Professional Development in Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/rjie20

Action research as professional learning in and

through practice

Susanne Francisco, Anette Forssten Seiser & Anette Olin Almqvist

To cite this article: Susanne Francisco, Anette Forssten Seiser & Anette Olin Almqvist (2024)
Action research as professional learning in and through practice, Professional Development in
Education, 50:3, 501-518, DOI: 10.1080/19415257.2024.2338445

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2024.2338445

© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.

Published online: 10 May 2024.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 457

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjie20
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN EDUCATION
2024, VOL. 50, NO. 3, 501–518
https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2024.2338445

ARTICLE

Action research as professional learning in and through practice

a b c
Susanne Francisco , Anette Forssten Seiser and Anette Olin Almqvist
a
School of Education, Charles Sturt University Wagga Wagga, New South Wales, Australia; bEducational Studies,
Karlstad University Karlstad, Sweden; cPedagogical, Curricular and Professional Studies, University of Gothenburg
Goteborg, Sweden

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

It is widely accepted that professional learning is a crucial aspect of the Received 19 November 2023
ongoing professional practice of educators. But how should this profes­ Accepted 26 March 2024
sional learning take place, and what arrangements enable and constrain KEYWORDS
practices associated with educator learning? In this article, we explore two Action research; professional
case studies of action research projects: one undertaken with Australian learning; theory of practice
Vocational Education and Training (VET) teachers, and the other under­ architectures; VET teacher
taken with Swedish principals. Using the theory of practice architectures learning; principal learning;
and the Professional Learning Framework (see text), we consider what professional development
action research team members identified that they learnt through the
action research projects, and what enabled and constrained that learning.
The findings highlight five key themes that enabled and constrained
educator professional learning and supported educators in making posi­
tive changes in their professional practice: power and solidarity, trust,
recognition, agency and time. Further, reflection and collaboration were
also highlighted as important factors in supporting educator professional
learning. We conclude that action research can enable educator profes­
sional learning, can support the contextualised understanding of what
works, how it works and for whom it works, and can enable educators to
make positive changes in their professional practices.

Introduction and background

Ongoing learning is crucial for educators. In recognition of this, professional learning is often a key
element in educator professional standards documents, with most such documents identifying
a requirement for ongoing learning. For instance, in Australia, the whole of Section 6 (including the
four associated sub-sections) of the Australian Professional Standards for teachers is devoted to profes­
sional learning (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, n.d.). We see a similar trend in
Sweden, where the Swedish Education Agency has been tasked (U2022/02319) to develop a national
structure for professional learning for principals, teachers and preschool teachers together with a national
qualification system. The related legislation is proposed to take effect from 1 January 2025.
We argue that having professional learning enshrined in standards does not necessarily support
and nurture praxis development for teachers and there is a real danger that it may even constrain
praxis development by supporting and embedding a performance culture within education (Sachs
and Mockler 2012, Sachs 2016). Sachs (2016) argues that performance cultures in an organisation
implies ‘a low level of trust in the professionalism of their employee’ (p. 415). Mockler (2013) notes
that the professional learning of teachers is often identified as a ‘policy problem’ (p. 36) related to

CONTACT Susanne Francisco sfrancisco@csu.edu.au Charles Sturt University, Locked Bag 588, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2678
© 2024 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-NoDerivatives License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. The terms on which this article has been published allow
the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
502 S. FRANCISCO ET AL.

‘teacher [italics added] quality or lack thereof, wherein a response from the state in the form of
regulation and standardisation is required’ (p. 36) resulting in development and use of professional
standards with the purpose of raising ‘the quality of members of the teaching profession’ (p. 37).
Similarly, Kennedy (2014) refers to the ‘global hyper-narrative’ (p. 691) where policy related to
professional learning is heavily informed by the neo-liberal focus on economic outcomes, and the
notion ‘that improving teacher quality will improve pupil outcomes, which will increase nation-
states’ economic competitiveness’ (p. 691). This narrative also puts the focus of teaching quality
onto the individual teacher and allows a focus away from how to nurture and sustain the teaching
profession more broadly. Kennedy and Stevenson (2023) note that there is a continuing focus in
professional learning research on transmissive models which ‘are often managerially imposed,
embedded within performative structures and are central to encouraging cultures that value
conformity and compliance over radical change’ (p. 1). They go on to warn that there is a danger
the professional learning available to, and required of, educators focuses primarily on ‘what works’
without more deeply questioning ‘what matters’ (p. 1). Kaukko et al. (2020) argue that ‘ideally,
research for praxis avoids asking simply “what works?” but instead asks how do things work, and for
whom?’ (p. 50). A similar question might be asked in relation to professional learning.
We suggest that a broader focus on professional learning for praxis development can address
some of these issues and that action research is one approach that can support professional learning
associated with what works, how things work, and for whom things work.
Praxis is understood in various ways. In this article, we understand educational praxis in the way
outlined by Mahon et al. (2020) as

. . .a special kind of action (or practice as we have argued), but it is not action without thought or moral
intentions. It is informed, reflexive, and committed to bringing about the ‘good’, whatever that might be in the
given educational context, for others and humankind, in and through the educational endeavours that go on
in that context. (p. 32)

In exploring professional learning for praxis development, we draw on two action research projects, one
with Swedish principals and the other with Australian vocational education and training (VET) teachers.
By focusing on two quite different groups of educators (school principals and VET teachers; Sweden and
Australia) and different arrangements for the action research projects (one part of a formal qualification
and one developed together with the participants as part of a research project to support the development
of VET pedagogy), we aim to identify arrangements that enabled and constrained the professional
learning of educators through undertaking action research projects.
In Australia, organisations (including schools) need to be registered to be able to provide nationally
accredited vocational education and training. There is a requirement for registered training organisations
(RTOs) to ensure ongoing professional development of teachers. However, Dymock and Tyler (2018)
found that the professional learning that VET teachers have access to is largely limited to professional
development that is ‘undertaken to fulfil obligations and meet certification requirements rather than
because of its potential to impact on the quality of practice’ (p. 204). At the same time, there is a call for the
ongoing professional learning of VET teachers (Guthrie and Jones 2018, Francisco 2022). Dymock and
Tyler (2018) argue that the existing foundation certification is ‘an inadequate educational qualification
for identifying a VET practitioner as a “professional”, as well as a weak base for the ongoing professional
development such practitioners need in order to meet the challenge of carrying out their roles in
increasingly complex pedagogical and work environments’ (p. 208). VET teachers need professional
learning that supports their ongoing development in these complex and demanding environments
(Guthrie and Jones 2018, Francisco 2022).
Principals have an important function in schools’ ability to create high-quality learning and
teaching. As the expectations placed on principals are high, and large resources are invested in
school leadership training, research on the impact of such initiatives is crucial. Some work related to
the impact of the Swedish school leaders’ training programme on principals’ leadership and school
 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN EDUCATION 503

organisation has already been undertaken (Forssten Seiser and Söderström 2021, 2022, Jerdborg
2022) but there is still need for more studies exploring this. Forssten Seiser and Söderström (2022)
found that when principals were forced to deal with problems that occurred in their daily profes­
sional lives, they did not use their experiences from the training programme. This finding highlights
how difficult it is to transfer experiences from a traditional training programme to principals’
leadership in local schools.
This article progresses in the following way. We begin by explicitly outlining the concepts of
professional learning and action research. This then leads to the aim and the research questions that
this article addresses. Next, we provide an overview of the theory and the framework that inform
this article: the theory of practice architectures which influenced the set-up of the two research
projects we discuss and the framework for professional learning for praxis development developed
by Salo et al. (2024) which is itself informed by the theory of practice architectures (Kemmis et al.
2014b, Kemmis 2022). The two case studies drawn on in this article are outlined, together with the
methodology used for each research project. The findings and discussion are then presented.

