Available via license: CC BY-NC 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=zedu20
Education Inquiry
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/zedu20
Practice-near school research in Sweden:
tendencies and teachers’ roles
Petra Magnusson & Martin Malmström
To cite this article: Petra Magnusson & Martin Malmström (2022): Practice-near
school research in Sweden: tendencies and teachers’ roles, Education Inquiry, DOI:
10.1080/20004508.2022.2028440
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2022.2028440
© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa
UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.
Published online: 13 Feb 2022.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 762
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Practice-near school research in Sweden: tendencies and
teachers’ roles
Petra Magnusson
a
and Martin Malmström
b
a
Faculty of teacher education, Department of Humanities, Kristianstad University, Kristianstad, Sweden;
b
The Joint Faculties of Humanities and Theology, Department of Educational Sciences, Lund University,
Lund, Sweden
ABSTRACT
The Education Act from 2010 states that education in Sweden
ought to be based on scientic knowledge and proven experience.
The aim of this study is to explore practice-near school research
published by Swedish researchers in the wake of the Education
Act with the focus on the participation of teachers in research. As
a background, the international and national roots of practice-near
school research in Sweden are described. The study is focused on
research projects in compulsory and upper secondary school,
school years 1–12. 92 articles in 19 journals were detected through
a literature search and purposive sampling. Based on the articles,
a framework of aspects with categories was developed and the
reported studies were analysed accordingly. The ndings indicate
a multifaceted research eld; studies based on a variety of theories
and methods and with dierent roles for teachers. The dierent
categories for teacher’s participation in research and how teacher
roles were described in the articles did not give a clear picture on
what teachers’ roles could imply for the teachers involved. The
article concludes with a discussion of the recent policy initiatives
of practice-near school research in Sweden.
ARTICLE HISTORY
KEYWORDS
Collaborative research;
education policy; knowledge
interests; practice-near
school research; teacher
roles
Introduction
In Sweden, as well as in other countries, efforts to make education research-based have
been manifold (Aasen & Prøitz, 2004; Adolfsson & Sundberg, 2018), focusing, not least,
on the collaboration between researchers and practitioners. Thus, what we henceforth
will call practice-near school research
1
has been on the agenda (Somekh & Zeichner,
2009), both in policy and the media. This is an international trend in educational policy
to stimulate better links between research and practice, and to bring close-to-practice
issues to the forefront in educational research (Wyse et al., 2018).
An important reason for the emphasis on practice-near school research in Sweden is
the wording in the Education Act (SFS 2010:800), which declares that the education
should be based on “scientific knowledge and proven experience”. The Swedish
National Agency for Education, SNAE (2014), explains “scientific knowledge” as “the-
oretical rooting, elaboration and development, as well as an empirical basis” (p. 11), and
CONTACT Martin Malmström martin.malmstrom@uvet.lu.se Department of Educational Sciences, Lund
University, Lund 221 00, Sweden
EDUCATION INQUIRY
https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2022.2028440
© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
“proven experience” as teacher knowledge that is tried and tested collegially, and
documented. These understandings are widely used, even though disputed (Persson &
Persson, 2017). Considering the rise in numbers of publications, it seems plausible that
the wording in the Education Act (SFS 2010:800) has increased the interest for practice-
near school research.
2
Since practice-near school research and collaboration between
researchers and practitioners are endorsed in policy and politics, and since the field is
ever-increasing, it is important to investigate what kind of research is the result.
In Sweden, the scientific base of the educational reforms of the 1950s and 1960s
stressed the importance of a mutual exchange of information between researchers and
policymakers (SOU 1980:2). This partly led to the instrumental belief that research
results would be possible to transform into didactical imperatives without intermediary
interpretations (Aasen & Prøitz, 2004), a view that was problematised by the research
programmes launched by SNAE during the 1990s. The programmes were an important
step in the transition from an instrumental attitude to research to a view based on
understanding, in which the research would lead to actors’ participation in the research
process and reflection of their activities. Additionally, the new discipline Educational
Sciences was established in 2001, to strengthen the research base of teacher education
and to make teachers scientifically literate (Aasen & Prøitz, 2004; Askling, 2006). This
was followed by the launching of the Education Act (SFS 2010:800), and the founding
of the Swedish Institute for Educational Research, [Skolforskningsinstitutet] SKOLFI in
2015, whose mission is to make research summaries relevant for the practice, and fund
practice-near research projects. SKOLFI (2020) uses the concept praktiknära [practice-
near] to emphasise the importance of proximity to teaching.
3
From 2010 onwards, the
importance of practice-near research has been continually stressed, and several initia-
tives for encouraging practice-near research have been launched. On a policy level, the
issue has been discussed in several official Government Official Reports following the
Education Act (e.g. SOU 2016:38, SOU 2017:35; SOU 2018:17; SOU 2018:19), but also
in the public arena, for example by the trade unions for teachers and headmasters (e.g.
Flodin et al., 2011; Jaara Åstrand, 2017). In the specific Government Official Report
(SOU 2018:19) on practice-near school research, Forska tillsammans [Do Research
Together], practice-near research is described as research that concentrates on the
needs of the practitioners, with the purpose to improve practice. The concept “practice-
developing research” is suggested, to illustrate the focus on practice improvement.
Other examples of efforts to make education research-based are research schools for
teachers and the recent initiative in the ULF agreement, (Utveckling [Development],
Lärande [Learning], Forskning [Research]), a pilot operation in 2017–2021 to bring
about models of collaboration between the academy and school to bridge a perceived
gap between theory and practice (ULF-avtal, 2020).
4
How the wording of the Education Act (SFS 2010:800) from 2010 has been inter-
preted and used in Swedish schools is investigated by Bergmark and Hansson (2020).
They show how SNAE endorses implementation of the Education Act, both as evi-
dence-based, that is the transformation of research results of what works in teaching,
and as evidence-informed, where the experiences of the teachers and the local context
are important aspects of how research results can be used (cf. Levinsson, 2013). Our
study has the aim to explore practice-near school research published by Swedish
researchers in the wake of the Education Act with the focus on the participation of
2P. MAGNUSSON AND M. MALMSTRÖM
teachers in research. The study is focused on research projects in compulsory and upper
secondary school, school years 1–12, and aims at answering the following research
questions: How can the practice-near research conducted in the light of the 2010
Education Act be described? How do teachers participate in the research? Thus, we
develop new knowledge on teacher involvement in the research process in Swedish
practice-near school research projects.
The article continues with historical background, theoretical approach, followed by
methodology, analysis procedure and results and, finally, discussion.
Brief historical background of practice-near research
In this section, we give a brief background of practice-near research. Our intention is to
illustrate that the practice-near research that is influenced by the Education Act (SFS
2010:800) has its historical roots in various kinds of practitioner research. Zeichner and
Noffke (2001) describe different traditions as different forms of practitioner research.
One is the tradition building on the action research associated with Lewin (1946) and
Corey. Following Lewin (1946), action research is a joint effort by researchers and
practitioners, in a spiral of different steps of planning, action, observation, and evalua-
tion (McTaggart, 1994), to develop practice and the understanding of the practice, but
also the place and context in which the research took place (Carr & Kemmis, 1986).
These ideas were spread to educational sciences and met the tradition from John
Dewey’s ideas of the teacher as both producer and consumer of knowledge about his/
her practice (Noffke, 1997). British action research projects during the 1960s and 1970s
put the emphasis on the teacher as researcher (c.f. Elliot, 1990; Stenhouse, 1988).
Similarly, in the U.S., the teacher researcher movement and the self-study tradition
forwarded ideas of teachers (and teacher educators) who studied their teaching, often
with qualitative methods. The teachers were considered to have a specific knowledge of
the practice that a researcher did not (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993). Another tradition
is participatory action research, which originated in the third world but later spread,
and, for instance, dealt with marginalised groups in the U.S. and focused on raising
awareness and strengthening the oppressed (Zeichner & Noffke, 2001).
