Participatory and Action Research Methods

  • Ben Wisner
  • David Stea
  • Sonia Kruks
Part of the Advances in Environment, Behavior, and Design book series (AEBD, volume 3)


The term “action research” is associated in the USA with Kurt Lewin, who published extensively on action research from the 1940s onward and gave these methods their conceptual form. To Lewin (1946), action research was

comparative research on the conditions and effects of various forms of social action and research leading to social action .... [it is] a big spiral of steps, each of which is composed of a circle of planning, action, and fact-finding about the result of the action. [Action, research, and training form] a triangle that should be kept together for the sake of any of the corners, (pp. 202–211)


Participatory Action Research User Participation Participation Process Participatory Planning Village Council 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abrahamsson, B. (1977). Bureaucracy or participation: The logic of organization. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Altieri, M. (1987). Agroecology. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
  3. Aprovecho. (1980). Helping people in poor countries develop fuel-saving cookstoves. Eschborn, Germany: German Agency for Technical Cooperation.Google Scholar
  4. Barber, B. (1984). Strong democracy. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  5. Becker, F. (1977). User participation, personalization, and environmental meaning: Three field studies. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Program in Urban and Regional Studies.Google Scholar
  6. Bentz, B. (1988). Active user participation in the housing process. In D. Canter, M. Krampen, & D. Stea (Eds.), Ethnoscape. Aldershot, England: Gower.Google Scholar
  7. Bhaduri, A., & Rahman, A. (Eds.). (1982). Studies in rural participation. New Delhi: Ox-ford/IBH Publishing. Bhasin, K. (1978).Google Scholar
  8. Breaking barriers: A South Asian experience in training for participatory development. Report of the Freedom From Hunger/Action for Development Regional Change Agents Programme. Bangkok: United Nations Food and Agricultural Organi zation.Google Scholar
  9. Blaikie, P., & Brookfield, H. (1987). Land degradation and society. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  10. Blaut, J. (1967). Geography and the development of peasant agriculture. In S. Cohen (Ed.), Problems and trends in American geography. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  11. Bollinger, E. (1986). CADD activities survey. Houston, TX: University of Houston Association of Computer-Aided Design in Architecture.Google Scholar
  12. Brandao, C. (Ed.). (1984). Repensando a pesauisa participante. Sao Paulo: Editora Brasiliense.Google Scholar
  13. Brokensha, D., Warren, D., & Werner, O. (Eds.). (1980). Indigenous knowledge systems and development. Washington, DC: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  14. Brown, G., & Novitski, B. (1986). Nurturing design intuition in energy software. In J. Turner (Ed.), ACADIA Workshop ’86 Proceedings.Google Scholar
  15. Campbell, D. (1987). Participation of a community in social science research: A case study from Kenyan Maasailand. Human Organization ,46(2), 160–167.Google Scholar
  16. Cashdan, L., Fahle, B., Francis, M., Schwartz, S., & Stein, P. (1979). A critical framework for environmental change. In M. Francis (Ed.), Participatory planning and neighborhood control. New York: City University of New York, Center for Human Environments.Google Scholar
  17. Chambers, R. (1983). Rural development: Putting the last first. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  18. Chambers, R. (1985, December). Normal professionalism, new paradigms and development. Paper for the Seminar on Poverty, Development and Food: Towards the 21st Century, in honor of the 75th Birthday of Professor H. W. Singer, Brighton, England.Google Scholar
  19. Churchman, A. (1987). Issues in resident participation. Participation Network ,5(Fall), 20–21.Google Scholar
  20. Dandekar, H., & Feldt, A. (1984). Simulation/gaming in Third World development planning. Simulation and Games ,15(3), 297–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Davidoff, P. (1965). Advocacy and pluralism in planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 31 (November), 331–338.Google Scholar
  22. Derrida, J. (1978). Writing and difference (A. Bass, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. Dubell, F., Erasmie, T., & De Vries, J. (Eds.). (1981). Research for the people/research by the people. Linköping, Sweden: Linköping University, Department of Education.Google Scholar
