This ongoing action research project (2022-2023) is situated in one school in Norway and explores the ways in which educational researchers/advisors and practitioners work together in a partnership, with the intention of creating knowledge and improving practice. The school is large by Norwegian standards (410 students aged 6-16, around 70 employees) and is in a small town with an average socio-economic profile. Our partnership with the school was established as part of a pioneer national initiative to support municipalities with persistently low achievement, which pairs schools with educational researchers acting in an advisory capacity. We have thus decided to describe our role as ‘researchers/advisors’. Avoiding the pursuit of quick fixes, the initiative supports schools over a three-year period to build the capacity and competency needed to bring about improvement (Utdanningsdirektoratet [Department of Education], 2022).

Having been teachers and school leaders before becoming educational researchers/advisors, we are mindful of the importance of building an ‘egalitarian, reciprocal, humanising’ relationship (Cook-Sather & Felten, 2017) with the teachers and leaders at the school. There was considerable potential for mistrust and disinclination towards us since we were brought in from outside to help raise achievement. The challenges of collaborations between academia and the practice-field are well documented (e.g. Posch, 2019). Thornberg (2014) findings from a Swedish study of interactions between external consultants and teachers underline the importance of consultants demonstrating contextual sensitivity, acknowledging local expertise and appreciating complexity. We are acutely aware of the need to position ourselves as ‘friendly outsiders’ (Greenwood & Levin, 1998), maintaining a balance between support and critique, being encouraging and creating space for discussion.

Prior to our involvement, the school had decided to prioritise raising achievement in literacy among the youngest students (aged 6-10), in line with the recently updated Norwegian national curriculum and a national intervention designed to improve foundation skills in schools. Rather than providing ready-made solutions, we want to create knowledge about how this might be achieved together with the leaders and teachers at the school. We are continually inspired by Deweyan inquiry, with its starting point in real-life issues to be investigated and encourages diverse outcomes and new understandings through action (Dewey, 1938). Furthermore, taking account of Nordic participatory traditions, we work to establish a democratic learning community together with the leaders and teachers at the school, in which we all participate as equals, albeit with differing roles (Jones, 2022). Theoretically aligned with critical pragmatism and social constructionism, we understand participation as essentially co-creative (Jones & Hall, 2022): knowledge, meanings and practices are produced through the interactions of people. In partnership with the school, therefore, we aim to bring about learning through active processes of inquiry founded on contextual cognisance and the appreciation of multiple possibilities and outcomes.

Following meetings with teachers in Years 1-4 (children aged 6-10) and the leadership team, as well as classroom visits, we proposed an action research project to both structure our partnership and create opportunities for collaborative knowledge-creation. We view action research as enabling the leaders and teachers to improve their practice, and also to develop our competence as researchers/advisors. Whilst our focus in the project is to support the school, we also create knowledge about the potential of the national initiative to bring about school improvement through egalitarian partnerships between schools and universities, and our roles as researchers/advisors in this. We seek to address power issues existing in such partnerships, allowing for more meaningful and mutually beneficial interactions between academia and the field of practice.

Our main research question is therefore:

How might an action-research project between a school and a higher-education institution contribute to mutual learning and improvement? 

