How are we co-creating living standards of judgement in action-researching our professional practices

Proposal for a paper presentation/interactive session at ALARPM

Jack Whitehead

Department of Education,

University of Bath

UK BA2 7AY

e-mail [email protected]

Marie Huxtable

Senior Educational Psychologist

Riverside

UK BS31 1DN

e-mail [email protected]

How are we co-creating living standards of judgement in action-researching our professional practices

13/08/06

Jack Whitehead, Department of Education, University of Bath.

Marie Huxtable, Senior Educational Psychologist, Bath & North East Somerset, Local Authority.

Abstract

The presentation will focus on the co-creation of the living standards of judgement of action researchers as we enquire into living our moral/ethical values as fully as we can in our workplaces. Whitehead, as the supervisor of Huxtable's research degree and Huxtable as a Senior Educational Psychologist, will explore the implications of their co-enquiry, "How do I respond receptively to Marie Huxtable's enquiry, 'How do I improve my practice as a senior educational psychologist working in B&NES while researching my practice for a research degree?'" in terms of the co-creation of new living standards of judgement in action research.

The significance of 20 living theory doctorates flowing through web-space from http://www.bath.ac.uk/~edsajw/living.shtml will be analysed in terms the new epistemology for the new scholarship. Particular attention will be paid to the implications of changes in University regulations that now permit the submission of e-media. The latest living theory doctorates to be legitimated in the Academy will be analysed in terms of their contributions to the emergence of a living theory of inclusional and responsive practice (Naidoo, 2005) in the creation of new living standards of judgement such as a passion for compassion.

Connecting with the central theme of the congress

The central theme of this World Congress is Standards and Ethics in participatory research:

"The primary focus will be on approaches to research that incorporate (self) reflection and a system of (professional) ethics as central components of action research and action learning practices.

A principal intent of participatory research practices is to provide the means to improve people's self determination—to empower them in their roles as professional practitioners or citizens in the diverse social domains in which they live and work. Participatory action research and learning processes enable participants to improve the impact of services and programs in education, health care, urban and regional development, business, agriculture, arts, aged care, leisure and many other spheres of social life. Inherently, however, collaborative inquiry practices seek to improve the well-being of the people by enacting democracy and social justice on the personal, local and global levels.

Participatory research practices therefore have "ethics first" as their motto. Research practices and relationships not only have pragmatic purposes, but also serve to enhance democratic participation and critical reflection for all participants. Standards of ethical practice in action research and action learning therefore provide the means to orient our work and community life so that we contribute to the attainment of participatory democracy, empowerment and social justice." (ALARPM 2006, http://www.wcar2006.nl/en-index.html )

As we co-create our living standards of judgement in action-researching our professional practices we recognise that our ontological values, the values we use to give meaning and purpose to our lives through our productive work, can be understood and communicated as our ethical values and epistemological standards of judgement. They can be clarified and communicated in the course of their emergence in our action research. We associate research with knowledge-creation and evaluation. We understand the importance of avoiding confusion by explicating the epistemological assumptions in knowledge-claims. By this we are meaning the unit of appraisal, the standards of judgement and the logics used in evaluating the validity of a claim to knowledge. Because of this we wish to begin with our understandings of the three epistemologies, propositional, dialectical and inclusional, that we use in our action research. Our purpose is to communicate the meanings of our co-created meaning of inclusionality in the living standards of judgement in our research.

Three Epistemologies

The first epistemology is grounded in the logic of Aristotle with his Law of Contradiction, which claims that two mutually exclusive statements cannot both be true simulataneously, and his Law of Excluded Middle which claims that everything is either A of Not-A. This logic characterises the propositional theories the dominate what counts as legitimate knowledge in the Academy. We drawn insights from the grand narratives of propositional theory of the kind offered by Erich Fromm through his productive life. We continue to draw valued insights from these theories and Whitehead has acknowledged the influence of theorists such as Polanyi (1958) and Habermas (1976) amongst many others.

The second epistemology is grounded in the Marxist dialectic as set out by Ilyenkov (1977) in his inspirational work on dialectical logic. Contradiction is the nucleus of dialectics and change is explained in terms of the Law of Identity of Opposites and the Law of the Negation of the Negation. From Marcuse's (1964, p. 105) work we draw the insight that logic is the form that thought takes in understanding the real as rational. In asking, researching and answering questions of the kind, 'How do I improve my practice?' we have seen and felt ourselves to be, with the help of video-tapes of my practice, living contradictions as we hold our values together with their negation in our practice. Whitehead (1999) has explicated this dialectical epistemology in his doctoral thesis.

