The purpose of this article is to render a methodological interpretation of feminist pragmatism, to offer some points for reflection on the concepts of community, reciprocity, and the need for social study/reform. Empirically inspired explications on non-participation are offered. The democratic meaning of participation in collaborative knowledge building is reflected upon. Feminist pragmatism and its methodological interpretation in terms of action research are presented as an important contribution to thinking about organisational and professional development, the gendered nature of knowledge and the way we organise work and society. Examples of transformative actions on the basis of collaborative knowledge building processes are presented and, finally, knowledge simplification and the bureaucratisation of knowledge are highlighted as undemocratic.

Against the background of Swedish preschool's historical and traditional functions in Swedish society, this article focuses on some of the choice points and their implications for professional and organisational development in preschool. By combining feminist pragmatism and feminist action research, some analytical points are made regarding the significance of organisational settings and the limitations they can have on the professional practices within the organisational setting. The preschool teachers in this study show that pedagogical change is possible, although it takes time and is not necessarily endorsed by municipal employers. The role of action researchers is described in terms of positions and ethics. The latter is presented as particularly important.

In 2008, an assistant head of preschool in a municipality in Sweden approached my university to enquire about courses in AR. She intended to introduce AR as a means of organisational learning in preschools throughout her municipality. There were no courses on offer but I was about to wrap up my doctoral thesis, which was rooted in (feminist) action research as a methodology. An emphatic dialogue on course design ensued, and in September 2009, a one-year part-time AR course started with initially thirty participants. Many challenges needed addressing. For one, the limiting context of higher education with its traditional stance on course work and modes of examination posed problems that called for pragmatic solutions that would still honour the participatory spirit of AR. Furthermore, I wanted to pay close attention to ethical and epistemological issues by incorporating these in the course syllabus and subject matter for AR. Also, my role as a teacher in HE needed continuous de-dramatising so that the participants would be able to trust me. Prior to the AR course, most of the participants had been made project leaders by said assistant head, in order to implement systematic quality control in their respective organisations. There were considerable expectations of what this course could do to enhance organisational development in their respective organisational settings. Some otherwise questionable aspects could be successfully handled, such as granting an academic outsider partial power over a course in HE, stretching academic boundaries and thereby trying the patience of my superiors, as well as emphasising learning processes rather than learning outcomes for a certain course module. I will illustrate sometimes controversial aspects of a course in AR in HE, give examples of  participants’ well-documented learning experiences, and their concrete organisational AR projects outside the AR course, and how such projects and learning experiences can feed back into an AR course. In conclusion, the necessity of organisational boundary work, both inside and outside HE, will be addressed, and some theoretical perspectives, such as feminist pragmatism, will be suggested for further discussion of an AR course in an HE setting.Keywords: AR, Higher Education, Organisational Development, Learning Processes, Ethics, Feminist Pragmatism