Hi Brian and everyone
Back after a weekend away from the screen!
I find this posting curious. It seems to me that there is an epistemological
blind taking place - could this be so? When I think about my postings while
each of these questions are not being answered as some might need them to
be, they are indeed the substance of our various discourses as I see them. I
don't talk about them technically, I take them into my practice of
engagement with you and everyone else - as well as I can. I don't come from
a place that is defined by externally introduced measures, although there
have been some methods that I have used particularly in participatory
evaluation environments when participants' values and measures have been
used to guide strategy, reflection and learning, and identify outcome and
outputs. But now I find this process ("standards" etc) so wholly
mechanistic, as a means of participating in transformative experience, that
I am very suspicious of their ethical and practical worth. I would however
consider them as elements of triangulation if that is what an initiative
called for, but only as a minor percentage of a method's capacity to
resource transformation.

I can answer each of your questions - dip below if you are interested to
know how I work - but I am not sure that my answering them will really
progress anything other than an exchange of information. Is that what we are
after here? Or is it communication across distance? Or is it learning? Or is
it structural shifts to perception or theoretical constructions? These might
all be standards of judgements in themselves, to do with out discourse here
-  and I am not sure that we necessarily need to be clear about them or held
to them throughout this conversation. Will they deepen our regard for each
other and strengthen the fabric of this community? Will they generate any
resources to grow us together towards our fuzzy, still emerging and mutually
enriching intentions? Will they deepen our presence with each other, so that
the living entity of whom we are, individually and collectively, actually
manifests in the real world with systemic benefits?  Maybe they will - I
want to embrace your questions with open heart and generosity. But in
answering them a part of me feels as if I am being pressed into someone
else's shape and expectations of me, that there are some dynamics of power
at work, some expectation that I am not meeting in being a part of this
discourse the way I choose to be.

I enjoyed Pip's responses to your questions, because they were so familiar
in terms of good participatory action research practice - mine will feel
similar. However, at this point in my development (have just handed in my
draft phd thesis to my panel and am awaiting meeting!) I am not even wedded
to these methods anymore. Something else is stirring which is deeper. I
choose to leave whatever it is in the place of poetics, narrative and
playfulness, out of respect for its stirring form. I don't see mysticism as
any more deluding that scientism - in fact, less so, because at least in
mysticism imagination, humility and wonder, respect for heritage (past and
future), cultural creativity and societal inclusion are inalienable aspects
of a mystical quality within our work. Scientism (by which I mean any form
of science that at its root, recognised or not, is objectivity at work) on
the other hand can just as easily become self convinced of itself as a
belief system, but does not recognise this fact because it refutes
subjectivity as authentic human knowledge. The systemic imbalance of this
bias regarding forms of knowledge I consider to be extremely dangerous,
creating distortions in human concepts of power, where the knower is left
unrecognised and undeveloped for their human qualities, and that which is
known unscrutinised for the power that is masks, the answers its produces,
the systems it propels. I sense in your communication that you are testing
for truths, which I welcome; I am happy to give of my experience to meet
your interests in recognising that delusion is an ever present human
experience, essential to awakening and recognition of the continually
shifting nature of truth, however it is recognised by an individual. I hope
that my responses will shed light and build respect between us. As I have
already posted, thank you for patiently keeping your interests on the
agenda. 
Susie



On 2/11/06 9:08 PM, "Brian wakeman" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hello Susie,Sarah, Je Kan.....  and all,
> 
> I've been following the rich and and at times deeply
> personal postings with admiration........
> 
> ....but I'm still puzzled about standards of
> judgement......
> 
> How do you approach the issues of:
>  
> -formulating questions
In the past I was a strong advocate of Fran Peavey's work in strategic
questioning, which has a social activist stance; now I am trying to develop
my reflexive practices, seeing questions as systemic, provoking self
critical reflection for many, particularly with regard to how meaning is
made and the sociological responsibilities we (I) have in meaning making and
articulation. 
I am also learning about questioning in terms of a gathering dynamic from
emergent inquiry processes - something that has its own sense of timing,
shared ownership and which may or may not need answering - may be more
systemically powerful in remaining open ended...
> -the status of evidence,
I am suspicious of the notion of evidence, it usually belies a causal
assumption (mechanistic, objective, and located in the limitations of what
is currently possible rather than what is needed or ethically preferable) -
so evidence for me is rarely more than a) my experience of something wherein
I am as transparent and competent as I can be in the way in which I construe
and articulate my experience, b) a collaborative equivalent of collaborative
experience, where each person is also recognised and encouraged to be as
transparent and competent in the ways in which meaning is made, and
articulated c) in those situations where physical consequences to shifts in
thought and relationship are manifested, then the ways in which these
physical consequences are observed, valued, related to, understood and
brought into a knowledge construction also must be ethically and culturally
accountable to those whose interests are caught in the measure
> -of the coherence of your teachers' writings,
By "my teachers' writings" I am understanding the question to mean how I
bring other peoples' theories into my practice, and how I make choices about
which theories to bring to them? Regarding the latter I used to be very
adept at reading epistemological coherence in theory and making my choices
accordingly - the more coherent the better my confidence in the theory, the
more ethically coherent I felt in introducing such external theory with
other people. I was never one to use off-the-shelf technologies on others
though; I did not do this even with regard to PAR - I critiqued the assumed
"plan, act, observe, reflect" schema (attributed to McTaggart and Kemmis
this side of the equator) and recast it as "reflect, interpret, decide, act,
evaluate" because I disagreed with the inherent objectivity and
managerialism of the original schema. So I felt a responsibility to generate
my own theories or versions thereof, of practice, and to be transparent
about my approaches at a meta level, with commissioning bodies, so that the
face to face relationships with participants could generate localised
theories for localised practices within the meta frame. Where other's
writings contributed to this approach I felt confident to use them (Guba and
Lincoln, Wadsworth, Reason and Heron - this was in the early and mid '90's).
In this sense "my teacher" was never a purely external authority, but was
very much my own choice of particular principles of practice in concert with
others' - external authority, participants' and commissioners" for example.
But since doing my thesis I have discovered Bourdieu and his extraordinary
musings regarding incoherence, which deeply challenged the ideal of "praxis"
-or the coherence of theory with practice as being the ideal. I understood
Bourdieu to be saying that "incoherence" was one of the few opportunities we
have to illuminate deeply hidden orthodoxy at work, which has spun me around
as you can imagine.
> -questions of validity and reliability
Again, I find these ides of "standards" to be mechanistic in their own
construction and usually in their application and power to shift an organic
and emergent system into a  mechanised frame. I prefer to work the other way
- shifting mechanised systems into organic ones. If I am misrepresenting
your thinking here please take me on! I enjoy Guba and Lincoln's equivalent
quality judgements (1989: 228) and used them successfully in my PhD inquiry.
But they required  much power related gymnastics to get them used - so even
they are instrumental at some point. I was aware of this in the structure of
the research we undertook and chose to have one and only one point on the
inquiry's compass located in a recognised technological measure. All else
was entirely open to the inquiry participants' individual and collective
will. These criteria imply a need for generalisation, which I am deeply
opposed to, as I believe (or try to practice with varying degrees of
accomplishment), being a participatory practitioner, that each person has a
human right to generate their own ways of knowing and act on them in due
respect for each other person have equivalent rights and responsibilities.
So validity and reliability are important to me only if I am  trying to keep
a system static, - and there may be times, say when wanting to reduce losses
from a social or eco-system, when that is needed. Mostly though, I am more
interested in systemic transformation, when such structures are themselves
in constant challenge and open to shifting with the focus of our endeavours.
