To be, or not to be, that is not the question: external researchers in emancipatory action research

ABSTRACT

This article nuances an ongoing discussion among researchers about external researchers in emancipatory action research in the educational field. It examines opportunities and challenges for emancipatory action research for participants in top-down and bottom-up initiated action research projects with external researchers. An analysis based on variables for studying critical emancipatory action research highlights four central questions in both projects: whose choice, improvement for what, whose voice and improvement for whom. An external researcher could empower the understanding of the participants involved in terms of what to improve, contribute to all voices being heard, and strengthen improvements in those who were not in position of power in both top-down and bottom-up initiated action research. However, in the top-down initiative, the external researcher could not emancipate the participants in relation to the question whose choice it is to conduct action research, unlike in the bottom-up initiative. The findings indicate that involving external researchers in action research aiming for emancipation or not is not the relevant question. Instead, the question of relevance is what is required from external researchers in order to contribute to emancipation, a central question for all participants, for developing meaningful collaboration between school organisations and universities.

KEYWORDS:

• Bottom-up
• collaboration
• empowerment
• participatory action research
• top-down

Introduction and aim

This article highlights emancipation and empowerment in top-down and bottom-up initiated action research with external researchers. For decades, action researchers in the educational field have been critical of top-down action research approaches, initiated or designed by others, for example policy makers or researchers, other than those who are participating, for example principals, teachers and students (e.g. Carr and Kemmis 1986; Kemmis 2006; Somekh and Zeichner 2009). Such initiatives are said to be instrumental, aiming at effective practices or implementing reforms, and risk mastering principals, teachers and students instead of empowering them. Carr and Kemmis (1986) as well as Kemmis (2014) even claim that emancipatory action research is constrained by the participation of external researchers, due to the hierarchical relationship between external researchers and ‘inside’ participants. However, Salo and Rönnerman (2014), representing a Nordic action research tradition, argue for democratic collaboration between external researchers and internal co-researchers, as well as critical and emancipatory action research as a possible result of such collaborations.

This study takes a departure from the differing opinions mentioned above, as well as the opinions discussed and developed in Salo and Rönnerman (2014). The aim is to nuance the discussion about action research with external researchers in relation to emancipatory action research. The study examines two action research projects, one initiated top-down and one bottom-up, both with an external action researcher from the university with practical as well as critical and empowering intentions. The research question is: What opportunities and challenges for emancipatory action research can be identified for participants in top-down versus bottom-up initiated action research with an external researcher?

The study is relevant for nuancing descriptions of action research and problematising action research initiatives and arguments for such initiatives. In Sweden, the national context for the projects examined in this study, action research is an attractive strategy to improve schools. Furthermore, on a national level, a pilot project involved universities and schools conducting research in relevance for both universities and schools in collaboration, carried out between year 2017 and 2021 (now extended to 2024). In all these initiatives, it is important to understand what can be achieved within action research projects and collaborations between external researchers and inside participants based on how the projects are initiated and organised with, for example, external researchers.

Next, ideas about emancipatory top-down versus bottom-up initiated action research with external researchers are developed in relation to the discussion in Salo and Rönnerman (2014). Then the theoretical framework for the analysis and the context for the two action research projects are described.

Background

As a research approach, action research can lead to changed practices (Bradbury et al. 2008; Gustavsen, Hansson, and Qvale 2008). In schools, the focus can be school improvement, improvement of teaching and learning or improvement of the conditions for suppressed actors. Regardless of the focus, the starting point is the practitioners’ needs to improve their practices, and important elements are dialogue and learning. Van Manen (1990) emphasises that action research needs to start from personal engagement rather than being assignment or contract based.

Participatory action research, PAR, an approach in which researchers and inside participants collaborate to understand and improve practices, accentuates that action research is a collaborative assignment for all participants (Kemmis and McTaggart 2005). Then, according to PAR, the critical reflective perspective in action research, i.e. interaction of theory (reflection) and practice (action) (e.g. McNiff 1997) as well as interaction between action, observation of action and reflection on action in cyclical processes (McNiff 1997), has to involve all of the participants in order to generate new questions and new practices. Gustavsen (1996, 2001) highlights democracy as a key concept for this in PAR; in a democratic dialogue, all participants engage, support each other to be active, all have the same status and accept that other participants can have better arguments than the ones you have yourself.

