Thank you Je Kan for such consideration and understanding of what is at
stake here...
I am not informed of the back story as you say,
New people get caught up into recurring stories, nevertheless, and perhaps
there is reason for this.
I concur with your about naming people...
However, I am not sure that I agree that what Sarah is saying is
disassociated with out quest. I read it has first hand experience of a
system at work regarding the gate-keeping recognition of LET. It seemed that
the conversation went in the direction of trusting our supervisors' wisdom.
I have heard the most dreadful stories about how some supervisors have
behaved with their doctoral students so I do not consider this to be
untouchable ground. It is part of the discourse about judging what is
knowledge particularly when such a judgement has so much power attached to
it.
I also think that deep hurts have their own life span no matter how much we
try to reason them away. I agree with finding the edges, but I also believe
in understanding and compassion. I agree as you say that such understanding
should be shared around equally, with respect and justice. But I feel at
this moment that Sarah has been silenced, and I feel pain about that.
My thought about mutual embrace of all the voices included that of the
examiners'. I think it is vital that we include formal,felt, enacted,
reconstructed, and envisioned truths.
I will see how others fell about this.
Warmest and heart felt thanks
Susie
On 16/2/07 5:33 PM, "Rev Je Kan Adler-Collins" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Sue, yes I believe it is inclusional, I also believe that this is a
> list with a specific aim or boundary in mind that of being a discussant
> forum for the on coming BERA forum. This space has been opened to
> invite practitioners to communicate and to give the chance for
> practitioners to share accounts of their teaching and learning. If the
> space was a therapeutic healing space or an industrial tribunal I feel
> it would have those values made clear. Often past events are brought up
> that other members have experienced before and history is repeating
> itself. While newer members are not aware of the history associated
> with this debate. While this would be useful in a general discussant
> forum and I believe this topic has been discussed on other lists. It
> detracts focus and space from the objectives of this list. I also feel
> that when ever some one disagrees and we talk of emotional honesty,
> people become defensive and seek explanations. It is not and never will
> be a perfect space for all. Many try and hold values, try and live them
> and find them negated in their practices or by colleagues. Such is the
> nature of this space.
>
> Sue , you wrote; How does this community of participants provide a safe
> place for this moment to be? I believe that part of that process is to
> say when something is not felt to be safe as I am saying about this
> situation with Sarah and her PhD failure. It takes up and detracts from
> engagement with the purpose of this list. It is not a new debate and I
> think it is crossing an ethical values line. Being inclusional is not
> about accepting every thing it is for me about finding the boundaries
> of my knowing and tolerance and the beginning of my ignorance and
> intolerance. Again a very useful process one that I would under normal
> circumstance enjoy. I believe it is immoral to discuss some thing that
> does not concern us and that is under review. That is a value that is
> not be exclusional rather it is including the silent voices of the
> examiners past and present. If this list was a discussion about PhD
> procedure and the right sand wrongs of critical judgement calls then
> perhaps if the examiners were represented it would be suitable. But
> this is not and they are not.
> Social rules are those accepted as the norm by the society or context.
> This list is international and as such a social or cultural difference
> has to be made clear by the individual and they can inform why the
> event, words, or situation is culturally in appropriate. Paulus served
> in this role many times pointing out in his passionate way the short
> failings and insensitivities of members values. While at times I was
> scarified by such encounters , some times the truth in his words left
> me shocked my by blindness.. Here in my context I have been telling of
> the usefulness of being associated with BERA and how it can help. I
> have had to deal with staff members who are uneasy about the subjects
> being raise. It is just not understood what Sarahıs PhD problems have
> to do with the British Education Research Association.
