Hi Jack and Chris,

I watched the video of Chris and would like to share my thoughts below.

I'm very interested in bridging the gap between academics and
professionals because i'm a teacher who has also dabbles in research-
I don't want to produce research which is seen by colleagues as
non-applicable!

I was quite interested by the start of this clip which seemed to
advocate the need for researchers to test the applicability of their
ideas in practice. I may have misinterpreted this, correct me if I
did, but I'm referring to the part where Chris questions whether
research which comes solely from the literature could be valid? Was
the point here that this kind of research is so detached from actual
practice that it is unclear how applicable it is? That's how I saw it.

What happened next was, I'm assuming an academic argued that it was
valid because something that appears commonly across many research
projects should be generalisable. How I interpreted what happened next
was Chris acknowledged this and then went on to present more points
which advocated her belief that the perspective of those involved in
the workplace required a bigger slice of the action.

However, I think that there could of been more inquiry into the
initial question about the validity of research. Maybe Chris is
referring to the validity of the research to practitioners, as well as
the general body of knowledge. In which case, research which meets the
standards of generalisability usually has to meet such conditions as
renders it of little use to practitioners- eg. experimental designs,
which many argue allow for generalisable findings (external validity)
which require random assignment and isolation of variables make it
difficult to study the effectiveness of an integrated curriculum.

My concern is that rather than further inquiring into the views of the
academic, Chris went on with presenting her own points in order to try
and persuade the others of her own point of view. Chris Argyris would
describe this as bypassing the theory of action of the person she is
seeking to communicate with, and an unintended consequence of this is
that it sets up win/lose dynamics which are more conducive to
argumentative discourse rather than dialogue. Dialogue can be better
produced, Argyris argues, by balancing advocacy with inquiry into the
views of others, and subjecting both views to validity tests- eg.
agreeing upon ways to test what you view is valid.

Perhaps through dialogue both parties are more open to changing their
minds, and hence leaving the conversation with a different
understanding than when they entered it.

Look forward to any responses.

Cheers,
Aaron

On 1/15/13, Jack Whitehead <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear All - I've read all the interesting and exciting postings from the
> 9th-14th 2013 January in the thread of our archives on Researching our own
> Practice at:
>
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A1=ind1301&L=PRACTITIONER-RESEARCHER&X=1AA42C1112FC731471&Y=jack%40actionresearch.net
>
> If you can't access the archives with this url, you can go into
> http://www.actionresearch.net and browse down the What's New section to our
> 'living archives'.
>
> I'm hoping to have a chat with Margaret and Marie about how we might use
> google + to develop a co-operative enquiry during 2013 that includes an
> exploration of Sara's points:
>
> "My proposition here, is that the values and morals we cherish in this
> community depend on the assertion that a human being is an end in himself or
> herself and not a means to some economic or social (whose society?) good. I
> suggest that this moves the arena of debate into ontology and opens the way
> to a new paradigm for collective endeavor, one that would inspire a new
> model for education. I would like to explore what this means, how Action
> Research and Living Theory express just such a paradigm and most of all, how
> would we build curricula for living around such a paradigm."
>
> Brian is right in his response to Aaron that I've been addressing issues of
> language, methodology (and epistemology) in my educational enquiries. From
> my most recent practice, here is a 3:40 minute video-clip from Christine
> Jones' 'Ph.D. Confirmation Event', last Friday (11/01/13) at Liverpool Hope
> University. I'd like to share this with you as part of my enquiry into my
> educational influence, using multi-media narratives:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDOnjxrvQm4
>
> The clip begins with Chris giving her responses to doing a traditional
> 'literature review'. It's the kind of review that many researchers are
> encouraged by supervisors to undertake in 'finding a gap' in the literature
> that their research can fill.
>
> The problem with this approach for practitioner-researchers, who are
> bringing about a transformation in what counts as knowledge, is that it
> isn't a matter of finding a 'gap'. It is a matter of making original
> contributions to knowledge that transform the way in which the knowledge is
> understood.
>
> In the video-clip Chris moves on to talk about 'living empowerment'. As you
> see and hear Chris' communication I believe that Chris' embodied expression
> of 'living empowerment' may resonate with your own energy-flowing value of
> 'empowerment'. I am
> suggesting that the visual data enables meanings of 'living empowerment' to
> be communicated with greater validity than can be communicated with a
> printed text-based medium. (Chris has, of course, given her ethical approval
> for me to share this clip)
>
> In terms of explaining my own educational influence in this context, I
> recognise that power relations are involved in the judgment, made by the
> other three participants, including myself,  that Chris' Ph.D. research
> programme can continue. What is exciting me about Chris' research programme
> is the possibility that her expression of 'living empowerment' and its
> inclusion as an explanatory principle and living standard of judgment, in a
> multi-media explanation of her influence, can help to legitimate this
> energy-flowing value in the Academy.
>
> As part of a co-operative enquiry we could focus on Lonnie's information
> about the inaugural conference of the Action Research Network of the
> Americas (ARNA) on the 1st/2nd May 2013 in San Francisco, immediately after
> the American Educational Research Association Conference. It might be
> possible for some of us to put in proposals and present our enquiries at
> ARNA. Liz, Jacqueline and myself are producing a multi-media account for
> presentation at AERA and I'm hoping that this will communicate the meanings
> of Liz's embodied expression of 'loving kindness' in her explanation of her
> educational influences with her students as well as Liz's experience of
> 'loving kindness' from Jacqueline in the tutoring of Liz's master's
> dissertation.
>
> I don't want to overload you with material and I'm not expecting you to look
> at this video of Jacqueline, Liz and myself in a conversation about our
> enquiry and presentation for AERA at:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MPXeJMc0gU&list=UUnRjBfzn9T6gXC_QBmWAbJA&index=1
>
> I just include it here to illustrate our intention to use this kind of
> visual data in the visual narrative of our co-operative enquiry.
>
> I'm looking forward to exploring the use of google + to see if we can
> develop a co-operative enquiry (I know that Joan has already posted that
> this is what she would like to do) during 2013 as we continue to research
> our own practice. I'm also looking forward to meeting up with those of us
> who can make both AERA and ARNA.
>
> Love Jack.
>