Editorial

People often look at the title of this journal, Educational Action Research, and assume that we only publish papers which report work in educational institutions. Many people associate education with formal processes and sites where there is a curriculum, someone who is a teacher, instructor or lecturer and probably some version of a class which has lessons of some description. The journal is educational so must only be interested in this kind of practice conducted in schools, colleges, preschools and universities. Yes, we are interested in formal educational institutions and these practices, but we are equally interested in other kinds of institutions and organisations. Hospitals. Community organisations. Care homes. Arts collectives. And a lot more besides.

Perhaps the journal is interested in informal education? Informal education is organised in workplaces, neighbourhood houses, sporting clubs, men’s shed organisations, galleries, museums, community gardens, libraries and youth clubs. Some learning might be called professional development and occur in workplaces and in coaching and mentoring. Education also happens, less formally, in care homes, reading groups, self-help groups and so on. People also learn from even less formal provision – visiting heritage sites, watching television, searching out information on the Internet, discussing something of mutual interest with a friend. It is actually pretty difficult to think of situations where no learning might be involved. Indeed, we are interested in all of these places and processes.

But we have a very specific interest in education. We are not so much interested in where learning happens, but rather the process – the how and why and with whom. The answer to why our journal is called Education Action Research is that we understand the ‘educational’ in our title to refer to the educative function of action research.

The education involved in action research can be both formal and informal. It is built into the action research cycle. When people undertake action research projects they use processes which inherently involve learning – the interrogation of taken-for-granted terms, searching for relevant information, generating ideas and opinions from others, and reflecting on experience. Some forms of action research have self-learning as their prime focus. Other forms aim to make change in a particular practice or site, and these too inevitably involve a number of people in learning practices, both self and shared.

Learning in, with and through action research has some family resemblance with other kinds of learning:

•	Learning always happens somewhere, and where matters. Particular people and places have distinctive histories, interests, expectations, cultural mores and stories. These are not predictable but, as Doreen Massey (2005) suggests, ‘thrown together’. This idiosyncrasy creates very specific contexts for educational action research, because everyone involved brings not only their local, but also their global networks, into a common project.
•	Learning always involves relationships with other people, directly or indirectly. By its very nature, participatory action research necessitates interacting with others in order to collaborate, share experiences and ideas, and make decisions. But a solo action researcher also works with other people and must consistently attempt to understand different positions, needs and interests as well as their own.
•	Learning is dialogic and reflective. Learning involves talking with others, listening to contrary and accepted views, experiences and insights, building rapport as well as shared understandings. Learning also involves considering our own assumptions and truths and integrating new perspectives, perhaps disrupting the ways we have always thought about and acted in the world. In this process, conversation is a key, as is writing.

These three themes recur throughout the articles in this edition of the journal. While most do focus on formal educational institutions – schools and universities – they also bring to the fore questions about contexts, relationships and dialogic and reflexive practice.

Vishalache Balakrishnan and Lise Claiborne’s article on the cultural complexities of participatory action research in Malaysia and Firdissa Aga’s article on the motivating and de-motivating effects of action research on teaching in Ethiopia challenge any easy preconceptions about a universal action research approach. A productive relationship between an external agent and New Zealand teachers is the focus of Noleen Wright’s article, while the tensions involved in educational action research relationships is explored by Thomas Eri and Joron Pihl. Kim Manley and Angie Titchen demonstrate how careful attention to the dialogic process of work-based clinical and consultant learning produces individual and collective learning gains. João Alberto Arantes do Amaral and Cristina Toshie Motohashi Matsusaki report the reciprocal educational benefits of an ambitious long-term and large-scale research partnership. Jonathan Vincent, Megan Potts, Daniel Fletcher, Simon Hodges, Jenny Howells, Alex Mitchell, Brett Mallon and Thomas Ledger show how reflective processes are constructively used in action research conducted collaboratively with higher education students diagnosed as on the autism spectrum. Finally, Wilfried Admiraal, Maartje Buijs, Wout Claessens, Terence Honing and Jan Karkdijk offer an example of a university–school partnership and the possibilities of creating an in-between dialogic and action space.

We think these articles represent a wider view of education than might first be assumed by our journal title. We hope that you do too.

Pat Thomson
On behalf of the Editors