Professional learning
The concept of professional learning has been understood in various ways. Together with Salo et al.
(2024) and Olin et al. (2020), and in accordance with the theory of practice architectures (Kemmis
et al. 2014b) we understand professional learning as ‘learning in and for practice’ (Salo et al. 2024,
p. 8) and as manifested through three inter-related approaches: being stirred into practice, knowing
how to go on, and distancing oneself from practice. Being stirred into practice involves learning
about the practices by participating in them (Kemmis et al. 2017). Participants can be stirred in by
others and also stir themselves into practices. Wittgenstein (2009) introduced the concept of
knowing how to go on. He asks, “in what sort of case, in what kind of circumstances, do we say,
‘Now I know how to go on?’ (Wittgenstein 2009, p. 66). The concept of distancing oneself from
practice (Rönnerman 2012, Olin et al. 2020) highlights the importance of self-reflection as well as
reflection and dialogue in communicative spaces. The first two approaches underscore the practice
perspective, pointing out that learning happens in and through practice. The third approach adds
an existential dimension to practice when highlighting human activities for learning such as
reflection and dialogue. These activities contribute to being able not only to learn by taking part
in practices but also by critically examining them.
The professional learning that we consider in this article focuses on professional learning for
praxis development (Olin et al. 2020). It thus does not focus on professional learning for com­
pliance requirements, or for learning of specific predetermined content. Next, we discuss the
affordances of action research in supporting the professional learning of educators.

Action research as professional learning

In education fields action research can be undertaken for a range of purposes. Kemmis et al. (2014a,
2014b) argue that the purpose of critical participatory action research (CPAR) is to ‘change social
practices’ (p. 2). Carr and Kemmis (1986) argue that improvement and involvement are the two key
aims for action research (p. 165). The overall aim of CPAR is to support and empower participants
as they explore their own situation in order to improve it (Kemmis et al. 2014a). Research and
improvements through empowerment require a non-conventional relationship between scholars
and practitioners, which can be seen as challenging some of the dominant research traditions (Carr
and Kemmis 1986, 2009). Participation, engagement and emancipation are guiding principles for
CPAR (Forssten Seiser 2020) and, therefore also for the action research projects reported in this
study.
Hardy and Rönnerman (2011) identify action research as a valuable approach to professional
learning that supports collaboration, an awareness of the complexity of educator learning, and
504 S. FRANCISCO ET AL.

a focus on site-based practices and arrangements. Further, Kaukko et al. (2020) argue that
‘Educational action research would appear to be one of the most relevant approaches for praxis
development across different educational sites and national contexts’ (p. 43). Similarly, Salo et al.
(2024) identify action research as a form of professional learning that can support praxis develop­
ment. They identify collaboration, dialogue, reflection and inquiry as important components of
professional learning and these are inherent components of most action research projects (Kemmis
et al. 2014a, 2014b).
The aim of this article is to empirically consider the ways in which action research enables and
constrains professional learning. An additional aim for this article, and associated with the first aim,
is to consider whether the framework developed by Salo et al. (2024) is useful in illuminating the
enablers and constraints for teacher professional learning. The questions the article addresses are:

● What, and in what ways, did action research team members identify that they learnt as a result
of undertaking action research?
● What enabled and constrained their learning?

The theory of practice architectures

The two case studies that we consider in this article were established with a theory of practice
architectures framework (Mahon et al. 2017). With a site-based focus on practices, the theory of
practice architectures holds that practices are made up of sayings, doings and relatings that ‘hang
together’ in a project (Kemmis et al. 2014b). These sayings, doings and relatings are prefigured (but
not predetermined) by practice architectures present or brought into the site. As Figure 1 shows,
sayings are prefigured by the cultural-discursive arrangements in a site; doings are prefigured by the
material-economic arrangements in a site; and relatings are prefigured by the social-political
arrangements in a site (Kemmis et al. 2014b).
Cultural-discursive arrangements, in the semantic dimension, enable and constrain the sayings
in a practice. For instance, the ideas and language used during a meeting of an action research team.

Figure 1. The theory of practice architectures (adapted by Stephen Kemmis from Figure 5.4 in Kemmis 2022, p. 97; used with
permission).
 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN EDUCATION 505

Material-economic arrangements, in the physical space/time dimension, include: physical

objects such as desks, chairs and buildings, as well as the ways these are set up (for instance in
a classroom); artefacts, such as teaching resources and lesson plans; timetables and scheduling (such
as meetings and classes); human and economic resources (such as permanently or casually
employed teachers, and availability of computers for students or time release for teachers).
Social-political arrangements, in the social dimension, include hierarchical arrangements in an
organisation or team, and relationships of power and solidarity.
Professional learning practices are enabled and constrained by the practice architectures of the
site in which the professional learning takes place. As Francisco et al. (2017) argue, the theory of
practice architectures can ‘help us work out how to maintain and sustain professional praxis –
informed, committed, action that makes histories – into an uncertain future’ (p. 264). Francisco
et al. (2023) found that power, agency, and trust are three key practice architectures that enable and
constrain professional learning for the development of critical praxis. Salo et al. (2024) were
informed by the theory of practice architectures in developing their framework for professional
learning for praxis development and identified collaboration, dialogue, inquiry, and reflection as
foundational. They also identify four key factors that enable and constrain professional learning for
praxis development: trust, power and solidarity, recognition and agency. Relational trust is devel­
oped over time and influences the interactions that support professional learning in and for
practice. Power can be understood in a range of ways, including the concept of ‘power over’
where an individual or group has power over others and ‘power with’ (sometimes understood as
solidarity) which can be related to working together for a shared and mutually agreed outcome
(Smeed et al. 2009). Recognition refers to mutual recognition of the contributions and capacities of
self and others. Agency can be understood as having the potential and possibility to act using
professional judgement according to the needs of a situation. Salo et al. (2024) identify time as the
fifth theme that is an important factor for professional learning: including time allocated and used
for the professional learning as well as the duration of that professional learning. Similarly, in her
work with Swedish principals, Johansson (2023) highlights time as an important component of
successful professional learning.

