Hello Marian
In my own practice, yes - I have this experience too. Much of my PAR work
has been involved with establishing a dialectic between lay and professional
knowledge around a specific issue related to social and environmental
sustainability (I work to a social ecology framework in areas such as DV,
early intervention, crime prevention, catchment management and stormwater
education for example). In most cases the lay participants are drawn from
those who experience marginalisation in the mainstream, and I have always
found that sharing theories of practice and supporting their practice
development so they become PAR facilitators, is entirely understandable and
aligned with them. In many instances I think this is because the so called
marginalised have not been "successful" in formal education, and while they
suffer in terms of losing the rewards of such education that the mainstream
economy and culture offers, in some ways they escape unscathed from the
brutalisation for formal education, grounded as it remains in positivist
assumptions, passive learning, and competitive notions of knowledge. We work
through the language of philosophies of science such as epistemology,
ontology, and then the windows open onto the deep understanding of how the
world ticks. Their activism is generally powerful as what the suspected is
realised  to be true (my experience too) and PAR practice offers a way to
fundamentally change the assumptions of power in what knowledge is (its
architecture), what it contains (information) and how it is used (for
ongoing oppression and exploitation or otherwise).
Working with academically trained professionals, on the other hand, has
often been about addressing the barrier of accredited knowledge and
expertism which is so firmly tied to the unconsciously held objectivist
ontology, which when we offer alternative ontologies and epistemologies is
often met with derision and other forms of alienation. Much of my life has
been about working my practice into these very difficult relational spaces,
to try to hold to the simple concept that the kind of knowledge we create
and believe has such a profound effect on the world in which we live ---
further, that our global crisis regarding social and ecological
sustainability is a direct consequence of ontology and epistemology.
I believe that it is a human right for everyone to have a voice about
ontology - and in PAR approaches, we can create environment for this to
happen.
But, also as my note says - working in the spaces between the disciplines is
a very hard space to find as most commissions are already embedded in
disciplinary structures replicated in managerial and policy structures
(silos) - so for underfunded and rare PAR projects to get in there, then
take several steps backwards - not only revealing assumptions, but also
introducing the utter irrelevance of philosophy - before we can move
forwards makes it very, very challenging work!

I welcome your practice reflections on how you are as  living theorist in
this space... If we have the time, could we raise some case reflections
perhaps - some theories in the sense of Bohm's use of the word - "a view" of
what we do as living theorists in the spaces between ontologies of certainty
and possibility?

Susan

On 6/05/10 2:00 AM, "Marian Naidoo" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Dear Susan and all,
>
> I have been following the conversations over the past couple of months
> with great interest and have wanted to respond on many occasions but
> time and work pressures have prevented me making a contribution.  It
> is the content of my/our current work that has prompted me to make
> space and make a contribution as so much of what you talk about Susan
> is reflected in our experience at the moment.  We are undertaking an
> evaluation of the impact of Ladder to the Moon (a theatre company) on
> both the staff development and improved quality of life of people
> living with dementia in care homes.  Shaun and I are both Living
> Theory Action Researchers and we are undertaking the evaluation in
> partnership with a researcher from The London School of Economics -
> you may imagine that this partnership of opposites will create some
> difficulty.  In fact the opposite is true - where we are experiencing
> challenges is in the expectations of the Commissioners and providers
> of Services mainly in their search for absolutes - even in the
> proposal ! Much of our time has been spent (and is still being spent)
> on dealing with this paradox and managing expectations in this context
> is a struggle - but one which we are confident we will achieve as we
> strive to pursue our both and approach.
>
> Love to all,
>
>
> Marian
>
> Dr Marian Naidoo FRSA
> Naidoo & Associates
>
> Visiting Research Fellow
> University of Bath
> Mob:   07810822820
> Tel:     01666 840991
> Fax:    01666 841463
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 5 May 2010, at 16:34, Jack Whitehead wrote:
>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>> From: Susan Goff <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: 5 May 2010 01:32:19 GMT+01:00
>> To: Jack Whitehead <[log in to unmask]>, <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: Strengthening action research networks
>>
>>
>> Hello Jack and everyone
>> And thank you so very much for keeping this discussion flowing. I
>> greatly look forward to the significant contributions this network
>> is making being heard across the many streams that the Congress is
>> ³pooling².
>>
>> From ALARA¹s point of view, we are aware that the fields of action
>> learning and action research are widely used across the world, and
>> have for decades been hybridising to fit disciplines (like adaptive
>> management in environmental management environments), cultures (like
>> ³yarning² to work with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ways of
>> knowing), and sectors (like continuous improvement process to work
>> with corporate systems and values).
>>
>> There are a few problems that this inevitable situation creates,
>> which may be good practice development material for this network to
>> contribute to, particularly with the living theory construct in our
>> hearts, minds and hands.
>>
>> First, often in these adaptations, the founding theories, wisdoms
>> and strengths (like Revan¹s Action Learning Set practice, Agyris and
>> Schon¹s action science etc) are lost to obscurity and with them the
>> link to action learning and action research.
>>
>> For example, a colleague raised the relationship between adaptive
>> management and action research in an environmental educators network
>> the other day ­ they had never heard of AR and were not very
>> interested in the connection.  It felt like a social science
>> practice which was too far away from an environmental science
>> background.
>>
>> Somehow we need to reach across these epistemological and sectoral
>> gaps to let people see their connections with the extraordinary
>> origins and developments taking place in AR and AL, developments
>> which could so profoundly contribute to the work they are doing and
>> essentially save time (perhaps our shortest resource).
>>
>> How can living theory contribute to the practices of reaching across
>> such gaps to instil good founding theory and quality hybridisation?
>>
>> Second, as well as losing the wisdom of theoretical innovation that
>> the AR and AL fields develop,  there are psychological and
>> relational costs. A cynicism and lethargy can enter the fields (both
>> in the AR and AL fields, and the fields of ³application²) as the
>> distinguishing characteristics are smoothed away in the inability to
>> address the cultural challenges of keeping good theory evident in
>> practice environments. The temptation is to revert to simple,
>> pragmatic tools ­ and language - in a belief that theory is only for
>> academics and not related to practical realities. But tools tend to
>> kill off the creativity of thought that theory generates.
>>
>> An example of this cynicism can be found in our Australian education
>> sectors. One of our tertiary education sectors, the Vocational
>> Education and Training sector (VET) uses learning from experience as
>> its primary mode of education, however ³Action Learning² is buried
>> in diploma level management certificates and then, only as one
>> performance criteria for a whole page of about 30 such criteria for
>> the one aspect of the qualification. And, the actual form of Action
>> Learning is not specified.
>>
>> In this sector as well as the academic tertiary education sector (I
>> work and study in both) the idea of action learning is embedded in
>> the pedagogy but teachers are rarely trained in it, and its explicit
>> use is considered only relevant to higher tertiary education
>> students such as diploma or post graduate level. If learning is seen
>> as a human right, this reification of AR and AL is just wrong.
>>
>> How can living theory change this misconstruction of AL and AR when
>> they become systemised (trapped in the development state they were
>> in when they were systemised, vulnerable to hierarchies of access) ­
>> so that the innovations in AL and AR practice can be continually
>> incorporated at a systemic level and its explicit presence enjoyed
>> by all?
>>
>> Third, another reaction to the loss of theory within our AR and AL
>> field that I have seen is for theorisers to ghetto ourselves into a
>> kind of specialisation, even though we preach democracy with generic
>> practices ­ we become specialists of non-specialisation ­ a problem
>> I have been trying to get my head around for years! What I have seen
>> develop is a rift between those who focus on AR and AL theory and
>> those who focus on the community or organisational development
>> outcomes that such theory can create. In reality we are deeply
>> complementary (perhaps even co-dependent) in our preferences.
>>
>> How can living theory help us to relate more effectively with each
>> other within our AR and AL streams of variation?
>>
>> The systemic costs of loss of theory and resulting losses to
>> language and relationship need to be appreciated for these questions
>> to be seen: loss of time in the face of our global pressures perhaps
>> being the most significant.
>>
>> So my hope is that this strengthening of action research networks
>> throughout the world through the significant engagement that you,
>> the other Chairs of the Congress Streams and all those participating
>> in them offer, will help us recognise good practice across our
>> differences and reach towards each other with appreciation and
>> strength. I hope that we will be able to  find/create the languages
>> and the relationships of respect and egalitarian interest in each
>> other as this network has long exemplified in this ³third space², so
>> we can join together to bring the great richness of diversity back
>> into broad action research and action learning fields.
>>
>> With kind regards, appreciation and much respect
>>
>> Susan Goff
>> (President, ALARA).
>>