 |
 |
Hello Joan and everyone Yes – again, I understand what you are saying... And am rather envious that your cultures of management have some awareness of such a fluid way of working. As it happens, while I am working to a contract with the normal milestones at the moment, the funding body is leaning towards what you are describing – this has been the first time that I have had this level of creative freedom at a meta-level of design and delivery. To cope with conventional contracts (I am a freelance participatory practitioner and earn my way through tendering) - I devised a generic approach to PAR and other related projects. This allowed me to commit to the funder that between the months of “a” and “d” we would be engaging in reflection, between “e” and “g” interpretation etc etc... I would then describe the principles of practice that I would also commit to, and highly detailed and regular reporting. This allowed for participant self determination within the collaborations I created and resourced while also allowing the funding body to feel confident that it was getting what it paid for. However it has been a hard road to find commissioners who are interested in such an approach. Mostly a brief has predetermined criteria, outcomes and even sometimes methods that you have to commit to in the proposal before you even meet the participants.... I do not do this work of course, but put in non-conforming tenders! Regarding reporting on the nature of the process that emerges... That is very much where we are up to at the moment in the PAR project I am working with... And we are walking the lines of decolonisation regarding who describes what, in what terms, for which audiences....the clarity that is arising is that we each do this for ourselves, self reflexively, and in describing what we are learning to others who are asking, we are creating new conceptual worlds, forms of dialogue and relationships to consider decolonisation at the personal, relational and structural levels of engagement (ref: Torbert). When our collaboration does this collectively in our learning circles, that which we communicate to each other becomes our “data”. We work within a still space, a third space, within which we can reveal our learning selves to each other. Susan On 26/05/10 5:55 PM, "Joan Walton" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Susan - you are really challenging me to think / feel through what it is I > mean here! > > Certainly not the time bound, milestone bound idea of planning, that's for > sure - I think I (in the main) gave that up a long time ago, knowing that > there is not much use in such 'plans', as inevitably something would come up > to turn them upside down - I see that as a very mechanistic way of thinking, > which I try to avoid apart from in some very specific, task focused contexts. > But I am not sure that my way of perceiving planning would suit your > colleagues either! > > I don't think I connect it to the idea of propositional knowledge either. I > try to live 'in the moment' - so that I often 'in this present moment' > include a sense of a 'desired outcome', or a way in which in this moment I > would like to see things emerging - and I might state that in terms of a > 'plan'. But I also like the Buddhist principle of 'non-attachment to > outcomes' - so I don't become attached to that plan - and am very conscious > that in any 'present moment' something may emerge to change my 'plan' - or > perhaps I could reframe that as 'vision'. > > In an enquiry context, it really does depend what my plan/vision is, and in > what context it emerges. So if it is about a way of being - for example, I > will seek to work more collaboratively with people rather than work so much on > my own, then it is about reflecting on and evaluating what happens when I try > to live that way in practice - which I might be more or less 'successful' in. > However, if the plan includes the completion of a very clear cut task (e.g. to > decorate a building) - then I guess that is more open to the kind of action > plan that has times, milestones etc included. In the long term collaborative > inquiry that I was part of, the planning really was more a statement of > intentions - so for example, aiming to be in silence for at least 30 minutes > each day was someone's stated intention. In more professional contexts, > perhaps the intention needs to be more focused and accountable - but even in > developing the Centre for the Child and Family, when I am required to write > 'strategic' documents, these are all more about the nature of the process, and > trying to persuade people to move towards more collaborative working even > within a traditional academic context - rather than about setting specific > goals, milestones etc. That does raise issues with people who work in > different ways ..... But I have done many SMART action plans in my time - > and in my present context try to avoid them as much as possible - because it > is just not possible to 'manage' life in that way. > > Is that an appropriate response to what you are reflecting on? > > Best wishes, > > Joan > > On 25 May 2010 23:56, Susan Goff <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> Hello Joan >> I really like this approach to planning that you are raising here... It fits >> really well with my preferences for being in inquiry and also with how the >> idea of “planning” such a it is, is unfolding in my current PAR project... I >> would love to hear if others have a similar thought. It’s just not how it is >> commonly encountered in government funded activities where the instrumental >> assumption presumes what planning is... I can hear some of my colleagues that >> come from that way of thinking saying “when is a plan not a plan then?”