  24. Feldman, R. (1984). Women’s groups and women’s subordination: An analysis of policies towards rural women in Kenya. Review of African Political Economy, 27/28 ,67–85.Google Scholar
  25. Field, A. (1986). The Cayuga Indian land claim: Application of a community-based natural resource inventory process. Unpublished masters thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
  26. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge (C. Gordon, Ed.). New York: Beacon.Google Scholar
  27. Francis, M. (1979). Participatory planning and neighborhood control. New York: City University of New York, Center for Human Environments.Google Scholar
  28. Freire, P. (1973). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Seabury.Google Scholar
  29. Gandhi, M. (1952). Rebuilding our villages. Ahmedabad, India: Navajivan Publishing House.Google Scholar
  30. Gardner, N. (1974). Action training and research: Something old and something new. Public Administration Review, 34 ,106–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Glaeser, B. (1984). Ecodevelopment in Tanzania. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
  32. Gow, D., & Vansant, J. (1983). Beyond the rhetoric of development participation: How can it be done? World Development ,11(5), 427–446.Google Scholar
  33. Gran, G. (1983). Development by people: Citizen construction of a just world. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  34. Guggenheim, H., & Fanale, R. (1975). Water storage through shared technology: Four projects among the Dogon in Mali. Assignment Children, 45/46 ,151–166.Google Scholar
  35. Habermas, J. (1975). Legitimation crisis (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  36. Hall, B., Gillette, A., & Tandon, R. (Eds.). (1982). Creating knowledge: A monopoly New Delhi: Society for Participatory Research in Asia.Google Scholar
  37. Herrera, A. (1984). Project on research and development systems in rural settings: Final report. Tokyo: United Nations University.Google Scholar
  38. Hilton, D. (1983). ’Tell us a story’: Health teaching in Nigeria. In D. Morley, J. Rohde, & G. Williams (Eds.), Practicing health for all (pp. 145–153). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Himmelstrand, U. (Ed.). (1981). Spontaneity and planning in social Development. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  40. Huizer, G. (1984). Harmony vs. confrontation. Development: Seeds of Change, 2 ,14–17.Google Scholar
  41. Jacome, S. (1988). Environmental modelling: The view from Ecuador. In D. Canter, M. Krampen, & D. Stea (Eds.), Ethnoscape. Aldershot, England: Gower.Google Scholar
  42. Kalyalya, D., Mhlanga, K., Semboja, J., & Seidman, A. (1988). Does aid work? A participatory learning process in Southern Africa. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press/Oxfam-America.Google Scholar
  43. Kantrowitz, M., & Nordhaus, R. (1980). The impact of post-occupancy evaluation re search: A case study. Environment and Behavior ,12(4), 508–519.Google Scholar
  44. Kaplan, R. (1987). Simulation models and participation: Designers and clients. In J. Harvey & D. Henning (Eds.), Public environments. Washington, DC: Environmental Design Research Association.Google Scholar
  45. Kaplan, S. (1977). Participation in the design process: A cognitive approach. In D. Stokols (Ed.), Perspectives on environment and behavior. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  46. Kruks, S. (1983). Notes on the concept and practice of ’participation’ in the KWDP (with special emphasis on rural women). (Kenya Woodfuel Development Project Discussion Paper.) Nairobi and Stockholm: The Beijer Institute.Google Scholar
  47. Kruks, S., Rapp, R., & Young, M. (Eds.). (1989). Promissory notes: Women and the transition to Socialism. New York: Monthly Review.Google Scholar
  48. Kruks, S., & Wisner, B. (1984). The state, the party, and the female peasantry in Mozambique. Journal of Southern African Studies, 11(1) ,106–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lamming, G. (1980). Women in agricultural cooperatives: Constraints and limitations to full participation. Rome: United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization.Google Scholar
  50. Lawrence, R. (1983). Laypeople as architectural designers. Leonardo, 16(3) ,232–237.Google Scholar
  51. Lawrence, R. (1988). Environmental modelling for house planning. In D. Canter, M. Krampen, & D. Stea (Eds.), Ethnoscape. Aldershot, England: Gower.Google Scholar
  52. Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 1-2 ,34–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Longhurst, L. (Ed.). (1981, October). Rapid rural appraisal. IDS Bulletin, 12(A).Google Scholar
