Group Level Assessment Methodology as a Liberating Structure Within Qualitative and Participatory Research

Abstract

Group level assessment (GLA) is a qualitative and participatory research-to-action methodology designed to engage a large group of relevant participants throughout the research process. As originally conceived, a single GLA session is led by a trained facilitator who guides the participants through seven structured steps: climate setting, generating, appreciating, reflecting, understanding, selecting, and action. The purpose of this manuscript is to describe the 25-year trajectory and uses, contributions as a liberating structure, and adaptations of GLA.

Keywords

group level assessment large group method participatory action participatory research method qualitative research method liberating structures

Introduction

Group level assessment (GLA) is a qualitative and participatory research methodology intended for use with large groups (15–60) of diverse stakeholders. GLA is designed to engage relevant participants throughout the research process from generation of ideas, analysis, and prioritization to action. Twenty-five years ago, GLA was created as a client-centered needs assessment process that organization development consultants could use to assist groups in identifying needs and priorities (Vaughn & Lohmueller, 1998). As originally conceived, a single GLA session is led by a trained facilitator who guides the participants through seven structured steps: climate setting, generating, appreciating, reflecting, understanding, selecting, and action (Vaughn & DeJonckheere, 2019; Vaughn & Lohmueller, 2014). Figure 1 summarizes the steps of the original GLA methodology. Greater detail on the steps, prompt development, and process has been described elsewhere (Vaughn & DeJonckheere, 2019; Vaughn & Lohmueller, 2014). The purpose of this manuscript is to describe the trajectory of where and how GLA has been used, contributions as a liberatory structure, and adaptations of GLA as a methodological tool to be used within qualitative health research.

Figure 1.

Seven steps of group level assessment.

Since its origin, GLA has morphed from its original usage as an organization development tool into a research methodology that has been used widely in a variety of disciplines with many different types of groups and for different purposes including needs assessment, ideation, community engagement, evaluation, problem identification, intervention development, quality improvement, education, action planning, and priority setting. In an article organizing selected participatory research methods according to a variety of intended research and partnership goals, we categorized GLA within the “exploration and visioning domain” because of its applicability to different types of research development efforts (e.g., community dialogue, developing research questions, and exploring the meaning, causes, or solutions to specific problems) and its support of a wide range of participant involvement and representation across bounded groups and systems (Duea et al., 2022). For instance, GLA has been applied to engage participants and identify needs and barriers for various health-related issues such as African American fathers’ involvement in the pediatric medical home (Bignall et al., 2018), decision support needs for transgender and gender-diverse youth and families (Mazzola et al., 2023), caring for hospitalized limited English proficiency children (Choe et al., 2019), and use of continuous physiologic monitors for hospitalized pediatric patients (Schondelmeyer et al., 2019). Working with undergraduate women co-researchers, Guy et al. (2020) utilized GLA for action planning following a participatory action research project designed to elevate the status of and recognition of challenges for female students within STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) fields. Mehari and colleagues (2021) combined GLA with quantitative surveys for the evaluation of a police training workshop focused on de-escalation with trauma-exposed youth. Curriculum development and education examples that have incorporated GLA as the primary methodology include the incorporation of mindfulness practices within a college course (Vilvens et al., 2021), culturally specific leadership program for nurses (Nguyen-Truong et al., 2020), science education (Jacquez et al., 2020; Vaughn et al., 2020), and Jewish educational practices (Raider-Roth et al., 2019).

Across settings and purposes, several unique elements of GLA distinguish it from other qualitative research methods. GLA is intended for large groups of 15 to 60 diverse participants who represent different perspectives within a bounded “system” (e.g., community, department, clinic, and organizational subgroup) (Vaughn & DeJonckheere, 2019; Vaughn & Lohmueller, 2014). Although there are other excellent qualitative and participatory large group methods (e.g., World Café, Future Search Conference, and Delphi) (Brown & Isaacs, 2005; Duea et al., 2022; Janoff & Weisbord, 2006; Löhr et al., 2020; McPherson et al., 2018; RAND Corp, 2021; Weisbord & Janoff, 2010), GLA incorporates a participatory and community-engaged research process from start to finish due to the embedded steps of data collection, analysis, and action integrated into the seven steps (Vaughn & DeJonckheere, 2019; Vaughn & Lohmueller, 2014).

