The studied analysis used multiple sources to assess a differentiated approach to participatory action research ethical dilemmas. Examples of legitimizing the act’s “death with dignity” are cited as background. In essence, the main issue is the right of the individual to dispose of their life in situations in which further existence is complicated. Among the basic methodology, the type of research involves the active interaction of scholars and research participants to understand social problems and take action to bring about social change.
One of the points that distinguish participatory action research usage is the highlighted cooperative process of collaborative learning. Minkler involves the development of a core idea by joint effort (2002). During this process, participants seek to increase their control over their own lives through a process of strengthening their own personalities, and the ethical question of community intervention is raised (Rabinowitz, 2015). An example of the importance of such a PAR principle is how members of the disabled community come to understand the goals and principles of their struggle for life and their right to control their lives. The disability community has identified the problem itself, and they have been actively involved in the research. Several key findings are presented as conclusion, such as the contradiction between personal experiences and participants’ religious or political beliefs and the importance of autonomy for participants.
The participation of all individuals in the collaborative research process and the formation of certain conclusions should benefit all parties. Many concepts can be cited as connections to Stringer’s material, including inclusivity and shared bottom line, which are emphasized (2014). In order to correlate best with the previous materials studied, inclusivity and exclusivity will be explored in more detail as one of the key ethical challenges.
Inclusivity is crucial in determining the final results, especially given the global importance of the PAS research topic to the entire disability community. However, when forming the group of participants, Minkler tried to consider the interests of different groups and, for this reason, refused many applicants (2002). The main reason is the desire to help members of minorities who have historically been on the margins of the movement. However, given the selection of some researchers and students with disabilities, many white potential participants, including those with disabilities, were not accepted into the study, which may affect the results.
In my opinion, although the problem of racial and cultural diversification has a prominent place among the problems of modern society, exclusivity, in this case, is ineffective. Since the research question is not about particular ethnic or cultural characteristics but about severe health problems, it is necessary to include all who are subject to disability. In contrast to our modern society, accidents and congenital pathologies make no distinction between a person’s racial, gender, or political characteristics (Stringer, 2014). Such restrictions on the research of any kind not only do not make it easier to conduct but cannot guarantee confidence in its outcome as well.
For human services professionals, the usefulness of the PAR method itself can be highlighted as an approach to research and training. This methodology makes it possible to combine different ways of thinking, perceiving, and understanding information, thereby expanding and improving the quality of assistance even by experienced professionals (Minkler et al., 2002). It is my belief that a person does not necessarily have to have a limited capacity for compassion and empathy for those they are helping. By using the participatory method, every professional whose vocation is to assist people with disabilities or people on the brink of death will become more effective.
References
Minkler, M., Fadem, P., Perry, M., Blum, K., Moore, L., & Rogers, J. (2002). Ethical dilemmas in participatory action research: A case study from the disability community. Health Education & Behavior, 29(1), 14–29. Web.
Rabinowitz, P. (2015). Section 5. Ethical issues in community interventions. Community toolbox, University of Kansas. Web.
Stringer, E. T. (2014). Action research (4th edition). Sage Publications.