Navigating complexity in sustainability and climate action: comparing participatory action research and developmental evaluation in higher education

It is widely recognised that higher education (HE) plays a crucial role in promoting sustainable development and climate action, both locally and internationally (Serafini et al., 2022). This includes contributing to the achievement of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and driving societal transformation toward sustainable futures (UN, 2015). The scope of this field is broad, covering areas such as leadership, culture, campus, curriculum, research and engagement with local communities.

The HE research literature on sustainability and climate action advocates for increased use of participatory methodologies (de Sousa, 2021; Nhamo, 2012; Wiek et al., 2014). Also often referred to as collaborative methodologies, these approaches are favoured by educational researchers for their ability to bridge research and practice (Ebersöhn et al., 2012), delivering transformative outcomes (Mellor, 2021; Cyr, 2021). In this article, the authors use the term ‘participatory research’ to describe methodologies that prioritise the active involvement of those affected, fostering collaboration throughout the research process, including problem identification, knowledge creation and action. For some, this involves engaging historically marginalised groups in shaping sustainability and climate action initiatives (Reed et al., 2024). For others, the focus is on collective action (Perz et al., 2022). Accordingly, participatory methodologies are flexible in design, methods and data analysis, allowing adaptation to contextual factors.

Participatory action research (PAR) is arguably the most widely practiced form of participatory research, combining systematic inquiry with community engagement and action (Cochran-Smith and Lytle, 2009). For the purpose of this article, PAR is defined as a methodology in which researchers and community members collaboratively generate knowledge through active investigation and intervention (Coghlan and Brydon-Miller, 2014; Coghlan, 2019). The participating communities are often those historically excluded from decision-making processes, and the research generally explicitly aims to create meaningful change within the studied context while building community capacity (Coghlan and Brydon-Miller, 2014; Coghlan, 2019). In sustainable development, PAR is considered potentially transformative (Keahey, 2021) and, in climate action, it is credited with building capabilities to address climate change and influence policy (Godden et al., 2020; Nussey et al., 2022). However, despite these benefits it is important to acknowledge that all methodological choices present challenges, making these choices both significant and context dependent.

In her literature review on PAR in sustainable development research, Keahey (2021, p. 301) identifies challenges across social, methodological, organisational and academic domains. In addition, ambiguity about what constitutes PAR can be daunting, particularly for novice researchers (Feekery, 2024). Given these challenges, researchers may benefit from considering alternative participatory methodologies that maintain the benefits of collaborative inquiry while potentially offering different advantages in certain contexts. This article explores one such alternative: developmental evaluation (DE). While DE has been used less extensively than PAR, it has shown promise in educational research (Leonard et al., 2016). In this article, DE is defined as a methodology for collaborative research and evaluation that supports development and guides adaptation to emergent and dynamic realities in complex environments (Patton, 2011). The central research question guiding this study was:

To address this question, the next section reviews both PAR and DE and is followed by consideration of the theoretical framework of philosophical pragmatism, which underpinned the approach to this study, including the research question and comparative analysis (Dewey, 1916; Peters and Jandrić, 2017). After presenting the findings, the discussion section explores when, how and why DE might serve as a viable alternative to PAR in sustainability and climate action in HE. The implications for research and practice are addressed, and the article concludes with a summary of key findings, study limitations and future research directions.

Participatory methodologies play a significant role in HE research on sustainability and climate action, aligning with efforts to achieve the SDGs (Cebrián, 2017; Cornet et al., 2024; Rasyid, 2020). In climate action, participatory processes are considered essential for achieving optimal outcomes and ensuring social justice (Nussey et al., 2022). Within HE, Disterheft et al. (2012, p. 357) assert that “participatory processes are indispensable for promoting sustainable development”. Educational researchers also favour these methodologies for their emphasis on context, process, knowledge sharing and common goals (Ebersöhn et al., 2012). Furthermore, participatory methodologies can help achieve other HE objectives, such as enhancing student engagement and connecting with local communities (Cornet et al., 2024; Seale, 2010). When applied in sustainability or climate action initiatives, participatory methodologies enable staff and students to contribute to institutional transformation toward more sustainable campuses (Disterheft et al., 2012). Finally, within sustainability education, they encourage critical thinking and collaborative reasoning to address environmental challenges (de Sousa, 2021).

