1Collaboration, as shown in the previous the chapters of this volume, is a powerful scientific posture that is increasingly considered in the work led in the fields of education and child care. Carrying out research about requires doing research with, hence an urge to consider an ethical dimension in the projects. This dimension is all the more critical since current and constant transformations in societies require to show caution when working with partners whose institutional or professional norms and cultures differ from ours. The two following contributions aim to propound a reflection on this issue first from an epistemological perspective, then from a practical standpoint considering the contextualised reality of Bulgaria.

1 The case of Almería (Spain)

1.1 Introduction

2Action research emerged in the early 1970’s in the field of adult education (Watt & Watt, 1993) as a research methodology based on the popular education of Freire (1970). This author describes, in contrast to formal education, that educational centres, their curriculums and the pedagogy developed in them, ratify and perpetuate the systems of domination. On the other hand, popular education supports oppressed people to become aware of the nature and causes of their oppression and to develop strategies for resistance.

3Lincoln argues (1990, p. 36) that “privacy, confidentiality, and anonymity regulations were written under assumptions that are ill suited to action research”. Despite this obstacle, Zeni (2001) develops a guide to ethical issues to support action research. This is structured in five areas :

• The first is a general description of the project.
• The second is based on the activities developed by the educator.
• The third examines the notion of subjectivity in action research.
• The fourth is based on considering ways to reduce risks for participants, either through informed consent and anonymity or through openness, dialogue and recognition.
• Finally, the fifth area raises questions that have been particularly problematic for action researchers.

4The areas 3, 4 and 5 will be described below. The focus is on these three areas, as they are the most specific ones. In each one, a number of aspects are proposed on which the researcher must reflect and answer.

1.2 Epistemological point of view

1.2.1 Notion of subjectivity in action research (third area)

5In this area, the impact of research on people whose lives are being documented should be examined. The aspects are as follows:

• → Power relation. The researcher must analyse the power relationships in the group. In this analysis, the power that a member may have over others should be specified, as well as which people (directors, teachers...) may have power over the researcher himself or herself. In some cases, people may exert pressure on the researcher in order to prevent certain structural and organisational problems at the centre coming to light.
• → Bonds. This aspect focuses on the personal and professional bonds that the researcher has with people in the group and how these bonds may strengthen the confidence or perhaps be detrimental to the research.

6In some situations, action research focuses on children from sociocultural deprivation contexts. Against this background, the researcher has to establish measures to ensure respect and social justice in the action-research project.

7Action research may also lead the researcher to know about sensitive issues such as illegal activities, drug and alcohol use or other behaviours. If this is the case, the researcher must be prepared to know how to handle this information and what to do with it.

1.2.2 Risk reduction for participants, informed consent and anonymity (Fourth area)

8In this area, the researcher should ask himself or herself a number of questions related to:

• People who have access to the research project. Which people have read the research proposal and have knowledge about it (participants, students, families, colleagues, etc.)? What do the students know about this project? What were they told? And what are the risks for them or their families if they know or do not know that it is being written or collected about their children?
• Who other than the researcher will read the field notes or engage in a dialogue with the researcher to provide other perspectives? How to make sure that the people who will read the notes and engage in a dialogue with the researcher will maintain discretion and will not put the participants at risk?
• Information data. The researcher should specify how the data will be stored during and after the research, how it will be saved (files, computers, etc.), and who will have access to this data and, if necessary, that he or she will take specific precautions.
• Results. Sometimes data is not fully presented to the public. If this is the case, the researcher should explain why he or she decides to inform the public of some data and withhold some.
• It is also necessary for the researcher to specify whether his or her findings will be confirmed by observers who do not share his or her ideas, i.e., will findings be confirmed by other observers who do not share his or her assumptions?
• Other issues concerning the researcher’s sense of security at the centre. This is intended to state whether the researcher feels safe to express the results in his or her organisation. In addition to this, the researcher should specify who owns the information if certain events are recorded.
• Finally, the researcher will argue whether the research receives a grant, and if so, how he or she can avoid possible pressure from sponsors to report favourably.

1.2.3 Other problematic aspects (Fifth area)

• Different points of view in the preliminary report. In this case, the researcher should argue who will review the draft report before its final format (teachers, director, school council, etc.). Participants may disagree with all or part of their interpretation. If so, the researcher should specify what action would be taken. Under such circumstances, the researcher may review the existing views, quote objections to them and keep the original view or express the alternative views in an appendix.
• Anonymity of the report. It is also necessary to detail whether the report will be anonymous or with full recognition of the organisation where it has been developed. It may be possible to identify teachers, but pseudonyms are used for students. The researcher should provide information on how and when these problems have been negotiated.
• Values and empathy. The last aspect focuses on reflecting on the answer to three questions about what the possible negative consequences of the research are, how the results are related to the researcher’s values and priorities and if the researcher were a participant, he or she would like to undergo the research, and what changes he or she would make to feel comfortable.

