Inclusive education arises from the idea that dominant culture and practices prioritize certain social groups while excluding others. Kozleski and Waitoller (2010) note that teachers are often trained to be "transmitters of the dominant culture, practices, and knowledge" and, as a result, they often reinforce existing inequities. To combat this, inclusive education requires teachers who are aware of their role in maintaining/challenging existing inequalities and are motivated to remove barriers to student participation and learning. In other words, inclusive education requires professional development activities which are more localized and tailored to the specific circumstances of particular teachers and schools (Darling-Hammond et al., 2003; Shulman, 1992).

Collaborative action research (CAR) could be considered a tool for the mobilization and sharing of knowledge among participants, as well as an opportunity for improving educational practices in interconnection with the immediate environment (Moliner et al., 2021). This localized nature of CAR, i.e., transforming practices within the specific context of a school, leads to the development of teachers’ and schools’ ownership of identified problems and processes of change (Jovanović et al., 2017). 

CAR values the expertise and interdependence of both practitioners and researchers, and, at the same time, offers an opportunity for learning for all involved. The collaboration and change in power relations open up the opportunity for practitioners to take on new roles and exhibit leadership, giving legitimacy to school professionals’ practical understanding and their definition of problems (Lieberman, 1986). Through CAR, practitioners develop both practical knowledge and a critical understanding of the everyday practices that result in exclusion. Therefore, CAR contributes to the development of teachers’ sense of agency, changes teachers’ definitions of their professional roles, and fosters teachers’ competencies (Angelides et al., 2008; Jovanović et al., 2017). 

CAR requires different stakeholders to become engaged within a particular context in a search for common agenda to guide their work (Ainscow et al., 2004). Through this process of collaboration and constant negotiation of different understandings, CAR is modeling how to learn from differences and how to build a school community that acknowledges these differences.

The research aims to examine the process of creating an inclusive school culture and practices through collaborative action research.

The work is part of the project “Enhanced Equal Access to and Completion of Pre-University Education for Children in Need of Additional Support in Education” implemented by UNICEF Serbia and the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Serbia, supported by the Delegation of EU. The study involves six primary and secondary schools in Serbia selected through a systematic nomination by the Ministry of Education and experts in the field of inclusive education, followed by a screening process that included surveys and interviews. Since the action research relies on the motivation of the participants to initiate the change and engage in the transformation of practice (Elliot, 1991), one of the criteria for school selection was an expressed interest of the school community in improving school inclusiveness. Since May 2022, researchers and school practitioners have been working together to develop inclusive, innovative, and exemplary practices, relying on CAR design that employs a recursive spiral of cycles focusing on planning, acting, observing, reflecting, and revising (Zuber-Skerritt, 1996). The planning phase included problem definition, situation analysis, and the development of a strategic plan through a two-day workshop. Researchers from the university and CIP-Center, in partnership with practitioners as researchers, explored the current state of inclusive education in the school, school resources, and needs. Based on this analysis, research problems have been identified, and teams of practitioners have been organized around selected topics. The workshop activities were also devoted to collaborative planning of action research, with particular attention given to the collaborative reflection on the inclusiveness of the proposed actions. The stage of acting and observing, which is ongoing, will be followed by joint reflection on the process and outcomes of CAR within the team and within the school. As Waitoller and Kozleski (2013, p. 37) note, the process of reflection is of particular significance for inclusive education defined "as a continuing process of examining the margins", thus it will be further supported through communities of practice (CoP), which will engage participants from six schools. Based on the collected data and the reflections on the pitfalls and achievements of the process, a revision and planning of the next cycle of CAR will take place. The qualitative content analysis will rely on the collection of field notes, CAR products, anecdotal notes from CoP, and member checks to construct and refine the narrative of change.

Based on self-evaluation, in the planning stage schools have chosen the research problems they would tackle through CAR. Similar to previous research (e.g., Ainscow et al., 2004; Waitoller & Kozleski, 2013), implicit and disparate views of inclusive education emerged from the discussions. One conceptualization defines inclusive education as education for children with disabilities, while another claimed that it aims to develop a school community that works collaboratively to ensure a sense of belonging, competence, and autonomy. Through the process of collaborative exploration and meaning-making of their own practices, practitioners were negotiating and building a common understanding of inclusive education. The chosen research problems suggest that schools recognize that inclusive education involves acknowledging a range of differences in the school (e.g., "How to engage girls in STEM activities?" "How to assure a sense of belonging for a child receiving education according to an IEP?"), engaging a wider community of stakeholders (e.g., "How to support the professional socialization of novice teachers?" "How to ensure parental involvement in IEP teams?"), removing barriers to participation in different aspects of school culture and practice (e.g., "How to support student autonomy during classes?" "What should we consider when designing inclusive learning spaces?"). Moreover, schools recognized that they could act as weavers of difference by advocating for inclusive education in their local communities (e.g., "How to engage the local community in activities aimed at respecting diversity?" "How to promote the inclusiveness of the school as a value in the local community?"). At this stage, resistance to observing and documenting the CAR process emerged due to a dominant view of documentation as meaningless and bureaucratic activity. We expect the research to provide us with insight into the advantages and disadvantages of CAR as a tool for empowering practitioners to develop the inclusiveness of school practice and culture.

Ainscow, M., Booth, T., & Dyson, A. (2004). Understanding and developing inclusive practices in schools: a collaborative action research network. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 8(2), 125–139. doi:10.1080/1360311032000158015 Angelides, P., Georgiou, R., & Kyriakou, K. (2008). The implementation of a collaborative action research programme for developing inclusive practices: social learning in small internal networks. Educational Action Research, 16(4), 557–568. doi:10.1080/09650790802445742 Darling-Hammond, L., Hightower, A. M., Husbands, J. L., LaFors, J. R., Young, V. M. & Christopher, C. (2003). Building Instructional Quality: “Inside-Out” and “Outside-In” Perspectives on San Diego’s School Reform. Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington. Elliott, J. (1991). Action Research for Educational Change. Open University Press. https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192930190510 Jovanović, O., Plazinić, L., Joksimović, J., Komlenac, J., & Pešikan, A. (2017). Developing the early warning system for identification of students at risk of dropping out using a collaborative action research process. Psihološka istraživanja, 20(1), 107-125. https://doi.org/10.5937/PsIstra1701107J Kozleski, E. B. & Waitoller, F. R. (2010). Teacher learning for inclusive education: understanding teaching as a cultural and political practice. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14:7, 655-666. doi: 10.1080/13603111003778379 Lieberman, A. (1986). Collaborative research: Working with, not working on. Educational Leadership, 43, 28–32. Moliner, O., Lozano, J., Aguado, T., & Amiama, J. (2021). Building inclusive and democratic schools in Spain: strategies for mobilising knowledge on inclusive education through participatory action research. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1–18. doi:10.1080/13603116.2021.1956604 Shulman, J. (1992). Toward a pedagogy of cases. In Shulman, J. (Ed.), Case methods in teacher education (pp. 1–30). Teachers College Press. Waitoller, F. R., & Kozleski, E. B. (2013). Understanding and Dismantling Barriers for Partnerships for Inclusive Education: A Cultural Historical Activity Theory Perspective. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 9(1), 23–42. Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1996). Emancipatory action research for organisational change and management development. In O. Zuber-Skerritt (Ed.), New directions in action research (pp. 83–105). Falmer Press.