Hi Jack, Jean and All - here are some responses to Jack and Jean
Hi Donal. Good to see that you have joined the discussion and hopefully these
questions will help you as well.
Jack: Margaret has shown how an organisation can be influenced systemically
to enable practitioner-researchers to generate their own living educational
theories. So, not only has Margaret shown how she has integrated ideas from
my own research, from Jean's research and from O Donohue's research, amongst
others, in her own original contributions. Margaret has also shown how to
influence the systemic education of a social formation (see http://webpages.dcu.ie/~farrenm/).
Jean: - this is how a PhD thesis explains clearly how a piece of research
should be understood as quality research in terms of knowledge-creation.
MY Questions
Jack, you don't say in your email what you mean by research that is internationally
recognised.. You don't explain what is required of this but you do say at
the end of the email that in your PhD you focused on your new understandings
only, and that is what your PhD was about. What were these new understandings?
Are these what Jean is referring to when she says that a PhD thesis should
also articulate how it should be understood as a quality research account.
Jack - is this related to the new understandings that you have developed
in your PhD research?
Jean refers to the criteria by which we make judgements about the quality
of the research account and this can be understood to be grounded in the
same values as the criteria by which we make judgements about the quality
of the research, although she adds that other criteria come into play in
relation to producing a quality account. I understand this to mean that in
the process of clarifying the values in the course of their emergence in
practice, they are transformed into living epistemological standards of
judgement (quality research and quality research account?). Jean refers to
the other criteria that come into play in relation to producing a quality
research account. Maybe these other criteria in relation to producing quality
research accounts need to be clarified as these seem to be referring to what
is required for internationally recognised research accounts.
Jean: Maybe we need also to think about how we make judgements about the
quality of the research and the quality of the research account, as they
stand in relation together? I think that this links back to Jack's point
below.
To Jack And All - here is Jack's question : How does this sound - to be world
leading as distinct from internationally recognised or internationally excellent,
the practiitioner knowledge-creator must explain their systemic influence
in an organisation in a way that forms and sustains a culture of educational
enquiry and that supports individualpractitioners in generating and testing
their own living theories?
Here is my question : So how do we link world leading and internationally
recognised research. I think that this is what Jean is referring to?
In am reminded or Van Manen (1990) four conditions for research/writing quality
research. He believes that these conditions are also evaluative criteria
of any phenomenological human science text.
1. Our text needs to be oriented.
2. Our text needs to be strong.
3. Our text needs to be rich.
4. Our text needs to be deep.
(Van Manen, 1990, p151-153)
Of course he goes into detail on each of the criteria in his book.
Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching Lived Experience: Human Science for an
Action Sensitive Pedagogy. New York: State University Press.
Hopefully this all makes sense.
Kind Regards.
Maggie
>-- Original Message --
>Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 14:26:02 +0000
>Reply-To: BERA Practitioner-Researcher <[log in to unmask]>
>From: Jean McNiff <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: Research based practice
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>Hi Jack,
>
>Yes, I agree, and I think this is linking with what you and I have been
>talking about for some time and has led to our new writing together,
>about writing up action research accounts. I think it is important to
>be clear about, and articulate, the criteria of the research (to get it
>recognised as world-leading in terms of knowledge-creation), and also
>to be clear about , and articulate, the criteria of the research
>account (to have it recognised as internationally legitimisable). The
>research, and the research account, are integrated and
>self-referential. The research account (the text, whether linguistic or
>multimedia) has to be seen as a quality research account, and the
>research that it recounts has to be seen as quality research. The
>criteria by which we make judgements about the quality of the research
>account can be understood to be grounded in the same values as the
>criteria by which we make judgements about the quality of the research,
>although other criteria come into play in relation to producing a
>quality account. This is how I understand the basis of making
>judgements about whether a piece of writing is or is not of PhD
>standard. A PhD thesis explains clearly how a piece of research should
>be understood as quality research (as does Maggie's, Bernie's,
>Máirín's, and many many others) and should also articulate how it
>should be understood as a quality research account. We have all read
>works that tell of great practice, without articulating how or why they
>should be regarded as research ? these can be read as stories of
>practice. We have also read works that tell of practice that meets the
>criteria of good quality research ? these should be read as stories of
>research practice. Maybe we need also to think about how we make
>judgements about the quality of the research and the quality of the
>research account, as they stand in relation together?
>
>I am actually not sure if I am addressing the issues you have raised,
>Jack, or if I am taking the conversation in a different direction ? I
>wouldn't want to detract from the main focus and what I think is a
>simply brilliant idea from you.
>
>
>On 18 Feb 2007, at 13:07, Jack Whitehead wrote:
>
>> Dear All - a thought just came to me during my morning swim in the
>> University pool. I suddenly felt that I understood a difference
>> between Margaret's research and my own in terms of the criteria we are
>
>> working on of world leading, internationally excellent,
>> internationally recognised and/or nationally recognised in relation to
>
>> the originality, significance and rigour of the knowledge created by
>> the practitioner researcher. The difference is that Margaret's
>> knowledge-creation is world leading and mine is internationally
>> recognised. The difference is that Margaret has shown how an
>> organisation can be influenced systemically to enable
>> practitioner-researchers to generate their own living educational
>> theories. So, not only has Margaret shown how she has integrated
>> ideas from my own research, from Jean's research and from O Donahue's
>> research, amongst others, in her own original contributions. Margaret
>> has also shown how to influence the systemic education of a social
>> formation (see http://webpages.dcu.ie/~farrenm/). I think Jacqueline
>> Delong has made a similar contribution in explaining how to form and
>> sustain a culture of inquiry to support practitioner-research (see
>> http://people.bath.ac.uk/edsajw/delong.shtml). Prof. Judi Marshall's
>> paper on living systemic thinking has helped me to articulate why I'm
>> thinking Margaret's knowledge-creation is world leading. You can
>> access Judi's paper in Action Research Vol.2 (3) Summer 2004 pp.
>> 309-329 or access it directly from
>> http://www.bath.ac.uk/carpp/people/judi/LivingSystemicThinking.pdf
>>
>> How does this sound - to be world leading as distinct from
>> internationally recognised or internationally excellent, the
>> practiitioner knowledge-creator must explain their systemic influence
>> in an organisation in a way that forms and sustains a culture of
>> educational enquiry and that supports individual practitioners in
>> generating and testing their own living theories?
>
>I am thinking about this. When I think back to my own beginnings, I had
>no idea that my research had the potential to contribute to systemic
>influence. I focused on my new understandings only, and that is what my
>PhD was about. Was it then world-leading? I doubt it. Was it
>potentially world-leading? Maybe. What I was clear about throughout was
>that it had potential. Maybe it is that recognition of the potential of
>our research that we also need to focus on and articulate ? this is why
>I am intrigued by the ideas of magical realism that we spoke about
>earlier this morning, i.e. the metaphors of transformational potential.
>I am not sure if this is making any contribution to the debate. I know
>it is telling me that I need to think about these things more ? I am
>also seriously excited by your ideas! Thanks for saying them.
>
>Love
>
>Jean
|