>
> Sue wrote: Why is it that one person's felt rightfulness to open
> something for public
> discourse is so deeply in contradiction to another's? (Is this just the
> awkwardness of which I spoke?) Just because one feels some thing is
> right does not give that individual the right to inflict their
> rightness on others. Open to public debate is a serious issue not least
> governed by the laws of slander. This list is semi public and as such
> has social rules of behavior usually it is not necessary for a list
> mediator to use mediation and in all the years Jack and I have done our
> lists we have never silenced an individualsı right to speak. If Jack
> and I failed to hold the space then Brian as the BERA coordinator would
> and has intervened to refocus on the topic of the list when in its
> passion it has drifted off course
> Ethics play an important role in the formation of global links as this
> list is doing. Sue you wrote: What is the cosmological potential of
> each person's construction in mutual embrace of the other? Where is the
> embrace of the examiners in this debate? They are part of the other ,
> they have equal rights, the naming of people in a critical context is
> for me problematic if the voice of the other is silent. I say for me,
> because the violation of another human being is some thing that I find
> so distressing. If I have some thing to say I attempt as best I can to
> say it in such a manner that it is not male authority, rightness,
> whiteness or power speaking . I am always deeply conscious of the other
> for it is my lifeıs work to serve and to help. I hold the belief that
> this debate is wrong, directive and sucks people in to a public
> quicksand about issues they do not know or understand. Many teachers
> on this list are not engaged in their PhD rather they are engaged in
> every day teaching in schools, colleges and universities. I strongly
> feel that Sarah is not doing herself any favors here as so I have
> stated. If I did not care I would remain silent however I do care,
> about Sarah and about the examiners, about this community. This whole
> situation is just so wrong and it has happened before. That time I did
> not speak but then I was not so clear on my values and the effort it
> has taken to get the Japanese interested in BERA. Not every one is so
> tolerant as this space holders are. If other member feel that they wish
> it to continue that is the choice of each individual makes. What makes
> the space is the knowing when a boundary has been reached, in my case
> one has. Our difference are what make up the richness of our community,
> when such differences are about the ethical treatment of others, then
> some form of debate has to ensue.
>
> Thanks for the questions I hope I helped answer them
> Je Kan
>
>
>
> Quoting Susan Goff <[log in to unmask]>:
>
>> Dear friends
>> Is this an inclusional hotspace?
>> I am asking this in honesty - and I would love to encourage the wisdoms of
>> our thinking/practice around inclusional living theory into this moment with
>> Sarah, Je Kan and others.
>>
>> Je Kan is suggesting, I think, that there are taken for granted protocols of
>> what demarks an honest public space, and what an honest private space.
>> Please let me know if this is not what is at stake Je Khan.
>>
>> I sense implicit orthodoxies at work about this - both from Je Khan, and
>> from Sarah, and from Marie. Delineations about "beyond the scope" and "a
>> little tension" for example; expectations of a stance in public honesty that
>> includes the speaker as part of the problem.
>>
>> Is this objectifying the transgression/s?
>>
>> How does this community of participants provide a safe place for this moment
>> to be?
>>
>> I am interested to know what the taken for granted protocols are, their
>> origins and with what authority they are spoken.
>>
>> Why is it that one person's felt rightfulness to open something for public
>> discourse is so deeply in contradiction to another's? (Is this just the
>> awkwardness of which I spoke?)
>>
>> What ethics are at work? What is the cosmological potential of either
>> person's construction of this moment and its issues? What is the
>> cosmological potential of each person's construction in mutual embrace of
>> the other?
>>
>> Love
>> Susie
>>
>>
>> On 16/2/07 12:20 PM, "Rev Je Kan Adler-Collins" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> I am reading the thread that has emerged with just a little tension.
>>> Soon I shall be facing my viva and as with I suspect what all
>>> candidates feel a degree of concern as the years of study, costs in
>>> terms of sustaining the study in my life world and how the PhD research
>>> took over and colonized my life. I have to believe that the
>>> establishment I am working with has the moral integrity to validate my
>>> work at the required level. If I do not believe this then my work has
>>> no purpose, what is the point? I am not aware that universities
>>> deliberately fail students. If a thesis was not passed then several
>>> questions have to be asked in honesty by the individual of themselves.
>>> Sarah, I am concerned that you are using this BERA list for a subject
>>> that is highly personal with an agenda where your honesty could be
>>> questioned. Questioned in the sense you are filling the space with
>>> questions that you seek answers to about a situation you went through
>>> and examiners who can not or should not be held to account in a forum
>>> of this public nature. All that you post concerning this comes from
>>> your interpretation of events. You say that you have waited three years
>>> for an appeal, in such a case then, I respectfully suggest that your
>>> case be heard by those it concerns and at such times as the appeal has
>>> been settled it would be appropriate to discuss it in a public
>>> educational forum. It is not my place to engage with comments about
>>> your examiners or read questions that are to my feeling not honest I
>>> have a sense of being lead to an ambush one where my words in a public
>>> forum may appear out of context or used in furthering your debate or
>>> engagement with your agenda and issues. One of the most painful things
>>> I had to face in my own writing was I was not being honest about my
>>> being part of the problem and part of the solution. Systems are not
>>> perfect things and rightly should be challenged, in the correct way.
>>> Have you thought how your examiners must feel about the sustained
>>> pressure you have placed on them in public over the years of your
>>> appeal? Have you also though how you may be doing damage to your own
>>> case as others may not wish to be your examiner and be placed under the
>>> public scrutiny you have placed others who do not agree with you? In my
>>> life I have failed things that were crucial events to me, but I
>>> reflected on the failure and learned form it. I either retested or
>>> moved on. This is not attacking you, or not seeing you, or not
>>> listening to you . It is me saying in my own honesty that enough is
>>> enough. Conversations about your issues with a university are for you
>>> to resolve I believe it is unethical to discuss it further. We have
>>> known each other for many years Sarah, honesty includes the love and
>>> compassion for the other. Some times we do not see clearly as we speak
>>> our truth as our truth can easily lose its base. For me honesty is
>>> about open fairness as a value, using clear language, clear questions,
>>> having no hidden agendas. So at the risk of receiving your anger I
>>> care enough to be honest with you and accept that in so doing I am
>>> placing my thoughts and values to the forefront.
>>> Love and deep rest ( Honest!)
>>> Je Kan
>>>
>>>
>>> Quoting Susan Goff <[log in to unmask]>:
>>>
>>>> Dear Pip and everyone
>>>> Thank you for this memory - that experience was such a sad one for me - I
>>>> had laboured for so long with the speech and there were so few
>>>> people in the
>>>> room to hear it - but the reality that you were there and that the
>>>> memory of
>>>> it is not just mine alone is so affirming. I have great admiration and
>>>> respect for those amongst us, such as your self, that hold our stories with
>>>> such warmth and loving ability to weave them back into the present, as you
>>>> do.
>>>>
>>>> I agree (almost too strongly I suspect) with you about honesty. I am
>>>> intrigued by the relationship between honesty and truth... And think that
>>>> honesty is the behaviour associated with how we know truths. But this is an
>>>> undeveloped thought - are there any other insights here? I feel
>>>> uncomfortable about the notion of "behaviour" of any kind given its
>>>> construction as a mechanical procedure by naturalist and psychological
>>>> studies in the past. Can we know behaviour differently?
>>>>
>>>> Also, being honest is multi-dimensional - not jut about
>>>> behaviour... In that
>>>> I think when we are honest we are so, warts and all, and I think its that
>>>> part of being honest that scares us. In other words, it is not honest to
>>>> objectify one's confession in my view. It requires being accepted
>>>> for who we
>>>> are, which is so different from what we might aspire to be in order to be
>>>> recognised in our world, or perhaps to make up for who we know or are
>>>> finding our selves out to be (and this is not a stuck sense of being - but
>>>> ever flowing). Being honest is also tricky - the self confessional
>>>> style can
>>>> feel like asking to get away with murder, because being honest is a good
>>>> enough price to pay... It can make people feel very awkward and not
>>>> know how
>>>> to relate to the person or what they are saying. In other words,
>>>> the context
>>>> has to be really carefully created for honesty as a criterion for good
>>>> knowledge, if it is to be effective.
>>>>
>>>> It is possible that that which is hidden as much as that which is
>>>> brought to
>>>> light, have equal influences in the emergence of the world, but when we are
>>>> honest (and we can be so not just about our transgressions but also about
>>>> our not knowings, joys and accomplishments) the quality of knowing that
>>>> comes into the world through us has an extra fibre of belonging in the
>>>> world. This fibre somehow speaks of resilience, beauty and love - faith and
>>>> trust in ourselves and each other. It is (or should be) core to the truth
>>>> and reconciliation movements, including restorative justice - but sometimes
>>>> those opportunities to be "right" often turn out to have the
>>>> deepest shadows
>>>> of all.
>>>>
>>>> When honest behaviour is punished, and dishonest behaviour in our knowledge
>>>> making work is rewarded (by a wink and a nod, deals, cynicism or
>>>> just put in
>>>> the too hard basket for fear of retribution say) then I feel our world dies
>>>> a little, and the lost truth is held back in fear and shame, in the hidden
>>>> worlds that so many participatory practitioners bring to light down the
>>>> track.
>>>>
>>>> So, I see being honest, in our work, as the dynamical, inclusional hotspace
>>>> for living theory.
>>>>
>>>> Love
>>>> Susie
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 16/2/07 8:56 AM, "Pip/Bruce Ferguson" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Rev Je Kan Adler-Collins
>>> Assistant Professor of Nursing
>>> Fukuoka Prefectural University Faculty of Nursing
>>> Tagawa City
>>> Fukuoka Prefecture
>>> Japan
>>
>
>
>
> Rev Je Kan Adler-Collins
> Assistant Professor of Nursing
> Fukuoka Prefectural University Faculty of Nursing
> Tagawa City
> Fukuoka Prefecture
> Japan
|