  54. McKechnie, G. (1977). Simulation techniques in environmental psychology. In D. Stokols (Ed.), Perspectives on environment and behavior. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  55. Manandhar, R. (1986). The role of self-reliance in small communities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
  56. Manoff, R. (1985). Social marketing: New imperative for public health. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  57. Mao Tse-tung. (1967). The united front in cultural work. Selected works of Mao Tse-tung. Beijing: Foreign Languages Press.Google Scholar
  58. Mansbridge, J. (1980). Beyond adversary democracy. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  59. Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1970). The German ideology (C. Arthur, Ed.). New York: International Publishers.Google Scholar
  60. Maxwell, S. (1984). Farming systems research: Hitting a moving target. IDS Sussex Discussion Paper 199. Falmer, Brighton: University of Sussex.Google Scholar
  61. Mbilinyi, M., Vuerla, U., Kassam, Y., & Masisi, Y. (1982). The politics of research methodology in the social sciences. In Y. Kassam & K. Mustafa (Eds.), Participatory research: An emerging alternative methodology in social science (pp. 34–63). New Delhi: Society for Participatory Research in Asia.Google Scholar
  62. Mduma, E. (1982). Appropriate technology for grain storage at Bwakira Chini Village. In Y. Kassam & K. Mustafa (Eds.), Participatory research: An emerging alternative methodology (pp. 198–213). New Delhi: Society for Participatory Research in Asia.Google Scholar
  63. Morley, D., Rohde, J., & Williams, G. (Eds.). (1983). Practicing health for all. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Negroponte, N. (1970). The architecture machine: Toward a more human environment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  65. Negroponte, N. (1975). Soft architecture machines. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  66. Newell, K. (Ed.). (1975). Health by the people. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  67. Nicholson, S. (1974). The theory of loose parts. In G. Coates (Ed.), Alternative learning environments: Emerging trends in environmental design. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  68. Nyerere, J. (1968). Education for self-reliance. In J. Nyerere, Freedom and socialism/Uhuru na ujamaa (pp. 267–290). Dar es Salaam: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Palmer, E. (1985). The environmental intervention process: A cross-cultural approach to architec ture and development. Unpublished masters thesis, University of Wisconsin-Müwaukee.Google Scholar
  70. Pateman, C. (1964). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Patricios, N. (1979). An agentive perspective of urban planning. Town Planning Review ,50(1), 35–54.Google Scholar
  72. Peattie, L. (1968). Reflections on advocacy planning, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 34 ,80–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Peattie, L. (1970). Community drama and advocacy planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 36 ,405–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Pigozzi, M. (1982). Participation in non-formal education projects: Some possible negative consequences. Convergence ,25(3), 6–18.Google Scholar
  75. Pyatok, M., & Weber, H. (1978). Participation in residential design. In H. Sanoff (Ed.), Designing with community participation. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  76. Rahman, A. (Ed.). (1984). Grass-roots participation and self reliance. New Delhi: Oxford/IBH Publishing.Google Scholar
  77. Rand, G., Heath, P., & Wilde, M. (1977). Research agenda: Coming to terms with the environment’s future. In S. Weidemann & J. Anderson (Eds.), Proceedings of the Environmental Design Research Association. Washington, DC: Environmental Design Research Association.Google Scholar
  78. Rau, B., & Roche, S. (1988). Working for the food of freedom: African initiatives for change. Washington, DC: Africa Faith and Justice Network.Google Scholar
  79. Richards, P. (1985). Indigenous agricultural revolution. London: Hutchinson Education.Google Scholar
  80. Rogers, B. (1980). The domestication of woman. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
  81. Sanchez, E., Cronick, K., & Wiesenveld, E. (1988). Psychological variables in participation: A case study. In D. Canter, M. Krampen, & D. Stea (Eds.), Ethnoscape. Aldershot, England: Gower.Google Scholar
  82. Sands, M. (1987). Hillside soil conservation on farms in Ecuador. In K. Tull (Ed.), Experiences in success. Emmaus, PA: Rodale International.Google Scholar
