Dear Sue,

Well, what you say is exactly why I wrote the following passage in the draft 
paper I have written in preparation for presenting a keynote address at the 
World Congress of the Action Learning Action Research Association in 
Australia in September:

"For the past ten years, I have taught a final year transdisciplinary 
undergraduate course at the University of Bath, entitled ‘Life, Environment 
and People’ (see my description of some of the turbulent and difficult 
history of this course in Rayner, 2006a). Every now and then as I present 
this course, which is participatory and invitational in style, I find myself 
having to stop and remind the students and myself about its fundamental 
intention. I say something along the lines of: 'this is not intended to be a 
course of instruction, but more an opening of possibility for your personal 
reflection and consideration by describing what makes sense to me'. I could 
say much the same about all of this paper. I feel the need to say it because 
I think that the expectation of instruction - and the painful memories of 
non-empathic schooling - that this can evoke and be read into what is 
offered, blocks receptivity. I have simply to admit that I can only 
explicate my perceptions and reasoning for opening the door into natural 
inclusionality in my

personally unique way, using whatever means I have available to me, and 
invite others across the threshold if they wish, where I will be pleased to 
welcome, help and engage with their enquiries as best I can. Whenever I 
forget to say or admit this, and engage instead with a perceived requirement 
or actual demand to convince others, I sense resentment and resistance 
rising within my listeners, and can all too easily become defensive and 
resentful myself. Maybe that continual reminder to ‘hold openness’ (Fig. 7) 
is deep in the core of an inclusional educational practice."


In explaining my reasons for opening the door into natural inclusionality, I 
generally find myself caught between the need to speak to an academic 
audience, which is often perceived as using vocabulary as an excluding 
barrier (which is as far removed from my intention as it is possible to be) 
and the need to communicate more feelingly with an audience that is often in 
fear/awe of intellectual discourse.

At the bottom of all this is a fundamental problem of logic, which Jack and 
I have sought to address in the following paper:

Whitehead, J. and Rayner, A.(2009) From dialectics to inclusionality – a 
naturally inclusive approach to educational accountability. Accessed on 
20/01/10 from 
http://actionresearch.net/writings/jack/arjwdialtoIncl061109.pdf

This fundamental problem of logic needs to be addressed both with 
intellectual rigour and with emotional sensitivity. I won't claim to succeed 
in this, but it is what I try to do. Last weekend I ran a 'NaturesScope' 
event on these lines. Here is what a woodsman with little formal post-school 
education who attended had to say:

"I was afraid that it was going to be a very academic day, that i would be 
out of place, a square peg in a round hole so to speak, this was far from 
the reality. What surprised me more than anything was the similarities but 
diversities of the people I met, and it is this that has been the main focus 
of my thoughts.

You asked us to go away and think about how we can all contribute and 
further the Nature scope work, the "inclusional" way of thinking.

I am already thinking about the terms you use, about taking in and 
reflecting out energy from "our natural neighborhoods" it is something we 
all do naturally, at least all the people I met yesterday! What i mean to 
say is that you have given us all a great energy, your work is the rivers 
source, you are its generator. We, a small band of dedicated followers of 
your work, are building upon the flow, giving it momentum and force flow. we 
are reflecting out a great energy, given to us from this enlightenment and 
inspiration, that is clearly a strong feature of all who seem to be drawn to 
this "inclusional way"

As all of us break away from the nature scope event and go off on our many 
and diverse paths in this world, academia, corporate management, arbor 
ecology, teaching, design, etc etc we spread out as exploring veins of the 
mycelial networks of fungi, exploring every corner of the world, OUR 
INDIVIDUAL "natural neighborhoods"

In doing so, the pattern of our interactions with others will be like any 
other flow form, and certain it will build pace as each of us go off and 
reflect outwardly this "new way of thinking"

They say a smile will instigate a smile in others, and i am sure this 
outwardly projecting energy of inclusionality, by its very nature will 
inspire and evoke a similar response in those we meet. Some people need it 
delivered in a subtle way, for your ideals are leftfield, to coin a phrase, 
but this is a gift we in your group all seem to have developed, to adapt the 
"method and delivery" in a way that befits our natural neighborhoods on ever 
finer scales.

The diversity within the group was at first a surprise, but then when you 
consider the nature of inclusionality, it really is not at all surprising, 
in fact one might say it was to be expected, after all, inclusionality by 
its very thought evokes/attracts diversity.

The teachers in the group made me want so much to bring my six nieces' into 
their educational influence, I would dearly love for my nieces' to 
experience an "inclusional day" with these teachers, maybe one day this will 
be feasible?"



Perhaps the attached painting of a 'honeysuckle sharing circle' might relate 
more clearly to you as an illustration of my intellectual as well as 
emotional support and encouragement of what you are saying and doing.


Warmest

Alan



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sue Attard" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 5:46 PM
Subject: Re: Design as Research


Dear Joan and Alan
I have read with much interest your reply to my posting and as you can see I 
have taken a little time to digest it.
Joan you may use this as an idea if you wish I would find it a great honour.

Alan I found your interpretation of my words rather confusing and with your 
use of many words to tell me what I was thinking took me back to my fears of 
"the academy" in which vocabulary is used as a barrier to keep out those who 
are new to this way of working. I have read several times the quantum 
mechanics paper and it has meant very little to me in terms of living theory 
in fact it was like trying to read a little known foreign language.
I am deeply in sympathy with the use of Action Research in classrooms in 
order to reflect on practice which formulates theory. My circles of 
influence have been important to me as I discovered what was framing my 
reference points. Reflexivity has enabled me to look at myself, which in 
turn opened my mind to what others were talking about related to similar 
experiences and finally analyzing the effectiveness of the processes or 
methods I use.  I talk about circles of influence that come from this 
reflexive stance in my case they were self, literature and methods. For 
others in their research it may be different. The major point is within my 
living the theory generated I can search to discover which circle is more 
prominent in each stage of my spirals of action research. Contradictions 
begin to be made more public in a way that is in tune with the principles of 
action research.
Thank you again Joan and Alan

Sue Attard