However, I recognise that these things move at different rates, and in my
own practices, that which I bring into a participatory environment, I am
currently (since 2000) working with 3 participatory principles: inclusion,
equity and transparency (Goff and Gregg, 2006, in "print")- as the starting
and departure points for participatory engagements in a mode of action. If
my practice and the social systems that in some way come about through it
(my practice being but one element of a much more complex system in
emergence) - but... if my practice can be experienced by others and myself
in terms of these three principles, then I would consider it to be
"participatory" and hence "valid and reliable" in that frame. I like working
with principles because they  manage that lovely/dynamic paradox of
consistency and unlimited variation through time and context...
> -issues of  ethics: privacy versus right to know;
These issues are continually negotiated throughout an endeavour in terms of
the three principles - at work with each other in a dynamic system not as
individual tick the boxes. But no action is taken that departs from the
previous agreement, within an inquiry trajectory, without being tested for
these principles by those likely to be affected by the inquiry action. Touch
wood, I have never had any issue with these matters, using this system.
> to whom does the data belong; and to whom should it be
> released? Respect for other persons involved in the
> research?
As above - depending on context, listen to inner voices of concern, think
compassionately regards how someone would feel about being exposed without
their consent - or as is more often the case, being exposed as anonymous
when they would like to be named. I just try not to make assumptions without
exhausting everyone with endless permission seeking. Trust is critical and
can never be taken for granted.
> -on what grounds can we claim "to know"?
OK - so just for starters, and this question I reckon is the utter business
of my practice - but just for starters - be clear about the epistemology of
the knowledge - which may or may not be scientifically and philosophically
recognised - (this is another big conversation); then, be clear about the
stance of the knower - that is, the ground on which the knower stands to
claim the knowing. At this point, I prefer for stance to be self determined
at a structural level - that is - however a knower wishes to define "stance"
and then work within/transgress that boundary to claim what they know, or
better, their way of knowing  - as what we know is largely open to continual
change and reconstruction through other frames. But I like this question to
be up to each knower. The point I am making is that it is not enough for me
to be epistemologically proclaimed, - stance is essential, so that eg - if I
am including a Habitus-type understanding within my stance, I might declare
my epistemology and value the incoherence between Epistemology and Practice
within an inquiry environment for what it revealed of orthodoxy; whereas if
my stance was aligned with Reason and Heron's "Extended Epistemology" I
would be seeking coherence within those terms...I think I can say that
axiology always has to be an aspect of "to know" and that the knower also
has to declare if the values embodied in the knowledge or ways of knowing
are only their own, or shared across an engaging community of inquirers.
> -Is what I claim to know intuitively, through
> experience, by mystic reflection....perhaps distorted
> at best and at worst....self-delusion?
I think I have answered this question - perhaps you could have a go at it
too? 
> 
> I am wondering why these kind of questions are not
> being addressed in the postings.....indeed studiously
> avoided it would seem?
> Why is this? 
I hope I have responded to this too.
> 
> What other standards, and criteria in practitioner
> research do you and your researchers subscribe to?
For me, it comes down to the practitioner's self determined constructions of
practice - which is not a static thing, but unfolds with each engagement in
different ways, and which through reflection and collaborative learning can
also reveal patterns, threads, narratives which need to be held in critical
reflexivity and respect as much as we can manage - while also holding the
presence of "the other"; and - an equitable inclusion of similar qualities
from everyone else, brought into a continually clarifying, emerging,
accomplishing and occasionally startling mutual effort.
> 
> Have we left behind the qualities and judgements, the
> criteria of other researchers in fields of qualitative
> research, ethnography, social anthropology, and case
> study research?
I think we are taking up those things that inspire us, connect to our
experience, perhaps speak to unfurled thought, which in this company is
given air to grow. 
> 
> If I'm a lone voice suffering from post-operative haze
> don't worry about responding!
Ah - that post op haze - never squander a near death experience! Life
changing stuff. 
> 
> Best wishes in your current work.
Your shout - as they say this side of the hemispherical bar!
Susie
> 
> Brian
> --- Sarah Fletcher <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>> Dear Mohsen (and Everyone on the list)
>> 
>> I'm grateful for your questions since they stimulate
>> my reflection about the how and why of words
>> 
>> Question:  How can language educators allow learners
>> to find language as a way of being and not
>> just as a means for communication?
>> 
>> Reflection: I am interested by your choice of word
>> 'allow'  - please could you explain this a little?
>> Do language teachers give or ethically have the
>> right to give permission for language to be a way
>> of being?  I think 'communication' is a rich concept
>> because it doesn't mean (to me) a choice of
>> terms as a tool - it is a whole body-mind
>> expression. In this sense, it carries with it the
>> ontology 
>> and epistemology not only of the person
>> communicating but of all the individuals who have
>> used 
>> the term before.  Bodies like the 'Academie
>> Francaise' try to impose a structure on language and
>> 
>> restrict words they see as undesirable.  The fact
>> remains they have a very limited influence and
>> argot (street-wise slang) communicates and, some
>> say, nurtures socio-cultural communication.
>> 
>> Question: How can language educators allow learners
>> to reflectively language their immediate
>> consciousness and experience the creativity of their
>> thought? 
>> 
>> I would use 'enable' rather than 'allow' here. Do
>> you agree? So much depends on whether we are
>> talking about language as (just) words.  Language is
>> communicated (I don't mean not just spoken)
>> through all of our senses, through colour and
>> texture.  Have you seen the latest issue of
>> Scientific 
>> American?  There's a section on how the senses work.
>>  There is a fascinating article on phantom
>> sensations where the mind 'fills in' sensations
>> about what it thinks it should be interacting with -
>> 
>> for example tinnitus is the brain creating sound
>> because there should be a signal from the ear. I
>> suggest that this is language though it's not in
>> words but it's certainly a form of communication.
>> 
>> So - to answer your question as best I can ... I
>> believe language educators can assist learners to
>> language reflectively by modelling and crucially by
>> understanding, by being able to communicate
>> their understanding (by example as well as by spoken
>> utterance) that reflection can be beneficial.
>> Your question resonates with Rieko Iwahama's when
>> she asks How can we help teachers to reflect?
>> Do take a look at her wonderful PowerPoint from BERA
>> 2005 on http://www.TeacherResearch.net
>> 
>> I love your question because it is timely for me to
>> reflect on my response.  Thank you!  Yesterday,
>> I was with a group of students (in a school) who
>> were presenting their research to teaching staff. It
>> 
>> seemed to me that the kernel of their presetation
>> was communication that educators are learners
>> and (to use Robyn Pound's marvellous concept of
>> 'alongsidedness') teachers and students should
>> be 'alongside' as learners.  Language is organic.
>> Its beauty resides in it capacity to embody more
>> than word value.  It shimmers with meaning!
>> Educators can be alongside in creative momentum
>> with other learners, playing with language,
>> experimenting with it, seeking out new expressions,
>> combining it with other forms of communication that
>> invlove so much more than spoken words.
>> 
>> My answer to your quetion? By holding back and
>> creating space for reflection, by pausing and not
>> just delivering a predetermined message or a
>> ritualised phraseology, by listening and valuing and
>> 
>> co-enquiring with excitement and a sense of wonder
>> (just lik small children 'play' with language? )
>> 
>> Question: How can language and languaging help the
>> learners explore oneself and shape their
>> lives?
>> 
>> When it is understood as much more than just symbols
>> and where the symmetry of the symbols is
>> valued too. When it is used empathetically to draw
>> out and share meaning (and not as a weapon).
>> 
>> Thank you SO much for the opportunity to respond to
>> all your stimulating and exciting questons,
>> 
>> Sarah
>> 
> 
> 
> Brian E. Wakeman
> Education adviser
> Dunstable
> Beds
>