Though not the only participatory methodology, PAR is arguably the most widely cited and used. It emphasises a democratic approach aimed at positive social change and transformation including addressing climate change (Brydon-Miller, 2014, 2022). Many PAR practitioners trace its roots to the Latin American context, particularly scholars like Borda et al. (2006) and Freire (2021). In this context, cycles of participation, action and research address power dynamics, promoting agency among marginalised groups through reflexivity. Freire’s work has been particularly influential in educational research, promoting a critical approach that challenges traditional power hierarchies. Numerous studies assert that participatory methodologies support action and research in sustainable development and climate action (Parkes and Panelli, 2001; Restrepo-Mieth et al., 2023).

In her systematic literature review of PAR in the field of sustainable development, Keahey (2021) highlights threats to the methodological integrity of PAR as a result of failure to meet PAR standards, concluding that greater transparency and critical reflection is required. In HE, this issue is likely more common among researchers in disciplines without a tradition of critical reflexivity or acknowledgement of researcher subjectivity and positionality, which are grounded in individual values (Whitehead and McNiff, 2006). Keahey (2021, p. 301) also identifies four key challenges in using PAR – labelled as social, methodological, organisational and academic – as discussed next.

First, PAR researchers may encounter social challenges, particularly in working toward power redistribution and navigating differing values among participants (Greenbank, 2007; Lake and Wendland, 2018).

Second, methodological challenges arise from the complexity of the subject matter and working with participants from diverse disciplines and epistemological perspectives (Bowl et al., 2008). Methodology often reflects specific ontological and epistemological assumptions (Grix, 2002) and must align with them. While PAR can be framed as constructivist and pragmatist (Brydon-Miller et al., 2020, p. 108), it is often philosophical grounded in critical theories, described as “rooted in postcolonial, postmarxist, and postmodern critiques of power informing Freirean pedagogy and emancipatory social science” (Keahey, 2021, p. 292). Thus, for researchers using this form of PAR, integrating opposing philosophical approaches can be challenging, particularly when the focus is on addressing traditional power hierarchies (Janes, 2016; Lake and Wendland, 2018). In addition, the fragmented literature on PAR, with its multiple models and ambiguity surrounding its application and scope, can be daunting, especially for novice researchers (Chevalier, 2019; Feekery, 2024).

Third, organisational challenges, as noted by Keahey (2021), stem from time and resource constraints, which can exacerbate researchers’ workloads. Action research involves multiple cycles of action, research and reflection, making it complex and time-consuming (Avriel-Avni and Gan, 2019; Zuber‐Skerritt and Perry, 2002). Herr and Anderson (2015, p. 80) liken this process to “designing a plane while flying it”, which can be overwhelming for those with limited resources.

The fourth challenge identified by Keahey (2021) is academic, encompassing the context of high workloads, lack of institutional support and the lower academic prestige often associated with PAR studies. Researchers wishing to combine research and practice in climate action or sustainability initiatives need institutional support. Without such support, it is logical that some may be deterred.

In addition to the four challenges mentioned, Chevalier and Buckles (2013) critique PAR for its focus on micro-level issues, arguing that it sometimes overlooks meso- and macro-level factors. They advocate for integrating systems thinking into PAR (p. 403), emphasising the role of complexity and emergent phenomena in open systems. Wooltorton et al. (2015) echo this call, proposing a community action research methodology for HE sustainability research that incorporates “systems thinking, collaboration, transdisciplinary, complexity, a future orientation, partnerships for change, critical and creative thinking and solution finding for wicked, whole system problems” (p. 433). These systemic issues and the importance of complexity will be further explored in the next section, which outlines DE methodology and presents a DE model.

It is important to establish that DE is considered a participatory methodology according to the definition provided earlier – that is, it foregrounds collaboration throughout the research process, including in problem identification, knowledge creation and action. DE shares many characteristics with PAR and is seen as a utilisation-focused approach that can be applied in real time, participatory settings (Rey et al., 2014). Originally introduced by Patton (1994), DE was further developed by him and others in the context of evaluation (Gamble, 2008; Patton, 2011, 2016).

As noted by Cook (2021) the need for evaluative practice in HE is growing. Although DE has been less widely applied in the HE context, it has shown promise in studies of innovations in teaching, learning and curriculum change, when the subject of evaluation is complex, evolving and innovative (Dickson and Saunders, 2014; Lam and Shulha, 2015). For example, Boyle et al. (2024) used DE to support a student-staff partnership integrating education for sustainable development in an undergraduate law curriculum. While staff led the research design, DE’s focus on emergent issues allowed for timely adjustments based on student priorities, making it a flexible alternative to PAR. Mitchell and Lemon (2020) have also demonstrated DE’s viability in community-based sustainability work. In their study, DE and action research were combined to support community implementation of various sustainability and climate action initiatives.

DE, like PAR, integrates evaluative research within an innovation or change process, enabling continuous reflection and adaptation. Unlike formative and summative evaluation, which are used to judge a model already in use (Scriven, 1996), DE focuses on new or adapted processes where the purpose is to explore possibilities.

In this journal, Kopnina and Meijers (2014) discuss the challenges of evaluating education for sustainable development (ESD) initiatives and the difficulties that arise when ideological assumptions conflict. Their conclusion – that plural perspectives undermine ESD objectives (p. 200) – arguably overlooks the complex and evolving realities of sustainability and climate action in HE, where plural perspectives are not only common but essential to participatory research processes. In contrast, Patton (2016), describes DE as a tool for social innovators, specifically designed to adapt to complex, dynamic environments, where successfully navigating multiple perspectives is key to making meaningful progress.

Social innovation, as opposed to economic innovation, seeks to create moral, ethical and sustainable improvements in society, including education (Lam and Shulha, 2015), by implementing change using alternative approaches. Patton (2016) asserts that DE is always context-specific, making a rigid checklist neither justified nor helpful. Nevertheless, adherence to certain essential characteristics, as detailed in the following section, remains important.

DE introduces eight sensitising concepts that should inform DE processes, outcomes, design and use (Patton, 2011, 2016). These concepts, herein referred to as characteristics of DE, are flexible ideas that require adaptation and specification within the given context, ideally achieved through co-creation (Patton, 2016, p. 257) and systems thinking (Gates et al., 2021). As shown in Figure 1, these eight characteristics guide researchers and evaluators in examining the context, identifying patterns and drawing implications (Patton, 2011, p. 146), providing a comprehensive framework for adaptive and context-specific DE in dynamic environments.

Although DE shares similarities with action research in general, and PAR in particular, multiple cycles are not required. A single stage of data gathering, analysis and reflection can suffice, allowing for control of time and resources. For example, Boyle and Cook (2023) demonstrated how DE supported teachers in rapidly transitioning a postgraduate campus-based programme to online delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic.

DE explicitly integrates complexity theory and systems thinking (Peter and Swilling, 2014; Voulvoulis et al., 2022), which can be underutilised in PAR (Chevalier and Buckles, 2013). Complexity theory focuses on complex systems, highlighting non-linearity, emergence and the interaction of multiple components. The dynamic nature of HE systems, sustainability and climate action (Barnett, 2000; Giesenbauer and Müller-Christ, 2020) makes complexity theory particularly useful. It emphasises that environments with unpredictable interactions between multiple factors cannot be fully understood without acknowledging their complexity. Uncertainty in outcomes is a defining feature of complex environments, in contrast to simple or complicated ones (Glouberman and Zimmerman, 2002). In simple environments, outcomes are more predictable and, even in complicated settings, responses can be predicted after analysis. However, in complex environments, clear cause-and-effect relationships do not exist (Glouberman and Zimmerman, 2004). Complexity theory identifies six key elements of such environments: nonlinearity; emergence; dynamic interaction; adaption; uncertainty; and coevolution (Furtado and Sakowski, 2014). These characteristics are integral to the multi-level systems where DE is applied (Patton, 2011).

Systems thinking provides a holistic approach to research, focusing on micro, meso and macro-level features, and their interactions within the research context (Christou et al., 2024). Boundaries are subjectively defined, acknowledging that neither action nor research occurs in isolation. Emphasising interdependence and relationships within a system highlights how elements influence each other and the system as a whole (Jacobson et al., 2019). This perspective situates micro-level research objects within a meso-level HE system and a macro-level climate change and sustainable development system, addressing Chevalier and Buckles’ (2013) critique of PAR’s micro-level focus.

Pragmatism provides the epistemological foundation for DE, PAR and this study’s methodological approach. While caution is needed to avoid using pragmatism as a catch-all term for practically oriented research (Dillon and O’Brien, 2018), when thoughtfully applied, it offers a philosophically robust framework for participatory research methodologies. In particular, a growing body of literature supports pragmatism’s distinct contribution to educational research (Gordon, 2016; King, 2022; Wills and Lake, 2020).

