Empresas mercantiles transformadas a empresas cooperativas La Cooperativa Cruz Azul, es un claro ejemplo de éxito. Fue

Research design involves the collection of data and organising it within the study, with the aim of supporting unambiguous conclusions to the problem being investigated (MacNaughton et al., 2010; Munn-Giddings, 2017). I carefully considered the research design to maximise opportunities for generating evidence for the purposes of providing answers to the research questions (Gorard, 2013). I aimed to involve participants who were seeking to improve their knowledge and understanding of education for sustainable development as well as explore ways of promoting sustainability skills, attitudes and values in the early years. This led me to adopt an action research framework to shape my investigative processes.

I invited the practitioners as co-researchers in this study to enable us to work collaboratively in co-constructing knowledge of sustainability with the children. We did this by focusing initially on a wildlife gardening project as the basis for learning for sustainability. The action research design enabled us, as a team, to co-develop ideas on sustainability and carry them out with children in the setting. Thus, action research encouraged participation and collaboration among the nursery staff (with children and parents) and myself to help transform the setting’s educational practices enabling both ‘action’ and ‘positive change’ (Creswell, 2012).

5.2.1. Action research (AR)

Action research has a long history in education and community development, with various definitions and some common themes to discern both its core characteristics and distinction in relation to other research approaches (Munn-Giddings, 2017). Lewin (1946) described it as a way of generating information about diverse types of intergroup problems faced by various communities leading to social action. A similar definition provided by Elliot (1991) described it as “the study of a social situation with a view to improving the quality of action within it” (p.69), and this is with the fundamental aim of improving practice rather than producing knowledge. Mills (2018) views action research design as a systematic procedure that researchers use to gather

79 information as well as to improve practice in educational settings; whilst Creswell (2012) asserts that action research is a process used for addressing a specific practical issue with the aim of obtaining solutions to the problem. Finally, action research is viewed as a collaborative and democratic partnership as researchers see themselves in relation with others, in terms of their practices and ideas, and with the rest of their environment (Coghlan & Brannick, 2014).

Action research is usually based in practice or a community, and hence, not separate from it (Munn-Giddings, 2017). I engaged with practitioners as co-researchers in this study, and this made data collection methods collaborative and democratic, rather that solitary as we were all focused on the co-creation of knowledge of practices with one another (McNiff & Whitehead, 2011; Taylor, 2010; Creswell, 2012; Stringer, 2014). Action research also works on the assumption that all those whose lives are affected by the issue under study should be engaged in the processes of investigation (Stringer, 2014). Studies like those of Prince (2010) and Ward (2014) (see Chapter Three) demonstrate that knowledge acquisition through action research is a collaborative process that enabled practitioners to develop better understandings of issues that are under focus through equitably sharing diverse knowledge and experience, to improve the quality of their practices (Ritchie, et al., 2010; McNiff & Whitehead, 2011; Stringer, 2014).

The process of collaborative enquiry with practitioners in this present study enabled us to develop better understanding of the concept of sustainability as we jointly and systematically planned for and implemented activities for the children in the setting. As we carried out these tasks, we jointly reflected on information that transformed our understandings of the issues (theorising). Based on these understandings, we developed plans for action which provided the context for testing hypotheses derived from group theorising (evaluation). This makes action research one that focuses on research in action, rather than research about action (Coghlan & Brannick, 2014). My adoption of action research design for this study also draws inspirations from ideas of values, ethics and politics from praxeological research that is fundamentally participatory, democratic and collaborative in its nature, and is best practised by those committed and close to real worlds of children and their families (Pascal & Bertram, 2012). There was a redistribution of power in the generation of knowledge evidenced

80 in the ways that practitioners and children and all those involved in the research were encouraged to be in control over their own lives and contexts through active participation and having their voices heard in decision-making.

In addition, AR like praxeological research, has at its heart a process of critical self- evaluation, reflection and action base to support participants in developing better understandings of their practice for improvement (Pascal & Bertram, 2012). Within this context, my role as a researcher in this study became more facilitative and less directive, as I engaged people who have previously been the ‘subjects’ of research as participants in the research process (Stringer, 2014). I was also part of the context being investigated, as I did not adopt a spectator approach or conduct experiments on the participants (Kemmis & McTaggart, 2007; McNiff & Whitehead, 2011). Even though this kind of relationship is not without its challenges due to the complexities of issues relating to professional practice (Mukherji & Albon, 2018) (also see Chapter Ten for discussion on this aspect), I managed to build and maintain close relationships with them to the point of being accepted as part of the nursery team (Blaikie, 2007). This enabled me to carry out research with practitioners and children, rather than on/about them, acting as a catalyst/facilitator as and when necessary regarding actions to take.

Action research plays an important role in the preparation and professional development of educators as it equips them with specialised knowledge and skills needed to effect positive change in children’s learning for sustainability in early years settings (McNaughton, 2012; Hine, 2013; Hirst, 2018). This was seen in the ways that practitioners learned alongside the children in reviewed studies (see Prince, 2010; Ogelman, 2012; Ward, 2014 and Hirst, 2019, in Chapter Three).

