In Sweden, collaborative research involving researchers, teachers, and school leaders on issues relevant to educational practices has been launched as practice-near research (PNR). This shift places new demands on academics, moving them from a role of external experts to collaborative partners. The policy rhetoric simplifies this shift from the perspective of policy makers who want a closer collaboration between schools and university to close the gap between theory and practice. School leaders hope for quick fixes when they get the help from academics, and teachers expect practical advice (Lendahls Rosendahl & Rönnerman, 2000). For the academics themselves the shift may imply thinking over their role depending on what research approaches they use. There are essential differences between, for example, evidence-based approaches and action research (Serder & Malmström, 2020). They can even be described as two different ideals. Action research, which involve teachers or school leaders as its address, who through reflection and participation are co-creators of a multifaceted knowledge about teaching and leading as well as the place of education in the surrounding society. This research can be context-bound and local but also have validity outside it and address important social issues. Here, academics usually see themselves as co-learners. Evidence-based research is also directed towards the classroom or leading practices, but its goal is to find the right methods. In this tradition, academics are the experts on the methods but still learn through the collaborative process. However, there might be a possible contradiction; the academics may see completely different goals and means for their learning by collaborative research. Furthermore, the demands for collaboration seems to blur the boundaries between different research traditions, which means that academics actually change their ways of collaborating and learning in PNR-projects.

Hence, a knowledge gap exists regarding what this shift implies for the academics’ own professional learning. This study aims to investigate different kinds of academics' professional learning as they engage in PNR and how their learning connects to their collaborative aims and ambitions.

To study academics’ learning in PNR, we draw on Wenger-Trayner and Wenger-Trayner’s (2020) theory of social learning spaces. Base on how academics talk about their engagement, the framework allows us to analyze how academics:

1. Care to make a difference (value creation throughout the collaborative process).
2. Engage their uncertainty together with practitioners.
3. Recognize and pay attention to others’ knowledge.

The European and international dimension is addressed by connecting the Swedish PNR context to broader Nordic and international trends in close-to-practice research (Wyse et. al., 2021) and research‐practice partnerships (McGeown & Sjölund, 2025), where the role of the academic is increasingly being redefined. We further explore how these social learning spaces are nurtured or constrained through the lens of practice architectures—problematizing how the sayings, doings, and relatings are embedded in, but not determined by, different arrangements that characterize the work (Kemmis, 2022). The study specifically focuses on how power, knowledge, and relations are formed and transformed and what it means for academics’ professional learning.

This study employs a qualitative approach using focus group interviews as the primary research instrument (Bryman, 2016). Three focus group interviews were conducted with a total of 13 participating researchers from 10 universities in Sweden. The participants were selected based on their extensive experience in collaborative PNR-research, representing a variety of research approaches (e.g., action research, design-based research, and other collaborative research approaches). The focus groups were designed to trigger dialogue around specific themes derived from the theoretical framework: • Incentives and drivers for entering collaboration. • The role of the researcher and how it is influenced by the collaborative process. • The utilization of different participants' knowledge within the research process. • The types of learning enabled through interaction with teachers and school leaders. The focus groups were held via Zoom. Each focus group dialogue lasted for 90 minutes. All dialogues were recorded and transcribed. The data was subsequently analyzed through an abductive process, moving between the empirical material and the theoretical frameworks of social learning and practice architectures. Tensions in different ways of describing working methods, aims and means with collaboration and what kind of outcomes for research the academics brought up, were of specific interest to address our research questions. The ethical standards outlined by the Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet, 2024) were followed, including informed consent from all participating academics, confidentiality, and the right to withdraw from the study at any time without consequences.

The study results in a "palette" of different ways of approaching collaboration and learning through interaction with actors from school practice. We expect to show that academics’ learning is not a monolithic experience but varies significantly depending on the collaborative research approach used and the researcher's specific aims. Key findings will highlight: • How academics navigate the tension between being an "expert" and a "learner". • The ways in which "engaging uncertainty" serves as a catalyst for professional growth. • What kind of knowledge outcomes expected and received through different collaborative processes • The "practice architectures" (cultural-discursive, material-economic, and social-political arrangements) that either enable or constrain learning in these collaborative spaces. By focusing on academics’ learning—an often-overlooked aspect of PNR—this study offers a more nuanced way of describing the reasons for and outcomes of collaboration. For the academic community, especially those new to the field, these results will facilitate more conscious choices regarding which research approaches best suit specific professional and research purposes. Findings will also be compared to knowledge in the international fields of close-to-practice and research-practice partnerships. The aim is to describe possible unique strands due to the Swedish context, and to expand knowledge in the Swedish educational field of practice-near research through engaging with the broader international knowledge fields.

Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (Fifth edition). Oxford University Press. Kemmis, S. (2022). Transforming Practices. Changing the World with the Theory of Practice Architectures. Springer. Lendahls Rosendahl, B., & Rönnerman, K. (2000). Med fokus på handledning i skolors förändringsarbete [Focusing on facilitation in school development]. Pedagogisk Forskning i Sverige, 10(1), 35–51. Magnusson, P., & Malmström, M. (2023). Practice-near school research in Sweden: tendencies and teachers’ roles. Education Inquiry, 14(3), 367-388. McGeown, S., & Sjölund, S. (2025). Research‐practice partnerships in education: Benefits, challenges, methodological considerations and key enablers for change. British Journal of Educational Psychology. DOI: 10.1111/bjep.12785 Salo, P., Francisco, S., & Olin Almqvist, A. (2024). Understanding professional learning in and for practice. Professional Development in Education, 50(3), 444–459. Serder, M., & Malmström, M. (2020). Debatt: Vad talar vi om när vi talar om praktiknära forskning? [What do we talk about when we talk about practice-near research?] Pedagogisk Forskning i Sverige, 25(1). https://doi.org/10.15626/pfs25.01 Wenger-Trayner, E., & Wenger-Trayner, B. (2020). Learning to Make a Difference: Value Creation in Social Learning Spaces. Cambridge University Press. Vetenskapsrådet (2024). God forskningssed [Good research practice]. VR2405. Wyse, D., Brown, C., Oliver, S. and Poblete, X. (2021), Education research and educational practice: The qualities of a close relationship. Br Educ Res J, 47: 1466-1489. https://doi-org.ep.bib.mdh.se/10.1002/berj.3626