Transdisciplinary, multilevel action research to enhance ecological and psychopolitical validity

Abstract

The authors explore the implications of recent proposals for a focus on power and social change in community psychology research and add needed contextual and methodological specificity. An expanded model of psychopolitical validity is presented that merges Isaac Prilleltensky's (this issue, pp. 116-136) domains, or stages of empowerment (oppression, liberation, wellness), with four ecological context domains (physical, sociocultural, economic, political) and greater clarity regarding levels of analysis. The physical-environmental context is used to illustrate some of the questions that may be generated by the expanded model. After discussing the role of democratic freedoms and institutions and the equitable distribution of decision-making power in sustainable community development, the case is made for action research as a potent paradigm to move the field toward those goals. Multilevel and spatial analyses and transdisciplinary research (conceptually and/or methodologically integrative collaboration across multiple disciplines) are underutilized in Community Psychology.

Information Infrastructure for Public Health and Health Research: Findings from a Large-Scale HIE Stakeholder Study

“…Researchers from LouHIE, the University of Louisville, Case Western Reserve University, and Noblis used a mixed methods design [31] appropriate for a community action research context [32,33]. Multiple stakeholder groups provided input through telephone, web and paper surveys and focus groups.…”

Technological Democratization: The Potential Role of ICT in Social and Political Transformation in China and Beyond

“…It acknowledges the relevance of particular information and communication technologies to political, fijinancial, and social forms of capital and to oppression and processes of liberation and practical democracy. Unlike Christens and Perkins' (2008) model, it does not highlight diffferent levels of analysis or intervention because technology serves to connect people and institutions in ways that tend to blur levels. Instead, our model highlights the above spheres of efffijiciency in technology's power to connect people to knowledge, government, groups, and work and other roles.…”

A three-tiered approach to participatory vulnerability assessment in the Solomon Islands

“…Researchers wield considerable power relative to the communities they may be working with in the terms of defining and producing knowledge and through exercising control over its dissemination (Christens and Perkins, 2008;Cornwall and Jewkes, 1995). Researchers therefore aimed to take on roles as facilitators rather than directors of the research.…”

“…The extent to which this occurs, however, depends on the focus of the project and how approaches are conceptualised and implemented (Martin and Hall-Arber, 2007;Parfitt, 2004). As there is a real need to encourage learning and empowerment at local levels, it is therefore perhaps not surprising that research that has a strong focus on co-production and co-synthesis of knowledge between disciplines and stakeholders is increasing (Christens and Perkins, 2008;Danielsen et al, 2007;Gavin et al, 2007;Hagmann and Chuma, 2002;Martin and Hall-Arber, 2007;Parkes and Panelli, 2001;Tsey et al, 2007). Thus, while the dangers of ill-considered and shallow application of participatory approaches need to be acknowledged, optimism remains about the radical potential for projects which are genuinely open to the co-constitution of research and action and which struggle to be critically self-aware to mobilise and empower local communities to manage change (Kesby, 2007).…”