Sweden has a tradition of action research in research on social work, for instance
studies of the emerging urban districts of The Million Programme (Roos, 2021). In
research on education, action research emerged in the 1990s (Rönnerman & Salo,
2017). Rönnerman and Salo (2012) consider the historical and contextual Nordic
heritage of a tension between “Bildung”, pedagogy, and citizenship in the welfare
state as favourable for teachers to develop both personally and professionally in
collaborative research. Around this time the concept “practice-near research” started
to be used in educational policy. At the beginning of the new millennium, however, the
Committee for Educational Sciences published two reports in which they used the
concept “praxis-near research”, stressing the importance of not only developing prac-
tice, but also contributing to knowledge formation (Rönnerman, 2018). During the last
decade, though, the concept practice-near research has had a renaissance, but its scope
is narrowed to research for improving the practice.
EDUCATION INQUIRY 3
Theoretical approaches
Practice-near research can take various forms. In this section, we describe some
categorisations that are widely used. Also, theories on the roles of practitioners and
researchers in this kind of research are presented.
Categorisation
All in all, action research is the most widely used concept internationally. Most
advocates would probably claim that some of the features of action research are that
it should be collaborative, participatory, emancipatory, and critical. It is recursive and
includes a number of action research cycles (Wright, 2020). The concept is, however,
used about as differing research undertakings as the critical social research in partici-
patory action research and teacher research aiming at developing teaching methods (cf.
Zeichner & Noffke, 2001). In the seminal Becoming Critical, Carr and Kemmis (1986)
discuss emancipatory possibilities in action research, drawing from Habermas’ (1971)
theory of knowledge interests. In action research, they see knowledge interests as:
technical, aiming at increasing the how of teaching; practical, to increase the actors’
self-reflection; and critical, with an emancipatory interest in self-directed action. In
research with a predominantly technical knowledge interest, the practice is used as
a field for empirical experiments where the researcher can stage various studies of
teaching methods. In practical action research, the researchers take part as participants
in research and in cooperation with the teachers plan, undertake, and evaluate research
(Kemmis, 2009). Practical research fails, however, in taking account of the sociohisto-
rical context. Critical action research, which Carr and Kemmis (1986, Kemmis, 2009)
claim is needed for democratic development of teaching and learning, is a collaborative
process between practitioners and researchers whose joint efforts are adapted to, and
challenge, local conditions and needs (for a critique of the tripartite structure, see
Elliott, 2005, who claims action researchers do not necessarily have to become critical
theorists). In a later article, Carr and Kemmis (2005) discuss the social changes and the
difficulty of conducting critical action research projects in postmodern times when the
concept of action research has been used for research efforts in which the emancipatory
aspirations are out of sight in an era of evidence, measuring, and de-professionalisation
of teachers.
Similarly, Noffke (1997, 2009) identifies three dimensions to describe variations of
action research: the personal, when teachers in collaboration with researchers develop
an understanding of their practice or emphasise the individual versus collaborative
aspects of the work; the professional, when teachers develop a knowledge base for
teaching or stress changes in conditions of teachers’ professional environment; and the
political, when prerequisites and conditions for teaching and the change of which are
grounds to leverage social change. The political dimension is more or less prominent in
the other dimensions but underscored by Noffke (2009) as important in the wake of the
global reform movements and neoliberal policies of the last decade, where requests for
collaborative research could be seen as part of an increasingly perceptible performativ-
ity culture (Ball, 2003, 2015).
4P. MAGNUSSON AND M. MALMSTRÖM
Roles in collaborative research
Positions, type of cooperation, and the aim of research have been discussed as impor-
tant factors for what type of research that is realised. Of special concern for us are the
roles of the researchers and practitioners in the projects. Mattsson (2004) describes how
researchers and teachers oscillate between near and distant positions during research
projects and take on different roles. Persson (2020) argues that both researchers and
teachers should oscillate between closeness and distance. Collaboration is stressed in the
research, a “demanding target” according to Bevins and Price (2014). They distinguish
between coercive, client-supplier, and collaborative approaches. In a coercive approach,
the parties involved have been instructed to participate, and have neither control nor
resources to complete the task sufficiently. A client-supplier approach is either strong
on the academic side – the academics use the school as a “laboratory” – or on the
teacher side – the school is in charge of the project and uses the academic team for
support for specific purposes. A collaborative approach is characterised by willingness
to work together, awareness of each other’s working conditions and equality in power
relations. This collaborative approach is similar to Eriksson’s (2018) view on successful
collaborative practice-near research. Time for participation and the teachers taking part
in the problem definition and planning of the project are essential aspects (Eriksson,
2018; see also Vescio, Ross, & Adams, 2008; Curry, 2012). Eriksson (2018) stresses the
importance of having a mutual research object, and researchers’ and teachers’ collabor-
ating in planning and developing the teaching material. According to Prøitz et al.
(2020), it is crucial to engage the practitioners in different parts of the research process.
The practitioners bring their “first space” into the collaboration, and the researchers
their “second space”, with the possibility to create a “third space”, in which the
practitioners and the researchers meet on equal terms and bring their different compe-
tencies. According to Gustavsen (2001), the discourse on theory, and the discourse on
practice belong to different rationalities but may be linked in “the mediating discourse”,
that is a meeting place where researchers and practitioners in a democratic manner
exchange ideas and experiences (Mattsson, 2004).
To conclude, the research about collaboration between academics and teachers
emphasises including the teachers in all the phases of the research process: planning,
data collection, and analysis. Further, awareness of power relations and working con-
ditions is called for, and, finally, an open environment in which there is space for risk-
taking (Vescio et al., 2008).
Methodology
The study has an exploratory approach, suitable for the complex and multifaceted
research field relating to school education. To investigate the roles of the participating
teachers, we detected studies reported after the launch of the Education Act, from 2011
to 2019.
5
The methods used in the data collection and analysis are explained below.
Data collection and material
To identify relevant scientific articles published by Swedish researchers between 2011
and 2019, we initially conducted a broad search in Swepub (September, 2020) to get an
EDUCATION INQUIRY 5
overview of which journals Swedish researchers in the field use for publishing. Searches
were conducted in Swedish and English using a search string with the concepts
identified in a prior study (Serder & Malmström, 2020) supported by the concepts
used by SNAE, the Swedish Research Council and SKOLFI. We limited the search to
compulsory and upper secondary school and filtered at scientific referee reviewed
articles in educational science.
6
We detected 29 journals in educational science
among which 19 clearly state an interest in school practice and more or less explicitly
signal an interest in involving the school practice. For example, in aim and scope, The
International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies (2021) states “ . . . dedicated to
educational research that focuses directly on improving the quality of learning in
classrooms and other formal learning environments through pedagogical experiments
or action research”. The International Journal of Science Education (2021) publishes
“scholarly papers that focus on the teaching and learning of science in school settings”.
Further, the journal Educare (2020) states: “The journal constitutes a research forum for
faculty, practitioners and policymakers. [. . .] All submissions are judged based on their
relevance from a professional and educational perspective” whilst the journal
Nordidactica (2020) [our translation] states: “Subject Didactic Studies of Teaching
and Learning in Geography, History, Social Studies, Political Science and Religious
Studies are particularly focused upon . . . ”.
Our work onwards was carried out as criterion-driven purposive sampling
(Carpenter, 2017; Patton, 2002). The next step was to search for relevant studies
between January 2011 and December 2019 in the selected journals. The international
journals covered in ERIC and Web of Science were scanned for articles by researchers
at Swedish universities describing studies that included some sort of interaction with
the school practice, and the journals based in the Nordic countries were scanned
through their digital archives, year by year. To begin with, we read the abstracts with
keywords to identify articles describing the projects as collaboration, practice-near,
practice-based or the like. In several abstracts, explicit concepts that we consider as
belonging to the field are used. In other articles, field related concepts are not explicitly
used in the abstract or as keywords, but the articles were selected since upon further
reading they proved to meet our criteria of being practice-near (cf. Dixon-Woods et al.,
2006). The articles that finally became part of our material are those that present
projects that describe an interaction with school practice in some part of the research
process. The data selection resulted in 92 articles distributed over 19 journals, see
Table 1.
