Dear Susie and all,

Well, I feel I do share your disconcerted feeling, in many ways. I tried to 
share this feeling, along with a possible resolution for it, a few weeks 
ago.

The feeling is, I think, a sense of enforced betrayal, of being 
frogmarched/seduced along the corridors of power of the RAE in particular 
and academic culture in general, into an obligation to express our need for 
a respectful, supportive hearing in terms of a 'claim to fame'. How can a 
worldview formed from a sense of deep humility express itself in such 
terms? Yet how can it survive and thrive in the culture as is, if it 
doesn't? That good old Catch 22 arising out of false dichotomy again. Can 
one claim world leadership and international recognition in the art of 
humility?

What was my suggested resolution?

Essentially, it was to re-frame, within a 'living theory' context, the very 
meaning of 'educational leadership' from the prescriptive imposition of 
authority to the evolutionary navigation of transformation. Only the latter 
can provide the basis for true 'learning' and 'creative exploration' by 
'showing' what's possible, not 'telling' what's done.

Could anyone 'tell' me how to ride a bicycle? Just imagine the instruction 
manual  - let alone the lecturer with powerpoint - informing me how to 
calculate dynamic balances in ten dimensions simultaneously! But someone 
who through her own learning shows me what's possible and supports and 
encourages me as I gain the 'feel' of the flow the bike and I are 
inclusions of - now there's a form of leadership I can recognise without 
defining exactly how it's done. This is the form of leadership which I 
think may, in all humility - because it involves the humility of including 
oneself as a learner - be recognised as 'world leading' - but according to 
very different standards of judgement from those conventionally prescribed. 
I think this is what Jack may have been feeling for.


Warmest

Alan




--On 26 February 2007 17:02 +1100 Susan Goff <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Dear Jack, Alan, Je Khan, Edward and everyone
> Thank you for such a considered response Jack.
> I am still feeling disconnected about the things you are saying though,
> and unhappily. There are a variety points, which I have written about and
> then deleted, because it doesn't feel to be at the heart of it. Something
> isn't meeting for me.... So I wait with interest to see the new
> postings... It feels as if something is shifting for a few of us and that
> is exciting. Just wanted to say "thank you".
> Warmest
> Susie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 22/2/07 9:24 AM, "Jack Whitehead" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Just a word of thanks for the quality of your questions and responses
>> over the past 5 months. Last September I did not know how to
>> distinguish the knowledge created by practitioner-researchers as
>> world leading, internationally excellent, internationally recognised
>> and nationally recognised in terms of its originality, significance
>> and rigour. Now I can.  My capacity to do this has been realised
>> through responding to the quality of contributions to the e-seminar.
>> To avoid a long posting in the archive you can access my
>> understanding of the distinctions and how these have emerged through
>> responding and reflecting on your postings, at:
>>
>> http://www.jackwhitehead.com/jack/jwesemstandards.htm
>>
>> Love Jack.