In contrast to other commonly used qualitative methods such as interviews and focus groups, GLA is by design a participatory research method that actively engages a large group of diverse participants in data collection, analysis, interpretation, prioritization, and action in real time, positioning the participants as the experts of their lives and communities (Vaughn & Jacquez, 2020). In this way, GLA is participant- and group-centered rather than being researcher-centric where the researcher drives the data collection and analysis process which can be disempowering, passive, and disengaging for participants. In contrast to many conventional research methods, GLA requires academic researchers to share power, co-learn, and engage equitably WITH (versus on or about) participants who generate, analyze, interpret, and prioritize data through the seven-step process.

Qualitative researchers might mistakenly think of GLA as a large focus group. However, GLA differs considerably from focus groups not only logistically (i.e., large size, participatory idea generation and data analysis, participant-centered, and heterogenous stakeholders) but epistemologically. Although both GLA and focus groups may share a constructionist epistemology in the sense of recognizing multiple realities and context dependency in the knowledge generation process (Maxwell, 2012), GLA is firmly rooted in the participatory and transformational epistemological camps (Díaz-Arévalo, 2022; Fine & Torre, 2019; Mertens, 2017; Peralta, 2017; Walker et al., 2022). GLA was designed to disrupt the status-quo, top-down research process with researchers driving the data collection and analysis and instead provide a democratic and liberating structure where those with a stake in the issue from all levels of the community or system drive the data generation, analysis, and prioritization to action. Knowledge in GLA is co-constructed, generated, analyzed, and prioritized by a large group of participant “insiders,” while in a traditional focus group, knowledge is extracted from a small relatively homogeneous group of participants responding to questions moderated by an “outsider” facilitator, and data analysis is conducted by the “outsider” researcher (Kendall et al., 2011) examining the content of the discussion and the interaction between respondents (Parker & Tritter, 2006). Because of the foregrounding of lived experiential knowledge of those who have a stake in the issue (participants, stakeholders, and community members) alongside academic/research expertise (Roura, 2021; Vaughn et al., 2018; Vaughn & Jacquez, 2020), GLA is an ideal methodological tool to be used both within the family of participatory research approaches—citizen science, community-based participatory research, participatory action research, patient and public involvement in research, community-engaged research, participatory health research, etc. (Vaughn & Jacquez, 2020)—and decolonizing, cultural approaches to research (e.g., PARcific Methodology—Rumsey et al., 2022; Indigenist Dadirri Methodology—West et al., 2012).

The GLA process is designed to be interactive which fosters engagement and generates energy with participants. However, GLA is most successful when led by a trained facilitator who understands group dynamics and can address challenging behavior in groups. Because GLA purposefully includes seven different steps, each with varied tasks and group sizes (individual, small, and large), the process can feel chaotic to some participants who find the varied activity and large group atmosphere stressful. However, by design, GLA supports heterogenous participants of different roles, status, personality, cognitive style, and power interacting together to generate and examine ideas. In other words, the seven steps of GLA serve as a “liberating structure” that not only holds a safe space for all participants to express thoughts and opinions freely but also promotes self-discovery via “stepping into another’s shoes” through various types of deliberate, facilitated interactions with participants different than oneself (e.g., during Step 2, Generating, large group simultaneously responding to prompts; dialogue in small mixed status/role groups in Step 5, Understanding) (see Table 1 for a summary of GLA sequence, cognitive tasks, and configurations). Based on complexity science, liberating structures can be defined as democratic, concrete tools that scaffold and organize participants in different group configurations, arrangements, and participatory steps (Kimball, 2012; Lipmanowicz et al., 2015; Torbert, 1978). Furthermore, liberating and democratic structures like GLA

distribute power and influence more widely by engaging everyone, invite self-organization to flourish by letting go of over-control, expand and connect networks by breaking down silos, increase transparency and the rapid reciprocal flow of information, and build new sets of feedback loops via many new forms of interaction; and increase diversity by engaging more people and perspectives. (Lipmanowicz & McCandless, 2010, p. 10)

Eschewing the “silencing nature of positivism,” GLA is liberatory as a culturally and contextually relevant space that equalizes power among participants and privileges all voices (West et al., 2012, p. 1582). Furthermore, GLA aligns with Freire’s liberation concepts of dialogue, reflection, action, and power firmly in the hands of the community as agents of collective and “hopeful” transformational change (1972, 2000, 2021). Torbert (1978) recognizes the irony in liberating structures—that the structure itself is what frees the participants. In GLA, the seven steps serve not as authoritarian constraints but as guidelines and boundaries that “free” the participants to be fully engaged in the research process.

Table 1.

Group Level Assessment Sequence, Cognitive Tasks, and Configurations.

Steps	Cognitive tasks	Configurations
Step 1: Climate setting	• Arriving	Depends on format—small or large group
	• Getting comfortable
	• Adjusting
Step 2: Generating	• Responding	Individuals write public responses at the same time alongside each other
	• Interacting
	• Moving
	• Chatting
Step 3: Appreciating	• Observing	Individuals examine responses
	• Milling
	• Thinking
	• Absorbing
	• Exploring
Step 4: Reflecting	• Contemplating	Individuals reflect alone in silence
	• Pausing
	• Personalizing
Step 5: Understanding	• Interacting	Small groups
	• Analyzing
	• Discussing
	• Finding patterns
	• Connecting
	• Concretizing
Step 6: Selecting	• Synthesizing	Large group
	• Reporting
	• Prioritizing
Step 7: Action	• Planning	Depends on format—small or large group
	• Doing
	• Strategizing

Across the seven steps, GLA promotes transparency and community/group engagement with the focus on “public data” versus private data that might be shared by an individual participant in a one-on-one interview for example (Vaughn & Lohmueller, 2014). This means that participants are unlikely to share an idea that only matters to them and if they do are likely to see that others either do not share their perspective or the participants are not ready to address the idea together as a community or group. The idea in GLA is not to dismiss or ignore important information from individual participants but rather to coalesce around the priority ideas that are collectively important across participants so that there is a greater likelihood of engagement and support of future action at a community/group level. In GLA Step 2, Generating, all participants are invited to respond simultaneously to open-ended prompts on flipcharts which allows individual responses to be shared publicly in real time. GLA Step 5, Understanding, within GLA is the collaborative data analysis step where participants in small groups identify common themes, analyzing data publicly and collectively from their perspectives. The summarizing of themes and prioritization in Step 6, Selecting, likewise occurs together as a large group with final themes and priorities clear for all to see.

GLA Adaptations and Modifications

As GLA has spread, various adaptations and modifications from the original GLA design have been developed. Table 2 summarizes the pros, cons, and lessons learned regarding some of the most common adaptations.

Table 2.

Group Level Assessment Adaptations and Lessons Learned.