Deweyan pragmatism’s emphasis on incorporating multiple perspectives (Dewey, 2008) transcends simple “what works” approaches to build relevant knowledge from lived experience (Biesta, 2007; Biesta and Burbules, 2003). This approach has particularly influenced HE research and practice (Biesta and Burbules, 2003), offering valuable tools for addressing complex challenges, like sustainability and climate action, through its promotion of pluralistic approaches to ethics and wicked problems (Fesmire, 2020; Peters and Jandrić, 2017).

The alignment between pragmatism and participatory research methodologies is evident in their shared emphasis on individual contributions and inclusive decision-making. Freedom of inquiry, arguably the central moral value of Deweyan pragmatism (Morgan, 2014), enables communities to identify and address matters of collective concern. Moreover, as noted previously, a redistribution of power is often at the heart of PAR. While some argue that pragmatism understates power relations (Allen, 2008) its conceptualisation of power as collective intelligence-informed social action (Bergman, 2015; Odera, 2018; Nolan and Stitzlein, 2011) is particularly relevant to collaborative research. Pragmatic power can be understood as collective agency exercised in social contexts to find practical solutions, while acknowledging that power itself does not determine truth (Hildreth, 2009; Wolfe, 2012).

This study’s research question emerges from pragmatic principles by examining the interdependent relationship between research process and outcome. By investigating how different methodological approaches affect sustainability and climate action research, it explores the practical implications of alternative processes and beliefs (Morgan, 2014). This pragmatic orientation guided both the methodology and analysis detailed below, seeking contextual, warranted assertions rather than absolute truths while acknowledging the inherent complexity and fallibility of research.

The research question, “To what extent does DE provide a viable alternative to PAR for HE research and practice in sustainability and climate action?” guided the methodology. To examine this question systematically, the researchers analysed six studies situated in HE (listed below), which they identified through Keahey’s (2021, p. 296) comprehensive systematic review of PAR in sustainability.

• Junyent, M., and de Ciurana, A. M. G. (2008).

• Kawabe, M., Kohno, H., Ishimaru, T., and Baba, O. (2013).

• Maritz, A. (2017).

• McMahon, M., and Bhamra, T. (2012).

• Trott, C. D., Weinberg, A. E., and McMeeking, L. B. S. (2018).

• Williams, A., Holden, B., Krebs, P., Muhajarine, N., Waygood, K., Randall, J., and Spence, C. (2008).

Keahey’s review was selected as the starting point as it represents the most recent systematic review in this field. The researchers’ independent analysis of these six articles – which constituted the complete set of HE studies within Keahey’s review – focused on evaluating their potential alignment with DE principles, a distinct analytical lens from Keahey’s original review objectives. This approach, of using an existing systematic review to identify the case sample, offered several methodological advantages. First, it provided a transparent and replicable selection process, avoiding potential selection bias that could arise from either random sampling or preferential selection of published papers. Second, while the study drew on Keahey’s systematic review process to identify relevant articles, the analysis was entirely independent and focused on different research objectives. This means that any potential limitations in Keahey’s review methodology would not impact the findings, as these six studies served as a discrete case sample for the comparative analysis. However, it is important to acknowledge that while this sampling approach ensures transparency and replicability, it may limit broader generalisability of the findings.

Keahey’s (2021) selection criteria included only studies that featured the terms “sustainable development” or “sustainability” in the title, keywords or abstract. Although “climate action” is explicitly mentioned in only one article (Trott, 2018), all the studies address SDG 13 (Climate Action) indirectly through initiatives like awareness raising and education.

In this study, for each article analysed, key details were manually extracted, including: the goal of the PAR; its focus (micro/meso/macro); philosophical grounding; participant types; acknowledged challenges; and outcomes (see Findings, Table 1). Each study was then assessed against the eight characteristics of DE to determine whether it could be categorised as DE based on the information provided in the article (see Findings, Table 2). The analysis further assessed the potential benefits of such categorisation to ultimately determine the most suitable methodology for each study – DE or PAR (see Findings, Table 3). It is important to clarify that it is not the authors’ intention to imply that the original studies should have been conducted or classified as DE. Rather, the aim is to explore whether using DE might have been advantageous in addressing challenges and concerns highlighted by Keahey (2021) in her review, as discussed in the literature review (PAR) section of this article. Both authors conducted the comparative analysis, with cross-checking to ensure methodological rigor. The findings – as the tables described above – are presented next.

