Context and overarching objective of the transdisciplinary project
The transdisciplinary study described in this manuscript is part of a comprehensive ethnographic research project spread over four years. The overarching objective of the four-year project is twofold: firstly, to provide a detailed account of the (digital as well as tangible) curriculum materials, the teaching strategies, and the implementation of tools developed at this educational institution; secondly, to facilitate the transfer of effective strategies to other schools. To accomplish this thoroughly, it is important to understand the specific educational strategies and teaching materials from multiple perspectives, both theoretical and practical. This understanding is crucial, not only in terms of the school under study but also in relation to other educational contexts, as it influences whether these ideas will work elsewhere. Therefore, this study involved nine teachers within the school as well as 32 observers with distinct backgrounds and areas of expertise, to ethnographically explore the educational strategies, curriculum materials, and pupils’ activities during lessons at the Eureka Leuven school. The observers were invited to observe lessons that fell within the scope of their own expertise and/or lessons involving a familiar target group of pupils. Furthermore, they were asked to observe lessons on a topic that was not within their area of expertise or delivered to pupils of an unfamiliar age group. For example, a language teacher in secondary education was tasked with observing a language lesson in class K8 and a mathematics lesson in K4.
Figure 1 delineates the various phases of a transdisciplinary project that combines collaborative ethnography and abductive reasoning. The sequence starts with “selecting and communicating with stakeholders”, followed by “preparing for fieldwork”, “observing”, “documenting”, “abductive reasoning with observers”, “contextual writing up for the team”, “abductive reasoning with the team” and finally “writing up for the broader audience”. By delineating the various phases and engaging in a reflexive analysis of this transdisciplinary project’s empirical material, we highlight the opportunities and challenges encountered. The phases are presented in the -ing form, based on the idea of Revsbæk and Tanggaard (2015): This phrasing emphasizes the importance of the processes of doing, thinking, speaking, making, and learning, which are as essential as the outcomes.
The phases are presented as a systemic account of our methodology, integrating both methods, results, and considerations. This approach of “abductively writing up” (see also Timmermans and Tavory, 2022) reflects our iterative, emergent research process, whereby methodological decisions evolve with findings, and preliminary results influence subsequent methodological choices. By interweaving methods, outcomes, and considerations, the aim is to give readers a more transparent representation of our methodological journey. This approach highlights that co-construction processes are as important as discrete, sequential stages of inquiry. Such blurring of the boundaries between data collection, interpretation, and writing is considered a key aspect of collaborative ethnography (Lassiter, 2019). To this end, each phase is described in three parts: the intended activities -or what was planned, the realizations — or what happened or was achieved, and the considerations — or lessons learned and things to consider for future projects.
Quote 1. School leader (former teacher) expressing willingness to participate.
The initial phase encompassed the enabling of the transdisciplinary project and the selection of observers and communication with all stakeholders, internal and external to the school. To obtain a reliable, accurate, and comprehensive account of the school’s strategies and materials, we built upon extant relationships. For communication with internal stakeholders, we relied on the familiarity and trust already established within the school context, since this project is part of a broader, long-standing ethnographic study conducted at and with the school. All external observers are personally acquainted with the main researcher and engage with her on equal footing. These external observers originate from a larger contact base of 50 educational experts. Each observer is a colleague or was a former colleague of the researchers, a partner in an earlier project or a collaborator involved in another joint project or network. There is a shared appreciation and interest in each other’s work and professional responsibilities, developed through past activities, conversations, and a common concern for education. It was essential that observers, teachers, and researchers fostered mutual trust, as collaboration and vulnerability were inherent in the processes of being observed, observing, and reflecting on observations.
