Continuing the Journey: The Quest for Sustainable Partnerships

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

Chapter Summary


Participatory research is dependent on a number of factors, but perhaps most important is the relationship that develops between the research partners. This chapter focuses on a number of factors that impact on the sustainability of research partnerships, including the challenges posed by undertaking time-limited research projects. These factors include: whether projects are regarded as discrete entities; funding; geographical distance; prior relationships; co-researcher boundaries; and evaluation of partnerships. These factors also open opportunities for research partners to develop as participatory researchers, either with the same partners or through developing partnerships with other co-researchers.


To explore the end-point of participatory research: why some partnerships finish when a single project ends; how and why partnerships continue on to become more sustainable across a number of projects; and as milestones for learning.

Central Question

What do we mean by sustainable participatory research?


Capacity building Relationships Partnerships Responsibilities Proximity Sustainability 

Further Reading and Sources of Inspiration

  1. Kendall, E., Marshall, C. A., & Barlow, L. (2013). Stories rather than surveys: A journey of discovery and emancipation. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 12, 258–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Kral, M. J. (2014). The relational motif in participatory qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20, 144–150. Scholar


  1. Banks, S. (2015, March 17). Interviewed by Wendy Madsen.Google Scholar
  2. Baum, F. (2008). The new public health (3rd ed.). Melbourne: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Boal, A. (1993). Theatre of the oppressed. New York: Theatre Communications Group.Google Scholar
  4. Coco, A., Varnier, C., & Deftereos, C. (2007). Clients, colleagues or experts? Defining identities in an action research project. Journal of Institutional Research, 13(1), 62–82.Google Scholar
  5. Cook, T. (2015, March 9). Interviewed by Wendy Madsen.Google Scholar
  6. Cook, T. (2016). Working at the intersection: Partnerships as participatory mechanisms for disruption. In J. Moore & P. Bamber (Eds.), Teacher Education in Challenging Times: Lessons for professionalism, partnership and practice. (83–93). New York: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  7. Cousins, J. B., & Chouinard, J. A. (2012). Participatory evaluation up close: An integration of research-based knowledge. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  8. Fleming, J., Beresford, P., Bewley, C., Croft, S., Franfield, F., Postle, K., & Turner, M. (2014). Working together – Innovative collaboration in social care research. Qualitative Social Work, 13(4), 706–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fong Chiu, L. (2008). Health promotion and participatory action research: The significance of participatory praxis in developing participatory health intervention. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 534–549). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Grant, J., Nelson, G., & Mitchell, T. (2008). Negotiating the challenges of participatory action research: Relationships, power, participation, change and credibility. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of action research: participative inquiry and practice (pp. 589–601). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Groot, B., Vink, M., Haveman, A., Huberts, M., Schout, G., & Abma, T. A. (2018). Ethics of care in participatory health research: Mutual responsibility in collaboration with co-researchers. Educational Action Research Journal.
  12. Harris, M. J. (2010). Evaluating public and community health programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  13. Hodgins, M., & Griffiths, J. (2012). A whole systems approach to working in settings. In A. Scriven & M. Hodgins (Eds.), Health promotion settings: Principles and practice (pp. 87–91). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  14. Jagosh, J., Bush, P. L., Salsberg, J., Macaulay, A. C., Greenhalgh, T., Wong, G., et al. (2015). A realist evaluation of community-based participating research: Partnership synergy, trust building and related ripple effects. BMC Public Health.
  15. Ledwith, M., & Springett, J. (2010). Participatory practice: Community-based action for transformative change. Bristol: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
  16. Madsen, W., & O’Mullan, C. (2017). Power, participation and partnerships: Reflections of the co-creation of knowledge. Reflective Practice, 19(1), 26–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nitsch, M., Waldherr, K., Denk, E., Griebler, U., Marent, B., & Forster, R. (2013). Participation by different stakeholders in participatory evaluation of health promotion: A literature review. Evaluation and Program Planning, 40, 42–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pivik, J. R., & Goelman, H. (2011). Evaluation of a community-based participatory research consortium from the perspective of academics and community service providers focused on child health and well-being. Health Education & Behaviour, 38(2), 271–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Reason, P. (1998). Political, epistemological, ecological and spiritual dimensions of participation. Studies in Cultures, Organisations and Societies, 4, 147–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2008). Introduction. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 1–10). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Scriven, A. (2012). Partnership, collaboration and participation: Fundamental principles in a settings approach to health promotion. In A. Scriven & M. Hodgins (Eds.), Health promotion settings: Principles and practice (pp. 50–68). London: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Snoeren, M. W. C., Niessen, T. J. H., & Abma, T. A. (2012). Engagement enacted: Essentials of initiating an action research project. Action Research Journal, 10(2), 189–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stoecker, R. (2013). Research methods for community change: A project-based approach. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Velasquez, J., Knatterud-Hubinger, N., Narr, D., Mendenhall, T., & Solheim, C. (2011). Mano a Mano: Improving health in impoverished Bolivian communities through community-based participatory research. Families, Systems, & Health, 29(4), 303–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wallerstein, N. (2014, December 16). Interviewed by Wendy Madsen.Google Scholar
  26. Wright, M. (2014, November 25). Interviewed by Wendy Madsen.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