Dear Joan and Jack,

I think this view of 'appropriacy' is very significant, especially in 
relation to the 6 listed criteria.

As far as verbal language is concerned, I think it is not so much the 
language itself that is the problem, but the way it is used in witting or 
unwitting support of an intransigent worldview that is inappropriate.

Here is a sentence from some recent correspondence with someone whose 
appreciation of 'empathetic resonance' I hold in high regard:

"I can also feel that you are already helping me with my propensity to try 
and make usual -- that is, 'thing-ified language be the bearer of fluidity, 
which results in people understanding me but not knowing what I am saying."

Below is pasted a section from my draft keynote paper appertaining to the 
appropriate and inappropriate use of language.

Warmest

Alan

--------------------------

Overcoming Linguistic Definition: The fluid logic and language of natural 
inclusion

Just as a river is both shaped by and re-shapes the landscape through which 
it flows, so our human use of verbal language to communicate with one 
another about what we are observing, thinking, feeling and imagining is both 
influenced by and influences our worldview. Language can hence both confine 
and liberate us. It can reinforce the deep entrenchment of habit that cannot 
break out of the familiarity of its past enterprise. It can also help to 
locate and open up the escape channel that enables a shift of course.



 With the development of inclusional concepts, a new logic and principle of 
the 'included middle' emerges in which the inhabitant is a fluid expression 
of the habitat, not a rigidly definable exception from it, as the worldview 
of objective rationality would have us believe. Content simultaneously forms 
from and responsively gives expression to the receptive spatial pool that it 
fluid dynamically includes and is included in; the inhabitant transforms the 
habitat and vice versa as inseparable but distinguishable aspects of one 
including the other, nested over all scales from microcosm to cosmos. 
Understanding inclusional flow entails the dynamic relational, 
space-including, local-non-local logic of 'somewhere distinct as a dynamic 
informational inclusion of everywhere spatial throughout', not solely the 
local logic of discrete, opposing, material objects.



So, what kind of language can best communicate this new, fluid logic and 
principle that recognises dynamic distinction but not rigid definition and 
so calls into question so much of our familiar way of thinking in terms of 
discrete whole objects and sequential cause and effect? Clearly, any 
language which originates in rationalistic logic will reinforce that logic 
and so tend to be inconsistent with and to obscure inclusional meaning. This 
problem may be deepened if the role played by the narrowed down focus of our 
left brain hemisphere in the production and comprehension of verbal language 
comes to predominate over the more intuitive, all-round awareness yielded 
through our right brain hemisphere (McGilchrist, 2009). If we are not very 
careful, verbal language is very liable to entrap us unimaginatively in 
'tunnel vision' and to lose imaginative 'circumspection' (cf. Fig. 3.). But 
we need inclusionally also to be careful not to allow our awareness of this 
problem to lead us to disown verbal language and get caught forever instead 
in the trap of meditative paralysis where nothingness and blissful inaction 
prevail. Words and action are interdependent, both vital to our human 
co-creative potential as social flow-forms inhabiting a common hearth.



For me, awareness of this problem in itself suggests its solution: to be 
prepared to loosen the definition of verbal language in ways that allow it 
to come alive and attune dynamically with our continually transforming 
evolutionary circumstances. A living, evolutionary logic needs a living, 
evolutionary language if it is not to tie itself up in knots of paradoxical 
inconsistency. This language needs to bring the focused and circumspect 
perceptions of left and right hemisphere together through the communication 
channel of the corpus callosum that includes each in the other's influence, 
not to drive them apart through intransigent neglect and severance.



What this means in practice is learning to use language poetically, to evoke 
meanings and acknowledge dynamic distinctions, not literally to impose 
abstract definitions on natural flow-form. This is why I have come to use 
language with very great care, seeking to avoid the pitfalls into the 
totalizing definitions of both reductive and holistic thought whilst 
recognizing as well the co-creative complementary contributions such thought 
can bring to human understanding when brought into dynamic synthesis. Of 
course I recognize that this is not easy. It is never easy to break deeply 
embedded habits. I struggle to find the expressions that consistently convey 
my meaning, whilst not departing utterly from the familiarity of past usage. 
I am frequently accused of esotericism, of trying to hide my meanings behind 
a smokescreen of jargon - which is as far from my real intention as it could 
be. I am frequently accused, if I point out the rationalistic implications 
of familiar expressions, of trying to impose my language on others - which 
again is as far from my real intention as it could be. I am merely trying to 
invite consideration of what kind of language is consistent with natural 
inclusional meaning, and offering the best that I can at the time of writing 
or speaking, always prepared to change this if a more effective expression 
surfaces that doesn't simply re-entrap in rationalistic imagery. This is a 
great challenge for me, and, I suggest, a great challenge for us if we are 
to overcome our language impediment and make our living educational theory 
and practice more naturally inclusional.





