The number of initiatives of school-based research and development projects has risen steadily in Norwegian schools in the last decade. Politically, it is claimed that interaction (Norwegian: samhandling) between the schools (teachers) and teacher education (researchers) regarding joint school-based research and development projects can contribute to the development of ‘The future school’ in the risk society. Unforeseen events in the changing society require that both teacher education and the schools are able to change accordingly. Samhandling through joint school-based research and development projects might contribute to the developing of changing and improving competency. Samhandling is a Norwegian term that connotes interaction, collaboration and cooperation (Torgersen & Steiro, 2009, 2018).

In this article, we draw on a study of a five-year national project of school-based research and development in Norwegian lower-secondary schools in the years 2013-2017. Several studies of this project point to problems concerning role comprehension and to a lack of local anchoring and involvement of teachers in the project. The main goal with the study is to explore possible factors that might have had implications on samhandling between teachers and researchers.

The study examines samhandling in three fields of education: Theory, practice and research. This approach to the fields of education is in compliance with the triad of education fields presented by Sæverot (2017) as Pedagogikkvitenskap (pedagogy science). In contrast to traditional views of education to be consisted of two fields; theory and practice, Sæverot’s triad consists of both education research field, theory and practice (Saeverot & Kvam, 2018; Sæverot, 2017). He argues as follows: Teachers hold the inside or participatory perspective on pedagogical practice because they develop pedagogical knowledge based on their own and / or colleagues' pedagogical practice School researchers hold the outward perspective on pedagogical practice because they study pedagogical practice from the outside, but at the same time through teachers and the knowledge they have developed from the inside of their own practice (ibid.). To gain a closer understanding of samhandling, the study examines the three perspectives. When we ask both teachers and school researchers about how they understand samhandling in joint research and development projects, we provide knowledge from these perspectives, both from those inside the educational practice, teachers, and those who are outside of pedagogical practice, school researchers. Together, the examination of these perspectives can contribute to a greater understanding of how the theory, research and practice fields interact. The research question for the study is “Which understandings of and experiences with samhandling apply in the fields of education research, theory and practice in relation to joint school-based research and development, and which implications can variations have for samhandling between the fields?

The data collection includes several methods (“mixed methods”) (for example Creswell, 2012; Creswell, 2013; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009) consisting of both a digital survey with quantitative and qualitative questions and semi-structured interviews. This article is based on findings from the digital survey. The survey is informed by theory on samhandling, including a matrix of fifteen indicators of samhandling developed by Torgersen and Steiro (2009). The matrix of samhandling is a product of a meta-analysis of the term samhandling. This matrix has contributed to systemize the development of the questionnaire and assure that the survey examines different sides of samhandling.

We have found challenges concerning samhandling and role comprehension that set researchers in the national project as ‘providers’ and teachers as ‘receivers’ of knowledge. Several other evaluations of this project have also found a transactional perspective, although they provide various possible reasons for that. A transactional perspective in joint school-based research and development projects is problematic because it might hinder mutual institutional learning and the development of new insights. This study provides knowledge of several factors that may have caused role confusion in the project, which may have led to a transactional perspective. An important factor is the lack of a complementary perspective. Theories on samhandling show that complementarity in joint research and development projects might contribute to the developing of new insights (for example Huxham, Vangen, Huxham, & Eden, 2000; Torgersen & Steiro, 2009, 2018; Wenger, 2000). The conclusion is that in future projects of joint school-based research and development projects there should be more awareness of the complementary perspective. In addition, applying theories of samhandling as a starting point for joint school-based research and development projects might contribute to a clearer, more systematic and strategic samhandling that may lead to developing of new insights.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches: Sage publications. Huxham, C., Vangen, S., Huxham, C., & Eden, C. (2000). The challenge of collaborative governance. Public Management an International Journal of Research and Theory, 2(3), 337-358. Saeverot, H., & Kvam, V. (2018). An alternative model of researching educational practice: A pedagogic–stereoscopic point of view. British Educational Research Journal, 0(0). doi: doi:10.1002/berj.3493 Sæverot, H. (2017). Pedagogikkvitenskap Oslo: Fagbookforlaget. Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences: Sage. Torgersen, G.-E., & Steiro, T. I. (2009). Samhandling: “Keiserens nye klær” eller nytt begrepsinnhold? (Samhandling: “The Emperor’s new clothes” or a new conceptual content?) In G.-E. Torgersen & T. I. Steiro (2009) (Eds.) Ledelse, samhandling og opplæring i fleksible organisasjoner—en menneskeliggjøring av styringssystemer. (Leadership, samhandling and training in flexible organizations - a humanization of management systems) 1. utgave, 1. opplag (pp. 120-166). Stjørdal: Læringsforlaget. Torgersen, G.-E., & Steiro, T. (2018). Defining the term Samhandling. In G.-E. Torgersen (red.), Interaction: ‘Samhandling’ under risk. A Step Ahead of the Unforeseen (pp. 39-54): Cappelen Damm Akademiske. Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of Practice and Social Learning Systems. Organization, 7(2), 225-246. doi: 10.1177/135050840072002