 |
 |
On 23 Sep 2008, at 13:38, Sarah Fletcher wrote: re. I'm wondering if we can develop a shared understanding of expressions of a loving dynamic energy? Is this erotic spiritual energy or life affirming energy or a combination of both and what substantive base is there for claiming these exist let alone are evident from video alone? Jack's response. I think the substantive base for establishing a shared understanding of expressions of a loving dynamic energy is the original work in Joan Walton's doctoral thesis at: http://people.bath.ac.uk/edsajw/walton.shtml In her thesis Joan puts forward the original critical standard of judgment of 'spiritual resilience gained through connection with a loving dynamic energy'. "Through telling my personal story, I offer an emergent methodology that includes both narrative inquiry and action research. I generate a living theory which offers ‘spiritual resilience gained through connection with a loving dynamic energy’ as an original standard of judgment." re. What I'm wondering is whether, through sharing video-clips of what we are doing as we express our values and understanding, this will help us to co-create an educational community that is extending the influence of the values that carry hope for the future of humanity? We need to address issues of bullying on this list first - please see my email of yesterday Jack's response. After a wonderful start to the new seminar for 2008-9 I think we may now see a haemoraging on the list as the educational space feels violated and boundaries that protect educational discourse with loving and productive intent need strengthening. I'm just hoping that participants will stay in the space and help with the strengthening of loving and productive boundaries. re. I'm wondering if these shared communications will help us to resist and move beyond the pressures that can constrain the flow of these values and understandings? Ditto above - we need to address and stop exclusion of discussion by this list's members (I am looking forward to engagement by you, Jack and others, in critiquing your own ideas - as I invited in my email yesterday and which you appear to have overlooked so far today). Jack's response. Each unique living theory dissertation and thesis must demonstrate a level of critical judgement appropriate for the award. Because a living theory is an explanation of one's own educational influence in learning, the individual researcher must demonstrate a level of self- criticism and critical use of the ideas of others, appropriate for the degree. In my case, self-criticisms in the generation of my living educational theories have been well-documented in my publications and my doctoral thesis at http://people.bath.ac.uk/edsajw/jack.shtml . The first criticism, going back to my first use of video-data on my own practice in 1971, was in the recognition of myself as a living contradiction in the belief that I had established enquiry learning with my pupils when I could see myself on the video, closing down the opportunities for enquiry learning because of the way I was organising the learning resources. Between 1982-1991 I felt a lack of comprehension about the power relations that sustained what counted as knowledge in the Academy. I engaged with the ideas of Foucault and Habermas and overcame this lack of understanding, as I think my writings show. Around 2002 I felt that my propositional and dialectical epistemologies were too limited to develop my explanations of educational influence and I was delighted to overcome the limitations through engaging with and understanding Alan's ideas on inclusionality. On 22 Sep 2008, at 16:05, Sarah Fletcher wrote: > Dear All, > > Alan has claimed my critique of Living Educational Theory lacks > understanding. ...... Alan, do please enlighten me explaining > clearly where else my critique 'lacks deep understanding' as you > have alleged. I have yet to read a deep critique of this approach > to action research. Could somebody on this list supply references, > please, so we can engage? > Jack's response: What Alan said in relation to your writings was: > "I have felt that many of your efforts to critique living theory > have lacked deep comprehension of what living theory is truly about, > and that this is what was really at the source of your painful PhD > issues." I do agree with Alan in the sense that if your doctoral submissions had shown a sufficiently clear and deep comprehension of your living educational theory I believe that you would have been awarded your degree. Reading your writings on 'How Do I, a Professional Educator, Nurture 'Courage to Be?' at http://www.cfkeep.org/html/snapshot.php?id=47161571911687 , I like very much Chapter 1 of Volume 2 where you engage with literature on multiple selves. In this particular piece of writing I feel that it reaches the level I use as an examiner of doctoral theses in judging the quality of critical engagement with the ideas of others. This piece of writing isn't of course sufficient to award the degree. In relation to the rest of your writings my own response is that it would need a substantial transformation to be understood as a living educational theory. For example I think you would need to show the meanings of your ontological value of 'courage to be' as this emerged in the course of your enquiry/writings. By accepting Alan's point that your efforts to critique living theory have lacked deep comprehension of what living theory is truly about, you may begin to appreciate why your writings would need transforming to be acceptable for a doctoral degree. Demonstrating your acceptance of Alan's point and leaving your present writings in the public domain for use by others, in seeing what they will need to do to generate their own living educational theory would, in my view, be evidence of 'courage to be'. In relation to your request for references of a deep critique of living theories, I still really like Susan Noffke's (1997) critique because it serves to focus attention on the importance of engaging with issues of power and privilege in society in the generation of living educational theories: "As vital as such a process of self-awareness is to identifying the contradictions between one's espoused theories and one's practices, perhaps because of its focus on individual learning, it only begins to address the social basis of personal belief systems. While such efforts can further a kind of collective agency (McNiff, 1988), it is a sense of agency built on ideas of society as a collection of autonomous individuals. As such, it seems incapable of addressing social issues in terms of the interconnections between personal identity and the claim of experiential knowledge, as well as power and privilege in society (Dolby, 1995; Noffke, 1991). The process of personal transformation through the examination of practice and self- reflection may be a necessary part of social change, especially in education; it is however, not sufficient.' ( Noffke, 1997, p. 329) Noffke, S. (1997) Professional, Personal, and Political Dimensions of Action Research in, Apple, M. (Ed.) (1997) Review of Research in Education, Vol. 22, Washington: AERA. Love Jack. ----------------------------------------------------------------- When Martin Dobson, a colleague, died in 2002 the last thing he said to me was 'Give my Love to the Department'. In the 20 years I'd worked with Martin it was his loving warmth of humanity that I recall with great life affirming pleasure and I'm hoping that in Love Jack we can share this value of common humanity.