Advertisement

Capturing and Reflecting for Change: The Generation of Impact

  • Tineke Abma
  • Sarah Banks
  • Tina Cook
  • Sónia Dias
  • Wendy Madsen
  • Jane Springett
  • Michael T. Wright
Chapter

Chapter Summary

Abstract

The role of critical reflection as a key ongoing element of participatory research is explored with reference to previous chapters. The power of critical reflection to encourage learning and change is discussed alongside the formalization of reflection as evaluation: as a way of recognizing and capturing change. Participatory evaluation and its benefits are outlined, including the demonstration of the impact of the practice of participatory research itself.

Purpose

To demonstrate the important and key role of critical reflection and evaluation in participatory research as a change mechanism, how change is recognized and ways of capturing change/impact.

Central Question

What is the role of reflection in participatory research and how do we capture those reflections and the types of change that occur throughout the process?

Keywords

Critical Evaluation Evidence Impact Process-driven Value-driven 

Further Reading and Sources of Inspiration

  1. Cook, T., & Roche, B. (Eds.). (2017). Special issue: The conceptualisation and articulation of impact: Hopes, expectations and challenges for the participatory paradigm. Educational Action Research, 25(4), 467–472.Google Scholar
  2. Darby, S. (2017). Making space for co-produced research ‘impact’: Learning from a participatory action research case study. Area, 49, 230–237.  https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. International Collaboration for Participatory Health Research (ICPHR). (2018). Position Paper 3: What is Impact in Participatory Health Research? www.icphr.org

References

  1. Abma, T. A. (2006). The practice and politics of responsive evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(1), 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abma, T. (2018). Responsive evaluation. In B. Frey (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of educational research, measurement, and evaluation (pp. 1427–1430). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Ltd.  https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506326139.n594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allman, P. (2009). ‘Paulo Freire’s contributions to radical adult education’ in Darder, Boyd, R.D. and Myers, J.G. [[]] (1988 [[]]) ‘Transformative education. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 7(4), 261–284.Google Scholar
  4. Brookfield, S. (1987). Developing critical thinkers: Challenging adults to explore alternative ways of thinking and acting. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  5. Cook, T. D. (1997). Lessons learned in evaluation over the past 25 years. In E. Chelimsky & W. R. Shadish (Eds.), Evaluation for the 21st century: A resource book (pp. 30–52). London: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cook, T. (2006). Collaborative action research for development and evaluation: A good fit or the road to myopia? Evaluation, 12(4), 418–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cook, T., & Inglis, P. (2009). Making our own decisions: Researching the process of ‘being informed’ with people with learning difficulties. Research Ethics Review, 5(2), 49–55.Google Scholar
  8. Cook, T., Atkin, H., & Wilcockson, J. (2018). Participatory research into inclusive practice: Improving services for people with long term neurological conditions. FQS, 19(1), Art. 4.Google Scholar
  9. Darder, A. (2002). Reinventing Paulo Freire: A pedagogy of love. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  10. Eisner, E. W. (1998). The primacy of experience and the politics of method. Educational Researcher, 17(5), 15–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  12. Freire, P. (1995). Pedagogy of hope. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  13. Giddens, A. (2000). The third way and its critics. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  14. Grabov, V. (1997). The many facets of transformative learning theory and practice.In P. Cranton (Ed.), Transformative learning in action: Insights from practice. New directions for adult and continuing education 74 (pp 89–96). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  15. Greene, J. C. (2006). Evaluation, democracy, and social change. In I. Shaw, J. Greene, & M. Mark (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of evaluation (pp. 118–140). Los Angelos: SAGE Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  16. Greenhalgh, T., Jackson, C., Shaw, S., & Janamian, T. (2016). Achieving research impact through co-creation in community-based health services: Literature review and case study. The Milbank Quarterly, 94(2), 392–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  18. Jacobs, G. C. (2008). The development of critical being? Reflection and reflexivity in an action learning programme for health promotion practitioners in the Netherlands. Action Learning: Research and Practice, 5(3), 221–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kemmis, S. (2001). Exploring the relevance of critical theory for action research: Emancipatory action research in the footsteps of Jurgen Habermas. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  21. Pain. R., Askins. K., Banks, S., Cook, T., Crawford, G., Crookes, L., Darby, S., Heslop, J., Holden, A., Houston, M., Jeffes, J., Lambert, Z., McGlen, L., McGlynn, C., Ozga, J., Raynor, R., Robinson, Y., Shaw, S., Stewart, C., & Vanderhoven, D. (2015). Mapping Alternative Impact: Alternative approaches to impact from co-produced research. Produced as part of the N8 / ESRC research programme knowledge that matters: Realising the potential of Co-production. https://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/beacon/MappingAlternativeImpactsummaryfinal.pdf
  22. Raţiu, L., Chirică, S., & Lenuța Rus, C. (2014). Participatory evaluation: An intended catalyst to learning within university. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 142, 140–145.Google Scholar
  23. Stake, R. E. (2004). Standards-based and responsive evaluation. Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Suárez-Herrera, J., Springett, J., & Kagan, C. (2009). Critical connections between participatory evaluation, organizational learning and intentional change in pluralistic organizations. Evaluation, 15(3), 321–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Thomson, P. (2015). Action research with/against impact. Educational Action Research, 23(3), 309–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Winter, R. (2002). Managers, spectators and citizens: Where does “theory” come from in action research? In C. Day, J. Elliott, B. Somekh, & R. Winter (Eds.), Theory and practice in action research: Some international perspectives (pp. 27–44). Oxford: Symposium Books.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tineke Abma
    • 1
  • Sarah Banks
    • 2
  • Tina Cook
    • 3
  • Sónia Dias
    • 4
  • Wendy Madsen
    • 5
  • Jane Springett
    • 6
  • Michael T. Wright
    • 7
  1. 1.Amsterdam Public Health Research InstituteVU University Medical CentreAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of SociologyDurham UniversityDurhamUK
  3. 3.Department of Disability and EducationLiverpool Hope UniversityLiverpoolUK
  4. 4.National School of Public HealthUniversidade Nova LisboaLisbonPortugal
  5. 5.School of Health, Medical & Applied SciencesCentral Queensland UniversityRockhamptonAustralia
  6. 6.Centre for Healthy Communities, School of Public HealthUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  7. 7.Institute for Social HealthCatholic University of Applied SciencesBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations