Dear Sara and Robyn,
Funnily enough Jack and I were discussing just this kind of point today. We
were also discussing the problems of the 'cut space logic' of dialectics,
which renders the 'I' into a living contradiction, quite unlike the 'living
I' that can be understood through the 'continuous space logic' of natural
inclusionality:
"Correspondingly, a ‘living I’ cannot be a hermetically sealed, autonomous
unit isolated from its neighbourhood, because the space within its
distinctive but not absolutely definitive bodily boundaries is continuous
with the space beyond these boundaries. It finds identity not in its inner
self, alone, but in its variably receptive, reflective and responsive
energetic relationship with its limitless and changeable surroundings. It
lives as an energetic inclusion of space in figure and figure in space, a
natural dynamic inclusion of its context. It is a ‘natural inclusional I’,
not an ‘abstract I’." (from a current paper I am working on)
Our joint article on 'from dialectics to inclusionality' (which can be found
at www.bestthinking.com - look for my 'thinker page' and under 'Topics') is
an effort to show the dynamic relationship between 'living' and 'theory'.
Warmest
Alan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Salyers, Sara M" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 7:19 PM
Subject: Re: Brief thoughts on Servant Leadership
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.
|
