Dear Bernie,
Many thanks for your reply. I guess it has some thing to do with the
criterion applied to knowing and in relationship to this present
debate, none of what you have identified are world leading or
international in excellence. This debate continues to cause me dis-ease
in the terminology and the apparent need to be recognized. I have to
admit that I find the compassion of the enquiry with their values of
humanity and commitment to learning inspirational. I am extremely
reluctant to place such actions in the cage of world leading. Who is to
say that a world leading event is a positive one, certain individuals
are world leading in their policy of self seeking and materialism at
the expense of the environment and others,. The in equality between
nations are the result in world leading economic policy of world
leading and developed nations. So I guess I am uncomfortable with this
debate. I am far more comfortable with examples of practitioners
practice and the values they live in the actual doing of that practice
that offer hope and achievable goals for humanity . For me to be placed
in the position to have to make a knowledge claim that is an original
contribution to knowledge has been problematic from the start. In many
ways it is the antithesis of my belief. However it is a requirement of
the game to which I subscribed too. To understand in myself and know
that I do not know and all that I know is bounded by my ignorance frees
me from having to support claims of knowing that are transitional and
emerging. Thank you for your comments , however I feel the honesty of
the claim is its complexity and its simplicity. It is complex in that
such knowing was reached over time in a matter of rigorous searching to
understand myself with a set of tools that made such understanding
almost impossible as my mind sought to see itself in its true form. As
both subjective and objective a form of inclusional completeness. Many
western scholars say that such a state is impossible. I humbly beg to
hold a different understanding. However such scholars have many public
knowledge claims that are accredited by their peers which I feel is
classic “Plato’s cave syndrome. I feel it is this classic concept of
ownership of knowing and knowledge which seems to be linked with a deep
human desire to feel that by solidifying knowledge into fact . The
world we construct is more controllable, understandable and repeatable.
Part of my thinking and knowing appears to be a contradiction to my
Buddhist thinking because, all things, exists and arises from the
causal plane of consciousness. This causal plane is impermanent mental
energy and not real. Buddhist abstraction is all well and good but it
has yet to explain the everyday. I am thinking of my everydayness as
the phenomenon of the everyday, as Heidegger suggests within the
structure of being-in-the-world. Heidegger suggests that the everyday
is not theory or an abstraction. We repeat the every day through
praxis and such repetitions bring about the creation of certainty.
For example: The sun set yesterday and today, it will set tomorrow.
Using Heidegger’s ideas makes sense if I am having a conversation
within a Western paradigm of reality. For I view my everyday living
through the aspects of the active filters I am using in that moment of
knowing through doing. By this I mean, for example: As I teach I am
using the aspect of me that is the teacher, grounded in my practice and
supported and informed both by my practice and the theory I attribute
to be necessary for my role as a teacher. When I change my role to
that of Nurse, I change aspects of myself and the dominant aspect
becomes that which is associated with my nursing practice. At the
same time another process is taking place, namely that of engaging with
moving into and out of my consciousness by adding to or modifying the
database of my nursing knowledge.
I would therefore argue that multiple elements of different aspects of
relativity can be functioning at the same moment in an inclusional
sense. This is inclusional from the stance that all the aspects of
self inform the dominant aspect but are not necessarily acted on by the
dominant aspect. The dominant aspect of self is situational and
relative to the events of the moment.
Heidegger points out: … everything we talk about, everything we have in
view, everything towards which we comport ourselves in any way, is
being; what we are is being, and so is how we are” (p. 6). This
everyday understanding of being is vague and indefinite, yet it is a
positive phenomenon through which Heidegger seeks to make explicit
where I am, which he refers to as dasein.
One of the criterion of the award of PhD at Bath is that the work must
show an original contribution to knowledge. Perhaps I am suggesting
that my contribution is the understanding of the honesty of not
knowing. I can no longer subscribe to the the universe of facts when so
much is not known. If one takes the logical argument offered so often
in this type of debate; one that we are all unique and original, than
all knowing is an original contribution to our educational knowledge.?
Or is that not playing the game? Is there any thing new under the sun?
smile.
Love Je KAn
Quoting Bernie Sullivan <[log in to unmask]>:
> Hi to all,
>
> Jack, it must have been a really exciting moment when you succeeded
> in clarifying the distinction between research that is world leading
> and internationally recognised research. When I read your explanation
> at first I wondered if the two criteria were mutually exclusive,
> creating what Marie referred to as boundaries of disconnection.
> However, when I read your description of Jean's work as both world
> leading and internationally excellent I realised that the criteria
> are not necessarily grounded in either/or thinking and that
> practitioner research could possibly fulfil all criteria. It seems to
> me that internationally recognised and internationally excellent are
> closely connected in that if research is internationally excellent,
> it is likely to be also internationally recognised.
>
> JeKan, I read with interest your explanation of your practice and of
> the complex issues you face in trying to have your thesis judged in
> terms of your values and your claims. I wonder, though, if you are
> doing yourself an injustice in saying that the only claim you can
> make is to know that you do not know. It seems to me that there is
> evidence of a lot of 'knowing' in your posting, e.g. the knowledge
> that at times you were dishonest with yourself - itself evidence of
> your value of honesty - and your awareness that you did not always
> meet the level of commitment to your values that you wished to have.
> Two more values that were evident in your posting, Jekan, are
> humility and self-awareness. Hope this is helpful and good luck with
> the submission and viva.
>
> Regards,
> Bernie.
>
> BERA Practitioner-Researcher
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> <
> < Just a word of thanks for the quality of your questions and responses
> < over the past 5 months. Last September I did not know how to
> < distinguish the knowledge created by practitioner-researchers as
> < world leading, internationally excellent, internationally recognised
> < and nationally recognised in terms of its originality, significance
> < and rigour. Now I can. My capacity to do this has been realised
> < through responding to the quality of contributions to the e-seminar.
> < To avoid a long posting in the archive you can access my
> < understanding of the distinctions and how these have emerged through
> < responding and reflecting on your postings, at:
> <
> < http://www.jackwhitehead.com/jack/jwesemstandards.htm
> <
> < Love Jack.
> <
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Find the home of your dreams with eircom net property
> Sign up for email alerts now http://www.eircom.net/propertyalerts
>
Rev Je Kan Adler-Collins
Assistant Professor of Nursing
Fukuoka Prefectural University Faculty of Nursing
Tagawa City
Fukuoka Prefecture
Japan
|