1.3 Other perspectives on ethics in action research

9Altrichter (1993) and Contreras (1994) offer a further perspective on ethics in action research. The first author, Altrichter (1993) identifies two interpretations of an ethical quality:

Action research must be compatible with the purposes of education (not to establish evidence to collect competitiveness-enhancing data when the aim is to promote cooperation, such as tests, objective evidence...).

10Action research is only possible in collaboration with other people involved in the same situation and not against them. Democratic and cooperative human relations must be built in order to help their further development.

11On the other hand, Contreras (1994) summarises the ethical principles governing action research as follows:

• All persons and authorities relevant to the case must be consulted and the necessary consents must be obtained.
• Permission must be obtained before making observations and examining documents produced for purposes other than research and that are not public.
• When the implementation of the project requires the active involvement of other parties, all participants should then have the opportunity to influence its development.
• The work must remain visible and open to suggestions from others.
• Descriptions of others’ work and points of view must be negotiated with those concerned before being published.
• Interpretations of data from them must be negotiated and their permission to make public use of them must be obtained.
• In the public reports of the research, the anonymity of persons involved in the research should be maintained, unless there is a wish and permission to the contrary from the interested parties.
• All ethical principles established must be previously known by those concerned and agreed with them, as well as the terms of their use.

12Finally, the focus is on Tuhiwai-Smith (2010, p. 195), who proposes a guideline for ensuring the compliance with ethical principles in the development of action research and respecting the cultural values of a group. This guideline is called “Top-down Approach to Researcher Behaviour”. Its elements are:

• A respect for people. Allow people to define their own space and meet them on their own terms.
• It is important to present yourself to people face to face, especially when the idea of research is introduced, to have been ‘the seen face’ in front of the community before sending long and complicated letters and materials.
• Look, listen and only then speak. This value emphasises the importance on look/observation and listening, the way of developing understanding and finding a place from which to speak.
• Share and host people, be generous. This value supports a collaborative approach to research, which allows knowledge to flow both ways and recognises the researcher as someone who is learning and not simply as someone who collects data. It also helps the process of feedback, sharing results, and closing this if the project, not the relationship, requires it.
• Be cautious. This means that the researchers need to be politically correct, culturally confident, and reflective on their position of strangers/acquaintances.
• Don't flaunt your knowledge. This is connected with finding ways to share knowledge, to be generous with knowledge without being arrogant. Sharing knowledge is to empower a process, but the community has to empower itself.

1.4 Validity, credibility and reliability of action research

13Greenwood (2010, p. 34) argues that the “validity of action research is not the acceptance and judgment of a community of expert researchers but is judged by local problem-owners in each specific situation”. This means in practice that if the “problem-owners” have confidence in the conclusions and results obtained to act according to them, assuming the personal and social risk of this decision, this will be considered valid knowledge.

14This way of understanding the validity of action research is what Dewey (1991) calls “justified reliability”. It is not abstract evidence or based on an agreement between scientists of a professional community without there being personal involvement of the local situation that has been studied. In general terms, the validity, credibility and reliability of action research are to be assessed on the basis of the willingness of the local interested parties to act on the results of the research, “risking their own interests in pursuit of their ideas and the degree to which the results achieved meet their expectations” (Greenwood, 2010, p. 138). In this way, the contextual knowledge produced is valid, if it guarantees action. The claim of validity is grounded on the feasibility of the activity undertaken to achieve social change, and the evidence is whether the solution reached can successfully solve the problem.

15Another important aspect is based on identifying criteria and experiences to determine the transcontextual validity of what has been learned in the research project, as well as to communicate the results effectively to other groups. Thus, the generalisation for action research is not based on regulated interpretation structures that must be obeyed, but depends on a process of reflective action. Action research assumes that knowledge is linked to context, so to use this knowledge in a different context, it is necessary to take two steps (Greenwood, 2012):

The first step is to understand the contextual conditions under which knowledge was developed by recognising the contextualisation inherent in knowledge itself.

16The second step, in order to transfer knowledge to another scenario, is mandatory to know the conditions of the new context, as well as the differences between both scenarios. Therefore, it is necessary to know the context in which knowledge was developed and to know the new context scenario where knowledge is intended to apply, in order to generalize it. For this purpose, consideration should be given to consequences that the application of knowledge will have in the new context.

17Thus, generalization becomes an active process of reflection in which researchers involved decide through reflection whether it makes sense to apply the new knowledge in the new context, and jointly work to find modes of action and performance in the new context.

2 The case of Sliven (Bulgaria)

1.1 Introduction

18The issue of school integration for children and adolescents from ethnic minorities, which raises questions in terms of linguistic socialization, doesn't only concern the Bulgarian Republic. It appears however with a certain acuity, insofar as the migratory flows since 2015 have reconfigured the border relations and in part the internal policy of Bulgaria. On the socio-educational level and whatever the name applied to it (social cohesion, integration, co-education, hospitality, etc.), such a file implies the population, the political environment, and also all the professions that “address to others”(Perez-Roux & Balleux, 2012; Torterat & Dupuy, 2019). What is more, it involves the fieldsof education and training, health, social work and socio-cultural animation. On these points, the involvement of the actors concerned remains subject to a multiplicity of factors, including cultural and interpersonal (Biémar, Dejean, & Donnay, 2008), which requires from researchers to “analyze both the discourse and effective practices” (Toullec-Théry & Lescouarch, 2014; Torterat, 2019).

19As for the political orientations, it should be recalled that these issues are guided by international standards related both to the rights of the child and the ones of the people belonging to ethnic minorities. Let us list, among others, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, that on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. In addition, there is the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, as well as those for the suppression of discrimination in the field of education, on the rights of the child, the United Nations Declaration on the rights of people belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities, and finally the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, to which the UNESCO World Education Program “Education for All” (1997) is more occasionally joined.

20In Bulgaria, the actors involved in these processes are most frequently sensitive to this topic, despite differences in approaches to European educational policies which emphasize the integration of children and pupils from ethnic minorities in education. Emphasis is placed on interculturality, which is interpreted as an opportunity for mutual exchanges through the interaction between children and students (see Blanchet & Coste, 2010), the expression of one's own cultural identity and a field for building a national identity. This perspective exists in most of the European countries through linguistic socialization and mastery of the official language of the country by children of families from minorities, with specific measures depending on the countries.

21From an historical viewpoint, let's indicate that in recent years, we have noticed a greater place for collaborative multi-category research, around cooperation initiatives combining several sectors of activity. These formats lend themselves fairly well to the pooling of approaches as well as to the crossing of points of view on what promotes or, on the contrary, makes learning difficult (Merini & Ponté, 2008; Lyet, 2014; Torterat, Azaoui, Boutevin & Dupuy, 2020). In France for example, quoting Albot (2006), “we gradually understand that social, economic and cultural determinisms influence the educational destiny of students”, with teachers sometimes led “to mobilize representations and attitudes of fatalism, even resignation”. However, these observations are less significant in Bulgaria, where the policies of linguistic integration in a multicultural environment are more historically anchored.

1.2 Contextual elements

22Over the past fifteen years, there have been some significant successes in the field of educational integration in Bulgarian society. First of all, it is worth mentioning the adoption of a School Integration Strategy for children and students from allophone ethnic minorities in 2004. In the short term and with a view to implementing these collaborative educational initiatives, a Department of education and science (for the period 2006-2010) as well as an advisory Council were created by the Ministry of Education and Science, which was mobilized on these issues during for the period 2004-2010. Note also the existence, since 2005, of the Center for School Integration of Children and Students of Ethnic Minorities (CSICSEM), an institution whose purpose is to support the process of integration and socialization of education.

23The general guidelines for the school integration of children and students from ethnic minorities (2015-2020), in Bulgaria, are based on both factual data (notably socio-demographic and cultural, or from the health sector) and comprehensive overlaps. These social link and migratory processes lead us to better understand the challenges, in practice as in their political philosophy, for school integration and linguistic socialization. Concretely, these orientations begin with the following postulates:

• • children and students from ethnic minorities are those whose parents define their belonging to ethnic communities different from the Bulgarian community, and who hold a share of ethnocultural diversity;
  • educational integration and linguistic socialization join an institutional process in which educational entities, carrying ethnocultural specificities, interact in a unified educational environment, forming intercultural skills and common civic values in the process of education and training, while preserving ethnocultural identity and equal opportunities for social emancipation. These processes support intercultural exchanges as well as preservation and different cultural identities.

24The education and / or training of ethnic minorities conforms both to Bulgarian law and to international treaties promulgated and applied in the Republic of Bulgaria. Basically, that implies different methods and forms of working with children, pupils and parents of all ethnic groups (Picture 1), so as to take into account their specificities, but also to guarantee the protection of children's rights, the discrimination and the establishment of preconditions for professionalization. In this case, the organization of operations therefore turns out to be multicriteria-referenced:

• a guarantee of equal access to education for all students;
• intercultural education within the Bulgarian educational system;
• priority given to forms of socialization;
• non-discriminatory preservation of cultural identities and mother tongues, with an emphasis on culture and individual features;
• cooperation between all the children and the supervisors, regardless of their ethnicity and their mother tongue.

Picture 1 — Dealing with diferences.