In practice, the starting point for action research is not always personal needs or engagement, and the dialogues in action research with external researchers and inside participants are not always democratic. Carr and Kemmis (1986) distinguish between technical, practical and emancipatory action research. Technical action research is instrumental, often top-down initiated and focused on implementation. The research questions may not even be relevant to those whose practice is going to be improved. In practical action research on the other hand, the aim is to change the participants’ understanding of their practice. In such an approach, an external researcher can support the inside participants in the practice that is about to be improved by formulating needs, planning actions and reflecting over actions together with the participants. In emancipatory action research, inside practitioners take responsibility, or ownership, for the research process to change practices. Carr and Kemmis (1986) claim that such a process is stunted by an external researcher, who, as an outsider, takes the role of formulating questions and observing the insiders in practice. However, according to Carr and Kemmis (2005), technical action research is common in the educational field. Kemmis (2006, 2014) points out that technical approaches lack a critical aspect needed in action research and as such are inadequate as action research. Dahlström and Lemma (2008) refers to them as neo liberal viruses.

Zuber-Skerritt (1992) questions Carr and Kemmis (1986) division of action research, and rather considers the three different kinds of action research as dimensions characterised in different stages in action research. Noffke (1997, 2009) highlights that action research is not static. She offers three interrelated and fluid dimensions in action research, the professional, the personal, and the political. The professional dimension is related to professional development and development of professional practices. The personal dimension is about examining one’s own professional practice based on individual problems both individually and together with others. The political dimension concerns social aspects, democratisation and empowerment, and can be embedded in the other two dimensions. Based on the dimensions Noffke (1997, 334) questions power dynamics related to and within action research: ‘Who and what is being “developed” and by whom, and, most important, in whose interests?’

Unlike Carr and Kemmis (1986), Salo and Rönnerman (2014) stress a possibility for democratic collaboration and partnership between universities and schools within action research with external researchers. They point out that, in the Nordic context they represent, dialogues and mutual knowledge production have their starting point in the Nordic tradition of study circles in associations and society. In these study circles, knowledge has been and is constructed through interaction and dialogue with others in line with PAR (Rönnerman, Salo, and Furu 2008). To produce knowledge together, democratic dialogues and communicative spaces are important (Gustavsen 2001). Furthermore, for critical reflection, risk-taking is needed from all participants (Wennergren 2014).

According to the Nordic tradition presented above, external researchers can strengthen ‘inside’ participants in their practice (Salo and Rönnerman 2014). Furthermore, researchers within this tradition claim that top-down initiated projects conducted with external researchers can emancipate the participants (e.g. Langelotz and Rönnerman 2014; Wennergren 2014). In a study with principals, Forssten Seiser (2020) found that the principals’ interest changed from technical to critical and emancipatory during the research process due to voluntary participation and trustful relationships. When principals started testing leadership actions, the hierarchy between the external researcher and the principals dissolved, and the involvement among the principals increased. Zhang et al. (2014) went from frustration about the possibilities of conducting critical action research to belief in the opportunities to develop technical approaches to emancipatory, assisted by the scrutiny of their projects as well as Noffke’s professional, personal and political dimensions. Forsman et al. (2014) found that principals and teachers need support from external researchers to identify opportunities and obstacles in the practices they have to improve. However, they claim that improved practices can take time to reach, and that it is more difficult for external researchers to become critical friends when the initiative for action research is taken from outside than if it comes from the participants themselves.

In any event, collaboration is not free from challenges. Action research studies within the tradition represented by Salo and Rönnerman report challenges such as differences in assumptions of researchers and practitioners, power-relationships between external researcher and other participants, and lack of time for research for participants except for external researchers (Forsman et al. 2014; Lendahl Rosendahl and Rönnerman 2006).

According to the different ideas presented above there seem to be both black and white and more nuanced descriptions of top and bottom-up initiated action research and action research with external researchers. Furthermore, there seem to be both opportunities and challenges in relation to emancipatory action research with external researchers.

Theoretical framework for studying emancipation in action research

Emancipation can be understood as a release from a state of incapacity or subordination and as self-determination, equality and empowerment. To understand opportunities and challenges to conduct emancipatory action research in top-down versus bottom-up initiatives with an external researcher, this study applies a synthesis of significant ideas in PAR and Nordic action research traditions, and Anderson and Herr’s (1999) principles for trustworthiness in action research studies, as a theoretical framework (Table 1). Anderson and Herr (1999) highlight democratic validity, result validity, dialogical validity and catalytic validity as important in action research. They also highlight process validity, which is significant in all kinds of research and therefore left aside in the theoretical framework.

