Hi Sarah and others
Thanks for this clarification, Sarah!  I've obviously 'come out of' my own
experience of how PhDs go.  So my only experience comes from working with
supervisors - excellent in the case of my PhD, patchy in the case of my
Masters. And unlike Susie's situation, we have vivas here.  I had Jean as
overseas external, and a New Zealander as other examiner.  The latter
couldn't come at the last minute and we had to do the viva by telephone
conference (so much for reading the body language!)

With regard to the Standards of Judgment - I was just reflecting on the
importance in Action Research, of self-critique as an accepted standard of
judgment (picking up on a comment by Jean about the need to reflect on how
our work can be enhanced).  I recall vividly having a conversation with a
Business lecturer at the university once, in a seminar, where we were
discussing aspects of our research and I told the story of getting it wrong
with one Maori researcher, by not realizing that she had to present to me in
English as well as to her colleagues in Maori, because I'd forgotten to tell
her she could present to me in Maori if she wished, and finding an
interpreter would be my problem.  This guy said to me, "Why would you be so
overt in your thesis about the fact that you'd made mistakes?  In Business,
we hide our mistakes so that our research doesn't look shonky" or words to
that effect.  I'm sure many business researchers DO admit their mistakes,
but it made me reflect on the importance of honesty in our practice, as a
standard of judgment.  I referred in an earlier discussion to the huge
admiration I had for Susie, standing up in an ALARPM World Congress and
telling of how she'd got it wrong in an indigenous research situation.  So
if we're talking what constitutes sound standards of judgment in action
research (LETs or otherwise) then for me, being honest about the weaknesses
of one's practice as well as the strengths has to be up there as a standard.
I see no sense (or helpfulness to others) in papering over the cracks and
hoping nobody else notices.  Then others may just fall down the same holes,
to mix the metaphor.

What do others think?
Kind regards
Pip Bruce Ferguson

-----Original Message-----
From: BERA Practitioner-Researcher
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Sarah
Fletcher
Sent: Friday, 16 February 2007 10:37 a.m.
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Slowing down and exploring my/our knowing

Hi All,

Great posting, Pip!  I think it is important to
understand a few things about the draft staff Mode PhD
I offered as a catalylist for discussion:

1) There is no supervisor - this is not a supervised
mode and the only feedback is from an Advisor (in my
case Judi Marshall) pre examination

This is why I'm (still!) trying to get a clear
unequivocal stament of the standards of judgement with
regard to LETs which are so favoured by practitioner
researchers in different contexts thanks to Jack and
Jean.

2) Are we suggesting that without a supervisor a PhD
thesis is unlikely to succeed?  Incidentally, just to
clarify my thesis was examined under the wrong
criteria and as such did not fail.  I waited three
years for re-examination as the Appeals Committee
invited for examination as if for the first time - for
whatever reason suitable examiners were not found.

As I wrote a couple of days ago I will be analysing
the responses to my posting with a view to to
identifying the SoJ relating specifically to LETs -
and I'd deeply appreciate any assistance before
discussion moves on.

Warm regards,

Sarah


--- Pip/Bruce Ferguson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

 I really endorse the need to take calm breaths and
consider the feedback one's supervisors give one about
what standards need to be evident in a piece of work 

Sarah Fletcher
http://www.TeacherResearch.net