Hello Christine.
I agree about 'practitioner' being suitably 'generic' and applying to anyone
who exercises a 'practice' and therefore applying to
teaching; research; writing; supervising; mentoring; coaching; management;
design; medicine; nursing; architecture; .... etc
I am interested to know, then, what you are gathering up in the term
'reflexivity' and why you talk about it as being 'a core value'.
If I were asked I would call it a 'practice'. And that might mean I will
have to define what I mean by 'reflexivity' to show why I see it as a
practice, and I will also need to think some more about why I don't see it
as a 'value', and what I do see as values in its practice.
Dianne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christine BOLD" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 12:39 AM
Subject: Re: A question of values?
> Hi Sarah/Lori
> I thought I would add my thoughts to this one. In the last two years in
> particular it has come to my attention that some academics speak about
> teachers in schools as practitioners but do not refer to academics as
> such.
> I am an academic and I believe I am also a practitioner and a teacher.
> I don't think it is helpful to distinguish between the different levels
> of practice/teaching/scholarship/research that we engage in. However, we
> might have to acknowledge the different balance between those activities
> and the different expectations of each type of role. We should all
> practice the art of teaching. We should all be reflective practitioners.
> Any of us might engage in scholarly activity at any level. A core value
> ought to be one of reflexivity.
>
>
>
> Christine
>
>
> Dr Christine Bold EdD (Open) FHEA
> BA Inclusive Education Coordinator
> CASTL Research Fellow
> Education Deanery
> Liverpool Hope University
> Hope Park
> Liverpool L16 9JD
> 0151 291 3382
>
> "Liverpool Hope University accepts no responsibility for this e-mail,
> its contents and any loss or damage arising in any way from the receipt
> or use of this e-mail and its attachments."
>
>
>>>> Sarah Fletcher <[log in to unmask]> 01/10/2007 19:50 >>>
> Dear Lori,
>
> As the new SIG convenor for the Practitioner SIG, (and many thanks to
> Brian
> for his expert convening) would you like to introduce us to your
> definition
> of a 'practitioner'? Do you consider academics to be 'practitioners'
> in
> their workplace? I'm a little puzzled because the Practitioner Day and
> your
> comment below might suggest that there is a distinction. Looking
> forward to
> hearing,
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Sarah
>
> On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 09:03:06 +0100, Beckett, Lori
> <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>>re. we want to encourage practitioners to raise issues, ask
>>questions, and to make networking available.
>
|