The rich set of studies and discussions in this issue shows the international and interdisciplinary nature of the journal and its readership, which is very welcome indeed. It includes articles from school education, teacher education, higher education, refugee work of a multi service nature, and from international collaborations. There are studies of undergraduate research supervision (Van Krieken Robson), teacher education (Woodrow and Lasser; Mark & Id-Deen; Cronin, Cook, Flattery, Griffiths & Rodrigues), interdisciplinary work with refugee children in an urban setting (Kervick, Haines, Green, Reyes, Shepherd, Moore, Healy & Gordon), aspects of school education (a coeducational class in Iran, Nazari & Hashemi), international collaborations and knowledge democracy (Meredith & Quiroz-Niño), formative assessment in a second language classroom (De Neve, Leroy, Struyven & Smits); and early childhood studies (Van Krieken Robson). There are also studies of partnerships of different kinds – in interdisciplinary practice in urban educational settings (Kervick et al.), in international academic collaborations (Meredith & Quiroz-Niño) and in teacher education (Cronin et al.).
This wealth of studies sparked me to return to thinking about the purposes, aims, and language of action research. I live in a world and an educational field that is concerned with effectiveness and efficiency, as well as equality and justice; with a growing gap between the outcomes of those who live with and in poverty and those who do not; with change on a social and political scale that I have never witnessed in my lifetime. Therefore, a return to thinking about core values and prime purposes is not necessarily surprising. The articles in this issue helped me to do this. ‘Action research in education: a set of case studies?’ by M.J. Saez Bondia and A.L. Cortes Gracia was a really useful revisiting of key thinking and definitional work on the two highly interrelated concepts of action research and case study. The authors rework the history and discussions on the purposes and parameters of the activity, with particular emphasis on the educational purposes of these two areas. It is valuable in many ways: reminding us of the elements that really mattered to those adopting or advocating these approaches in earlier times; thinking about their applications and limitations; and considering the power and potential of nesting them within each other. To be reminded about the commitment in earlier action research thinking to justice and improved outcomes for young people stays with me as something in need of restatement. It refreshes the thinking and raises useful questions and observations. In a world where much of the language of education and care has taken on economic vocabulary and emphasises outcomes in efficiency terms, it is important to be reminded that those such as Somekh and Zeichner have argued that, in action research in educational contexts, ‘the reflective process typical of action research should allow [us] to deepen the studied situations to obtain more socially just and productive outcomes’ (Saez Bondia & Cortes Gracia). There are many examples of studies and research aiming to do that in this issue.
The second article that prompted further reinforcement of core ideas was ‘An action research inquiry: facilitating early childhood studies undergraduate researcher development through group supervision’ by Jennifer Van Krieken Robson. It is a suitably focused study of supervision of undergraduates within a community of practice and a model of a sound action enquiry, studying important aspects of practice in higher education. What is interesting is that the study of supervision is so central to basic pedagogy in HE, and the deep reflection embodied in this study clearly shows the benefits to pedagogy. The study explored two key questions:
How might we develop supervision as a teaching and learning strategy in the context of undergraduate research in early childhood studies?
How might we support undergraduate students in completing their research projects and dissertations through a change of practice to Group Supervision?
It is a useful reminder of the essential nature and aims of supervision as well as expanding thinking and knowledge of research. It shows how action research can illuminate these important, everyday elements of our practice.
These central elements include partnership and empowerment, with all the ensuing discussion and attention to issues of power and democracy. The term ‘knowledge democracy’ is now widely used (Meredith & Quiroz-Niño; Modiba & Stewart; Woodrow & Lasser), new language perhaps, but it encapsulates the concerns earlier thinkers also had. ‘Teacher activist’, another recent term, is also used by Chris Gilbert. These articles prompted me to revisit ideas that the outcomes of action research matter, that they are a powerful way of examining our everyday reality as professionals and that how we undertake this work also matters. Empowering practices, collaborative or participatory partnerships with those who have more or less power, and the aim to create democracy in practice and knowledge are also key elements of action research in our present time. These aims and processes are developed through theoretical and scholarly discussions, as well as through action research and case studies.
The issue concludes with a review of Lesson study-based teacher education: the potential of the Japanese approach in global settings edited by Jongsung Kim, Nariakira Yoshida, Shotaro Iwata, and Hiromi Kawaguchi (Routledge, 2021). Here too we find the key elements discussed above, with Lesson Study theorised as ‘democratic professional development from the perspectives of teacher agency, knowledge democracy and collaboration, communication, and community’ (5). Written by Fikri Yanda and Safi Aini, two doctoral researchers from Indonesia, this review provides both an introduction to a valuable lesson study resource and a fitting end to this issue.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).