Hello Je Kan - I think its both and all three - meaning - I come to know
myself in the quiet of myself which no-one else sees or even has the
literacy to know (true for all human beings at least)
And I also come to know myself in the world in the way others see me and I
see them - this is often flawed as the powers of perception are so driven by
society's oppressions - however I am a part of this oppression too - so
where the knowing feels misplaced there is usually some remnant of
oppression in my way of being that is finding a match even if I can't see it
or don't want to admit to it
In my writing I was not searching for validation - but touch...
And then there is that entity which is me, and you, that makes us - in the
world - a powerful binary system, amongst countless binary systems - as I
can only ever be known and can only know another in this binary scale (I
think that's right...) no matter how many others are around me - this
insight helps me a lot when I am facilitating large public events or
speaking at conferences!
There is something about bifurcation from self to other - and other to self
- some kind of movement in out/one to two/ which sits in the flow of being
context on context - each changing the shape of the one, the two, the us and
the larger context...
Its a hard shape to grasp - and probably better just to close my eyes and
surf it or - search for prince frogs as you suggest
Susan

On 13/2/09 3:27 PM, "Je Kan Adler-Collins" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 
> 
> wonderful stuff this, I am just fascinated at the absolute assumption
> that the self exists as a separate form of being, separate from every
> thing else that is in western forms of knowing...smile. Could this
> enforced separation of a discrete form of being be responsible for so
> much suffering and isolation ? I often ponder that natural enquiry,rich
> with its questions embedded forms of knowing and feeling, that can be
> expressed in a carving, a painting, a song ,a poem, or a smile, a touch,
> laughter, and tears. Often have the cold logic of imposition forced a
> pone it in order to be understood by the chatterbox of the logical mind
> with its aversion to flows of forms, empty spaces and what it perceives
> as chaos. Do we really need the validation of others to validate a form
> of self hood that live in the neighbourhoods of multi dimensional
> awareness? Surly such a form of selfhood is an expression of a perceived
> self and as such can only be valid to the individual who constructed it
> and with those individuals whom share an agreed understanding to what
> they are seeing? Are those who do not see the same thing or have
> different neighbourhoods of knowing , self or existence any less equal?
> It would appear that in terms of expression and validation of different
> forms of knowing have no academic place??? for those who are looking, do
> check out EJOLTS you may find a space there that will fill the void in
> your soul..It is a place to start for the longest journey begins with
> the first step. My love to all as I check out yet more frogs in the life
> long search for my princes ....smile Je Kan
> 
> 
> 
> Pip/Bruce Ferguson wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Susie and others
>> 
>> What a fascinating account of your work! But I can see why you are
>> having problems in getting it published. ³Reconstructing it to suit
>> the accessibility issues of a commercial market² must be the most
>> incredible challenge. It is the same kind of challenge that I face in
>> my work as a contract researcher, particularly working with Maori
>> communities for whom consultation is so vital, and the time for which
>> so frequently does not fit into the contracting body¹s schedule. I
>> shall say no more; but it certainly does put one in a difficult
>> situation at times. That issue you raise about Œbeing as true to your
>> life¹s intent as you would like to be² certainly resonates with me.
>> 
>> I¹ve just tried to track down electronically a most interesting paper
>> written by a researcher named Fran Cahill, whose thesis and a
>> published paper that I read subsequently, grappled with the problem of
>> taking over the voice of others. I /think /she¹s of Samoan ancestry
>> but could be wrong. I have been unable to find the paper
>> electronically, but if you¹re interested the reference is *Cahill, F.
>> (2004). ³Crossing the road from home to secondary school: A
>> conversation with Samoan parents"* and the paper was printed in Volume
>> 12, 2006 of the Waikato Journal of Education, produced by the
>> University of Waikato. I cited it in a literature review I co-wrote
>> with colleagues investigating Pasifika educational achievement in the
>> classroom a couple of years back. It¹s a most interesting paper ­ she
>> goes for presenting the respondents¹ voices in large chunks rather
>> that rewrite their knowledge from her perspective.
