Peer observation as an action research method Bell, M. and Gyamtso, D. C. Proposed forum: Forum 3 Methodology and Methods of (action‐) research We take as our starting point one of the key questions posed by the conference, that is; Which methodological strategies and methods are best suited to empirically analyse the emergence and implementation of open and creative futures in organisations? Within the higher education context we pose the related question, Is peer observation of teaching an effective action‐research method for collaboratively identifying, communicating and developing creative teaching approaches that foster the engagement of students in active learning? We discuss a response to this question highlighting aspects of the authors’ educational research at the Royal University of Bhutan and referring to higher education literature. Teachers in Bhutan have been reported as adopting a ‘teacher‐centred’ approach to education. (Jamtsho, 2004).This approach has been linked to a variety of factors including: the perceived role of teachers as discipline‐keepers and knowledge‐providers, the nature of the curriculum, the importance of the exam system, the experience of the teachers’ own learning background, and the valuing of Buddhist monastic methods of memorization, debates, contemplation, and exposition (Dorji, 2005; Jamtsho, 2004). This teacher‐centred approach is found at all levels of schooling and no doubt elsewhere including in the Colleges and Institutes of RUB (Maxwell, Reid, Gyamtso, & Dorji, 2008). The Royal University of Bhutan’s key policy document, the Wheel of Academic Law (Bhutan, 2010) advocates ‘learner‐centred’ teaching, suggesting teaching methods that focus on student activity and involvement in the learning process. Learner centeredness is “a learning model that places the student (learner) actively in the centre of the learning process. Instructional approaches are used in which students influence the content, activities, materials, and pace of learning and even the assessment process” (Gyamtso & Maxwell, 2012, p.65). This suggests a vision for RUB as a creative university – where traditional approaches are exposed to critical reflection and creative alternatives are explored. If it is true, however, that a teacher‐centred approach is ubiquitous in Bhutan, it seems likely that RUB academics will be unfamiliar with strategies for ‘learner‐centred’ teaching. Our research, in part, sought to reveal the prevalence of teacher‐centred and learner‐centred approaches across the institutes and colleges of RUB using triangulation of data gathering by combining interview, survey and classroom observation. We requested two volunteers (one early career academic and one experienced academic) from each college/institute. We were able to observe and interview 18 volunteers within 9 of the RUB colleges/institutes and we surveyed staff and final year students at all 10 of the colleges/institutes. In this endeavour we followed Stake’s approach to case study, seeking “accurate description and subjective, yet disciplined, interpretation; a respect and curiosity for culturally different perceptions of phenomena; and empathic representation of local settings ‐ all … within a constructivist epistemology” (Stake, 2000, p.444). Our findings enable us to reject the proposal that the teacher‐centred approach is ubiquitous at RUB. We observed a range of styles. These we were able to broadly classify using Ramsden’s (2003) conceptions of teaching and Biggs (2003) principles of effective teaching. We found teaching styles in the colleges and institutes ranged from ‘Teacher‐centred’ in which the teacher ‘transmits’ information to the students; ‘Instruction’ in which the student practises numerical problems or learns sections of text through practice; and ‘Learner‐centred’ in which students are involved in activities such as discussion, presentation, and role play. In one ‘Learner‐centred’ situation, students themselves were responsible for pre‐planning and facilitating the learning of class.