Validity

PAR is less concerned with the legitimacy of research through the achievement of generalizability and causality, and more concerned with achieving meaningful change for participants of the research community through the generation and application of experiential knowledge (McTaggart, 1998).

Validity is achieved through participant agreement on focus of research, action(s) to be taken, and effectiveness and sustainability of intervention(s) (ICPHR, 2013; McTaggart, 1998; Owens et al., 2021). Participants must report that the action taken has made a difference for PAR to be considered a success (McTaggart, 1998; Savin-Baden & Wimpenny, 2007).

Additional factors in achieving validity in PAR include:

Establishing mutual commitment between academic researchers and participant co-researchers to ensure the research to be conducted meets identified community needs and priorities ((ICPHR, 2013; McTaggart, 1998; Owens et al., 2021).

Achieving meaningful and ongoing participant investment and involvement at all stages of the research process to ensure the research agenda remains participant focused (Fine et al., 2021; McTaggart, 1998).

Use of open and respectful communication that considers all available perspectives and best demonstrates and values diversity of experience in identifying research focus and creating change (Duijs et al., 2019; Fine et al., 2021; ICPHR, 2013; McTaggart, 1998).

Demonstrating participant use of negotiation – working through identified challenges rather than around them so all individuals and groups feel represented (Fine et al., 2021; McTaggart, 1998).

Showcasing a commitment to transparency, including reporting ALL findings rather than ones that seek only to confirm the dominant narrative (McTaggart, 1998). PAR reporting should recognize what has changed, what has not changed, and what helped and/or hindered the change process, including the role of and support provided by the academic researcher (ICPHR, 2013; McTaggart, 1998; Owens et al., 2021).