As made visible in Table 1, the observers are experts in one or more educational fields, come from a range of professional backgrounds and are affiliated with a diverse array of institutions. They have a minimum of five years of experience as teachers or school leaders, as teacher educators, as educational researchers, or as scholars involved in special education. The observers’ academic levels and academic backgrounds vary, as do their actual professional expertise, pedagogical beliefs, and working field. All intended observers possess familiarity with the domain of education but were unacquainted with the school under study. They were contacted directly by the main researcher and were invited to participate voluntarily. Each potential observer received a personal invitation letter acknowledging their specific expertise and working field, recognizing a shared commitment to the theory and practice of education and a mutual concern for improving schools. The main researcher also deliberately mentioned that she would value a little bit of help from her friendly colleagues and collegial friends, their perspective and experience in addressing the educational challenge. Furthermore, the letter underscored that mutual trust and psychological safety were prioritized over shared visions of ideal goals, curriculum, and pedagogical choices. Participation required attending the school on one of the four proposed dates.
The school leader provided support for the study and facilitated communication with teachers, pupils, and parents. Teachers, pupils, and parents of this school provided consent and permitted observation and photography of specific episodes. All observers responded affirmatively, expressing curiosity and offering acknowledgments, appreciation, and encouragement. Moreover, observers seemed intrigued by the school, its inclusive methods, and educational materials, given their respective professional stance and educational expertise. Some observers also mentioned that the original possibility of contributing to research and practice was a source of motivation, or that they were happy to be able to do research again after leaving academia (see, for example, quote 1). Ultimately, 35 individuals registered, and 32 scholars were able to attend on one of the proposed observation dates, a number that was far beyond our expectations.
As Steens, Van Regenmortel, and Hermans (2018) have thoroughly investigated: research-practice partnerships demand informal contacts between stakeholders and collaborative efforts to foster mutual understanding and to develop a comprehensive framework of mutual understanding. However, establishing such collaborative structures requires significant time – often scarce in research projects (Steens et al., 2018). In transdisciplinary projects, the practice of drawing on pre-existing relationships is thus a common strategy to foster collaboration (Harris and Lyon, 2013). Mutual trust between observers, teachers, and researchers was fundamental, as collaboration and vulnerability were inherent to the processes of being observed, observing, and reflecting Harris and Lyon (2013), in their analysis of another transdisciplinary project, emphasize the importance of trust when crossing professional cultural boundaries as people are opening themselves to vulnerability and risk. Motivating factors similar to expert interviews occurred, such as professionalism of people, tacit awareness of the scientific and/or political relevance of their activities or personal achievements, the desire to help “to make a difference”, professional curiosity about the topic and field of research, and an interest in sharing one’s thoughts and ideas with an external expert (Bogner et al., 2009). This initial phase also demonstrates the potential of transdisciplinary projects for research communication, both between academic and non-academic parties, as illustrated by quote 1.
Quote 2. School leader of Eureka Leuven, the observed school.
The observations were planned over four different half days starting with a general introduction into the context and the intended fieldwork. Informed consent and consent for the use of data were requested and obtained from all participants. The parents of the pupils, the pupils, and the teachers were asked to read, complete, and sign a consent form. At each observation moment, five classrooms could be observed on the same campus. During half a day, each class followed three different courses. The fourth-grade class had for instance a maths lesson, a Dutch language class, and a geography class. As the 32 observers were invited to observe one lesson within, and one lesson outside their own field of expertise and/or with a familiar target group of pupils, a variety of potential knowledge perspectives was intended.
Schools are complex systems influenced by timetables, course schedules, teacher availability, group sizes, evaluation and testing periods, extracurricular activities like swimming lessons and forest excursions, parent meetings, multidisciplinary consultations, and other daily routines. Coordinating the arrival and scheduling of a large group of observers in a small number of classes at a single school proved to be a significant challenge. At the beginning of an observation day, all observers received a brief introduction to the school’s objectives and pedagogical approaches, and they were informed about the ethnographic experience. The school leader’s ethical and pedagogical request to refrain from intervening was clearly communicated. Observers were to maintain their role as an observer, not that of a teacher. They had to reserve their questions for pupils and teachers during the designated break or for the main researcher (see quote 2). Trust amongst the observers and the teachers of the observed classrooms was established by ensuring that all participants were unaware of each other’s academic or professional background, affiliations, or family names. This was ensured by using only the observers’ and teachers’ first names, and by making sure that neither the observers, teachers, nor pupils knew one another.