  83. Sanoff, H. (1979). Design games. Los Altos, CA: Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  84. Schaffer, B., & Lamb, G. (1981). Can equity be organized? Equity, development analysis and planning. London: Gower.Google Scholar
  85. Shannon, C., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  86. Shingi, P., Patel, M., & Wadwalkar, S. (1986). Development of social forestry in India. New Delhi: Oxford/IBH Publishing.Google Scholar
  87. Simon, J. (1988). Participation and community: Transcultural perspectives. In D. Canter, M. Krampen, & D. Stea (Eds.), Ethnoscape. Aldershot, England: Gower.Google Scholar
  88. Smith, R. (1978). Public participation in planning and design: Implications from theory and practice for the design of participatory processes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  89. Sommer, J. (1977). Action research. In D. Stokols (Ed.), Perspectives on environment and behavior. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  90. Stea, D. (1980). Environmental modelling as participatory planning. Fourth World studies in planning, 5. Los Angeles: University of California at Los Angeles, School of Architecture and Urban Planning.Google Scholar
  91. Stea, D. (1981a). Human energy and participatory design. Energy Resource Journal, 1(2) ,26– 27.Google Scholar
  92. Stea, D. (1981b). Participatory planning and design of Waahi Marae. In N. Ericksen (Ed.), Environmental perception of planning in New Zealand. Hamilton, New Zealand: University of Waikato.Google Scholar
  93. Stea, D. (1982). Cross-cultural environment modelling. In A. Lutkus & J. Baird (Eds.), Mind, child, and architecture. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.Google Scholar
  94. Stea, D. (1984). Participatory planning and design for the Third World. In W. Gilland & D. Woodcock (Eds.), Architectural values and world issues. Silver Spring, MD: International Dynamics.Google Scholar
  95. Stea, D. (1988). Participatory planning and design in intercultural and international practice. In D. Canter, M. Krampen, & D. Stea (Eds.), Ethnoscape. Aldershot, England: Gower.Google Scholar
  96. Swantz, M.-L. (1975). Research as an educational tool for development. Convergence ,7(2), 44–53.Google Scholar
  97. Thompson, J. (1984). Studies in the theory of ideology. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  98. Turner, J. (1984). The architect as enabler of user house planning and design. Stuttgart, West Germany: Karl Dramer Verlag.Google Scholar
  99. UNESCO. (1981). Domination or sharing? Endogenous development and the transfer of knowledge (Series: Insights). Paris: UNESCO Press.Google Scholar
  100. Vio Grossi, F. (1981). Socio-political implications of participatory research. Convergence, 14(3), 43–51.Google Scholar
  101. Vio Grossi, F., Gianotten, V., & de Wit, T. (Eds.). (1981). Investigación participativa y praxis rural: Nuevos conceptos en educación y desarrollo comunal. Lima: Mosca Azul Editores.Google Scholar
  102. Wandersman, A. (1987). Research on citizen participation. Participation Network ,5(Fall), 22-25.Google Scholar
  103. Weisman, G. (1983). Environmental programming and action research. Environment and Behavior, 15 ,381–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Were, M.Organization and management of community-based health care. Report of a National Pilot Project of Kenya Ministry of Health/UNICEF. Nairobi: UNICEF.Google Scholar
  105. Wisner, B. (1970). Advocacy and geography: The case of Boston’s urban planning aid. Antipode, 2 ,25–29.Google Scholar
  106. Wisner, B. (1984). Eco-development and eco-farming in Mozambique. In B. Glaeser (Ed.), Eco-development: Concepts, projects, strategies (pp. 157–168). London: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  107. Wisner, B. (1987). Doubts about social marketing Health Policy and Planning ,2(2), 178– 179. Participatory and Action Research 295Google Scholar
  108. Wisner, B. (1988). Power and need in Africa: Basic human needs and development policies. Tren ton, NJ: Earthscan Publications and Africa World Press.Google Scholar
  109. Wisner, B., Neigus, D., Mduma, E., Kaisi, T., Franco, L., & Kruks, S. (1979). Designing storage systems with villagers. African Environment ,3(3/4), 85–95.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ben Wisner
    • 1
  • David Stea
    • 2
  • Sonia Kruks
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Social ScienceHampshire CollegeAmherstUSA
  2. 2.International Center for Built EnvironmentSanta FeUSA
  3. 3.Department of GovernmentOberlin CollegeOberlinUSA

Personalised recommendations