Table 1. A theoretical framework for studying emancipation in action research.

	Variables for studying critical emancipatory action research
	Democracy and participation: a democratic process involving and being meaningful for all participants	Critical reflection and dialogue: a dialogic process based on joint reflection on action and action based on reflectiocn	Improvement and empowerment: a developing process resulting in improved practices and improved understanding of the practices for all participants
PAR and Nordic action research traditions	Democracy Equity Equality Involvement	Reciprocal action Critical reflection Critical dialogue Communicative spaces	Changed practice Changed understanding Empowerment
Validity in action research	Democratic validity	Dialogic validity	Catalytic validity Result validity

Trustworthiness in relation to democracy concerns the degree to which all participants are involved and cooperating, and the degree to which the researcher collaborates with the participants and takes everyone’s perspective into consideration (Anderson and Herr 1999). Democratic validity conforms to the thoughts of democracy, equality and equity in PAR. Taken overall, these ideas concern democracy and participation.

Result validity concerns the extent to which research contributes to an increased understanding of the dilemma studied through the parts of the action research spiral, observation, reflection, planning and action (Anderson and Herr 1999). Dialogic validity concerns the extent to which the research is conducted to achieve a reflective and critical dialogue both between the participants and with outsiders (Anderson and Herr 1999). The ideas of trustworthiness in relation to result and dialogue conform to the thoughts of reciprocal action and critical reflection involving all participants, as well as the thoughts of collaboration and communicative spaces in PAR and Nordic action research traditions. Taken overall, these ideas concern critical reflection and dialogue.

Catalytic validity concerns the ability to develop the participants’ understanding of their practice and planning of a change of the practice (Anderson and Herr 1999). Catalytic validity conforms to the thoughts of action research as a contribution to an improved practice and improved understanding of practice in PAR, and the thoughts in Nordic action research traditions of the researcher’s role to strengthen the participants in their practice. Taken overall, these ideas concern improvement and empowerment.

The synthesis then consists of three variables for the analysis: 1) democracy and participation, 2) critical reflection and dialogue, and 3) improvement and empowerment.

Material and methods

The data in this study come from two action research projects, one initiated top-down (called TD) and one initiated bottom-up (called BU), chosen because they are opposite to each other in many respects. I participated as an external researcher in both. TD started in 2009, and continued for one-and-a-half years. BU started in 2020, and continued for thirteen months. Democracy, participation, collaboration, dialogue, improvement and empowerment were intended premises in both.

In TD, ten school leaders and their manager in an Upper Secondary School management team participated. Based on observations of students lacking motivation for learning and of a discourse on national level about enterprise education, the manager planned for the initiation and organisation of enterprise education together with the principals. They chose one of the principals as a coordinator. Because of the local school board demanding that all principals in the municipality should use action research as an approach in school development, they chose to conduct action research. The coordinating principal asked me to conduct action research together with her and her colleagues. They allotted time for the action research process. My role was to contribute to their learning as critical friend, to open up new perspectives for joint reflection, and get them to talk about what they otherwise would not. The local school board funded the research for me as a part of my doctoral studies.

In BU, the participants were two principals with responsibility to lead approximately 100 mother-tongue language teachers with teaching assignments in several schools in the same municipality. Based on the principals’ observations that the teaching by these teachers had to be improved, the principals appointed eleven teachers as teacher leaders to lead the teachers’ professional learning for improved teaching practices. The principals asked me to conduct research together with them to gain a deeper understanding of their own leading practices and to improve these in order to lead the teacher leaders. My role was to contribute with research expertise and to model methods for exploring the practices. Their school board funded the research for all of us, a requirement from me. For me, the joint research was an opportunity to reflect upon how, as a researcher, I could improve my collaboration with principals.

Data and analyses

This study is a self-study; it focuses on me as an external researcher. The data from both projects consist of (1) the reflective notes taken by the participants and myself from the joint action research processes, as well as (2) my field notes from joint work with the participants. The reflective notes document the development of the action research processes. The field notes indicate what was done and said within the joint work. My ideas and actions as an external researcher can be mirrored in the thoughts and actions of the other participants.