Transdisciplinary projects should thoroughly consider the context, taking into account the different needs, interests, and beliefs of the different social groups who are invested in or affected by the challenge at hand (Norström et al., 2020). The school emphasized the importance of refraining from intervening in the teaching processes. This request is consistent with the findings of West and Schill. These findings indicate that the methodological practices that govern interactions between researchers and participants are inextricably linked to the variable social effects and realities that the methods help to bring about. Also, while it is typically considered ethical practice to guarantee participants anonymity, in transdisciplinary projects participants are contributing deeply personal knowledge and experiences to the research. Consequently, it is essential to recognize and negotiate the ethical-political dimensions of research methods (West and Schill, 2022). In this context, the boundaries between researchers and practitioners became less distinct: the experienced teacher became a researcher, the academic researcher became part of a real-life classroom experience. Such transdisciplinary co-production of knowledge had to explicitly recognize the multiple ways of knowing and doing. Feminist and standpoint theorists, among others, have persuasively argued that all knowledge is inevitably situated and partial, highlighting the practical and ethical importance of ensuring a range of perspectives on a given issue (Norström et al., 2020).
Observing lessons forms the heart of this collaborative ethnography. In one lesson, the observers are required to use a particular protocol. This protocol is based on the activity-centered analysis and design-framework (ACAD) (Carvalho and Yeoman, 2018; Goodyear et al., 2021) as it offers a comprehensive and open-ended observation guideline, focusing on key educational themes to analyze, understand, and improve complex learning situations. At “learn-time” — during lessons — ACAD focuses on student activity, influenced by epistemically situated tasks, physically situated tools, artefacts, and learning spaces, and socially situated dyads, groups, teams, and roles assigned amongst pupils. In the subsequent lesson, the participants are required to conduct an open-ended observation. They are provided with white observation sheets and the instruction to focus on any classroom aspect they will find surprising or noteworthy. All participants are encouraged to incorporate their expertise and domain-specific content knowledge into their note-taking and drawings, explicitly acknowledging their unique knowledge perspective. Additionally, taking pictures was permitted, provided that the images did not include identifiable pupils.
Following the observation of each lesson, a debriefing was conducted with the participating teachers. This entailed a recorded interview about the specifics and the content of the observed lesson, as well as the teachers’ overall assessment of the observation and the observer(s). Since teachers and pupils in this school often host visitors and in-service teachers in their classrooms, the practice of participating in an observation is common.
The observation sheets, as illustrated by Fig. 2, varied considerably in content and format. Some observers recorded teacher and student contributions, while others created sketches or overviews. A few observers copied what was on the blackboard. One observer distinguished between teacher and student behavior. Only a minority took photographs. Upon initial review, there was no discernible difference between open observation sheets and those based on the protocol. In their debriefing, the teachers briefly mentioned the objectives, methods, and pupil behavior during the observations. In one lesson, the initial lesson plan was disrupted by a group dispute.
In their comprehensive overview on classroom observation, Hardman and Hardman (2017) distinguish two research paradigms. (1) Researchers who study classrooms qualitatively often adopt an unstructured, participatory, non-interventional approach to observe classroom contexts and capture the insider perspective. These researchers argue that social situations are unique, and they focus merely on classroom processes, not on outcomes. They minimize disruption to classroom activities. (2) Those adopting a structured approach observe and quantify behaviors, which can be analyzed statistically. Given the overall goal of the study regarding transferability, the open, ethnographic observation was chosen. The ACAD framework and the white observation sheets are both useful instruments for knowledge production, since they allow the observers to share a variety of information through different modes (e.g., long text, concept maps, or drawings). Moreover, it is crucial to involve teachers in the analysis of classroom talk and interaction to help to transform beliefs, knowledge, understandings, skills, and commitments in what they know and are able to do in their classroom practice with regard to teaching and learning (Hardman and Hardman, 2017).