... >> And I would be interested to know within this way of looking at planning what >> you would point to.... There seems to be more of a reference to Heron’s and >> Reason’s ideas about propositional knowledge in what you say.... Rather than >> a time bound, milestone bound, goal bound contract.... >> >> You have truly inspired me – so very liberating >> Thank you >> >> Susan >> >> >> >> On 26/05/10 1:32 AM, "Joan Walton" <[log in to unmask] >> <http:[log in to unmask]> > wrote: >> >>> Hello Susan, thank you for your very comprehensive reply, lots to think >>> about there. >>> >>> >>> But just on the point of planning (I don't have the texts you refer to >>> here, though I do have the latter two at home so can look later in the week, >>> so I do apologise in advance if I am remembering this wrongly) - my >>> understanding is that the word 'planning' is used very 'loosely' within the >>> research cycling process - I think John Heron would be the last person to be >>> interested in a linear notion of planning, and would agree with all that you >>> say about power imbalances, etc. And in a sense co-operative inquiry was >>> set up to challenge those - so when you say even if we involve those who >>> are affected by what is planned in the planning and implementation, as >>> current thinking about participatory criteria suggest, my understanding is >>> that the process is 'co-operative' from the outset, in that everyone is >>> equally involved as co-researchers and co-subjects - so there is no-one >>> 'involving' those who are affected by what is planned, because all are >>> equally involved from the outset - so if any planning is to be done, it is a >>> truly co-operative decision both that it should be done, and in the doing of >>> it!! >>> >>> In fact when I think about it, I would say that the way that the word >>> 'planning' is used in co-operative inquiry is more in the sense of creating >>> an 'intention' which is fluid in how it is lived in practice, rather than >>> being a defined decision that needs to be adhered to - so would also allow >>> for 'living in the moment', and allowing events to emerge rather than having >>> to follow a pre-defined route. In the literature, my memory is telling me >>> that the concept of planning is generally used to explain the process that >>> individuals go through when looking at how they are going to continue with >>> their inquiry question in the 'real world' having reflected on it with >>> others whilst meeting as a group. And as the research cycling continues, >>> their inquiry question may well change as a consequence of their experience, >>> and/or in reflection with others. >>> >>> I realise that I need to do some checking of the literature though! >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Joan >>> >>> >>> >>> On 25 May 2010 02:42, Susan Goff <[log in to unmask] >>> <http:[log in to unmask]> > wrote: >>>> Hello Joan – thank you for your thoughts and questions....hello everyone >>>> >>>> Regards Heron’s and Reason’s principles... I have frequently referred to >>>> Reason, 1988, Human Inquiry in Action: developments in new paradigm >>>> research, SAGE, pp 44-58; discussed again in Heron, 1996, “Special Inquiry >>>> Skills” in Co-operative Inquiry: research into the human condition, SAGE, >>>> 1996 - pp 58 – 61; to paraphrase: >>>> >>>> The practice principles are: >>>> >>>> Being present >>>> Imaginal openness >>>> Bracketing Reframing >>>> Dynamic congruence >>>> Emotional competence >>>> Non-attachment >>>> Self transcending intentionality >>>> >>>> And the validity principles are: >>>> >>>> Research cycling >>>> Divergence and convergence >>>> Reflection and action >>>> Aspects of reflection balancing expressive with analytical >>>> Challenging uncritical subjectivity >>>> Chaos and order >>>> Managing unaware projections >>>> Authentic collaboration >>>> Falsification (this and the next two are additional criteria noted by >>>> Reason) >>>> Open and closed boundaries >>>> Coherence in action >>>> >>>> The use of critical subjectivity allows for a very ethical place between >>>> expressiveness and personal narrative and objectification of experience – >>>> thus a good solution to working with positivist as well as constructivist >>>> frameworks within a single inquiry entity. >>>> >>>> The balance between chaos and order is perfect for emergent engagement – >>>> and in combination with the other elements makes room for new energies to >>>> enter the inquiry stream. >>>> >>>> The