Samenvatting

Traditional scientific research has produced valuable knowledge, yet its linear, top-down logic often fails to address the complexity of local communities. This results in a gap between knowledge and action, where interventions lack legitimacy and impact. Participatory Action Research (PAR) has emerged as an alternative, bringing residents, professionals, and researchers together in iterative cycles of action and reflection. The promise of PAR lies not only in its methods but in the attitudes and relationships that underpin it. This community case study explores how reciprocity, understood as mutual exchange, trust, and shared responsibility, can be cultivated in PAR. The study focuses on 3 Days Inside, an experiment in the city of Appingedam (Northeast of the Netherlands), a shrinking region marked by demographic decline, earthquakes from gas extraction, and declining trust in institutions. Here, proximity and reciprocity are prerequisites for meaningful participation. Researchers immersed for 3 days, working alongside residents in everyday settings. Participating activities included neighborhood walks, shared meals, and practical collaboration in community spaces. Data were collected on needs and opportunities to improve the healthy living environment through participatory observation, go-along interviews, shadowing, and systematic reflection, with logbooks structured around first-, second-, and third-person perspectives. The case showed PAR is a dynamic process that demands reflexivity, flexibility, and ethical sensitivity. Researchers had to let go of control, acknowledge own positioning and assumptions, and prioritize relationships over outcomes. Gestures of presence and participation proved more powerful than formal conversations. Yet, tensions emerged between relational and transactional practices, between systemic logics and lived realities, and between pursuing research goals and fostering reciprocity. Three days inside highlights that meaningful participation depends less on predefined methods and more on the researcher's attitude—openness, reflexivity, and willingness to share control. The case contributes to broader debates on participation by showing that social impact arises not only from knowledge but from the way knowledge is co-created with residents. For researchers, professionals, and policymakers, the findings underline that genuine participation requires long-term presence, trust-building, and relational ethics. Future research should examine the applicability of this approach in other contexts to strengthen its practical utility.