 |
 |
Dear Sarah and Alon, Sorry !! But I have the feeling after reading your mail today that I read this ideas before . Let!s the light of God to be with you to clean old remorses, love, geisha > Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 18:13:37 +0100 > From: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: How to establish an environment that calls out the most and the best of everyone > To: [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 > > > >