ON-LINE ISSUES

V.5 N.1, August 1999

Participatory Action Research for Curriculum Change: Can Full Participation Be Achieved?

by Faith Maina
fmaina@interchange.ubc.ca

Centre for the Study of Curriculum & Instruction
University of British Columbia

Abstract

In January 1997, I returned to the community where I was born and raised to do research. Using participatory action research methodology, I carried out a study, placing culture at the center of the Kenyan curriculum. This study that sought to explore the possibilities of tapping local resources to enrich curriculum invited collaboration from five teachers in a local secondary school. Despite positive results that helped us to move beyond understanding what we know (i.e. providing data) to theorizing about what we know (i.e. creating meaning) and to transform our reality for social change (i.e. taking action), I felt in retrospect that participation was not fully achieved. However, even without full participation, what we gained using this approach far outweighs the loss. I conclude that the field of education needs to embrace non-traditional research methodologies and support them in tangible ways if it is to remain a leader in edge-cutting research.

While many social science researchers rely heavily on using the experiences of the other to gather data that “can help us answer questions about various aspects of society and thus enable us to understand society” (Bailey, 1982, p.32), I come to this study as an insider. I come to this study as a person who has experienced the painful effects of cultural domination, which has been fuelled, in part, by knowledge and policies generated from social science research. The study is not, however, limited to my own experiences because what I have experienced is common to most people who do not have access to powerful decision-making positions in society. As a member of such a group, I have re-searched to learn how social science research can better meet our needs. This is because I realise and acknowledge that social science research is not inherently bad. It is those who pay for the research, and those who decide what good research is (St. Denis, 1989), that have contributed to the negative effects others and I have experienced. It is from this perspective that I began the search to understand how to do research with and for the members of the group in which I belong.

I have grown up in this community, gone to school, gone to university and returned to teach literature and English language for over five years. I have actively participated in drama and theatre and I have been involved in teaching for over seven years. In this community, I have different roles: a mother, a wife, and a clan member. Each of these roles comes with certain responsibilities. Because of my history of being so rooted in the community and working with other teachers, students, and community members, I set four criteria that would guide my research: it must not be research on others; it must include the shared experiences of all the people involved in the research; it must be dialogic and it must be sharing of skills so that the process may continue after I have left.

As a member of this community, I could not bring myself to do research on others, a practice often encouraged in some traditional research methodologies. Such research, in my opinion, often alienates and disenfranchises those targeted for research making them feel as if they are under a microscope (Smith, 1996). Secondly, social science research has recently been criticised by some academics as being a representation of the western academic thought that has invented an other as the object of research. Fine (1994) argues that much of qualitative research has produced, if contradiction-filled, a colonising discourse of the other by reinventing the hyphen of self-other that both separates and merges personal identities. She further argues that this reinvention of the other has caused critical theorists, feminists, and third world scholars to view social science as a tool of domination. Fine’s argument resonates with that of Alcoff (1991), who says that speaking for the “other” has come under increasing criticism and, in some communities, it is being rejected as “arrogant, vain, unethical and politically illegitimate” (p. 6).

One of the reasons why our experiences as third world academics, in effect, the other, have not been embraced in the academic research terminologies originates from the very definition of social science. Bailey, for instance, describes social science to be "concerned with gathering data that can help us answer questions about various aspects of society and thus enable us to understand society"(italics mine for emphasis) (1982, cited in St. Denis, 1989, p. 7). This definition, applied to my situation, may not adequately describe my experiences for a number of reasons. Firstly, I may not need help from collected data to understand the very life I have always known. It would be fake on my part to spend time collecting data, which I can almost tell how they will look like. I would rather use the skills that can make a difference to each one of us, identifying the strengths of our resources and harnessing the same for the collective advantage of our school and community.

Secondly, I might not need the teachers and community members to answer questions to enable me to understand my own society. I do understand my society because I have lived here for the better part of my life as a child, teenager, young adult and now as a married woman with children. I have also been a teacher for a number of years. What I do not understand though is how our community can challenge the status quo. What I need at this point is the ability to move beyond understanding my society and the ability to transform our reality for social change. I would like to work with the community so that we can understand the hegemonic institutions that have created and maintained our present social struggles so that we can collectively seek alternatives. As Ndunda recently said, collecting data just to understand our own lived experiences will only reproduce "another discourse of horror" (Ndunda, 1996, personal communication). From this point of view, I was not sure my experience and those of the people involved in the research could adequately be described within Bailey's social science framework.

I literally agonized trying to come up with a research methodology that could adequately describe my lived experience as a teacher and a member of this community, and those of the people who were going to be involved in the research, without making them feel scrutinized. Much of this agony stemmed from the realization that some of the existing research methodologies and the subsequent terminology have until recently excluded personal experience as a basis of study and analysis. Part of the reason this knowledge has been excluded is because of epistemological notions so that meaning as contained in texts and the study of texts, particularly their deconstruction, becomes the primary focus of education (Clandinin & Connelly, 1994). There is also the argument that experience cannot speak for itself, again putting the focus on the meaning contained in texts and the forms by which they are constructed. There has also been the contrasting argument that experience is too comprehensive, too holistic, and, therefore, an insufficiently analytic term to permit useful inquiry (Clandinin & Connelly, 1994). Consequently, the voice of academic researchers with insider knowledge, the kind of knowledge which is based on experience and not found in texts, is often silenced or excluded (Ahlberg, 1991; Ndunda, 1995).

Further, Clandinin and Connelly (1994) define social science as being concerned with humans and their relations with themselves and their environments, and, as such, the social sciences are founded on the study of experience. I knew right at the onset that experience would be the starting point and key term for my inquiry. The challenging task for me was to sort out the appropriate methods of data collection that would be congruent with the experiences of the members of my community and particularly the teachers who would be directly involved in the research. Some of the methods of data collection and analysis I have encountered in my academic life do not allow experience sharing as a basis of inquiry because they are often one sided. Positivist inquiry, for instance, suggests that we must observe phenomena exhaustively and define them precisely in order to identify specific causes and effects. The researchers should stand apart from their subject and think of it as having an independent object-like existence with no intrinsic meaning. The knower and that which is or can be known are considered separate, so that the social scientist can adopt the role of observer of an independently existing reality. And since social investigation is a neutral activity, we should strive to eliminate all biases and preconceptions, not be emotionally involved with or have a particular attitude toward our subject, and move beyond common sense beliefs to discover causes and to make predictions (St. Denis, 1989).

I recently listened to a presenter describe vividly one kindergarten classroom, which the teacher had voluntarily allowed her to observe. In the classroom, there were five Black boys who the teacher had labelled the “gang of five.” The gang was supposedly unmanageable. They talked to each other often and, even though they finished their assigned tasks, they never talked to the teacher directly. The teacher did not talk to them either and, when she did, it was to reprimand them. The teacher had concluded that this behaviour reflected the gangsterism that existed in their homes. As I sat at the back of the room digesting what had transpired, I wondered what would have happened if this researcher had invited the teacher to dialogue by making her answerable for her understanding of what was going on in her classroom and acting on that understanding. What shape would this presentation have taken if the teacher was invited to laugh with us at the way she handled/mishandled her classroom diversity and the resulting dynamics, instead of us, sitting in our privileged cultural setting (university lounge), laughing at her in her absence. I felt that this researcher had used her privileged position to silence and scrutinise the teacher. She had failed to listen to/talk with/share with the teacher the knowledge she had about what was happening in that classroom. Instead, she chose to share her knowledge with her peers/colleagues who thought/acted like her and who would probably reward her with prestige, publication and income.

This way of doing research, in my opinion, is harmful to the participants. It has no commitment to bringing the participants of the study into the process of knowledge generation. It also contradicts the epistemological position that places the importance on: experiential knowing that emerges through participation with others; beliefs that people can learn to be self-reflexive about their world and their actions within it (Reason, 1994). This is the kind of path I had chosen not to follow.