The selection of articles needs to be commented on. Since our selection of journals
was based on the aims and scopes of the journals in the first search, we read abstracts
and searched for concepts that signalled practice-near school research only in these
selected journals, which means that studies reported in other journals may have been
missed. The same goes for articles where the criterion has been implicit. Additionally,
the fact that there are other fora than scientific journals to report on studies in
education (Swedish Research Council, 2010) is important to have in mind.
Most articles by far were found in the journal Forskning om undervisning och lärande
[Research on Teaching and Learning], ForskUL, a Swedish peer-reviewed journal,
established in 2013. The explicit aim of the journal is to publish research “related to
learning and teaching” and “where the results of research speak directly to teachers and
6P. MAGNUSSON AND M. MALMSTRÖM
the professional problems they have” (ForskUL, 2020 [our translation]). During the
examined period, the journal published 62 articles, 51 of which are included in the data
material. On its website, the journal is presented as a parallel to clinical medical
research, and an alternative to “subject didactics research for developing practice”. By
publishing research “with and for teachers”, the journal aims to “bridge the gap between
research and practice” (ForskUL, 2020).
8
Hence, the journal is open and accessible to
everyone.
Despite the concerns about the demarcations, we argue that for our purpose to
explore published Swedish practice-near school research after the Education Act, with
the main focus on the participation of teachers, we have collected data that is sufficient
and relevant.
Data Analysis
The 92 articles were processed through a procedure with both inductive and deductive
elements. The first reading made us aware of differences in theoretical grounding and
study design, research interest and context, together with the aspect of teacher partici-
pation. Inspired by Somekh and Zeichner (2009)
9
, we also noticed variations in funding
and initiation. The aspects made up a framework of categories, displayed in Table 2,
driven by the result in the first reading. The second reading, in which we categorised
each article in each aspect of the framework, is grounded in how the concepts are used
in the articles. “Action research”, for instance, is in some articles stated as the theore-
tical background and in others as the study design.
The articles were processed to identify the aspects in the framework in the concluded
categories. This resulted in quantification in the various categories in each aspect of the
framework. To further explore the aspect of teacher participation, the articles cate-
gorised as “teachers conduct teaching planned by researchers”, “teachers plan teaching
together with researchers”, and “teachers plan teaching together with researchers and
take part in the analysis” were investigated in a third reading, specifically focusing on
the sections on method and implementation, to explore how the teachers’ participation
Table 1. Identified journals, number of articles and year of publication.
7
.
Acta Didactica Norge (Norden) 2 2012, 2014
Assessment Matters 2 2012, 2019
Educare 1 2015
Educational Action Research 3 2012, 2016 (2)
Education Inquiry 3 2013, 2014, 2018
Designs for Learning 3 2018 (2), 2019 (1)
International Journal for Lesson and Learning
Studies
6 2015 (3 − 1 double published Forskul), 2017, 2018, 2019
International Journal of Science Education 2 2017, 2018
ForskUL 51 2013 (7), 2014 (7), 2015 (6), 2016 (7), 2017 (9), 2018 (5), 2019
(9)
Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy 1 2013
Nordic Journal of Literacy Research 4 2019 (4)
Nordic Studies in Education 1 2017
Nordidactica 3 2019 (3)
Nordina 3 2015 (1), 2018 (1), 2019 (1)
Scandinavian Journal of Education Research 1 2016
Systemic Practice and Action Research 1 2016
Utbildning & demokrati 4 2011 (1), 2019 (3)
Utbildning och lärande 1 2019
EDUCATION INQUIRY 7
Table 2. The established framework.
Aspect
Categories (in alphabetical order except for “not stated”,
“others”)
1. Theoretical grounding. The stated theories used as
background and motivation for the research project.
●action research
●ethnography
●phenomenography and variation theory
●social cultural theory and social constructionism
●others (activity theory, assessment research, bio-
centrism, cognitive theories, design-based
research, gender theory, hermeneutic, interaction
theory, media ecology, multimodality, narratology,
pragmatics, reception theory, regognition theory,
systemic functional linguistics, educational sociol-
ogy)
2. Initiation. Research initiative. ●cooperation university, municipality and/or school
●university (including postgraduate students)
●teachers
●not stated
3. Funding. ●cooperation university and municipality and/or
school
●dissertation project
●grant
●municipality and/or school
●university
●not stated
4. Study Design. ●action research
●DBR and research circle
●effect study, comparative study
●intervention
●learning study
●observation
●questionnaire, interview
●text study
●others (explorative design research, think aloud)
5. Context. In which school year the research was
conducted.
●over all school years
●school year 0–3
●school year 4–6
●school year 7–9
●school year 10–12
6. Research interest. The stated main interest for
research.
●curricula and policy documents
●teaching method
●teaching, pupil perspective
●teaching, teacher perspective
●theory
●study material
●understanding and perception, pupil perspective
●understanding and perception, teacher perspective
7. Teachers’ participation. In what tasks teachers
have participated during the conducting of research.
Also noted if teachers are co-authors.
●study outside classroom practice
●teachers are not involved in the study
●teachers conduct their ordinary teaching
●teachers conduct teaching planned by researchers
●teachers plan teaching together with researchers
●teachers plan teaching together with researchers
and take part in the analysis
●teachers take part in a research circle
8P. MAGNUSSON AND M. MALMSTRÖM
was elaborated. The categorisation has in some instances been difficult, since this aspect
is not always described, and since projects could be placed in more than one category.
Especially the distinction between the categories “teachers conduct teaching planned by
researchers” and “teachers plan teaching together with researchers” has been compli-
cated. In the first category, we have included projects in which teachers may have taken
part in the planning but where the contents of the teaching, according to our inter-
pretation, has been controlled by the researchers. In the second category, we have
included projects in which the planning has been marked by closer collaboration on
teaching content.
Findings
The aspects on theoretical grounding, initiation and funding, study design, context, and
research interest, give a background to the findings concerning teacher participation
and will be briefly accounted for followed by a longer section on teachers’ participation.
Description of the research studies presented in the articles
The theories used as ground for the studies are dominated by phenomenography/
variation theory (31) and sociocultural theory/social constructivist theory (20). In
seven articles, action research is described as a theoretical ground, whereas in four
articles an explicit ethnographic theory constitutes the starting point. In the remaining
articles the theories vary, and there is also a wide variation of theories connected to
method and the specific study objects, for example theories on narrative and percep-
tion, systemic functional linguistics, pedagogical content knowledge, interaction theory,
discourse analysis and sociological theories, as well as didactic theories, general and
subject-specific. Some articles give a thorough theoretical background whereas others
concentrate on methodology and methods used. In our categorisation, we have retained
the concepts used in the articles.
Initiation is not always stated but can most often be presumed to be the researcher
(university). In about a third of the projects a postgraduate student, often also a
teacher or a former teacher, is involved. Explicit reports on research initiatives from
school or teachers (eight) and as collaboration between university and municipality
(four) are mostly found in the journal ForskUL. These projects are also described as
co-funded between university, municipality and/or school (11). 19 projects are funded
through grants, seven are dissertation projects and four are funded by municipalities
and/or schools themselves. In about a fifth of the projects the funding is unclear.
In Table 3, the results on study design and distribution over school years, have been
put together. Since some studies have used more than one method in the design, the
total number is higher than the number of articles (92).
The study designs, as described in the articles, are dominated by observation and
learning study followed by questionnaire and interview, and intervention. These designs
align with the dominating background theories (socio-cultural theories and phenom-
enography/variation theory). Questionnaires and interviews dominate in later school
years, whereas intervention studies are more frequent in early school years. Apart from
that, the study designs appear to be evenly distributed.
