these must be utilised as much as possible. However, such local institutions
should be audited in terms of verifying power plays and other local social
dynamics.

Reflect and Research

Upon continuous reflection, research questions will be conceptualised to
address the problem leading the group to initiate relevant research. Issues
relating to research designs come to mind (Maxwell 1996) including aspects
of validity (Maxwell 1992; Merriam 2001). Reflection also facilitates the
sharing of a common vision and destiny with regards to the problem – from
the example cited earlier, lack of community engagement within Unisa. If
the steering group was to come up with a relevant research question with
regards to the identified problem, it will be best to start by revisiting the goals
and objectives of community engagement and the roles of universities. One
research question could be: How can the MDGs provide a framework for
community engagement in universities and, more specifically, Unisa? Many
conventional research ethics aspects apply during the reflecting and research
stage of the PAR. There must be full disclosure in terms of the purpose and
intention of the research. This means that those co-leading the research
aspects must be honest and also self-critical (Pain & Francis 2003). In ad-
dition, traditional research instruments such as interviews (Arksey & Knight
1999), surveys and case study (Oppenheim 1992) as well as data analyses
frameworks like grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin 1998) can be utilised.
Grounded theory presents a framework that identifies the need for coding,
leading to the formation of categories and themes either drawn from the
data (in vivo) of from prior established frameworks (in vitro).
The complexity of social issues researched within their social contexts
(Lotz-Sisitka, 2002) means that participants in PAR must draw up multi and
inter-disciplinary teams. Researchers should also be ready to facilitate learning
during the change process by feeding back preliminary findings to the com-
munity. This creates a forum for continuous analysis and reflection (Bacon

1-Nhamo.pmd 17 18/03/2013, 16:22

 18 JHEA/RESA Vol. 10, No. 1, 2012

et al. 2005). Actors and their networks will be embedded in the research
findings and start sharing views leading to refinements of particular percep-
tions as more understanding is sought after.

Acting – Developing Plans and Taking Measures

A distinctive feature of PAR from many conventional methodologies is the
commitment by participants to act and to action (Bacon et al. 2005). To this
end, information geared towards acting must be generated. Universities should
be aware that the community might still decide not to act. Action planning
(O’Brien 1998) takes effect and alternative courses of action are consid-
ered. The best alternative course of action is selected based on the facts
available. Planning involves the allocation of resources including time and
money so that delivery of set objectives is met both within budget and on
time. Components of project planning and management are also an integral
element of the PAR in community engagement.

Sharing and Delivering Results

When sharing, participants in the PAR process ‘reflect, assess and summa-
rise the research and change results of their experience’ (Bacon et al. 2005:2).
Educational visits are usually encouraged, including community to commu-
nity or university to university exchange visits. Participants need to grow the
networks for sustainability purposes. Continued engagement results in re-
engagement and redefinition of the problem with the whole cycle starting all
over again. This process facilitates a hybrid platform where theory meets
practice and possibly results in informed continuous improvement and trans-
formation within the community. Bacon et al. (2005) note that continuing the
PAR cycle presents one of the key challenges as this requires long-term
commitment from the participating communities. Universities are usually
challenged as researchers disengage once they fulfil their personal and pro-
fessional needs or due to lack of research funds. On the other hand, com-
munities may have other new challenges and priorities, an aspect very com-
mon in developing countries with changes in governments and political leadership.
The sharing and delivery of results stage might also include evaluation – study-
ing the consequences of actions taken (O’Brien 1998).

Conclusion
This article addressed the challenges in community engagement. The chal-
lenges under review are those associated with proper research meth-
odologies that provide platforms for community engagement. The article

1-Nhamo.pmd 18 18/03/2013, 16:22

 Nhamo: Participatory Action Research as a Platform for Community Engagement 19

identified Participatory Action Research (PAR) as one of the most appro-

priate sets of methodological orientations that permit true community en-
gagement in institutions of higher education. A model identifying four stages
in the continuous cycle of PAR was developed, drawing from models pre-
sented by various authors. The four stages were identified as: Stage 1 - Look-
ing and Dialoguing; Stage 2 - Problematisation, Reflecting and Research;
Stage 3 - Acting (Developing Plans and Taking Measures); and Stage 4 -
Sharing and Delivering Results. These stages were not presented in a linear
fashion but in a web-like networked scenario where participants in commu-
nity engagement move backwards and forth, linking ideas emerging from
the stages. The stages were separated to permit simplicity and for analysis
reasons. More research needs to be done in terms of methodologies that
facilitate easy community engagement. Developing an agreeable set of meth-
odologies could go a long way in this regard. Some questions raised in this
article that were not addressed could be a starting point for further research.
This is an open call to those interested in this subject.

Acknowledgements
The author thanks Exxaro Resources Limited for sponsoring the Chair in
Business and Climate Change, run under Unisa’s Institute for Corporate
Citizenship.

