 |
 |
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/