Quote 3. Teacher educator’s immediate reflection after the observations.
The documentation phase starts immediately after the first observation moment. The dataset comprises several sources: on-site experiences from observers, on-site experiences from teachers, interviews with observers conducted at multiple locations, and on-site interviews with teachers. The on-site experiences of observers are reflected in observation notes of lessons: one lesson within their own field of expertise and/or with a familiar target group of pupils, one lesson on a topic that was outside their area of expertise or delivered to an unfamiliar age group of pupils. Immediately after the on-site experience, the observers are asked to document their initial experience or “first impressions” based on the structured as well as open-ended observation experiences. The observation notes and the recordings of first impressions will be employed as a form of stimulated recall in the following phase. Given the varied and expansive nature of the dataset, using software would be beneficial.
The documentation and subsequent archiving of the extensive range of empirical materials was extensive. A 1-min audio recording was made of each observer’s first impressions, as illustrated in quote 3. All observation sheets were collected, digitized, and classified. The observers had been instructed to forward any pictures taken to the main researcher. The documenting phase continued until the last interview. The comprehensive data set includes a contextually rich documentation of multiple learning situations and of the complexities within learning situations. It consists of 290 pages of observation notes, 1 h of audio recordings of the “first impressions” and subsequent transcripts, 32 h of interviews with observers and subsequent transcripts, and 9 h of interviews with educators and subsequent transcripts, see Table 2.
The “first impressions” are short, spontaneous initial ideas about remarkable observations. The observation notes cover 32 unique writing and charting styles, all based on a similar experience in the same context, like the examples in Fig. 2. In this study the computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software tool (CAQDAS software), Atlas.ti, was employed due to its capabilities for collecting, summarizing, and annotating various empirical materials. In subsequent studies on content-specific questions, Atlas.ti was also used for coding and analysis.
Keeping good records is particularly important throughout a whole transdisciplinary project. It is not a separate step, but something that must be done throughout planning, observing, analyzing, and writing. As already mentioned, Lassiter regards blurring the boundaries between collecting empirical material, interpreting, and writing as a key aspect of collaborative ethnography (Lassiter, 2019). Furthermore, the diversity of the data set questions the possibility of precise a priori descriptions, often needed for ethics applications. To develop a comprehensive, contextually valid understanding of the diverse realities experienced by research participants, the research design is typically developed in an iterative and collaborative manner. While researchers may be able to articulate the general topic and principles, it is nearly impossible to provide an exact account of the procedures prior to fieldwork (West and Schill, 2022). This proved to be especially the case when conducting collaborative ethnography.
Quote 4. Teacher educator in interview
Interviews with all observers follow within two weeks after the observations, at a convenient time and location for the observers. The interview starts with listening to their own audio recorded “first impressions”. Additionally, observers are invited to recall relevant information and surprising observations from their observation sheets. To deepen this, the interview follows a set of broad ethnographic questions. Displayed by flashcards are questions such as “who was involved”, “what happened”, “when”, “where”, “how”, and “with what consequences” (Timmermans and Tavory, 2022). The flashcards can be moved aside or brought under attention when a specific observation needs more elaboration. This approach keeps the conversation focused while allowing exploration of interesting points, such as nuanced accounts of specific intriguing lesson episodes as well as reflections, concerns, or questions. Additionally, observers are asked about theoretical or conceptual frameworks from their own field or discipline, and about their assessment of the transferability of observed elements. The interview concludes with a retrospective account of the ethnographic experience and with an evaluation of the abductive interview. All interviews are recorded and transcribed using an automated transcription tool and are subsequently archived in Atlas.ti.