>> 
>> I wish you wisdom as you negotiate this turbulent voyage. I also reach
>> out my hand Œacross the ditch¹ to Australian friends such as you, at
>> this time of severe trauma over the Victorian bushfires. May we all
>> learn how to be more active on our planet to combat the perils of
>> global warming, so that such tragedies may be less likely in the future.
>> 
>> Pai marire (peaceful thoughts) to you all
>> 
>> Pip
>> 
>> *From:* Practitioner-Researcher
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Susan Goff
>> *Sent:* Friday, 13 February 2009 11:38 a.m.
>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>> *Subject:* Re: Explaining our educational influences in learn...
>> 
>> Hello Pip
>> This IS interesting and thanks so much for relaying the framing to us.
>> I wrote my thesis with these concepts in mind (even though I had not
>> heard of them until you bring them to my attention now) and its really
>> challenging. I made a promise in the text not to regard the experience
>> of the co-researchers as my object for analysis. This required that
>> each chapter had to move to a new standpoint to avoid the settling of
>> voice that for me, leads to objectification of self, other and
>> standpoint. It also required never reaching a point of conviction
>> about a truth claim - ironically as an expression of truth ­ the
>> subjective reach to truth remained alive for myself, the reader and
>> the living content of the text/experience that that text moved forward
>> from. This raised moral issues for me ­ whether indetermination was
>> morally true. It was really difficult for people to read as texts tend
>> to be accepted initially, in western culture at least, in a passive
>> sense ­ with the paternalistic voice of the author telling the reader
>> one way and another what is (I am aware of Bakhtin¹s revolutionary
>> texts on polyvocality about these issues but they are not well known
>> or used). My text provided a poetic encounter with the reader and the
>> writer, which at times was mindfully a bridge between us, allowing
>> both reader and writer to be in unstable relationships with each other
>> ­ this instability generated ambiguity, not knowing and patterned
>> interconnections reaching forward and back so questions that were not
>> predicted by me could find their realisations at the readers own
>> making. I was also aware of implied or perhaps emerging questions that
>> I did not answer in the text at the point that they were pushing up,
>> but that I came back to later on ­ as a clue to the reader about their
>> own questions. I left all this architecture largely invisible,
>> understanding that to explain it would return me to the paternalistic
>> and objective mode. Two of my examiners seemed to get it, the third
>> wanted a rewrite but admitted his recommendation could be off centre
>> because he just didn¹t get it. So the risk is high. I felt complete
>> with the architecture in the end ­ and internal sense of truth that
>> was like integrity with a flow of life, but now as I am working
>> towards a publication, I am reconstructing it to suit the
>> accessibility issues of a commercial market. I feel sad about this ­
>> but I guess being as true to my or life¹s intent as I would like to be
>> almost ensures that the work will never be read.
>> S
>> 
>> On 13/2/09 9:15 AM, "Pip/Bruce Ferguson" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Jack and all
>> This is a very interesting discussion. Picking up on your comment
>> about Lather¹s ironic validity, Jack, I very much liked her notion of
>> Œrhizomatic validity¹ which I have read about in a variety of
>> contexts. I just googled it as I couldn¹t find the original paper in
>> which I read of it, and found a paper called ³The Action Turn² by
>> Peter Reason at the University of Bath and William Torbert of Boston
>> College. They describe several types of validity, including rhizomatic:
>> 
>> ³New types of validity-testing of texts are also being suggested. For
>> example, Lather (1993) suggests that social scientists committed to
>> conducting, reporting, and encouraging first-person research/practice
>> develop /situated validity/, /rhizomatic validity/, /reflexive
>> validity/, and /ironic validity/. Situated validity is raised when a
>> text includes not just a disembodied voice, but an embodied,
>> emotional, reflective voice. Rhizomatic validity is raised when a text
>> presents multiple voices defining the situation differently. Reflexive
>> validity is raised when a text attempts to challenge its own validity
>> claims. Ironic validity is raised by inviting further interpretation
>> by readers. These forms of validity can all be seen as relating to the
>> degree of validity of the written social scientific journal article or
>> book /as an action in relation to its readership/‹the degree to which
>> the text communicates: 1) the partially self-critical first-person
>> voice that guides it (situated and reflexive validity); 2) the variety
>> of second-person voices that inform the text and may contest the
>> first-person voice (rhizomatic validity); and 3) the creative work of
>> the third-person reader/interpreters of the text (ironic validity).²
>> 
>> Just thought readers on this list might be interested, if they haven¹t
>> encountered these different types of validity before.