EDUCATION INQUIRY 9
Different research interests can be found in the projects and, not surprisingly, mostly
aim at the pupils and the teachers who are, per definition, together with the researchers,
the main actors in practice-near school research. The categories of “Teaching, teacher
perspective” and “Teaching, pupil perspective” dominate (24 + 21 studies), and focus on
pupils’ and teachers’ actions during the implementation of the teaching, as in the article
by Karlsson and Wennergren (2014). The study explores how teachers can develop their
teaching by using conversations and questions that build on pupils’ displayed under-
standing during lessons. The categories of “Understanding and perception, pupil
perspective” and “Understanding and perceptions, teacher perspective” are also large
(16 + 16 studies) and refer to studies where pupils’ and teachers’ understandings and
perceptions have been examined, as in the study by Gustafsson, Jonsson, and Nilsson
(2018), about whether and how teachers’ understanding of teaching is affected by
participating in a research circle concerning the technology subject. Eight studies are
categorised as “Teaching methods”, examining how a specific method is used and/or
works in teaching, as in the study by Eriksson and Eriksson (2014) of pupils’ involve-
ment in theoretical exploration of numbers and fractions. The remaining studies fall in
the categories of “Theory” (3), “Study material” (1), and “Curricula and other policy
documents” (3).
To summarise, we can conclude that the studies in the material show a vast variety of
theories, study designs and research interests. They are dominated by research
grounded in phenomenographic and social cultural theories, which collect data in the
school practice in the form of learning studies, different types of observations and
interviews. The research interest is dominated by “Teaching”, focusing on pupils and
teachers, and pupils’ and teachers’ perceptions and understanding. Some projects are
both initiated and financed in cooperation, as in the projects accounted for in the
journal ForskUL, but overall, most of the research is university driven.
Teachers’ participation
Reading the articles, we found that teacher roles varied and were elaborated with
different depth. As explained in the data analysis section, this resulted in different
categories in which the articles were sorted, the result shown in Table 4.
Teachers have been involved in some way in most studies. In the categories where
teachers are not directly involved and where the study is conducted outside classroom
practice, 25 studies in total, the study objects are theory, study material or curricula, or
Table 3. Study design and distribution over school years.
Categories of study design Total
Year
0–3
Year
4–6
Year
7–9
Year
10–12 All years
action research, DBR and research circle 6 2 1 3
effect study and comparative study 3 1 1 1
intervention 13 7 2 4
learning study 25 5 9 5 6
observation, field study 28 5 7 9 6 1
questionnaire, interview 19 2 1 7 8 1
text study 10 1 1 2 5 1
others (explorative design research, think aloud) 2 1 1
106 21 21 22 28 3
10 P. MAGNUSSON AND M. MALMSTRÖM
study objects that have been investigated through observations or interviews outside the
classroom. However, since the authors of the articles use concepts related to practice-
near research and describe the studies as being close to practice, the articles are
included in the material. In 18 of the 92 articles, teachers connected to the studies
are stated as co-authors, all in ForskUL, the journal that is explicit about the ambition to
publish research both with and for teachers. Below, we elaborate on the three largest
categories with teachers involved.
Teachers conduct teaching planned by researchers. The largest category (23 articles)
“Teachers conduct teaching planned by researchers”, is heterogeneous regarding
study design and theoretical underpinnings. It is represented in all categories of
research interest except “Understanding and perceptions, teacher perspective” and
“Study material”. There are learning studies, sociocultural qualitative studies, and
intervention studies. Many of the socioculturally informed studies are placed in this
category, due to methods such as observation and interview. Six learning studies fall
in this category, despite the interactive approach in learning studies.
The studies vary concerning how the teachers’ participation is staged and thus
“what’s in it” for them. Palmér and Johansson (2018), have a design-based approach
with “iterative design cycles through collaboration between researchers and practi-
tioners” (p. 336). The teachers’ lesson designs are modified to explore how entrepre-
neurial competencies affect the appearance of the mathematical competencies. The
collaboration is stressed, but the design of the study is based on the researchers’ aims,
and has, thus, more of a client-supplier approach (Bevins & Price, 2014) even though
the teachers develop new insights. Wennergren (2016) studies teachers’ learning in
a professional development programme conducted as action research and concludes
that the researcher’s role as expert gradually is taken over by the teachers as the
ownership of the action research project is transferred when teachers’ knowledge and
security increase. Varga (2016), reports on an action research-based project initiated by
the teachers who were accustomed to work closely together. In the four-year research
project, the researchers educated the teachers in reading comprehension and research-
based methods to develop literacy. The teachers tried and evaluated the teaching
methods and could continuously make choices of what to focus on in terms of
development. When it comes to emancipatory potential, the design-based research
project on entrepreneurship might have some limitations. For the teachers, the study
mainly draws towards a technical knowledge interest (cf. Carr & Kemmis, 1986), even
though the teachers develop new understanding, but this is not further discussed. In
comparison, the two other examples might lead to the teachers’ professional
Table 4. Teachers’ participation in research projects.
Categories Sum Co-authors
Study outside classroom practice 15
Teachers are not involved in the study 10
Teachers conduct their ordinary teaching 16
Teachers conduct teaching planned by researchers 23 ForskUL:4
Teachers plan teaching together with researchers 15 ForskUL:3
Teachers plan teaching together with researchers and teachers take part in analysis 12 ForskUL:11
Teachers take part in research circle 1
EDUCATION INQUIRY 11
development as well as a possibility for them to influence their working conditions, and
thus be emancipatory. The collaboration is characterised by trust, developed over time,
in the researchers’ and practitioners’ different competencies, and is an example of the
“third space” that Prøitz et al. (2020) call for.
Teachers plan teaching together with researchers. The importance of participation of
teachers is stressed, both in research (Eriksson, 2018; Prøitz et al., 2020) and policy
(SOU 2018:19). In 15 of the articles, our interpretation is that the teachers have taken
a more active part in planning the teaching. How this collaborative planning has been
realised varies. In two of the articles (Bengtsson, Weiland, & Anderhag, 2017; Sundler,
Dudas, & Anderhag, 2017), the teachers have planned the teaching together with a head
teacher, in Sweden referred to as first teacher [förstelärare]. In both, the first teacher is
the first author of the article, which is co-authored with two researchers. Consequently,
in these two cases, it is the first teacher who has collaborated with a) the teachers, and
b) the researchers. In some articles, it is difficult to detect how the researcher(s) and the
teachers have worked together, as in the article by Nersäter (2019), in which it is stated
that “the researcher cooperated closely with the teachers”, but how the collaboration
was conducted is not elaborated on. Similarly, in Johansson’s (2019) study, a collabora-
tion between researchers and teachers as a research group is put forward, but examples
are not given. In the studies above, the teachers contribute to the planning and
conducting of teaching, but if, and how, they benefit from the result following the
researchers’ analysis of the material is not discussed.
Collaboration is more explicit in Persson, Lundegård, and Wickman (2011), an
action research project where a postgraduate student works with teachers in developing
teaching about sustainability. They collaborate in planning and conducting the teach-
ing, and the postgraduate student, who is the author, describes the importance of
influence and mutual respect between researcher, teachers, and pupils, pointing to
different contributions in the project, just as Eriksson (2018) urges for in collaborative
research projects. In the intervention study by Björkholm (2018), the teacher and
researcher have planned the lessons together and discussed them afterwards, but the
analysis has been conducted by the researcher alone. The learning studies in Brante and
Brunosson (2014) and Kullberg, Mårtensson, and Runesson (2016) have had different
foci. In the first, the focus is on the teachers’ understanding of how pupils learn, and the
researcher and teachers worked together in analysing a pre-test and planning the
intervention. In the second, which focuses on teachers’ construction of learning objects,
the collaboration between researchers and teachers is harder to detect. The researchers
analyse the teachers’ discussions and lessons according to the aim of the research.
In Bergdahl, Knutsson, and Fors (2018) however, the questions of teacher involve-
ment and collaboration between teachers and researchers are more obvious and roles
are clearly stated, probably due to the explorative design of the collaboration, with the
aim to “explore whether teachers and researchers could design learning activities in
collaboration that facilitate student engagement” (p. 101). In the design process, the
teachers and the researchers shared their understanding and experiences. A Future
Workshop was held, in which the teachers’ ideas of what supports and hinders
engagement guided the collaborative planning of the interventions and a “transfer of
ownership” took place (p. 106). Similarly, in the action research project reported in
12 P. MAGNUSSON AND M. MALMSTRÖM
Gade (2012), the collaboration over time leads to a “trustworthiness” also in the
dialogue between the teachers and the researcher (p. 567). Hence, the project is an
example of the collaborative approach (Bevins & Price, 2014). In Carr and Kemmis’
(1986) terms, the research process in these examples is practical; the teachers’ reflec-
tions and understandings are highlighted. There is also a critical potential. Even though
the teachers do not take part in the analysis and writing, they get to develop aspects in
their practice, and might get a new understanding of it and its conditions. This could
also be the case in the other projects, but it is not clearly put forward.
