Dear Barra,

I notice no-one else has replied to you as yet, so I will try to respond,
because I think your message raises some key issues with regard to
understanding what I understand as the evolutionary nature of living theory
and what gets in the way of such understanding.

From where I am, as a relative outsider, the very nature of living theory is
that it is non-prescriptive and non-impositional, but holds open the
possibility of learning co-creatively in receptive-responsive practice. This
is why it is impossible to state in advance what its standards for
assessment of quality are, because these evolve in the process of enquiry
due to learning. Fixed standards of judgement based on objective,
numerically measurable outcomes,  restrict this process when imposed as the
sole basis for evaluation

Following from this, a key 'living' (evolutionary) standard of judgement
(principle) may be lie in the ability to show evidence of learning, by way
of deepening understanding, in the process of enquiry, and furthermore to
show how this deepening understanding produces new ideas and concepts upon
which to found further enquiry. This ability was very clear to me in, for
example, Eden Charles' recent thesis, an accomplishment well worth
celebrating (but not, by its very nature, 'triumphalizing'). Eden's record
of his emerging practice, for me, clearly provided an example of
evolutionary enquiry in practice from which others could learn and apply to
their own learning practice. Most fundamentally it is about influencing the
'other as oneself' through love and care, NOT imposing one's authority,
which is understood to be counter-productive. It illustrated the
transformational 'exercise of humility' not the coercive 'exercise of
authority'. And Jack's role in this was very clearly that of consultative
'Sherpa Guide', not vampiric 'cloner in his own image'. I accept that the
latter caricature might well apply to many kinds of academic research within
the currently dominant, domineering paradigm (within the framework of which
we still have to find our way). But it does not and cannot apply to the
INTENTION (I appreciate your concern that this intention may not always be
followed, caught up as we all are in a world view that opposes it) of LET,
whose very hope is to transform hegemonic power structures. So I feel your
concern is better directed towards current orthodoxy, not LET, and I would
also ask what the basis is for your 'second order' categorizations?

Here a short story from my own learning experience as a child may be
relevant. I was out walking in the countryside with my parents. In my
obsessive-compulsive way I had in my mind pre-determined the exact footsteps
I was going to make. For some reason I felt especially attracted to a patch
of grass about 20 metres distant. To my consternation my father pointed to
that very patch of grass and said 'Don't step there!' My blood boiled
briefly at this authoritarian, paternalistic infringement of my right to do
as I pleased. Then I registered the loving concern in my father's voice. I
veered from my predetermined course and avoided stepping on the viper. My
father hugged me and thanked me for listening to him. What if I hadn't
listened? What if my father hadn't noticed the viper? What if he had noticed
the viper but decided not to inform me about it, so I would be free to 'make
my own choices'?

I think that the illusory kind of freedom that you speak about below is
actually the source of, not the remedy for oppressive theory and practice -
as was also borne out by the recent BBC TV series, 'The Trap - whatever
happened to our dream of freedom?. It is the kind of freedom or
'independence' that dislocates the self from natural neighbourhood and
blocks the possibility of loving receptivity. A receptivity that is
impossible to impose, but which we can all appreciate and wish to help
others develop (at the risk of appearing to impose authority to those who
assume authority).

So, which is primary and which is 'second order' - the water or the ice? Or
is that an inapt question?

Meanwhile I have noticed a venomous 'snake in the grass', which our present
culture seems predominantly to accept without question. It's called 'IT',
the singular object upon whose physically impossible independence objective
rationality depends. And I keep trying to point it out, and saying how it
can be transformed into a more benevolent orientation. But does anybody
listen or appreciate what I am saying and why I am saying it?  Or do they
think I am just out for my own advancement?



Warmest

Alan


PS I am attaching an essay on this theme fypi. It can also be found at
http://people.bath.ac.uk/bssadmr.









----- Original Message -----
From: Barra Hallissey <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 29 June 2007 16:32
Subject: Terra Incognita


As a follow on from my previous posting, I have no problem with the
strengthening of the Living Educational Theory (LET) knowledge base once it
is strengthened on the basis of the free will and informed choices of
researchers in the field.  I think problems arise when researchers are
coerced into adopting imposed research methodologies via relationships where
a power differential exists between the parties e.g. between a lecturer and
a student, a supervisor and a supervisee.

The problem may be more apparent to practitioner researchers from below,
than to academics from above.  As the problem is somewhat insidious in
nature it will manifest itself not in a blatant grab for power but perhaps
in more subtle ways e.g. in blindness to potential conflicts of interest.

I spoke in my previous posting about students being used as fodder,
programmes of study churning out LET research 'sausage factory' like,
research pyramid schemes, hidden will to power etc.  Let me illustrate my
concern by way of an example.

Please indulge me as I take the example of a research opportunity that
arises in the context of a post-graduate programme for practitioner
researchers.  Let's say the research project is a kind of 2nd order action
research that involves facilitating first order practitioner research.
Let's say this research proposal restricts practitioner researchers in their
choice of methodology by coercing / strongly encouraging them / influencing
them (take your pick) to adopt a LET methodology in line with the
methodology of the overall 2nd order research project.

In the scenario outlined we have a happy marriage of interests in the
academy.  The research project if successful will serve the interests of the
LET community by strengthening the LET knowledge base with some higher
degrees.  The well placed academic may even gain a PhD recognition for their
efforts.  However one might reasonably question how the interests of
practitioner-researchers are being served when the research interests of the
lecturer dominate their course of study.  Are the gains in the academy being
achieved at the expense of practitioner researchers academic freedom of
choice with respect to research methodology?  The researchers 2nd order
research project and the practitioner-researchers' course of study have
effectively become one and the same thing. I believe potential conflicts of
interest should be taken seriously in terms of not so desirable values
(authoritarianism leading to compliance / docility) embedded in such
research scenarios.

There are examples of 2nd order LET research (one currently active) that I
consider vulnerable to this conflict of interest critique.

Do any other contributors to this list think there might be a problem here?

If you love someone (pratitioner-researchers), set them
(pratitioner-researchers) free.

_________________________________________________________________
Tell Hotmail about an email that changed your life!
http://www.emailbritain.co.uk/