Action research in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA)

We are excited and slightly disappointed to finally see the publication of a themed section on action research in the MENA region in this journal. Excited because the quality of the four papers demonstrates the powerful effect that action research can have on the transformation of teaching and learning practice. Slightly disappointed as we were initially so hopeful that we would have had far more articles to select from when we launched the Call for Papers and received so many expressions of interest. That flood of interest dwindled to a trickle of submissions as authors failed to follow up on their initial enthusiasm – be that due to pressures of time and workload or, what we believe to be the most prevalent reason, a lack of confidence in what they had to offer the field in such a well-regarded international journal. Then, many of the submissions received turned out to be unrelated to action research or demonstrated only a superficial grasp of the methodology and literature. We have spent much of our careers conducting and publishing on action research (Hunt 2010; Quirke 2001) and witnessing good practice throughout the MENA region. However, given the struggles we have faced in having our own action research recognised in a region that upholds a quantitative, scientific paradigm above all others, we should have understood the difficulties of collating sufficient articles for a special issue. It is incredible but true that, to ascertain the validity and reliability of the work, all qualitative approaches to research, including action research, must still heed the advice of Edge and Richards (1998) and provide a clear methodological and evaluative justification for the outcomes. Researchers must use strict triangulation techniques that do not necessarily reflect the terms, values and purposes of the research tradition being evaluated. A specific instance of reaction to the use of action research, which can be used to illustrate wider resistance within the MENA region, concerns the action research element of an undergraduate education programme in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Although, a historical case, it highlights suspicion of its obligatory nature in the programme and its suitability for the Emirati context. The first criticism concerned the fact that action research was a mandatory aspect of the programme: it formed a substantial aspect of the final year, requiring students to carry out a small-scale action research study in the site of their teaching practicum. The compulsory nature of this action research appears to contradict the bottom up, self-initiated, exploratory understanding of action research, seeming to encourage empowerment while eliding an unequal power relationship by forcing students to engage in ‘strategic compliance’ (Day and Pennington). In doing so, it effectively reduces reflection to techniques students must demonstrate to achieve certification. The second criticism focused on action research as a cultural practice and is exemplified by Richardson’s (2004) critique that focuses on reflection in Arab-Islamic settings, specifically within the education programme referenced. Seeing reflection as part of `the EDUCATIONAL ACTION RESEARCH 2023, VOL. 31, NO. 1, 98–101 https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2023.2168104