> Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 09:00:05 +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]
>
> As I said in my thesis and here. LET is either, and mostly,
> ridiculed, dismissed and not bothered with or unconditionally accepted
> by few. This is fine. The critique got me the PhD and closure and a
> moving on.
>
> I think I got my answer about critiquing my critique. Having reached
> closure, I am now able to move on to use my dialectical
> ontological/therapeutic AR to bridging, health and wellbeing. Which I
> regard to be far more important and meaningful, to me at least, than
> this endless incomprehensible rambling on and on and on about 'energy
> flowing in space', the 'bad Western academy and ways of knowing',
> 'ubuntu', chi, and the idea that will, not less, save humanity from
> the inevitable doom, - 'incusionality' - and how we cannot express
> ourselves with verbal language and need to resort to youtube clips.
> And many more ingenious ideas that I was too busy with my
> ontological/cathartic AR and creative therapeutic writing for health
> and wellbeing to attend to.
>
> There are enough cults in the world. One more will not hurt.
>
>
> Quoting geisha rebolledo <[log in to unmask]>:
>
> >
> > 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
> >> >
> >> >
> >