From TD, my reflective notes consist of plans for the process and summaries of conversations with the principals and the school manager, as well as my reflections on these conversations. The principals’ reflective notes consist of their thoughts of our joint work, voluntarily shared with me by email. The field notes consists of notes from eight joint meetings.

From BU, my reflective notes consist of field notes from 23 meetings with the principals, summaries of my own actions before and after the meetings with them as well as email conversations between us. The principals’ reflective notes consist of plans for professional learning for teacher leaders and summaries of their meetings with me and with the teacher leaders. Both my own and their notes focus what was done or observed, what we have learned based on actions and observations, and what we thought was wise to do next based on the learning outcomes. In both TD and BU, the participants conducted action research outside the observed meetings as well.

The data were analysed based on the three variables presented above, 1) democracy and participation, 2) critical reflection and dialogue, and 3) improvement and empowerment. Firstly, summarised descriptions of the action research process within each project (TD and BU) were written from the perspective of each variable. Each summary was approximately five computer-written pages long. Secondly, based on the written summaries, opportunities and challenges for the participants to conduct democratic, critical and emancipatory action research with an external researcher in each initiative were identified. Finally, what was included in the opportunities and challenges for such action research was interpreted with inspiration from Brown and Clarke’s (2006) thematic analysis. Themes including both opportunities and challenges were identified.

Findings

Opportunities and challenges in top-down and bottom-up action research initiatives with external researchers are presented in the form of the four themes, formulated as questions, identified in the analysis: Whose choice? Improvement for what? Whose voice? Improvement for whom?

Whose choice?

The analysis shows that the question ‘Whose choice?’ is relevant from a democratic and participatory perspective when it comes to challenges but also opportunities in (emancipatory) action research with an external researcher in TD and BU. The question is relevant in relation to both initiating and continuing an action research project.

In TD, my reflective notes from the start of the project are characterised by optimism about creative meetings and engaged principals:

The principals engaged themselves in questions such as what enterprise education was, and exchanged ideas about how to organise for enterprise education. I facilitated their identification of methods for following up actions, and encouraged them all to engage in dialogue during joint work (my reflective notes).

However, after a couple of months, the principals started to prioritise daily tasks and cancelled joint meetings for research. Only when the school manager participated did the principals give the impression of engagement. As an external researcher, I interpreted this as principals not having a need for enterprise education and as lacking opportunities to be honest about this. In my reflective notes, I questioned whether all principals were involved in developing knowledge. Some of them would have probably opted out had it been their choice to conduct action research, which questioned the basics of action research as research being based on volunteerism and the participants’ own needs.

After one-and-a-half years, the question ‘Whose choice?’ became relevant again. New improvements should be initiated and the action research had to end. Principals who had not voluntarily chosen to participate in the research would now like to, but could not. Once again, this was not the principals’ choice; they did what they had to do. As an external researcher, I could not empower them to continue.

In BU, the principals both expressed that there was a need for a joint research project to improve their leading practices. However, in the beginning of the process, I reflected upon them in action as they wanted me to lead and explore the teacher leaders’ professional learning. I questioned how that was ‘joint’ and challenged them to lead dialogues with the teacher leaders based on videotaped professional learning meetings with teacher leaders leading colleagues. Moreover, I offered to model such a dialogue. This deepened the principals’ understanding of a need for a joint research project:

The principals have moved from hesitating leading professional learning dialogues with teacher leaders to planning how to organise these dialogues and how to support each other. Today they even expressed the importance of leading the dialogues and thanked me for challenging them (my reflective notes).

The quote reveals that the principals became convinced of the need for joint action research during the process; I strengthened and empowered their choice. During the whole process, they kept expressing the value of engaging in researching leading practices.

Taken overall, in TD, the external researcher could not contribute to emancipatory action research for the principals by strengthening their choice neither initially nor at the end. In BU, on the other hand, the external researcher could strengthen and empower the principals in their choice.

Improvement for what?

The analysis shows that the question ‘Improvement for what?’ is relevant from a critical reflective perspective when it comes to opportunities and challenges in emancipatory action research with an external researcher in TD and BU. The question was relevant in relation to what practices needed to be improved and why.

