Can Peer Participatory Action Research shift the power?  

Research is evolving. Whether it’s shaping education programmes or evaluating global development initiatives, one lesson keeps emerging: research is most powerful when it’s done with people, not on them. Participatory approaches like Peer Participatory Action Research (PPAR) ensure that research is not only about understanding communities but empowering them to act on their own priorities. Three of our Ecorys UK researchers are at the forefront of this evolution, and share their insights, experiences and learnings in this blog post.

What PPAR is and why its growing 

Over the past few years, PPAR in evaluation and research has grown in popularity. PPAR is based on the ideas of equal power, collaboration and community action, and to try and remove the traditional power relations and hierarchy between researchers and those ‘being researched’. 

In this blog, we share some key learnings from our experience of integrating PPAR in our research and evaluation. We also explore how PPAR and participatory action research (PAR) more widely can strengthen relationships between researchers and those ‘being researched’, support grounded and meaningful evidence generation, and bring new voices to the table.  

Why PPAR matters  

From our experience as evaluators, PPAR encourages communities to take an active role not only in the designing of research, but also in conducting it in their own communities. PPAR centres on the notion that communities themselves have the skills and expertise to best understand their lived experiences¹. In international settings, PPAR can also be seen to help reduce power imbalances between external organisations researching issues and the communities being studied elsewhere across the globe.  

Unlike research that simply incorporates participatory methods, PPAR embeds participation at each stage of the evaluative and research process – from design to data collection and analysis. Crucially, PPAR also includes an ‘action’ element, ensuring that e communities involved in the research are also involved in shaping how the findings are used and what decisions they inform. However, all forms of participatory approaches in research can enhance expertise and insight, as well as strengthen capacities.  

From theory to practice: applying PPAR in our work 

In our work, PPAR and PAR have helped us democratise our research and challenge traditional power dynamics. One of the ways we have applied PPAR more recently was to include co-researchers in the team for an international evaluation. Our core team (based in UK) provided training for researchers across the world to conduct interviews, and collect stories of change and creative self-reflection exercises, with members of their own networks.  

Through this experience, we found that for PPAR to be meaningful, participation elements must be embedded throughout the reporting and dissemination process. When these stages are overlooked due to time or budget constraints, participation risks becoming tokenistic.  However, where there is genuine openness to hear from peer researchers and include them in what comes out of the research – it can support more informed recommendations and implementation.  

We have also discovered it’s important to not assume that PPAR is necessarily ‘better’, and to keep open channels during the research process, checking-in on whether it is delivering what is anticipated. For example, in a recent project, co-researchers conducted research with their peer communities as well as engagement with children and young people from those communities. We found that cultural norms (such as engaging with older members) made it challenging for co-researchers to engage younger people in open discussions. There was an impression that, in fact, an ‘outsider’ of that community may be better placed to ask the questions and get an honest answer.  

Co-researchers also struggled in balancing empathy for their peers (who were experiencing similar challenges to themselves) with the need to remain objective when assessing impact. This highlighted to us that – whilst PPAR can reduce power imbalances and produce valuable insights – its effectiveness depends on how it is implemented and requires ongoing reflection and adaption on what ‘peer’ participation means. All that said, we see significant value in embedding PPAR approaches. We have found that ‘peer’ and co-researchers bring a wealth of skills and knowledge, while also being able to develop their expertise specifically in research methods and awareness of specific issues through the process.  

A key example of using PPAR in evaluation was for the Global Impact Study for the Global Fund for Children. Partner organisations were trained as researchers and conducted interviews and creative reflection exercises with other partner organisations. You can read the full report for the Global Impact Study here. 

Whilst there is no ‘perfect’ model that can be translated across all projects, several key considerations can help ensure that PPAR genuinely supports power shifting. We summarise these below.  

Key considerations for meaningful participation:  

• Budget and resources:  PPAR can be costly and take time to implement. Training members of the community, collecting data, and undertaking regular check-ins take longer than other research methods. It’s also important to recognise and fairly compensate peer-researchers for their time, skills and expertise. Discussion on reimbursement should happen early in the research design phase, as they are a key part of assessing the feasibility of delivering PPAR.  

• Power dynamics: Consider how co-researchers relate to the people they are researching. Clarifying expectations around objectivity and loyalty can be worthwhile so that issues can be mitigated. Also, during design, it’s important to define who a ‘peer’ is and consider what dynamics may exist even between peers. Co-researchers should also be involved from the start of the design process as they are key part of developing how the research is undertaken.  

• Open communication: Establishing open and transparent communication where people can take the time to fully understand the research, what their role involves, and ask questions or raise concerns. Regular check-ins ensure that the process remains participatory and responsive. 

Final thoughts  

PPAR is not a perfect formula, and it won’t solve every challenge in research or evaluation. But it does help reshape who holds power, whose knowledge counts, and how research can lead to action. When implemented thoughtfully, it strengthens evidence, builds capacity, and creates more meaningful, equitable connections between researchers and the communities they serve. PPAR allows for diverse voices to be heard, which can produce richer insights for evaluations.