The abductive interviews proved to be intriguing conversations. The observers identified a wide range of activities, curriculum tasks, tangible materials, classroom organization, and social dynamics among pupils and teachers. Some of the observed practices were subjected to detailed scrutiny to understand their underlying rationale and the assumptions that underpin them. This involved questioning the practices from the perspectives of the teacher, teacher educator, or researcher. Even experienced scholars were surprised by novel practices they observed in the classrooms, including the presence of previously unknown or rather unconventional educational artefacts. Furthermore, during the interviews, observers and teachers reflected on the extent to which certain educational artefacts were used, on the autonomy of (even very young) pupils, and on the continuous and explicit attention paid to learning strategies in conjunction with curriculum content (e.g., quote 4). Moreover, the main researcher was made aware of specific influential concepts, studies, and handbooks on didactics, curriculum, transversal competences, actual debates in pedagogical content knowledge, inclusive education, and educational policy decisions. Additionally, the question of what constitutes an effective inclusive educational approach and what should be taught and learned in schools emerged as a recurring topic.
As previously investigated in this journal, negotiation, communication, and deliberation are essential competencies for success in inter- and transdisciplinary projects (West and Schill, 2022; Fantini, 2024). West and Schill (2022) posit that the ethical-political dimensions of negotiation and deliberation are of particular importance for researchers engaged in mixed methods, inter- and transdisciplinary, and co-production research, as these projects are inherently complex and require a nuanced understanding of the ethical and political implications involved. Firstly, researchers engaged in such projects are more likely to encounter ethical and political differences. Consequently, they must be prepared to recognize and negotiate these differences. Secondly, many researchers in this field explicitly aim to bring about social change and transformation. Therefore, they must be able to think carefully about the ethical and political consequences of their research. In this study, the observers addressed pedagogical and curriculum-related issues in a candid manner, frequently associating them with their own practice and educational institution. Additionally, observers explored the question of transferability, investigating the potential for applying the observations to one’s own context.
Quote 5. Teacher educator in interview
In this phase, the extensive work of writing, thinking, analyzing, and rewriting is brought together for the first time. As an initial step to write up the observations, a SWOT analysis was conducted, see Fig. 3.
This ubiquitous tool to list the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats facing an organization (e.g., Minsky and Aron, 2021) was used to develop a quality assurance document for internal use in the particular school. The objective was to provide the school with an initial overview of the observations, surprising elements, and reflections of the scholars who observed lessons. In this context (a) a Strength is defined as an observation that is perceived as positive, whereas (b) a Weakness is defined as an observation perceived as negative or as a shortcoming. (a) and (b) represent internal factors, including the use of educational artefacts, teaching strategies, and elements of the school vision that were observed. (c) Opportunities are external factors that could potentially benefit the school, whereas (d) Threats are external risks or dangers that could negatively impact the organization. (c) and (d) are primarily external factors. In addition, the analysis is complemented with ‘Issues’. These are questions, tensions, and points for further deliberation.
In this project, the SWOT analysis served as an intermediate writing-up: to share observations and reflections of the observers to the teachers that were observed. The SWOT analysis contains a two-page summary and an 18-page in-depth description and quotes. It is beyond the scope of this article to provide a detailed account of the specific educational outcomes of collaborative ethnography and subsequent abductive reasoning. However, the writing phase elucidates the cyclical, iterative process of inquiry and response, even facilitates the abductive reasoning of the researchers. The notion of an “issue” may be illustrated by an unexpected side effect. For observers who are teachers and teacher educators, the transdisciplinary research had an additional consequence. Visiting this school was perceived as a means of professional growth. It was seen as an opportunity to gain actionable knowledge about an inclusive school context like their own, or one that operates according to different pedagogical choices from their own school. Observers also perceived the project as a reflection activity that helps to unravel the essence of teaching and learning, echoing a grand educational challenge of our time (see quote 5).