I have come to learn that knowledge produced by social science is a powerful and effective means to influence decisions regarding people's everyday lives. Whether this knowledge is used for the advantage or disadvantage of the group of the people being researched "depends on who controls the research process" (St Denis, 1979, p.1). Reynolds & Reynolds (1970) argue that research and the consequent knowledge generated "has worked to make the power structure relatively more powerful and knowledgeable, and thereby to make the subject population more impotent and ignorant" (Gaventa, 1993, p. 27). For third world academic researchers who often have little control of the research process in terms of research funding, loyalty to certain schools of thought and academic institutions and the consequent distribution of the knowledge, it would be a miracle to expect their experiences to play any significant role in the knowledge generated. I would therefore conclude like Gaventa that:

Where knowledge is produced about the problems of the powerless, it is more often than not produced by the powerful in the interest of maintaining the status quo, rather than the powerless in the interest of change. (1993, p. 26)

Because I am historically situated within this traditionally powerless group Gaventa refers to above, my research had to be educative, a “dialogical approach to research that attempted to develop voice as a form of political process” (Pinar, 1995, p. 259). All I had to do was “provide these individuals with a lens through which they could see themselves, become aware of new ideas, or recognize concepts that they were intuitively acting upon but that lacked clear articulation” (Goodman, cited in Pinar, 1995, p. 259). Doing research this way would ensure greater collaboration with teachers. This interaction would become part of the curriculum, thus providing some skills that could be used long after I had left the field.

Participatory action research to a large extent accommodated my four criteria even though other perspectives including feminist research, critical theory research, action research contributed significantly. Reinharz (1992) affirms that participatory research is an approach to producing knowledge through democratic, interactive relationships. Researchers work with community members to resolve problems identified by the community and the process of research is intended to empower the participants. Participants make decisions rather than function as passive subjects (Reinharz, 1992).

Reinharz' understanding of participatory action research concurs with Ada and Beutel's (1991) affirmation that "participatory research is a philosophical and ideological commitment which holds that every human being has the capacity of knowing, of analysing and reflecting about reality so that she becomes a true agent of action in her own life" (cited in McCaleb, 1994, p. 57). Reason (1994) talks about the primary outcome of participatory action research as a "change in the lived experience of those involved in the inquiry" (p. 333):

Participants are empowered to define their world in the service of what they see as worthwhile interests, and as a consequence they change their world in significant ways, through actions. (Reason, 1994, p. 333)

Participatory action research differs from traditional research in its fundamental approach (McCaleb, 1994). As Tandon (1989) points out, participatory action research is a methodology for an alternate system of knowledge production based on the people's role in setting the agendas, participating in the data gathering and analysis, and controlling the use of the outcomes (cited in Reason, 1994). By attempting to break down the established power roles between researcher and participants, it encourages what Sumara and Luce-Kapler (1993) refer to as "collaboration" (p. 393):

Collaboration seems to have become aligned with the idea of equal participation, responsibility and representation - all subsumed within a comfortable, friendly community of persons engaged in a mutually interesting project or endeavour. (Sumara & Luce-Kapler, 1993, p. 393)

Collaboration frequently enhances communication, builds relationships (Peterat & Smith, 1996) and ensures that everyone's point of view will be taken as a contribution to resources for understanding (Winter, 1989). Though collaboration can cause tension, frustrations, discomfort, and dissonance (Peterat & Smith, 1996) and often makes people toil together under conditions of distress or trouble, making them exert their body and mind in ways which are sometimes painful (Sumara & Luce-Kapler, 1993), it initiates an interactive process which Freire (1970) refers to as "dialogue":

Dialogue is thus an existential necessity. And since dialogue is the encounter in which the united reflection and action of the dialoguers are addressed to the world which is to be transformed and humanised, this dialogue cannot be reduced to the act of one person's "depositing" of ideas in another, nor can it be a simple exchange of ideas to be "consumed" by the discussants. (Freire, 1970, p. 59)

