 |
 |
Guys, I'm inspired by many of your posts, and yet, they do my head in. May I humbly offer an insight from the bleaches? In my experience, effective communication is SIMPLE communication. Is the GOAL to increase your audience; to grow inclusion? What IS your context; is it big picture? What is it that you do; REALLY? These three questions that, when addressed creatively, may give fresh oxygen to your groups great work. A book called "Make it Stick" is an excellent resource for clear, simple, context focused communication. It spells out how to say what you want to say with the listener/audience in mind. When connect with your listener/audience - when you are in rapport, you take responsibility for having yourself heard. Does my observation trigger stimulate your curiosity; your willingness to step outside of the square? You may be interested in having a peep at a website that does book summaries and, usefully, suggests actions that can be taken to implement the big ideas of each title 'rapped'. It is: bookrapper.com The writer 'rapped' an insightful book "Make it Stick"; you'll find it on the website. I found the content, and context, to be an excellent tool in getting myself heard by the reader/viewer. Still learning; and hope to continue to do so! Hope my comment is received in the caring spirit that is intended. Thanks for permitting a keen amateur to be on the sidelines of your interesting - yet overwhelmingly words - postings. Kind regards Diana On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 1:39 AM, Salyers, Sara M <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > Dear Jack and Everyone, > > This is extremely timely for me also. I am in the process of (slowly) > submitting my application for a D.Prof by public works, whose thesis is > provisionally titled 'Breaking the Silence - The Power of Giving Voice to > the Voiceless'. In one way or another, I have been pursuing this aim > throughout my career in television production and latterly, college > teaching. But it is just one, though crucial, element of a world-view in > which people, their needs, aspirations, values and abilities, are *not* > means to an end, (as in the ends of a privileged few!), but incalculably > valuable ends in themselves. > > I am certain that education - at least in the English speaking world - is > designed to fail. That is, designed to succeed according to objectives and > assumptions that belong to the Victorian/Edwardian industrial era. Those > objectives and assumptions still underpin the edifice, unseen and usually > unquestioned as one reform after another is tried and failed. Ira Socol > has useful information and analysis on this. > http://speedchange.blogspot.co.uk/p/counting-origins-of-failure.html: > > "If education in the United States of the 21st Century is failing, that > failure has been built over a very long time. And I do not think that it > can be “fixed” in any meaningful way unless people understand that the > failures we see today are our system working exactly as it was intended to. > Yes, that’s what I’m saying. Our American public education system is doing > exactly what it was designed to do. It is separating “winners” from > “losers” and it is reinforcing our economic gap. The system was designed in > the 1840s and at the turn of the 20th Century to separate society into a > vast majority of minimally trained industrial workers and a small, educated > elite. It was designed to enforce White, Protestant, Middle-Class, > “Typically-abled” standards on an increasingly diverse American population. > A few blessed children in each generation who met those standards might > move up in society. The rest would be consigned to low wage manual labor. > It was designed to ensure that the children of the elites had the > opportunities they needed to remain the elite. Everything about the system > – from the way schools are funded, to the way standards are created, to the > system of tests, to our peculiar form of college admissions, to our notions > of disability – was created to meet the employment goals of the United > States from the mid 19th Century to the mid 20th Century." > > The same can be said of the similarly Prussian based systems of Britain > and her former colonies. (I have done enough research to corroborate > Socol's assertions, as have many others.) No matter what reforms are > implemented, we continue to retain the original factory/programming model > of education: by 'date of manufacture' (Ken Robinson); by the bell and in > artificial and intelligence-destroying units of time; by memorization and > testing; through reward and punishment; using colonizing subject matter > unrelated and irrelevant to students or worse, (e.g. teaching only English > history in Scottish schools, teaching geography from world maps that > grossly misrepresent that true physical sizes of countries such as Britain > and the USA), and colonizing practices (e.g. teaching the disappearing > dialect of an English upper class as the norm - 'proper' English' while all > others are inferior and 'improper') and the overall and underlying horror > of basing education upon the notion that children/students are deficient to > begin with and it is our task as educators to 'fix' them, turning them into > that which 'society' requires. (Ye gods!) > > I believe there are many, many people who recognize that we need an > entirely new model, an entirely new paradigm for education, currently still > operating as the machine that turns out fodder for the economic machines of > a world that has gone. But we can't imagine a new model unless we have > already embraced a new paradigm. And, I believe, we can't embrace a new > paradigm unless we can create one - together. One of my ambitions is to > create an 'Institute for Transformational Studies'. It is an ambition based > on this truth: everything we do, every relationship we have, every decision > we make and every belief we hold, is ontological in its foundation. *Who we > are being* is what leads to whatever we are doing, however we are doing it > and what we believe about the choices we are making. Questions such as > 'Who am I being and who could I choose to be?' assume very different values > and outcomes for education from the unspoken but ever-present, "How can I > prove how much I know and that I know the right things?" We questions and > measure what we know and what we can do - not who we are being and what we > could choose to be. WE live in the paradigm of the noun ; I suggest that we > need a pradigm of the verb! > > My proposition here, is that the values and morals we cherish in this > community depend on the assertion that a human being is an end in himself > or herself and not a means to some economic or social (whose society?) > good. I suggest that this moves the arena of debate into ontology and opens > the way to a new paradigm for collective endeavor, one that would inspire a > new model for education. I would like to explore what this means, how > Action Research and Living Theory express just such a paradigm and most of > all, how would we build curricula for living around such a paradigm. > > Sorry for being long-winded. Excited and thinking out loud! > > Love > > Sara > > > From: Practitioner-Researcher [[log in to unmask]] On > Behalf Of Marian Naidoo [[log in to unmask]] > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 5:23 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Researching Our Own Practice > > Hi All > Happy New Year > > This is an excellent idea and for me and Shaun incredibly timely. Robyn I > can feel your frustration and it resonates with our experience working in > Birmingham and Solihull since the summer. We have been working very closely > with communities with a focus on frail older people and in particular those > living with Dementia. We are on the brink of something extraordinary - but > just when you think you are there you face an unexpected challenge. We feel > we have to make this work because it is too important to the people we have > connected with - people who struggle on a day to day basis and many of whom > live lonely and frightened lives. We have been able to film the > conversations we have been having with people in communities many of whom > have been labelled as "hard to reach". Having had this opportunity to > engage in this way may, I hope, create the tipping point that we need. > Love > Marian > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 10 Jan 2013, at 08:57, Margaret Riel <[log in to unmask]<mailto: > [log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > Happy New Year to all of you... > > I am just going to pick up on small part of the message. What if we > experimented with google+ and its new feature to "broadcast" a session. > As I understand it, up to 10 people (possible 15 although the last time I > tried it, we could not get more than 10) in a discussion but then with the > broadcast function the session is saved and and can be shared. Maybe we > can have some scheduled chats that are then saved in the broadcast feature. > It would take some planning as we have time zones to deal with but it > might be fun. > > Margaret > > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:13 AM, Lawrence Martin Olivier < > [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > Hi All > > I think this is an excellent idea and I welcome these kind of > conversations as well as making them available on youtube - the more > contextual the richer - we can then see, hear and feel the "energy", the > "co-operative enquiry" - the less reductionist! > > A comment on Jack's idea on transforming and transcending the "influences > of economic rationalism", meaning the worldwide phenomenon of neo-liberal > capitalism - the ongoing debate between the role of markets (free > enterprise) and government. North Korean society is a good example to me, > of how frightening excessive government control is and the USA is a > glearing example of the dangers of uncontrolled markets (free enterprise) - > as testified by the Wall Street financial crisis a few years ago and the > gun crisis today. I see the problem as like a football match - do we need a > referee, some one to regulate a good game of football, do we need rules of > football etc. Of course we do. So the problem and solution for the economy > is similar - we need the role of markets and prices to help make some of > the decisions and we are also need to consider the public interest, we need > government and we need the "the values we believe carry hope for the future > of humanity". One of the best education systems in the world, in Finland is > entirely state driven - people do not have to pay high prices in markets to > get the best education - the best education is free! > > Another point is unlimited economic growth is not sustainable for humanity > and the planet - there is only one earth and we need universal / global > ways to share the earth equitably - so that all of us and all on it can > survive. The New Economics Foundation UK explores these issues more > systematically - they "put people and the planet first" / "economics as if > people and the planet mattered", please visit their website nef. > > Lawrence > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Practitioner-Researcher [mailto: > [log in to unmask]<mailto: > [log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Jack Whitehead > Sent: 09 January 2013 10:15 PM > To: [log in to unmask]<mailto: > [log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: Researching Our Own Practice > > Here's wishing everyone a most pleasurable and productive New Year as we > continue our conversations. > > Dear Je Kan, Maggie, Marie, Andy, Nigel, Chris, Lynn, William, Julie, > Kate, Joan (C ), Delysia, Phil, Sigrid, Joan (W), Maureen, Shelagh, Sonia, > Pete (Mellett), Yvonne, Fran, Steve, Pete (Mountstephen) Jackie, Liz, Cathy > and ALL > > There's an intuition and an idea I'm curious about and that, if you are > willing, I'd like to explore with you over the next few months. > > My intuition is that something