The analysis of the six HE studies revealed diverse approaches to PAR across different institutional contexts and scales (Table 1). The studies operated at varying levels of focus, from micro-level student engagement through to macro-level institutional change, with most encompassing multiple levels simultaneously. A notable observation was the predominant use of pragmatist and constructivist philosophical frameworks, though specific theoretical groundings varied between studies. The number of action research cycles also showed considerable variation, ranging from clearly defined dual cycles to ongoing iterative processes that evolved throughout the research period.

The systematic mapping of these studies against DE characteristics (Table 2) highlighted strong alignment with certain DE principles, particularly in areas of co-creation and utilisation focus. However, the degree of alignment varied across other characteristics such as systems thinking and explicit engagement with complexity. When considering methodological fit (Table 3), three studies showed stronger alignment with DE approaches while three were better suited to PAR, suggesting that both methodologies have distinct value propositions for HE sustainability research.

Key challenges identified across the studies included time constraints, coordination with partners and the complexity of addressing sustainability challenges within institutional contexts. These observations provided a foundation for examining how different methodological approaches might address such challenges, as detailed in the subsequent discussion section.

The integration of sustainability and climate action initiatives in HE occurs within what has been described as a supercomplex environment (Barnett, 2004). This complexity necessitates the use of methodologies that can address the dynamic, multi-level nature of HE alongside sustainability and climate action. PAR has traditionally played a significant role in these contexts, given its emphasis on participation, collaboration and cycles of reflection and action. However, the findings presented in this article indicate that DE, with its flexibility, focus on complexity, systems thinking and real-time adaptation, may offer a suitable alternative in certain contexts, particularly in cases where PAR’s traditional requirements create barriers.

Both methodologies – PAR and DE – support participatory research and contextual action. Both also support the use of mixed methods, which is arguably a means of accommodating different disciplinary orientations (Reunamo and Pipere, 2011). However, the findings revealed that DE may, at times, be the more appropriate methodology for studies needing to accommodate complexity in dynamic environments. For instance, in the work by Kawabe et al. (2013), which focused on promoting social learning and adaptive governance in coastal communities, the real-time adjustments and adaptation in response to an evolving governance challenge suggest DE, as opposed to PAR, may be more useful both for the researchers and collaborators involved. Moreover, the study’s emphasis on continuous learning and practical outcomes also aligns closely with DE’s strengths, as DE facilitates systems thinking, ongoing reflection and real-time feedback. Similarly, Maritz’s (2017) study might have benefited from DE’s flexible approach, allowing for innovation while addressing the complexity of entrepreneurship education. DE enables the study of experiences in a situation while accounting for contextuality, thus integrating research and practice in a similar way to PAR. In DE, the ideal evaluator-researcher stance is being part of the innovation team, facilitating change and evaluation, relying on respectful relationships and supporting shared values (Patton, 2011). Thus, as in PAR, in DE an insider role and context dependent research are seen as necessary.

Conversely, the findings also show that PAR remains highly relevant in contexts focused on long-term transformation and empowerment through participatory processes. For instance, Junyent and de Ciurana (2008) aimed to reorient university curricula toward sustainability through extensive collaboration across multiple universities. In this case, PAR’s iterative processes and focus on transformative action appeared well-suited to the project’s goals, which required engaging diverse university staff and researchers in ongoing cycles of reflection, action and adaptation. Similarly, Williams et al. (2008), who sought to improve the quality of life in Saskatoon through a multi-stakeholder approach, benefited from PAR’s emphasis on social justice and power redistribution, making it the most suitable methodology for their participatory, community-driven project.

The suitability of PAR in such cases can be linked to its alignment with Habermas’ categories of knowledge constitutive interests: the technical; the practical; and the emancipatory (Gunbayi, 2020). The critical orientation of PAR places emphasis on the “emancipatory” interest, which seeks to liberate individuals from structures of domination (Elliott, 2007). This focus on empowerment and social change makes PAR particularly effective in projects where transformative action and social justice are central aims, such as the work of Junyent and de Ciurana (2008) and Williams et al. (2008). However, for researchers working within more realist or pragmatic paradigms, such as those from science backgrounds, the use of PAR may feel less appropriate. As Keahey (2021, p. 306), citing Fals-Borda (1987), notes, these researchers may inadvertently misapply PAR, leading to what she describes as the risk of elite co-option, which undermines the methodology’s transformative potential.

