The modern world is in a state of acceleration; continuous development and rapid transformation, as noted by Hartmut Rosa (1). This is also true for the Danish welfare state. Technological innovations, and economic, social, and climate-related challenges, are causing shifts that impose new demands on the welfare professions and their field of practice. Additionally, this also affects the professional education programs at Higher Education Institutions (HEI’s). They must continually adjust and adapt their curricula and formats to incorporate latest research and insights into how the demands of today unfolds in practice, whether for primary school teachers, nurses, or other welfare professionals. Often, research knowledge involves a lengthy journey from production at universities to publication in journals, followed by the integration and transfer of new knowledge into education programs and professional practice. This process entails a relatively long lead time and cross-institutional shifts that can challenge or even hinder the exchange of knowledge between universities, universities of applied sciences, and practical settings.

The (missing) link between research, education, and practice has been discussed across Europe and worldwide for many years (2,3). The fact that this discussion is still going on might reflect the level of complexity on this matter. This paper brings the pathways of knowledge exchange between academia and professional practice into question and discusses the potential of action research as an approach to support the link between research, education, and practice.

Research question: How can action research in Higher Education contribute to and strengthen the link between educational research, professional education programs, and professional practice?

The point of departure for this paper are two ongoing Danish action research projects within the welfare professions. The first project explores pre-professional identity formation in a young professional education, the bachelor’s Degree Programme of Nutrition and Health. The participants in the project are students, educators, and researchers, and later, professional practitioners will also partake. The project runs over the course of three and a half years (the length of the education program). The second project explores how teaching of Natural Sciences and Technology in primary schools can be strengthened through innovative learning labs, and professional identity work. Participants in this project are pre- and in-school teachers, University College consultants, and researchers. The duration of this project is one and a half years.

Action research implies an understanding of research as “a participatory process concerned with developing practical knowing” (4) – not on someone but together with. This understanding means that all participants are seen as equal co-thinkers, and co-creators, all contributing to the research process with different, yet equally important knowledge and expertise. This approach allows researchers to closely engage with and accompany practices undergoing rapid and continuous change. In contrast to other research methods, there is no time lag between data collection and the dissemination and application of new knowledge. Action research is action-oriented and offers the potential to gain concrete insights into what is at stake in practice and why (5). At the same time this is also challenging because this processual approach entails that the research process can be both messy and magic (6). This requires openness among researchers, participants, stakeholders, and society.

The empirical data in this paper is composed of audio-recordings, transcribed text, and field notes (7) from the two action research processes, and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis (8). It is too early to draw conclusions from the projects, but the preliminary analysis suggests that action research has potential in facilitating a meaningful exchange of knowledge between different arenas, roles, and positions in the field of HEIs. This is also in accordance with international findings (9).

Even though action research is gaining ground on an international level, action research is still rather unknown to many (10). At the same time, action research is characterized by different schools and traditions (11). There are some common features, though, and that is a cyclical approach and an emphasis on action, reflection, and participation. Action research “seeks to bring together action and reflection, theory and practice, in participation with others, in the pursuit of practical solutions to issues of pressing concern to people” (4). This paper is grounded in action research within the Scandinavian tradition, where the researcher actively participates rather than takes an observing position (12,13). The aim is twofold: to contribute to local change and to produce scientific insights in and about the field. Action research was introduced in the 1940s by Kurt Lewin, and in the 1960s it gained ground in Scandinavia. Scandinavian action research is centred around interventional field research, experiments, and projects aiming at renewed insights into the mechanisms and regularities governing our social lives (14). In Denmark, action research has traditionally focused on marginalized groups, educational practices, the institutional system, social experiments, dialogue, communication, and relations (6,14). The knowledge generated through action research depends on several variables, such as the researcher's theoretical stance, the researcher's interaction and dialogue with the field, the nature of interventions, and the field's motivation and openness to letting the researcher get close. This is a matter of researcher objectivity and subjectivity. As described by Lewin, the strength in action research lies in the ability to engage closely with the very practice that one aims to investigate and change. This is also pointed out by Knud Aagaard Nielsen that states that "new knowledge can only truly emerge when the object or research field is set in motion and transformed" (5). At the same time this is a point of criticism regarding validity of the knowledge produced. Doing action research is not uncomplicated and brings with it a multitude of considerations. Being actively involved in the field can take many nuances, and impacts what is created in collaboration with the field. Action research is typically time-consuming, and due to its processual nature, the research protocol can take many forms and require many adjustments. This brings about considerations regarding the objectivity/subjectivity of the researcher, the role and influence of the participants, scientific knowledge, validity, generalizability, as well as ethical matters.

