This third issue of 2023 comprises 12 articles and one book review and includes authors from 11 different countries. This continues a trend in recent years which has seen a significant growth in the international interest in action research and in publishing in Educational Action Research. The work being reported here draws from the two main disciplines associated with this journal, namely health and education. This include papers which are conceptual or based on reviews of literature, including methodological arguments, but the majority are directly concerned with attempts to change social settings in a manner in keeping with the participatory goals of action research. Spanning the age range from children through to adults and engaging with a range of approaches, from self-study to collaborative forms of action research, they address three main themes: teacher development, participatory approaches to action research, and ethics. And, in keeping with the broad conceptual and practical discipline of action research, there is considerable diversity among them.
The first of these themes concerns the use of action research for the professional development of teachers. Because action research is a process of both change and learning, it can be seen as educational in its own right (hence the name of this journal, Educational Action Research). Because of this, and perhaps also because of some of the history of its adoption in many countries, action research has been used not only as an educative process but also in the discipline of education. However, it has a slightly contentious existence in this field. To some it is solely, and perhaps simply, a form of professional development; to others it is tantamount to a form of pseudoscience, a watering down of ‘true’ research. And yet, action research endures as a means of changing education and developing people and places because it provides learners and educators alike with a way to make a difference, to achieve change, and, arguably, to exert more influence over their actions and settings.
The first article of this issue addresses this theme from a UK perspective. In ‘The “Teacher Research Group” as a collaborative model of professional learning’, Jones describes how a group of teachers worked in a collaborative action research project to develop their own teaching practices. This led to a transformation in practices resulting from the creative collaboration of university-based and school-based collaborators. Rather than reporting on an action research study, the second paper explores the potential for action research to be adopted in schools in Ethiopia. With authors based in Ethiopia and in Hungary, ‘The practices and challenges of conducting action research in some selected secondary schools of Bale Zone, Oromia, Ethiopia’ by Feyisa, Feyisa, Moreda and Hailu, addresses the conditions necessary for action research to flourish and thus make a difference. The study show that many of these are missing in the participating schools, yet the authors see and argue that action research could yet make a difference, if these conditions were met. This, they suggest, could provide the foundation for wider adoption of action research, and, through this, enhanced involvement of teachers and school leaders in the development of their education system at all levels. In both the UK and Ethiopian context, collaboration between teachers and academics is key to success, and this is also evident in 'Connecting inquiry and Universal Design for Learning (UDL) to teacher candidates’ emerging practice: development of a signature pedagogy' by Reinhardt, Robertson and Johnson, all of whom are based in the USA. This signature pedagogy denotes the distinctive use of action research in a teacher education programme. In this instance, the focus is on the teaching approach of university educators, but this emphasises the common benefit of educational action research undertaken by both academics and their education students. As well as using the concept of ‘signature’ (i.e. distinctive) pedagogies, this article also explains how this use of action research relates to Universal Design for Learning, a framework which links practices of teaching with the science of learning.
The fourth paper in this issue, 'Prospective teachers’ opportunities to develop pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) from participating in learning study' explores alternative learning theories. Authored by Magnusson, Kullberg, Innabi, Knutsson, Von Otter and Landström from Sweden, this article is based on a project which employed learning study, a significant growth area in education, and educational action research specifically. Using the concept of PCK and analyses of video recordings of lessons, they show how learning study, supported by university staff, allowed student teachers to develop a better conceptual understanding of their work. The authors highlight the importance of teacher educators in facilitating this process and helping the students to develop more sophisticated ways of conceptualising their developing practices. The fifth article, ‘Reviewing the literature to clarify self-study research’, is also rooted in the discipline of teacher education, but has relevance for anyone involved in studying their own practices. The authors, McCool and Myers, both based in the USA, undertook an integrative literature review of self-study research published over a 12-year period. From this, they show how action research and self-study relate, and the characteristics of attempts to combine them, including an emphasis on the importance of discussion as a means of analysis. The focus on the self and learning is also evident in the sixth article ‘Empowering Indonesian students’ regulation of feelings and attitudes in EFL learning through action-oriented reflections’. In this instance, the author, Mbato, links reflection with empowerment and with Indonesian students' feelings about learning English. Through an account of five cycles of action research, he explains how reflection, including the use of reflective journals, transformed participants' attitudes to and engagement with English language education. This research was undertaken in a primary teacher preparation programme in an Indonesian university which adopts a dialogic approach and encourages learning within and outside of the classroom, something which aligns well with action research’s emphasis on collaboration, reflection, and learning across a range of settings.