GLA adaptation	Pros	Cons	Lessons Learned
Virtual sessions	• Greater convenience and ease of scheduling	• Lack of interaction during Step 2, Generating • Less group momentum and energy toward action	• Zoom is easy to use whether on laptop or phone
	• No transportation required		• Padlet simulates flip charts for generation of ideas
	• Varied geographic and time zone participation		• ∼25 participants and ∼25 prompts are ideal for online GLA sessions
Size (smaller than 15 or larger than 60 stakeholders)	• RSVPs to determine session size ahead of time	• Cancellation of sessions with small numbers • Small recruitment can result in no-shows and last minute cancellations which affects session size and logistics • GLA steps are difficult to carry out if group is smaller than 12 • No redundancy in prompts if group size is too small	• Substantially larger groups of 100+ work well with 2–3 primary facilitators
	• Flexibility when system/group is smaller or larger than usual		• Flexibility is key
	• If one larger session is held, there is less need for multiple GLA sessions		• Remember research question when considering size—can you still obtain relevant information?
Mix/type of participants (e.g., children and people with cognitive disabilities)	• Promotes perspective taking outside of normative roles	• Prompts that make sense and that all participants can answer • Power differentials among participants can be challenging if primary facilitator is not equipped to manage	• Working with a stakeholder advisory/leader team can ensure that all participants can respond to prompts and participate comfortably and openly in each of the steps of GLA
	• Diverse participants support research-to-action approach
	• Can accommodate all types/ranges of roles and abilities
Scheduling of GLA steps	• Greater flexibility with timing	• In-depth discussions and continuity interrupted	• Action planning session held separately can provide opportunity for GLA attendees who want to continue efforts
Scheduling of GLA steps	• Doesn’t require 3-hour time slot	• Multiple meetings can feel fragmented/disjointed	• Action teams initiated during action planning sessions can help sustain momentum after GLA is over
Primary facilitator(s)	• Outside (non-content expert) facilitator is not a content expert and less likely to get stuck in details	• Training in GLA methodology and group facilitator is required for the primary facilitator(s)	• Principal investigator may have more buy-in to project if trained as the primary facilitator
Primary facilitator(s)	• Co-facilitators who work well together can tag team facilitation tasks and management		• A prepared, written script can support a principal investigator serving as the primary facilitator
Multiple GLA sessions	• Multiple opportunities for participants to attend a session • Additional options to attend if one session is cancelled • Synthesis of patterns across sessions (saturation)	• Management of recruitment and logistics across multiple sessions	• Use of RSVPs for session attendance helps manage recruitment and logistics
Multiple GLA sessions		• Ensuring each GLA session is comparable	• Reminders are helpful before a GLA session
Small group facilitators in Step 5, Understanding	• Ensures small groups stay on task and understand the goal of Step 5	• Need to train small group facilitators	• Virtual GLA sessions work well with assigned and trained small group facilitators since the primary facilitator cannot easily “visit” groups to ensure progress
		• Level and experience of facilitators is not equal
		• Number of small group facilitators required to maintain small group size of 6–7 participants per group
Research goal/purpose	• Flexibility to match research question and goal	• Lack of methods triangulation if used as sole methodology	• Consider GLA in lieu of traditional interview or focus group methodology
	• GLA can be sole methodology from data collection to action
	• Participant engagement is built into steps from start to finish
	• GLA provides breadth

Virtual Sessions

GLA was originally designed to be in person providing the opportunity to interact face to face. During the COVID-19 lockdown, GLA was adapted to the virtual environment. Zoom and Padlet work well to simulate the in-person steps of GLA (i.e., Padlet for Step 2, Generating; Zoom breakout rooms for the small group work in Step 5, Understanding). One research team conducted an online GLA to understand decision support needs of transgender and gender-diverse adolescents and their families (Mazzola et al., 2023). Dorhout (2023) provides a how-to for an online modification of GLA (mGLA) and lessons learned regarding technology and online “netiquette,” time constraints, and relational barriers.

Size

GLA is ideally suited for 15–60 people in one session. However, the group size can be adapted to smaller (less than 15) and larger (60+) with modifications to the steps and choice of a space appropriate for the number of attendees. An abbreviated, less in-depth GLA session can be conducted with 12 people by using fewer prompts and spending more time in the large group discussion in Step 6, Selecting. If the group size is less than 12 stakeholders, the steps and design of GLA cannot be maintained. Rather than cancelling a GLA session with less than 12 attendees, a traditional focus group or discussion group asking broad questions about the research content is recommended as a replacement. Alternatively, if the number of attendees is very small (five or less), cancelling the GLA session and inviting these participants to a future GLA session is suggested. Over-recruitment is ideal if there is concern that a single GLA session will be too small. If multiple GLA sessions are not an option (e.g., during a scheduled conference or workshop), larger GLA sessions (60+) can be supported with multiple primary facilitators, additional prompts, and separate large open spaces (or dividable spaces) that can accommodate the group size.

Mix/Type of Participants

Ideally, GLA engages a large group of diverse participants who represent all levels, roles, and statuses within a bounded system/group. Although the diversity means there will be power and status differentials among participants in each GLA session, the overall design and the seven-step liberating structure support the interactions. A trained primary facilitator and the structured format of the GLA steps minimize any disruptive group dynamics. GLA can easily include populations such as children, the elderly, diverse languages, deaf/hard of hearing, and participants with cognitive or developmental disabilities or low literacy through simplified prompts, helpers/advocates, translators, or interpreters who assist individual participants with Step 2, Generating, and inclusive, accessible settings that accommodate mobility and assistive devices, for example. In a GLA study conducted in a multicultural residential area where many residents did not speak the native language fluently and multiple languages were represented among participants, intercultural mediators/translators and a sign language interpreter attended GLA sessions (Magnusson et al., 2022). In an example of a GLA study that engaged elementary school children, researchers simplified the prompts and collaborated with college students who helped the younger children respond to prompts during Step 2, Generating, and facilitated small groups in Step 5, Understanding (Vaughn et al., 2011).

