LONDON REVIEW OF EDUCATION

e-ISSN: 1474-8479

Journal homepage:
https://www.uclpress.co.uk/pages/london-review-of-
education

Teachers as researchers: Reflecting on the

challenges of research–practice partnerships
between school and university in Chile
Gonzalo R. Guerrero-Hernández and Rocío A. Fernández-Ugalde

How to cite this article

Guerrero-Hernández, G.R. and Fernández-Ugalde, R.A. (2020) ‘Teachers as researchers:
Reflecting on the challenges of research–practice partnerships between school
and university in Chile’. London Review of Education, 18 (3), 423–38. https://doi.
org/10.14324/LRE.18.3.07

Submission date: 31 January 2020

Acceptance date: 12 May 2020
Publication date: 13 November 2020

Peer review
This article has been peer-reviewed through the journal’s standard double-blind peer review,
where both the reviewers and authors are anonymized during review.

Copyright
© 2020 Guerrero-Hernández and Fernández-Ugalde. This is an open-access article
distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY) 4.0 https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original authors and source are credited.

Open access
The London Review of Education is a peer-reviewed open-access journal.
 Guerrero-Hernández, G.R. and Fernández-Ugalde, R.A. (2020) ‘Teachers
as researchers: Reflecting on the challenges of research–practice
partnerships between school and university in Chile’. London Review of
Education, 18 (3), 423–38. https://doi.org/10.14324/LRE.18.3.07

Teachers as researchers: Reflecting on the

challenges of research–practice partnerships
between school and university in Chile
Gonzalo R. Guerrero-Hernández* − UCL Institute of Education, UK and
Universidad de Santiago de Chile
Rocío A. Fernández-Ugalde − University of Cambridge, UK and
Universidad de Santiago de Chile

Abstract
Teachers have tended to be underestimated as experts of their own practice and
relegated to a technical role. In this context, action research appears as a form to
legitimate teachers as active agents and producers of educational knowledge.
This article aims to examine how a collaborative research–practice partnership
between schools and universities in Chile fosters teachers’ role as researchers. It
adopts a qualitative methodology based on thematic analysis of data collected
from questionnaires and focus groups. In particular, it reports perceptions of in-
service teacher researchers who conducted research projects between 2016 and
2017 as a part of a researcher–practitioner partnership strategy implemented by a
university in Chile. The findings suggest that the partnerships were highly valued
among teachers because the partnerships allowed them to develop pedagogical
reflection towards the improvement of their practices and required particular
awareness and recognition of roles and the relationships between practical and
theoretical knowledge. Finally, possibilities for strengthening teachers’ role as
researchers and collaborative research are presented at the end of the article.

Keywords: research–practice partnership, teachers as researchers, collaborative

research, school–university relationship

Introduction
One of the main purposes of educational research has been to produce knowledge
for improving education practices inside schools and classrooms (OEI, 2015).
However, even though teachers are crucial for achieving better teaching and learning
processes, they are usually underestimated as active agents and protagonists of
their own practice (Kincheloe, 2003; Biesta, 2017). Rather, they are often viewed as
a means for implementing policies and research findings that preserve a technical
conceptualization of their role (Schön, 1987; Gandin and Gomes de Lima, 2015).
This has resulted in a problematic issue from different positions; policymakers and
educational authorities have observed with concern how some policy efforts tend to
fail or have unexpected outcomes (OEI, 2015). University researchers have aimed to
support teachers to incorporate educational findings into their classrooms, but they
have not been able to produce pertinent knowledge from teachers’ perspectives (Pesti
et al., 2018). Consequently, in-service teachers perceive research as an area distant
from their classroom practice, and even as irrelevant to their daily practice (Beycioglu
et al., 2010).

*Corresponding author − email: [email protected]

424 Gonzalo R. Guerrero-Hernández and Rocío A. Fernández-Ugalde

Critical pedagogues and scholars address this problem from a more complex
perspective on the nature of teachers’ work as creative, research-based and
transformative (Freire, 1970; Giroux, 1988). For Kincheloe (2003), inquiry is an inherent
dimension of teaching, and teacher research has the potential to foster teachers’
empowerment. These critical perspectives have sparked many new initiatives on
teacher research, and continue to be a pertinent lens to address issues of empowering
teachers and enriching teaching and learning process in the classrooms (McLaughlin
and Black-Hawkins, 2007). But even though there have been many successful research
studies conducted by teachers that point to benefits for teachers’ professional
development and meaningful research findings, some scholars such as Cochran-
Smith and Lytle (1999), Kincheloe (2003) and Cloonan (2019) have pointed out that
practitioner research tends to be subject to critique, since it challenges the traditional
positivist research culture. Recognizing teachers’ research role is considered a pivotal
factor when it comes to linking teaching practices to inquiry and reflection, yet this
notion has encountered several constraints (Biesta, 2007).
There have been several initiatives on teacher research, and most of them have
suggested collaborative university–schools research as a fruitful form for incorporating
research on teachers’ work (Christianakis, 2010; Cloonan, 2019). In this article, we
focus on how collaborative research–practice partnerships (RPPs) between school
and university foster teachers’ role as researchers. Building on the perspectives of
teachers who undertook research projects in RPPs with a Chilean university, we reflect
on the benefits, challenges and tensions that emerged from this process, and propose
recommendations for further teacher research projects, aiming to strengthen teachers’
research role.

