Editorial

This edition of Educational Action Research can be regarded as truly international. The contributions come from all the continents, except Antarctica, and include papers from Tanzania, Nepal, Chile, Colombia, Australia, New Zealand, the USA, Turkey, and four European countries, namely Sweden, Norway, Austria, and England. The issue has a thematic focus on education, ranging from community education and work with refugees in the health sector to teacher training and school development, but both the approaches to action research and the papers in this issue are diverse. This is illustrated in the paragraphs below, which outline the key characterisations of action research (Feldman et al. 2022) and consider how they are manifest in the studies reported here.

Action Research (AR) focuses on change in a social practice (the action) through the collection of evidence about the social situation behind the practice (the research). Over time, it provides a whole set of medium- to long-term strategies in different contexts, such as schools and universities, hospitals, and communities. It takes an advocacy-oriented approach by using research-related activities performed by teachers, teacher educators, nurses, social workers and so on, often working in groups, and, frequently, in collaboration with university researchers. In addition, it has the aim of improving practice and increasing understanding of teaching, learning, communication, co-operation, and collaboration. AR can also help to reduce the research-practice gap because the researchers are the practitioners.

AR is guided by different philosophies depending on its purposes, modes, or situations. For example, in its aim to improve practice, it could be considered to be positivist or post-positivist in nature. In AR’s goal to understand, for example, authentic teaching and learning, it could be considered to be constructivist. And, when action researchers take an approach that is advocacy-oriented or emancipatory, it could be associated with one or more of the critical theories. As a result, AR is eclectic in its philosophical underpinnings.

The primary goal of AR is to solve problems, or resolve dilemmas or dissonances to improve practice, which suggests the generation of new knowledge is secondary to the improvement of practice. However, in the same way that its philosophical underpinnings are eclectic, the goals of any particular AR project are dependent on the objectives negotiated within the group of those involved, and the AR mode chosen. In any case, it is important that the AR project and its outcomes are plausible, credible, relevant, and important in the eyes of the practitioners and, in the case of participatory action research (PAR), other groups involved, such as university researchers.

AR is fundamentally ‘insider’ research, similar to the emic approach of ethnographers. It is not research done on teachers, teacher educators and their students, or nurses and social workers, for example, but by or with them. It may also include others in the school, hospital, or other setting, including students’ families, refugees and members of their communities, and importantly, any outside researchers, such as university academics, who have a role in the AR.

In AR, practitioners take on the aspects of a reflective practitioner. As such they continuously ask themselves: ‘What do I do?’, ‘How do I do it?’ and ‘How is my practice affected by underlying conditions and assumptions?’ Through reflecting on their practice, they may identify problems, dilemmas, or dissonances within it. In summary, good AR can be regarded as a form of education and continuous professional development that is responsive and developmental, and which connects theory and practice. It is collaborative, participatory, and ethical, involving as many stakeholders as possible who agree upon equitable norms for collaboration.

Turning to the paper in this issue, we begin with an article which considers how PAR can be enacted by those with little previous experience. In ‘The 7Cs framework for participatory action research: inducting novice participant-researchers’, Angela Feekery offers a clear model that both novice action researchers and participant-researchers could use as a starting point in identifying both key AR experts and their own unique PAR approach relevant to the context. The framework provides a brief overview of the literature related to each concept and poses a series of questions that can inform the planning phase of the research so that participant-researchers can visualise putting PAR methodology into practice.

The next paper, written by Rasel Mpuya Madaha, comes from sub-Saharan Africa and demonstrates how empowering local marginalised communities as co-researchers can achieve meaningful change in their lives. In ‘Decentralisation and the empowerment of local communities in Tanzania with special focus on water issues’, Madaha describes and reflects on the ways in which the use of AR empowered local communities to identify key challenges in accessing public resources, notably water, and enabled them to take initial steps towards addressing them through existing local government structures. The process of Decentralization by Devolution (D-by-D) in the country aims to devolve power to the local level, and, as this study illustrates, local communities can use participatory approaches to harness this power and hold local governments to account over the management of essential resources, such as water.