significant, generative and transformatory > could emerge from making available on youtube, video-conversations in which > we share with each other what we are doing. I'm thinking of sharing in ways > that allow us all to understand more about the contexts in which we are > working, the values we use to give meaning and purpose to our lives and the > accounts/research reports we are producing as knowledge-creators. > > I believe that we are all living, working and researching with relational > perspectives which, if we clarified these in the course of their emergence > in what we are doing, they could help to both transform what counts as > educational knowledge and transcend the influences of economic rationalist > policies that lead to de-valuation and de-moralisation and which we are all > experiencing to different degrees: > > "Nevertheless, the new ‘economic rationalism’ is a worldwide phenomena > which ‘guides’ not only the conduct of transnational corporations, but > governments and their agencies as well. It does so with increasing efficacy > and pervasiveness. I use the term ‘guides’ here in quotes to make a > particular point. Economic rationalism is not merely a term which suggests > the primacy of economic values. It expresses commitment to those values in > order to serve particular sets of interests ahead of others. Furthermore, > it disguises that commitment in a discourse of ‘economic necessity’ defined > by its economic models. We have moved beyond the reductionism which leads > all questions to be discussed as if they were economic ones (de-valuation) > to a situation where moral questions are denied completely > (de-moralisation) in a cult of economic inevitability (as if greed had > nothing to do with it). Broudy (1981) has described ‘de-valuation’ and > de-moralization’ in the following way: > De-valuation refers to diminishing or denying the relevance of all but one > type of value to an issue; de-moralization denies the relevance of moral > questions. The reduction of all values – intellectual, civic, health, among > others – to a money value would be an example of de-valuation; the slogan > ‘business’ is business’ is an example of de-moralization (Broudy, 1981: > 99)" (McTaggart, 1992, p. 50). > > McTaggart, R. (1992) Reductionism and Action Research: Technology versus > convivial forms of life, pp. 47-61 in Bruce, C. S. & Russell, A. L. (1992) > Transforming Tomorrow Today. Brisbane, University of Queensland, Australia. > > The idea I'd like us to explore together if you feel like it, is that we > could pool our life-affirming energy (Sonia's idea), the values we believe > carry hope for the future of humanity and our knowledge-creating > capacities, in a co-operative enquiry in which we work at living our > co-operative values as fully as possible. I like Maureen's editorial for > the December 2011 issue of the Journal of Co-operative Studies in which she > outlines co-operative values. > > See - http://www.actionresearch.net/writings/breeze/mbeditorial.pdf > > Breeze, M. (2011) Guest Editorial. Transforming Education Through > Co-operation – A Force for Change. Journal of Co-operative Studies, 44(3); > 2-4. > > All I'm asking you to do at the moment is to think about this intuition > and idea. > > This Friday (11/01/130 I'm part of Chris (Jones') Ph.D. transfer seminar > at Liverpool Hope University and hope to video the conversation in which > Chris will be sharing some ideas on 'living empowerment' within her > question: 'How Do I Promote Inclusion by Living My Values and Developing > Standards of Judgement to which I Hold Myself Accountable' (Working title > of Thesis) > > I'll think a bit more about my intuition and idea before writing any more, > but if you feel like sharing your own thoughts/feelings please do. > > Shelagh has already responded: > > On 9 Jan 2013, at 18:13, Shelagh Hetreed wrote: > > Hi there, > > Food for thought indeed. Your description sparks many thoughts that are > jangling around unconnected at the moment. Or are they? > I see how education reduces learning and knowledge to a tried and tested > formula that works for some and so is applied regardless of the > consequences for those for whom it clearly doesn't work. > I think of my BME elders and the elderly in general who are reduced to > stereotypes and labels of being 'burdens' with little to offer society. > I see professionals who operate inclusivity above a thin veneer but when > you scratch the surface below that veneer, their values become shaky. > I see the 'us' and 'them' being a cunning device to compartmentalise us to > be 'with us' or 'against us' and have been following the astonishing > explosion of anger over the flying of a piece of cloth (or not) by the so > called 'loyalists'. Loyalists, now there is a thesis waiting to be written! > I am learning so much about India, attitudes to caste and gender in the > aftermath of the appalling Delhi murder. It is not ok for Indian families > to be selective about aborting their girl babies but it is ok for us in the > West to abort any baby that is not wanted. > > There is so much that I am thinking and questioning, that I am saddened or > appalled by. It does all tie up for me and relates to your notion of > reductionism. I am thinking of key words like belonging, including, > tolerating, accepting is where we need to focus. > > I am very excited by your intuition and look forward to discussions, > debates and challenges and us each caring about the others field of study > and personal journeys. > > Hope some of this makes sense! > > Shelagh > > > ________________________________ > > "This e-mail is subject to our Disclaimer, to view click > http://www.dut.ac.za/pages/22414" > > > > -- > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Margaret Riel <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> > Chair M. A in Learning Technologies > Pepperdine University > Phone: (760) 618-1314 > http://faculty.pepperdine.edu/mriel/office > BLOG: http://mindmaps.typepad.com/ > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >