The democratic participation of all the educational community is also considered essential in the construction of an inclusive intercultural school in order to call for a new vision of education in which diversity, in all its aspects, is respected, and every type of inequality and exclusion is challenged (Steinberg & Kincheloe, 1997). This educational model is based on democratic attitudes and values of equality, respect, autonomy and solidarity, guaranteeing the presence, participation and learning of all the students in the life of the school.

Several studies emphasise the importance of nurturing an inclusive school culture based on the collaborative participation of all members of the community. Essential to this shared project is intercultural communication that allows members of the community, with different cultural references, to relativise their own culture, understand alternative values and reach consensus with those who have different views. Interactions are based on dialogue, negotiation and mutual enrichment in an attempt to establish conditions of equality and social justice. Both the community and its culture are understood to be dynamic in a hybrid, cross-cultural and open social and school context (Abdallah-Pretceille, 2006; Aguado, 2004).

The transformation towards an inclusive and intercultural school is therefore a democratic process that requires a research approach that is coherent and consequent with this educational model. Participatory Action Research (PAR) assumes an understanding of the school as a privileged learning space for all those involved in its educational project, and at the same time, opens up avenues to higher levels of awareness.

The literature therefore demonstrates that, firstly, action research is a channel for developing the capacity of school communities to expose and challenge deeply entrenched deficit views of diversity, which define certain types of students as “lacking something” (Ainscow, 2005; Coulby, 2011). Secondly, it is collaborative, participatory, democratic, and designed to develop critical and transformative community learning (Armstrong & Moore, 2004; Kemmis, McTaggart & Nixon, 2014).

Drawing on this previous work, the aim of our research is to understand how the PAR undertaken in a rural school in the Valencian Community has favoured a process of democratisation in transforming the school towards an inclusive and intercultural approach. This experience enabled us to reflect on PAR as a research methodology that not only aims to generate new scientific knowledge, but also benefits the participants and the environment in which the study is carried out.

The case study, with an ethnographic approach, describes and analyses the PAR principles developed in this process of school transformation: a) collaborative culture and democratic participation; b) a sense of belonging to the educational community; and c) Social transformation.

Data gathering and analysis have been carried out during 3 course years (2014-2017), using several qualitative tools and considering all the ethics requirements that an inclusive research has to be concerned.

The results show that the participatory activities (Welcome Day, assemblies, observation of classroom practices, and training of new teaching staff), are positively valued, although some difficulties and hurdles are noted such as the times set for family participation and how to ensure students’ voices are heard. As participation takes place in different spheres and contexts in the school and involves different groups of people, it has led to more delegation of responsibilities and the sense of a collaborative community, but with this comes the need to learn how to use new communicative models and create spaces to share information and take group decisions.

This research is framed in the context of a centro rural agrupado (CRA), a rural primary school serving two small populations on different sites, but for administrative purposes considered as a single school, in the province of Valencia. Since its foundation one of the school’s aims has been to go beyond the purely administrative and construct a new way of seeing itself as a community with shared values, one that learns and works cooperatively and collaboratively on its path to becoming an inclusive intercultural school, despite being based on separate sites in two neighbouring villages. The process of construction of the educational community in the school, a process we have followed and analysed as part of our role as companions, consultants and “critical friends” (Kemmis, McTaggart & Nixon, 2014) during the last three school years (2013–2014 to 2016–2017). This study was framed as an intrinsic case study (Stake, 1998) of the school’s educational improvement process based on PAR spirals. We took a qualitative, ethnographic approach to the data on the situation analysed. The study aimed to analyse the democratisation process in the school in order to reveal how the PAR process unfolded and the changes that occurred in the school culture as perceived by those involved. The following research questions were formulated in relation to this objective: 1. How does a democratisation process using PAR develop in this school? What participatory strategies are set in motion for the PAR)? 2. What assessment is made of how the PAR participatory strategies function? The information was gathered using the qualitative ethnographic methods of participant observation, interviews and group discussions, audiovisual recordings, documentary analysis and the research team’s field diaries. The data gathered were transcribed and classified by the research team and then fed back to the educational community for participative analysis. The Atlas-TI program was used to analyse the data by themes. We followed the systematic classification process of coding and identifying themes or patterns combining deductive (previous categories) and inductive (open coding, emerging categories) categorisation (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008). Ethical standards were upheld by providing information and then negotiating the aims and characteristics of the study with the educational community to ensure they felt a sense of ownership of the project.