Teachers doing research

There is a broad tradition linked to teachers doing research, from which the potential
benefits of research conducted by them have been recognized, as well as the inherent
complexities of teaching. Dewey’s remarks on the intrinsic relation between research
and reflective thinking sparked many considerations about teaching as intrinsically
research based (Rolfe, 2014). Similarly, Giroux (1988) and his perspectives on teachers
as intellectuals aimed to recognize teaching as a tangled union of reflection and action
and gave rise to thinking about teachers as transformative actors. Cochran-Smith and
Lytle (1992, 1999) established solid understanding of teachers’ inquiry stance and
inspired many teacher research initiatives, resulting in a body of literature reflecting
on the obstacles surrounding this mode of research (Storm, 2016). Based on these
perspectives, it could be argued that teacher researcher is a means of acknowledging
the inherent inquiry component that is part of everyday teaching, and to take it to the
next stage by incorporating systematization as a process of organization, interpretation
and presentation in a communicative sense of the lived experience (Freire, 1970).
Nonetheless, experiences in research conducted by teachers have not necessarily
been based on the same principles and aims. There are different reasons why teachers
should engage in research projects and what their role should be in this. Common
justifications rest on the practice enhancement that comes from teacher research, where
both teaching and learning improve substantially (Manfra, 2019; Schiera, 2014; Ulla
et al., 2017). Teachers engage in systematic pedagogical reflection processes and learn
through the development of a deep understanding of their pedagogy and its impact on
their students’ learning, allowing teachers to formulate meaningful questions for their
classrooms, rather than simplistic answers (Kincheloe, 2003). Consequently, a common

London Review of Education 18 (3) 2020

 Teachers as researchers 425

type of teacher research is action research (Reason and Bradbury, 2008; Manfra, 2019).
In a similar way, teachers’ professional development is considered another powerful
reason for teachers’ research, since conducting research has a great positive impact
on teachers’ progress and learning of their everyday professional practice (Ulla et al.,
2017), and unsurprisingly it has been incorporated as part of development and training
teaching programmes (Cochran-Smith and Lytle, 1999; Ulla et al., 2017; Cloonan, 2019).
Moreover, many have pointed out that there is a large gap among policymaking,
educational research and educational practice, and that traditional research models
have been more likely to maintain this gap (Biesta, 2007; Wyse et al., 2018). Policy
initiatives and educational research do not have the expected impact (OEI, 2015) and,
therefore, actors coming from these fields frequently agree on the existence of this
gap and the dilemma of moving research to practice (Cisternas, 2011; Pesti et al., 2018;
Penuel et al., 2015). Teacher research, then, has been seen as a mechanism to connect
different dimensions involved in education, frequently with an emphasis on putting to
work the contributions from scholars and policymakers.
Conversely, others have highlighted education research itself as a motor for
taking seriously teachers’ research. For Kincheloe (2003), teachers can offer significant
contributions to research that would remain hidden for ‘expert’ university researchers,
and research developed by teachers aims to achieve educational rigour and quality
of education. Teachers are constantly seeking to understand what is behind their
students’ attitudes, developing a unique knowledge (Storm, 2016; Schiera, 2014).
Kincheloe (2003: 36) has suggested:

University researchers observe for brief moments and administer problem-

riddled tests to measure student progress. The focus is far too simple,
much too narrow, the observation much too short and devoid of context
to understand the dynamics of the classroom, not to mention prescribing
generalizable procedures for effective teaching.

This perspective has encountered contestation from scholars closer to traditional

positivist research perspectives. Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999) referred to these
inquisitive voices as the knowledge critique, which is founded on the basis that there
are different forms of knowledge – theoretical, scientific and more practical – but
knowledge produced by teachers’ research is typically required to be circumscribed
into scientific knowledge in order to be considered valid. However, other critiques
have come from scholars coming from teacher research movements, who question the
purpose of this research and call to pay attention to the historical and political roots
of this movement, which may have been put aside (Cochran-Smith and Lytle, 1999;
Kincheloe, 2003).
Current studies have found in teachers’ research a form to develop a way for
teachers to collect evidence that will inform educational policies (Babkie and Provost,
2004). This focus on evidence collection reflects that not every initiative surrounding
teachers’ research might recognize teachers as pivotal producers of educational
knowledge (Biesta, 2007; Kincheloe, 2003). Some approaches to teacher research are
more likely to aim for classroom effectiveness, whereas those approaches founded in
the inherent role of teachers as researchers (Giroux, 1988; Cochran-Smith and Lytle,
1992; Storm, 2016) do not see this type of research as a solution to fixed problems,
but as an intrinsic component of teaching practice and as part of the inextricable link
between education and inquiry.
If teachers merely apply knowledge created elsewhere, they may become de-
professionalized (Kincheloe, 2003; Giroux, 1988, 2013). This is relevant given the current

London Review of Education 18 (3) 2020

426 Gonzalo R. Guerrero-Hernández and Rocío A. Fernández-Ugalde

culture of accountability and standardization, where teachers in many parts of the world
are relegated to a technical role that undermines their reflexivity, autonomy and inquiry
(Giroux, 2013; Biesta, 2017). It is, then, not a surprise that, even though several benefits
have been described as crucial for teachers’ practice, teaching models disconnected
from practitioner inquiry tend to persist (Schiera, 2014), and teachers are not only
reluctant to conduct their own research but also to participate in others’ projects or
to use research findings in their classroom (Richard and Bélanger, 2018). This issue
certainly raises questions of how pertinent education research is without a dialogue
with teachers. In addition, even in cases where teachers have had positive conceptions
about research as a means of improving students’ learning, they still might decide not
to undertake research because of constraints linked to lack of research skills, intense
workloads and lack of support (Schiera, 2014; Ulla et al., 2017; Cloonan, 2019).
Recognizing teachers’ role as researchers is considered a pivotal factor when
it comes to linking teaching practices to inquiry and reflection (Kincheloe, 2003). But
there are innumerable challenges that must be addressed for teachers’ research to
be both legitimate and a basic element of their practice. Potential solutions could
be found in the role of research communities and collaboration (Cochran-Smith and
Lytle, 1992; Cloonan, 2019), which have resulted in positive experiences in confronting
traditional education research approaches, namely: the Cambridge, School Teachers
and Research (CamStar) project, and the School–University Partnership for Educational
Research (SUPER) partnerships at the University of Cambridge, and the Knowledge
Network for Applied Education Research (KNAER) at the University of Toronto.
In particular, recent literature has highlighted research–practice partnerships as a
potential framework for developing this form of collaboration (Furlong and Oancea,
2005; McLaughlin and Black-Hawkins, 2007; Penuel et al., 2015).

Collaborative research and research–practice

partnerships
In order to understand, transform and produce knowledge about educational realities,
it is necessary to build bridges between different actors and worlds involved in
education, starting from an orientation of change with others (Reason and Bradbury,
2008). Recommendations to address the educational gap between teachers and
research have consistently pointed to a reconceptualization of the university–school
link (OEI, 2015). Academia has tended to view teachers mainly as informative actors of
educational research and school problems (Beycioglu et al., 2010; Christianakis, 2010),
yet the involvement of teachers in research plays a key role in generating research
knowledge.
Consequently, the collaborative research-based approach becomes potentially
useful and has gained ground from diverse contexts, aspirations, and methodological
and theoretical orientations. It has been approached with different labels: action
research, associative research, practitioner research, collaborative inquiry, critical
inquiry, classroom research, inquiry-oriented teacher education, among others
(Guerrero et al., 2019). In particular, research–practice partnerships between the
university and the school have become a prevalent approach. In general terms,
these are long-term collaborative partnerships between practitioners and university
researchers that are organized to investigate problems, contributing to more robust
educational theory and practice for improving schools and school districts (Coburn
and Penuel, 2016). An RPP can potentially enhance the role of teacher as researcher
and facilitate the professional development of both pre-service teachers and in-service

London Review of Education 18 (3) 2020

 Teachers as researchers 427

teachers (Cheng and So, 2012). This approach seeks to challenge research in education
by reconfiguring the role of the university researcher and fostering teachers’ leading
role in their professional development.
University staff might provide a range of research expertise, training and
resources to support teacher inquiry activities, but it is the teachers who ensure that the
findings are translated into schools (McLaughlin and Black-Hawkins, 2007). Thus, the
alliance between the university and the school also allows us to understand research
as a facilitating tool in the construction, elaboration and validation of knowledge.
Moreover, this type of research constitutes an opportunity to link teachers in processes
that move from reflection on practice to description, analysis and finally to action (Gray
and Campbell-Evans, 2002).
However, bridging the school–university divide implies acknowledging how
teachers are viewed during the process of doing research in education. Indeed, this
approach demands a new configuration that breaks with the vertical relationships
between university researcher and teacher, and where the teachers, no longer mere
receptors, are now teacher researchers in dialogue with the university researcher,
creating together new knowledge (Freire, 1970).
In addition, forming RPPs is not an easy task, and it requires addressing the
cultural and political differences between the work of teachers and university
researchers. Some of these differences are linked to dissimilarities in the ways that
university researchers and in-service teachers tend to frame and deliberate about
problems and the design of solutions to problems of practice with colleagues (Reiser
et al., 2000). These differences are associated with the expected pace of work and
accountability measurement of demands at work (Coburn et al., 2010). For instance,
normally in-service teachers feel a strong sense of urgency; they want solutions quickly
so that they can put new innovations in the curriculum or new policies in place to meet
students’ needs now. By contrast, research and university researchers often proceed
gradually, prioritizing the production of data and evidence, then analysing through
cycles of inquiry, and finally being able to recommend action (Penuel et al., 2015).
However, some limitations to this approach are based on the fact that schools
and universities cannot fully change their cultures, nor can university faculty become
full members of school faculties, and vice versa. This limitation could be tackled from
Freire (1970) and his awareness of the dialectic within dichotomies of research–practice
and knowledge through blurring the boundaries between university researcher and
teacher. Developing this dialectic requires acknowledging teachers’ perceptions of
RPPs and creating suitable conditions, including trust, mutual respect, motivation,
resources and adequate time spent in the situational context (James and Augustin,
2018).
Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1992) argued that the knowledge needed for
teachers to teach well cannot be generated solely by university researchers and
then transmitted for implementation into schools and classrooms. Furthermore, they
argued that teachers should be positioned as researchers who develop knowledge to
improve practice, while simultaneously challenging existing knowledge and the power
hierarchies that are often perpetuated by universities.
Engaging in collaborative practitioner inquiry projects that involve university–
school partnerships requires the willingness to open a generative new culture, called
the third space (Bhabha, 1994), which might allow the negotiation of personal ways
of knowing, as well as collaborative understandings in the research process. Here,
we argue that the acknowledgement of the key concept of boundary crossing and
boundary practices can enrich the understanding of the interactions of research

London Review of Education 18 (3) 2020

428 Gonzalo R. Guerrero-Hernández and Rocío A. Fernández-Ugalde

and practice, particularly in the context of research–practice partnerships (Penuel

et al., 2015). We suggest that the collaborative work of partnerships requires both
participants to engage in boundary crossing, but also closer attention to how RPPs
between university and schools view the role and voice of teachers in the design and
development of these initiatives.
The study aims to answer the following research question: How does a
collaborative research–practice partnership between schools and universities in Chile
foster teachers’ role as researchers?

Methodology
This study is framed as a qualitative approach and an interpretative-comprehensive
design, which is characterized by inquiry into the perceptions of the participants,
and it aims to understand the particularities of the research context (Flick, 2007). The
instruments to evaluate the experience consisted of an open-response questionnaire
answered by 30 teacher researchers, which aimed to collect perceptions about
the experience of doing collaborative research, and on focus groups involving 42
teacher researchers, which aimed to complement and expand responses from the
questionnaires. Both instruments were answered voluntarily by teacher researchers
who participated in establishing the RPPs within seven collaborative projects. The RPPs
involved 15 university researchers from a Chilean public university and 67 members of
seven schools from Chile, including in-service teacher researchers, head teachers and
school principals.
Thematic analysis guided the analysis of teacher researchers’ perceptions,
following an inductive process and the phases of thematic analysis proposed by Braun
and Clarke (2006). The phases to analyse the data were: (1) familiarizing with the data;
(2) generating initial codes; (3) searching and reviewing for themes; (4) defining and
naming themes; and (5) producing a report. NVivo 12 software was used for themes
codification and as a tool supporting the process of analysis.

Developing research–practice partnerships

This study is part of a project implemented by a public university in Chile, which aimed to
strengthen both initial teacher education and continuous professional development of
in-service teachers. This project sought to question traditional ways of doing research,
transitioning gradually from a vertical, hierarchical model to a horizontal, collaborative
model, where teacher researchers are viewed as agents in alliance with university (see
Figures 1 and 2).
The RPPs developed in this project aimed to: (1) foster a dialogue between the
different actors from university and schools, building complex and multidimensional
diagnoses of problems emerging from school contexts; (2) promote and develop
projects based on collaborative research among communities, in particular, between
in-service teachers and university researchers; (3) encourage teachers to become
teacher researchers, instead of relying solely on university experts to provide solutions
to their problems; and (4) strengthen and build bridges between different educational
actors to promote solid processes of pedagogical reflection and collaborative work.
The RPPs in this study were developed according to the stages shown in Figure 3.
The RPPs were carried out for a one-year period. The first stage involved an
open call for school-based research proposals directed to a network of schools linked
to the university. In particular, the university asked the schools to develop a diagnosis

London Review of Education 18 (3) 2020

 Teachers as researchers 429

Researchers from
university
(developing
theory)

Teachers from
schools
(applying to
practice)

Students' learning

Figure 1: Modes of interaction between university and teachers doing research:

vertical or traditional model of doing research
Source: Adapted from Chow et al. (2015)

Researchers from Research–practice partnerships Teachers from

university schools

Theory + experience collaboration

Practice

Students’ learning

Figure 2: Modes of interaction between university and teachers doing research:

horizontal model within research–practice partnerships
Source: Adapted from Chow et al. (2015)

and formulate a problem based on everyday school-life issues that they encounter, and
that would contribute to their students’ learning processes. A committee established
by university researchers selected school applications based on the researchers’
expertise and affinity with the topics.
The second stage was focused on the design of projects through collaborative
work. Teacher researchers selected the methods and research approaches according
to their specific contexts and the nature of their research problems. For instance, in
three of the projects, the researchers used surveys and implemented focus groups
with the students, who were considered the main beneficiaries of the research. All
the projects were framed on action research based on a participatory action-inquiry
approach (see Table 1). During this stage, university researchers provided information
and literature to support the projects in dialogue with teacher researchers, who were

London Review of Education 18 (3) 2020

430 Gonzalo R. Guerrero-Hernández and Rocío A. Fernández-Ugalde

• Design of projects
in collaboration
(aims, methods,
stages, etc.) 4. Evaluation
• Selection of of experience
2. Establishing literature
• Diagnosis
and and preparing • Collaborative work • Evaluation of
formulation RPPs and pedagogical the experience
of problems reflection in each project
and selection • Acknowledgement • Evaluation of
of topics • Evaluation of problems strengths,
of boundaries and
from schools and arrangment of RPPs weaknesses
roles
between researchers and challenges
from university and key • Implementation of
within RPPs
actors from schools projects within
RPPs • Presentation of
1. Open call • Engagement between results to the
for school- teachers and university 3. Developing community
based research researchers
RPPs and
proposals implementing
collaborative
research

Figure 3: Research–practice partnerships and collaborative research stages

thrilled to read about their topics from academic literature. Indeed, many of them
engaged critically with it when selecting the most appropriate research approach.
The development of the projects comprised several meetings for pedagogical
reflection and collaboration among RPPs. Furthermore, RPPs convened meetings
to define roles, design instruments and to define strategies to carry out and assess
each project. At the end of each project, a questionnaire was voluntarily answered
by 30 participants, and focus groups, lasting about two hours each, were developed
in three schools, involving 42 participants in total. The focus groups were conducted
by university researchers in order to complement the number of respondents from
the questionnaire, and to expand upon teacher researchers’ perceptions about
the process of doing collaborative research within RPPs. Survey questions in the
questionnaire considered strengths, weaknesses and challenges of developing
school–university collaborative research. In addition, teacher researchers’ answers
included suggestions of how to make improvements for a future collaborative
research experience.

Findings
In this section, we aim to answer our research question regarding the extent to which
collaborative research–practice partnerships between school and university foster
teachers’ role as researchers. We present the findings under three themes, drawn
from the theoretical framework and the thematic analysis. These are: (1) the roles and
constraints within the RPPs; (2) the process of conducting educational research; and (3)
the relationship between RPPs and teaching practice.

Roles and constraints within the research–practice partnerships

The process of conducting research in an RPP encountered several constraints from
teacher researchers’ perspectives. Building from this, in this section, we problematize
the role of the participants, and discuss the constraints that were pointed out by most
of the participants as weaknesses and aspects to improve for a further project. In
particular, time appears to be one of the major constraints for conducting the research

London Review of Education 18 (3) 2020

 Teachers as researchers 431

Table 1: Project information

Name of project Topic Research Participants
approach
1. The challenge of Pedagogical reflection Action Head teacher of school
pedagogical reflection: assessment research 10 schoolteachers
a diagnosis of the 3 university researchers
competences and
practices among
teachers
2. Strengthening Collaborative work Action Head teacher of school
collaborative strategies Pedagogical reflection research 15 schoolteachers
to improving assessment assessment 3 school principals
processes: an associative 4 university researchers
research experience
3. Interdisciplinary Thinking skills Action Head teacher of school
learning communities: Interdisciplinarity research 5 Schoolteachers
how to strengthen Collaborative work 2 university researchers
teaching and
learning through the
development of thinking
skills
4. Educational practices Assessment Action Head teacher of school
in the development of Mathematical skills research 2 school principals
mathematical skills: 10 schoolteachers
an analysis of 3 university researchers
assessments practices
5. Interdisciplinary field Interdisciplinarity Action Head teacher of school
trips: didactic routes Collaborative work research 3 school principals
towards learning based Learning outside the 7 schoolteachers
on university–school classroom 2 university researchers
associative research
6. Diagnosis of reading Reading proficiency Action Head teacher of school
proficiency and a Reading research 3 schoolteachers
proposal to support comprehension ability 2 university researchers
reading comprehension Collaborative work
7. Interdisciplinary Interdisciplinarity Action Head teacher of school
classroom learning in Multicultural and research 2 schoolteachers
contexts for the environmental 2 university researchers
appraisal of local education
culture and care for the
environment

projects, and most of the teacher researchers complained about the limited time that
they could dedicate to these research initiatives.
Moreover, the answers of some participants also linked time constraints to the
organizational culture of their school, where they lack the necessary time for undertaking
research projects with the university. As the following quotation exemplifies, the school
calendar seems to be already limited, and these research activities – which emerged as
external to this calendar – are potentially problematic for in-service teacher researchers:

I suggest that they meet the times and activities following a rubric
presented to us – the teachers – since by the end of the school year we
have less time for improvisations. (Participant 19, Project 3)

London Review of Education 18 (3) 2020

432 Gonzalo R. Guerrero-Hernández and Rocío A. Fernández-Ugalde

In addition, the research relationship is mentioned from both positive and negative
angles. Regarding the former, some participants highlighted the commitment and
sense of collaboration of the university researchers. Regarding the latter, other
participants identified university research staff as failing to meet their plans and not
giving clear information about the associated activities; in addition, some participants
referred to their failure to comply with the project calendar.
Overall, and moving beyond these organizational aspects of the RPP, findings
suggest that there is no unique or totally coherent view of teacher researchers’ or
university researchers’ roles. Some teacher researchers demanded more structure
and clarity from the university, whereas others thanked the university team for their
clear guidance during the research, especially when they were asked about their
perceptions of the relationship with the university researchers within the RPP, as these
two quotations indicate:

I would have liked to have a guideline to follow and more supervision from
the university researchers. (Participant 25, Project 5)

It would have been good if you’d told us how we were doing because
that’s what I think you [university researchers] are here for. (Participant 18,
Project 4)

At the same time, and conversely, some of the teacher researchers also saw as a weakness
the way in which university researchers approached their role. One participant said:

I suggest no explanatory sessions, since some of the university researchers

were limited in giving a presentation on assessment theories. (Participant
10, Project 2)

In this quotation, the teacher researcher is complaining about how some university
researchers used the sessions only to explain about the topic of the research from an
‘expert’ viewpoint, and that the sessions lacked group dialogue on the subject.
However, findings also suggest that teachers’ and university researchers’
knowledge is positioned and valued differently. The basis of the negative or
positive evaluation that teacher researchers made about the university staff is
related to dimensions of knowledge. Some of them demanded more support from
the university and more practical knowledge from university researchers for their
classroom practices.
Although the participants who provided the following two quotations do not
share a positive evaluation of the work conducted with the university researchers, they
both seem to position academic knowledge as something produced on a high and
abstract level, which could improve their work if it ‘came down’ to schools:

I highlight the good disposition of the university researchers, who came

down from theory to the reality of our establishment, through active
participation in dialogue, fostered in a collective way. (Participant 11,
Project 6)

I suggest complementing conversation and reflection meetings with proven

educational proposals, which can then be easily applied. (Participant 17,
Project 3)

In addition, when teacher researchers were asked to describe their role, they referred
to detailed practical actions, such as collecting questionnaires, designing activities
and participating in meetings, as can be seen in these two quotations:

London Review of Education 18 (3) 2020

 Teachers as researchers 433

My profile was mostly technical, since I had to organize some activities,

offer support to the group regarding the documents and tools that will be
used in the research. (Participant 2, Project 1)

In the project carried out with university researchers, I participated basically

by completing surveys, attending interviews, participating in meetings
and allowing my classes to be recorded and analysed by the university
researchers. (Participant 15, Project 2)

Process of conducting educational research

A second thematic focus that emerged from the participants refers to the
conceptualization of research itself in the RPP, its purposes and ways of being
conducted. Teachers’ answers on research had a practical dimension, oriented towards
action. Even though teachers connected the development of this kind of project with
pedagogical reflection, they also connected research with the improvement of their
teaching practices, and in some cases, they considered the research as practical
knowledge that could solve problems or flaws with planning, evaluation and the
implementation of activities in the classroom.
The practical knowledge gained through research does not appear only as a tool
to improve, it appears as a tool to access reality in the classroom. However, this reality
is presented as a problematic context, and again the aim of conducting research is to
change, improve and enrich teaching practices:

One of the most valued aspects of this process was the potential for being
able to access the reality of our day-to-day life in the classroom, a reality
that presented difficulties, but there was no time to work on it through
research ... It allowed us to observe the problem and be able to analyse
it, to enrich our methodological practices, strategies and our assessment
instruments. (Participant 28, Project 6)
However, teacher researchers described the purposes of their research projects only
in relation to their corresponding research objectives, instead of in relation to larger
purposes that exceed their school settings.

Relationship between research–practice partnerships and teaching

practice
Finally, teacher researchers emphasized the relevance of pedagogical reflection for
their everyday practice. Reflection is something that helps them to improve their
teaching and therefore is potentially beneficial for their students. In this sense, as
previously mentioned, reflection is among the more common themes underlined
by the participants when they described their roles and tasks undertaken during the
research:

It has been very useful to participate in this [research] project since

teaching reflection is not an easy task, nor easy to develop, and analysing
my pedagogic practices and correcting potential mistakes will help to
improve the learning processes of my students. (Participant 1, Project 1)

Pedagogical reflection appears mainly not as a continuous process, but as a particular

action that took place in relation to the implementation of the RPP initiative, and
it had a defined time and space in which to be undertaken. In this sense, some of
the participants alluded to reflection as being separate from their teaching inside

London Review of Education 18 (3) 2020

434 Gonzalo R. Guerrero-Hernández and Rocío A. Fernández-Ugalde

the classroom, only occurring in ‘meetings of pedagogical reflection’. Only some of

the teacher researchers presented reflection as a process that occurred outside the
predetermined time of the RPP tasks, becoming a habitual way of thinking about their
professional practice. It is worth mentioning that this reflection is characterized as both
an individual and a group process, depending on the participant, and on the nature of
the task they describe as being their participation in the project:

This project was an example of debate and pedagogical reflection that

allowed me to analyse my assessment process and improve this, built on
our discussion. (Participant 7, Project 2)

Linked to aspects of pedagogical reflection, almost all the participants refer to

collaboration among their peers and, to a lesser extent, between themselves and
university researchers. Some participants emphasized community building as an
associated aspect of collaboration within the framework of RPP. For instance, one
participant mentioned that:

This has been an instance of teamwork, where knowledge and experiences

among colleagues from different subjects have been shared; these were
of great value during the execution of the different stages of the project.
(Participant 22, Project 5)

Similarly to reflection, collaboration also seems to be highly appreciated by teacher

researchers, but rarely implemented in their schools. They see collaborative work as a
positive element to incorporate within the school organization; likewise, most of them
declared that this way of approaching their work allowed them to interact and share
classroom experiences with other in-service teachers in their schools, and also with
researchers from the university:

Even though the school assigns a certain number of hours for teachers’
meetings, there is not always space for pedagogical reflection and to work
on unifying our criteria. This research gave us opportunity and space to get
to know the work of our colleagues in detail, and also to gain the opinion
and support of the experts. To sum up, the whole school community added
great value to the research experience, especially when we thought about
terms such as inclusion. (Participant 18, Project 2)

Discussion
Overall, even though the literature about the development of partnerships
has shown positive outcomes (Coburn and Penuel, 2016), there are few studies
investigating the process, organization and material conditions of carrying out RPPs
in education. In this context, this study contributes to highlighting the importance
of attending to the voices of teacher researchers, and to recognizing key factors
during the planning of RPP activities. For instance, the time factor was considered
crucial to the development of these research projects. Adhering to the calendar
was highly valued among teacher researchers, who argued that they did not have
time for ‘improvisation’ in the school. Therefore, the organization, plan of action
and procedures are seen as essential elements. However, following and marking all
the stages might mean that the relationships between researchers from university
and from school have been constituted in an asymmetrical way, where the role
of teacher researchers appears to be less active. Moreover, this could imply that
instructions and guidelines might come only from external actors who manage the

London Review of Education 18 (3) 2020

 Teachers as researchers 435

process. Thus, the development of RPPs could be considered within a vertical model
between schools and universities.
In relation to this, a second element is how knowledge is conceptualized by
the actors involved in the RPP. According to previous literature, different knowledges
may enter into conflict in terms of hierarchies during the research (Cochran-Smith
and Lytle, 1999; Schiera, 2014). In the present study, teacher researchers’ knowledge
was closer to a practical and concrete dimension, and most of them described their
role as having a secondary status, whereas university researchers were seen as the
experts who brought scientific and theoretical knowledge. Teacher researchers did
not only make a distinction between the two ways of knowing, they also positioned
university researchers’ knowledge as superior and more valid for the research projects.
Therefore, although in-service teachers developed their capacity as co-inquirers both
individually and collectively, cultural boundaries ought to be openly explored before a
project and explicitly agreed with them (Penuel et al., 2015). The first stages of the RPP
only consider dialogue in a logistical way, not in terms of identities and positionality –
as an opportunity to talk about how each actor sees themselves and sees others, also
navigating how personal experiences and positions are put into play in the research
process.
Overall, the development of collaborative research projects implies the
recognition of different professional backgrounds and identities, and also a
resignification of ideas such as ‘participation’, ‘action’ and ‘research’, which can
bring possibilities for university community members (Santos, 2016). Specifically, the
research–practice partnerships revealed a series of challenges in terms of articulation,
recognition of boundaries and definition of roles (Penuel et al., 2015). The roles of in-
service teachers doing research have often been defined as participants who are either
only providers of information, or receptors and translators of the findings of research
into practice (Kincheloe, 2003; Christianakis, 2010; OEI, 2015).
Pedagogical reflection and collaboration were among the topics often highlighted
by teacher researchers. In the research projects in this study, RPP opened spaces of
reflection and collaboration among in-service teachers, which are foundational aspects
for recognizing and developing teacher research (Kincheloe, 2003). For some teacher
researchers, this facilitated a positive attitude to research, and they identified concrete
benefits for their practice, as indicated by previous studies (Cloonan, 2019; James and
Augustin, 2018). Nevertheless, the participants recognized university researchers as
being responsible for opening spaces for pedagogical reflection, and, hence, teacher
researchers viewed research as something that was not part of their everyday work.
This raises the question of how teachers can continue to develop these practices once
partnerships are finished.
In addition, teacher researchers valued carrying out research projects because
they considered it as an opportunity to improve technical aspects of their practice and
address their perceived weaknesses, rather than positioning themselves as teaching
experts. This is consistent with Kincheloe (2003), who suggests that not all experiences
of teacher research challenge teachers’ role as technicians. Therefore, further initiatives
aiming to promote teachers’ empowerment through research should take account of
this.
Considering these factors, findings from this study suggest that research–
practice partnerships between schools and universities foster teachers’ role as
researchers in different ways. On the one hand, RPPs facilitated conditions for
teacher research, for instance, through pedagogical reflection, which the teacher
researchers in this project pointed out as a crucial aspect in fostering them as

London Review of Education 18 (3) 2020

436 Gonzalo R. Guerrero-Hernández and Rocío A. Fernández-Ugalde

researchers. On the other, there might be a predetermined intention from the

university to position in-service teachers as expert researchers, considering them,
again, as mere objects without a real dialogue and understanding of their work.
Thus, carrying out research with others means that they are engaged as full human
beings, and the collaborative process is based directly on their understanding
of their own actions and experience, rather than filtered through an outsider’s
perspective (Reason and Bradbury, 2008).
Freire (1970) argued that doing research about the teaching profession means
investigating practitioners’ thinking about reality and their actions and beliefs, which is
their praxis. Precisely for this reason, RPPs will benefit from considering and proposing
methodologies based on dialogue and mutual deference.

Conclusion
Based on teacher researchers’ perceptions about conducting research, we explored
the role of collaborative research–practice partnerships in promoting teachers’ role as
researchers.
We highlighted the importance of considering the teacher researchers’ voices,
since the acknowledgement of the professional and cultural boundaries when in-
service teachers participate in research–practice partnerships is crucial. Because the
process of collaboration must recognize and deal with the complexity of cultural and
professional boundaries, we consider that RPPs between schools and universities might
enable recognition of the inherent inquiry component within teaching practice. In this
study, RPPs were highly valued by teacher researchers because their research activities
appear to be potential tools to develop pedagogical reflection and to generate
collaborative work among colleagues towards the improvement of their practices and
students’ learning.
However, RPPs require awareness of multiple dimensions, such as knowledge
hierarchies, role recognition, and the relationship between practical and theoretical
knowledge. Moreover, organization, material conditions and time are key factors to
consider in planning research activities in RPPs. Thus, further research might consider
university researchers’ voices and perceptions of RPPs to complete the picture, and
to strengthen projects framed on action research that bring together action and
reflection, fostering teachers’ research role.

Acknowledgements
The authors thank the in-service teacher researchers and university researchers
who participated in the research–practice partnerships and generously shared their
perceptions and experiences for this study. We are also grateful to the two anonymous
reviewers for invaluable feedback.

Funding
This research received funding from the project Proyecto de Mejoramiento
Institucional PMI USA1503: Plan de fortalecimiento de la formación inicial y continua
de los profesores egresados de la Universidad de Santiago de Chile: Una propuesta
para la calidad y la equidad, en el marco de las necesidades de la educación chilena,
Santiago, Chile.

London Review of Education 18 (3) 2020

 Teachers as researchers 437

Notes on the contributors

Gonzalo R. Guerrero-Hernández is a PhD student in the Curriculum, Pedagogy and
Assessment Department, UCL Institute of Education, London. He has been a physics
and mathematics teacher, and the coordinator of collaborative research projects at the
Universidad de Santiago de Chile (USACH). He has a master’s degree in research and
innovation in curriculum and teacher education from the University of Granada, Spain.
His work focuses on critical scientific literacy, collaborative research, interdisciplinarity
and teacher education.

Rocío A. Fernández-Ugalde is an educational psychologist, with a Master’s in Policy

Studies in Education from UCL Institute of Education, London. She is a PhD student in
the Faculty of Education at the University of Cambridge, where she is part of the culture,
politics and global justice research cluster. Her work focuses on critical educational
studies and teachers’ work from a global and national perspective. Until 2018, she
coordinated the Chilean Network of Teacher Education of State Universities.

References
Babkie, A. and Provost, M. (2004) ‘Teachers as researchers’. Intervention in School and Clinic, 39 (5),
260–8. Online. https://doi.org/10.1177/10534512040390050201.
Beycioglu, K., Ozer, N. and Ugurlu, C.T. (2010) ‘Teachers’ views on educational research’. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 26 (4), 1088–93. Online. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.11.004.
Bhabha, H.K. (1994) The Location of Culture. London: Routledge.
Biesta, G. (2007) ‘Why “what works” won’t work: Evidence-based practice and the democratic
deficit in educational research’. Educational Theory, 57 (1), 1–22. Online. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1741-5446.2006.00241.x.
Biesta, G. (2017) ‘Education, measurement and the professions: Reclaiming a space for democratic
professionality in education’. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 49 (4), 315–30. Online. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2015.1048665.
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006) ‘Using thematic analysis in psychology’. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3 (2), 77–101. Online. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Cheng, M. and So, W. (2012) ‘Analysing teacher professional development through professional
dialogue: An investigation into a university–school partnership project on enquiry learning’.
Journal of Education for Teaching, 38 (3), 323–41. Online. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2012
.668331.
Chow, K., Chu, S., Tavares, N. and Lee, C. (2015) ‘Teachers as researchers: A discovery of their
emerging role and impact through a school–university collaborative research’. Brock Education
Journal, 24 (2), 20–39. Online. https://doi.org/10.26522/brocked.v24i2.374.
Christianakis, M. (2010) ‘Collaborative research and teacher education’. Issues in Teacher Education,
19 (2), 109–25.
Cisternas, T. (2011) ‘La investigación sobre formación docente en Chile: Territorios explorados e
inexplorados’. Calidad en la Educación, 35, 131–64. Online. https://doi.org/10.31619/caledu.
n35.98.
Cloonan, A. (2019) ‘Collaborative teacher research: Integrating professional learning and university
study’. Australian Educational Researcher, 46 (3), 385–403. Online. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13384-018-0290-y.
Coburn, C. and Penuel, W. (2016) ‘Research–practice partnerships in education’. Educational
Researcher, 45 (1), 48–54. Online. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x16631750.
Coburn, C., Stein, M., Baxter, J., D’Amico, L. and Datnow, A. (2010) Research and Practice in
Education: Building alliances, bridging the divide. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Cochran-Smith, M. and Lytle, L. (1992) ‘Communities for teacher research: Fringe or forefront?’.
American Journal of Education, 100 (3), 298–324. Online. https://doi.org/10.1086/444019.
Cochran-Smith, M. and Lytle, L. (1999) ‘The teacher research movement: A decade later’.
Educational Researcher, 28 (7), 15–25. Online. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x028007015.
Flick, U. (2007) Designing Qualitative Research. London: SAGE Publications.
Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum.

London Review of Education 18 (3) 2020

438 Gonzalo R. Guerrero-Hernández and Rocío A. Fernández-Ugalde

Furlong, J. and Oancea, A. (2005) Assessing Quality in Applied and Practice-Based Educational
Research: A framework for discussion. Oxford: Oxford University Department of Educational
Studies.
Gandin, L. and Gomes de Lima, I. (2015) ‘Reconfiguração do trabalho docente: Um exame a partir
da introdução de programas de intervenção pedagógica’. Revista Brasileira de Educação, 20
(62), 663–77. Online. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-24782015206206.
Giroux, H. (1988) Teachers as Intellectuals: Toward a critical pedagogy of learning. Westport, CT:
Bergin and Garvey.
Giroux, H. (2013) ‘Neoliberalism’s war against teachers in dark times’. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical
Methodologies, 13 (6), 458–68. Online. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532708613503769.
Gray, J. and Campbell-Evans, G. (2002) ‘Beginning teachers as teacher-researchers’. Australian
Journal of Teacher Education, 27 (1), Article 4. Online. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2002v27n1.4.
Guerrero, G., Fernández, R. and Watson, G. (eds) (2019) Investigando Juntos: Experiencias
Asociativas entre la Escuela y la Universidad de Santiago de Chile. Santiago: Editorial Usach.
James, F. and Augustin, D. (2018) ‘Improving teachers’ pedagogical and instructional practice
through action research: Potential and problems’. Educational Action Research, 26 (2), 333–48.
Online. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2017.1332655.
Kincheloe, J. (2003) Teachers as Researchers: Qualitative inquiry as a path to empowerment. New
York: Routledge.
Manfra, M. (2019) ‘Action research and systematic, intentional change in teaching practice’. Review
of Research in Education, 43 (1), 163–96. Online. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732x18821132.
McLaughlin, C. and Black-Hawkins, K. (2007) ‘School–university partnerships for educational
research – distinctions, dilemmas and challenges’. Curriculum Journal, 18 (3), 327–41. Online.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585170701589967.
OEI (Organización de Estados Iberoamericanos para la Educación) (2015) Estado del arte:
Investigaciones sobre formación práctica en Chile: Tensiones y desafíos. Santiago: Organización
de Estados Iberoamericanos para la Educación.
Penuel, W., Allen, A., Coburn, C. and Farrell, C. (2015) ‘Conceptualizing research–practice
partnerships as joint work at boundaries’. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk
(JESPAR), 20 (1–2), 182–97. Online. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2014.988334.
Pesti, C., Győri, J. and Kopp, E. (2018) ‘Student teachers as future researchers: How do Hungarian
and Austrian initial teacher education systems address the issue of teachers as researchers?’.
Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 8 (3), 35–57. Online. https://doi.org/10.26529/
cepsj.518.
Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (eds) (2008) The SAGE Handbook of Action Research: Participative
inquiry and practice. 2nd ed. London: SAGE Publications.
Reiser, B.J., Spillane, J.P., Steinmuler, F., Sorsa, D., Carney, K. and Kyza, E. (2000) ‘Investigating the
mutual adaptation process in teachers’ design of technology-infused curricula’. In Fishman,
B. and O’Connor-Divelbiss, S. (eds) Fourth International Conference of the Learning Sciences.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 342–9.
Richard, V. and Bélanger, M. (2018) ‘Accepting research: Teachers’ representations of participation
in educational research projects’. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 4 (2), 61–73.
Online. https://doi.org/10.12973/ijem.4.2.61.
Rolfe, G. (2014) ‘Rethinking reflective education: What would Dewey have done?’. Nurse Education
Today, 34 (8), 1179–83. Online. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2014.03.006.
Santos, D. (2016) ‘Re-signifying participatory action research (PAR) in higher education: What does
“P” stand for in PAR?’. Educational Action Research, 24 (4), 635–46. Online. https://doi.org/10.10
80/09650792.2015.1103658.
Schiera, A. (2014) ‘Practitioner research as “praxidents” waiting to happen’. Penn GSE Perspectives
on Urban Education, 11 (2), 107–21.
Schön, D. (1987) Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and
learning in the professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Storm, S. (2016) ‘Teacher-researcher-leaders: Intellectuals for social justice’. Schools: Studies in
Education, 13 (1), 57–75. Online. https://doi.org/10.1086/685803.
Ulla, M., Barrera, K. and Acompanado, M. (2017) ‘Philippine classroom teachers as researchers:
Teachers’ perceptions, motivations, and challenges’. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 42
(11), 52–64. Online. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2017v42n11.4.
Wyse, D., Brown, C., Oliver, S. and Poblete, X. (2018) The BERA Close-to-Practice Research Project:
Research report. London: British Educational Research Association. Online. www.bera.ac.uk/
researchers-resources/publications/bera-statement-on-close-to-practice-research (accessed 28
August 2020).

London Review of Education 18 (3) 2020