After reading this chapter you will be able to: define participatory research and its core principles; describe how engaging communities in participatory research and action can add value to research, while building community capacity and helping achieve action to promote community health; identify some of the challenges that arise in such work and how they may be addressed; describe a case study that started with an important issue in the community and demonstrates core principles of communitybased participatory research (CBPR), challenges faced in such work, and subsequent community action for change.

This special issue is published in the journal Evidence and Policy 15(3) 2019 and guest edited by Annette Boaz, Allison Metz and Glenn Robert. Taken as a whole, the papers interrogate three key questions: What is co-creation and why is it used? Does co-creation produce added value and contribute to desired outcomes? What frameworks and tools can facilitate co-creation?

The European Journal of Operational Research published a collection of articles in Community Operational Research in 2018 (Volume 268, Issue 3), pages 761-1192, edited by Michael P. Johnson, Gerald Midgley . It covers (re)definitions of Community Operational Research; theoretical and methodological innovations supported by examples from practice; four substantive application areas: preventative projects with youth, working with indigenous communities, urban community development and planning, and rural development; and new frontiers and emerging trends in Community Operational Research plus interfaces with other practices and disciplines.

The journal Instructional Science published a special issue in "Participatory Design" in 2014 (Vol. 42, No. 1) edited by Karen D. Könings, Tina Seidel and Jeroen J. G. van Merriënboer. It describes a broad range of different initiatives for supporting and structuring collaboration between designers and/or teachers and/or students in the instructional design process and shows important developments in this research field.

Participatory research relies on stakeholder inputs to obtain its acclaimed benefits of improved social relevance, validity, and actionability of research outcomes. We focus here on participatory research in the context of natural resource management. Participants' acceptance of participatory research processes is key to their implementation. Our first assumption is that this positive view and acceptance of participation in research processes is a public good for the whole participatory research community. We also assume that the diversity of participatory forms of research is rarely considered by potential participants when they make their decisions about whether or not to participate in a proposed process. We specifically address how to avoid stakeholders' reluctance to be involved in participatory research projects based on disillusion with past experiences. We argue that the disappointment experienced by stakeholders and other participants (i.e., researchers and policy makers) can be avoided by being upfront and precise about how participation will be implemented, and what kind of involvement is expected from participants. Such a collective effort from the research community can also clarify the variety of possible implementations for potential participants. Building on earlier efforts to characterize and categorize the diversity of participatory research approaches, we develop a conceptual analytic procedural framework to make participants' roles explicit in the implementation of different participatory research processes. This framework consists of three facets: (1) the flows of information among participants and the control over these flows for each step in a process, i.e., who will be expected to produce information, who will use this information, and who will receive the results; (2) the timing of the involvement of participants in the different steps of the research process, and the framing power that is associated with each process step; and (3) the organization of communication among participants for each information flow, i.e., in what configuration (bilaterally or as a group, mediated or face to face) the interactions among researchers, stakeholders, and policy makers will take place. This framework can accommodate a wide variety of research methods, and highlights exactly how participants are involved in research processes. We are prescriptive in dealing with the need to be procedurally explicit when engaging in participatory research. We anticipate that using this framework will lead to more thoughtful acceptances or refusals to participate in proposed research processes. Our framework is based on various experiences with participatory research. It is intended to be used from the very beginning of a participatory research process as a conceptual guide for researchers. We suggest a protocol to transform it into more practical guidelines for communicating about upcoming participatory research processes. The leader of such processes should propose at each key stage an explicit, yet adaptive, plan for the following stages. This plan should also specify in what ways participants will be involved, and how the plan itself can be questioned and revised.

Background: Internationally, patient and public involvement (PPI) is core policy for health service quality improvement (QI). However, authentic QI partnerships are not commonplace. A lack of patient and staff capability to deliver successful partnerships may be a barrier to meaningful QI collaboration. Objectives: The research questions for this scoping review were: What is known regarding the capabilities required for healthcare staff and patients to effectively partner in QI at the service level?; and What is known regarding the best practice learning and development strategies required to build and support those capabilities?. Methods: A six-stage scoping review was completed. Five electronic databases were searched for publications from January 2010 to February 2020. The database searches incorporated relevant terms for the following concepts: capabilities for PPI in healthcare QI; and best practice learning and development strategies to support those capabilities. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis. Results: Forty-nine papers were included. Very little peer-reviewed literature focused explicitly on capabilities for QI partnerships and thus implicit paper content was analysed. A Capability framework for successful partnerships in healthcare quality improvement was developed. It includes knowledge, skills and attitudes across three capability domains: Personal Attributes; Relationships and Communication; and Philosophies, Models and Practices, and incorporates 10 capabilities. Sharing power and leadership was discussed in many papers as fundamental and was positioned across all of the domains. Most papers discussed staff and patients’ co-learning (n=28, 57.14%). Workshops or shorter structured training sessions (n=36, 73.47%), and face-to-face learning (n=34, 69.38%) were frequently reported. Conclusion: The framework developed here could guide individualised development or learning plans for patient partners and staff, or could assist organisations to review learning topics and approaches such as training content, mentoring guidelines or community of practice agendas. Future directions include refining and evaluating the framework. Development approaches such as self-reflection, communities of practice, and remote learning need to be expanded and evaluated.

A company's license to operate and grow is no longer seen exclusively in terms of maximizing profits. Embedding an organization in society—in a sustainable manner—has become a condition for continuity and growth. Sustainable development requires that a company's performance be valued positively by the stakeholders, in financial, environmental, and social terms. The financial bottom line moves aside for the triple bottom line, in which profits are linked to environmental (planet) and social (people) value. To an increasing extent, both primary and secondary stakeholders are calling companies to account directly for their triple bottom line. “Civil society is demanding greater accountability and transparency from business” according to the World Resources Institute and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. The number of international NGOs registered by the Union of International Associations has more than doubled since 1985, and now amounts to 40,000.4 However, the public's impression of how companies deal with issues of sustainability does not always seem to be positive. Research by CSR Europe in 2000 revealed that half the European population believes that insufficient attention is paid to socially responsible business practice. A study by the Conference Board showed that half the U.S. population said that, when making recent purchases, they had taken the social performance of the company into consideration. In most countries, the government adopts a more wait-and-see attitude. In particular, a growing group of shareholders and investors attaches significant importance to the sustainability of a company. If this is not for ethical reasons, then it is because the same shareholder is also part of the society and benefits (indirectly) from sustainable development. And if this perspective is also missing, then there is also the insight that sustainable business practice is beneficial for the profitability of the company and therefore of direct importance to the shareholders. Research by the Social Investment Fund revealed that the market for sustainable investment increased tenfold in the 1990s.8 At the end of the 1990s, this market amounted for more than USD 2 trillion. In view of the interests in and attention being paid to sustainability, can it be assumed that companies will create new forms of self-regulation and sustainability independently and autonomously, or is outside help required? In this article, we want to examine how, in addition to—and in interaction with—voluntary business codes and sustainability reporting, a stakeholder dialogue can contribute to effective self-regulation. First, we look at the advent of stakeholder dialogue in the context of the increasing use of company codes and sustainability reporting. We then define the characteristics of stakeholder dialogue and examine what conditions are needed for this to progress effectively. Next, we look at the possible outcomes; and, finally, conclude with an initial analysis of four companies that developed four different forms of stakeholder dialogue.

Stakeholder analysis means many things to different people. Various methods and approaches have been developed in different fields for different purposes, leading to confusion over the concept and practice of stakeholder analysis. This paper asks how and why stakeholder analysis should be conducted for participatory natural resource management research. This is achieved by reviewing the development of stakeholder analysis in business management, development and natural resource management. The normative and instrumental theoretical basis for stakeholder analysis is discussed, and a stakeholder analysis typology is proposed. This consists of methods for: i) identifying stakeholders; ii) differentiating between and categorising stakeholders; and iii) investigating relationships between stakeholders. The range of methods that can be used to carry out each type of analysis is reviewed. These methods and approaches are then illustrated through a series of case studies funded through the Rural Economy and Land Use (RELU) programme. These case studies show the wide range of participatory and non-participatory methods that can be used, and discuss some of the challenges and limitations of existing methods for stakeholder analysis. The case studies also propose new tools and combinations of methods that can more effectively identify and categorise stakeholders and help understand their inter-relationships.

Priority-setting partnerships between researchers and stakeholders (meaning consumers, health professionals and health decision-makers) may improve research relevance and value. The Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group (CCCG) publishes systematic reviews in 'health communication and participation', which includes concepts such as shared decision-making, patient-centred care and health literacy. We aimed to select and refine priority topics for systematic reviews in health communication and participation, and use these to identify five priority CCCG Cochrane Reviews. Twenty-eight participants (14 consumers, 14 health professionals/decision-makers) attended a 1-day workshop in Australia. Using large-group activities and voting, participants discussed, revised and then selected 12 priority topics from a list of 21 previously identified topics. In mixed small groups, participants refined these topics, exploring underlying problems, who they affect and potential solutions. Thematic analysis identified cross-cutting themes, in addition to key populations and potential interventions for future Cochrane Reviews. We mapped these against CCCG's existing review portfolio to identify five priority reviews. Priority topics included poor understanding and implementation of patient-centred care by health services, the fact that health information can be a low priority for health professionals, communication and coordination breakdowns in health services, and inadequate consumer involvement in health service design. The four themes underpinning the topics were culture and organisational structures, health professional attitudes and assumptions, inconsistent experiences of care, and lack of shared understanding in the sector. Key populations for future reviews were described in terms of social health characteristics (e.g. people from indigenous or culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, elderly people, and people experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage) more than individual health characteristics. Potential interventions included health professional education, interventions to change health service/health professional culture and attitudes, and health service policies and standards. The resulting five priority Cochrane Reviews identified were improving end-of-life care communication, patient/family involvement in patient safety, improving future doctors' communication skills, consumer engagement strategies, and promoting patient-centred care. Stakeholders identified priority topics for systematic reviews associated with structural and cultural challenges underlying health communication and participation, and were concerned that issues of equity be addressed. Priority-setting with stakeholders presents opportunities and challenges for review producers.

This glossary aims to clarify some of the key concepts associated with participatory action research.

Researchers have a responsibility to cause no harm, but research has been a source of distress for indigenous people because of inappropriate methods and practices. The way researchers acquire knowledge in indigenous communities may be as critical for eliminating health disparities as the actual knowledge that is gained about a particular health problem. Researchers working with indigenous communities must continue to resolve conflict between the values of the academic setting and those of the community. It is important to consider the ways of knowing that exist in indigenous communities when developing research methods. Challenges to research partnerships include how to distribute the benefits of the research findings when academic or external needs contrast with the need to protect indigenous knowledge.

For millennia Indigenous communities worldwide have maintained diverse knowledge systems informed through careful observation of dynamics of environmental changes. Although Indigenous communities and their knowledge systems are recognized as critical resources for understanding and adapting to climate change, no comprehensive, evidence-based analysis has been conducted into how environmental studies engage Indigenous communities. Here we provide the first global systematic review of levels of Indigenous community participation and decision-making in all stages of the research process (initiation, design, implementation, analysis, dissemination) in climate field studies that access Indigenous knowledge. We develop indicators for assessing responsible community engagement in research practice and identify patterns in levels of Indigenous community engagement. We find that the vast majority of climate studies (87%) practice an extractive model in which outside researchers use Indigenous knowledge systems with minimal participation or decision-making authority from communities who hold them. Few studies report on outputs that directly serve Indigenous communities, ethical guidelines for research practice, or providing Indigenous community access to findings. Further, studies initiated with (in mutual agreement between outside researchers and Indigenous communities) and by Indigenous community members report significantly more indicators for responsible community engagement when accessing Indigenous knowledges than studies initiated by outside researchers alone. This global assessment provides an evidence base to inform our understanding of broader social impacts related to research design and concludes with a series of guiding questions and methods to support responsible research practice with Indigenous and local communities.

For serious practitioners of participatory action research, it is helpful to identify its principles. This paper outlines some principles of participatory action research in Australia that have been derived from theory and practice in both Western and cross-cultural contexts. Participatory action research is identified with critical social theory and is exemplified with two perspectives from participatory action research in Northern Australian Aboriginal communities.