Dear Jack/All
re Jack's posting today - and I add my affirmation of your writing, Nigel -
"I'm wondering about the desirability of focusing both on the processes by which
one arrives at 'truth' and the qualities of the practitioner-researcher
necessary to arrive at their truth?"
Let's consider the process by which I arrived at 'truth' as I reviewed Jack's
recent book - for which I am redrafting the review for TeacherResearch.net
Jack, as I reviewed:
I looked at your website to see if you had removed the posting you had made
about me - which I've asked you gently and politely to remove several times
and which I am now quite happy that you retain, as it illustrates my point.
Action research in real lives is not 'fluffy bunny-ish' it should be sincere.
Guides for how to do action research should also be sincere and written by those
who embody a commitment to follow their own guidelines, addressing any
shortfalls when confronted with them as quickly and honestly as they can. Simply
crying "I am being criticised' is side stepping the issue under review.
I used your own statements about ethics as a standard of judgement to review
your living educational theory which I see emerging through your own website
'Protecting your participants means that you must place their welfare above your
own at all times' Whitehead and McNiff (2005) p.35
I suggest that means that though you may feel it is right to exercise your own
academic freedom - you should only do if it does not involved injuring third
parties. I am thinking of Frankena's (1973) definitions of ethics as I write:
I explored some ethical challenges in being an action researcher in my paper
presented at AERA in March 2002 Fletcher, S. 'Ethics, Values and Validity'.
'When you produce your reports, never mention a person's or an organisation's
name unless you have their written permission to do so' (ibid, 2005, p. 35)
and
'If people decide they no longer wish to be invloved in your research, you must
grant them their right to withdraw, and also promise that all data about them
will be destroyed ... Let people know you are to be trusted. Build a
reputation for good practice and integrity' (ibid, 2005, p. 35)
Now - was I mistaken to use your own statements of ethics in your most recent
book to judge writing about me on your website as a measure of your integrity?
I invited and invite you to move on - I am not dwelling in anger or angst as I
write and you would see that in my face if you were able to visualise me now.
I've suggested that we live your stated aspiration and we should collaborate.
Yes - I have taken some people on this list beyond their ZPD zone of proximal
development as Vygotsky calls it - beyond their comfort zone, and I hope that
by doing so I can encourage us to shake off any tendency to self-complacency.
Real people get really hurt by an unthinking exercising of academic freedom.
Kind regards,
Sarah
Frankena, W.K. (1973) Ethics, Foundations of Philosophy, USA New YJersey,
Prentice-Hall Inc.
--
Sarah Fletcher
SL Mentoring and Induction, BSUC
http://www.TeacherResearch.net
Tel. 01225 875875
Quoting Jack Whitehead <[log in to unmask]>:
> Nigel - I did enjoy reading your posting, especially your point:
>
> "This is an approach to epistemology that focuses not on the processes by
> which one arrives at truth, but the qualities of the person necessary to
> arrive at truth. Some moral qualities necessary are e.g. sincerity, some
> epistemological ones are, e.g. knowledge and prudence. The practitioner
> researcher thus has to balance the demands of different virtues, e.g. the
> 'research'
> virtue of commitment to truth, with the teaching virtues of justice or
> compassion. Describing the problems of validity/rigour in this way may not
> resolve
> the disagreements, but it does allow one to pick one's way through the
> minefield, identifying the particular tensions and how they can be resolved.
> I am
> interested in the current discussion, but feel that a lot of assumptions are
> being made about the priority of certain virtues over others, e.g. a
> particular view of social justice over a commitment to epistemological
> rigour."
>
> I'm wondering about the desirability of focusing both on the processes by
> which one
> arrives at 'truth' and the qualities of the practitioner-researcher necessary
> to arrive at
> their truth? James Finnegan in his Ph.D. at
> http://www.bath.ac.uk/~edsajw/fin.shtml
> explored his explicit commitment to social justtice, democracy and
> epistemological
> rigour.
>
> In the living theories of practitioner-researchers at:
> http://www.bath.ac.uk/~edsajw/living.shtml I think that you will find that
> each
> practitioner-researcher has done what you suggest. Marian Naidoo graduates
> this
> coming Tuesday for her thesis with a focus on a passion for compassion. I''m
> hoping
> that this will be available before the end of the seminar.
>
> Love Jack.
>
|