>> Warm regards
>> Pip Bruce Ferguson
>> 
>> 
>> *From:* Practitioner-Researcher
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Jack
>> Whitehead
>> *Sent:* Thursday, 12 February 2009 11:43 p.m.
>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>> *Subject:* Re: Explaining our educational influences in learn...
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 11 Feb 2009, at 13:37, geisha rebolledo wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> I enjoyed reading your paper, for me it is a revolutionary idea.
>> However after sharing some of them with collegues in a meeting
>> yesterday, one asked me how do you solve the problem of validity in
>> this type of research ?????
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 11 Feb 2009, at 17:11, Brian wakeman wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Geisha,
>> 
>> This question is very helpful...........
>> 
>> Jack,
>> 
>> A lot of people ask me this ......so it will be interesting to read
>> your reply .....the stages and processes of validation......which we
>> know you've developed over many years.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Dear Geisha, Brian and All,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> One of the best illustrations of the processes of validity I advocate
>> is in Martin Forrest's 1983 MA dissertation where he describes the
>> validation group as a conversational research community. You can
>> access a description of Martin's third validation group at:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:qV7XuMe3zZ4J:www.jackwhitehead.com/writeu
>> p/alval.pdf+martin+forrest+validation+group&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk&client=f
>> irefox-a 
>> <http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:qV7XuMe3zZ4J:www.jackwhitehead.com/write
>> up/alval.pdf+martin+forrest+validation+group&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk&client=
>> firefox-a> 
>> <http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:qV7XuMe3zZ4J:www.jackwhitehead.com/write
>> up/alval.pdf+martin+forrest+validation+group&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;cd=1&a
>> mp;gl=uk&amp;client=firefox-a>
>> <http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:qV7XuMe3zZ4J:www.jackwhitehead.com/write
>> up/alval.pdf+martin+forrest+validation+group&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk&client=
>> firefox-a> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I think that I am like most researchers in wanting to ensure the
>> validity of explanations of educational influences in learning. I
>> usually use the following three insights from the work of Michael
>> Polanyi, Jurgen Habermas and Patti Lather when seeking to strengthen
>> the validity of my accounts and to support other researchers in
>> strengthening the validity of their accounts.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 1) From Polanyi's Personal Knowledge I accept a personal
>> responsibility for ensuring the *personal validity* of my accounts.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> a)/ I believe that in spite of the hazards involved, I am called upon
>> to search for the truth and state my findings. /(p. 299)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> b) /Having decided that I must understand the world from my point of
>> view, as a person claiming originality and exercising his personal
>> judgement responsibly with universal intent.../ (p.327)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> c)/ (The aim of my book)... is to re-equip men with the faculties
>> which centuries of critical thought have taught them to distrust. The
>> reader has been invited to use these faculties and contemplate thus a
>> picture of things restored to their fairly obvious nature. This is all
>> the book was meant to do. For once men have been made to realize the
>> crippling mutilations imposed by an objectivist framework ­ once the
>> veil of ambiguities covering up these mutilations has been definitely
>> dissolved ­ many fresh minds will turn to the task of reinterpreting
>> the world as it is, and as it then once more will be seen to be./ (p. 381)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Michael Polanyi (1958) Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical
>> Philosophy. London; Routledge and Kegan Paul.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 2) From the work of Jurgen Habermas I've developed the idea of social
>> validity in a validation group of usually some 3-8 peers who respond
>> to a researcher's account in terms of: its comprehensibility; its
>> truthfulness, in the sense of including sufficient evidence to support
>> the assertions; its rightness, in the sense of an awareness of the
>> normative background that influences the values of the researcher; its
>> authenticity, in the sense that the writer shows, over time and in
>> interaction, that he or she is seeking to live as fully as possible
>> the values espoused in the writing.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Here is the quotation from Habermas that I use in seeking to
>> strengthen the *social validity* of explanations of educational influence:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> /"I shall develop the thesis that anyone acting communicatively must,
>> in performing any speech action, raise universal validity claims and
>> suppose that they can be vindicated (or redeemed). Insofar as he wants
>> to participate in a process of reaching understanding, he cannot avoid
>> raising the following ­ and indeed precisely the following ­ validity
>> claims. He claims to be:
>> /
>> / a)// //Uttering something understandably;
>> b)// //Giving (the hearer) something to understand;
>> c)// //Making himself thereby understandable. And
>> d)// //Coming to an understanding with another person.
>> The speaker must choose a comprehensible expression so that speaker
>> and hearer can understand one another. The speaker must have the
>> intention of communicating a true proposition (or a propositional
>> content, the existential presuppositions of which are satisfied) so
>> that the hearer can share the knowledge of the speaker. The speaker
>> must want to express his intentions truthfully so that the hearer can
>> believe the utterance of the speaker (can trust him). Finally, the
>> speaker must choose an utterance that is right so that the hearer can
>> accept the utterance and speaker and hearer can agree with on another
>> in the utterance with respect to a recognized normative background.
>> Moreover, communicative action can continue undisturbed only as long
>> as participants suppose that the validity claims they reciprocally
>> raise are justified."/ (Habermas, 1976, pp.2-3)
>> Habermas, J. (1976) Communication and the evolution of society.
>> London; Heinemann
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 3) In discussions about validity I always try to bear in mind Patti
>> Lather's understanding of *ironic validity* in seeing my explanations
>> as representations of its 'failure to represent what it points towards
>> but can never reach'. In his analysis of some tensions over validity
>> in an era of paradigm proliferation Donmoyer draws attention to
>> differences in ideas about validity from Miles and Huberman and Lather:
>> 
>> /First the practical problem: Today there is as much variation among
>> qualitative researchers as there is between qualitative and
>> quantitatively orientated scholars. Anyone doubting this claim need
>> only compare Miles and Huberman¹s (1994) relatively traditional
>> conception of validity <ŒThe meanings emerging from the data have to
>> be tested for their plausibility, their sturdiness, their
>> Œconfirmability¹ ­ that is, their validity¹ (p.11)> with Lather¹s
>> discussion of ironic validity:
>> ³Contrary to dominant validity practices where the rhetorical nature
>> of scientific claims is masked with methodological assurances, a
>> strategy of ironic validity proliferates forms, recognizing that they
>> are rhetorical and without foundation, postepistemic, lacking in
>> epistemological support. The text is resituated as a representation of
>> its Œfailure to represent what it points toward but can never reachŠ.
>> (Lather, 1994, p. 40-41)¹.²/ (Donmoyer, 1996 p.21.)
>> Donmoyer, R. (1996) Educational Research in an Era of Paradigm
>> Proliferation: What¹s a Journal Editor to Do? /Educational
>> Researcher/, Vol. 25, No.2, pp. 19-25
>> You will also find accounts of validity in:
>> McNiff, J. & Whitehead, J. (2006) All You Need To Know About Action
>> Research. London; Sage.
>> Do please ask further questions if you have any and I'll see if I can
>> respond in a way that is useful.
>> 
>> Love Jack.
>> 
>