Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Dec 12;18(1):167.
doi: 10.1186/s12874-018-0636-1.

Participatory action research, mixed methods, and research teams: learning from philosophically juxtaposed methodologies for optimal research outcomes

Affiliations

Participatory action research, mixed methods, and research teams: learning from philosophically juxtaposed methodologies for optimal research outcomes

Marguerite C Sendall et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. .

Abstract

Background: Workplace health interventions incorporating qualitative and quantitative components (mixed methods) within a Participatory Action Research approach can increase understanding of contextual issues ensuring realistic interventions which influence health behaviour. Mixed methods research teams, however, face a variety of challenges at the methodological and expertise levels when designing actions and interventions. Addressing these challenges can improve the team's functionality and lead to higher quality health outcomes. In this paper we reflect on the data collection, implementation and data analysis phases of a mixed methods workplace health promotion project and discuss the challenges which arose within our multidisciplinary team.

Methods: This project used mixed methods within a Participatory Action Research approach to address workers' sun safety behaviours in 14 outdoor workplaces in Queensland, Australia, and elucidate why certain measures succeeded (or failed) at the worker and management level. The project integrated qualitative methods such as policy analysis and interviews, with a range of quantitative methods - including worker surveys, ultraviolet radiation (UVR) exposure measurement, and implementation cost analyses.

Results: The research team found the integration of qualitative and quantitative analyses within the Participatory Action Research process to be challenging and a cause of tensions. This had a negative impact on the data analysis process and reporting of results, and the complexity of qualitative analysis was not truly understood by the quantitative team. Once all researchers recognised qualitative and quantitative data would be equally beneficial to the Participatory Action Research process, methodological bias was overcome to a degree to which the team could work cooperatively.

Conclusions: Mixed methods within a Participatory Action Research approach may allow a research team to discuss, reflect and learn from each other, resulting in broadened perspectives beyond the scope of any single research methodology. However, cohesive and supportive teams take constant work and adjustment under this approach, as knowledge and understanding is gained and shared. It is important researchers are cognisant of, and learn from, potential tensions within research teams due to juxtaposed philosophies, methodologies and experiences, if the team is to function efficiently and positive outcomes are to be achieved.

Keywords: Mixed methods; Outdoor workers; Participatory action research (PAR); Qualitative; Quantitative; Research paradigms; Sun protection; Workplace health promotion.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical approval for this project was obtained from the Queensland University of Technology Human Research Ethics Committee (approval number 1000000968). All participants gave their informed written consent.

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Competing interests

The authors declare they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Rutherford C, Nixon J, Brown J, Lamping DL, Cano S. Using mixed methods to select optimal mode of administration for a patient-reported outcome instrument for people with pressure ulcers. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:22. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-22. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Horsham C, Auster J, Sendall MC, Stoneham M, Youl P, Crane P, Tenkate T, Janda M, Kimlin M. Interventions to decrease skin cancer risk in outdoor workers: update to a 2007 systematic review. BMC Res Notes. 2014;7(1):10. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-7-10. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Glanz K, Buller DB, Saraiya M. Reducing ultraviolet radiation exposure among outdoor workers: state of the evidence and recommendations. Environ Health. 2007;6(1):22. doi: 10.1186/1476-069X-6-22. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kramer DM, Tenkate T, Strahlendorf P, Kushner R, Gardner A, Holness DL. Sun safety at work Canada: a multiple case-study protocol to develop sun safety and heat protection programs and policies for outdoor workers. Implement Sci. 2015;10:97. doi: 10.1186/s13012-015-0277-2. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bryman A. Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. J Mix Methods Res. 2007;1:8–22. doi: 10.1177/2345678906290531. - DOI

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources