Hi Sue, I  mostly agree with you  and that is where the ethics of the 
space is important. It is not my place to silence Sarah nor would I 
wish to . She and I have had some great exchanges in the past. I do 
feel that it could be approached in such a manner that a case which is 
under formal investigation is not prejudge in a public forum. My 
supervisor and I do not agree on every thing which has been part of the 
joy of the process and both he and I have grown in the process. I am 
lucky in that we a deep friendship and respect for each other. However 
I also have to recognize as does he that the power relationships exist 
. He holds the power of institutional pedagogy and also the 
responsibility to “ Do his Job”. I have been a demanding student, not 
prepared to accept the party line and clashed many times over the 
system. Like pip’s posting, my supervisor has a success rate which is 
quite high as each candidate seems to find in them to met the criterion 
and not loose themselves. I was ready to submit my first draft a year 
ago. smile. I am so glad I did not and I listened all be it grudgingly 
and I now believe I have a document that meets the criterion where as I 
year ago it would not have come close. . I do so identify with Pips 
story of writing and rewriting until I received the blessings of my 
supervisor. In a way that is their job.

So I do see Sarah’s process as important , I just strongly feel that 
this way is not correct. I do not mean to hurt  but I can not just be 
silent as others are hurt. Did not some one else say some thing about 
when good men stay silent??

I truly understand your compassion for the hurt you feel and that I 
have been responsible for it or added to it. In this case I am deeply 
sorry but there was little I could other than be silent and that no 
longer is an option in my life..Feeling hurt is part of loving which is 
the same pain that I feel when I have to write as I have done.

Love and respect Je Kan



Quoting Susan Goff <[log in to unmask]>:

> Thank you Je Kan for such consideration and understanding of what is at
> stake here...
> I am not informed of the back story as you say,
> New people get caught up into recurring stories, nevertheless, and perhaps
> there is reason for this.
> I concur with your about naming people...
> However, I am not sure that I agree that what Sarah is saying is
> disassociated with out quest. I read it has first hand experience of a
> system at work regarding the gate-keeping recognition of LET. It seemed that
> the conversation went in the direction of trusting our supervisors' wisdom.
> I have heard the most dreadful stories about how some supervisors have
> behaved with their doctoral students so I do not consider this to be
> untouchable ground. It is part of the discourse about judging what is
> knowledge particularly when such a judgement has so much power attached to
> it.
> I also think that deep hurts have their own life span no matter how much we
> try to reason them away. I agree with finding the edges, but I also believe
> in understanding and compassion. I agree as you say that such understanding
> should be shared around equally, with respect and justice. But I feel at
> this moment that Sarah has been silenced, and I feel pain about that.
> My thought about mutual embrace of all the voices included that of the
> examiners'. I think it is vital that we include formal,felt, enacted,
> reconstructed, and envisioned truths.
>
> I will see how others fell about this.
> Warmest and heart felt thanks
> Susie
>
> On 16/2/07 5:33 PM, "Rev Je Kan Adler-Collins" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Sue, yes I believe it is inclusional, I also believe that this is a
>> list with a specific aim or boundary in mind that of being a discussant
>> forum for the on coming BERA forum. This space has been opened to
>> invite practitioners to communicate and to give the chance for
>> practitioners to share accounts of their teaching and learning.  If the
>> space was a therapeutic healing space or an industrial tribunal  I feel
>> it would have those values made clear. Often past events are brought up
>> that other members have experienced before and history is repeating
>> itself. While newer members are not aware of the history associated
>> with this debate.  While this would be useful in a general discussant
>> forum and I believe this topic has been discussed on other lists. It
>> detracts focus and space from the objectives of this list. I also feel
>> that when ever some one disagrees and we talk of emotional honesty,
>> people become defensive and seek explanations. It is not and never will
>> be a perfect space for all. Many try and hold values, try and live them
>> and find them negated in their practices or by colleagues. Such is the
>> nature of this space.
>>
>> Sue , you wrote; How does this community of participants provide a safe
>> place for this moment to be? I believe that part of that process is to
>> say when something is not felt to be safe as I am saying about this
>> situation with Sarah and her PhD failure. It takes up and detracts from
>> engagement with the purpose of this list. It is not a new debate and I
>> think it is crossing an ethical values line. Being inclusional is not
>> about accepting every thing it is for me about finding the boundaries
>> of my knowing and tolerance and the beginning of my ignorance and
>> intolerance. Again a very useful process one that I would under normal
>> circumstance enjoy. I believe it is immoral to discuss some thing that
>> does not concern us and that is under review. That is a value that is
>> not be exclusional rather it is including the silent voices of the
>> examiners past and present. If this list was a discussion about PhD
>> procedure and the right sand wrongs of critical judgement calls then
>> perhaps if the examiners were represented it would be suitable. But
>> this is not and they are not.
>> Social rules are those accepted as the norm by the society or context.
>> This list is international and as such a social or cultural difference
>> has to be made clear by the individual and they can inform why the
>> event, words, or situation is culturally in appropriate. Paulus served
>> in this role many times pointing out in his passionate way the short
>> failings and insensitivities of members values. While at times I was
>> scarified by such encounters , some times the truth in his words left
>> me shocked my by blindness.. Here in my context I have been telling of
>> the usefulness of being associated with BERA and how it can help. I
>> have had to deal with staff members who are uneasy about the subjects
>> being raise. It is just not understood what Sarah¹s PhD problems have
>> to do with the British Education Research Association.
>>
>> Sue wrote: Why is it that one person's felt rightfulness to open
>> something for public
>> discourse is so deeply in contradiction to another's? (Is this just the
>> awkwardness of which I spoke?) Just because one feels some thing is
>> right does not give that individual the right to inflict their
>> rightness on others. Open to public debate is a serious issue not least
>> governed by the laws of slander. This list is semi public and as such
>> has social rules of behavior usually it is not necessary for a list
>> mediator to use mediation and in all the years Jack and I have done our
>> lists we have never silenced an individuals¹ right to speak. If Jack
>> and I failed to hold the space then Brian as the BERA coordinator would
>> and has  intervened to refocus on the topic of the list when in its
>> passion it has drifted off course
>> Ethics play an important role in the formation of global links as this
>> list is doing.  Sue you wrote: What is the cosmological potential of
>> each person's construction in mutual embrace of the other? Where is the
>> embrace of the examiners in this debate? They are part of the other ,
>> they have equal rights, the naming of people in a critical context is
>> for me problematic if the voice of the other is silent. I say for me,
>> because the violation of another human being is some thing that I find
>> so distressing. If I have some thing to say I attempt as best I can to
>> say it in such a manner that it is not male authority, rightness,
>> whiteness or power speaking . I am always deeply conscious of the other
>> for it is my life¹s work to serve and to help. I hold the belief that
>> this debate is wrong, directive and sucks people in to a public
>> quicksand about issues they do not know or understand.  Many teachers
>> on this list are not engaged in their PhD rather they are engaged in
>> every day teaching in schools, colleges and universities. I strongly
>> feel that Sarah is not doing herself any favors here as so I have
>> stated.  If I did not care I would remain silent however I do care,
>> about Sarah and about the examiners, about this community. This whole
>> situation is just so wrong and it has happened before. That time I did
>> not speak but then I was not so clear on my values and the effort it
>> has taken to get the Japanese interested in BERA. Not every one is so
>> tolerant as this space holders are. If other member feel that they wish
>> it to continue that is the choice of each individual makes. What makes
>> the space is the knowing when a boundary has been reached, in my case
>> one has. Our difference are what make up the richness of our community,
>> when such differences are about the ethical treatment of others, then
>> some form of debate has to ensue.
>>
>> Thanks for the questions I hope I helped answer them
>> Je Kan
>>
>>
>>
>> Quoting Susan Goff <[log in to unmask]>:
>>
>>> Dear friends
>>> Is this an inclusional hotspace?
>>> I am asking this in honesty - and I would love to encourage the wisdoms of
>>> our thinking/practice around inclusional living theory into this 
>>> moment with
>>> Sarah, Je Kan and others.
>>>
>>> Je Kan is suggesting, I think, that there are taken for granted 
>>> protocols of
>>> what demarks an honest public space, and what an honest private space.
>>> Please let me know if this is not what is at stake Je Khan.
>>>
>>> I sense implicit orthodoxies at work about this - both from Je Khan, and
>>> from Sarah, and from Marie. Delineations about "beyond the scope" and "a
>>> little tension" for example; expectations of a stance in public 
>>> honesty that
>>> includes the speaker as part of the problem.
>>>
>>> Is this objectifying the transgression/s?
>>>
>>> How does this community of participants provide a safe place for 
>>> this moment
>>> to be?
>>>
>>> I am interested to know what the taken for granted protocols are, their
>>> origins and with what authority they are spoken.
>>>
>>> Why is it that one person's felt rightfulness to open something for public
>>> discourse is so deeply in contradiction to another's? (Is this just the
>>> awkwardness of which I spoke?)
>>>
>>> What ethics are at work? What is the cosmological potential of either
>>> person's construction of this moment and its issues? What is the
>>> cosmological potential of each person's construction in mutual embrace of
>>> the other?
>>>
>>> Love
>>> Susie
>>>
>>>
>>> On 16/2/07 12:20 PM, "Rev Je Kan Adler-Collins" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>   I am reading the thread that has emerged with just a little tension.
>>>> Soon I shall be facing my viva and as with I suspect what all
>>>> candidates feel a degree of concern as the years of study, costs in
>>>> terms of sustaining the study in my life world and how the PhD research
>>>> took over and colonized my life. I have to believe that the
>>>> establishment I am working with has the moral integrity to validate my
>>>> work at the required level. If I do not believe this then my work has
>>>> no purpose, what is the point? I am not aware that universities
>>>> deliberately fail students. If a thesis was not passed then several
>>>> questions have to be asked in honesty by the individual of themselves.
>>>> Sarah, I am concerned that you are using this BERA list for a subject
>>>> that is highly personal with an agenda where your honesty could be
>>>> questioned. Questioned in the sense you are filling the space with
>>>> questions that you seek answers to about a situation you went through
>>>> and examiners who can not or should not be held to account in a forum
>>>> of this public nature. All that you post concerning this comes from
>>>> your interpretation of events. You say that you have waited three years
>>>> for an appeal, in such a case then, I respectfully suggest that your
>>>> case be heard by those it concerns and at such times as the appeal has
>>>> been settled it would be appropriate to discuss it in a public
>>>> educational forum.  It is not my place to engage with comments about
>>>> your examiners or read questions that are to my feeling not honest I
>>>> have a sense of being lead to an ambush one where my words in a public
>>>> forum may appear out of context or used in furthering your debate or
>>>> engagement with your agenda and issues. One of the most painful things
>>>> I had to face in my own writing was I was not being honest about my
>>>> being part of the problem and part of the solution. Systems are not
>>>> perfect things and rightly should be challenged, in the correct way.
>>>> Have you thought how your examiners must feel about the sustained
>>>> pressure you have placed on them in public over the years of your
>>>> appeal?  Have you also though how you may be doing damage to your own
>>>> case as others may not wish to be your examiner and be placed under the
>>>> public scrutiny you have placed others who do not agree with you? In my
>>>> life I have failed things that were crucial events to me, but I
>>>> reflected on the failure and learned form it. I either retested or
>>>> moved on.  This is not attacking you, or not seeing you, or not
>>>> listening to you . It is me saying in my own honesty that enough is
>>>> enough.  Conversations about your issues with a university are for you
>>>> to resolve I believe it is unethical to discuss it further. We have
>>>> known each other for many years Sarah, honesty includes the love and
>>>> compassion for the other. Some times we do not see clearly as we speak
>>>> our truth as our truth can easily lose its base. For me honesty is
>>>> about open fairness as a value, using clear language, clear questions,
>>>> having no hidden agendas. So at the risk of receiving your anger I
>>>> care enough to be honest  with you and accept that in so doing I am
>>>> placing my thoughts and values to the forefront.
>>>> Love and deep rest ( Honest!)
>>>> Je Kan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Quoting Susan Goff <[log in to unmask]>:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear Pip and everyone
>>>>> Thank you for this memory - that experience was such a sad one for me - I
>>>>> had laboured for so long with the speech and there were so few
>>>>> people in the
>>>>> room to hear it - but the reality that you were there and that the
>>>>> memory of
>>>>> it is not just mine alone is so affirming. I have great admiration and
>>>>> respect for those amongst us, such as your self, that hold our 
>>>>> stories with
>>>>> such warmth and loving ability to weave them back into the 
>>>>> present, as you
>>>>> do.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree (almost too strongly I suspect) with you about honesty. I am
>>>>> intrigued by the relationship between honesty and truth... And think that
>>>>> honesty is the behaviour associated with how we know truths. But 
>>>>> this is an
>>>>> undeveloped thought - are there any other insights here? I feel
>>>>> uncomfortable about the  notion of "behaviour" of any kind given its
>>>>> construction as a mechanical procedure by naturalist and psychological
>>>>> studies in the past. Can we know behaviour differently?
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, being honest is multi-dimensional - not jut about
>>>>> behaviour... In that
>>>>> I think when we are honest we are so, warts and all, and I think its that
>>>>> part of being honest that scares us. In other words, it is not honest to
>>>>> objectify one's confession in my view. It requires being accepted
>>>>> for who we
>>>>> are, which is so different from what we might aspire to be in order to be
>>>>> recognised in our world, or perhaps to make up for who we know or are
>>>>> finding our selves out to be (and this is not a stuck sense of 
>>>>> being - but
>>>>> ever flowing). Being honest is also tricky - the self confessional
>>>>> style can
>>>>> feel like asking to get away with murder, because being honest is a good
>>>>> enough price to pay... It can make people feel very awkward and not
>>>>> know how
>>>>> to relate to the person or what they are saying. In other words,
>>>>> the context
>>>>> has to be really carefully created for honesty as a criterion for good
>>>>> knowledge, if it is to be effective.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is possible that that which is hidden as much as that which is
>>>>> brought to
>>>>> light, have equal influences in the emergence of the world, but 
>>>>> when we are
>>>>> honest (and we can be so not just about our transgressions but also about
>>>>> our not knowings, joys and accomplishments) the quality of knowing that
>>>>> comes into the world through us has an extra fibre of belonging in the
>>>>> world. This fibre somehow speaks of resilience, beauty and love - 
>>>>> faith and
>>>>> trust in ourselves and each other. It is (or should be) core to the truth
>>>>> and reconciliation movements, including restorative justice - but 
>>>>> sometimes
>>>>> those opportunities to be "right" often turn out to have the
>>>>> deepest shadows
>>>>> of all.
>>>>>
>>>>> When honest behaviour is punished, and dishonest behaviour in our 
>>>>> knowledge
>>>>> making work is rewarded (by a wink and a nod, deals, cynicism or
>>>>> just put in
>>>>> the too hard basket for fear of retribution say) then I feel our 
>>>>> world dies
>>>>> a little, and the lost truth is held back in fear and shame, in 
>>>>> the hidden
>>>>> worlds that so many participatory practitioners bring to light down the
>>>>> track.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, I see being honest, in our work, as the dynamical, 
>>>>> inclusional hotspace
>>>>> for living theory.
>>>>>
>>>>> Love
>>>>> Susie
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 16/2/07 8:56 AM, "Pip/Bruce Ferguson" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Sarah and others
>>>>>> Thanks for this clarification, Sarah!  I've obviously 'come out 
>>>>>> of' my own
>>>>>> experience of how PhDs go.  So my only experience comes from 
>>>>>> working with
>>>>>> supervisors - excellent in the case of my PhD, patchy in the case of my
>>>>>> Masters. And unlike Susie's situation, we have vivas here.  I 
>>>>>> had Jean as
>>>>>> overseas external, and a New Zealander as other examiner.  The latter
>>>>>> couldn't come at the last minute and we had to do the viva by telephone
>>>>>> conference (so much for reading the body language!)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With regard to the Standards of Judgment - I was just reflecting on the
>>>>>> importance in Action Research, of self-critique as an accepted 
>>>>>> standard of
>>>>>> judgment (picking up on a comment by Jean about the need to 
>>>>>> reflect on how
>>>>>> our work can be enhanced).  I recall vividly having a 
>>>>>> conversation with a
>>>>>> Business lecturer at the university once, in a seminar, where we were
>>>>>> discussing aspects of our research and I told the story of getting
>>>>>> it wrong
>>>>>> with one Maori researcher, by not realizing that she had to
>>>>>> present to me in
>>>>>> English as well as to her colleagues in Maori, because I'd
>>>>>> forgotten to tell
>>>>>> her she could present to me in Maori if she wished, and finding an
>>>>>> interpreter would be my problem.  This guy said to me, "Why would
>>>>>> you be so
>>>>>> overt in your thesis about the fact that you'd made mistakes?  In
>>>>>> Business,
>>>>>> we hide our mistakes so that our research doesn't look shonky" 
>>>>>> or words to
>>>>>> that effect.  I'm sure many business researchers DO admit their 
>>>>>> mistakes,
>>>>>> but it made me reflect on the importance of honesty in our 
>>>>>> practice, as a
>>>>>> standard of judgment.  I referred in an earlier discussion to the huge
>>>>>> admiration I had for Susie, standing up in an ALARPM World Congress and
>>>>>> telling of how she'd got it wrong in an indigenous research 
>>>>>> situation.  So
>>>>>> if we're talking what constitutes sound standards of judgment in action
>>>>>> research (LETs or otherwise) then for me, being honest about the
>>>>>> weaknesses
>>>>>> of one's practice as well as the strengths has to be up there as a
>>>>>> standard.
>>>>>> I see no sense (or helpfulness to others) in papering over the 
>>>>>> cracks and
>>>>>> hoping nobody else notices.  Then others may just fall down the
>>>>>> same holes,
>>>>>> to mix the metaphor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do others think?
>>>>>> Kind regards
>>>>>> Pip Bruce Ferguson
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: BERA Practitioner-Researcher
>>>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Sarah
>>>>>> Fletcher
>>>>>> Sent: Friday, 16 February 2007 10:37 a.m.
>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Slowing down and exploring my/our knowing
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Great posting, Pip!  I think it is important to
>>>>>> understand a few things about the draft staff Mode PhD
>>>>>> I offered as a catalylist for discussion:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) There is no supervisor - this is not a supervised
>>>>>> mode and the only feedback is from an Advisor (in my
>>>>>> case Judi Marshall) pre examination
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is why I'm (still!) trying to get a clear
>>>>>> unequivocal stament of the standards of judgement with
>>>>>> regard to LETs which are so favoured by practitioner
>>>>>> researchers in different contexts thanks to Jack and
>>>>>> Jean.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) Are we suggesting that without a supervisor a PhD
>>>>>> thesis is unlikely to succeed?  Incidentally, just to
>>>>>> clarify my thesis was examined under the wrong
>>>>>> criteria and as such did not fail.  I waited three
>>>>>> years for re-examination as the Appeals Committee
>>>>>> invited for examination as if for the first time - for
>>>>>> whatever reason suitable examiners were not found.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I wrote a couple of days ago I will be analysing
>>>>>> the responses to my posting with a view to to
>>>>>> identifying the SoJ relating specifically to LETs -
>>>>>> and I'd deeply appreciate any assistance before
>>>>>> discussion moves on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Warm regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sarah
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- Pip/Bruce Ferguson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  I really endorse the need to take calm breaths and
>>>>>> consider the feedback one's supervisors give one about
>>>>>> what standards need to be evident in a piece of work
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sarah Fletcher
>>>>>> http://www.TeacherResearch.net
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rev Je Kan Adler-Collins
>>>> Assistant Professor of Nursing
>>>> Fukuoka Prefectural University Faculty of Nursing
>>>> Tagawa City
>>>> Fukuoka Prefecture
>>>> Japan
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Rev Je Kan Adler-Collins
>> Assistant Professor of Nursing
>> Fukuoka Prefectural University Faculty of Nursing
>> Tagawa City
>> Fukuoka Prefecture
>> Japan
>



Rev Je Kan Adler-Collins
Assistant Professor of Nursing
Fukuoka Prefectural University Faculty of Nursing
Tagawa City
Fukuoka Prefecture
Japan