The Need for a Taxonomy

  • Leandro Luiz Giatti


Diversity of applications and multiplicity of purposes, possibilities, and outcomes challenge to search for understanding that the plasticity of participatory research is not to hinder its quality. Indeed, such versatility associated with sharing power and self-organizing features must be studied and characterized to help for better choices and appropriate understanding of potentialities. In this chapter, there is the expectative to contribute to analyzing experiences and scientific bibliographic production about cases in order to propose three kinds of classification keys for participatory research projects. The first is concerning the application and combining of participatory tools, also regarding the methodological flow of interactions among social actors. The second classification key is associated with the territorial scales of approach and dedicates to distinguish projects through their power to be allocated in a single scale or to transcend territories. The last is on the functionality of participatory processes since the objectives of social transformation can be distinctive without abandoning the perspective of fostering empowerment and learning through the production of hybrid knowledge. The expectative is to contribute to better knowledge on participatory research coverage and alternative to pose the socio-ecological complexities and uncertainties, fostering sustainability, and health promotion.


Participatory research classification Health promotion Socio-ecological systems Empowerment Sustainability and health 


  1. Beck, U. (2008). La Sociedade del Riesgo Mundial: em busca de la seguridade. Barcelona: Paidós.Google Scholar
  2. Beck, U., Giddens, A., & Lash, S. (1995). Modernização reflexiva. São Paulo: Unesp.Google Scholar
  3. Belon, A. P., Nieuwendyk, L. M., Vallianatos, H., & Nykiforuk, C. I. (2016). Community lenses revealing the role of sociocultural environment on physical activity. American Journal of Health Promotion, 30, e92–e100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berbés-Blázquez, M. (2012). A participatory assessment of ecosystem services and human wellbeing in rural Costa Rica using photo-voice. Environmental Management, 49, 862–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berkes, F., & Berkes, M. K. (2009). Ecological complexity, fuzzy logic, and holism in indigenous knowledge. Futures, 41, 6–12. Scholar
  6. Berthold, S. M., Kong, S., Kuoch, T., et al. (2017). Combating health disparities in Cambodian American communities: A CBPR approach to building community capacity. Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action, 11, 109–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bisung, E., Elliott, S. J., Abudho, B., et al. (2015). Using photovoice as a community based participatory research tool for changing water, sanitation, and hygiene behaviours in Usoma, Kenya. BioMed Research International, 2015, 903025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brydon-Miller, M., Greenwood, D., & Maguire, P. (2003). Why action research? London: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25, 739–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Giatti, L. L. (2013). Uma contribuição à Ciência pós-normal: aplicações e desafios da ampliação da comunidade de pares em contextos socioambientais e de saúde. PhD Thesis, Universidade de São Paulo.Google Scholar
  11. Giatti, L. L. (2015). O paradigma da ciência pós normal: participação social na produção de saberes e na governança socioambiental e da saúde. São Paulo: Annablume.Google Scholar
  12. Giatti, L. L., Urbinatti, A. M., & Carvalho, C. M., et al. (2019-ahead to print). Nexos de exclusão e desafios de sustentabilidade e saúde em uma periferia urbana. Cadernos de Saude Publica.Google Scholar
  13. Godet, M., & Durance, P. (2009). La prospectiva estratégica. Paris: Lipsor.Google Scholar
  14. Hanafi, S., Marlet, S., Jamin, J.-Y., et al. (2018). Participation in a complex and conflicting context: Implementing a shared diagnosis in a Northern Tunisia irrigation scheme. Irrigation and Drainage.Google Scholar
  15. Hien, L. T. T., Takano, T., Seino, K., et al. (2008). Effectiveness of a capacity-building program for community leaders in a healthy living environment: A randomized community-based intervention in rural Vietnam. Health Promotion International, 23, 354–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hoffman, A. J. (2015). How culture shapes the climate change debate. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Jewitt, S., & Baker, K. (2012). Risk, wealth and agrarian change in India. Household-level hazards vs. late-modern global risks at different points along the risk transition. Global Environmental Change, 22, 547–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kastelic, S. L., Wallerstein, N., Duran, B., & Oetzel, J. G. (2017). Socio-ecologic framework for CBPR. In Community-based participatory research for health: Advancing social and health equity (p. 77).Google Scholar
