In search of the ontology of participation in Participatory Action Research: Orlando Fals-Borda’s Participatory Turn, 1977–1980

Abstract

When did sociologist Orlando Fals-Borda name his method Participatory Action Research (PAR), and what were the epistemological implications of this shift from action research to PAR? To address these questions, this article critically examines Fals-Borda’s ‘participatory turn’ —his epistemological shift from orthodox Marxism to the participatory paradigm—, which squarely underpinned the origins of PAR yet has hitherto remained unexplored in the literature. The article focuses on Fals-Borda’s transition from participation “by” to participation “with” the people, which occurred during a period of intense self-criticism after years of radical activism. Drawing on exhaustive archival research, it examines the collaborative systematisation of his method alongside an emerging constellation of participatory research practices. Thereby, it highlights the centrality of collaboration to the development of his work and demonstrates that Fals-Borda’s embrace of the participatory paradigm stemmed from rejecting the centrality of historical materialism in favour of a model of research which supports and sustains the conditions for collective analysis and action through harnessing the creativity and wisdom of marginalized peoples. It concludes that for all the innovations in tools and techniques of action-oriented methods, the ontology of participation is what fundamentally differentiates PAR from other instrumental or top-down forms of people’s participation in research.

Participatory action research

“…The PAR outlook is caught up in the ongoing history of the push and pull of popular movements for the recognition of local knowledge and elite movements to centralize authority and power in frameworks such as universal science, professional ownership of expertise, government authority or evidence-based policy. As a named methodological paradigm, PAR gained legitimacy and recognition during the 1980s, with origins in popular education for development, led by scholars from the Global South 16,32 , and taken up in the more Global-North-dominated field of international development, where the failings of externally imposed, contextually insensitive development solutions had become undeniable 21 . Over the decades, PAR has both participated in radical social movements and risked co-option and depoliticization as it became championed by powerful institutions, and it is in this light that we consider PAR's relation to three contemporary societal movements.…”

“…At the same time, exchanges between Latin American and Indian popular education movements produced Orlando Fals Borda's articulation of PAR as a paradigm in the 1980s. This orientation prioritized people's participation in producing knowledge, instead of the positioning of local populations as the subject of knowledge production practices imposed by outside experts 16 This Primer is addressed primarily to university-based PAR researchers, who are likely to work in collaboration with members of communities or organizations or with activists, and are accountable to academic audiences as well as to community audiences. Much expertise in PAR originates outside universities, in community groups and organizations, from whom scholars have much to learn.…”

Encountering works by Nyerere and Freire

“…Yet, the contributions of Julius K. Nyerere to the debate on popular education and the theory of education tend to be less widely known than Paulo Freire's work, even though there exist vital contributions connecting their works not only at that time (Hall, 1974;Kassam, 1983) but also in recent times (see e.g. Díaz-Arévalo, 2022;Major & Mulvihill, 2009;Maluleka, 2021;Mulenga, 2001;von Kotze, 2010). This may be explained by the bias in the worldwide knowledge production and dissemination machinery, having long neglected authors from the African continent and rather imported deficit-oriented views on (adult) education to Africa, legitimated by Western liberal and neo-liberal paradigms (see, e.g., Ahluwalia, 2001;von Kotze, 2010, pp.…”

“…Yet, this incorporates not only the political, theoretical and conceptual level but also the level of methodology and research. An urgent need exists to explore the 'links between research, pedagogy and creative forms of transformative social, cultural and political agency and address how creative research can support meaningful learning in education institutions as well as non-formal settings' (Grummell & Finnegan, 2021, p. 1; see also Díaz-Arévalo, 2022;Evans et al, 2022;von Kotze, 2010). As we had elaborated on in earlier works (Curdt & Schreiber-Barsch, 2020;Schreiber-Barsch & Rule, 2021), acknowledging and negotiating power and control in research designs broadcasts a different ethos that strives for learners' capacity building and empowerment as change agents through research and, thus, also contributes to the collective transformation of social reality.…”