Axiology, Reflexivity, and Influence in Participatory Psychology Research

Abstract

Investigations into participatory research practice trends have revealed significant variations in how participatory research is described and perceived by those involved. Participatory research projects differ in who is included as a research “partner,” when and to what extent each partner has the power to influence research activities, and the information reported about the participatory methods in published articles (Cargo & Mercer, 2008; Vaughn & Jacquez, 2020; Macaulay, 2017; Mosurska & Ford, 2020; Wallerstein & Duran, 2018). While practical challenges likely contribute to some of these variations, other differences may arise from the values driving each research partner’s choices during the research process (i.e. their axiology) and the extent to which partners are engaging in individual and collective reflexivity (Cargo & Mercer, 2008; Chiu, 2006; Cordeiro & Soares, 2018; Kivunja & Kuyini, 2017; Lincoln et al., 2018; Wallerstein & Duran, 2018). Participatory research practices may also vary among academic partners with training in different academic disciplines. Few studies have collected data from psychologists about their participatory practices, and even fewer studies have attempted to measure reflexivity and axiology among participatory researchers. This study surveyed psychologists and their community partners about their experiences contributing to participatory research studies described in articles published between 2015 and 2020. The survey included previously established measures of partners’ power to influence research activities, as well as novel measures of reflexivity and axiology. The findings indicated that psychologists and other academic partners had significantly more influence over research choices compared to their community partners. Community and academic partners also rated the balance of power differently, with academic partners rating the influence of community partners higher than the community partners themselves did. Lastly, it appeared that reflexivity was associated with multiple other variables. Individual reflection about specific questions was associated with research partners’ axiologies, and collective reflexivity was associated with increased ratings of community influence. These significant trends suggest a need for further reflection and study surrounding the ideals that participatory psychology researchers strive for and the extent to which our participatory practices align.