 |
 |
Regarding the validation: I used the traditional PhD ones for my thesis: critical judgement and engagement with the literature and the ideas of other originality of mind significant contribution extent and merit I think my critique of the major writings and ideas of LET, its sources and influences and the secondary resources and sources was a thorough one. So did the examiners. I think it is an original thesis. So did my examiners. No one took LET and ontologised it into an ontological dialectical and phenomenological AR approach. I think the timing was a good one for this and there it was a significant contribution to the field there. As I said, the quality and level of PhDs is dropping and deteriorating. My grandfather got his doctorate in the 1930. And it is so much better than mine and a huge contribution to medicine. Every year the level is dropping. There is an inflation of PhDs. It is all becoming so commercialised. I do make use of the social validation for my dialectical tool: Was it a clear transformation and empowerment in the life, interrelationship and learning of the researcher? Did he/she learn to improve his/her interrelationship with self and others and construct a more meaningful, fulfilling and secure existence in the world for himself/herself? Of course it has to be clear and comprehensible and interesting and worthwhile and an educational experience to/for a reader and social validator. The irony is that most of my colleagues and friends who tried to read later Habermas said this has been a very difficult task, if at all possible. I only read the earlier to engage with LET. I focused on Freire and Gadamer. Language and expression and text are very important. Alon Quoting Alon Serper <[log in to unmask]>: > Dear Sarah, > > I rejoined this list yesterday because I had this insight of the > impressive work of Can Sonmez into poetry and cancer that I thought > Brian can benefit from. As I was concluding the email, I could not > resist but asking for a critique of my thesis on a critique of LET. > > I should like to stress very strongly that my thesis dealt with ideas > rather than people and was a critique of what I thought, until Jack's > reply yesterday, was the LET approach (Jack Whitehead's website and > publications). > > I do not deal with persons. I deal with ideas. > > I was left unsupervised when Jack retired in 2009 and we could not > draft the thesis I originally wanted on a therapeutic AR tool until > then. > > In fact, Jack did not see the thesis until after my Viva Voce when I > made it a point to come to him in person, the evening of my Viva, and > for him to be the first to get me a congratulatory drink at the > University's bar. > > I think it is all in my thesis that could be accessed from Jack's > website at http://actionresearch.net/living/serper.shtml. > > I also summarised the major critiques here, in this forum today. > > I think we live in a time where practitioners require a support and a > self-care tool. We are objectified, dehumanised, degraded, made > saturated and turned into tools and objects. Then, we are tossed like > used goods. > > I think the living contradictions and dialectics should be turned into > a self-care cathartic tool in which the practitioner, with the help of > fellow practitioners, create a dialectical AR account in the course of > which he/she identifies, delves into and processes situations in > his/her practice that make him/her feel and experience angst, > frustration, anger, exclusion, isolation, alienation, poor > relationships with self and others, and ontological void and > insecurity. Then, he/she can work out, with the help of colleagues, > action plans to dialectically and poietically transmute these poor > experiences and situations into a more meaningful, fulfilling and > securing existence in, with and towards the world for himself/herself. > > To do this, I turned Jack and Jean's original question into my, how do > I lead a more meaningful existence in the world for myself and > developed a method that turns auto-dialogical logging for oneself into > dialogical blogging with others. I offered this blogging method as > better than Jack's youtube method that I criticised. I also criticised > the turn into 'inclusionality' that I argued to new-agist and cultist > and lacking scholarship. I described my dialectical AR aternative to > LET > > Hence, my conclusion is that LET should abandon its epistemology focus > and the 'inclusionality' idea and youtube and move into a more > ontological, cathartic and auto-poietic form of dialectical, living, > concrete and embodied, AR. > > The main task in hand now for us all is to support the exhausted, > saturated and degraded practitioner as he/she is putting his/her > knowledge and LET accounts (explanation of practice and educational > transformation) into the public domain. > > When I first said this to Jack in 2004, he said that this is the task > of psychology not education. I did not like this division of labour as > I think the practitioner's well-being and health is the interest of all > and is interdisciplinary. I still hold this view. > > Alon > > Quoting Sarah Fletcher <[log in to unmask]>: > >> First of all, I would like to congratulate Alon for offering Jack, >> his PhD supervisor, such a worthy and a valuable retirement gift. >> Despite Jack's long standing invitation to engage with him about >> his ideas and his influence in educational contexts, there have >> been several who have attempted to do so - in fact in front of me >> here as I write this email I have the video (such a generous >> present) from David Tripp, who came all way from Australia to talk >> with him. Ironically, David levelled a very similar criticism of >> Jack's work at that time, namely that Jack was actually not >> drawing out evolving educational theories in the doctorates that >> he supervised. Instead, he was enabling reified accounts of >> practice about Lived Educational Theories - caught in the act of >> writing like, one might say, a butterfly pinned to a display board >> for anatomical dissection. I, too, last year tried to respond to >> the BERA Research Intelligence article where Jack invited >> discussion in an e-seminar. As Brian knows (thank you Brian for >> alerting me to this conversation today) sadly, Jack declined to >> engage in any dialogue whatsoever. Such strange behaviour, it >> seemed to me... >> >> My focus, and I would be grateful to understand more from Jack >> himself (apologies, Marie, I know you like to answer) about his >> interpretation of Habermas and its application in relation to >> validating living educational theory doctoral accounts , resides >> here: >> >> Validation appears to depend, for living educational theory >> doctoral submissions, on ascertaining whether an individual >> student has offered a credible account of events i.e. it seems >> believable by someone in the same location at the same time as an >> event described. This validator need not necessarily have even >> been present during a critical incident, for example, and might >> not be the person working most closely alongside the student as >> events, which he/she has recounted, progressed. The account has to >> be a 'believable' one. Now, taken to its logical conclusion we >> might have this scenario? This student decides to 'get a PhD' and >> elects to study with Jack. Feeling very annoyed at the apparent >> slow progress of his studies, he contacts another university but >> when he finds this will not be a speedier route at all, returns to >> study with Jack, he weaves his account of events around those >> sources of information Jack has listed for doctoral candidates to >> read. He adapts his language to align with others' living theories >> and he tells a good yarn. That it isn't validated by anyone other >> than his wife (also a student studying with Jack) is no concern. >> >> The examiner of the said thesis is unaware that there were others >> in the same location at the same time as events recounted and that >> they have been (not anonymised - that doesn't convey the nature >> of the depersonalisation that has occurred) rather excluded so >> that their voice cannot be heard. The validation cycle is closed. >> They are outside the validation process. I wonder if that could >> happen? If telling a believable account is at the root of the >> validation process for living educational theories, it could? >> >> Of course, the problem then is that when the innocent (or naive?) >> cite the merits of the account in a justification of the living >> educational theory approach, they would be extending the lie, the >> cheating, would they not? Any listener would be unaware? >> >> So - Alon, I would be grateful for your assistance (I admire your >> work, as you know). Could you give us insights into the major >> points where you have engaged in critique of Jack's approach to >> action research, please? What major conclusions were drawn? >> >> Many thanks for reading my lengthy email! >> >> Just an indication of my passion to learn! >> >> Sarah >> >> Sarah Fletcher >> >> Editor-in-chief for IJMCE (The International Journal for Mentoring >> and Coaching in Education - EMERALD Press) and Convenor for the >> BERA Mentoring and Coaching Special Interest Group (2005 to date). >> My website at http://www.TeacherResearch.net >> >>