THE BOOKS

Noah Feinstein and John L. Rudolph, Section Coeditors

Collaborative Action Research: Developing Professional Learning Communities,edited by Stephen P. Gordon. Teachers College Press, New York, NY, USA, 2008.224 pp. ISBN 978-0807748985.

School�university partnerships, collaborative action research, and professional learningcommunities are all ideas that hold great promise for empowering teachers and improvingschools. In their best incarnations, they can encourage teachers to share practices and drawon the expertise of university partners. They can also remind university-based practitionersabout the realities of schools and classrooms and refresh their understanding of the needs,challenges, and strengths of teachers and students. Collaborative action research holdsparticular appeal�and particular challenges�for science educators. Becausemany scienceeducators have experience with scientiÞc research, they may be intrigued by the conceptof action research, with its focus on data collection and evidence-based decisions. On theother hand, action research often differs from more traditional scientiÞc research in waysthat can be troubling to scientists. This tension is only one of the reasons why it is incrediblychallenging to create effective partnerships and learning communities across institutionallines.The new book Collaborative Action Research: Developing Professional Learning Com-

munities describes the difÞculties and rewards of collaborative work from the perspectivesof participants in the School Improvement Network, a school�university collaborationfocused on schoolwide action research. Collected in its chapters are the experiences andreßections of university faculty, K-12 teachers and administrators, graduate students, andothers involved in the network. Some chapters describe speciÞc elements or processes ofthe School Improvement Network, whereas others provide a broader view, reviewing theliterature or reßecting on issues raised by the project. As a whole, the book offers a balancebetween practical advice and theoretical insight. Although it does not offer compellingconclusions about school�university partnerships or collaborative action research, it doespush the discussion in new and important directions.A central theme of Collaborative Action Research, which is repeated throughout the

book in different ways, is that schools and universities bring different values, expectations,and capacities to the table, and that meeting the needs of both is challenging but criticalfor a successful project. Editor Stephen Gordon talks about creating �true partners,� where�each partner receives something valuable from the partnership that would not otherwisebe available� (p. 163). John Smyth, in his essay on �Critical Engagement for CollaborativeAction Research,� advocates a more radical paradigm for school-based research, one thatreconsiders the traditional, hierarchical relationship between universities and schools. InSmyth�s vision, universities not only work as partners with schools but also engage incritical self-examination to ensure that their drive for research does not overshadow theschool�s responsibilities, needs, and knowledge. For school and university alike, Smythargues that collaborative action research should prioritize social justice and emancipatory

C© 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

BOOK REVIEWS 197

work. Many challenging questions emerge from his analysis, including: Are universitycollaborators willing to challenge their beliefs, or are they just there to provide support,learn research skills (for graduate students), and do publishable research? Do university-based collaborators also conduct action research on their own practice? Should the lessonsof the collaborative project produce institutional change at the university level or only inthe collaborating school?Smyth�s vision of equitable partnership is particularly interesting because it provides a

critical lens for interpreting the rest of the book. Other chapters offer visions of the SchoolImprovement Project that are strikingly different from Smyth�s ideal. Some university-based authors portray school participants as learners only, rather than active collaboratorsin the project. These authors frame difÞcult situations in terms of school-based limitations,rather than the shortcomings of the university, and describe the beneÞts to universities interms of high-status outcomes such as publication and leadership rather than true learningand transformation of practice. Tellingly, the chapters that describe the creation of equitablepartnerships as a smooth process are written by higher status partners and do not includeenough detail about how the partnerships were created, how the school-based collaboratorsperceived those partnerships, or how challenges to the partnership were resolved.This is not to say that all university-based authors ignore the complexities of partnerships

or the difÞculty of achieving equitable relationships. For example, Sarah W. Nelson�schapter about serving as a �critical friend� for one of the collaborating schools is full ofinsightful observations about the way collaboration transformed her own (university-based)perspective.

Working in an educational leadership program, I spend a great deal of time reading andtalking about schools. The schools I read about are abstract places I have spent little orno time in. What I know of the schools comes from reading a researcher�s perspectiveor brießy visiting a student in his or her classroom. This limited perspective obscuresmy understanding of the complexity of school improvement. Being a critical friend gaveme a connection to a real school with real issues. As part of the leadership team, I wasimmersed in the context of the school and shared responsibility for the work the school wasdoing. This connection helped me remember what a difÞcult and complex endeavor schoolimprovement is, and the important role a critical friend can play in that process. (p. 45)

This quotation embodies some of the possibilities that more equitable partnerships offeruniversities�in particular, the possibility of richer understanding and insight into schools.The chapters that focus on more speciÞc examples of practice offer many interesting

glimpses of the process of collaborative action research, including the unfolding of theaction research cycle in a particular school and an analysis of the more and less successfulschools in the network. Those interested in implementing such partnerships will Þnd muchuseful material in the detailed descriptions of organizational structures that facilitatedcollaboration, including work schedules and divisions of labor. Often, the level of detailprovided only whets the reader�s appetite: more information about the challenges faced bynetwork members would help the reader to understand not just that problems were solved,but how they were solved.Despite the inclusion of both school- and university-based authors, this book would be

less useful for a school looking to recreate a similar project without university involvement.The assumption throughout is that the main push for the action research will come from auniversity, not from a school or network of schools, and that the particular insights, skills,and actions essential to collaborative action research can be provided most effectively byuniversity-based groups. Here, as in several other chapters, the authors fall short of the

Science Education

198 BOOK REVIEWS

vision of equitable partnership outlined by John Smyth. As Smyth suggests, collaborativeaction research requires ongoing critique and questioning on all sides to ensure that thepartnership is productive for each collaborator. Collaborative Action Research only beginsto move the discussion in this direction. As a portrait of one collaborative project, it is bothinteresting and insightful. As a resource for university-based groups interested in partneringwith K-12 schools for collaborative action research, it is good but ultimately imperfect.

MARJORIE BULLITT BEQUETTEScience Museum of Minnesota120 West Kellogg Blvd.Saint Paul, MN 55102USA

DOI 10.1002/sce.20363Published online 11 September 2009 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).

Science Education