Thanks Robyn. "My concern is that unless each author actions these recommendations themselves, because they have the deepest engagement with the subject, I wonder how much change will really happen more than policy documents" This was an arrow-straight observation, for *this* participant anyway! Based on it and what it implies I would like to share some suspicions here. They may be wildly off the mark but I'll certainly benefit as much from having them denied as confirmed. 

First, I suspect that the authors *are* enacting their own recommendations. And if that is true, then what's *really* interesting is that we are still discussing theory in such a way that others following the discussion cannot clearly see that 'enactment' from the discourse. We cannot see the 'living education' on which the theory merely reflects. 

Second I suspect that we are habituated to theory without any associated narrative - the dead abstraction of academic theory. And this language has no I/eye: no personal ('I') or story ('eye').

Third, I know that language both patterns our thinking and structures our reality; that shifts in consciousness (such as the fundamental shift that AR brings to education) require patterns of thinking and new conventions of communication -  maybe a new syntax. So, also third, I suspect that we might want to look at the language of our own "dialectical research" . 

I'd like to suggest that there may be a need for a kind of narrative (I/eye) discourse in keeping with the visceral, living ground of AR. Being able to see what we are looking at and then able to 'name' what we are seeing truthfully and powerfully is  'distinguishing'. This is, self evidently, the first step of any Action Research. 

Making such distinctions for ourselves that we have not made before is where possibility begins and the excitement is born. Sharing those distinctions squares the possibility (at least). But how do we do that if we don't share the 'thing in itself', the living reality that we have distinguished - if we only share the theory that we have distilled from reflection - and then distill it still further?  I'd love to see the conscious inclusion of narrative in discussions of AR. directly tied to the process of distinction. i.e. Here is what this *look like*, what I see it (when it is in real time, close up and personal). e.g. I distinguish (what does it look like?), I theorize I act and there is a response to my action (what happens that I can see and describe?) I reflect (and refine or re-theorize) I act again. Here, for instance, is a precis of my own narrative: I looked at my 'remedial students' and saw the disconnect between them and the formal English they are required to learn. I saw this disconnect as the problem, not of stupid or backward or even intransigent students, but of students learning a foreign tongue. I theorized that most of them would go on failing because the problem was really a. that formal English is a convention that no one actually speaks; b. we don't learn language; we acquire it and c. they had never acquired it. So I set about 'acting' - implementing a language acquisition strategy that required no effort on the part of my students. Of course, my final paper will discuss the theory in the abstract and the research data in the same language because it is what my college expects and what it will need to implement the strategy formally. But *here*? Here, I should tell the story and share the phenomenal voices of a developmental writing class where 14 out of 18 completed the whole course, all of them had become a 'family' and none of those failed. 

There is a balance to AR - between theory and practice - as there is a balance to the human being; to walk we require left and right feet in sequence! And I think we may need a language that reflects this. My final suspicion is that what Jack has thrown into the discussion is exactly this nominative/narrative element. i.e. what 'the thing in itself' (distinction-theory-action-change-relfection) *looks* like. 

I suppose I'm saying that perhaps we need a stronger I/eye in our AR dialectical research?

Best 

Sara




________________________________________
From: Practitioner-Researcher [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robyn Pound [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 12:59 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Brief thoughts on Servant Leadership

Dear All,
Thanks Jack, NOW I feel entirely at home even though I am not a teacher let alone a school principal.  Interesting that you sent this out under the Brief Thoughts on Servant Leadership thread.  My fingers have hovered many times over the course of this quite lengthy discussion because the issues are complex and multi faceted and whenever someone writes about one bit of it an opposing view looms.   In the end I think we are probably all saying variations of the same thing - motivated by those values that good practice and humanitarian living comes down to.  (Another debate to be had about universal and personally held values). This is what I love about dialectical research - the expectation that contradictions can be explored and held within the endeavour to embrace the whole.