We subscribe to Greenwood and Levin’s (1998) understanding of action research as a complex, participatory process in which a team collaborates to explore how their situation can be improved. In line with pragmatist thought, we view action as the means by which new knowledge is created. For us, action research is a continual, creative and dynamic process starting with an exploration of the current state of affairs (e.g. Klev & Levin, 2021; McAteer, 2013). It is followed by a process in which actions are designed, carried out and reflected upon; the findings of which inform the design of the following actions (McAteer, 2013). This action research project has two interwoven processes. The first is facilitated by the teachers and leaders. Teams of teachers in Years 1-4 agree on a research question, around which they design and carry out a classroom-based learning activity. The leadership team have a facilitative role. We visit the school to watch the learning activities, followed by reflective conversations with the teachers in light of their chosen research questions. Here, we take an advisory role, supporting the teachers in their inquiries. The second process is focused on our learning as researchers/advisors. As researchers, we record our conversations with the groups of teachers, we listen to and transcribe them and discuss and record our findings with each other, using them to shape our future actions as advisors. This constitutes one cycle of the action research project. At the time of writing, the project has been running for a year, and we have completed two cycles. Two further cycles will be completed before the completion of the project in 2023, as well as interviews with staff about the process. Working together as two researchers/advisors provides regular opportunities for discussion, reinforcing reflexivity and focusing our attention on maintaining ethical integrity. Simultaneously having the roles of researchers and advisors is both challenging and essential. We are co-constructing knowledge with the teachers and leaders at the same time as critically reflecting on our practice. We are facilitating, participating in and undertaking inquiry within a learning community which we are collaboratively building as we go. The process is ‘messy’ (McAteer, 2013), however, and dependent on the capacity of the school and those involved. But this is the reality of school life, and we agree with Keiny and Orland-Barak (2013) that this approach is both a ‘pre-requisite’ and a vehicle for change.

The project is ongoing, and we present our tentative findings following two action research cycles. Our findings are multi-dimensional, relating both to the work of the teachers and leadership team and our work as researchers/advisors. We have thus far found that: • The teachers and leaders involved in the project report an increased focus on the collaborative planning of learning activities, which they view as positive for their own and their students’ learning. • The teachers and leaders involved in the project report an increased willingness to experiment with different teaching methods. • The competence of the leadership team in participating in and facilitating for the action research process seems important for its continuance (more research needed). • The teachers adjust their research questions according to their experiences and reflections. This suggests that action research is a dynamic and adaptive approach which allows teachers to adjust their inquiries according to their ever-changing daily interactions. In doing so, their experiences and reflections become part of a continual learning process, thus enabling them to develop their practice. • We adjust our questioning and responses to the teachers as we learn more about the school and our role as advisors, suggesting that we become more adept in supporting the processes of inquiry and supporting improvement. This requires a commitment to our own learning as well as proactively working to build egalitarian relationships with teachers and leaders. • Action research as an approach to bringing about school improvement through partnership between a school and researchers/consultants seems to facilitate for the creation of egalitarian relationships in which learning is a mutual experience. This has the potential to address power issues and allow for greater and more meaningful interaction between academia and the field of practice, ultimately benefitting all those involved in education.

Cook-Sather, A., & Felten, P. (2017). Ethics of Academic Leadership: Guiding Learning and Teaching. In F. Su & M. Wood (Eds.), Cosmopolitan Perspectives on Becoming an Academic Leader in Higher Education (pp. 175–191). Bloomsbury. Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. Henry Holt and Company, Inc. Greenwood, D., & Levin, M. (1998). Introduction to Action Research: Social research for social change. Sage. Jones, M.-A. (2022). “We hope it isn’t about them deciding everything!” A Mixed Methods Study of Student Participation [PhD Thesis]. Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Jones, M.-A., & Hall, V. (2022). Redefining student voice: applying the lens of critical pragmatism. Oxford Review of Education, 48(5), 570–586. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2021.2003190 Keiny, S., & Orland-Barak, L. (2013). Educational Action Research as a Paradigm for Change. In S. Noffke & B. Somekh (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Educational Action Research (pp. 166–177). SAGE Publications Ltd. Klev, R., & Levin, M. (2021). Forandring som praksis (Third Edi). Fagbokforlaget. McAteer, M. (2013). Action Research in Education. BERA/SAGE Research Methods in Education. Posch, P. (2019). Action research – conceptual distinctions and confronting the theory–practice divide in Lesson and Learning Studies. Educational Action Research, 27(4), 496–510. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2018.1502676 Thornberg, R. (2014). Consultation Barriers Between Teachers and External Consultants: A Grounded Theory of Change Resistance in School Consultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 24(3), 183–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2013.846188 Utdanningsdirektoratet [Department of Education]. (2022). Oppfølgingsordning. Https://Www.Udir.No/Kvalitet-Og-Kompetanse/Lokal-Kompetanseutvikling/Oppfolgingsordningen/