Freire views this interactive process as establishing the participants as the subjects of their own history and encouraging shared control and generation of knowledge (1970, cited in McCaleb, 1994). The understanding that emerges through this research process is constructed jointly by researcher and participants and which I believe is appropriate for people whose voices have seldom been heard or documented (McCaleb, 1994). By inviting teachers to engage in dialogue with the researcher, they begin to feel that their experiences are important and valid. Teachers begin to realize that their words and experiences merit a valuable place in the making of curriculum. They also begin to realize that, by sharing their personal experiences, they can help their students and others to understand new and old ways of viewing the world. As William (1980) argues:

Teachers are humanized when their lived lives, their real and varied experiences, and their unique situations and pathways to teaching are accounted for. Teachers are dignified when they are assumed to be a rich and powerful source of knowledge about teaching, when they are looked upon as people who are essential in making some sense out of the intricate and complex phenomena that they know best. (p. 2)

This idea of validating teacher’s experiences is in keeping with the emphasis on participatory action research "as inquiry as empowerment" (Reason, 1994, p. 329). The actual methodologies that in orthodox research would be called research design, data gathering, data analysis and so on take second place to the emergent processes of collaboration and dialogue that empower, motivate, increase self-esteem, and develop community solidarity (Reason, 1994). As de Roux (1991) puts it, the methodologies employed must at:

the rational level... be capable of releasing the people's pent-up knowledge, and in doing so, liberate their hitherto stifled thoughts and voices stimulating creativity and developing their analytical and critical capabilities ... [And] at emotional level, the process [must] be capable of releasing feelings, of tearing down the participants’ internal walls in order to free up energy for action. (p.44, cited in Reason, 1994, p. 329)

This way of doing research may be what Hart (1995) refers to in reference to a school setting as the "decentred mode" which acknowledges the inevitable difference between researcher and participants' frame of reference and appreciates the significance of the participants' activity from this alternative perspective. Hart's (1995) decentred mode encourages us to challenge interpretations made from within the teacher's frame of reference, by inviting us to try and appreciate the meaning and logic of response from their point of view. It could also be what Maclure (1995) refers to as "deconstruction," which has the task of destabilizing the binary opposition and challenging the closure of meaning and possibility that they inevitably bring about. Winter (1989) talks about "deconstructing," having the ability to reinterpret view points from differences and also the conflicts and contradictions with view points. Because disenfranchised people are excluded from thinking, feeling, and acting as the subjects of their own lives (Park, cited in McCaleb, 1994), participatory action provides an important opportunity for "an oppressed group, which may be part of a culture of silence based on centuries of oppression, to find ways to tell and thus reclaim their own story" (Salazar, 1991, cited in Reason, 1994, p. 329).

I found this research methodology as being appropriate in answering my research question regarding the possibility of tapping local resources, both material and human to meet curriculum goals. However, even with careful planning and personal commitment to the process of change, I found that participation was not fully achieved. Unforeseen circumstances arose during the process of research as a result of human dynamics. There were also some institutional demands that made full participation a challenge. The following section highlights some actions that contradicted to a certain extent the basic ideology of participatory action research.

Human Dynamics

Although academics that are not participatory action researchers experience moral dilemmas as they conduct research with living persons, some of my experiences were almost paralyzing. To use St. Denis’ (1989) words, in reference to community-based participatory research, this kind of research is messier than conventional research because it does not follow a standard research formula. Instead, it is dependent on the interpersonal dynamics of all the research participants. Dependence on interpersonal dynamics makes it difficult to pre-determine transpiring events which may influence the outcome of the research. I had a commitment to making social changes in the process of my research because, in my opinion, research undertaken just for the sake of knowing is pointless as well as asocial and immoral (St. Denis, 1989). The research process would include the critique of the status quo so that the participants and I would build meaningful and more just practices. However, I found that allowing the teachers to interact with data was difficult to achieve. Even with all the careful planning, genuine personal involvement and conducive cultural climate, some teachers for various reasons were unable to theorize or use the data to generate knowledge. They still viewed me as having power and control over the research project. After all, I would eventually get my degree that would enable me to change my social status through the rewards that come with it.