Scheduling and Session Time

GLA typically requires a minimum of 3 hours if all steps are completed in one session. However, Step 7, Action, can easily be held as a separate session following one or more GLA sessions. If an ongoing large group meets regularly (i.e., class), the seven steps could be split and conducted step by step for as many sessions as needed. In a GLA study about the foster care system in one county, the research team conducted a large GLA (Steps 1–6) with more than 60 foster care system stakeholders including foster youth to explore the barriers for foster youth transitioning to adulthood (Graham et al., 2015). GLA participants identified several specific challenges, and a separate action session was held where the challenges were summarized, and action teams formed for each of the identified challenges. The action teams continued to meet for years after the initial GLA.

Primary Facilitator(s)

All the steps of GLA can be conducted by a non-content expert primary facilitator or two co-facilitators who guide participants through the steps. The advantage of non-content expert facilitators is that they can maintain focus on the facilitation task and group dynamics versus becoming mired in the content. On the other hand, the principal investigator and/or a partnering member of the focal community can be trained as co-facilitators which may promote greater investment in the research process and contribute to increased engagement with the content and goal of the research.

Multiple GLA Sessions

GLA can be conducted as one “bounded” session with all steps and all participants or multiple sessions with different participants attending one of several sessions and results summarized across GLA sessions. Both options align with the GLA approach depending on the research question and whether breadth and synthesis of themes across sessions contribute to the ultimate research purpose. Multiple GLA sessions maximize flexibility for participants to choose which of several sessions best fit their schedule. For instance, in a needs assessment study about parents experiencing homelessness, researchers employed GLA using multiple sessions to understand the children’s service needs from the perspectives of families in shelter (Williams-Arya et al., 2021). To accommodate the widest range of parent schedules across three family homeless shelters, the researchers held five GLA sessions.

Small Group Facilitators for Step 5, Understanding

The original GLA was designed for small groups to self-facilitate in the identification and synthesis of themes for the small group’s assigned prompts in Step 5, Understanding. If the research team is large enough and/or there is concern about participants understanding the task in small groups (i.e., children), research assistants can be trained to facilitate small groups in Step 5. Small group facilitators will ensure that the group stays on task contributing to greater efficiency and functioning of the small group. In a virtual GLA, trained small group facilitators of the online breakout rooms for Step 5 do seem to enhance completion of the task as compared to self-facilitated small groups.

Research Goal/Purpose

GLA can serve as the sole methodology (i.e., data collection, data analysis, interpretation, and action) for a research project or in combination with other methods. See, for example, a mixed methods study by Jenkins and colleagues (2023) that used GLA in combination with concept mapping methodology to identify barriers and facilitators to effective interdisciplinary communication within internal medicine hospital teams.

Decisions about the number of sessions and number of total participants will depend on the research question and goal of the research. GLA can also be used for specific aspects of research such as needs/resource assessment, evaluation, prioritization, and intervention development. For instance, Raider-Roth et al. (2019) modified the traditional GLA to group level understanding (GLU) for the purpose of first understanding participants’ most pressing work–life needs and then creating a curriculum responsive to participants’ identified needs.

Summary/Conclusion

GLA is a large group qualitative and participatory alternative to other more commonly utilized research methods within qualitative health research. Since the origin of GLA 25 years ago, GLA has grown into an established, robust research methodology and spread across multiple disciplines and offers countless benefits for both researchers and communities/groups. Numerous GLA adaptations and modifications have been developed which further contribute to GLA’s versatility, flexibility, accessibility, and increasing popularity as a research methodology.

By design, GLA is participatory from start to finish, engaging participants as soon as a session begins or ideally before the session, during the planning, and prompt development. As a participatory research methodology, GLA is both a “thirdspace” and “holding space” for genuine and meaningful participation (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011; Cook, 2012; Hall, 2014; Hawley & Potter, 2022; Soja, 1996). GLA offers participants “the ability to speak up, to participate, to experience oneself and be experienced as a person with the right to express yourself and to have the expression valued by others” (Abma et al., 2019, p. 127). Recognizing participants as experts of their lives and communities, GLA promotes collective wisdom, responsibility, and action toward community/group-defined priorities. GLA recognizes the expertise of the community or group which encourages engagement and action based on the needs, assets, and priorities of the participants.

Group level assessment methodology is multi-faceted and versatile. GLA considers the “good, bad, and ugly” in the generation of data (Step 2 prompts) and is not only focused on deficits and problems. GLA can be used for a wide assortment of research purposes including needs assessment, program evaluation, project management, capacity building, and curriculum development. GLA can absorb multiple perspectives and voices simultaneously compared to researcher-centric methods that may minimize or limit participants’ voice unintentionally. In contrast to the private-ness and potentially cathartic and confessional association that may exist in research methods like one-on-one interviews or the challenging small group dynamics (e.g., dominating participant) that may occur in focus groups, the “public-ness” of GLA serves as a foundation from which participants can be equal contributors who prioritize, take ownership, and decide to act based on their own data and collective expertise.

As a liberating structure, GLA, in contrast to other qualitative research methods, provides a unique opportunity for participants to share ideas freely and openly within a supportive structure. The variation in the cognitive tasks (e.g., visual, written, discussing, and reflecting) and configurations (i.e., individual, small group, and large group) built into the steps of GLA supports all personalities and types of participants including those with low literacy, shyness, different statuses/power, and different educational levels that may present barriers in other research methods. Through its collaborative, generative, and discovery- and action-oriented structure, GLA “liberates energy, unleashes participants’ contributions, stimulates creativity, and reveals the group’s latent intelligence” (Lipmanowicz & McCandless, 2013, p. 21) while supporting candid exchanges and disrupting typical power dynamics (Roura, 2021). Bolstered by a solid 25 years of growth and maturity, GLA is an essential research methodology for the qualitative health research toolkit.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical Statement

ORCID iD

Lisa M. Vaughn

References

Abma

Banks

Cook

Dias

Madsen

Springett

Wright

M. T.

(2019). Participatory research for health and social well-being. Springer.

Akkerman

S. F.

Bakker

(2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 132–169. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311404435

Bignall

O. N.-R.

Bignall

W. J. R.

Vaughn

L. M.

Unaka

N. I.

(2018). Fathers know best: Inner-city African American fathers’ perceptions regarding their involvement in the pediatric medical home. Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities, 5(3), 617–622. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40615-017-0407-4

Brown

Isaacs

(2005). The World Cafe: Shaping our futures through conversations that matter. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Choe

A. Y.

Unaka

N. I.

Schondelmeyer

A. C.

Bignall

W. J. R.

Vilvens

H. L.

Thomson

J. E.

(2019). Inpatient communication barriers and drivers when caring for limited English proficiency children. Journal of Hospital Medicine, 14(10), E1–E7. https://doi.org/10.12788/jhm.3240

Cook

(2012). Where participatory approaches meet pragmatism in funded (health) research: The challenge of finding meaningful spaces. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 13(1), Art. 18. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-13.1.1783

Díaz-Arévalo

J. M.

(2022). In search of the ontology of participation in participatory action research: Orlando Fals-Borda’s Participatory Turn, 1977–1980. Action Research, 20(4), 343–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/14767503221103571

Dorhout

(2023). Making plan B work: Group level assessment modified for online research. Journal of Participatory Research Methods, 4(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.35844/001c.57699

Duea

S. R.

Zimmerman

E. B.

Vaughn

L. M.

Dias

Harris

(2022). A guide to selecting participatory research methods based on project and partnership goals. Journal of Participatory Research Methods, 3(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.35844/001c.32605

10.

Fine

Torre

M. E.

(2019). Critical participatory action research: A feminist project for validity and solidarity. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 43(4), 433–444. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684319865255

11.

Freire

(1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Penguin Books.

12.

Freire

(2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th anniversary ed.). Bloomsbury.

13.

Freire

(2021). Pedagogy of hope: Reliving pedagogy of the oppressed. Bloomsbury Publishing.

14.

Graham

K. E.

Schellinger

A. R.

Vaughn

L. M.

(2015). Developing strategies for positive change: Transitioning foster youth to adulthood. Children and Youth Services Review, 54, 71–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.04.014

15.

Guy

Feldman

Cain

Leesman

Hood

(2020). Defining and navigating ‘action’ in a participatory action research project. Educational Action Research, 28(1), 142–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2019.1675524

16.

Hall

(2014). ‘With’not ‘about’–emerging paradigms for research in a cross-cultural space. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 37(4), 376–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727x.2014.909401

17.

Hawley

Potter

(2022). Can a research space be a third space? Methodology and hierarchies in participatory literacy research. In Unsettling Literacies: Directions for literacy research in precarious times (pp. 19–31). Springer.

18.

Jacquez

Vaughn

Deters

Wells

Maynard

(2020). Creating a culture of youth as co-researchers: The kickoff of a year-long stem pipeline program. Journal of STEM Outreach, 3(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.15695/jstem/v3i1.02

19.

Janoff

Weisbord

(2006). Future Search as ‘real-time’action research. Futures, 38(6), 716–722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2005.10.006

20.

Jenkins

A. M.

Weber

D. E.

Arfaa

J. J. E.

Arken

Clark

D. L.

Dobbs

Lahbabi

Myers

Clarke‐Myers

(2023). Using participatory research to identify actionable facilitators and barriers to effective inpatient interdisciplinary communication. Journal of Hospital Medicine, 18(2), 130–138. https://doi.org/10.1002/jhm.13013

21.

Kendall

Sunderland

Barnett

Nalder

Matthews

(2011). Beyond the rhetoric of participatory research in indigenous communities: Advances in Australia over the last decade. Qualitative Health Research, 21(12), 1719–1728. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732311418124

22.

Kimball

(2012). Liberating structures: A new pattern language for engagement. Systems Thinker, 23(1), 2–6.

23.

Lipmanowicz

McCandless

(2010). Liberating structures: Innovating by including and unleashing everyone. E&Y Performance, 2(4), 6–19. https://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/1272828/17864450/1335381893980/McCandless+Lipmanowicz+++Liberating+Structures.pdf?token=JdkqTPbbk4hi%2BzsRryTpjEc6swg%3D

24.

Lipmanowicz

McCandless

(2013). The surprising power of liberating structures: Simple rules to unleash a culture of innovation. Liberating Structures Press Seattle, WA.

25.

Lipmanowicz

Singhal

McCandless

Wang

(2015). Liberating structures: Engaging everyone to build a good life together. In Communication and“ the good life” (International Communication Association Theme Book Series, Vol. 2, pp. 233–246). Peter Lang.

26.

Löhr

Weinhardt

Sieber

(2020). The “World Café” as a participatory method for collecting qualitative data. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, Article 1609406920916976. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920916976

27.

Magnusson

Vaughn

L. M.

Wretlind

Forslund

H. B.

Berg

(2022). Facilitating health promoting ideas and actions: Participatory research in an underserved Swedish residential area. BMC Public Health, 22(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-12431-y

28.

Maxwell

J. A.

(2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Sage publications.

29.

Mazzola

Vaughn

L. M.

Chelvakumar

Conard

L. A. E.

Fortenberry

D. J.

Voss

R. V.

Lipstein

E. A.

(2023). Decision support needs for transgender and gender-diverse youth and families: A patient-centered needs assessment. Journal of Adolescent Health, 72(3), 452–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2022.10.022

30.

McPherson

Reese

Wendler

M. C.

(2018). Methodology update: Delphi studies. Nursing Research, 67(5), 404–410. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNR.0000000000000297

31.

Mehari

K. R.

Rodgers

C. R.

Blanton

M. A.

Turner

L. A.

(2021). Evaluation of a police training on de-escalation with trauma-exposed youth. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 66, Article 100491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlcj.2021.100491

32.

Mertens

D. M.

(2017). Transformative research: Personal and societal. International Journal for Transformative Research, 4(1), 18–24. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijtr-2017-0001

33.

Nguyen-Truong

C. K.

Leung

Micky

(2020). Development of a culturally specific leadership curriculum through community-based participatory research and popular education. Asian/Pacific Island Nursing Journal, 5(2), 73–88. https://doi.org/10.31372/20200502.1086

34.

Parker

Tritter

(2006). Focus group method and methodology: Current practice and recent debate. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 29(1), 23–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/01406720500537304

35.