In the next paper, ‘Learning and the “change enterprise”: inclusion and ambivalences in an educational action research and development project’, Katharina Zangerle analyses the action research and development project ‘Strengthening Adaptive Farming in Bangladesh, India and Nepal’ (SAF-BIN). The article draws on project documents, 34 interviews with project staff and smallholder farmers, and three months of participant observations in Nepal to show how inclusive activities allow for critical reflection, individual experience, and dialogue. The author illustrates that, in this case, inclusion and AR can be conceptualised at least threefold: from a dialectical, institutional, and learning perspective, and concludes that AR provides a fruitful basis for learning which allows for legitimacy, and can lead to social change at a micro-level, for better or worse, even if this is only temporary.

Like the previous papers, ‘The view from Robinswood Hill: a story of asset-based community development and a community-based participatory research partnership in South Gloucestershire’ also has a strong focus on community development. In this article, Alice Willatt, Mary Brydon-Miller, Denise Cumberland and Yunyan Li describe a six-year action research collaboration that has sought to support the Gloucestershire Gateway Trust (GGT) and its local non-profit organisational partners using a variety of action research methods, including community surveys, Group Level Assessment, Future Creating Workshops, and arts-based methods. The development of a community resident research team (CCRT) model has been a core aspect of this partnership, which honours local knowledge and experience while providing training and employment opportunities to local residents.

With a paper from Chile, ‘Participatory pedagogies enhance engineering education for sustainability’ by Lake Sagaris, Javier Peñafiel, Romina Orellana and María Fernanda Guajardo, we move into a more formal educational setting although still with a strong community approach. Using a survey, interviews, and reflections by the teaching-research team, the authors explore the effects of almost a decade of experimentation, inspired by Freire’s pedagogy for liberation, which applied PAR in engineering courses and in cities to develop professionals who are more committed to sustainability and inclusivity. They found that using a planning-based PAR methodology, in the living laboratories of real city neighbourhoods, increased engineers’ appreciation of citizenship, sustainability, and equity and made them more able to interact with ‘ordinary’ citizens in all their diversity.

The next text is also bridging formal education with a community perspective. The paper ‘Improving a Swedish health practice for refugees through participatory action research: potentials and constraints’ by Anna Fabri and Anna Jobér reports on a two-year project focusing on health communicators working with refugees. By employing PAR and the theory of practice architectures, the study examines a health information practice for newly arrived refugees and highlights its potentials and constraints. The analysis shows that, despite constraints during the working process, the PAR practice created a democratic work process which empowered all participants. Collective talks in the communicative space nurtured an architecture that generated new ideas and made it possible to leave the classroom-based teaching situation for new ways of learning about health and physical activity.

The next seven papers in this issue deal with AR in teacher education and schools, with the first two investigating pre-service-teacher education programmes. In ‘Action research in initial EFL teacher education: emerging insights from a CAR project’, Eda Ceylan and Irem Ҫomoglu explore what insights pre-service EFL (English as a Foreign Language) teachers in Turkey develop through engaging in a collaborative action research (CAR) project, which was embedded into an e-practicum course. After the project was completed, the authors asked the pre-service teachers to write down their reflections, and then they conducted follow-up interviews. The findings revealed that the pre-service teachers’ engagement in CAR enabled them to gain new perspectives on research, on their teacher selves, and on teacher professional development.

The identification of suitable topics in AR can be challenging due to the complex nature of the educational context and the diverse factors that influence problem identification processes. In ‘Puzzle identification in action research in initial teacher education’, Mónica Stella Cárdenas Claros, Ximena Paola Buendía Arias and Kimberley Dassonvalle adopt a qualitative multi-case study approach to explore problem identification among pre-service teachers involved in AR in South America. Primary data was collected via interviews with 29 participants (pre-service teachers, university-based supervisors, and school mentors) from two initial Foreign Language Teacher Education programmes, one in Colombia and the other in Chile, to investigate the origins of problem identification and the influential factors. Thematic analysis suggests that problem identification has both bottom-up and top-down sources, and that it is influenced by the prescriptive and facilitative roles of mentors and supervisors, the pre-service teachers’ research competences, and a series of contextual factors.

The other five contributions are about AR in school and classroom settings, the first of which offers more general insights into mentoring. In ‘Leading with care: four mentor metaphors in collaboration between teachers and researchers in action research’, the Swedish authors Ulrika Bergmark, Ann-Charlotte Dahlbäck, Anna-Karin Hagström and Sara Viklundd explore mentoring and the roles of mentors in AR from an ethical stance. The theoretical basis is the philosophy of care ethics developed by the American educational philosopher Nel Noddings. Thematic analysis of written reflections of the participating researcher and teachers, as well as collegial conversations, identified four metaphors: the gardener, the shepherd, the teacher, and the bridge-builder. All these roles can be practiced at the same time; sensitivity determines when a mentor moves in and out of different roles. The study finds that care ethics can contribute to an increased understanding of mentoring as something situated and relational, where a symmetrical approach between mentor and mentee is emphasised.

The study reported by Tshewang Rabgay and Gillian Kidman in ‘A culturally relevant action research model for Bhutanese secondary science teachers’ explored how secondary science teachers carried out the process of AR and the factors which supported or constrained them. Focusing on one case study school in Bhutan, data were collected progressively, using a variety of methods, and the findings showed that the teachers used a messy process of action research. The constraints they faced included concerns about science curriculum coverage, lack of time, inadequate knowledge, the hierarchical education system, and some of the Buddhist values which shape teachers’ and students’ lives. In response to the influence of cultural factors on AR in Bhutan, the study proposes a new context-sensitive model called the Sherig Action Research (SAR) model for Bhutanese teachers.

For English teacher Erin Nerlino, who works in a regional, suburban public school in the USA, increasing the number of students who deeply read the assigned texts for class has been a career-long focus. Therefore, one of her goals for the 2021–2022 school year was to promote better reading practices among students. In ‘Annoying but helpful’: action research examining secondary students’ active reading of assigned texts’ she describes using a note-per-pages assignment to try to achieve this and then reflects on the results via a teacher research study design. The study indicates that, in the end, the overall number of students reading the assigned texts increased and that more students reported feeling the assignment was helpful to their reading practices as the school year progressed.

In their paper ‘Developing a school-based nutrition education programme to transform the nutritional behaviours of basic-level schoolchildren: a case from participatory action research in Nepal’, Yadu R. Upreti, Bhimsen Devkota, Sheri Bastien and Bal Chandra Luitel critically reflect on how PAR empowered university researchers and a school community to co-develop a school-based nutrition for school children (Grades 1–8). The study used in-depth interviews, focus groups, participant observation, informal talks, and bridging-the-gap workshop methods. The findings of the study show inter alia that the PAR methodology is a successful but time-consuming project, since it demands prolonged fieldwork, self-motivation, commitment, action with critical reflection (praxis), dialogic relation, and negotiation skills from both researchers and co-researchers.

The last paper in this issue, ‘Supporting school leaders in leading school development: an action research project’, investigates the significance of school leadership together with school development to improve the learning of students. Authors Lena Abrahamsen and Marit Aas focuses on school leadership groups taking part in an AR project in a Norwegian municipality, in which local coaching teams were established to support the leadership groups in leading school development. The findings indicate that before the leadership groups can enact changing practices in the classrooms, they should first establish the necessary structures within the leadership group and between leaders and teachers. This study also illustrates how AR and expansive learning can be complementary tools in identifying how school development progresses.

Taken together, the papers in this issue demonstrate that AR provides a distinctive approach to both research and development. Since it is done by and with practitioners and professionals, it offers numerous opportunities to learn by reflecting on practice, based on collected evidence. As these contributions also illustrate, there is no single way ‘to do’ AR, as a range of strategies are used across all continents. They vary from individual teachers investigating their classrooms, collaborative projects at the community level, and even the state level, involving all kinds of community members (including families and refugees). Also, the purposes, products, and methods of AR vary, as is demonstrated in these papers.

The wide international range of contributions in this issue points to a strength of AR, namely the perception and participatory examination of social and cultural factors and contexts. I hope the reading of these papers will also enrich our readers’ perspectives and reflections.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).