Incorporating action research into HEI’s and the professional education landscape can lead to a greater sense of meaningfulness for both students, professional practitioners, researchers, and stakeholders. It opens for educational institutions to holistically integrate research, education, and practice, aligning the education provided with the evolving demands of the professional field. At the same time, it makes room for students, practitioners, and stakeholders to actively participate in meaningful research processes developing knowledge of relevance to their profession. Yet, there are also dilemmas associated with action research, including its time-consuming nature, a lack of practical guidelines, challenges in measuring and generalizing the processes, and ethical dilemmas that may arise from the close relation between researcher and the field. To qualify action research in HEI’s there is a need to discuss both the potentials and dilemmas of doing action research within this field. In a rapidly evolving landscape as we see it not just in the Danish HEI’s, but across Europe, action research emerges as a potential, powerful and transformative methodology for bridging the gap between academia and professional practice.

1.Rosa H. Resonance: a sociology of the relationship to the world. Medford, MA: Polity Press; 2019. 2.Anwer M, Reiss M. Linking research and practice in education: the views of expert researchers in the field. J Educ Teach. 2023 Mar 15;49(2):326–40. 3.Vanderlinde R, Van Braak J. The gap between educational research and practice: Views of teachers, school leaders, intermediaries and researchers. Br Educ Res J. 2010 Apr;36(2):299–316. 4.Reason P, Bradbury H. Introduction. In: Reason P, Bradbury H, editors. The SAGE handbook of action research: participative inquiry and practice. 2nd ed. London: SAGE; 2013. p. 1–10. 5.Nielsen KA. Eksperimentelle metoder og aktionsforskning. In: Bransholm Pedersen K, Drewes Nielsen L, editors. Kvalitative metoder: fra metateori til markarbejde. 1. udg. Roskilde: Roskilde universitetsforlag; 2001. p. 127–53. 6.Alrø H, Hansen FT. It’s messy and magic - om dialogisk aktionsforskning. In: Alrø H, Hansen FT, editors. Dialogisk aktionsforskning. Aalborg universitetsforlag; 2017. p. 7–23. 7.Brinkmann S, Tanggaard L. Kvalitative metoder, tilgange og perspektiver: en introduktion. In: Brinkmann S, Tanggaard L, editors. Kvalitative metoder: en grundbog. 2nd ed. Kbh.: Hans Reitzel; 2015. p. 13–24. 8.Braun V, Clarke V, Hayfield N, Terry G. Thematic Analysis. In: Liamputtong P, editor. Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences [Internet]. Singapore: Springer Singapore; 2018 [cited 2021 Jan 24]. p. 1–18. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-981-10-2779-6_103-1 9.Gibbs P, Cartney P, Wilkinson K, Parkinson J, Cunningham S, James-Reynolds C, et al. Literature review on the use of action research in higher education. Educ Action Res. 2017 Jan;25(1):3–22. 10.Serpa S, Ferreira CM, Santos AI, Teixeira R. Participatory Action Research in Higher Education Training. Int J Soc Sci Stud. 2018 May 18;6(6):1. 11.Burns D, Howard J, Ospina SM, editors. The Sage handbook of participatory research and inquiry. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Inc; 2021. 12.Lang NR. Samskabelse i en dialogisk forskningscirkel - udvikling af kommunikative kvaliteter i en sundhedsfaglig kontekst. In: Winther S, Høgsgaard D, editors. Aktionsforskning i sundhedsvæsenet Idéer til kommunikative og innovative forandringer i en sundhedsfaglig praksis. Aalborg Universitetsforlag; 2020. 13.Madsen C. Projektets Logik - Den Offentlige Sektors Paradoks: Et studie af tværorganisatoriske projektprocesser og samskabelse med frivillige i en nordjysk ungdomsskole. PhD Ser Tech Fac IT Des. 2017;Aalborg University. 14.Nielsen BS, Nielsen. Aktionsforskning. In: Brinkmann S, Tanggaard L, editors. Kvalitative metoder: en grundbog. Kbh.: Hans Reitzel; 2015.