In TD, the principals initially ended up in a reflective dialogue about what and how in relation to understanding enterprise education. As an external researcher, I noticed that they were implicitly expressing needs and fears, confirmed by them in their reflective notes, but ignored in further actions. This confused me:

Then the question is: how do I move on? Have I completely misunderstood the situation – is this not the burning issue for the principals? (my reflective notes)

My reflections as an external researcher helped me to realise that the participants had different understandings about what the action research process aimed at and why. The school manager expected a quick implementation of enterprise education, the principals expected me to give them tools for quick implementation, and I expected the principals to become engaged in a creative process and find their own tools. For me, enterprise education was more a subordinate improvement of the conditions of the principals’ practice, to enable them to be honest.

The issues I identified as an external researcher were hard for the principals to prioritise. The coordinating principal reflected about pressure on everyday tasks; the documentation and reflection that action research demanded came second, which challenged participation and critical reflection and thereby action research. In any event, after a year, the principals stated that it was valuable to have their actions mirrored and questioned. They began to reflect on their own conditions and expressed a desire for change. However, they expressed that they wanted me to conduct research on them and hoped that it could improve their practices.

In BU, the principals and I had a joint understanding over what to improve, namely the leading of professional learning. After a couple of meetings, we were all engaged in the research in order to be able to base further actions on a better understanding. All were aware of the need of each other to succeed. As an external researcher, I reflected on the importance of the principals taking the lead:

After this meeting, I realised a successful approach was to model how to lead the dialogues. It gave the model, now used by the principals, legitimacy among the teacher leaders. Today they expressed the importance of the principals leading these dialogues to be aware of challenges when leading conversations for professional learning. That would not be possible with me as leader (my reflective notes).

The principals expressed that they had gained a deeper understanding of what they needed to improve and why, namely their own understanding about leading; leading is not about organising for others to lead. Furthermore, they expressed insights about the importance of conducting analyses of leading practices together with teacher leaders and me, and how such analyses could be done. At one point, one of them stated that I had strengthened her self-esteem in how to explore leading practices by highlighting that I do not have any right answers on how to proceed in the research process; the participants managed to work on equal terms. In my reflective notes, I pointed out that the research process was slower than when conducting research myself, but that I valued the principals being active in leading teacher leaders’ professional learning as it was important for them to have and to keep the ownership of the knowledge that was produced and how it was produced.

Taken overall, in TD, the external researcher made it difficult for the principals by trying to make them do things they did not have the conditions to do, but at the same time, contributed to insights that made it easier for them to handle their situation and empower them to listen to their needs. Furthermore, in BU, the external researcher contributed to deepening the understanding of what needed to be improved, both for the external researcher and the principals, as a way for them to improve leading practices in meaningful cooperation.

Whose voice?

The analysis shows that the question ‘Whose voice?’ is relevant from a critical dialogic perspective when it comes to opportunities and challenges in emancipatory action research with an external researcher in TD and BU. The question is relevant in relation to strengthening weaker voices or ensuring that they are heard.

In TD, voices of the school manager and some of the principals, those who had a need for enterprise education and whose teachers had asked for improved conditions for enterprise education, were initially heard. The rest of the principals were suppressed in a culture in which all principals could not speak up. A basis for honest dialogue was not created when barriers were erected. As soon as more than two principals were involved, barriers arose in the dialogue. The principals did not want to share their written reflections with colleagues, only with me. Although the coordinating principal and I discussed what the principals were implicitly asking for, and continually changed our strategies, my reflective notes show that it was not until my last feedback to the principals, at the end of our joint process, that all principals were open with their inner thoughts:

One told that they as principals competed with each other and another acknowledged a lack of understanding of how enterprise education could be helpful for teachers and students (my reflective notes).

The need for a more practical and emancipatory action research in order to improve the principals’ prerequisites and to make their voices heard grew stronger as time went by. The principals’ plan changed from an idea of organising and anchoring enterprise education in the same way, to everyone doing it their own way. An understanding of each other’s practices and dilemmas was developed. Both a principal and I reflected upon this as a breakthrough for the continuing work of the principals.

In BU, the principals’ voices and my own voice, as well as the teacher leaders’ and teachers’ voices were heard. My reflective notes reveal an intention to empower the principals in our collaboration to enable them to take a more active role. I suggested methods for the joint research, methods always discussed with the principals and often changed after the discussions. After discussing how to videotape leading practices, I reflected that my research-based suggestions do not always fit their conditions. Without their input in our planning, our actions would have been less successful.