The third epistemology is grounded in the living logic of inclusionality (Rayner 2004). This living logic is characterized by a relationally dynamic awareness of space and boundaries that are connective, reflexive and co-creative. Naidoo (2005) has used this living logic in developing the inclusional and responsive standard of judgement of passion for compassion in her emergent living theory of inclusional and responsive practice. The living logic of inclusionality is clarified and communicated below with the help of multi-media explanations of educational influences in learning that show the educational relationships of action researchers in terms of interconnecting and branching channels and boundaries of communication.

We will demonstrate below how we use insights from propositional, dialectical and inclusional logics in researching our question, 'How are we creating living standards of judgment in action researching our professional practice?' The explanations we generate for our learning together contain living standards of judgement for action research. These living standards are grounded in our expressions of our ontological values as we clarify and co-create their inclusional meanings in the course of our individual and shared practices.

The multi-media presentations of living standards of judgement can include text, verbal presentation, dialogue, art and interactive demonstrations, using video-clips from the researchers' professional contexts. The presentation of a visual narrative, documents the process of clarifying the meanings of the embodied values of the action researchers in the course of their emergence in practice and in their formation into inclusional living standards of judgement.

Communicating to and with others in co-creating our living inclusional standards of judgement.

The following extract from a presentation prepared by Marie Huxtable and Christine Jones (2006) for the British Educational Research Association 2006 Annual Conference shows the co-creation of 'our' living inclusional standards of judgement. We are using 'our' carefully because of the nature of our co-creation. In responding to our ideas we hope that you will include in your responses the questions we have drawn below from Habermas' (1976) points about the validity claims we make of each other in coming to an understanding. Our central point concerns the possibility that multi-media representations in a visual narrative enhance the quality of our communications about the meanings of our co-created understandings of inclusional standards of judgement. We are thinking of meanings that are relationally dynamic and responsive (Naidoo, 2005) in terms of our awareness, of the boundaries and space in the expression of our embodied values, that is connective, reflexive and co-creative:

"The move to communicating with rather than simply to others at this point is consistent with our developing inclusional pedagogy where we seek to extend our own learning and to co-create new knowledge and understandings with others; to extend our educational influence in our own learning and that of others.

We are claiming that through the following text, images and video clips you can see us supporting educators to develop skills and understandings inclusionally. We would ask you to ask the questions of us that Jack Whitehead offers in, 'How can I/You create living educational theories from educational action research?' - Notes for an Ed.D. seminar in the University of Bath on 12 July 2006:

'I usually ask a validation group of my peers to criticise my explanations of my educational influences in terms of the questions

Is my claim comprehensible?
Have I produced sufficient evidence to justify my claims to know my educational influences in learning?
Have I explicated the normative assumptions in my explanation?
Am I being authentic in that my explanation shows in interaction, over time, with others that I am clarifying the meanings of my values in the course of their emergence through what I am doing?'

Jack Whitehead engaged with Chris' account as he worked to prepare a keynote for (Whitehead, J. 2006) Have we created a new educational epistemology in our living educational theories as practitioner-researchers? A Keynote Presentation to the Practitioner Researcher Conference on Living Theory or Empty Rhetoric at St. Mary's College on 13th July 2006 Retrieved on 3 August 2006 from http://www.jackwhitehead.com/jack/jwkeynote130706.htmref and url) and selected visual images and video clips from the hour session that he felt connected with Chris' text. While you are reading Chris' account with Jack's selection of video clips we ask 'Can you see what we see? Can you feel what we feel?' as we live and work inclusionally.

Chris begins:

I am smiling as I watch the video of our Creativity Workshop and I am feeling the joy and pleasure in seeing inclusionality being demonstrated naturally and spontaneously in, between and with my friend and colleague, Marie, and other educators who are participants in the workshop. I am looking at Marie as she is inviting the group to respond to her questioning with her arms open, her eyes scanning the room and including all.

I feel the joy and pleasure in looking at Marie and me, sitting adjacently and leaning forward and smiling as we engage with the participants in discussing creativity, being creative and creating that moment together and with others.

(see the 8.2Mb, 1min. 31 sec. video clip from http://www.jackwhitehead.com/marie/mhchwk1min31.mov )

We move outside the room and as I listen to what I am saying, I feel the flow of energy that I felt at the time and as I always feel when I am working with colleagues, every interaction unique and co-creative. I am listening to the expressive, 'ooh', and the intermittent laughter as the egg is passed around, all apprehensive should the egg fall, all separate, yet one as we share the activity in that moment in time. Silence follows laughter and laughter follows silence; those bursts of energy cutting through the atmosphere of apprehension. There are no barriers here between us; there is no vacuum dividing us; we are flowing as one and as the first task is complete, we clap spontaneously together.

(see the 6.8 Mb, 1min 15 sec video clip from http://www.jackwhitehead.com/marie/cjmhwkegg.mov)

I am still smiling as I watch the video as we move back into the room. The conversation, the questions and answers, the smiles and the laughter; Marie and I sitting adjacently, moving forward in response to comments, hands moving, arms outstretched, openly invitational.

(see the 7.9 Mb, 1min 42 sec video clip from http://www.jackwhitehead.com/marie/mhcjwk3.mov [JF1]

Can anyone see what I see? Does anyone feel as I feel? As I watch the flow of interaction between one and the other, I am reminded of Rayner's Paper Dance of Inclusionality (http://www.jackwhitehead.com/rayner1sor.mov) and O' Donohue's 'web of betweenness' (2003). I am looking at inclusionality in action of which I am a part and I am seeing the flow of life- affirming energy between Marie, the group and me, and as I watch, I am feeling the joy of what for me gives life meaning – the flow of interaction between one and the other and the pleasure of that co-dynamic relationship. I am reminded of these feelings of joy when I was a teacher interacting with the class: I am learning from them; they are learning from me; we are all learning together in a co-creational relationship which could not happen without one or the other within that moment in time.

I value who I am and what I try to be; I value others for who they are and what they try to be; I value what we are between us and what we try to be. It is through my relationship with others and the generative flow and pleasure of our interaction that I grow and live a life that has meaning for me.

We would like to return to the question we asked you to focus on when we wrote, 'we would ask you, as you read, to see if it gets closer to communicating the embodied values and educational theories of Chris and Marie as they were seeking to express in the workshop'.

The form of evidence used to validate a claim to knowledge is important and is taxing many in the school system as can be seen in the oft used phrase, 'we value what we measure, rather than measuring what we value'. We are asking you to consider here how far we have been able to offer you evidence that can be validated, accepted as authentic and of value by 'authorities', whether they are the academy or government department, while also communicating those qualities and values that for us are at the core of education and the reason we do what we do.

So far we have sought to explore whether we have communicated with you our growing understandings of what it is for us to support educators developing skills and understandings inclusionally. We have asked you to consider whether we have communicated those values more fully than relying on the traditional text- based report format by using a poetic, aesthetic form with images as well. We have also tried to provide you with evidence as to our success or otherwise in answering our question,'how can we work inclusionally with educators during an hour workshop to enable them to extend their own understandings of creative learning, and to contribute to the creation of new understandings which they would wish to explore further in their own schools and classrooms beyond the workshop'."

******

Our interest in offering the above account for your critical evaluation is focused on our belief that we are showing how living standards of judgement in the relationally dynamic and responsive awareness of inclusionality can be validated. We are also interested in exploring the educational influence of such inclusional standards of judgement in the education of social formations through their role as cultural artefacts.

The cultural significance of living educational theories flowing through web-space

The public launch of the World Wide Web on the 6^th August 1991 transformed global communications. Our emphasis on enhancing the flow of the accounts of action researchers through web-space owes much to our assumption that the significance of these communications for the development of cultural harmony will increase. We make this point about cultural harmony with an awareness that acknowledges terrorist violence (Cowley, 2006) in different parts of the world. With the recognition of this violence we are seeking to enhance the flow of values, skills and understandings that carry hope for the future of humanity through showing how individuals are learning to live values of humanity as fully as they can in their workplaces and communities. We are thinking of the hope flowing through web-space from over 20 living theory doctorates from http://www.bath.ac.uk/~edsajw/living.shtml.