Although offering methodological rigour, a key challenge of PAR identified in the literature is its emphasis on multiple cycles of action, research and reflection, which can be time-consuming and resource-intensive (Zuber‐Skerritt and Perry, 2002). Keahey (2021) found that, in her overall literature review of PAR in sustainable development, one third of studies did not mention the use of cycles. The findings presented in this article support these concerns, as some of the reviewed studies acknowledged time and resource constraints as significant challenges. For instance, McMahon and Bhamra (2012), who used PAR to integrate social sustainability into design education through international collaborations, reported difficulties related to communication, cultural differences and logistical challenges across multiple countries. These issues, coupled with PAR’s requirement for multiple action research cycles, created barriers to implementation. DE, by contrast, offers a more flexible approach, allowing a single cycle of action, research and reflection to be valid. This is evident in Trott et al. (2018), where DE could have been a suitable methodology to support student learning and community engagement through timely feedback and real-time adaptation.

DE’s ability to integrate complexity theory and systems thinking further enhances its utility in sustainability and climate action. Both are critical in addressing the dynamic, multi-level systems within which sustainability and climate action initiatives take place. DE facilitates explicit consideration of complexity characteristics such as uncertainty and emergence. It also draws attention to dynamic interactions at different system levels and to the boundaries drawn by researchers. The findings presented in this article illustrate how DE’s focus on complexity, as highlighted by Peter and Swilling (2014) and Voulvoulis et al. (2022), may have been particularly useful in studies like Kawabe et al.’s (2013), where the complexity of coastal governance required a flexible, adaptive approach. Similarly, Maritz (2017) may have benefitted from DE’s systems thinking, to help address the complexities inherent in entrepreneurship education, allowing for innovation while recognising the challenges of fragmentation and generalisation within the field.

While PAR is typically viewed as a bottom-up methodology, emphasising participant empowerment (Low et al., 2000), DE is presented as valuable in contexts where both top-down and bottom-up influences are relevant (Patton, 2011). Keahey (2021) stresses that PAR for sustainable development should prioritise grassroots control (p. 292). Although some argue that top-down and bottom-up approaches are both useful in PAR, much of the literature favours a bottom-up approach (Jacobs, 2006). Mazon et al. (2020) critique universities’ top-down promotion of sustainability, arguing that students are not sufficiently active in this field, highlighting the need for more bottom-up approaches. DE, designed to function in contexts where top-down meets bottom-up (Patton, 2011), offers a way to address these concerns, particularly in institutions where shifting control to less powerful participants is hindered by systemic barriers.

Despite its advantages, DE is not without its limitations. The dual role of evaluator and researcher in DE, and the need for reflexivity, can present challenges, compounded by the limited literature on reflexivity in DE (Rey et al., 2014). DE’s reliance on the eight characteristics (Figure 1; Patton, 2011, 2016), while not intended as strict criteria, may be difficult to achieve in practice. Some scholars, such as Miller (2016), argue that achieving all eight characteristics is challenging. However, DE’s flexibility allows researchers to focus on specific characteristics that are most relevant to their context. For example, while Junyent and de Ciurana (2008) displayed strengths in areas such as co-creation and developmental innovation, their articulation of complexity and systems thinking was less explicit, suggesting that DE could have provided a more structured framework to address these areas.

Another challenge for DE lies in its relative novelty and the limited foundational body of research compared to PAR. DE is heavily influenced by its originator, yet Patton’s approach is not universally accepted, especially in contexts where social and political interactions are key drivers of change (Smith, 1989; Weiss, 1988). However, this criticism does not diminish DE’s potential utility, particularly when external factors, such as lack of resources or competing values, are accounted for using systems thinking, as DE encourages.

Finally, DE’s focus on utility may overlook important social and political dynamics. However, its use of systems thinking helps mitigate this concern by considering external influences, such as resource constraints and institutional norms. Nevertheless, those wishing to place particular emphasis on power dynamics may find DE’s pragmatic approach less helpful.

Regardless of the approach – DE or PAR – pragmatism supports the use of mixed methods, inclusivity and interdisciplinarity, which are essential in sustainability research and climate action (Feilzer, 2010; King, 2022). Pragmatism is especially useful in accommodating differing views on what constitutes valuable knowledge or valid data, which is a key challenge in interdisciplinary collaboration (Keahey, 2021, p. 300). Fien (2002) advocates for an eclectic research design for advancing sustainability in HE, while Wills and Lake (2020) argue that, in social research, pragmatism aligns well with a focus on practical utility and collective action.

Building on these pragmatic foundations, this study reveals important implications for selecting between DE and PAR in HE sustainability and climate action research. Both methodologies offer valuable participatory approaches, but their optimal application depends on specific contextual factors and intended outcomes.

DE appears particularly well-suited to institutional climate action initiatives where the primary focus is systems-level change in complex, dynamic environments. Its flexibility allows continuous embedding throughout a project without requiring formal cycles of action and reflection, making it especially effective for initiatives requiring rapid adaptation and evaluation. For example, DE could effectively support the iterative development of a university-wide carbon reduction strategy, where multiple participants and systems need to adapt quickly to emerging challenges.

PAR, in contrast, demonstrates particular strength in projects emphasising social justice and community empowerment. Its structured cycles of action and reflection create space for deep community engagement and collective learning. PAR might be the preferred choice when, for instance, collaborating with local communities to develop climate resilience strategies or when working with marginalised groups to ensure their voices shape institutional environmental policies.

For HE community members – including students, academics, researchers and managers – selecting the appropriate methodology is crucial for optimising both practical outcomes and knowledge creation. This choice should be guided by careful consideration of:

• project objectives (systems change vs. social transformation);

• institutional context (complexity, timeframes, existing power structures);

• participant makeup (institutional vs. community-based);

• required flexibility (continuous adaptation vs. structured cycles); and

• primary focus (evaluation and improvement vs. empowerment and justice).

Understanding these methodological distinctions may enhance the credibility and effectiveness of sustainability and climate action research, while ensuring that chosen approaches align with both practical needs and ethical considerations.

Collaborative methodologies are essential for achieving sustainability goals in HE internationally. This article examined two participatory approaches, PAR and DE, to address the complexities of sustainability and climate action research, aiming to determine whether DE offers a viable alternative to PAR.

The findings reveal that while PAR is effective in fostering transformative change, researchers can face challenges in meeting its standards, such as the requirement for multiple action research cycles, which brings time and resource implications. In addition, there can be difficulties accommodating diverse epistemological perspectives. DE, with its focus on complexity, systems thinking and pragmatic flexibility, provides a suitable alternative in contexts that demand real-time feedback and adaptability. DE is especially appropriate when the subject of evaluation is complex, evolving and innovative, and when research must be completed within a short timeframe. One cycle of DE is valid, but DE can also accommodate multiple cycles. DE thus offers an alternative to PAR, fostering collaboration between evaluator-researchers and the co-creation of research. Its focus on utility allows for flexible, non-prescriptive methods, with timely feedback supporting innovation, learning and development.

The authors aimed to present DE as a potential participatory methodology for sustainability and climate action research in HE. By offering DE as an alternative and developing a visual model to support its application, the goal is to provide researchers, especially those who find action research or aspects of PAR challenging, with a practical and useful approach.

There are some limitations to consider, including the subjective nature of the authors’ assessment. Both authors have previously engaged in action research and participatory methodologies within a pragmatic or critical pragmatic paradigm, and this philosophical perspective must be acknowledged. The sample size was necessarily small, as it was limited to studies included in an existing systematic review, all categorised within the field of sustainability and sustainable development. While all studies were indirectly related to climate action, only one explicitly made this connection. Therefore, conclusions regarding appropriate participatory methodologies are not universally applicable or transferable, as each project is context dependent and unique. Nevertheless, to support credibility, the authors have aimed for full transparency in the literature analysed and criteria used, enabling others to apply these and assess whether PAR or DE might be appropriate.

Future research comparing DE and PAR could focus specifically on student-led climate action in HE. One area for investigation would be examining DE’s capacity to redistribute power among participants, particularly in comparison to PAR’s established role in empowering marginalised groups. In addition, further research on DE could refine its use in HE by developing tools for integrating reflexivity and addressing the dual role of evaluator-researcher. Expanding the evidence base for DE across various contexts, including its effectiveness in challenging existing power structures, would strengthen its value as an alternative methodology for tackling sustainability and climate action challenges in HE.