Peralta

K. J.

(2017). Toward a deeper appreciation of participatory epistemology in community-based participatory research. PRISM: A Journal of Regional Engagement, 6(1), 4. https://encompass.eku.edu/prism/vol6/iss1/4

36.

Raider-Roth

Rector-Aranda

Kaiser

Lipinsky

Weikel

Wolkenfeld

Zaidenberg

(2019). Shared power, risk-taking, and innovation: Participatory action research in Jewish education. Journal of Jewish Education, 85(2), 187–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/15244113.2019.1599234

37.

RAND Corp . (2021). Delphi method. https://www.rand.org/topics/delphi-method.html

38.

Roura

(2021). The social ecology of power in participatory health research. Qualitative Health Research, 31(4), 778–788. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732320979187

39.

Rumsey

Stowers

Sam

Neill

Rodrigues

Brooks

Daly

(2022). Development of PARcific approach: Participatory action research methodology for collectivist health research. Qualitative Health Research, 32(8–9), 1297–1314. https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323221092350

40.

Schondelmeyer

A. C.

Jenkins

A. M.

Allison

Timmons

K. M.

Loechtenfeldt

A. M.

Pope-Smyth

S. T.

Vaughn

L. M.

(2019). Factors influencing use of continuous physiologic monitors for hospitalized pediatric patients. Hospital Pediatrics, 9(6), 423–428. https://doi.org/10.1542/hpeds.2019-0007

41.

Soja

(1996). Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and other real-and-imagined-spaces. Blackwell.

42.

Torbert

W. R.

(1978). Educating toward shared purpose, self-direction and quality work: The theory and practice of liberating structure. The Journal of Higher Education, 49(2), 109–135. https://doi.org/10.2307/1979278

43.

Vaughn

DeJonckheere

(2019). Methodological progress note: Group level assessment. Journal of Hospital Medicine, 14(10), 627–629. https://doi.org/10.12788/jhm.3289

44.

Vaughn

L. M.

Jacquez

(2020). Participatory research methods–Choice points in the research process. Journal of Participatory Research Methods, 1(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.35844/001c.13244

45.

Vaughn

L. M.

Jacquez

Deters

Boards

(2020). Group-level assessment (GLA) as a methodological tool to facilitate science education. Research in Science Education, 52, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09960-8

46.

Vaughn

L. M.

Jacquez

Zhao

Lang

(2011). Partnering with students to explore the health needs of an ethnically diverse, low-resource school: An innovative large group assessment approach. Family & Community Health, 34(1), 72–84. https://doi.org/10.1097/FCH.0b013e3181fded12

47.

Vaughn

L. M.

Lohmueller

(1998). Using the group level assessment in a support group setting. Organization Development Journal, 16(1), 99.

48.

Vaughn

L. M.

Lohmueller

(2014). Calling all stakeholders: Group-level assessment (GLA)—A qualitative and participatory method for large groups. Evaluation Review, 38(4), 336–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X14544903

49.

Vaughn

L. M.

Whetstone

Boards

Busch

M. D.

Magnusson

Määttä

(2018). Partnering with insiders: A review of peer models across community‐engaged research, education and social care. Health & Social Care in the Community, 26(6), 769–786. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12562

50.

Vilvens

H. L.

Frame

D. L.

Owen

P. C.

(2021). Promoting the inclusion of mindfulness and contemplative practices in the college classroom. Pedagogy in Health Promotion, 7(2), 148–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/2373379920925849

51.

Walker

Boni

Martinez-Vargas

Cin

(2022). An epistemological break: Redefining participatory research in capabilitarian scholarship. Journal of Human Development & Capabilities, 23(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/19452829.2022.2019987

52.

Weisbord

Janoff

(2010). Future search: Getting the whole system in the room for vision, commitment, and action. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

53.

West

Stewart

Foster

Usher

(2012). Through a critical lens: Indigenist research and the Dadirri method. Qualitative Health Research, 22(11), 1582–1590. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732312457596

54.

Williams-Arya

Vaughn

L. M.

Nidey

Sawyer

Porter

Froehlich

T. E.

(2021). Striving for structure and stability in Cincinnati’s family homeless shelters: A community-based participatory research approach. Family & Community Health, 44(4), 282–291. https://doi.org/10.1097/FCH.0000000000000305