managing of unaware projections works well if establishing Torbert’s >>>> “1st, 2nd and 3rd person constructs of AR” - as the self (myself as AR >>>> facilitator eg) in being with others becomes a primary means of making >>>> distinctions, and if these distinctions are projections rather than valued >>>> patterning's this can be distorting to the action that distinction making >>>> generates. This is such a very fine line for me... Still working on it... >>>> >>>> By a “principles-based” practice of inquiry I am describing an agreement >>>> between co-participants to ways of working together which do not require a >>>> plan but which focus powerfully of how we are in practice with each other >>>> when we are in dialogue, participating in formal AL or AR designed >>>> interactions, utilising even conventional forms of research such as >>>> literature reviews and interviews... In my current work, we do have a plan >>>> as I am committed to a funded agreement, but the plan if very background to >>>> the foreground of being conscious of and attempting to realise agreed >>>> principles in our engagement with each other. We review them frequently >>>> adding more understanding to how they are present in our interactions – or >>>> missing and making amends. The amazing thing is, that the plan just >>>> happens... >>>> >>>> Regards models...as in a drawn map of elements which interact with each >>>> other and provide a stable construct within which to create knowledge - >>>> ....I like to work with Reason and Heron’s “extended epistemology” which >>>> tends not to be so linear as the model that you refer to (though apols, but >>>> I can’t track it – their Handbook model - p3, Reason and Bradbury 2001, and >>>> 2008 p5 doesn’t mention planning – the Kemmis and McTaggart’s model >>>> designed for educational applications does I believe ), and is less >>>> managerialist in that it engages with knowledge co-construction realised in >>>> considerations of practice, rather than implementing strategies which are >>>> frequently without practice considerations. >>>> >>>> The extended epistemology identifies an “up-hierarchy” from experiential, >>>> to presentational, to propositional to practical knowing which then cycles >>>> back to experiential and so on... >>>> >>>> This understanding of how we come to know reaches into any kind of >>>> epistemology that I at least, am aware of, as it feels like a broadly human >>>> way of being in the world. Then, if an organisation wants to use say, >>>> instrumental ways of working with the knowledge that is developing, this >>>> can be adopted in the transition from propositional to practical...without >>>> losing the richness of the founding three stages. I am not a supporter of >>>> instrumental knowledge, but accept that in certain settings, this is the >>>> default understanding of what knowledge is and sometimes we need to work to >>>> these embedded cultures of knowing rather than disturbing them. The up >>>> hierarchy is not time dependent, as each of its elements are present at the >>>> same time – we can stretch them out to work with them in depth, but in >>>> their native form, I have found them to be nested... >>>> >>>> The question of a linear cycle was something I did not realise until >>>> recently... I thought that the shift from a cause/effect line to recurring >>>> cycles overcame the problems with linearity. However I was made aware that >>>> linearity persists in cycles, due to the western notion of time which sees >>>> one thing leading to another in a planned way – plan, act, observe, >>>> reflect, plan.... >>>> >>>> If we use principles, without a planned sequence of events, then other >>>> forms of time and development can emerge. For example, a web structure, or >>>> relational dimensions which cannot even be mapped, with “synchronicity” and >>>> “potential”, underpinned by say critical reflection, playing a more central >>>> role. In this instance, the quality of being/relationships is the primary >>>> “model” - and the random/emergent and perhaps more “natural” way of working >>>> in change can become evident. We listen out for “what is coming about”, >>>> notice it and collaborate around it, rather than being compelled by what >>>> was planned, usually on the basis of what was unable to be known, and thus >>>> needing to overlook or perhaps not pay as much attention to what is coming >>>> about naturally from our inquiry. >>>> >>>> A planned approach is good if there are ongoing institutional resources to >>>> continue with the planning and implementation.... But for participatory AR >>>> processes to become sustainable in organisations and communities, then >>>> sometimes a more culturally embedded way of being together in change may be >>>> preferable. When planned approaches become unconscious or tacit, perhaps we >>>> have reached the same embeddings.. >>>> >>>> At perhaps a deeper and more spirit sensitive way of thinking about this, >>>> even if we involve those who are affected by what is planned in the >>>> planning and implementation, as current thinking about participatory >>>> criteria suggest, a