----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joan Lucy Conolly" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 3:06 PM
Subject: Re: Your AERA paper


Dear Jack

First may I apologise again for a lonnnnnnnnnnng silence. I shall not 
elaborate because I have already spent too much time and energy (both in 
short supply) on the issues which have delayed and/ or distracted me. 
Suffice it to say that one of the Blessings of Easter Saturday, is that only 
one person wants to see me today, because the rest are all busy with Easter 
Saturday, and that one person has a slot later.

So .... here is my chance to read your AERA paper, Jack, which I have 
thoroughly enjoyed, and I am sure is going to make a significant impact at 
the conference in May in Denver. I so wish that I could be there. But there 
... you will be there with your video camera, and I look forward to your 
carefully selected glimpses that reveal so much in very few minutes.

Intro to comments  ...
I find your AERA paper a rich and very important read for many reasons, but 
I am going to focus here on your request about pages 7-13. In so doing, I 
find myself focusing on the notion of 'what is appropriate in research as a 
living standard of value'.. and the 'educational influences in learning'.

Context ...
I need to contextualise what follows in a brief description of the group of 
researchers with whom I work. We have been working together in a research 
support group since 1997. Our group is proportionately representative of the 
'rainbow' demographics of the New (post-1994) South Africa. We live and work 
mostly in Zulu/English/Afrikaans, all of which can be used as lingua francas 
in the group, depending on who is around. We are all educators in formal 
state education institutions, private education institutions, or in 
communities. The urban-rural demographics are interestingly blurred. So the 
question of 'educational influence' is primary in our thinking, but with 
particular reference to the oral tradition and /of indigenous knowledge as a 
process of learning, teaching and assessment. I believe that there is no 
finer 'outcomes based education system' than the oral tradition. After all, 
all capacity in the oral tradition is demonstrated by action, not by writing 
a paper about it! Original Action Research? I can think of no better.

Your paper ...
In your AERA paper, Jack, I have found that you have referred to the notion 
of APPROPRIACY 13 times in the 31 pages. The final statement on page 31 
resonates and reverberates, bouncing around in my bodymind, and making 
connections to all sorts of issues. Wonderful!!! Your statement is "As 
Individuals research their forms of life in enquiries of the kind, 'How do I 
improve what I am doing?' they often need to find or develop appropriate 
research methods."

And this takes me back to early 2003.

In early 2003, the group (some of whom you met in December,2009), had been 
working together for between one and seven years, during which time we had 
focused on masters and doctoral degrees in the field of orality-literacy 
studies, and the oral tradition and /of indigenous knowledge systems. Since 
2001, I, and, increasingly, members of the group, had been focusing on the 
question "Given that we are told that complex and sophisticated thought is 
impossible without scribal alphabetic writing, how do we account for 
evidence to the contrary?" This had happened partially out of my own 
observations in the field, but increasingly because of what the rest of the 
team were bringing back into the research conversation out of their field 
work experiences.

So in 2003, we - Jerome Gumede, Clementine Yeni, Christina Ngaloshe, Theo 
Nyawose, Snoeks Desmond, Nonhlanhla Khuzwayo, Tra Bi Goh, Jill Frow, Vuyi 
Kona, Jane Tarr, myself and others(?) - questioned ourselves along the lines 
of "What is our research supposed to be doing?" "How do we know that our 
research is doing what it is supposed to do?" "What are we doing when our 
research does what it is supposed to do?" In other words, we were reflecting 
critically on our practice, and searching for what you term "our living 
standards of judgement" arising out of "our lived experience" and "living 
contradictions" of our research practice in the field. The whole process of 
answering these questions took place over a period of 10 Saturdays, working 
from about 09.00-15.00 on each day. We worked in small groups answering the 
questions on sheets of flip-chart-paper which we stuck up on the walls of 
the community hall which was our venue. These were then further critiqued, 
and analysed and summarised. At the end of it all, we came to the following 
conclusions. We called what we found : "Criteria for Rigour in Research into 
the Oral Tradition aka Indigenous Knowledge Systems" (c) Joan Conolly, 2003

We decided that APPROPRIACY was overarching and key to every other 
criterion. We used, and continue to use, the question "In what ways is what 
is being researched and the manner of research appropriate in the community 
and cultural context, in terms of each of the following ... ?"

We then identified 6 criteria which qualified the overarching criterion of 
appropriacy ...

1. AUTHENTICITY, asking "In what ways is the researcher researching his or 
her own personal and/ or community knowledge?"

2. SUFFICIENCY, asking "In what ways have sufficient information and 
insights been explored and shared to make a difference?

3. SIGNIFICANCE, asking "In what ways is the research significant and to 
whom?

4. CURRENCY, asking "In what ways is this knowledge currently useful and 
applicable?

5. RELEVANCE, asking, "In what ways is this research relevant to the people 
and community that are being studied?

6. VALIDITY, asking "In what ways is this study investigating what it claims
that it is investigating?"

Key to all these criteria is the notion of what is appropriate. Appropriacy 
is key specifically and significantly iro perspective, lens, and world view 
because of the "Complex Ecologies in a Changing World", and applies to each 
of the questions cited above because of the multiple perspectives, lenses, 
and world views, which constitute those same "Complex Ecologies in a 
Changing World".

Which brings me to ask "What is it that has changed, and is changing, in the 
world?" And I can only answer that question from my own "lived experience". 
My world has changed, and continues to change on a daily basis - sometimes 
from hour to hour, and even from minute to minute - in so many ways that I 
am sometimes overwhelmed. But what I perceive is that these changes, while 
NEW TO ME, HAVE BEEN THERE SINCE TIME IMMEMORIAL. It just so happens that 
they were never part of MY world until they BECAME PART OF MY WORLD. And in 
becoming part of my world, they enrich me with perspectives, lenses, and 
world views NEW TO ME. And these perspectives, lenses, and world views in 
turn have impacted and continue to impact on my values, my beliefs and 
appreciation of the world's "complex ecologies". I have come to appreciate 
increasingly the 'epistemologies, ontologies and axiologies' in the oral 
traditions of the world. And if this is true of me, I can hazard that it is 
true to a greater or lesser degree of my fellow humans. In addition, I have 
observed that there are many instances where my fellow humans and I have 
acted, and continue to act, in ignorance of these different perspectives, 
lenses and world views, and wittingly and unwittingly, do great harm. 
Adichie Chimamanda reminds us of this so well, and with such elegant 
humorous irony, in her talk 'The Danger of the Single Story'. 
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story.html

I also have come to see that alphabetic scribal literacy has the capacity to 
colonise the oral tradition to the point of its obliteration, and the 
obliteration of its knowledge bearers. This is not a possibility or 
probability. This is a fact of history recorded in the oral tradition, 
notwithstanding the insufficient scribal documentation of its occurrence. We 
ignore this at our peril. And I do mean, literally, at our human peril. Ken 
Robinson on TEDTALKS http://www.ted.com/search?q=ken+robinson&x=11&y=10 
cites Jonas Salk who claims that "If all the insects on earth disappeared, 
within 50 years all life on earth would disappear. If all humans 
disappeared, within 50 years all species would flourish as never before." 
This is the kind of wisdom that has been known in the oral tradition of 
knowledge all over the planet for much longer that we have had access to 
scribal alphabetic writing. (see Greg Braden's "The Divine Matrix" for more 
on this.) But as recorded in the oral traditional archives in many languages 
and cultures, "If it is not written down it does not exist."

As a group, then, we have been looking for ways to record the oral tradition 
in ways that are appropriate. Since 2004, we have been asking "How do we 
bring the oral traditions and/of indigenous knowledge into the formal 
academy ON ITS OWN TERMS." This question is not motivated by a whimsical and 
romantic notion of reclaiming the past, but of the urgent need to have 
access to all of the available knowledge on the planet, instead of only the 
estimated 10% available in script of one kind or another. Armed with all the 
available knowledge, I believe that we have a better chance of addressing 
our ecological disasters of all and many kinds.

I would now like, very briefly, to return to the 'Criteria' questions and 
their implications.