For example, two of my research partners were unable to implement their classroom projects even though they had actively participated in articulating what they know (i.e. providing data) and theorizing what they know (i.e. creating meaning). They were unable to participate fully in transforming the reality for social change (i.e. taking action). One of the teachers left teaching for another career and the other one had health problems that caused her to be constantly away from the school. These unforeseen human dynamics reminded me about the inevitability of working with human beings who often have diverse needs and aspirations. Such experiences enabled me to understand that participation cannot be taken for granted. For a variety of reasons, people may be unwilling or unable to participate.

Secondly, the researcher in participatory action research has little control over the research once the collaborative partners come on board. Even though participatory action research derives its strength in sharing power and control with the collaborating partners, sometimes I felt that I was being taken where I didn’t want to go. I set out to face the challenging task of exploring the possibilities of tapping the local resources to enrich school curriculum in Kenya, so that teachers begin to use both material and human resources which are locally available to meet curriculum goals. By using the local resources, the learners will begin to view the local knowledge, wisdom, values, beliefs and skills as being important to the understanding of the school knowledge which will help them develop a strong cultural identity.

Unfortunately, however, this is not where my research partners wanted to go. Instead, they wanted to follow the curriculum guidelines particularly because of the time factor, but change the teaching approach and use locally available materials which may not necessarily be culturally relevant. In other words, the teachers did not want to restrict themselves solely to the cultural materials because as one participant cautioned:

There are some things that you might say can be included in the curriculum, but in another curriculum, that may not be acceptable. It is therefore important to understand all the communities so that if there is something you have come up with, you try to discuss it with people from other communities so that what you want included in the curriculum can be accepted and can be used anywhere in the country because you are not writing the curriculum for just one area. (Maina, 1998, p.188)

This caution reminded me that for participatory action research to thrive, I had to give up some of my power and control originating from philosophical understandings and assumptions. I had to constantly re-examine my assumed control of the research and constantly negotiate power and control with the research partners.

Such experiences enabled me to understand the ‘risk’ the researcher has to be willing to take in using participatory action research. Participatory action research should not be seen as an efficient way of doing research. Assumptions and ideological perspectives accumulated over a long period of time are painful to give up. It can only occur when enough time is set aside for researcher and partners to know each other well, to allow opinions, some in conflict with each other, to be heard. This way, the researcher is able to give up something in exchange of something else more useful and practical under the circumstances. In short, the researcher in participatory action research has to be flexible.

Participatory action research derives its strength on the researcher working with community members to resolve problems identified by the community in the process that is intended to empower the participants. As a researcher, I should have arrived in the community with no conceptual framework based on empirical or analytic work previously done on similar situations. I should have found the community members are fully in control, had recognised their problem and were ready to work on it long before my arrival and I would only play a catalytic role. However, my doctoral program requirement is that I begin the process of research long before I get there. There were ethical forms to be completed and permission granted by the participating school for it to be approved.

Consequently, I wrote a letter to the principal of the local secondary school, long before I got to the field. In the letter, I explained clearly that I was a doctoral student at the University of British Columbia seeking participants in a study called cultural relevance in Kenyan school curriculum. I further explained that the purpose of the study was to collaboratively explore the possibilities of tapping the local resources to enrich curriculum in Kenya, so that teachers can begin to use both materials and human resources which are locally available and culturally relevant to meet curriculum goals. I would therefore appreciate the opportunity to carry out my study in her school and invite the teachers to participate in the study.

In short, this was my study and I was only inviting other teachers to participate. I felt justified in doing this for a number of reasons. One, I too am a member of this community in general and I belong to the teacher community as well. I would therefore not pretend to them that I come empty handed to listen to their pains so that we can work together to better our life. Rather, I would reciprocate the sacrifice they have made so that I and others like me can get an education by communicating selectively the skills that can make a difference to each of us and the community in general.