The principals contributed with key aspects based on their context knowledge, while I noticed when their scepticism towards specific methods was based on insecurity or on actual constraints in conditions. During one meeting one of the principals reflected that:

‘I have to admit that it felt scary to lead the professional learning dialogues. I do not know if I have the competence to ask the teacher leaders critical questions about their practices. Without you challenging us we would have backed off’ (my reflective notes).

Furthermore, as an external researcher I eliminated the risk that the principals’ voices might dominate the teacher leaders’ and teachers’ voices, those who were the main characters in the professional learning. The principals stated that they became aware of the importance of letting all teacher leaders and teachers express their voices because they noticed how teacher leaders and teachers became empowered by the principals attending their professional learning meetings, exploring leading practices together with the teacher leaders, and asking teachers about their learning conditions. How to create opportunities for all participants in the professional learning to express their voices was reflected on by the principals.

Taken overall, the external researcher in TD contributed to a shift from some principals’ voices being heard to all principals’ voices being heard, from silence and suppression to openness. In BU, the external researcher contributed to the researcher’s voice becoming more moderate in relation to the principals and the principals’ voices becoming more moderate in relation to the voices of those involved in the professional learning.

Improvement for whom?

The analysis shows that the question ‘Improvement for whom?’ is relevant from an improving and empowering perspective when it comes to opportunities and challenges for emancipatory action research with an external researcher in TD and BU. The question was relevant in relation to the outcomes of the initiatives.

In TD, as an external researcher, I expressed the question as ‘For whom do we do this?’ in my notes after working with the principals for six months. It became clear to me that the conditions needed to be changed before the action research process could proceed and I proposed to pause the research collaboration. The principals reflected upon that as a relief, which, as an external researcher, I interpreted as that they had tried to conduct action research for my sake. The improvement work slowed down partly due to resistance from teachers, but also thanks to questions from me to the school manager. The school manager changed his understanding of the principals’ improvement practices during the action research process. Initially, the school manager set high demands by stating that he expected the principals to deliver change within a year. However, after a year, the school manager spoke of the benefit of minor changes and reflected that he needed to create a forum for open and honest conversations.

At the end of the collaboration, the principals expressed an increased understanding of their own practices. They could put into words the conditions that prevailed; that they were afraid to anchor enterprise education among reluctant teachers and that they felt that there was insufficient trust in the principal group to air these fears. They claimed that their conditions for joint work had improved thanks to the feedback from an external researcher:

We cooperate better […] because it is clear what we actually agree upon, what we want to achieve, compared to how it was before (principal’s reflective notes).

Furthermore, they expressed that they had gone from frustration over having to implement enterprise education in a specific way, to relief in being able to find a way that fits their own school organisation.

In BU, I reflected on the risk having a dominating role in the collaboration with the principals. My focus was to avoid dominating problem formulation, method selection, data collection, analysis and the presentation of results. In my conversations with the principals, I questioned their formulations of joint action research and explorative methods, and their thoughts of the added value. When expressing my worry about the process becoming technical I understood they had well-reasoned thoughts about my concerns:

They told me (…) they needed to learn explorative methods to observe and analyse leading and teaching practices in order to improve these practices. They stressed they couldn’t expect anybody else to do that for them. ‘We have to practise together with you to be able to later do it ourselves’ (my reflective notes).

In our further conversations the principals became aware of not always acting in line with their intentions. At the end of the collaboration, they stated that the cooperation with me had been developing and helped them to take an active role as leaders; together we had managed to improve the conditions for the teacher leaders. The principals also reflected upon a more passive role they usually took in both leading and in collaborations with researchers or consultants, what they actually needed them for, and what former collaborations had enabled and constrained based on how they were organised. They stressed that they had to take a clearer ownership in such collaborations and that they could both cope with and demand more equal collaborations.

Taken overall, in TD, the external researcher could not contribute to the school managers’ wish to implement enterprise education, but to the school manager’s action to start to improve the conditions for the principals. The external researcher could take the risk to question the assumptions of the joint research and to some extent empowered the principals. In BU, the external researcher could emancipate the principals in relation to the external researcher.