Much like Mbato, the authors of the seventh article demonstrate the importance of dialogue and discussion in action research. In ‘The “Impact” of YPAR: In their own words’, Call-Cummings, Hassell-Goodman, Dazzo, Scicli, Sultana, Elfaki, Clyde, Beardsley and Hauber-Özer, five of whom are based in schools, explore the impact of youth participatory action research (YPAR). In an innovative approach, they present a column of text, images and other data in ‘dialogue’ with a parallel column of commentary and analysis. The article concludes by describing what can be learned from this and the implications for grounding YPAR in its epistemological origins. The benefits of participatory action research (PAR) are also evident in the eighth article, ‘Involving student peer researchers for gender-informed health promotion: a community-based participatory action research’. The authors, Chen, Horgan, Jones, Krauss and Stuart, all based in Canada, explain how a three-year intervention, termed the ‘Movember Caring Campus Project’, employed PAR with students most at risk from alcohol misuse, working with community peer researchers to challenge stereotypes and empower young people to represent their own realities and address what they felt were unhealthy attitudes to alcohol use. The authors' emphasis on co-design and co-creation of health initiatives further emphasises the importance of collaboration, a consistent theme in articles throughout this issue. This is also central to article nine, ‘Cooperation, collaboration and compromise: Learning through difference and diversity’, in which five authors, Jere, Priyadharshini, Robinson-Pant, Millora and Evren, who are based at two UK universities, embrace collaboration between institutions and professions. Much like the previous article, they also employed PAR, in this instance to offer intercultural sexual health and gender education. Using the concept of ‘paradox lens’, they explore the tensions experienced by the different partners and conclude by offering a series of principles around which this kind of collaborative partnership can be developed.
Three authors based in the Netherlands, Groot, Schrijver and Abma, also provide an account of the use of participatory approaches in ‘Are you afraid of press and social media? Ethics in photovoice in participatory health research’. Photovoice is one of a range of creative approaches which are of much interest in participatory research, and it is employed here to examine the problematic interaction of research, the press, and social media, and the ethical implications arising from it. Reflecting on an initiative with school children in an economically deprived Dutch neighbourhood, the authors consider what is required for an ethical practice. This emphasis on ethics is also central to the next article, ‘Being a teacher-researcher: reflections on an insider research project from a virtues-based approach to research ethics’, in which Poulton, who is based in Australia, develops an argument for ethics systems based on virtues rather rules. Drawing on his own experiences as an insider self-study researcher, he illustrates and explains the nature of virtue-based ethics, and demonstrates how this is superior to the rule-based approaches so common in universities. This, he argues, provides an approach rooted in reflections on the true purpose of ethical endeavour, rather than on the needs and requirements of formulaic approaches to obtaining ethical clearance.
The twelfth article is entitled ‘Extending knowledge by developing a ”slow approach” to action research’. In this, Glenn, who is based in Ireland, contrasts the slow approach to action research with the pressures of contemporary life and work, which lead to an ‘accelerated, rushed life-style’. This seems a very timely piece of writing. The problems of the intensification of life (including of practice) can limit, perhaps even prevent entirely, time for reflection and meaning making, both of which are central to action research. Glenn’s argument is one with which all action researchers will empathise.
In keeping with a long-standing tradition in Educational Action Research, this issue finishes with a book review, in this instance, Shepard’s review of Border thinking: Latinx youth decolonizing citizenship by Andrea Dyrness and Enrique Sepúlveda. In this eloquent account, Shepard explains how the authors believe that participatory action research can provide the means to democratise and so decolonise knowledge. This seems an especially suitable conclusion to an issue in which threads of participation, collaboration, and co-creation run throughout the collected articles.