These are all terms that I refer to when designing the ARP and planning the process, but in essence, what I really mean is ‘collaboration’ when using any of the three. The ARP brings up an interesting tension between identifying a research project that will enable an enquiry into my teaching practice, whilst also taking into account that if others will be affected by that practice, then they also should have a meaningful influence over it. This tension reminds me that there are different degrees of collaboration. Whilst my aspiration for the ARP is to make it a Participatory Action Research (PAR) project, where all the stakeholder groups are developing the research with me as co-researchers from the outset, and therefore sharing power, and moving away from traditional dominant and extractive position of the researcher in relation to the participants, within the timeframe and scale of the ARP, this is difficult to achieve. I have made key decisions about how I want to conduct the research well before participants are invited to participate. However, a collaborative process is key to my teaching practice, so my ‘hacking of PAR’ is to use the data collection as a means to reflect on the three pedagogical approaches with participants and to collaborate through that process to develop and refine the approaches for the next cohort of students starting the next academic year. There are moments of collaboration through the research process, but not fully from start when it was designed through to the end when the data will be interpreted and  presented. I will opt for the term ‘hacked PAR’ for this research project.