Discussion and conclusion

This study critically examines two action research projects, one top-down project with an Upper Secondary School management team and one bottom-up project with principals, both with an external action researcher from the university, to nuance discussions among action researchers as to whether or not external researchers are able to contribute to emancipatory action research. Four central questions were identified in the analysis, whose choice, improvement for what, whose voice, and improvement for whom. The analysis points out that an external researcher could empower the understanding of the inside participants of what to improve, contribute to all voices to be heard, and strengthen improvements in those who were not in a position of power in both top-down and bottom-up initiated action research. However, in the top-down initiative, the external researcher could not emancipate the participants in relation to the question whose choice it is to conduct action research, unlike in the bottom-up initiative.

By examining emancipation in action research based on variables combining ideas in PAR, Nordic action research traditions and Anderson and Herr’s (1999) principles of trustworthiness, the study shows that external researchers can have an important role in democratic, critical and emancipatory action research. The findings indicate that external researchers with practical and critical interests aiming to empower people can partially challenge top-down initiated action research and develop instrumental approaches into more critical ones by focusing on whose voice and ensuring critical dialogue by all voices being heard. Furthermore, the findings show that having external researchers does not have to result in lost ownership of what to improve, and how for the ‘insider’ researchers, in bottom-up initiated action research. On the contrary, external researchers can develop practical, and even technical, approaches to more emancipatory. The findings are in line with Zuber-Skerritt (1992) and confirm Salo and Rönnerman’s (2014) estimate that the interaction between external researchers and inside participants are central for improvement.

However, based on the challenges in relation to whose choice and improvement for whom, and questions that became obvious in the action research process in the top-down initiative it is relevant to problematise the possibilities of top-down initiated action research with external researchers in order to be emancipatory. The findings show that Kemmis (2014) critique of Salo and Rönnerman’s (2014) idea of democratic cooperation between external researchers and inside participants must be considered. Democratic interaction and participation is challenging to achieve. The action research strategy in the top-down initiated project can be regarded as a false freedom or a neoliberal virus (Dahlström and Lemma 2008). Unlike the external researcher, the inside participants neither chose to nor had the conditions to really participate, and the project did not start from their personal engagement (Van Manen 1990). It was unclear for whom the actions in the project were for. The inside participants’ focus on doing instead of reflecting and not participating on a voluntary basis constrained democracy and participation, but also reciprocal interaction between reflection and action, and critical dialogue. The research was not a collaborative assignment for all participants (Kemmis and McTaggart 2005). Therefore, it is relevant to focus on who seizes the discourse and who gets funding to be able to participate. This dilemma needs to be emphasised and overcome to promote improvement and empowerment. In the bottom-up initiative, the inside participants had the conditions to participate due to funding from the school board, a conscious act from the external researcher to be able to produce knowledge on equal terms and ensuring improvement for all participants.

Furthermore, the idea of democratic cooperation between external researchers and inside participants has to be problematised based on the challenges in relation to the question of improvement for what. In the top-down initiated action research, a dilemma emerged to the external researcher between the assignment to conduct action research with the inside participants and the observations of their real needs. What needed to be improved and why? The question is how the initiative-takers thought that action research could be useful, for what, to whom, and how. The inside participants obviously did not need the technical action research the initiative-takers asked for. But did they have a need for a more emancipatory action research that aimed for a more professional practice for them? Initially, the external researcher made their work even more difficult by involving them in critical reflection. Although, the inside participants expressed that they wanted to change the conditions for their practice, but were constrained from doing it themselves. They became dependent on the external researcher, a dependence also found in other studies (i.e. Forsman et al. 2014). In relation to Carr and Kemmis (1986), it is relevant to ask if the external researcher took over the inside participants’ ownership. On the other hand, the findings indicate they never had an ownership nor thought they could improve the conditions for their practices. The external researcher took over the inside participants’ responsibilities in critical action research, but could contribute by making their voices heard when they did not have the power to do that themselves. The participants seemed to consider it as a service (compare Forsman et al. 2014) and something that empowered them in the end.

In the bottom-up initiative, there seems to be a similar dilemma, between the assignment to conduct action research with the inside participants and the observations of their actions in the beginning of the process and their reflections in the end. The question is how the researchers they have been working with previously thought that collaboration could be useful, for what, to whom, and how. The external researcher focused on and succeeded in not taking the ownership. To some extent, she made herself superfluous in further collaboration, a finding that confirms Carr and Kemmis (1986) statement about external researchers in critical and emancipatory action research. The inside participants realised that they did not have any use for external researchers that dominated and expressed insights about what they really had use for. Based on this a burning question is how far researchers from the university are prepared to go if and when they discover that schools set new requirements.

