relation to their own questions; articipation (in problem-posing and in answering questions) in decision-making; ower-sharing and the relative suspension of hierarchical ways of working, in a conscious move towards social and industrial democracy; collaboration among members of the group as a "critical community"; self-reflection, self-evaluation and self-management by autonomous and responsible persons and groups; rogressive (and public) learning by doing and making mistakes in a "self-reflective spiral" of planning, acting, observing, reflective planning, etc.; and reflection that supports the idea of the "(self-)reflective practitioner"; then your is a situation in which action research is occurring . Altrichter et al. (1991 , p. 9) suggested that this working definition was acceptable to the full range of Symposium participants, because it was: not too threatening to existing understandings and practices; not too vague so that everything was included but was rather rich in examples which might support the development of shared meanings; open enough so that further elaboration and development seemed possible; and shared with respect to the process of its formulation for a specific context. Independently, Zuber-Skerritt (1992 , p. 2) developed a theoretical framework of effective action research, known as the CRASP model:Action research is: Critical (and self-critical) collaborative enquiry by Reflective practitioners being Accountable and making the results of their enquiry public, Self-evaluating their practice and engaged in Participative problem-solving and continuing professional development. Both definitions have been influenced by the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory (and other philosophies). Therefore, the type of action research we discuss in this