Hello Peter and All,
Would it be worth enunciating some principles of
judgement...some criteria for the various levels of
value on international research?
How would we recognise each of the levels in
practitioner research?
What of sharpness and relevance of questions?
What of clarity of ethical principles?
What of quality of data gathering?
Of rigour of analysis
Of awareness and discussion of the writing of others?
What of practical change or improvements that have
taken place?
What of understandings, theories that have been
generated?
What of rich possibilities for other professionals to
generalise naturalistically to their situation?
Of possibilities for others gaining insights, points
of entry into improving their own problems?
Of relevance and significance to wider and deeper
local, national and international issues?
Regards
Brian
--- Peter Mellett <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear All
>
> Jack wrote on 19 September 2006 under the heading
> 'A BEGINNING FOR THE 2006-7 PRACTITIONER-RESEARCHER
> E-SEMINAR'
> “… We have 123 subscribers on the list to begin the
> 2006-2007 Practitioner-
> Researcher e-seminar on the standards of judgement
> we use in evaluating the
> quality of the educational knowledge and educational
> theories we are
> creating as practitioner-researchers.”
>
> Looking back to last year, I remember Jack opening
> the e-seminar for 2005
> with an invitation ". . . to a discussion on the
> contributions of our
> living educational theories and our evidence of our
> educational influences
> in our own learning and to the future of educational
> research . . ." with
> a further invitation ". . . to let each other know
> where our educational
> theories can be accessed and where we can see
> evidence of our educational
> influences in our own learning, the learning of
> others and in the learning
> and education of social formations."
>
> I see a common theme between the 2005 and 2006
> seminar briefings that
> centres on standards of judgement.
>
> In 2005, Jack asked me to take on the role of
> reviewer as the archive of
> contributions filled. However, on 30 June at 'Re:
> Start of the Review
> Process' I stated:
> “. . . I have been perusing postings as they have
> been made over the past
> few weeks and must admit to noting that the
> exchanges have created within
> me a steadily growing sense of tension as I
> endeavour to hold on to the
> original stated theme of the e-seminar i.e. 'The
> nature of educational
> theories: what counts as evidence of educational
> influences in learning?'
> In an attempt to respond to that tension and to see
> if the process of
> review can be moved forward, I propose to go ‘back
> to basics’ and to
> undertake an action enquiry under Jack's usual
> sequential headings:
>
> 1. What is my concern ?
> 2. Why am I concerned?
> 3. What do I think I can do about it?
> 4. What kind of 'evidence' can I collect to help me
> make some judgements
> about what is happening?
> 5. How do I plan to collect such evidence?”
> 6. How shall I check that my judgement about what
> has happened is reasonably
> fair and accurate? …”
>
> In an attempt to ground this enquiry in a practice
> that could be shared
> with seminar members, I decided to review a piece of
> work published on
> Jack’s website that is regarded as being a
> good-quality action research
> enquiry. I then asked the question “How can we
> review the work of Kathryn
> Yeaman and thereby develop standards of judgement
> which help us to
> understand the nature of educational theories and
> what counts as evidence
> of our educational influences in learning”?
>
> I received interest in this enquiry from Jack and
> Moira but, in the end,
> there was no other on-going engagement. I wrote a
> final posting on 07
> October 2005 at 'Making meanings from the archive'
> and concluded:
>
> “… Are we to make something of this archive, or are
> we to press eagerly on
> into the future, looking for the next opportunity to
> rehearse our familiar
> arguments amongst ourselves, without actually
> convincing anyone outside our
> immediate circle that we have made any sort of
> serious contribution to the
> wider debate.”
>
> To me, it seems that we are failing to build on the
> past, or even to draw
> conclusions from the past.
>
> Alon Serper wrote the following contribution to the
> 2006 seminar on 12
> October under
> 'Re: What kind of lifeworld are we creating for each
> other here?'
> “… I am growing increasingly tired so I have to
> speak in order to stop
> being that exhausted as I read the entries … It is
> just further
> highlighting and displaying the critique of
> academics and academia as
> detached ivory tower (possibly made of much cheaper
> material than ivory) of
> talkers/analysers, talking what Heidegger called
> 'idle talk' and what I
> myself, in my usual not messing about and saying
> what I think, call yakking
> of yakkers, rather than doers and deyakkers.
> So my contribution is as follows:
> Just produce an account, showing your living
> standards of judgement and
> make it public for assessment and re-evaluation:
> We'll decide and tell you
> if it is epistemological, clear and convincing,
> contributing (ethical) and
> educational.”
>
> I would claim that Alon has coming to a similar
> conclusion as mine of last
> year: we need to share an enquiry that is grounded
> in practice. Otherwise,
> we are doomed to produce yet another megabyte or two
> of ‘idle talk’. What
> do you think we should do?
>
> Peter Mellett
> 19 October 2006
>
>
> Archive
>
> 20 June 2005
>
>
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0506&L=bera-practitioner-
> researcher&T=0&O=A&P=9355
>
> 21 June
>
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0506&L=bera-practitioner-
> researcher&T=0&O=A&P=10194
>
> 23 June
>
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0506&L=bera-practitioner-
> researcher&T=0&O=A&P=11674
>
> 24 June
>
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0506&L=bera-practitioner-
> researcher&T=0&O=A&P=12514
>
> 30 June ***
>
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0506&L=bera-practitioner-
> researcher&T=0&O=A&P=16122
>
> 4 July
>
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0507&L=bera-practitioner-
> researcher&T=0&O=A&P=3732
>
> 5 July
>
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0507&L=bera-practitioner-
> researcher&T=0&O=A&P=5427
>
> 15 July
>
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0507&L=bera-practitioner-
> researcher&T=0&O=A&P=15006
>
> 07 October ***
>
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0510&L=bera-practitioner-
> researcher&T=0&O=A&P=73
>
Brian E. Wakeman
Education adviser
Dunstable
Beds
|