Taken overall, the conclusion is that involving external researchers in action research aimed at empowerment and emancipation or not is not the relevant question. Instead, the question of relevance is what is required from external researchers in order to contribute to emancipation and empowerment. Whose choice, improvement for what, whose voice and improvement for whom, are critical questions to reflect on for researchers with practical and emancipatory intentions. The questions are similar to those previously expressed by Noffke (1997); who and what is being developed, by whom and in whose interest. However, the question, improvement for what, includes why something needs to be improved; emancipatory effects require an appealing and accepted ‘why’ for all the participants to enable them to engage in democratic dialogues for important improvements for all of them. According to the findings, risk-taking in challenging top-down initiatives, but also own academic practices is required (compare Wennergren 2014). A crucial role for the external researcher, in both top-down and bottom-up initiatives, was to ensure that all participants’ voices, experiences and opinions were expressed. It seems to be easier for an outsider than for inside participants to challenge initiative-takers in technical action research approaches. That is a role and a risk that an external researcher has the power to take. However, that role includes ethical dilemmas and requires openness in dialogue with the initiative-takers about observed problems in the process. The external researcher’s shift in focus from implementation to bringing out the participants’ voices, an emancipatory aspect of action research, led to new openings in collaboration, and favoured the initiative-takers. These openings might have led to an improvement of the professional practice if the desired changes were allowed to take time (compare Forsman et al. 2014).

In the bottom-up initiative, a main role was to emancipate and empower the inside participants in relation to the external researcher. It required the external researcher to consciously muffle her own voice and to continually encourage the inside participants to take the lead, to observe what happened when she took a step back, and to recognise the benefits for the inside participants to do that. That brings forth a question of the possibilities for external researchers to challenge and become aware of their own practices and the consequences of those. It takes courage to let go of power if, as an external researcher, you are used to having a dominant role as well as the courage to question the benefits for schools from collaborations with external researchers. It may require efforts in which researchers help each other to critically study their own actions in relation to emancipation and empowerment for the inside participants. Furthermore, how much an objective among the external researchers to publish research based on the collaboration affects the opportunities for emancipation and empowerment for the inside participants, as was the case in the top-down initiative in this study. What happens when publication is a driving force for why to conduct action research? These are aspects for further research to develop knowledge in.

Finally, it is important to point out that the cases in this study should be considered as examples of top-down and bottom-up initiated action research projects. All action research projects are unique and should be considered as such. There were, for example, eleven years between both of the action research projects. The external researcher, a doctoral student in the top-down project, could have probably acted differently, for example, to have the courage to take more risks, with more experience. In that case, it is possible that the improvement work could have been paused even earlier, could have led to democratic interaction taking place earlier, and in more parts of the process. Thus, it is possible that the action research with the external researcher could have emancipated and empowered the participants differently than it did. In the same way, a less experienced action researcher in the bottom-up initiative could have resulted in less emancipation for the inside participants. Furthermore, the external researcher’s experience is only one of several aspects that affect an action research project.

Moreover, it is important to point out and bear in mind that technical action research with an observer from outside might sometimes be what the participants need for support in their practice, if it is their choice, if they are aware of what to improve and if they are aware of whose voices are central to take into account and who the improvements are for. Furthermore, it is important to bear in mind that collaboration between external researchers and inside participants is a long-term process and that preparatory work might be required for a long time before emancipatory and empowering effects can be realised, if that is needed.

The practical implications from the study, are to not categorise action research projects and to regard some projects or collaborations between universities and schools as fruitful or not, based on how they are organised. Collaboration in itself has to be problematised; it can, but does not have to, benefit schools. There is no recipe for fruitful collaboration, but central to succeeding is for the researchers to take responsibility in improving the opportunities for meaningful collaborations for both parties. This is of specific importance in times when action research and collaborations are considered as successful ways to improve schools, and for researchers who are involved in such collaborations. The questions identified in this study, whose choice, improvement for what, whose voice, and improvement for whom, can be used by participants in collaborations with practical and emancipatory intentions, to make visible both strengths and weaknesses in the collaborations. The answers to the questions signal a degree of participation and democracy, critical reflection and dialogue, and improvement and empowerment in a project.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).