References
Arksey, H. and Knight, P., 1999, Interviewing for Social Scientists: An Introduction with
Examples, London: Sage.
Bacon, C., Mendez, E. and Brwon, M., 2005, Participatory Action Research and Support for
Community Development and Conservation: Examples from Shade Coffee Landscapes
in Nicaragua and El Salvador, Santa Cruz: Center for Agroecology and Sustainable
Food Systems.
Bailey, D., Koney, K.M. and Furco, A., 2009, Participatory Action Research, Minnesota:
University of Minnesota.
Baskerville, R. and Myers, M., 2004, ‘Special Issue on Action Research in Information
Systems: Making Research Relevant to Practice’, MIS Quarterly, 28, pp. 329-335.
Bender, Gerda C.J., 2008, ‘Exploring Conceptual Models for Community Engagement at
Higher Education Institutions in South Africa’, Perspectives in Education, Vol. 26,
pp. 81-95.
Bender, Gerda C.J. and Carvalho-Malekane, W., 2010, Glossary of the Different Types of
Research-related Community Engagement, Pretoria: Department of Community En-
gagement University of Pretoria.

1-Nhamo.pmd 19 18/03/2013, 16:22

 20 JHEA/RESA Vol. 10, No. 1, 2012

Brydon-Miller, M., Greenwood, D., and Maguire, P., 2003, ‘Why Action Research?’, Action
Research, Vol. 1, pp.9-28.
Checkland, P. and Holwell, S., 1998, ‘Action Research: Its Nature and Validity’, Systemic
Practice and Research, Vol.11, pp. 9-21.
Cornwall, A. and Jewkes, R., 1995, ‘What is Participatory Research?’, Social Science Medi-
cine, Vol. 41, pp. 1662-1676.
Creswell, J.W., 2003, Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods
Approaches, Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Global Alliance on Community Engaged Research, 2009, Higher Education, Community
Engagement and the World We Want, London: Global Alliance on Community Engaged
Research.
Hall, M., 2010, ‘Community Engagement in South African Higher Education’, Kagisano,
Vol.6, pp. 1-52.
Holland, B.A., 2005, ‘Reflections on Community-campus Partnerships: What Has Been
Learned? What Are the Next Challenges?’ in P.A.Pasque, R. E. Smerek, B. Dwyer, N.
Bowman and B. L. Mallory (eds.), Higher Education Collaboratives for Community
Engagement and Improvement (pp. 10-17), Michigan: National Forum on Higher
Education for the Public Good.
Lotz-Sisitka, H., 2002, ‘Weaving Cloths: Research Design in Contexts of Transformation’,
Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, Vol.7, pp. 101-121.
Lupele, J., 2003, ‘Participatory Materials Development in Rural Zambia’, Southern African
Journal of Environmental Education, Vol. 20, pp. 85-96.
Maxwell, J.A., 1992, ‘Understanding and Validity in Qualitative Research’, Harvard
Education Review, Vol. 62, pp. 276-297.
Maxwell, J.A., 1996, ‘Qualitative Research Design: An Interpretive Approach’, London:
Sage.
Merriam, S.B., 2001, ‘Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education’, New
York: Wiley.
Nhamo, G., 2006, ‘Actor/Actant-Network Theory as Emerging Methodology for Environ-
mental Education in Southern Africa’, Southern African Journal of Environmental
Education, Vol. 23, pp. 34-47.
O’Brien, R., 1998, An Overview of the Methodological Approach of Action Research,
London: Sage.
Oppenheim, A.N., 1992, Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement,
London: Continuum.
Pain, R. and Francis, P., 2003, ‘Reflections on Participatory Research’, Area, Vol. 35,
pp. 46-54.
Sandig, B. and Selting, M., 1997, ‘Discourse Styles’, in T.A.Van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as
Structure and Process (pp. 138-156), London: Sage Publications.
Santelli, B., Singer, G.H.S., Di Venere, N., and Ginsberg, C.P.L.E., 1998, ‘Participatory
Action Research: Reflections on Critical Incidents in a PAR Project’, JASH,
Vol. 23, pp. 211-222.

1-Nhamo.pmd 20 18/03/2013, 16:22

 Nhamo: Participatory Action Research as a Platform for Community Engagement 21

Steyn, S., 2010, The Millenium Development Goals as a Conceptual Framework for Ena-
bling and Evaluating Community Engagement, African Education Review.
Strauss, A.L. and Corbin, J., 1998, Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Proce-
dures for Developing Grounded Theory, Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Unisa., 2008, Unisa Community Engagement and Outreach Policy, Pretoria: Unisa.
Van Dijk, T. A., 1997, ‘The Study of Discourse’, in T.A.Van Dijk, (ed.), Discourse as
Structure and Process (pp. 1-34), London: Sage Publications.
White, G.W., Suchowierska, M. and Campbell, M., 2004, ‘Developing and Systemati-
cally Implementing Participatory Action Research’, Arch Phys Med Rehabll,
Vol. 85, pp. 3-12.
Wiber, M., Berkes, F., Charles, A. and Kearney, J., 2004, ‘Participatory Research Support-
ing Community-based Fishery Management’, Marine Policy, Vol. 28, pp. 459-468.

1-Nhamo.pmd 21 18/03/2013, 16:22

View publication stats