When we talk about Authenticity, we have found that this criterion is key to 
'authority'. Authenticity is about honouring and valuing "lived experience", 
and acknowledging its authority. By way of example, when I am talking about 
how I am feeling about something, no one knows better than I how I am 
feeling. I am sure that I am not alone when I cite instances of being told 
that, in respect of discrimination clearly connected to my gender, my age or 
marital status, inter alia -  "You should not feel like that. There is no 
need to take this personally." The inappropriacy of such a judgement is 
clear. Once I understood that, I was/am able so much more easily to 
understand what constituted/s (in)appropriate (in)authentic research. Hence 
the value of 'self study', 'living theories methodologies', 
auto-ethnographies and their ilk.

When we talk about Sufficiency, it is inappropriate to measure by number, 
although there are instances where some numbers are useful. Sufficiency is 
appropriately measured by the quality, the richness, of the evidence 
presented.

When we talk about SIGNIFICANCE, we need to be wary of delivering only what 
is significant to the academy. Instead, we need to ensure that what we 
record and report is appropriate to the interests of the original knowledge 
bearers, whoever they may and regardless of their status, and particularly 
they orality-literacy status. "What is important TO THEM?" we ask. And what 
is revealed is very often at odds with what the academy values. Then the 
question of academic freedom and scholarly integrity is challenged. With 
interesting and informative outcomes.

When we talk about what is CURRENT, we have to be mindful that not all 
orally traditioned knowledges are currently applicable, and /or all the 
time, and the appropriacy of the application in many instances depends on 
the context. Maklinowski's adage of "There is no text without context" comes 
to mind.

When we talk about RELEVANCE, once again the context will decide what is 
appropriate to the people and community. This is fluid and constantly 
changing, and requires frequent readjustment. Hence emerging methodologies 
and questions.

When we talk about VALIDITY, we return to the convention of asking 
frequently "In what ways is this study investigating what it claims that it 
is investigating?" This is significant in terms of the appropriacy of the 
approach, the perspective, the lenses and the worldviews, and so brings us 
back full circle.

I hope that what I have recorded here is of some use.

Take care
Joan
PS If I think of more I will let you know. But right now I have an 
appointment with Simmi.







-----Original Message-----
From: Practitioner-Researcher 
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jack Whitehead
Sent: 02 April 2010 02:47 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Education and Learning Virtual Networking Stream for ALARA's 
8th World Congress

I've added Alana's (and Tracesea's 'Reinventing Life' and 'Future of 
Education') homepages, Pip's and Bruce's homepage and Paul's ('Living and 
Working in Mexico') homepage to

http://www.actionresearch.net/otherpages.shtml

It's a pleasure to see this work contributing to the archive of resources we 
can use in the generation of our own accounts so please keep your urls 
coming.

In a paper for presentation at the American Educational Research Association 
Conference (Theme - Understanding Complex Ecologies in a Changing World) in 
Denver on the 1st May I'm answering the following questions:

i) Have the explanations produced by individual action researchers to 
explain their educational influences in learning within complex ecologies 
generated a new epistemology for educational knowledge?

ii) Can a living theory methodology, using visual narratives with empathetic 
resonance and validity, help to make public the professional knowledge of 
teachers in different cultural settings?

iii) What are the logics of the explanations that individuals produce for 
their educational influences in their own learning, the learning of others 
and the learning of social formations in complex ecologies?

iv) Which living standards of judgment can be used to evaluate the validity 
of explanations of educational influences in learning?

In answering the second question above I've drawn on Marian's research into 
a passion for compassion and on Sally Cartwright's (a teacher Marie and I 
are tutoring for her masters degree) work to communicate meanings of 'loving 
what we are doing?' . You can see my answer in the section on  'Meanings of 
Empathetic Resonance and Validity in Visual Narratives: A passion for 
compassion and loving what we are doing'. This is on pages 7-13 of the paper 
you can access from:

http://www.actionresearch.net/writings/aera10/jwaera10paperdraft020410opt.pdf

I have to post the paper on the AERA website by the 7th April so there are 5 
days to go to strengthen it with any suggestions. Because of my use of short 
video-clips to communicate meanings of energy-flowing and values-laden 
explanatory principles I'd particularly appreciate your responses to the 6 
pages, 7-13 as well as any other responses you might like to make to the 
paper. (Many thanks to Alan, Marie and Moira who have responded to earlier 
drafts).

Love Jack.



"This e-mail is subject to our Disclaimer, to view click 
http://www.dut.ac.za"