Any way, I wrote because of the thesis abstract below and the contrast in feelings I experienced to the previous interpretive servant leadership theses offered, both of which I have scanned.  These were both  thorough explorations of issues that were well worth exploring and suggested actions came out of them.  My concern is that unless each author actions these recommendations themselves, because they have the deepest engagement with the subject, I wonder how much change will really happen more than policy documents?  A contrast is evident with this recent thesis when a manager/policy maker (the principal) is researching her influence over the change she wishes to see in her school.  I haven't read this thesis yet but I can see that she has the opportunity to try things until change actually happens and the staff know why things are changing.

So that this is not just yet another reply in my draft box I shall send now.

Robyn

--- On Wed, 11/8/10, Jack Whitehead <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: Jack Whitehead <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Brief thoughts on Servant Leadership
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Wednesday, 11 August, 2010, 11:16

Dear Sara, Robyn, Alan (M) and Alan (R) and all,

Marian Lothian, an elementary school principal in Quebec has just sent to me today her recently completed doctoral thesis on her 7 year study on the educational influences of her leadership. Marian graduated in 2010 from McGill University in Montreal (main supervisor Dr. Kate Le Maistre -  committee members, Dr. Gillian Bramwell, Dr. Sue Hansen, Dr. Shaheen Shariff, and Dr. Teresa Strong-Wilson). Here is Marian's abstract:

HOW CAN I IMPROVE MY PRACTICE TO ENHANCE THE TEACHING OF LITERACY?
Abstract
The objective of this study was to improve the practice of an elementary principal to enhance the teaching of literacy in an inner city school. Based in the literature on educational leadership and action research, this action research study examines how the role of the principal over a seven year period affected the teaching of literacy. In keeping with action research methodology, the study undergoes three ‘think-act-reflect’ cycles. These action research cycles inform practice, guide the development of literacy initiatives, and result in change. This evolution is documented in the form of vignettes throughout the thesis. Data collection consisted of personal reflections, field notes, results of a researcher-developed questionnaire given to teachers, administrators, and parents; and students’ Developmental Reading Assessment scores. The data analysis incorporates both qualitative and quantitative methods to triangulate the research findings and to ensure that all of the key research questions are addressed in a trustworthy manner. Results showed that the nine literacy interventions employed by the principal were effective and that the principal’s practice grew and improved over the study. Stemming from the analysis, an assessment tool was developed to measure the principal’s effectiveness in promoting literacy, a measurement tool that can be used by other principals to gauge their own effectiveness in developing literacy initiatives. The thesis concludes with a reflection addressing the objective of the study, the contribution to living educational theory that conceptually frames the study and offers suggestions for future research in this area.

You can access Marian's thesis from http://www.actionresearch.net/living/marianlothianphdopt.pdf .

Marian explains the educational influence of her practice and understandings of leadership in enhancing the teaching of literacy in a school. She dedicates her thesis to Fran Halliday, a great educator and organiser of the International Conference of Teacher Research in Montreal in 2001.

Dedication
As I think of the many people who have made significant contributions in shaping my academic development and instilling in me a keen interest to pursue doctoral studies, there are several names mostly those of women who come to mind. But there is one person to whom I feel both morally and emotionally obliged to dedicate this thesis to in her honour posthumously and that is Fran Halliday. I met Fran in 2000 and while the work we did together is documented in this thesis what is not shared in the text is the profound influence she had on me and on this study. She became my mentor, a title I do not bestow lightly and even after her death, which occurred at mid-point in my doctoral research, her sage words and guidance resounded with me throughout the study. In a sense her love of education with all of its facets lives on through her influence that is intricately interwoven into this work. I thank Fran, for taking such a deep interest in my work, for kindling my interest in action research and for lighting the way; without her I would not have undertaken this study. I only regret that she was unable to witness the fruit of her labour which she conducted with endless enthusiasm, passion and commitment.

Love Jack.