 |
 |
On 14 Aug 2010, at 20:39, Kathy Bauman wrote: > Does everyone in the e-conference need to share the same definitions? If action research draws people here but we don't all agree with each other or each others values or beliefs, isn't that a good thing? I may not agree with "all the congregates" under the umbrella of action research at this site but I think it is wonderful that the voices are here and being shared together. We can challenge each others assumptions, invite each other to look at things in new ways as you have helped me to see that to heal and grow as an individual I will need to be dynamically tied to my community. > > I know that I am new to your ideas and the ideas of natural inclusion, but isn't this a part of it or do I misunderstand? > > I do very much look forward to many more words from you here at this site and from all the rest of you as we invite each other to learn and grow in our research. I am not going to spell check or edit this in any way (which is unheard of for me) but send it will all my love in the hopes that it is a good idea. I apologize if I have offended anyone in my writing but I find with reflection that I don't apologize if I have made you uncomfortable as I have grown much by the discomfort of different thinking as I embrace the dynamic writings of all of you. Hi Kathy and all - I think the reason I find your letters so refreshing is because I feel they carry the life-affirming energy and values that, for me, carry hope for the future of humanity and my own. I particularly like your point that we can challenge/question each other's assumptions and invite each other to look at things in new ways. This is one of the reasons I'm so committed to the sharing of our explanations of our educational influences in learning. I think that we can help each other in living our values as fully as we can. Please give my best wishes to Jacqueline Delong - I helped to co-tutor with Jacqueline the first MA cohort at Brock University in 2000 and it was one of the delights of my professional life. On 12 Aug 2010, at 03:14, Kathy Bauman wrote: >> Can I contribute more to the education of my students by caring for and about myself? I'd be tempted to modify your question about 'contributing more' because I think you might find it very difficult or impossible to show that you are contributing 'more' to the education of your students by caring for and about yourself. Relating 'more' to 'caring' might not be possible. It might be that in answering the related question: 'How am I contributing to the education of my students through caring for and about myself?' you could show how caring for and about yourself was contributing to the education of your students. I'm hoping that this resonates with your intention. On 14 Aug 2010, at 18:15, Alan Markowitz wrote: > > I was wondering if you can help me understand the role of the knowledge base in our respective fields in this process. Hi Alan (and all) I work with four ideas in distinguishing different contributions to the educational knowledge-base. First there are insights from propositional theories such as Sen's economic theory of human capability. Second that are insights from dialectical theories such as Ilyenkov's dialectical logic. Third there are insights from natural inclusionality, where Alan's idea of a relationally dynamic awareness of space and boundaries as continuous, connective, reflexive and co-creative informs the generation of my own living educational theory. Fourth there are the living educational theories that emerge from the knowledge-creating capacities of individuals as they explore the implications of asking, researching and answering questions of the kind, 'How do I improve what I am doing?'. In my own professional life I've focused on enhancing the knowledge-base with the contributions from the knowledge-creating capacities of individual action researchers as they enquiry into improving what they are doing. On 14 Aug 2010, at 23:21, Alan Markowitz wrote: > I have difficulty believing that everything guiding one's practice comes totally from within. I'd go a bit further than this Alan in saying that I don't believe that everything guiding one's practice comes totally from within. It seems to me to be beyond reasonable doubt that what any individual is doing, in exploring the implications of asking 'How do I improve what I am doing?', is asking the question in a particular social and ecological context that is influenced by historical, economic and socio-cutural practices. This is why I advocate engaging with the most advanced social theories of the day in the generation of one's own living educational theory. I'm also with Joan in feeling a flow of a loving dynamic energy that is experienced 'within' but flows through our living spaces with a cosmic rather than social grounding. I like the way Joan describes this: "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." see http://www.actionresearch.net/living/walton.shtml . What particularly attracts me in supporting the evolution of living educational theories is that the explanatory principles include the values that individuals use to give meaning and purpose to their lives and which guide what they are doing. I'm hopeful that your responses to my own accounts will help me to learn how to live a more loving and productive life as I seek to enhance my contributions to supporting young people and adults to make their own contributions and to share these through their own living theories - such as those like Robyn's sharing of her value of alongsideness at http://www.actionresearch.net/living/robynpound.html . Kathy - I think you'll enjoy Robyn's homepage and especially the video-clips through which I think Robyn is expressing meanings of her embodied value of alongsideness. For me, the video-clips show Robyn expressing her/a loving and life-enhancing energy. Love Jack.