plan, even an adaptable one, will still roll over >>>> something that exists and displace it with the embedded powers and their >>>> values that roll out permits. >>>> >>>> I don’t have much to offer at the moment regarding a resolution about >>>> this.. But am just conscious of how impositional our management cultures >>>> can be in certain contexts... >>>> >>>> Warmest >>>> S >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 25/05/10 4:10 AM, "Joan Walton" <[log in to unmask] >>>> <http:[log in to unmask]> <http:[log in to unmask]> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear Marie, Susan, and everyone, >>>>> >>>>> Marie - thank you for your comments and reflections on the AR conference >>>>> in Zagreb, and on Jack's notes on the conference in San Diego. They are >>>>> thought provoking and helpful. I agree that we "seem united in a >>>>> passionate motivation for improving our educational theory and practice >>>>> with the intention of making a life-enhancing difference to the learning >>>>> of self, others and the social formations in which we live and work, and >>>>> ultimately to the educational experience of children and young people." I >>>>> am currently thinking through how I might create my own account which >>>>> explains my practice. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Susan, I am enjoying all your contributions. I wonder, though, if you >>>>> would clarify a couple of points for me. You write: >>>>> >>>>> My experience of this has been abandoning models of AR such as the linear >>>>> plan, do, observe, reflect cycles and adopting a principle-basis of >>>>> inquiry practice. What I found was that the principles enable any >>>>> epistemology to be taken into an inquiry strategy while also maintaining >>>>> characteristics of the practice. This is very liberating when working >>>>> across say organisational cultures and into consumer networks within the >>>>> same inquiry strategy. >>>>> >>>>> I found Heron and Reasons’ Collaborative Inquiry principles to be perhaps >>>>> the most powerful of these. Such an approach enables participants to >>>>> invent how they go about their inquiry to suit their cultural and value >>>>> basis (self determination), while also being challenged by and learning >>>>> their way into the characteristics of AR. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 1. Heron & Reason's co-operative inquiry involves a 4 phase cyclical >>>>> process of reflection and action which includes planning - though I do not >>>>> experience this as a linear process, rather as a developmental 'spiral' >>>>> (which may lead to transformational outcomes). Are we seeing things >>>>> differently here, or would you differentiate between the cyclical process >>>>> you were describing, and Heron's cyclical process? >>>>> 2. Also, can you clarify for me what you mean by the 'principle-basis of >>>>> inquiry practice' - and more particularly what you are identifying Heron & >>>>> Reason's CI principles to be? I have my own immediate idea of what you >>>>> might mean, but would appreciate your explanation rather than me making >>>>> assumptions. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks - Joan >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 24 May 2010 00:50, Susan Goff <[log in to unmask] >>>>> <http:[log in to unmask]> <http:[log in to unmask]> >>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> Hello Marie and everyone >>>>>> I also rejoiced in Inoue’s PowerPoint and saw the powerful connections >>>>>> across our different approaches – and – see in Brian’s observation that >>>>>> AR has the capacity to embrace very different world views and with them >>>>>> personal/political/professional motivations. I believe the sense of >>>>>> commonality that you describe here comes from the systemic attributes of >>>>>> our field which work across and into a great variety (perhaps any) field, >>>>>> discipline or context – but that these systemic or generic >>>>>> characteristics can be translated into the specifics of narrative, person >>>>>> and context so that they can also create a great variety of approaches >>>>>> and outcomes. >>>>>> >>>>>> My experience of this has been abandoning models of AR such as the linear >>>>>> plan, do, observe, reflect cycles and adopting a principle-basis of >>>>>> inquiry practice. What I found was that the principles enable any >>>>>> epistemology to be taken into an inquiry strategy while also maintaining >>>>>> characteristics of the practice. This is very liberating when working >>>>>> across say organisational cultures and into consumer networks within the >>>>>> same inquiry strategy. >>>>>> >>>>>> I found Heron and Reasons’ Collaborative Inquiry principles to be perhaps >>>>>> the most powerful of these. Such an approach enables participants to >>>>>> invent how they go about their inquiry to suit their cultural and value >>>>>> basis (self determination), while also being challenged by and learning >>>>>> their way into the characteristics of AR. >>>>>> >>>>>> If I may say – a balance between unity and diversity is essential for a >>>>>> healthy strategy and