Practitioners’ systematic, collaborative and participatory process of enquiry addressed areas of concern in relation to ESD as it continually alternated between enquiry and action in the setting with a view towards improving practice (Creswell, 2012; Pascal & Bertram, 2012; Hine, 2013). The action research design of the study was conceived as a cyclical process of three phases which enabled the team to plan, act, observe and reflect on the processes that enabled planning for children’s learning to encompass the four dimensions of sustainable development as adopted in the study. This process is shown in the diagram below:

81 Diagram 5.2.1: A representation of the action research design for the study

5.2.1.1. Description of the three phases:

Planning for the action research project commenced in April 2016. During a consultative process at a staff meeting on the 14th April 2016, I sought practitioners’ contributions and ideas about how best to support children’s understandings of sustainability. All 16 practitioners were in attendance, and the suggestion by one of them to plant wildflower seeds was unanimously agreed by all the other practitioners, and this enabled planning for Phase 1 to begin with learning about sowing seeds to grow a wildlife garden with the aim of attracting bees - an important issue in sustainable development (Friends of the Earth, 2018; UNESCO, 2018; Weldemariam, 2019). We agreed that the wildlife gardening project would be one of the ways that participants’ knowledge and understandings of sustainability would be drawn upon, and that other aspects of sustainable development were expected to be developed from the gardening project over the two years.

82 The consultative process that started the action research process in this study demonstrated democratic partnership as I saw myself in relation with the practitioners in terms of their practices and ideas as well as with the children and the environment (Coghlan & Brannick, 2014; Munn-Giddings, 2017). We also worked collaboratively with the children in the setting by being attentive to their needs and discoveries as they interacted with their peers, adults and their environment.

5.2.1.2 Phase 1: ‘A garden for the bees’ (May 2016 - August 2016)

The developed plan was put into action by practitioners and children suggesting the types of flower seeds to grow. Before commencement of sowing the seeds, I prepared the designated patches for planting in the garden, along with some old and used tyres kept near the nursery doors. Sowing was planned for when the children would be outdoors in the garden for play time. On the appointed day – 19th _{May 2016 -} practitioners on duty in the garden and myself engaged the children in sowing the seeds, whilst at the same time ensuring their health and safety. We provided water for the children and they were enthusiastic as they used brightly coloured children’s watering cans to help water the seeds in the planting areas. This led to further regular collaborative caring for the garden, specifically planned for when children came out for their outdoor play opportunities in the garden. We all ensured regular watering of the planting areas. Many of the actions with the children and practitioners were planned, whilst others were spontaneous, arising from practitioners’ and children’s interests, observations and new insights from data collected by the team.

The topic of bees was suggested by the practitioners, based on their perception of the children’s interests from conversation with them. Bees are important for sustainability in that even though tiny, they are essential to a healthy environment and healthy economy (Friends of the Earth, 2018). Humans’ reliance on bees (and other insects like butterflies) for pollinating fruit and vegetables, highlights their essential role in a healthy ecosystem that provides most of our food production (UNESCO, 2018; Weldemariam, 2019). These insects and other pollen-carriers are estimated to be worth more than US$200 billion per year to the global food economy (UN SDG 15, 2015; UNESCO, 2018). With reference to the United Kingdom (UK), it is estimated that UK farmers would spend £1.8billion a year to pollinate their crops without bees (Friends of the Earth, 2018). Bees are under threat of extinction due to climate change, changes

83 in land use, habitat loss, building projects, disease, pesticides, farming practices, pollution, and invasive non-native plant and animal species. The urgent need to reverse damage to the environment to ensure stable economy and food supply by protecting bees as key players in the economy (Friends of the Earth, 2018; Weldemariam, 2019) makes it important for everyone to be well informed about bees. This meant that we needed to build knowledge of their roles and capacities, in ways that supported relational understanding of the place of bees within our ecosystem.

The first phase ended in August 2016 and was rounded up with a staff meeting held on the 15th August 2016. The meeting enabled us as a team to listen to each other’s views and reflect on actions taken with the children, whether those actions have worked and whether there was need for adjustments. Nine practitioners attended the meeting, as others could not attend due to reasons ranging from holiday (as the meeting was during the summertime) to their work preferences. All practitioners in attendance agreed that the outcomes in Phase 1 had been successful. They had observed the children’s enjoyment of caring for the garden through their eagerness to help with watering as well as their observations of the stages of growth of flowers. Space for evaluation and reflection enabled future co-planning of activities for the children. For instance, a child’s request to plant sunflowers at home just like he had been planting in the nursery, led to a purposefully planned individual planting of sunflower seeds in newspaper flowerpots for children to take home and nurture. Practitioners were also involved in observing, documentation and collecting data relating to the research.

5.2.1.3. Phase 2: ‘Literary and practical activities’ (August 2016 - February 2017) Phase 2 saw the development of activities that were either planned or arising from children’s interests. These included the use of children’s books for specific activities, and food waste recycling. By this time, practitioners had grown in confidence and they had started feeling comfortable working with me as well as learning about sustainability. They made suggestions about activities to carry out with the children as well as sharing observations and documentation with me.

The second phase ended in February 2017. This was similarly rounded up with a staff meeting on the 21st March 2017 which provided opportunities for practitioners to

84 discuss the success or otherwise of the actions taken. The forum also provided opportunities for reflections and evaluation of this phase.

5.2.1.4 Phase 3: ‘Bees, bees and more on bees’ (March 2017 - November 2017) The final phase was also designed to enable the team to work collaboratively to implement activities that had either been suggested or that arose from the children’s interests like the individual planting of sunflower seeds and learning more about bees. Just like in the previous phases, practitioners were involved in the data collection process as they continued with their observations on the children during activities, as well as analyse and reflect on their actions. They were able to provide detailed reports from observations on children’s interactions with each other, adults and their environment.

The final phase ended in November 2017 and was rounded up with a staff meeting on 6th February 2018. The meeting provided opportunities for the practitioners to discuss outcomes from the activities undertaken with the children, as well as their personal learning in the action research.