Throughout this course of this seminar, we’ve read articles and accounts of policies, gentrification and other changes in the community that have occurred against the desire of the community’s inhabitants. We’ve read about social movements that have been established as well as a continuous voice for justice. However, the “intentions” behind these changes are supposedly for the betterment of the communities. So the question arises: who has a voice in creating these policies?

In Angotti’s “From Dislocation to Resistance: The Roots of Community Planning” we read that community members seldom had a say in many of the changes that occurred in their neighborhoods. A key aspect of all our projects, whether it was a mental health initiative or the rezoning of a neighborhood, were assessing how these initiatives impacted the community and how much of a say community members had in the initiative. In “Critical Participatory Action Research as Public Service”, Torre et. al, introduce the concept of critical participatory action research (critical PAR).

Upon reading this chapter, one sentence stood out and really summarized the purpose of critical PAR: “[shifting] the gaze from “what’s wrong with that person” to “what are the policies institutions, and social arrangements that help to form and deform, enrich and limit, human development” and “how do people resist eh weight on injustice in their lives?” Critical PAR is about involving the community in the research, ensuring whatever policies and products result are truly beneficial for the community. Torre et. al provide an extensive history on critical PAR and how community members are evolved.

In critical PAR, there is great emphasis audience participation. To explain this, Torre et. all introduce Poll For Justice (PFJ), a contemporary PAR project which is “designed to examine the extent to which urban youth… experience injustices across sectors of education, criminal justice, and health. It began with a 2 day intensive for young people, university faculty, students, community organizers, and health professionals (175).” Using the expertise and experience of these individuals, the aim was to create a youth survey that can accurately document youth experience across various sectors of the city.

Critical PAR seems to be a promising research method, and a model I hope ThriveNYC and other government initiatives adopt. It’s emphasis on partnering up with the community shows that the outcome of such research is truly beneficial for the community members, and strengthens the bond and trust between the people and the government.

Discussion Question: How can apply this model to existing research and research findings?