Action research as professional learning: two case studies

The empirical evidence for this paper draws on two case studies of action research (AR)
projects: one with Australian Vocational Education and Training (VET) teachers, and the
other with Swedish principals. Each of these case studies was undertaken as professional
learning in and through practice: in undertaking the action research projects the participants
were changing their practices and learning through these changes. The two case studies draw
on participants’ experiences of the action research projects and are clearly bounded around
participation in those projects (Stake 1995, Merriam 1998). The period of the AR project
provides another boundary for each case study.
The Australian VET teachers case study involved an AR project undertaken by Beauty Therapy
teachers, with a focus on middle-leaders supporting the development of VET pedagogy. The
Swedish principals’ case study was part of a Master’s level subject that involved undertaking an
AR project. The overall aim of the subject was to support a critical approach to principals’
professional practice. The participants in the AR projects were not alone in their learning.
Academic facilitators are also learners during these projects (Olin et al. 2016, Olin & Pörn 2021).
Table 1 provides an overview of the data this article draws on.
Following is an overview of each case study.
506 S. FRANCISCO ET AL.

Table 1. Data overview.

Cases Recruitment Participants Duration Data
Australian Vocational Response to an 5 Beauty 14 ● 9 meetings (one face to face and 8
Education and Training email to VET Therapy months via Zoom). All recorded and
(VET) teachers in one teachers inviting teachers transcribed.
action research team participation Private training ● 3 individual participant interviews,
Focus area: development of organisation recorded and transcribed
VET pedagogy ● Site photographs
● Researcher field notes
● Documents provided by the AR team
(assessment tasks, student surveys
and survey results, teacher reflec­
tions on their own learning, and the
outcomes of their AR project).
● Participant emails
Swedish principals divided Principals applied 16 school 14 ● 16 reflection assignments written by
into four action research for the course principals months participants
teams from all
Focus area – development of school
pedagogical leadership sectors: from
preschool to
VET
Public and
private
organisations

Case 1 – Australian teachers of Beauty Therapy

This project was one of four action research projects undertaken as part of a broader project:
Leading pedagogical development in Vocational Education and Training (VET): middle leaders
supporting teacher learning in the workplace. Each of these projects was facilitated and supported
by two researchers, including the first author of this article. The action research project that we
focus on here involved an action research team made up of VET teachers of Beauty Therapy. The
teachers taught online and face to face. The project began with an online presentation about action
research given by the academic facilitator, which ended with a discussion of the issues the teachers
were facing that they would like to work on for the purpose of developing their VET pedagogy. Over
a period of a few weeks, and together with the academic facilitator, the team then determined the
issues that they would like to address in their AR project. These began with the framework of
pedagogical development, and the basic questions: What are the issues you would like to work on in
relation to your teaching practice? What problems are you encountering? Their main focus was on
one particular cohort of students who were experiencing a range of difficulties due partly to the
impact of the COVID pandemic. Throughout the AR project, team members worked to develop
a greater understanding of the issues they were encountering in their work and professional lives, as
well as approaches to better understand student needs and to better support student learning.
There was an ongoing change of membership within the Beauty Therapy teachers’ AR team (and
we found this to be the case with three of the four AR teams). The team membership is outlined
below (note pseudonyms are used).
Cycle 1 – Alex, Ava, and two others who later left the team
Cycle 2 – Alex, Ava, Casey
Cycle 3 – Alex, Ava, Casey
Data collected is outlined in Table 1.
 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN EDUCATION 507

Case 2 – Swedish principals and school leader education

A research-informed, systematic approach that includes actions has proven to be important
in the work of improving professional practice (Forssten Seiser 2020), which motivated
a school leadership course designed as an action research study for principals. This part-
time Masters level subject was offered over 14 months. Participating principals explored and
applied different leading actions in the schools they were assigned to lead. Together with
research on school leading, the principals’ experiences (so-called practice theory, Lauvås and
Handal 2015) formed the cornerstones of the education. In the process, the principals also
examined an ethical perspective in their leading. The subject was designed as action
research where the participating principals formed AR teams based on common issues
and dilemmas emerging in their professional leading practices. Their questions and/or
dilemmas were emailed in advance of the first meeting. The data in this case consist of
assignments written by the participants.
The original plan was that the course would be carried out in the form of five physical two-day
residentials which included meals and in-between times together. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic,
it was only possible to carry out three physical residentials, and two of the meetings were online. As
a complement to these five prescheduled meetings, each AR team also met digitally, usually by
themselves and occasionally with the facilitator (author 2 in this article) invited to participate.
These two case studies are in many ways quite different to each other. We see this difference as
valuable in that it provides richer data that enables us to consider the research questions from
different perspectives. There are also similarities between the cases. They are each grounded in an
action research approach, with a theory of practice architectures framework. In each, the social-
political arrangements and the relatings are important elements of the projects, with praxis
development and reflection key aspects of the work. Each project took place over an extended
period. In establishing the action research projects, the academic facilitators deliberately aimed to
establish collaboration, dialogue, inquiry, and reflection (Salo et al. 2024) as components of each
project.
For each of the projects, one of the authors undertook the role of ‘academic action researcher’
(Platteel et al. 2010, p. 432). As Olin et al. (2016) note, ‘These practices are characterised by being
both researchers and, at the same time, facilitators of professional development who aim to support
and empower teacher participants’ (p. 424). It is this professional development aspect, and how
action research can support that development, that is the focus of this paper.

Analysis
Analysis was undertaken in stages using both inductive (data driven) and deductive (theory driven)
thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2021b). Drawing on Braun and Clarke’s (2021b) reflexive
thematic analysis, we have had an explicitly reflexive approach to identifying and interrogating the
themes. We use Braun and Clarke’s (2021a) following definition of themes ‘Themes in reflexive TA
are patterns of shared meaning, united by a central concept or idea’ (p. 241), noting that themes are
often multi-faceted (Braun and Clarke 2021a). The cases were analysed separately initially, and then
findings were combined to determine areas of similarity and areas of difference in the themes that
emerged. In deliberately using a reflexive approach to our findings, we supported ourselves and
each other to identify our own biases and prior understandings that might influence our analysis.
This was particularly significant for the second research question.
Initially, the data for each case was examined in relation to the first research question: What, and
in what ways, did Action Research team members identify that they learnt through their action
research projects? We began by using an inductive approach to consider the first part of this
question (what they learnt), and for the second part (in what ways they learnt) considered the
three complementary conceptualisations of how learning is happening as described earlier: being
508 S. FRANCISCO ET AL.

stirred into practice; knowing how to go on; and distancing oneself from practice and reflecting
(Rönnerman 2012, Kemmis et al. 2014b, pp. 56–58; Olin et al. 2020, p. 158).
For the second question what enabled and constrained that learning, we began using an inductive
thematic analysis and then realised that many of the themes we identified fitted within the themes
that we planned to use for the second stage using deductive analysis with the key themes identified
by Salo et al. (2024): power and solidarity, recognition, trust, agency and time. We initially
identified a number of themes in addition to these five, however with ongoing reflexive analysis
both individually and together we identified that all themes either fit within the five themes
identified above or were other elements of professional learning identified by Salo et al. (2024):
collaboration, dialogue, inquiry and reflection.
Data provided by Swedish participants was translated to English by author 2. Where quotes are
provided, and it is not clear which project a participant was part of, an initial is included after the
quote: A for Australia and S for Sweden.