field – maintaining the capacity to grow and >>>>>> challenge our own convictions while also adding to the depth of >>>>>> understanding about them as say the Inoue slides do... >>>>>> >>>>>> In friendship >>>>>> Susan >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 24/05/10 12:58 AM, "Marie Huxtable" <[log in to unmask] >>>>>> <http:[log in to unmask]> <http:[log in to unmask]> >>>>>> <http:[log in to unmask]> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have just returned from the AR conference in Zagreb and I am beginning >>>>>>> to reflect on what I have learned and the practical implications. I am >>>>>>> wondering whether as I do so I can build on what Jack has offered in >>>>>>> response to Brian’s posting 18th May 2010 where Brian stated: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ‘There are several different approaches to PAR, AR., ways of seeking to >>>>>>> improve professional practice, or to work with others to address agreed >>>>>>> issues...... as the literature or a BERA or CARN conference illustrate.. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There are different motivations for our work.’ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> During the Zagreb conference Tim Cain (Univ. Southampton, UK), Alan >>>>>>> Markowitz (College of St. Elizabeth, New Jersey, USA), Jack Whitehead >>>>>>> (Liverpool Hope Univ.) and Branko Bogna (Faculty of Philosophy in >>>>>>> Osijek, Croatia) shared their approaches to AR interactively with >>>>>>> teachers and other educators developing their research. Sanja Milovic, >>>>>>> Ninocka Truck-Biljan, and Dubravka Kovacevic from the Education and >>>>>>> Teacher Training Agency, Croatia, presented their research on AR as a >>>>>>> tool for professional development and the creation of learning >>>>>>> communities and networks. I was also very fortunate in being able to >>>>>>> attend a small workshop by Sanja Mandaric, a teacher from Djakova , ‘The >>>>>>> importance of values for teachers as action researchers’, which has >>>>>>> given me a great deal to think about. I hope Sanja will produce her >>>>>>> account of her work as I think it will inspire and challenge others as >>>>>>> it has me. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What was of interest to me was the degree of congruence between what on >>>>>>> the surface appeared very different approaches. Reading the power point >>>>>>> of Noriyuki Inoue (Univ. San Diego, USA) that Jack has made available on >>>>>>> http://www.actionresearch.net/writings/jack/jwprposting190510.htm and in >>>>>>> particular the two slides: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Practice-linked Cultural Concepts from Japanese culture >>>>>>> &bull思い (omoi) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> –Integrated form in thinking, feeling and passion that serve as driving >>>>>>> force of an individual or a group >>>>>>> &bull場 (Ba) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> –Communicative space for deepening understanding and building consensus >>>>>>> characterized by bounded instability >>>>>>> &bull反省 (Hansei) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> –Reflection on one’s moral obligation and duty >>>>>>> &bull絆 (Kizuna) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> –Enduring bond built among colleagues, friends, and family >>>>>>> &bull匠 (Takumi) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sophisticated skill built on advanced wisdom and experiences >>>>>>> >>>>>>> East Asian Epistemology >>>>>>> –Different from linear, deductive and confrontational way of knowing >>>>>>> –Assumption of complexity and dynamic understanding of reality >>>>>>> –Self as a part of the social, cultural, and physical context >>>>>>> –Reflection and compassion >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am struck by the resonance between what he says and those speaking in >>>>>>> Croatia. I disagree with Brian where he asserts, ‘There are different >>>>>>> motivations for our work’. I believe I share a motivation with the >>>>>>> educators I met. We came from a dozen different countries but seem >>>>>>> united in a passionate motivation for improving our educational theory >>>>>>> and practice with the intention of making a life-enhancing difference to >>>>>>> the learning of self, others and the social formations in which we live >>>>>>> and work, and ultimately to the educational experience of children and >>>>>>> young people. There was a common understanding that engaging in ‘action >>>>>>> research’ is emotionally and intellectually challenging, ‘messy’ and >>>>>>> life changing for the researcher. The incongruence between the >>>>>>> approaches provoked a creative, critical engagement with presenters and >>>>>>> audience as I sought to integrate what I also learned from >>>>>>> creating and offering a workshop on ‘children and young people as action >>>>>>> researchers.’ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 15th May 2010 Brian posted rhetorical questions: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ‘Is it not also important to subject Inclusionality to rigorous analysis >>>>>>> or experiential testing as a way of thinking? >>>>>>> Is not important to uncover the presuppositions, the world-view lying >>>>>>> underneath these ideas and to ask questions of their claims?’ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In response I would agree it is important on both accounts but not just >>>>>>> to talk in the abstract; I would contest that educators need to show and >>>>>>> account for their educational influence in learning. Over the next few >>>>>>> weeks I will try to create an account, building on what I have learned >>>>>>> from preparing and offering the workshop on ‘children and young people >>>>>>> as researchers’, which explains my practice. I will post it on my >>>>>>> website for anyone who will help me test the validity of my claim to >>>>>>> know what I am doing and to be making an educational difference in >>>>>>> learning, and offers a response to Brian’s questions: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - What is your rigorous analysis and experiential testing of your >>>>>>> way of thinking which underpins your efforts to improve what you do? >>>>>>> - What are your presuppositions, the world-view lying underneath >>>>>>> your ideas and the questions you ask of your claims? >>>>>>> And mine: >>>>>>> - What is your educational explanation for your educational >>>>>>> influence, in your own learning, the learning of others and the social >>>>>>> formations in which you live and work, as you hold yourself to account >>>>>>> for your practice? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I hope that others might also be willing to make their accounts public >>>>>>> and in doing so make a life-enhancing difference to the learning of >>>>>>> self, others and the social formations in which we live and work, and >>>>>>> ultimately improve the educational experience of more children and young >>>>>>> people. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Enjoy a smile and pass it on >>>>>>> Marie >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Jack Whitehead <[log in to unmask] >>>>>>> <http:[log in to unmask]> <http:[log in to unmask]> >>>>>>> <http:[log in to unmask]> > >>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask] >>>>>>> <http:[log in to unmask]> >>>>>>> <http:[log in to unmask]> >>>>>>> <http:[log in to unmask]> >>>>>>> Sent: Wed, 19 May, 2010 5:24:57 >>>>>>> Subject: Re: Education and Learning Virtual Networking Stream for >>>>>>> ALARA's 8th World Congress >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To emphasise the importance of the points Brian posted yesterday I've >>>>>>> posted some reflections from last week's 7th Annual Action Research >>>>>>> Conference in San Diego, USA, and this week's Action Research workshop >>>>>>> in Zagreb, Croatia at: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.actionresearch.net/writings/jack/jwprposting190510.htm >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The reflections include a welcome to Prof. Norijuki Inoue from the >>>>>>> University of San Diego whose presentation to the 7th Annual Conference >>>>>>> emphasised the importance of infusing non-western epistemology into >>>>>>> action research. Nori was supported by Prof. Satoshi Suzuki the Director >>>>>>> of Japan's Association for Action Research. The reflections include >>>>>>> details of the url to Nori's powerpoint presentation. The reflections >>>>>>> also report on the first Collaborative Action Research Network (CARN) >>>>>>> study day in North America, with a 4:50 minute video-clip of Lonnie's >>>>>>> introduction. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm finding most inspiring the range of different motivations in the >>>>>>> unique constellations of values that distinguished the diverse >>>>>>> contributors to both the San Diego and Zagreb AR Conferences. Yesterday >>>>>>> I participated in one discussion group of 6 of the 55 participants, with >>>>>>> individuals from Estonia, Latvia, Romania, Croatia, Czech Republic and >>>>>>> the UK ! We all communicated our individual action research accounts >>>>>>> from our diverse historical and cultural contexts and our unique >>>>>>> constellations of values. Here's hoping that the reflections communicate >>>>>>> something of our influence in extending the global influence of our AR >>>>>>> conversations. Tim did a great job in extending the audience's >>>>>>> understanding of AR. Marie and Branko are presenting tomorrow at the AR >>>>>>> conference in Zagreb. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Love Jack. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 18 May 2010, at 16:14, Brian wakeman wrote: >>>>>>> Dear All, There are just two comments I wish to contribute before signing off this thread: There are several different approaches to PAR, AR., ways of seeking to improve professional practice, or to work with others to address agreed issues...... as the literature or a BERA or CARN conference illustrate.. There are different motivations for our work. I hope there is space for us all. Brian >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> > >