On 12 Mar 2009, at 12:50, Robyn Pound wrote:

> Dear Jack,
> Ok, now I have got it. The shift from collaborative dialectic that  
> focuses on living contradictions (in the personal values that are  
> emergent through practitioner action research - basis for my  
> research) to inclusionality that you see as relationally dynamic,  
> connective, reflexive, co-creative.  Jack I always thought it was  
> all those qualities.


Hi Robyn - in your inspiring research into alongsideness in health  
visiting it was all those qualities! In your thesis you draw insights  
from propositional theories and dialectics in your inclusional  
relationships as a health visitor. What Alan's idea of inclusionality  
has enabled me to do, in the creation of my living educational theory,  
is to better understand and communicate the relationally dynamic  
nature of space and boundaries in my explanations of educational  
influences in learning. I continue to be motivated by experiences of  
living contradictions when I experience my values being negated and to  
draw insights from propositional theories such as those of Amartya Sen  
(economic theory of human capability) and Mohammad Yunus (social  
business).

I like the points you make in response to my point about multi-media  
accounts in the March 09 paper;
> 'As I conclude, I am wondering if I have persuaded you that the  
> expression of such flows of energy, with values, require action  
> researchers to move beyond limitations of printed text based  
> narratives into multi-media accounts of their values based  
> influences in the world?'
where you say:

> "I cannot be sure however that my interpretation of what I am seeing  
> is the same as your interpretation or even what was intended by the  
> actors.  But then again does it matter?  If my intention in watching  
> the video is to understand for myself and add to the generation of  
> my own values for use in practice than what it meant for the actors  
> may not matter.  In my view it is the lived experience which carries  
> most meaning."

This is why I stress the importance of validation groups of peers in  
sharing interpretations. I've usually found that a group of peers  
responding to visual narratives helps to strengthen the validity of my  
own interpretations. Where I'm making a claim to know something about  
my educational influence in the learning of others, I have found it  
important to include in my own narrative the voices and  
interpretations of the others in ways the help to check the validity  
of my claims about my influence in the learning of others.

You also say:

> "My real reason for not videoing myself in action is ethical.  Not  
> only would it change the dynamic if we videoed ourselves (may be for  
> the better!) But it would not be ethical to share the lives of the  
> families who are interesting because of their struggles in a public  
> arena.  During my research process I shared nearly all the stories  
> that appeared in the thesis with the people concerned.  In the same  
> way, I shared my counselling case study with the client before  
> submitting it to the examination board.  The research stories I  
> didn't share with the family were those where my account of their  
> trials would not have been helpful to them at that time - perhaps  
> driven them into even more discouragement.  It was my learning from  
> our engagement that I was studying."

I do agree with your ethical considerations here. There are many  
contexts and relationships in which it is inappropriate to video.  
However, you may recall a video-clip of you with a baby and her Mother  
where you are sitting on the floor. I believe that this clip can help  
to communicate your embodied expressed of alongsideness. I'm thinking  
here of your awareness of:

* the importance of power relations in the health-visitor- client  
relationship,
* the recognition and expression of the value of the other,
* your energy-flowing and life-affirming humour
* your pleasure in being with the other.

Love Jack.
>