Findings and discussion

Turning to our first research question, we explore what, and in what ways, AR team members
identified that they learnt as a result of undertaking action research projects. We begin by present­
ing what they learnt.
One of the things that both the VET teachers and the principals identified that they
learnt was how to undertake an action research project. While for the academic facilitators
this was used as a means to support educator learning, it was identified by almost all
participants as a valuable aspect of their learning. Most participants indicated (unprompted)
that they planned to include action research projects as an element of their future profes­
sional learning, and some noted that they planned to include action research as an element
of the professional learning for their own organisation more broadly. This suggests that
participants highly valued their experiences and learning as a result of undertaking AR
projects.
As the foci of the AR projects were quite different, the specific things that the teams and the team
members learnt varied. We present these findings separately in relation to each case study.
Australian VET teachers. The Australian project had an explicit focus on the development of
teaching and learning, and participants identified some key learning in this area including support­
ing the development of student literacy; development of relevant and appropriate assessment tasks
to both support and assess student learning; and additional approaches to supporting student
learning. Alex was especially keen to be part of the project and articulated her reasons in one of the
early meetings when the team was discussing the approach they would take:
It’s very common that in most RTOs [Registered Training Organisations] professional development for VET
is not a common thing, or at least you know, it is that checkbox, it’s read a blog, watch something, look at
whatever, a webinar, write it up and there you go. And that is all good and well, and we do end up doing a lot of
our own PD [professional development], however, what I find, I think that I need support in is, implementing
something. Like it’s all good enough for me to hear it and go yep that was really interesting, but if I’m the only
one implementing this and it’s not across the whole RTO then it’s sort of an uphill battle and I’m doing one
thing, everybody else is doing the other thing, and so, how do we get that married across? And then you end
up, you who went to the PD and learn something new, and wanting to implement, you kind of go, ‘meh no one
else is doing it so I’ll go back to my old thing’.

In addition to working together to implement changes to their teaching and assessment practices,
team members also reported learning about themselves, about each other, and about the students
they were working with. In initial meetings, participants were struggling with the demands of their
work, to the extent that they mentioned several times they were feeling reluctant to come to work.
Throughout the project, participants learnt a lot about one particular student cohort, and on further
reflection, about their work with students more broadly. In the final interview Ava noted:
 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN EDUCATION 509

we’ve learned how not to get in that situation again . . . we treat the students that we have now [a new cohort of
students] as though they’re already, you know, professionals . . . and the lessons that we learned [from the AR
project] have carried through. And we also recognise some of the things that were triggers for the students
[previous cohort] to feel bad about themselves, which is why they acted out . . . And [prior to the AR project]
I just don’t think we were aware of, of the things that impacted that cohort . . . I think we are [much more
aware of student needs and experiences] now.

The reflection that they did together in relation to some unexpected outcomes of a student survey
that they developed and implemented allowed them to also challenge themselves and each other to
try to avoid preconceived expectations about students and to develop approaches that they might
use in the future to support them with this.
Swedish Principals. The Swedish project had an explicit focus on the development of principals’
pedagogical leading and in the AR teams the principals agreed on key actions to trial in their local
schools. By sharing their experiences from these trials, the principals developed an awareness of the
complexity of the social practices that are undertaken in schools. This kind of awareness diminished
the desire for quick fix-solutions with a single focus on seeking changes in the way teachers are
conducting their profession. The principals learned that they needed to focus on their own actions
and to change their way of leading (cf. the overall aim of CPAR). As Ebba noted

Our focus was initially exclusively on the work of the teachers and that they should change their ambitions and
teaching, and how we with the support of this education would succeed in correcting them to improve. During
the process the focus changed and it became more about our assignment as principals, our inner process
[learning] and development.

The principals described how the dialogue in the AR teams changed over time and when they
started to act as ‘critical friends’ this helped them progress both as individuals and as a group
reflecting on their ethical stand and their own leading actions. Ann noted:

We began to think about the extent to which we, in our leadership but also in this team, play a moral
masquerade where we try to find fault in the teachers’ work and defend our own leadership actions, or in the
worst case, do not discuss them at all . . .

This reflection challenged the principals to think about how their declared ethics are realised in
their daily practice in the form of their own actions. Furthermore, Ann uses the metaphor of playing
a moral masquerade when defending principals’ leadership actions in relation to teachers´ work, by
trying to find faults.
These specific aspects mentioned by Alex, Ann and Ebba can be understood as illustrating, both
the critical, reflective stance of CPAR, and the complex and implicit relational aspects to be
understood in terms of power/solidarity, recognition, trust and agency. In each of the two AR
projects participants learnt a range of things related to their self-determined research focus. Due to
space limitations, we do not provide explicit information here related to that learning, although to
some extent it is apparent in the broader findings.
Next, we turn to the second part of the first research question: the ways that the action research
team members learnt. Here, we used a deductive approach to data analysis and focus on the three
approaches to learning identified by Olin et al. (2020): being stirred into practice, knowing how to
go on, and distancing oneself from practice.
Being stirred into practice. All participants experienced being stirred into practice at the begin­
ning of the projects. Initially, the academic facilitators stirred the participants into action research.
However, over time, they also stirred themselves and each other into the practices of doing action
research, as well as the many and varied practices associated with the specific projects that they
undertook. Being stirred into (and at times stirring others into) the practices continued in some
form throughout the projects. In the Swedish project one of the principals describes this in the
following way
510 S. FRANCISCO ET AL.

It is only during this meeting [the 3rd] that we collectively realise that we are just beginning to understand
what action research entails, and that the research itself is happening within our research team and that this is
more of a short-term effort, while the ultimate goal is a long-term project that may not be evident during this
subject. We came to the conclusion that we need to think in two ways: what we need to change in our own
leadership and what we ultimately want to achieve with this change.

Knowing how to go on. Participants came to know how to go on in different practices and at
different stages of their learning. For instance, in the Australian project participants developed,
administered and analysed a survey to better determine student needs. All participants had to learn
how to do this and supported themselves and each other to develop these skills. At the end of the
project, participants identified a broad range of areas where they now knew ‘how to go on’,
including (but not limited to) research skill development (for example, developing, implementing
and analysing surveys), reflective practice, and various teaching, leading and assessment practices.
In the Swedish project, the principals came to value the action research projects and identified it as
something that could be used in their leadership. Sandra notes:

I feel that this is an approach that has helped me to develop my thinking and I can also see how it has affected
my actions. I think that action research is a useful approach in my future leadership. It would be exciting to
lead teachers in similar projects.

Distancing oneself from practice. All participants distanced themself from their teaching and leading
practices as a consequence of conducting action research. This emerged in the forms of collabora­
tive inquiry as well as collective and individual reflections. When Lena (S) reflected on what
happened on an individual level, she noted

This academic year has been a useful and educational journey where I have been challenged in my experiences,
struggled with my view of people and (reluctantly) changed my leadership. I have gained insight into my
weaknesses and what happens to me when I need to change behaviour. I have been forced into self-reflection
and conscious path choices. It hasn’t always been fun - but I actually feel a bit wiser now.

Casey (A) focused on the value of gaining a range of perspectives on the issue they were addressing
and noted:

I think, you know, being able to have some ideas, and [then] being able to hash it out with your peers, and as
I say, with someone from outside of a beauty background, but looking at it more from an academic
background, was really helpful.

Sandra, another of the Swedish participants, articulated her experience of the development of new
knowledge as a result of experiences with her action research team in the following way:

True self-reflection requires challenging one’s own excellence – and in this I really recognise myself. With
good self-esteem and a secure base of values, there is of course the risk of becoming complacent, which in turn
can turn into cynicism and elitism. Research advocates collegial reflection, and thanks to my action research
team, I now have a positive experience of being challenged in a safe context to change perspectives, change
views and distance myself.

In many ways, by distancing oneself from practice, the participants were able to identify what was
working to support themselves and their students, and to gain a greater understanding of how
things worked.
The action research projects supported participants to experience being stirred into practice,
knowing how to go on, and distancing oneself from practice. Moving between these three has been
presented here as separate and linear. In reality, however, they were intertwined, with participants
moving between all three in both case studies.
Exploring our second research question, we aim to identify specific arrangements that enabled
and constrained professional learning within each of the case studies.
 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN EDUCATION 511

What enabled and constrained learning?

The elements identified by Salo et al. (2024) of collaboration, dialogue, inquiry and reflection were
deliberately built into each of the action research projects by the academic facilitators. It is not
surprising then that these elements were apparent in our findings. Due to limited space, here we
note that our data showed strong evidence for all these elements, and focus a little more on
collaboration and reflection because these elements were most apparent in both case studies.

Collaboration and reflection

Our findings show that participants highly valued collaboration and reflection for supporting their
own learning. Additionally, in the Australian case study, Ava noted that the collaboration experi­
enced through the AR project was of value beyond the project in that it brought the team together
and established an ongoing practice of collaboratively working together to develop their teaching.
In the Australian project, reflection questions formed part of the regular meetings, and in this way
ongoing reflection was scaffolded. In the Swedish project, the theme or question that the AR team
had agreed on became the driving force in their collaboration. Traditionally, the principal’s function
is often a solitary role, and therefore, this collaboration was highly appreciated. Early in the process
one principal expressed: ‘this [collaborative approach] seems like the right way to go’. In Australia,
VET teachers are not required to undertake a university-level teaching qualification and the
certificate that is required does not include reflection as part of the curriculum. However, one of
the participants had a Bachelor-level teaching qualification, was completing a postgraduate teaching
qualification and had a well-developed understanding and practice of critical reflection. She
modelled this in meetings and over time reflective practice became quite apparent with all
participants.

Time
Time was a key theme that emerged in relation to participant learning. Two aspects of time were
especially apparent in our projects: time allocated, and time actually set aside by participants for
professional learning.
Ava (A) identified finding time to focus on the AR project was a constraint to what they could
achieve. She noted
We all had a really huge workload. And I was doing the instructional design stuff, as well as my full time
teaching load. . .[undertaking additional work in own time] . . . and plus, I was studying . . . So we were all
pretty under the pump, you know, with a very full time workload.

The need for deliberate scheduling to ensure time for the action research project was noted by many
participants. For instance, Anna (S) noted
An important factor for the cooperation and collegial learning is that we decided that this work will and may
take time. We planned, prioritised and marked the time in our calendars. We have all chosen to study a course
that interests us. It affects our motivation and our will to develop and go forward.

Participants identified finding time to commit to the AR project (regardless of allocation, schedul­
ing, and other commitments) as a crucial part of being involved in the action research projects and
also noted the benefits were worth the time allocation. As you will note, aspects of time were also
inherent in the four other themes discussed below.

Power and solidarity

Relationships of power and solidarity impacted on what the AR team members did, and how they
did it, which in turn influenced their own learning and sometimes the learning of other team
members. For the Australian project, there were a number of key elements to the relationships of
power and solidarity between the AR team members. Each person’s experience as a teacher and
their experience as a Beauty Therapist influenced their power, as well as their own sense of identity.
512 S. FRANCISCO ET AL.

For instance, when participants introduced themselves to the academic facilitators, they each
indicated the number of years they had worked in the Beauty Therapy industry, as well as the
number of years they had worked as a teacher. Other influences were their employment status (full
time or part-time employment, casually or permanently employed), their previous learning experi­
ences, and their prior experiences of working with other members of the AR team.
Changes in the Action Research teams. The development of solidarity was impacted to some
extent by changing participation in the AR teams. For both the Swedish and the Australian case
studies, the AR teams went through a number of membership changes over the period of the
project. In Australia, two of the team members remained consistent throughout the project, two
left the School during the project, and a new member (Casey) joined the School and the team
part way through. Casey was learning about the AR project at the same time as she was learning
her new role. These changes impacted on the work that the team were doing, especially initially.
Ava (A) noted the difficulties that the team experienced when one person left, and the new
team member (Casey) had to quickly come to terms with her new role and the student needs.
The difficulties were alleviated to some extent because of a pre-existing collegial relationship
between Casey and Alex.
Similarly, in the Swedish case study, only two of the four AR teams remained intact. In one team,
three participants left the course which resulted in only two principals remaining in that AR team.
This affected the team both positively and negatively. The remaining ones lacked the dynamic of the
larger group but also saw advantages in being able to focus on a common issue. Previously, there
was some disagreement about which issue was the most pressing to investigate. The third team lost
one principal, which didn´t significantly affect the group as it occurred early in the process.
Power with and power over. Solidarity and ‘power with’ were the key aspects of power throughout
both projects. The concept of ‘power over’ refers to a more authoritarian power of one group or
individual with power over others. The concept of ‘power with’ has a focus on people working
together collegially and non-hierarchically. For instance, Ava (A) mentioned how Casey (A),
a newly employed teacher, provided her with support in a difficult situation with students. She
went on to say ‘[no-one] always has it completely covered. We need our colleagues . . . I don’t think
we can ever not have colleagues. . .’.
Although minimal, there was also some evidence of the use of ‘power over’. In the Australian
project, of 15+ hours of transcripts (meetings, interviews) and other data, the only clear evidence of
‘power over’ is 2 sentences in an interview with the middle leader of the action research group when
she revealed that she had insisted that the other participants be involved in the action research
project. As noted above, all of the teachers were very busy. It wasn’t until an individual interview at
the end of project that Ava mentioned she had done this. She noted ‘I felt guilty that I was asking
them to commit more, you know, when they were already, they already felt that they were giving
100%’. Ava did not have a supervisory role in the team and had no positional authority; however,
she was highly regarded by the Beauty Therapy team and in that sense there may have been some
hidden power hierarchy. The key point to highlight here, though, is the strong collegiality and
a sense of ‘power with’ within the team.
The Swedish principals explicitly identified the development of their own understandings in
relation to a ‘power over’ stance. For instance, Ann (S) noted:

We started to talk about how our vision and ideas make us act in certain ways and that it is primarily in
ourselves that change is needed if, in a longer perspective, we want to bring about change in the school. The
conversations change from how we should ‘fix the teachers’ to how we should ‘fix ourselves’.

By the end of both projects, there was clear co-ownership of the processes and the outcomes of the
AR project.
 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN EDUCATION 513

Trust
Trust in each other, and in the action research process enabled learning. Relational trust and
especially interpersonal and interactional trust were particularly apparent.
In the Australian case, trust was influenced by the amount of time people were able to work
together. This included working together in the present organisation, working together in
a previous organisation, and working together in the AR project. There was also a trust in the
competency of colleagues in relation to their knowledge and understanding of Beauty Therapy and
the industry more broadly. The trust and solidarity between the teachers were palpable and
developed further throughout the project. AR team members developed a sense of safety with the
academic facilitator, with each other, and with the action research process. The AR team were at
times addressing some difficult challenges together and working together to address these difficul­
ties seemed to support the further development of trust. Alex noted: ‘. . . we do debrief together.
Multiple times a day. I would have – my brain would have exploded already if we didn’t’. They were
also able to critically reflect together in relation to the changes they were making, and the outcomes
of those changes.
Similarly, Swedish principals developed trust between each other and with the academic facil­
itator. Agnetha (S) noted:
There is a sense of trust and being in safe hands that contributes to critical questions being asked, and that we
dare to challenge each other with more developing and deeper questions. Ethical perspectives are given more
time in our discussions, and we reflected more . . .

The increased trust was developed over time and through working together collaboratively. The
Swedish principals referred to the collaboration in their AR teams, and acting as trusted critical
friends, noting that this supported self-reflection as well as changed leadership actions. Ann noted
‘The safer I felt in the group, the more interested I became in supporting others in the group by
listening in a more active way’.

Recognition
Recognition includes valuing of the contribution and capability of self and others. This was apparent
throughout both case studies. There were many instances of this recognition, especially recognition of
others. For instance, Ava (A) articulated this in an early interview ‘Deep down we want connection, we
want to be understood, we want to be appreciated, and we do that for each other as colleagues.’ One of
the many instances of this recognition occurred when Alex (A) introduced Casey (A) to the academic
facilitators. Casey was employed some months after the project began, and Alex had worked with
Casey in a previous organisation. In her introduction, Alex noted:
Casey has quite a few years of experience and she is a very, I say unique trainer. Not unique in the sense that
every trainer is unique, but she brings a certain calmness to her classroom in the way that she presents and
there’s knowledge that she has that I think, would be extremely beneficial to us to see this through, especially
with. [this cohort of students]

Similarly, there was clear evidence of mutual respect and recognition between the Swedish
principals. A joint reflection from five Swedish principals (Karin, Kristina, Emelie, Marie
and Lill) noted
We have reasoned a lot about why the work in our group worked so well and have found it hard to
specify exactly why, it seems like a combination of things. An important prerequisite is the courage and
ability to examine oneself and to see oneself in a context. We have worked as a group and not as single
individuals. Another important factor is that we have seen our differences and various abilities as
strengths. Through our different ways of being pedagogical leaders, we get different perspectives . . .
A tool that we have experienced as successful is acting as a ‘critical friend’. As critical friends, we have
taken the time to really listen to each other and offer feedback and encouragement. This has given us
great joy and a positive atmosphere in the group. It is important to feel listened to, and we have all
been in the present.
514 S. FRANCISCO ET AL.

Participants’ recognition of their own contributions was not as explicit, but it was apparent in
places. In the VET teachers project participants identified the value of their own contribution at
various stages, and especially when prompted to do so in the final interview.

Agency
For the purpose of data analysis, we interpreted agency as indication of a sense of ownership of, and
responsibility for, the action research project, of the outcomes of the projects, and of their own
learning throughout the project (and beyond). For instance, in the third meeting Ava (A) said:
I feel like we’re going to, we’re going to do this. I’m just going to do this. I’m going to get the forms done. And
with [a teacher not in the project] and Alex’s discussion, we’ll work out when, and which unit to introduce
them in.

The Swedish principals’ sense of agency was apparent initially in a limited way. However, over time,
it became more deliberate and focused across a broader range of practices. One principal noted, in
relation to that change:
When we met after our actions [in their daily practices], we saw similarities when we studied them together.
What we had in common was that we asked questions and were curious, but the answers surprised us and gave
us courage to move forward, although not quite in the direction we had expected.

The Swedish principals were taking responsibility for their own actions in the AR project and also
supporting others in developing agency within their own contexts.

Inter-relationship of the themes

We have presented our findings against each of the themes; however, in analysing the data from
each of the projects it became apparent that the key themes of power/solidarity, trust, recognition,
agency and time were closely inter-related and influenced each other. As noted earlier, time is an
element that influenced each of the themes in various ways. As Francisco et al. (2023) found,
development of solidarity and trust is not automatic when people work together – but both did
develop in each of the case studies reported in this article. The material-economic arrangements of
scheduling repeated and regular meetings to work together on the project supported this develop­
ment. For the Swedish principals, the material-economic arrangements of meeting in conference
centres over more than one day and the associated non-work time to socialise and to meet each
other separately to their work together (such as over a meal or drinks) was also valuable in
supporting the development of positive relationships that in turn supported the development of
trust and solidarity. Similarly, meeting regularly over a period of more than a year provided the
cultural-discursive arrangements and the time needed to develop a shared language in relation to
the issues they were exploring. For the Swedish principals, this included a shared theoretical
language, a shared school development language, and a shared language associated with action
research. For the Australian VET teachers, this included a shared VET language (especially for the
newer teachers) and a shared language related to action research.

Discussion and conclusion

We commenced this article by addressing how an unreflective understanding of professional
learning and its expected effects risks the use of ready-made courses without connections to the
everyday practices of teachers and principals. Given the significant resources in terms of time,
money, and people invested in educators’ learning, we argue that our findings are of great
importance, especially in the face of extensive changes, such as the one currently looming in
Sweden in the form of a new national structure for professional learning for principals, teachers
and preschool teachers.
 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN EDUCATION 515

This article has focused on action research for supporting the professional learning of educators.
In particular, we have explored two case studies where action research supported professional
learning, and investigated what enabled and constrained that learning. Specifically, we considered
two questions:

● What, and in what ways, did action research team members identify that they learnt as a result
of undertaking action research projects?
● What enabled and constrained that learning?

We also aimed to consider whether the Professional Learning Framework developed by Salo
et al. (2024) was of value in considering these questions. Turning to this second aim, we
conclude that the framework contributed as a perspective highlighting both the multi-
faceted aspects of professional learning as well as clarifying how these aspects enabled
and constrained learning in the cases that we considered. In this way, the theoretical
analyses contributed to both a more specific and also broader understanding of the learning
process.
In relation to the first research question, AR team members learnt in three main areas: they
learnt about undertaking action research projects, they learnt about the areas of focus that they
chose and together agreed to investigate, and they learnt about themselves and other members of
their AR team. They learnt in various and intertwined ways including through being stirred in to
practice, coming to know how to go on, and distancing themselves from practice through individual
and collaborative reflection. This means that they not only learnt in and through practice but also for
practice, which implies going beyond practice when needed. The doubleness of better under­
standing what is going on by learning through being stirred into and knowing how to go on in
practice, at the same time as being able to critically examine practice through dialogues with others
and self-reflection, leads to learning that has the potential of changing practice in ways that are
relevant and important for the participants taking part in it.
In relation to the second research question, our findings support the Salo et al. (2024) argument
that collaboration, enquiry, dialogue and reflection provide a strong framework for educator
learning. Participants in this study specifically highlighted the value of collaboration and reflection
to support their learning. Time allocated, and time set aside by the participants themselves were
necessities for being able to learn, which of course became a constraint when it was not possible to
prioritise the action research work. Power issues between team members (such as status, collegial
relationships or being new at work) influenced the participants’ individual opportunities to learn.
However, the evidence strongly indicates that the participants highly appreciated the collaboration
and interacted in power relations ‘with’ each other, rather than ‘over’ each other. This not only
enabled learning but also became part of what was learnt by the participants: they realised the value
of working together to be able to learn and make changes in their workplace. Trust, recognition, and
agency were elements in the positive power-relations between participants that grew over time and
were mentioned by participants as affordances for professional learning. These elements made it
possible to deepen the reflection through critical questions and an awareness of differences. What
seemed to take the longest time to develop was educator agency, to act wisely in relation to the
situation and its complexities, and also to be able to recognise one’s own knowledge and contribu­
tion to the collaborative work. For policy makers, these findings may be disturbing since it means
that shorter courses, so-called quick fixes, are not well-invested resources. However, if taken
seriously, it also means that there are possibilities for sustainable and relevant learning and change,
if time and possibilities to collaborate in critical ways are supported.
For the VET teachers, it is obvious that the learning happening through the AR projects
went well beyond just meeting certification requirements (cf. Dymock and Tyler 2018). The
AR team focus was on better supporting students’ learning, and specifically, how to support
students’ learning through changing the teachers’ own preconceived expectations about their
516 S. FRANCISCO ET AL.

students. It also involved managing the stress associated with their work and with their
teaching. With the help of each other and the facilitator, the teachers challenged themselves
to go from ‘what works’ (Kennedy and Stevenson 2023), to new understanding about how
their presumptions had to change for teaching to be transformed in a direction that would
support their students from where they were, and not from where the teachers wished them
to be. Thus, the question of ‘what works’ expanded to include reflections on how the teaching
works for the students and for the teachers (how things work and for whom), as argued by
Kaukko et al. (2020).
For the principals, the form of education, undertaken as an AR project, made it possible for
these leaders to make connections between the training programme and their own practice of
leading in their schools. Earlier research related to principals’ learning through a school leaders
training programme revealed this to be difficult (Forssten Seiser and Söderström 2022).
Learning how to apply a scientific approach (plan, trial, analyse, evaluate, re-plan, et cetera)
and to use knowledge from relevant research and proven experiences in their profession was
seen as important from the start by the principals as this is an expectation anticipated in the
Swedish Educational Act (SFS 2010:800). However, the most important insights for the princi­
pals were achieved over time and had to do with development of greater insight into their own
practices, and the importance of critical friends to support their learning. The principals
discovered that they had to focus on their own actions and that social practices are complex
and not possible to change quickly. Through the process of trialling changes in their schools,
discussing the outcomes with their AR teams, reflecting together with their teams, their focus
on ‘what works’ for the teachers changed. The principals developed a greater focus on how their
own praxis informed leading practices were or were not supporting values and evidence
informed changes at their schools. They became aware that what they initially thought worked,
maybe didn’t work well for their teachers and in the long run for the pupils (cf. Kaukko et al.
2020, Forssten Seiser 2021).
Summarising the arrangements in the study, one can conclude that key themes identified in
these case studies are relational. Edwards-Groves et al. (2010) argue that ‘“relational architectures”
underpin all educational practice and that the education profession must thus be conceptualised as
a praxis-oriented profession – that is, as a profession oriented towards the praxis of those who
participate in it (and are affected by it) . . .’ (p.52). Salo et al. (2024) note that ‘[m]utual recognition
of each other’s knowledge and competences are necessary conditions in relationships aiming for
change and substantial transformation of practice’ (p. 11). This mutual recognition can support the
ongoing development of trust. Time clearly becomes a necessary component for those processes to
happen. It also becomes obvious that learning that has the power to positively transform educa­
tional practices for the benefit of all does not appear through transmissive models that are manage­
rially imposed, as Kennedy and Stevenson (2023) warn against. The arrangements must be sensitive
to, and open to, what is relevant to local needs. It also takes time to come to actions that are well
adjusted to the situation and visions of the practice and its participants. The development of agency
to transform practices grows slowly, as shown in these two case studies.
To conclude, the teachers and principals in these case studies were able to determine what works
in their own context, and for themselves and their schools. They were able to understand how
particular practices can enable and constrain positive change and to act on this understanding. The
case studies show that through their involvement in action research the teachers and the principals
were able to develop not only a greater contextualised understanding, of what works, how it works,
and who it works for (Kaukko et al. 2020), but also the collective agency to make changes in their
educational practices to better support themselves, their colleagues and their students. The rela­
tional practice architectures of power and solidarity, trust, recognition, and agency, together with
time, were key in supporting educator learning and in supporting the positive changes that the
educators chose to implement. By learning in, through and for practice, the aim of praxis develop­
ment became realised.
 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN EDUCATION 517

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

ORCID
Susanne Francisco http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1963-5124
Anette Forssten Seiser http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5086-6126
Anette Olin Almqvist http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6488-7438

References
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, (n.d.). Australian professional standards for teachers. https://
www.aitsl.edu.au/standards
Braun, V and Clarke, V, 2021a. One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis?
Qualitative research in psychology, 18 (3), 328–352. doi:10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238
Braun, V and Clarke, V, 2021b. Thematic analysis: A practical guide to understanding and doing. Melbourne: Sage.
Carr, W and Kemmis, S, 1986. Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. Abingdon, Oxon: Deakin
University Press.
Carr, W.and Kemmis, S. 2009. Educational Action Research: A Critical Approach. In: S.E. Noffke and B. Somekh, eds.
Sage Handbook of Educational Action Research. 6 ed. SAGE Publications Ltd, 74–84.
Dymock, D and Tyler, M, 2018. Towards a more systematic approach to continuing professional development in
vocational education and training. Studies in continuing education, 40 (2), 198–211. doi:10.1080/0158037X.2018.
1449102
Edwards-Groves, C, et al. 2010. Relational architectures: recovering solidarity and agency as living practices in
education. Pedagogy culture & society, 18 (1), 43–54. doi:10.1080/14681360903556814.
Forssten Seiser, A, 2020. Exploring enhanced pedagogical leadership: An action research study involving Swedish
principals. Educational action research, 28 (5), 791–806. doi:10.1080/09650792.2019.1656661
Forssten Seiser, A, 2021. When the demand for educational research meet practice – a Swedish example. Research in
educational administration & leadership, 6 (2), 348–376. doi:10.30828/real/2021.2.1
Forssten Seiser, A and Söderström, Å, 2021. Rektorer i utbildning: Drivkrafter för ett lärande i samspel [Principals in
Education: Driving forces for learning in interaction]. Högre utbildning, 11 (1), 79–92. doi:10.23865/hu.v11.2947
Forssten Seiser, A and Söderström, Å, 2022. The impact of the Swedish national principal training programme on
school leaders’ actions: Four case studies. Research in educational administration & leadership, 7 (4), 826–859.
doi:10.30828/real.1120909
Francisco, S, 2022. Supporting the workplace learning of vocational and further education teachers: Mentoring and
beyond. London: Routledge.
Francisco, S, Forssten Seiser, A, and Grice, C, 2023. Professional learning that enables the development of critical
praxis. Professional development in education, 49 (5), 938–952. doi:10.1080/19415257.2021.1879228
Francisco, S, Mahon, K, and Kemmis, S, 2017. Transforming education and professional practice. In: K. Mahon,
S. Francisco, and S. Kemmis, eds. Exploring education and professional practice: through the lens of the theory of
practice architectures. Singapore: Springer, 257–264.
Guthrie, H and Jones, A, 2018. How can VET teacher education and development be improved?. LH Martin Institute.
http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/461907
Hardy, I and Rönnerman, K, 2011. The value and valuing of continuing professional development: current dilemmas,
future directions and the case for action research. Cambridge journal of education, 41 (4), 461–472. doi:10.1080/
0305764X.2011.625004
Jerdborg, S 2022. Learning principalship: Becoming a principal in a Swedish context [Doctoral thesis]. University of
Gothenburg. https://hdl.handle.net/2077/70566
Johansson, E, 2023. Reconceptualizing time to understand how to lead digitalization in education. Forskning og
forandring, 6 (1), 3–21. doi:10.23865/fof.v6.5344
Kaukko, M, Wilkinson, J, and Langelotz, L, 2020. Research that facilitates praxis and praxis development. In: K.
Mahon, C. Edwards-Groves, S. Francisco, M. Kaukko, Kemmis, S. & K. Petrie, eds. Pedagogy education and praxis
in critical times. Singapore: Springer, 39–64.
Kemmis, S, et al. 2014. Changing practices, changing education. Singapore: Springer.
Kemmis, S, 2017. Learning as being ‘stirred in’ to practices. In: P. Grootenboer and C. Edwards-Groves, S. Choy,
P. Grootenboer, and C. Edwards-Groves, eds. Practice theory perspectives on pedagogy and education: praxis,
diversity and contestation. Singapore: Springer, 45–65.
518 S. FRANCISCO ET AL.

Kemmis, S, 2022. Transforming practices: changing the world with the theory of practice architectures. Singapore:
Springer.
Kemmis, S, McTaggart, R, and Nixon, R, 2014a. The action research planner: Doing participatory action research.
Singapore: Springer.
Kemmis, S, et al. 2014b. Changing practices, changing education. Singapore: Springer.
Kennedy, A, 2014. Understanding continuing professional development: the need for theory to impact on policy and
practice. Professional development In education, 40 (5), 688–697. doi:10.1080/19415257.2014.955122
Kennedy, A and Stevenson, H, 2023. Beyond reproduction: the transformative potential of professional learning.
Professional development in education, 49 (4), 581–585. doi:10.1080/19415257.2023.2226971
Lauvås, P and Handal, G, 2015. Handledning och praktisk yrkesteori.[Mentoring and practical vocational theory].
Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Mahon, K, et al. 2017. Introduction: practice theory and the theory of practice architectures. In: K. Mahon,
S. Francisco, and S. Kemmis, eds. Exploring education and professional practice: through the lens of practice
architectures. Singapore: Springer, 1–30.
Mahon, K.H. et al. 2020. What is educational praxis. In: K. Mahon, C. Edwards-Groves, S. Francisco, M. Kaukko, S.
Kemmis, and K. Petrie, eds. Pedagogy, education and praxis in critical times. Springer, 15–38.
Merriam, S.B, 1998. Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mockler, N, 2013. Teacher professional learning in a neoliberal age: Audit, professionalism and identity. Australian
journal of teacher education (online), 38 (10), 35–47. doi:10.14221/ajte.2013v38n10.8
Olin, A, Karlberg-Granlund, G, and Furu, E.M, 2016. Facilitating democratic professional development: exploring
the double role of being an academic action researcher. Educational action research, 24 (3), 424–441. doi:10.1080/
09650792.2016.1197141
Olin, A, et al. 2020. Collaborative professional learning for changing educational practices. In: K. Mahon, C.
Edwards-Groves, S. Francisco, M. Kaukko, S. Kemmis, and K. Petrie, eds. Pedagogy education and praxis in
critical times. Singapore: Springer, 141–162.
Olin, A and Pörn, M, 2021. Teachers’ professional transformation in teacher-researcher collaborative didactic
development projects in Sweden and Finland. Educational action research, 31 (4), 1–18. doi:10.1080/09650792.
2021.2004904
Platteel, T, et al. 2010. Forming a collaborative action research partnership. Educational action research, 18 (4),
429–451. doi:10.1080/09650792.2010.524766
Rönnerman, K, 2012. Vad är aktionsforskning? [What is action research?] In: K. Rönnerman, ed. Aktionsforskning
i praktiken - förskola och skola på vetenskaplig grund. Lund: Studentlitteratur, 21–41.
Sachs, 2016. Teacher professionalism: why are we still talking about it? Teachers & Teaching, 22 (4), 413–425. doi:10.
1080/13540602.2015.1082732
Sachs, J and Mockler, N, 2012. Performance cultures of teaching: threat or opportunity? In: C. Day, ed. The Routledge
handbook of teacher and school development. Routledge, 33–43.
Salo, P, Francisco, S, and Olin Almqvist, A, 2024. Understanding professional learning in and for practice.
Professional development in education, 50 (3), 1–16. doi:10.1080/19415257.2024.2311108
SFS 2010:800. Skollag [Education Act] http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-
forfattningssamling/skollag-2010800_sfs-2010-800
Smeed, J, et al. 2009. Power over, with and through: another look at micropolitics. Leading & managing, 15 (1), 26–41
Stake, R.E, 1995. The art of case study research. London: SAGE Publications.
U2022/02319 Uppdrag om nationellt professionsprogram. Utbildningsdepartementet. Mission on the national
professional program. Ministry of Educationhttps://www.regeringen.se/contentassets/
e9564a1f93674f95b7385552f614c4ae/uppdrag-om-ett-nationellt-professionsprogram/
Wittgenstein, L, 2009. Philosophical investigations. P. M. S. Hacker& J. Schulte. Trans. 4th, Oxford: Blackwell: