Modelamiento y Análisis de techo metálico:

While power is not a primary focus of the Lindsey and McGuinness (1998) study, they do mention in their introduction that a fundamental assumption underlying PAR is that knowledge is related to power and that power is related to change, (quoting Couto 1987, Hall 1992 and Henderson1995).

PAR practitioners feel the production of knowledge is not limited to scientists. Ordinary people are also capable of knowledge production. “Participatory research assumes that returning the power of knowledge generation and use to ordinary, oppressed people will contribute to the creation of more accurate, critical reflection of social reality, the liberation of human potential, and the mobilization of human resources to solve problems” (Selener 1997: 28). This concept is similar to Ritzer’s (2000) solution to change where he asks us to include formerly excluded societies, which incorporates a wider array of skills and abilities. One of the goals of participatory research is to disrupt the balance of power, placing more power in the hands of the oppressed. Placing power in the hands of the oppressed, the marginalized, the disenfranchised, grants them control over the research process, ensures the new knowledge comes from their experiences and is used for their own benefit according to Selener (1997).

Fenge (2002) examines the importance of approaching research with minority groups of older people in an inclusive way. She analyzes the “use of Participatory Action Research as a method of including service users in knowledge and theory development”

(Fenge 2002: 171). Her methodology section focuses on the central elements of power and control in research and the generation of knowledge. “It is important to be aware of issues of power and oppression within any group, and the role of the researcher in

maintaining or challenging this” according to Fenge (p. 176). Consistent with most of the literature, Fenge contends that in issues of power and powerlessness, an individual’s voice, ideas and beliefs are important elements of participatory research. Yet she raises a paradox taken from Healy (2001: 176) in that “PAR call[s] upon the power of researchers to initiate projects and promote participant involvement”. Without the power of educated researchers, issues of minorities may remain ‘invisible’. Therefore, “acknowledgement of the researcher’s power is also a vital part of the process, and one which has been absent from PAR to date” (Fenge quoting Healy, 2001: 176). Fenge stresses “it is important to keep sight of the role of researcher and the influence this may have on participants due to the paradox between participatory approaches and underlying research power” (p. 177).

It is not clear why questions of power are rarely addressed in research on

partnership states Hastings (1998). Hastings considers how the answer to these questions may start from the idea that transformative relationships are an important expression of the exercise of power within partnerships and explores whether components of

transformation really occur during the progress of an actual partnership involving public- and private-sector organizations. Lindsey and McGuinness’s (1998) study could have benefited from the ideas of Hastings (1998) analysis of the exercise of power within PAR partnerships because power and the production of knowledge are substantial basics of a PAR process. The idea is to democratize the creation of knowledge, and to free it from

the strong hold of elites. For academics to let go of the production of knowledge goes against most researchers’ method of operation. (Stoecker, 1999)

According to Lofman, Pelkonen and Pietila (2004), participants should be aware of the possibility of power (or perceived power) of researchers, which may be masked as subtle exploitation. An example given is the possibility that a community believes expert knowledge to be ultimate knowledge, overriding their traditional ecological knowledge. It is important to ensure an equal balance of power between researcher and participant (Lofman, et al.). Lofman, et al. conclude that communities are questioning the need for outside researchers and claim that PAR does not do enough for the development of their communities. The significance of power in partnerships is not given enough

consideration by Lindsey and McGuinness (1998).

Balfour and Clarke (2001) saw ‘see-saw’ encounters in the transfer of power among the participants in their study of nursing practices around patient self-medication, particularly between the nurse and pharmacy staff. The transfer of power between the participants caused tension and at times “power issues [were] clearly overriding all other issues” (Balfour and Clark 2001: 48). When a group has power in a situation, there is a reluctance to let go of it (this document page 21). However, these issues were discussed in the Balfour and Clarke focus groups and the power base is now seen as being under ‘patient safety’ as opposed to residing within any one group. The ‘power’ in this PAR partnership transferred to ‘patient safety’ and away from any person-held position.

Another point of Balfour and Clark (2001: 49) is that while the role of

practitioners and researchers is vital in a project, “the academics [researchers] need to move on from the ‘role of creator and transmitter of generalizable knowledge to that of

enhancing the knowledge creation capacities of individuals and professional

communities’ (quoting Eraut 1985: 117). Researchers should empower the community to create their own knowledge. If knowledge is power then transfer of knowledge is the transfer of power.

A basic assumption of PAR is that communities have a traditional ecological knowledge base capable of generating knowledge to guide actions for their own benefit (Selener, 1997). But this knowledge is typically given low value because it does not follow formal rules of scientific knowledge developed by academic elites. PAR may work better if there is greater transfer of power from researcher to community.

Primary Research Question

This thesis investigates the process of using PAR among stakeholders of a natural hazards research project to promote social change in a small, rural, coastal community. Specifically, is PAR an appropriate method for effecting social change in an economic and environmentally challenged community that is at risk to natural disasters? This inquiry enhances the ability of university/ practitioner/community partnerships to work in collaboration. Typically universities enter communities with a pre-planned agenda, conduct research and leave; the community is given a multi-page report of

recommendations, devoid of any action. A reflexive participatory action research program however, can allow the traditional tensions of educational social order to

dissolve, while it strengthens the confidence and knowledge base of all participants. This study aims to uncover the forces at work in a PAR methodology, and clarify tensions among the commitment, organizing, philosophy, leadership styles, knowledge production

McGuinness (1998). Participatory Action Research can be progressive and productive research for community and academics/practitioners and lead to theory building for the stakeholders involved (Freidlander, 2001).