Timmermans and Tavory (2022) make a similar point. Abductive analysis occurs throughout the writing process in two ways. (a) Writing involves many decisions, including the selection of evidence, metaphors, and narrative voice. These choices are analytical and serve to develop theory. (b) The writing, reviewing, and publishing process often reveals previously unknown information and ideas that are less novel than initially perceived. This knowledge integration process required organizing a text that conveys the surprising findings by juxtaposing the surprise against the background of expectations based on earlier theoretic work (Timmermans and Tavory, 2022). In this case, this encompasses the earlier theoretical knowledge of the observers as well. Moreover, these kinds of observations were in line with the literature on teachers’ workplace learning. This literature identifies professionalization as resulting from the interactions between (in-service) teachers and work practices that update, develop, and broaden their skills, knowledge, expertise, professional identity and other characteristics relevant to the practice of their teaching profession (Enthoven et al., 2023).
Quote 6. School teacher during interview
The SWOT analysis was provided to the teaching staff and school leader, who were asked to read it and, initially, to request clarification on any points that were unclear. Subsequently, they were asked to formulate comments, questions, and notes. This was followed by the main interview, which followed the interview questions about surprises and unexpected findings. The purpose of this interview was to gain insight into any surprising elements of the SWOT analysis and to gain a deeper understanding of these elements.
Despite the diversity of academic and professional backgrounds, the expertise of the observers, and the variety of classroom settings involved in the observation process, the teachers expressed surprise of the widespread recognition of their observed behaviors and practices within the analysis (see quote 6). Nonetheless, the analysis was criticized for its lack of consideration of the pupils’ perspectives and experiences. By integrating insider knowledge, these teachers’ voices broadened the observers’ understandings. Furthermore, the experience proved to be a valuable opportunity to develop more accurate actionable knowledge given their unique practitioner’s perspective.
Researchers in the transdisciplinary field often encounter ethical-political differences among their collaborators. They must be prepared to recognize and negotiate these differences. Many researchers aim to bring about social change, so they must consider the ethical-political consequences of their research (West and Schill, 2022). Furthermore, interaction increases the likelihood that participants and other end-users perceive the resulting knowledge as credible (scientifically robust arguments and outputs), salient (relevant to user needs), and legitimate (the extent to which the information is perceived as fair and respectful of all stakeholders). This increases the likelihood that it will be incorporated into decision-making processes and meet specific needs and expectations (Norström et al., 2020).
This seemingly final, yet inherently forward-looking phase seems to be the hardest to explain to readers. As it is fundamentally about the process of writing, the phase continues even after the completion of a manuscript. The empirical material is rich, diverse, and complex in this transdisciplinary project. The material is rich in perspectives and expertise since it encompasses the insights of 32 scholars and 9 teachers. It is also diverse in scope, covering a multitude of approaches to observation, reflection, and theoretical inquiry, as well as a range of pertinent topics. Furthermore, the material is complex, as it elucidates inclusive classroom practices and materials. The material is open to further secondary analysis in areas such as domain-specific curriculum issues, broader educational factors contributing to the complexity of pupils’ activities in classrooms, and methodological assessment. These issues have the potential to contribute to the timeless educational questions like what should be taught in our schools, by what means, to whom, under what circumstances, and with what goals in mind (Reid, 1999). These questions are inextricably linked to education’s nature as a reflection of human and natural worlds as they are and as they continue to evolve (Akkerman et al., 2021).
In their own attempt to describe the various phases and steps of abductive reasoning, Timmermans and Tavory refer to the writing phase as “writing it down, writing it up” (2022). This phase entails an ongoing iterative process of analyzing, documenting, and (re)writing results of the analysis and their reframing. This process appears to be fundamental to transdisciplinary research. It calls for a recursive approach to addressing problems, focusing on problem identification and structuring, investigation, and ultimately, bringing results to completion as the three phases of a transdisciplinary research process (Pohl et al., 2017). Consequently, the objective of this phase is to achieve an interactive result: allowing for ongoing learning among actors, active engagement, and frequent interactions (Norström et al., 2020).