Secondly, the basic requirement of participants filling in consent forms contradicts a basic ideology of participatory action research of privileging all forms of knowledge. To fulfil this requirement, I had to select a few participants and not use other knowledge produced in other sites within the community. For instance, I had indicated in the letter to the principal that each of the teacher volunteers would be interviewed at the beginning of the study. These interviews would be conversational and dialogical, involving non-directive, open-ended questions. The questions focussed on the teachers’ interest in, and experiences with, culturally relevant materials. The purpose of the interviews was twofold: a) to explore the beliefs, conceptualisations, and practices of the teacher; and b) to explore the reasons for initiating change in curriculum materials and the questions that arise in the process. The interviews would take 1-2 hours and would be audio-taped.

Other unforeseen circumstances arose which would have enabled more participation for community members. For instance, one of the teacher participants left teaching in the middle of the project to pursue a more lucrative career as an officer for the Kenya Electoral Commission. Fortunately, his teaching subject was literature in English and language, which happened to be my subject area. The principal asked me to be a temporary replacement on a volunteer basis to which I readily agreed. I was able to access a classroom and face the harsh realities of the classroom. I was no longer an out/insider observer directing an overworked group of people. I became a part of the school culture. I was immersed.

However, I began to ask myself other questions. Was I still a researcher? Would it be ethical for a researcher to research on herself? What about the students I was teaching? What relationship could we have? What was my responsibility in the classroom and what is my responsibility as a researcher? Here I was, reciprocating to the school by volunteering my time and sharing knowledge with the students. But what is my ethical responsibility? Would it be just okay to walk into the classroom to teach what the syllabus expects of me and walk out, even though I'm totally convinced that we could do better. I continually reminded myself that ethically, nothing I did with the students would be used, as part of the data because I had not indicated that I would be using students’ views in my proposal or even in my ethical review forms. Yet, an unforeseen opportunity had arisen. Should I take advantage or would I just let the opportunity pass?

Further, as I got re-integrated into the community activities such as clan meetings, marriage negotiations, weddings, church, fund raising, parent/teacher meetings and so forth, I found some teachers participating in the same activities and it goes without saying that we quickly developed a kind of rapport. Here were teachers with whom I shared some interests/problems/ aspirations: our children attending the same primary school in the same grade, being members of the same clan, having communal responsibilities by virtue of marriage and so forth. It is little wonder then that I found myself developing stronger bonds with the non-participating teachers as my research progressed. It was quite interesting to note that we shared thoughts and exchanged ideas in a relaxing atmosphere with the non-participating teachers, in their homes when I visited or in my home when they came, or when we just met during communal activities, which gave me a solid base for reflections. Though I did not develop a profile for the non-participating teachers, they played a very significant part in the way I understood the world of teachers, viewing things from their perspective as we actively participated in community activities, events and occasions that were close and important to us. Here was this group of teachers who were technically outside the research project but who significantly participated albeit unknowingly. The question that constantly nagged the back of my mind is/was ... can/could I consider these teachers participants even though they had not filled in the consent forms? All these challenges made me realise that participation as defined in participatory action research is not easy.

This is not to say that participation in participatory action research for curriculum change is impossible or that there is no great value in using it. The following section highlights the gains of using participatory action research for change.

Fullan (1993) argues that teachers cannot afford to wait for the system to change itself, they must play an active role in educational change. The work of the teachers in this research project provides an example of what teachers are capable of doing in effecting curriculum change through participatory action research. Once the rationale for change was established, the teachers explored the question of how much change could be accommodated within the curriculum boundaries so that curriculum goals could be met.

After the teachers participated in this project, each of them agreed that what and how they taught was problematic. They had seen the rationale of my advocacy, which we had worked through as a group and they were ready to implement it. As is clear from the formulation of each of the classroom projects, the teachers had begun to approach teaching from a critical perspective, with the aim of bringing out the students’ creativity and potential, as well as challenging their own intellect. What is important though is that the teachers were able to access local resources to aid their teaching. The fact that teachers moved beyond introducing a new topic to devising new strategies of presenting it concurs with my earlier commitment of sharing skills with my research partners so that the process continues after I had left. Looking at how each teacher formulated their classroom project is a clear indication that the way I had done my research had brought my research partners into the process of knowledge generation, grounded in the epistemological position that places the importance on: experiential knowing that emerges through participation with others; “beliefs that people can learn to be self-reflexive about their world and their actions within it” (Reason, 1994, p. 333).