25Situation A: illustrates the peculiarities of the beginning of school and specific learning, the main difficulties included in the developing of an educational program with suitable and above all multifactorial assessments (linguistic, social and knowledge assimilation).

26Situation B: represents another pedagogical approach in which only the children with the greatest difficulties work, leaving a significant part of the school population in a form of neglect, thus producing different forms of deficits.

27Situation С, for its part, displays a typical example of an adapted, and above all integrative, educational activity, while Situation D combines taking charge of the group while providing the possibility of individualized approaches, adapted to needs and capacities of each child. In that respect the Bulgarian School considers the general context conducive to learning followed throughout the country, whatever the pupils' individualities, their socio-educational precedents and their migration backgrounds. The guarantee of ethno-cultural identities is sort of established at this price (Yanachkova and Buki, 2019).

28As a result, the preservation of the cultural singularities of children and students belonging to bilingual ethnic minorities is achieved through two-level training. On the one hand, entering into early learning without excluding the first language or discriminating the culture of his ethnic community allows the child to make a non-confrontational transition to the Bulgarian language of schooling, but also to the requirements of school culture. On the other hand, this organization goes through progressive forms of appropriation, acculturation and familiarization without prejudice, and above all based on the abilities of the child and the family. Evaluative practices follow a similar orientation, combining individual support, monitoring of parents' literate practices, in terms of successes and skills (see the Romtels Project ; Smith et al., 2017).

29In addition to the change that this implies in terms of teaching practices, collaboration between different social actors in the field is also a key element. In Bulgaria, among the various partners in schools - but also in kindergartens - the educational mediator intervenes as an employee of the educational institution member of the ethnic group concerned, working for the integration of children included in the educational process of this institution. The members of the communities concerned quite naturally trust the education mediator, because he is one of them, speaking their language, carrying their culture. In this regard, the latter undertakes to organize and carry out information campaigns for parents in order to clarify the mutual benefits of integrated education for children and students belonging to ethnic minorities against all, by intervening both among families and at school, in local cultural associations and churches. The mediator gradually helps to foster cooperation between parents and educational institutions (see for dicussion Azaoui & Lièvre, 2019). He is also the initiator of popular activities such as “Parents’ Club”, “Parents' School”, “Parents’ Forum” and others, namely that other opportunities for active participation are provided.

30The second type of cooperative initiative concerns neighborhood libraries holding the collections and series represented in schools, just as it is done in many European countries (such as in France: see Torterat, 2019; Torterat et al., 2020). Students and their families are invited to meet members of the educational community in the library of the populated area, but also in the museum, in a gallery, in the theater, or in premises such as the “local community center”, as well as in the neighboring park, even at the factories or different institutions. For example in 2019, under the National program “Providing a modern educational environment”, an amount of 2 million BGN was budgeted for the implementation of lessons in real working environment. A similar practice aims to help children and students to create student autonomy clubs, and to speak about “self-management”. The challenge then is to allow learners, in general, to organize their own life at school and even to be part of their empowerment without taking into account the ethnicity of the participants. From a analogous point of view, regular meetings are offered to bring minorities together with families who have been living in the territory for a longer time, even if it means going through joint exhibitions, “musical visits” and galleries.

31A similar approach is being developed in the field of ICT, whose integration into the educational and family environment aims to improve the effectiveness of educational interactions between students and surrounding environment, including institutions, with a view to comprehensive training throughout life. The knowledge acquired during the process of learning and using information technology reflects all the skills related to the life of the personality and the possibilities of social integration. The use of courses in digital format significantly facilitates the school integration and linguistic socialization of children and students from immigrant backgrounds, especially those who have not attended kindergarten for various raisons.

1.3 In conclusion

32All of these initiatives have demonstrated their socio-political effectiveness in recent years. Consequently a Law for preschool and school education was accepted (it entered into force on 01.08.2016 and was modified from 01.01.2019). This document fully supports the expanded philosophy of education in the Republic of Bulgaria. Its text suggests conditions for direct inclusion and various innovations in education by bringing about a reorganization and a refoundation of the contents of both education and training. As summarized by Anelia Andreeva, the director of The National Inspectorate of Education, innovative schools are the engine of change, through programs no longer designed for the “average student”, but diversified according to needs, knowledge of Bulgarian language, and the challenges of linguistic socialization (through songs, for example, with toddlers). Such programs support also an unprecedented strengthening of collaborative actions with associations, libraries and museum institutions (sessions that can reach almost an hour and a half a week in connection with the fine arts). In Sliven in particular, the teaching teams have multiplied initiatives in a multicultural environment, through in-depth work on mediation, supporting cultural events such as “school mediation clubs”, meetings with local activists, the “Celebration of Letters of the Alphabet”, the “Week of Reading” or “The Day of Tolerance”. All these initiatives constitute opportunities to establish long lasting connections with the different communities