Why Participatory Action Research? Building a Methodology That Centers Teachers’ Voices

A Note on Open Scholarship and This Blog Series

Welcome to my ongoing journey of research design and implementation!

I'm blogging about this process in real-time as I submit proposals, build materials, and conduct my study on STEAM education for teachers. This series is an attempt to promote open scholarship and transparency in research. As a result, you may notice that some details evolve over time, and the tense of my writing might seem inconsistent in places. In a way, you're reading my researcher notes. This is intentional—it reflects the dynamic nature of the research process.

My hope is that by sharing these experiences as they unfold, I can provide insights into the often-hidden aspects of academic work. Whether you're a fellow researcher, an educator, or simply curious about how studies come together, I invite you to join me on this adventure. Your comments and questions are always welcome as we navigate this landscape together!

When I first considered studying the journey of teachers pursuing STEAM endorsements, I knew traditional research methods wouldn’t suffice. How could I authentically capture educators’ experiences without centering their voices in the process? Enter Participatory Action Research (PAR)—a methodology that bridges academic inquiry with grassroots empowerment. Here’s why PAR became the cornerstone of my work and how it aligns with my commitment to equity, collaboration, and meaningful change.

PAR: More Than a Method, a Philosophy

PAR isn’t just about collecting data; it’s about co-creating knowledge with communities, not for them. Rooted in principles of democracy and social justice, PAR:

Redistributes power: Teachers aren’t “subjects” but co-researchers, shaping questions, methods, and outcomes [1][3].
Values lived expertise: Educators’ daily struggles and triumphs become the foundation for systemic insights [2][9].
Drives actionable change: Cycles of reflection and action ensure findings translate into real-world solutions [16].

For my study on STEAM endorsement barriers, this meant teachers collaboratively defined research questions like, “What systemic obstacles hinder completion?” and “How can districts better support professional growth?”

Why PAR Aligns With My Values

Equity in Knowledge Production
Traditional research often sidelines practitioners’ voices. PAR flips this script. As one teacher in our cohort noted, “Finally, someone’s asking us what we need—not telling us.” This aligns with feminist and decolonial critiques of hierarchical research [20], prioritizing marginalized perspectives.
Bridging Theory and Practice
PAR’s iterative cycles (plan → act → observe → reflect) [9] let us test interventions in real time. For example, when teachers identified time constraints as a barrier, we co-designed streamlined micro-credentialing pathways—a solution grounded in both data and lived experience.
Empowerment Through Collaboration
By involving teachers in data analysis, we uncovered hidden accelerators, like peer mentorship networks, that quantitative surveys might miss [2][10]. PAR’s ethos of “research with, not on” [3] fostered ownership, with one participant reflecting, “This isn’t just your study—it’s ours.”

Navigating Challenges: Power, Time, and Rigor

PAR isn’t without hurdles:

Power Dynamics: Despite shared goals, my role as a researcher initially overshadowed teacher voices. We addressed this through rotating facilitation in focus groups and anonymous feedback loops [4][21].
Time Constraints: PAR’s cyclical nature demands flexibility. Mid-program, we paused data collection to adjust interview protocols based on teacher input—a luxury traditional methods rarely allow [16].
Academic Rigor: Critics argue PAR lacks objectivity. We countered this by triangulating data (interviews, journals, assessments) and maintaining rigorous documentation [16][23].

IRB as a Partner, Not a Roadblock

Designing an ethical PAR protocol required rethinking IRB norms:

Consent as Ongoing Dialogue: Instead of one-time forms, we held quarterly check-ins to reaffirm participation [19][25].
Confidentiality in Small Communities: With only 12 teachers, anonymization was tricky. We used pseudonyms and aggregated school-specific details [5][19].
Ethical Empowerment: Teachers reviewed drafts to ensure their voices weren’t misrepresented—a practice rare in traditional studies but core to PAR’s ethics [5][25].

Why This Matters to Me

As a former teacher, I’ve seen too many well-intentioned reforms fail because they ignored educators’ insights. PAR rejects the “ivory tower” model, instead positioning teachers as architects of their own professional narratives. This project isn’t just about STEAM endorsements; it’s about modeling how education research should work—collaborative, equitable, and relentlessly focused on justice.

Next Up: In my next post, I’ll dive into the IRB maze—how I turned bureaucratic hurdles into a crash course in ethical transparency. Spoiler: It involved a lot of coffee and a paradigm shift in how I view “risk.”

What research methodologies have you wrestled with? Share your stories in the comments!

Disclaimer: This blog reflects my personal journey with PAR. Institutional guidelines may vary.