Ultimately, what the teachers did in the classroom and how they reported what they had found out is an important part of the process in this research. The teachers had become more observant and ready to experiment with the sole intent of watching the changes that might or might not occur on the students. Implementing what they had formulated was both a challenge for the teacher and a stimulant for the students. Even the students’ performance in the classroom had begun to show remarkable changes, enough to help the teachers consider that this way of teaching is better for the student. Listen to an observation from one participant after implementing his classroom project:

Students participated more actively in class and showed more readiness to answer question. It is surprising that those students we regard, as poor academically in application are often much better and appear to be more keen in their practical work than those who are much better academically. I realized that we sometimes fail to give them a chance to express themselves in those areas they excel in. (Maina, 1998, p. 181)

Instead of me sitting in my privileged cultural setting (University) to scrutinize and consequently silence the teachers, I listened to/talked to/shared with the teachers the knowledge they had about what is happening in their classrooms. That way, they were able to understand the principles behind and the reasons for the curriculum change I was advocating. This way of doing research was based on the premise that “no change in practice, no change in curriculum has any meaning unless the teacher understands it and accepts it” (Bishop, 19985, p.192). The teachers in this project must have fully appreciated the philosophy underlying the change because they were ready to take action.

Without falling into the danger of making conclusive statements about my research process, there are important issues that have emerged through the implementation of participatory action research. By making a commitment of doing research with instead of on or for others and by seeking collaboration with the community of teachers, in which I am a member, we have gained important skills and knowledge that enable us to challenge the structures of domination. This way of doing research has helped us to move beyond understanding what we do (i.e. providing data) to theorizing about what we know (i.e. creating meaning) and to transform our reality for social change (i.e. taking action). This way of doing research creates new possibilities of studying curriculum problems.

In this article, I have discussed extensively the reasons why I adopted participatory action research as the appropriate methodology to address my research question. It is a research methodology in which the four criteria I had set out for myself could be accommodated. Because of its commitment to balancing the power between the researcher and those that were targeted for research, I found it appropriate for my research context. However, I found that even with careful planning and commitment, participation cannot be fully achieved. For some unforeseen reasons related to human dynamics and some institutional demands, participation as understood in participatory action research was a challenge. Nevertheless, even without full participation, the gains of implementing participatory action research for understanding and effecting curriculum change far outweighs the loss. I believe the study is critical for beginning the process of change and I can safely conclude that the field of education needs to embrace non-traditional research methodology if it is to remain a leader in edge-cutting social science research.

• Ahlberg-Maina, B. (1991). Women sexuality and the changing social order: The impact of government policies on reproduction behaviour in Kenya. Philadelphia: Gordon and Breach.

• Alcoff, L. (1991). The problem of speaking for others. Cultural Critique, Winter 1991/92, 5-32.

• Ayers, W. (1980). Saying lives: being and teaching. The good pre-school teacher: Six teachers reflect on their lives (pp 1-21). Columbia University: Teachers College Press.

• Bailey, K. D. (1982). Methods of social research. California: Wadsworth Publishing Co.

• Billings, G. L. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491.

• Bishop, G. (1985). Curriculum development: A textbook for students. Nairobi: Macmillan.

• Clandinin, J. & Connelly, M. (1994). Personal experience methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 413-425). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

• Etter-Lewis, G. (1991). Black women's life stories: Reclaiming self in narrative texts. In S.B. Gluck & D. Patai (Eds.), Women's words: The feminist practice of oral history (pp. 43-58). New York: Routledge

• Fals-Borda, O. & Rahman, M.A. (1991). Action and knowledge: Breaking with the monopoly with participatory action-research. New York: Apex Press.

