General description

This study focuses on the action research process conducted in collaboration between school leaders and researchers, while initiating, implementing, and carrying through a research project. The aim of the overall research project was to develop teachers’ collegial planning and preparation of lessons in two schools and was conducted within the Swedish national research strategy programme carried out under the acronym ULF (Utveckling, Lärande, Forskning [Development, Learning, Research], and is a part of the government’s main goal to improve teachers’ and school leaders' daily practice based on the scientific foundation and proven experience, which since 2010 is regulated by a Swedish Educational Act (SFS 2010:800, chapter 1 §5). The research team is multidisciplinary and consists of researchers in didactics (more commonly known as pedagogy in English) and school leadership. While didactic researchers focused on implementing a method for teachers’ collegial planning and preparation of lessons, we, as researchers on school leading, focused on school leaders and their strategies to take the lead as well as pave the way for the project´s efforts to become an integrated part of everyday practice in their school by increasing the local schools’ improvement capacity (Blossing et al., 2015; Fullan 2002; 2014) by action research approach. Over time, we became concerned by the relationship between us as researchers and the school leaders as practitioners in terms of power and inequality in our partnership, which we suspected influenced the collaboration. Even though it was not the initial purpose of the study, we allowed ourselves to explore the partnership in our collaboration. As we could not find consistent definitions of partnership in collaboration between researchers and practitioners (Rudge, 2018), we turned to Buick et al.’s (2016) study and their identified six strategies for developing equal partnership collaboration. We used these six strategies as an analytical raster as well as the theory of practice architecture (Kemmis, Wilkinson, Edwards-Groves, Hardy and Grootenboer, 2014) to examine our collaboration in terms of equality in ownership and partnership of the research project and have identified five critical aspects to consider when establishing collaboration between school leaders and researcher. The findings are reported in Forssten Seiser and Portfelt (2022). 

This study will return to the initial purpose of our research collaboration with the school leaders and focus on our action research process. Through the lens of the theory of practice architecture, we aim to describe what happened within our joint action research processes in the two schools while carrying through the ULF-project. The research questions are: How did the action research processes between school leaders and researchers in the two schools evolve? What enabled and constrained the action research processes? 

Method/methodology  

The entire setup of the collaboration is based on an action research approach and linked to the larger ULF project. Qualitative data is based on audio recordings of meetings between school leaders in the two schools and us as researchers. Participating school leaders were fully informed about the research project and all their rights as participants in accordance with research ethics, and have given their consent to participate in recordings, analyses, and reports of the findings. School A, was a Swedish upper secondary school with 2,000 students and 260 staff members, and a school leader team consisting of nine school leaders. The collaboration in school A  included five principals, two school managers, and both authors. We met seven times over 14 months, resulting in 9,5 hours of recordings. School B, was a Swedish high school with 530 students and 85 staff members. The collaboration in School B was conducted between the principal and one of the authors, which met six times over 12 months, resulting in 6 hours of recordings. The recordings were transcribed and then analysed within N´Vivo 11 programme. Data was sorted out of relevance for the aim of the study and then the action research process was narratively described to correspond to the first research question. Turning to the first research question data was coded into sayings, doings, and relatings accordingly to the theory of practice architecture (Kemmis, Wilkinson, Edwards-Groves, Hardy and Grootenboer, 2014). Analysis continued by focusing on the interrelatedness between different arrangements, or so-called practice architectures, surrounding the action research projects in the two schools, enabling and constraining what happened. The latter corresponds to the second research question.   

Result

Findings reveal that the action research processes in the two schools turned out quite similar despite organisational differences, characterised by us, as researchers, initially took most of the initiative to present the research project, suggested actions and what theories to use, how to analyse data, and present findings. Over time the principals became more active and defined themselves as experts in their local schools. They revealed their confusion about how our collaboration was related to the didactic part of the project. It became clear that the principals of both schools and us as researchers had different understandings of the purpose of the research action process. The principals viewed our collaboration as a temporary try-out rather than the intended implementation of a permanently new way to organise the local schools’ internal infrastructures to enable teachers’ collegial planning and preparation of lessons. This led us researchers to critically review our initiation of the research project and how it influenced our collaboration as well as the action research process. The action research process was constrained by social-political arrangements where we as researchers had interpretative priority, dominated cultural-discursive arrangements by the use of abstract concepts, and material-economic arrangements that we as researchers suggested, and enabled by cultural-discursive arrangements where principals opened up about their confusion which enabled democratic dialogue between us as collaboration partners, social-political arrangements where we as collaborators constructed a common understanding of our collaboration, and material-economic arrangements that suited both parties. The findings address the importance of establishing an equivalent partnership before even starting up the actual collaboration and action research process, and develop a common understanding of what the focus is in the collaboration, and for what reasons. This will enable an action research process that will be more meaningful for both parties and increase the local school’s improvement capacity.