Teachers plan teaching together with researchers and take part in analysis. In eight
articles in ForskUL and in one in International Journal of Science Education the teachers
also take part in analysing the empirical material (additionally, in Forskul they are co-
authors). Six articles have a clear “we” through the research process, even in the analysis
phase, but if, or how, this “we” have worked through the study is not always thoroughly
explained. In Broman, Frohagen, and Wemmenhag (2013) and Erixson, Frostfeldt
Gustavsson, Kerekes, and Lundberg (2013), the studies were carried out by groups of
teachers where one was a postgraduate student. Nyberg (2018) and Magnusson and
Maunula (2013) are other examples of the researchers also conducting the teaching. In
the latter, two teachers launched the project with their classes together with colleagues
and as researchers they collected and analysed the empirical material, and, additionally,
they wrote the article. They describe a sequence of four “research lessons” in classes
in year 2–4, but the number of informants is not explicit, and neither how the work was
divided. Thorsten, Wickman, Tunek, and Scheibel-Sahlin (2019) describe a learning
study with the aim to increase upper secondary school pupils’ understanding of
argumentative texts, and to describe what aspects need to be made explicit in the
teaching. The four authors – one researcher and three social science teachers – plan
and analyse together. The same situation applies in Björk, Nikula, Stensland, and
Stridfält (2019), a socioculturally inspired study of theoretical thinking in maths. The
authors, “the research group”, are a postgraduate student and three maths teachers. The
group has collaborated in planning, conducting, and analysing as well as writing. In
Fridolfsson, Clarke Bolin, Jonsson, and Reimark (2019), one of the authors having a
postgraduate degree, they worked together as teachers to develop their teaching con-
cerning gender issues. In these studies, the participants seem to have been involved in
all parts of the research process, but the division of labour is not made explicit.
A somewhat different approach is set in the study by Holmqvist and Olander (2017).
A school developing project is analysed with the focus on the teachers’ work in
a learning study which aimed to develop the pupils’ knowledge of scientific theories.
In the project, the teachers design, conduct and analyse the outcome of their teaching.
The authors explain how the collaborative approach (cf., Bevins & Price, 2014) devel-
oped the teachers’ theoretically based knowledge and their ability to design their
teaching.
An article in which the division of labour is obvious is an action research project
aiming at describing the relation between mathematics, and building and construction
(Bellander, Blaesild, & Björklund Boistrup, 2017). The project was based on a pre-study
by two teachers, who contacted a researcher to collaboratively create a research project.
The authors categorise the project as participatory action research, a strand of action
EDUCATION INQUIRY 13
research that is social, both in seeing the activity as a social practice where the context is
taken into consideration, and in the reflections on power relations between the parti-
cipants, including the pupils. The respective roles in the project are carefully accounted
for and the project could be categorised as critical, in Carr and Kemmis’ terms, or
political in Noffke’s. There is an emancipatory potential, both considering the teachers
and pupils, and, not least, the researcher, involved.
The categories of teachers’ roles, sprung from descriptions in the articles, give
support to the image in the overall description of a heterogeneous field with many
variations. In addition, the categories themselves proved to show variations, and were
sometimes hard to detect, since detailed accounts of the roles of the participants are not
often spelled out. The following discussion session deals with these issues.
Discussion
The aim of the current study has been to explore practice-near school research in the
wake of the Education Act from 2010 in published Swedish research, with the focus on
the participation of teachers in research. The investigation of research presented in 92
articles has led to a description of a field that is anything but clear-cut and unequivocal.
Still, what the articles have in common is that the studies reported are practice-near
school research, in different ways.
Most of the studies are initiated and led by researchers and show a vast variety of
theories, study design and research interests. The characteristic studies are staged and
carried out in rather a short time. The main research interests focus on the teaching and
how teaching is understood and perceived, by teachers and pupils. The imprecise image
of the field can be explained partly by it depending on political decisions and autho-
rities’ regulations, which have been numerous from the Education Act (SFS 2010:800)
and onwards. Another aspect is its roots in several academic disciplines and research
traditions. The call for research-based education is realised in our material in that the
research projects are carried out in the school environment. What kind of research the
authorities request is, however, ambiguous, partly due to the different definitions and
interpretations of the wordings of “scientific ground and proven experience” in the
Education Act (SFS 2010:800). This ambiguity is visible in a tension in research,
between projects aimed at understanding practice, for example in Persson et al.
(2011), an exploration of pupils’ thoughts on sustainability issues, or getting robust
results, as in the effect study on physical activity and pupils’ concentration ability in
mathematics (Bailan & Green, 2019).
The variation is also obvious when it comes to the practitioners’ participation and
how it is elaborated on and accounted for in the articles, which in turn made the
categorisation difficult. There is an apparent interest in school practice, but what this
means for the types of “collaboration” varies. Although the need for collaboration is
stressed by the Swedish authorities (SOU 2017:35; SOU 2018:19), what is meant by
collaboration could be discussed. Different concepts for collaboration and how colla-
boration is described can to some extent explain the vague picture that emerges. The
investigation of which roles the teachers were engaged in during the research projects
showed “Teachers conduct teaching planned by researchers” (23 studies) as the largest
category followed by “Teachers plan teaching together with researchers” (15) and
14 P. MAGNUSSON AND M. MALMSTRÖM
“Teachers plan teaching together with researchers and take part in analysis” (9). In our
close reading of the articles in these categories, we realised that the categorisation did
not give the whole picture of what the teachers’ role could imply for the teachers
involved. Even though collaboration is articulated, the study design in most cases is
based on the researchers’ interests. Even in the category where teachers took part in all
stages of research – planning, conducting teaching, and analysis – most articles were
not explicit in how the collaboration was carried out, which made it difficult to under-
stand how the collaboration was staged. In all the three categories, most articles do not
show or discuss the collaboration at any depth, even though there are exceptions, such
as Varga (2016), Bergdahl et al. (2018), and Bellander et al. (2017). These articles report
thoroughly on how time, reflection, different roles in research, and exchange of ideas
are central parts of the projects. The study designs in these articles seem important,
especially design-based research and participatory action research, in which the division
of labour is explicit and reflected upon, which, probably, is important for emancipation
to occur.
Our results show that practice-near school research does not automatically give
teachers possibilities to engage fully in the research. Important aspects seemed to be
the length of time of the projects and the possibility for teachers to reflect on and
discuss the teaching they produced, regardless of the initiative. In the studies where the
teachers’ reflections and understandings are visible, as “practical research” drawing on
Carr and Kemmis (1986) and Kemmis (2009), there are in some cases also critical and
emancipatory potentials leading to a new understanding of the teachers’ working
conditions. In others, an interpretation of a form of “supplier-client” approach from
the academic side (Bevins & Price, 2014), or technical research in Carr and Kemmis
(1986) terms, is close at hand. It is, however, important to emphasise that, based on this
study, it is not possible to determine how the outcomes of the projects have affected the
educational practice.
It is essential to ask whether teachers necessarily must participate in all the research
phases. According to Prøitz et al. (2020), the practitioners bring what the authors call
their “first space” into the collaboration, whereas the researchers bring the “second
space”. It is vital that a “third space” is created, in which the practitioners and the
researchers meet on equal terms. This means that practitioners and researchers bring
their different competencies into the third space. We like to stress that to make this
third space possible and useful, issues on organisation, funding and teachers’ work
conditions are necessary to be dealt with. In our material, there are relatively few
examples of studies that can be assumed to create a third space. As Gustavsen (2001)
makes clear, the relationship between theory and practice is complex and needs to be
mediated. In the articles we have analysed, however, there are few traces of the
mediating discourse. This does not necessarily mean that there is a simplistic view of
the different rationalities of theory and practice, but we would claim that more
thorough reasoning about the collaborators’ roles would strengthen trustworthiness in
the studies.
Notwithstanding our aim to find articles published by Swedish researchers, the
dominance by the journal ForskUL needs to be discussed. The journals’ clarity in
presentation and aim at practical approaches and teacher involvement is probably
the main reason. It is also likely that ForskUL has become the journal to which
EDUCATION INQUIRY 15
researchers turn to publish their results even for groups outside the academy since
it is accessible to anyone. The articles with teachers as co-authors were published
in ForskUL, and, in some articles, the teachers also took part in the analyses. The
low occurrence of explicitly reported collaboration in articles in other journals is
probably a result of this not being required for publishing. The dominance by
ForskUL is also a reason for the relatively large share of the study design presented
as learning studies (a quarter of the studies), since the journal forwards lesson
studies and learning studies as teaching developing research (action research,
design experiment and design research are also mentioned) (ForskUL, 2020).
The popularity of learning study could perhaps be explained by the explicit design,
and the fact that a study can be conducted in only a few lessons which makes time
less of an object than in more longitudinal studies, of which there are but a few in
our material. A question for further study is what long-term effects the different
kinds of studies have.
To conclude, the imprecise image of Swedish practice-near school research is by
itself not a problem as it signals the possibilities and inclusiveness for research
from different perspectives. Yet, it is important to be clear about aims and
definitions in the research and the different knowledge interests for practice and
research (Carr & Kemmis, 1986, 2005). For the teachers, what is most at stake is
either trying out new teaching methods – a technical interest – or getting to know
themselves better as teachers – a practical interest – or changing the conditions of
the work – a critical interest. The researchers might have other incentives, the
most obvious being the will to contribute with new knowledge to the scientific
community, and another that the recent drives for practice-near research give new
possibilities to finance research. The varying knowledge interests of the actors are
important to reflect upon in practice-near research, since they influence scientific
claims, aims, study design, and, not least, roles. A question of concern is what
kind of research is possible for active teachers to take part in, and which knowl-
edge interests are desired by the authorities, and, by extension, society. The fact
that the critical interest (studies where the teachers take an active part throughout
the whole research process with emancipatory aims) and the political dimension
(dealing with contextual conditions for teaching (Noffke, 1997, 2009)) are so
sparsely represented in our material is in line with the observations Carr and
Kemmis (2005) make about our time being marked by evidence and measuring. In
such a situation, improvement of practice is foregrounded, and emancipatory
efforts tend to be marginalised.
Implications for future practice-near school research
Carr and Kemmis (2005) go so far as to claim that critical action research should be the
educational research par excellence. Noffke (1997, 2009) asserts that all action research
is, to some extent, political, since there is a democratic aspect in action research. What
if the strand of the social agenda in research, a line of thought that goes back to Lewin
(1946), is lacking in the Swedish practice-near school research field? What goes miss-
ing? Adolfsson and Sundberg (2018) summarise the ambition of the last 25 years to
make school research-based in Sweden as a gradual shift from “indirect to more direct
initiatives” (p. 57 [our translation]), from collaboration to develop both knowledge and
16 P. MAGNUSSON AND M. MALMSTRÖM
practice to a primary attention on practice. In our opinion, there is a narrow view of
what practice-near school research could be in the Official Government Report (SOU,
2018:19), Forska tillsammans [Do Research Together], where “practice-developing
research” is the preferred term, and in the call for applications of research funding
from SKOLFI: “Methods and techniques in the planning, implementation, and evalua-
tion of teaching, which contribute to the development and learning of children and
students” (SKOLFI, 2020 [our translation]). These ideals could be compared with the
“Bildung” and citizenship perspectives of action research in the Nordic region that
Rönnerman and Salo (2012) recognise. We see a risk that a narrowing down of the
concept practice-near school research will, first and foremost, endorse what Carr and
Kemmis (1986) call technical research.
It is hard to predict what course the future projects will take, but to build a research
field with equality in interest and power for researchers and teachers, we believe that
a recognition of the contemporary picture delivered in this study will be essential, and
that questions of researcher and teacher roles need to be addressed.
Notes
1. The concept is a literal translation of the Swedish concept praktiknära skolforskning. It is
used by the Swedish Institute for Educational Research, SKOLFI (2020), in the Government
Directive (U 2017:03) and the Government Official Report (SOU 2018:19). However, the
seemingly preferred terms in research in educational sciences published internationally are
practice-based or practice-informed research, which are used synonymously (cf. evidence-
based and evidence-informed where there is a pronounced difference). There are many other
concepts used in research and policy texts (Serder & Malmström, 2020), for example praxis-
based research, practice-based research, practice-developing research, school research, school-
based research, school development, collaborative research, teacher research, practitioner
research, but also action research, design-based research, learning study, and others.
2. A broad search in Swepub a data base covering research published at Swedish universities,
with search words in Swedish [(praxisnära OR praktik* OR skolnära OR skolutv* OR
samverkans* OR lärarforsk*) AND (skola OR utbildning OR undervisning OR lärande)]
results in 160 hits in 2011, 252 hits in 2015, and 253 hits in 2018. Search words translated:
[(praxis-based OR practice* OR school* OR collaborate OR collaboration OR teacher) AND
(school OR education OR teaching OR learning)].
3. As synonymous concepts, SKOLFI emphasises practice research, practice-based research,
clinical research and development, improvement, change research or teaching-improvement
research (SKOLFI, 2020).
4. Studies in the ULF agreement are not included in the data material since they are not
published within the set time-frame.
5. This means that teachers’ development work and presentations of what is called proven
experience are not included, unless scientifically published.
6. Search in Swedish: [(praxisnära OR praktik* OR skolnära OR skolutv* OR samverkans* OR
lärarforsk* OR lärar*) AND (skola OR utbildning OR undervisning OR lärande OR
aktions*) AND grundskol* OR gymnasi*)], in English: [(praxis-based OR practice* OR
school* OR collaborate OR collaboration OR teacher*) AND (school OR education OR
teaching OR learning* OR action*) AND (compulsory OR upper secondary)].
7. Five journals were selected based on aims and scope but when scanning abstracts no
articles met our criteria: Education and Information Technologies, Pedagogisk forskning
i Sverige, Science and Education, Nordisk tidskrift för allmän didaktik, Norsk pedagogisk
tidsskrift.
EDUCATION INQUIRY 17
8. Our translations, emphasis in the original.
9. Somekh and Zeichner (2009) investigate actions research studies and show how different
discourses of action research emerge: government-funded reform programmes aimed at
controlling teaching, reform programs on the initiative of the academy and locally initiated
long-term projects; all the efforts are interpreted as contributing to the development of
action research and as ways of handling the tension between knowledge development and
action for change. Their framework groups studies according to purpose, contextual
conditions, views of teachers and teachers’ learning, incentives to participate, funding of
the project, the form of inquiry, relation to other research and ways of representing
research.
Notes on contributors
Petra Magnusson, Senior lecturer, Kristianstad University.
Martin Malmström, Researcher, Lund University, Senior lecturer, Malmö University
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
Petra Magnusson’s contribution was supported by the Kristianstad University Research Platform
Collaboration for Learning [Dnr 2019–2312–274].
ORCID
Petra Magnusson http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5871-0214
Martin Malmström http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2390-0338
References
Aasen, P., & Prøitz, T. (2004). Initiering, finansiering och förvaltning av praxisnära forskning:
Sektormyndighetens roll i svensk utbildningsforskning [Initiation, funding and management of
practice-related research: The role of the responsible authority in Swedish educational research].
NIFU Skriftserie 10/2004.
Adolfsson, C. H., & Sundberg, D. (2018). Att forskningsbasera den svenska skolan: Policyinitiativ
under 25 år [Making the Swedish school research-based: Policy initiatives during 25 years].
Pedagogisk forskning i Sverige, 23(1–2), 39–63.
Askling, B. (2006). Utbildningsvetenskap: Ett vetenskapsområde tar form [Educational science:
Building a field of science]. Vetenskapsrådet.
Bailan, A., & Green, J. (2019). Effekten av fysisk aktivitet i matematikundervisningen [Effects of
physical activity in mathematics education]. ForskUL, 7(3), 6–27.
Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy,
18(2), 215–228.
Ball, S. J. (2015). What is policy? 21 years later: Reflections on the possibilities of policy research.
Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 36(3), 306–313.
18 P. MAGNUSSON AND M. MALMSTRÖM
Bellander, E., Blaesild, M., & Björklund Boistrup, L. (2017). Matematik i yrkesprogram – En
modell för två ämnens relationer med varandra [Mathematics in vocational training – A
model for relations between two subjects]. ForskUL, 5(2), 52–77.
Bengtsson, D., Weiland, M., & Anderhag, P. (2017). Innehåller silver kol? – En studie om elevers
begreppsanvändning när de arbetar med kolets kretslopp [Does silver contain carbon? – A
study of students’ use of concepts when working with the carbon cycle]. ForskUL, 5(1), 6–25.
Bergdahl, N., Knutsson, O., & Fors, U. (2018). Designing for engagement in TEL – A teacher-
researcher collaboration. Designs For Learning, 10(1), 100–111.
Bergmark, U., & Hansson, K. (2020). How teachers and principals enact the policy of building
education in Sweden on a scientific foundation and proven experience: Challenges and
opportunities. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 65(3), 448–467.
Bevins, S., & Price, G. (2014). Collaboration between academics and teachers: A complex
relationship. Educational Action Research, 22(2), 270–284.
Björk, M., Nikula, Å., Stensland, P., & Stridfält, A. (2019). Tecken på teoretiskt tänkande om
strukturer i bassystemet [Signs of theoretical thinking about structures in the basic system].
ForskUL, 7(2), 26–49.
Björkholm, E. (2018). Sammanfogning av material i eget konstruktionsarbete – Kunnande och
elevuppgifter i tidig teknikundervisning [Combining materials in own design work - knowl-
edge and student assignments in early technical education]. ForskUL, 6(1), 5–22.
Brante, G., & Brunosson, A. (2014). To double a recipe – Interdisciplinary teaching and learning
of mathematical content knowledge in a home economics setting. Education Inquiry, 5(2),
301–318.
Broman, A., Frohagen, J., & Wemmenhag, J. (2013). Vad kan man när man kan tillverka ett
uttryck i slöjdföremål? [What can you do when you can make an expression in handicraft
objects?]. ForskUL, 10, 6–28.
Carpenter, G. W. (2017). Sampling, Methodological Issues. In Ed. (M. Allen), The SAGE
encyclopedia of communication research methods, 1531–1534 . doi:10.4135/9781483381411.
n536
Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education knowledge and action research.
Falmer Press.
Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (2005). Staying critical. Educational Action Research, 13(3), 347–358.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (Eds.). (1993). Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge.
Teachers College Press.
Curry, M. W. (2012). In pursuit of reciprocity: Researchers, teachers, and school reformers
engaged in collaborative analysis of video records. Theory Into Practice, 51(2), 91–98.
Dixon-Woods, M., Cavers, D., Agarwal, S., Annandale, E., Arthur, A., Harvey, H., . . . Sutton, A.
J. (2006). Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare
by vulnerable groups. BMC Med Res Methodology, 6(35). doi:10.1186/1471-2288-6-35
Educare (2020). https://ojs.mau.se/index.php/educare/about [20200420]
Education Act [Skollag](SFS 2010:800). https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/
svensk-forfattningssamling/skollag-2010800_sfs-2010-800
Elliot, J. (1990). Teachers as researchers: Implications for supervision and for teacher education.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 6(1), 1–26.
Elliott, J. (2005). Becoming critical: The failure to connect. Educational Action Research, 13(3),
359–374.
Eriksson, H., & Eriksson, I. (2014). Matematik som teoretiskt arbete – Utveckling av matema-
tiska modeller för rationella tal i åk 4 [mathematics as theoretical work – developing math-
ematical models for rational numbers in year 4]. ForskUL, 4(1), 6–24.
Eriksson, I. (2018). Lärares medverkan i praktiknära forskning: Förutsättningar och hinder
[Teachers’ participation in practice-near research: Conditions and obstacles]. Utbildning &
Lärande, 12(1), 27–40.
Erixson, L., Frostfeldt Gustavsson, K., Kerekes, B., & Lundberg, L. (2013). Att se det som inte
syns – Om talföljder i årskurs 3 och 4 [To see what is not visible - about speech sequences in
grades 3 and 4]. ForskUL, 10, 64–81.
EDUCATION INQUIRY 19
Flodin, L., Almgren, A., Feldt, K.-O., Lundius, A., Sirén, E.-L., & Sörman, H. (2011). Fler
lärare måste bli forskare [More teachers need to be researchers]. In Svenska Dagbladet,
2011-April-13. Available: https://www.svd.se/fler-larare-maste-bli-forskare [20200613].
ForskUL, Forskning om undervisning och lärande [Research on teaching and learning] (2020).
https://ForskUL.se/om-skriften/ [20200420]
Fridolfsson, A.-K., Clarke Bolin, Å., Jonsson, A., & Reimark, J. (2019). Gymnasieelevers
användning av normkritik och naturvetenskap för att granska frågor om sexualitet och kön
[Upper secondary school students’ use of norm criticism and science to examine issues of
sexuality and gender]. ForskUL, 7(3), 28–47.
Gade, S. (2012). Teacher–researcher collaboration in a Grade Four mathematics classroom:
Restoring equality to students’ usage of the ‘=’ sign. Educational Action Research, 20(4),
553–570.
Government Directive (U 2017:03) 2017. Praktiknära skolforskning i samverkan [Practice-near
school research in collaboration]. Stockholm: Utbildningsdepartementet.
Gustafsson, P., Jonsson, G., & Nilsson, T. (2018). Teknikämnet i svensk grundskolas tidiga skolår
sett genom forskningscirkelns lupp. [The technology subject in Swedish early elementary
school seen through the research circle]. NorDiNa: Nordic Studies in Science Education, 14
(2), 113–124.
Gustavsen, B. (2001). Theory and practice: The mediating discourse. In P. Reason, and H.
Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participatory inquiry & practice. Sage
Publications Ltd, 17–27 .
Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and human interests. Beacon Press.
Holmqvist, O. M., & Olander, C. (2017). Analysing teachers’ operations when teaching students:
What constitutes scientific theories? International Journal of Science Education, 39(7),
840–862.
International Journal of Sciences Education. (2021) https://www.tandfonline.com/action/
journalInformation?show=aimsScope&journalCode=tsed20. [20210923].
Jaara Åstrand, J. (2017). Lärares utbildning kan inte sluta vid examen [Teachers’ education
should not stop at graduation]. Lärarförbundets ordförandeblogg 2017-August-02. Available:
https://www.lararforbundet.se/bloggar/ordforandebloggen-johanna-jaara-aastrand/larares-
utbildning-kan-inte-sluta-vid-examen. [20200613].
Johansson, P. (2019). Historical enquiry in primary school: Teaching interpretation of archae-
ological artefacts from an intercultural perspective. History Education Research Journal, 16(2),
248–273.
Karlsson, E., & Wennergren, A.-C. (2014). Att använda elevsvar i undervisningen [Using student
responses in teaching]. ForskUL, 13, 53–66.
Kemmis, S. (2009). Action research as a practice-based practice. Educational Action Research, 17
(3), 463–474.
Kullberg, A., Mårtensson, P., & Runesson, U. (2016). What is to be learned? Teachers’ collective
inquiry into the object of learning. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research: From
Phenomenography to Variation Theory - Current Trends, 60(3), 309–322.
Levinsson, M. (2013). Evidens och existens. Evidensbaserad undervisning i ljuset av lärares
erfarenheter [Evidence and existence. Evidence-based teaching in the light of the experiences
of teachers]. [Doctoral dissertation, Gothenburg university]. Acta universitatis
Gothoburgensis. Göteborgs Universitet.
Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34–46.
Magnusson, J., & Maunula, T. (2013). Variation av ett undervisningsinnehåll för att möjliggöra
urskiljning av kritiska aspekter avseende begreppet densitet [Variation of a teaching content to
enable the distinction of critical aspects regarding the concept of density]. ForskUL, 10, 82–
105.
Mattsson, M. (2004). Att forska i praktiken: En kunskapsöversikt och en fallstudie [Researching
the practice: A literature review and a case study]. Kunskapsföretaget.
McTaggart, R. (1994). Participatory action research: Issues in theory and practice. Educational
Action Research, 2(3), 313–337.
20 P. MAGNUSSON AND M. MALMSTRÖM
Nersäter, A. (2019). Students’ understanding of historical sources – A composite ability.
Nordidactica, 9(1), 105–131.
Noffke, S. E. (1997). Professional, personal and political dimensions of action research. Review of
Research in Education, 22(1), 305–343.
Noffke, S. E. (2009). Revisiting the professional, personal and political dimensions of action
research. In S. Noffke & B. Somekh (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of educational action research
(pp. 6–23). Sage Publications.
Nordidactica (2020). https://www.kau.se/nordidactica/om-nordidactica/syfte-och-mal]
Nyberg, G. (2018). Att urskilja och erfara sitt sätt att springa – Kan elever lära sig det i idrott och
hälsa? [To distinguish and experience one’s way of running – Can students learn that in
physical education?]. ForskUL, 6(1), 43–63.
Palmér, H., & Johansson, M. (2018). Combining entrepreneurship and mathematics in primary
school – What happens? Education Inquiry, 9(2), 1–16.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Persson, A., & Persson, J. (2017). Vetenskaplig grund och beprövad erfarenhet i högre utbildning
och skola [Scientific knowledge and proven experience]. Vetenskap Och Beprövad Erfarenhet:
Skola, 39–48. Lunds universitet.
Persson, A. (2020). Dubbel närhet och distans behövs inom praktiknära forskning [Double
closeness and distance needed in practice-near research]. Pedagogisk forskning i Sverige, 25
(2–3), 149–152.
Persson, L., Lundegård, P., & Wickman, P.-O. (2011). Worry becomes hope in education for
sustainable development – An action research study at a secondary school. Utbildning &
Demokrati, 20(1), 123–144.
Prøitz, T., Rye, E. M., Barstad, K., Afdal, H., Risan, M., & Aasen, P. (2020). Utbildning, lärande,
forskning: En evalueringsstudie – Delrapport 2 [Education, learning, research: an evaluation
study – interim report 2]. Sørost-Norge.
Rönnerman, K., & Salo, P. (2012). ‘Collaborative and action research’ within education – A
Nordic perspective. Nordic Studies in Education 01(32), 32(1), 1–16.
Rönnerman, K., & Salo, P. (2017). Action research within the tradition of Nordic countries. In
The Palgrave International Handbook of Action Research, eds. L.L. Rowell, C.D. Bruce, J.M.
Shosh, & M. Riel. (pp. 455–469). Palgrave Macmillan.
Rönnerman, K. (2018). Vikten av teori i praktiknära forskning: Exemplet aktionsforskning och
teorin om praktikarkitekturer [The importance of theory in practice-near research: The
example action research and the theory of practice architectures]. Utbildning & Lärande, 12
(1), 41–54.
Roos, H.-E. (2021). Kroksbäck, den vita staden – En aktionsforskare minns [Kroksbäck, the
white city – An action researcher remembers. In I. Bosseldal, J. Lundberg, & M. Malmström
(Eds.) Ögonblick: En vänbok till Anders Persson om människor och deras möten (pp. 183–202).
Lunds universitet.
Serder, M., & Malmström, M. (2020). Vad talar vi om när vi talar om praktiknära forskning?
[What are we talking about when talking about practice-near research?]. Pedagogisk forskning i
Sverige, 25(1), 106–109. https://doi.org/10.15626/pfs25.01.07
Somekh, B., & Zeichner, K. (2009). Action research for educational reform: Remodelling action
research theories and practices in local contexts. Educational Action Research, 17(1), 5–21.
SOU 1980:2. Skolforskning och skolutveckling: Betänkande [School research and school develop-
ment: report]. https://weburn.kb.se/metadata/828/SOU_8350828.htm
SOU 2016:38. Samling för skolan: Nationella målsättningar och utvecklingsområden för kunskap
och likvärdighet: Delbetänkande [Gathering for school: National objectives and development
areas for knowledge and equality: Interim report]. https://www.regeringen.se/rattsliga-
dokument/statens-offentliga-utredningar/2016/05/sou-201638/
SOU 2017:35. Samling för skolan: Nationell strategi för kunskap och likvärdighet: Slutbetänkande
[Gathering for school: National strategy for knowledge and equality: Final report]. https://
www.regeringen.se/rattsliga-dokument/statens-offentliga-utredningar/2017/04/sou-201735/
EDUCATION INQUIRY 21
SOU 2018:19. Forska tillsammans: Samverkan för lärande och förbättring [Do research together:
Collaboration for learning and improvement]. https://www.regeringen.se/rattsliga-dokument/
statens-offentliga-utredningar/2018/03/forska-tillsammans–samverkan-for-larande-och-
forbattring/
SOU 2018:17. Med undervisningsskicklighet i centrum: ett ramverk för lärares och rektorers
professionella utveckling [Focusing teaching skills: a framework for the professional develop-
ment of teachers and principals]. https://www.regeringen.se/rattsliga-dokument/statens-
offentliga-utredningar/2018/03/sou-201817/
Stenhouse, L. (1988). Artistry and teaching: The teacher as focus of research and development.
Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 4(3), 43–51.
Sundler, M., Dudas, C., & Anderhag, P. (2017). Från missförstånd till klarhet: Hur kan under-
visningen organiseras för att stötta elevers förståelse för växthuseffekten? [From misunder-
standing to clarity: How can teaching be organized to support students’ understanding of the
greenhouse effect?]. ForskUL, 5(2), 6–29.
Swedish Institute for Educational Research [Skolforskningsinstitutet], SKOLFI (2020).
Forskningsprofil [Research profile], https://www.skolfi.se/forskningsfinansiering/forskning
sprofil/ [20200424]
Swedish National Agency for Education. [Skolverket], SNAE (2014). Research for classrooms:
Scientific knowledge and proven experience in practice, Stockholm: Skolverket
Swedish Research Council (2010). Forskningskommunikation och publiceringsmönster inom
utbildningsvetenskap. En studie av svensk utbildningsvetenskaplig forskning vid tre lärosäten
[Research communication and patterns of publication in educational sciences. A study of
Swedish educational sciences at three universities]. Vetenskapsrådets rapportserie 10:2010.
Swepub (September, 2020). http://swepub.kb.se/?language=en
Thorsten, A., Wickman, M., Tunek, T., & Scheibel-Sahlin, M. (2019). “Det skulle kunna vara
fakta, men det vet vi inte” – En studie om kritiskt förhållningssätt i gymnasieskolan [”It could
be facts, but we do not know” – A study of critical attitudes in upper secondary school].
ForskUL, 7(2), 6–25.
ULF-avtal [ULF agreement] (2020). https://www.ulfavtal.se/ [20200423]
Varga, P. (2016). Frågan som didaktiskt verktyg – En studie av textsamtal kring skönlitteratur
i årskurs 6 och 7 [The question as a didactic tool - a study of text conversations around fiction
in grades 6 and 7]. ForskUL, 4(3), 24–45.
Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional
learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 24(1), 80–91.
Wennergren, A.-C. (2016). Teachers as learners – With a little help from a critical friend.
Educational Action Research, 24(2), 260–279.
Wright, P. (2020). Developing an empowering school curriculum: A renewed focus on action
research. London Review of Education, 18(3), 323–338.
Wyse, D., Brown, C., Oliver, S., & Poblete, X. (2018). The BERA close-to-practice research project:
Research report. British Educational Research Association.
Zeichner, K. M., & Noffke, S. E. (2001). Practitioner research. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook
of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 298–330). American Educational Research Association.
22 P. MAGNUSSON AND M. MALMSTRÖM
