journal article
LitStream Collection
Home
L’Etang, Shlaine; Theron, Linda
doi: 10.1177/1476750311414740pmid: N/A
South Africa currently lacks HIV counselling interventions that are youth-specific and that meet the psychosocial needs of young people living with HIV/AIDS. Indigenous strategies and interventions need to be developed that cater for the psychosocial needs of South African youth living with HIV/AIDS. By using Participatory Action Research (PAR) a Cognitive-behavioural-based Counselling Intervention Programme (CBCIP) was developed for use in a rural South African town. This article discusses the participatory action process involved in the development of the CBCIP. It shows how PAR theory relates to practice by highlighting the benefits, challenges and caveats in applying PAR within a rural setting. The lessons that were learned in the development of the CBCIP may provide future researchers with useful insight and foresight in the development of HIV counselling interventions for young people living with HIV/AIDS in South Africa.
Caister, Karen; Green, Maryann; Worth, Steven
doi: 10.1177/1476750311414737pmid: N/A
The central theme for this article arises from conversation on how agricultural scientists can move from technology transfer to complementing development. Researchers may be willing to embrace developmental concerns while lacking enabling skills and perspectives. Agricultural researchers often choose agendas based on cost, efficiency and appropriate controlled input use. This is problematic for small-scale commercial agriculture in traditionally managed rural situations because it does not include the issues of authority, power and complexity found in situated contexts. This article describes researcher learning arising from participatory farmer–researcher activity that determined a mutually beneficial research agenda. The participatory nature of the research was determined by how relationships were developed and managed. Researchers came to understand that attitude, environment and relevant issues, not specific tools, achieved participation.
doi: 10.1177/1476750311414736pmid: N/A
Conducting action research with large global systems presents particular challenges. A major one is the need to easily and succinctly present complexity in a way that is meaningful for stakeholders and supports developing their connections to take effective joint action. The Global Finance Initiative (GFI) explored the use of three different visual mapping methodologies to help address this challenge. These are associated with social network analysis methodologies. But of course other issues with a global action research project also are significant. Identifying participants requires selecting from billions of people who are stakeholders. Additionally, this project also explored the role of action researchers as initiators of change, rather than ones invited into a change arena. To address some of these challenges, this article draws from the GFI experience and proposes an eight-step methodology.
McVicar, Andrew; Munn-Giddings, Carol; Abu-Helil, Christina
doi: 10.1177/1476750312439902pmid: N/A
Action research is promoted in the UK as a vehicle for practice development in health and social care, but its application has not been evaluated. This study reviews research designs in published social work studies, 2000–2010. Applying the analytic strategy of Munn-Giddings et al. (2008) also enabled comparison to be made with nursing action research. Action research has a strong presence in social work. Studies were highly collaborative, mainly qualitative and largely focused on practice or educational development, though user-focused change had a presence. Participant groups generally were ‘active’ in the research process, but participation by academics was low. In contrast, authorship was dominated by academics. External funding suggested an attractiveness of action research to funders. Action research in social work shared similarities with nursing. Main differences were involvement of the voluntary sector, the favouring of interactive group working, and a greater likelihood of service users being co-researchers. Of most concern is the lack of authorship (and by implication, ownership) by practitioners or service users. This is contrary to the underpinning inclusive philosophy, and researchers should be more proactive in acknowledging the contribution of individuals, groups or organizations, as appropriate, and so evidence their growth in research capability and capacity.
Showing 1 to 6 of 6 Articles