  19. Katsha, S., & Watts, S. (1997). Schistosomiasis in two Nile delta villages: An anthropological perspective. Tropical Medicine & International Health, 2, 846–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kuhn, T. A. (1992). A estrutura das revoluções científicas. São Paulo: Perspectiva.Google Scholar
  21. Leff, E. (2017). Power-knowledge relations in the field of political ecology. Ambiente and Sociedade, 20, 225–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leventon, J., & Antypas, A. (2012). Multi-level governance, multi-level deficits: The case of drinking water management in Hungary. Environmental Policy and Governance, 22, 253–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2, 34–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Martínez Alier, J. (2009). O ecologismo dos pobres: conflitos ambientais e linguagens de valoração. In O ecologismo dos pobres: conflitos ambientais e linguagens de valoração (p. 379).Google Scholar
  25. Nare, L., Love, D., & Hoko, Z. (2006). Involvement of stakeholders in the water quality monitoring and surveillance system: The case of Mzingwane catchment, Zimbabwe. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 31, 707–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Oetzel, J. G., Wallerstein, N., Duran, B., et al. (2018). Impact of participatory health research: A test of the community-based participatory research conceptual model. BioMed Research International, 2018, 7281405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Peterson, G. D., Cumming, G. S., & Carpenter, S. R. (2003). Scenario planning: A tool for conservation in an uncertain world. Conservation Biology, 17, 358–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Quigley, D., Sanchez, V., Handy, D., et al. (2000). Participatory research strategies in nuclear risk management for native communities. Journal of Health Communication, 5, 305–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. San Sebastián, M., & Hurtig, A. K. (2005). Oil development and health in the Amazon basin of Ecuador: The popular epidemiology process. Social Science & Medicine, 60, 799–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Santos, B. S. (2007). Para além do pensamento abissal: das linhas globais a uma ecologia de saberes. Novos estudos-CEBRAP, 71–94.Google Scholar
  31. Setti, A. F. F., & Bógus, C. M. (2010). Community participation in an intervention program developed in a protected area. Saude e Sociedade, 19, 946–960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stern, R., Puoane, T., & Tsolekile, L. (2010). Peer reviewed: An exploration into the determinants of noncommunicable diseases among rural-to-urban migrants in Periurban South Africa. Preventing Chronic Disease, 7, A131.Google Scholar
  33. Toledo, R. F., & Giatti, L. L. (2014). Challenges to participation in action research. Health Promotion International, 30, 162–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Toledo, R. F. d., Giatti, L. L., & Pelicioni, M. C. F. (2012). Social mobilization in health and sanitation in an action research process in an indigenous community in northwestern amazon. Saúde e Sociedade, 21, 206–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Trajber, R., Walker, C., Marchezini, V., et al. (2019). Promoting climate change transformation with young people in Brazil: Participatory action research through a looping approach. Action Research, 17, 87–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tucker, C. M., Wippold, G. M., Williams, J. L., et al. (2017). A CBPR study to test the impact of a church-based health empowerment program on health behaviors and health outcomes of black adult churchgoers. Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities, 4, 70–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Van den Hove, S. (2007). A rationale for science–policy interfaces. Futures, 39, 807–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wallerstein, N., Duran, B., Minkler, M., & Oetzel, J. G. (2017). Community-based participatory research for health: Advancing social and health equity. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  39. Wiek, A., Gasser, L., & Siegrist, M. (2009). Systemic scenarios of nanotechnology: Sustainable governance of emerging technologies. Futures, 41, 284–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wolch, J., Newell, J., Seymour, M., et al. (2010). The forgotten and the future: Reclaiming back alleys for a sustainable city. Environment and Planning A, 42, 2874–2896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wustenberghs, H., Delcour, I., D’haene, K., et al. (2012). A dual indicator set to help farms achieve more sustainable crop protection. Pest Management Science, 68, 1130–1140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leandro Luiz Giatti
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Public HealthUniversity of São PauloSão PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations