Editorial

The rich set of studies and discussions in this issue shows the international and interdisciplinary nature of the journal and its readership, which is very welcome indeed. It includes articles from school education, teacher education, higher education, refugee work of a multi service nature, and from international collaborations. There are studies of undergraduate research supervision (Van Krieken Robson), teacher education (Woodrow and Lasser; Mark & Id-Deen; Cronin, Cook, Flattery, Griffiths & Rodrigues), interdisciplinary work with refugee children in an urban setting (Kervick, Haines, Green, Reyes, Shepherd, Moore, Healy & Gordon), aspects of school education (a coeducational class in Iran, Nazari & Hashemi), international collaborations and knowledge democracy (Meredith & QuirozNiño), formative assessment in a second language classroom (De Neve, Leroy, Struyven & Smits); and early childhood studies (Van Krieken Robson). There are also studies of partnerships of different kinds – in interdisciplinary practice in urban educational settings (Kervick et al.), in international academic collaborations (Meredith & Quiroz-Niño) and in teacher education (Cronin et al.). This wealth of studies sparked me to return to thinking about the purposes, aims, and language of action research. I live in a world and an educational field that is concerned with effectiveness and efficiency, as well as equality and justice; with a growing gap between the outcomes of those who live with and in poverty and those who do not; with change on a social and political scale that I have never witnessed in my lifetime. Therefore, a return to thinking about core values and prime purposes is not necessarily surprising. The articles in this issue helped me to do this. ‘Action research in education: a set of case studies?’ by M.J. Saez Bondia and A.L. Cortes Gracia was a really useful revisiting of key thinking and definitional work on the two highly interrelated concepts of action research and case study. The authors rework the history and discussions on the purposes and parameters of the activity, with particular emphasis on the educational purposes of these two areas. It is valuable in many ways: reminding us of the elements that really mattered to those adopting or advocating these approaches in earlier times; thinking about their applications and limitations; and considering the power and potential of nesting them within each other. To be reminded about the commitment in earlier action research thinking to justice and improved outcomes for young people stays with me as something in need of restatement. It refreshes the thinking and raises useful questions and observations. In a world where much of the language of education and care has taken on economic vocabulary and emphasises outcomes in efficiency terms, it is important to be reminded that those such as Somekh and Zeichner have argued that, in action research in educational contexts, ‘the reflective process typical of action research should allow [us] to deepen the studied situations to obtain more socially just and productive outcomes’ (Saez Bondia & Cortes Gracia). There are many examples of studies and research aiming to do that in this issue. The second article that prompted further reinforcement of core ideas was ‘An action research inquiry: facilitating early childhood studies undergraduate researcher development through group supervision’ by Jennifer Van Krieken Robson. It is a suitably focused EDUCATIONAL ACTION RESEARCH 2022, VOL. 30, NO. 5, 687–688 https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2022.2134533