The informants considered that the PAR process involved the participation of students, family members, teachers, the research team and representatives of local associations and institutions, so it has provided spaces and times for reflection, debate and sharing among the different groups in the educational community. Yet this is not a gradual linear process; it exposes the tensions surrounding the political vision of the transformation process. This tension is a normal part of both the educational process and PAR, and as such it must be recognised and managed appropriately so the democratisation process does not turn into an acritical process that reproduces inequalities (Brydon-Miller & Maguire, 2009). PAR strategies were used in an attempt to create participatory spaces and tools that ensure equal participation. Although a wide range of voices has been heard in the meetings, the decision-making process is not perceived to be an equal one. Dworski-Riggs and Langhout (2010) conclude that power differences could be considered an opportunity to refine the research methods and challenge power structures instead of being seen as a setback to participation. Although the change in the relationship between families, teaching staff and the management team is gradually transforming towards a collaborative culture, the involvement of students in the educational community is still the most vulnerable and difficult to articulate (Jadue Roa, 2017). The PAR’s participatory strategies have provided an opportunity to empower students by recognising their voice and their agency in the inquiry process (Mitra & McCornick, 2017). Inclusive and intercultural research shares with PAR, the principles of egalitarian reciprocal corporation, empowerment of its members, and a balance between research and community action centred on change in individuals and in the system (Stack & McDonald, 2014). These principles are essential to explore the school democratisation processes such as those analysed in this study.

Abdallah-Pretceille, M. (2006) Interculturalism as a paradigm for thinking about diversity. Intercultural Education, 17, 475-483. Aguado, T. (2004). Investigación en Educación Intercultural. Educatio, 22, 39-57. Ainscow, M. (2005). Developing inclusive education systems: what are the levers for change? Journal of Educational Change, 6, 109-124. Armstrong, F. & Moore, M. (2004). Action research for inclusive education: Changing places, changing practices, changing minds. London: Routledge Falmer. Brydon‐Miller, M. & Maguire, P. (2009). Participatory action research: contributions to the development of practitioner inquiry in education. Educational Action Research, 17(1), 79-93. Coulby, D. (2011). Intercultural education: The Theory Deficit and the World Crisis. In C. A. Grant & A. Portera (Eds.) Intercultural and Multicultural Education. Enhancing Global Interconnectedness. (pp. 98-109) New York: Routledge. Dworski-Riggs, D. & Langhout, R. D. (2010). Elucidating the Power in Empowerment and the Participation in Participatory Action Research: A Story About Research Team and Elementary School Change. Am J Community Psychol 45, 215–230. Elo, S. & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62: 107–115. Jadue Roa, D. S. (2017). Ethical issues in listening to young children in visual participatory research. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21 (3), 332-345. Kemmis, S.; McTaggart, R. & Nixon, R. (2014). The Action Research Planner. Doing Critical Participatory Action Research. Singapore: Springer. Kincheloe, J. L. & Steinberg, Sh. R. (1997). Changing multiculturalism. Buckingham: Open University Press. Mitra, D. & McCormick, P. (2017). Ethical dilemmas of youth participatory action research in a democratic setting. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21(3), 248-258. Stack, E. & McDonald, K. (2014). Nothing about us without us: Does action research in Developmental disabilities research measure up? Journal of Policy and practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 11(2), 83-91. Stake, R. E. (1995). The Art of Case Study. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.