• Fine, M. (1994). Working the hyphens: Reinventing self and other in qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 70-82). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

• Freire, P. (1990). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.

• Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. Bristol, PA: The Falmer Press.

• Gaventa, J. (1993). The powerful, the powerless and the experts: Knowledge struggle in an information age. In P. Park et al. (Eds.), Voices of change: Participatory research in the United States and Canada (pp. 21-40). Toronto: OISE Press.

• Gianotten, V. & de Wit, T. (1991). Action and participatory research: A case of peasant organization. In O. Fals-Borda & M. Rahman (Eds.), Action and knowledge: Breaking the monopoly with participatory action research (pp. 64-83). New York: Apex Press.

• Hale, S. (1991). Feminist method, process, and self-criticism: Interviewing Sudanese women. In S.B. Gluck & D. Patai (Eds.), Women’s words: The feminist practice of oral history (pp. 121-136). New York: Routledge.

• Hall, B. (1979). Knowledge as a commodity and participatory research. Prospectus, IX (4), 393-408.

• Hart, S. (1995). Action-in-reflection. Education Action Research, 3(2), 211-232.

• Kushner, S. & Norris, N. (1980). Interpretation, negotiation, and validity in naturalistic research. Interchange, 11(4), 26-36.

• Lather, P. (1994). Fertile obsession: Validity after poststructuralism. In A. Gitlin (Ed.), Power and method: Political activism and education research (pp. 36-37). New York: Routledge.

• Maclure, M. (1995). Postmodernism: A postscript. Educational Action Research, 3(1), 105-116.

• Maina, F. (1998). Placing culture at the centre of the Kenyan curriculum: A Participatory action research inquiry. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, the University of British Columbia.

• McCaleb, S. P. (1994). Building communities of learners: A collaboration among teachers, students, families and community. New York: St Martin's Press.

• Ndunda, M. (1995). Women's agency and educational policy: The experiences of the women of Kilome-Kenya. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, the University of British Columbia.

• Patai, D. (1991). U.S. academics and Third World women: Is ethical research possible? In S.B. Gluck & D. Patai (Eds.), Women’s words: The feminist practice of oral history (pp. 137-153). New York: Routledge.

• Peterat, L. & Smith, G. (1996). Metaphoric reflections on a teacher education practicum. Education Action Research, 4(1), 15-28.

• Reason, P. (1994). Three approaches to participative inquiry. In N.K Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 324-339). London: SAGE Publication.

• Reinhaz, S. (1992). Feminist methods in social research. New York: Oxford University Press.

• Salazar, C. M. (1991).Young labourers in Bogota: Breaking authoritarian ramparts. In O. Fals-Borda & M. Rahman (Eds.), Action and knowledge: Breaking the monopoly with participatory action research (pp. 54-63). New York: Apex Press.

• Schubert, W.(1990). The question of worth as central to curricular empowerment. In J. Sears & D. Marshal (Eds.), Teaching and thinking about curriculum: Critical inquiries (pp. 221-227). New York: Teachers college.

• Smith, G. (1996). Theorizing practice/practicing theorizing: Inquiries in global home economics education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, the University of British Columbia.

• St. Denis, V. L. (1989). A process of community-based participatory research: A case study. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska.

• Sumara, D. & Luce-Kapler, R. (1993). Action research as a writerly text: Locating co-labouring in collaboration. Educational Action Research ,1(3), 387-396.

• van Manen, M. (1995). Beyond assumptions: Shifting the limits of action research. Theory into Practice, 29 (3), 152-157.

• Winter, R. (1989). Learning from experience. New York: Falmer Press.

Faith Maina taught English language and literature to high school students in Kenya before starting her studies in the Master’s program at Trent University, Ontario in 1992. She completed her PhD degree at the Centre for the Study of Curriculum and Instruction, the University of British Columbia in November 1998. Using qualitative analysis within the constructivist paradigm, she conducts research in culture and curriculum particularly for societies that have suffered colonial domination in the past.

Copyright rests with the author.