In 2004 the University of Bath changed its regulations to permit the submission of e-media in research degrees. This change opened up the possibility of presenting visual narratives that could communicate clearly the process of transforming living values into living epistemological standards of judgement. To accomplish this transformation educational researchers required courage. They required the courage to engage in a self-study educational enquiry as they clarified the meanings of the values they used to give meaning to their lives and work in the course of their emergence through practice. The processes of clarification, communication and validation involve several challenges. There are challenges of method in the use of action reflection cycles in clarifying the meaning of the values. There are challenges of self-study involving visual narratives in communicate the meanings of embodied values (Whitehead, 2005). There are challenges of rigour and scholarship in subjecting claims to educational knowledge to validation processes informed by Polanyi's (1958) ideas of personal knowledge, Winter's (1989) ideas on rigour and Habermas' (1976) ideas on social validity.

You can see how five of the living theory doctorates, (Hartog 2004; Church 2004; Naidoo 2005; Farren 2005; Lohr 2006) examined under the new regulations of the University of Bath, have included multi-media accounts of educational practices in their explanations of educational influence, in original contributions to the development of the new epistemology.

Hartog, M. (2004) A Self Study Of A Higher Education Tutor: How Can I Improve My Practice? Ph.D. University of Bath. Retrieved 27 June 2007 from http://www.bath.ac.uk/~edsajw/hartog.shtml

Church, M. (2004) Creating an uncompromised place to belong: Why do I find myself in networks? Retrieved 27 June 2006 from http://www.bath.ac.uk/~edsajw/church.shtml

Naidoo, M. (2005) I am Because We Are. (My never-ending story) The emergence of a living theory of inclusional and responsive practice. Ph.D. University of Bath. Retrieved 27 June 2006 from

http://www.bath.ac.uk/~edsajw/naidoo.shtml

Farren, M. (2005) How can I create a pedagogy of the unique through a web of betweenness? Ph.D. University of Bath. Retrieved 27 June 2006 from http://www.bath.ac.uk/~edsajw/farren.shtml

Lohr, E. (2006) Love at Work: What is my lived experience of love and how might I become an instrument of love's purpose. Ph.D. University of Bath. Retrieved 27 June 2006 from http://www.bath.ac.uk/~edsajw/living.shtml

The latest living theory thesis to be legitimated is that of Bernie Sullivan at the University of Limerick:

Sullivan, B. (2006) A living theory of a practice of social justice: Realising the right of traveller children for educational equality. Ph.D. University of Limerick. Supervised by Jean McNiff. Retrieved 6 July 2006 from

http://www.jeanmcniff.com/bernieabstract.html

With the multi-media communication such as that of Marian Naidoo (2005), in the development of her emergent living theory of inclusional and responsive practice, there is at present no Journal that can carry the visual narrative on the DVD in her Thesis. We make this point to emphasise the limitations of present text based Journals in communicating the meanings of embodied values that are expressed through a relational dynamic and responsive awareness of space and boundaries and that is connective, reflexive and co-creative. Journals such as Action Research Expeditions and the Ontario Action Research are beginning to open up possibilities for such communications but it will become some time before they reach the status of the established refereed international journals. Perhaps Action Research International or web-based publications from ALARPM will open further these interconnecting and branching channels of communication. What we are wondering at the end of this presentation is whether we have made a significant contribution to the theme of the Congress with its emphasis on ethics and standards in action research. By focusing on our living relationships in our workplaces and being willing to hold ourselves accountable to the ontological values we use to give meaning and purpose to our lives, we hope that we have shown, through our multi-media presentation, what might been needed to develop a new epistemology for action research. We are thinking of an epistemology that forms living standards of judgement from the embodied values and ethical principles used by action researcher in giving meaning and purpose to their life-long learning as they seek to enhance their contributions to well-being and productive lives.

References

Church, M. (2004) Creating an uncompromised place to belong: Why do I find myself in networks? Retrieved 27 June 2006 from http://www.bath.ac.uk/~edsajw/church.shtmlReferences:

Cowley, J. (2006) What novelists reveal about the minds of murderers, Observer Newspaper, 13/08/06, p. 23.

Farren, M. (2005) How can I create a pedagogy of the unique through a web of betweenness? Ph.D. University of Bath. Retrieved 27 June 2006 from http://www.bath.ac.uk/~edsajw/farren.shtml

Habermas, J. (1976) Communication and the Evolution of Society. London; Heinemann

Hartog, M. (2004) A Self Study Of A Higher Education Tutor: How Can I Improve My Practice? Ph.D. University of Bath. Retrieved 27 June 2007 from http://www.bath.ac.uk/~edsajw/hartog.shtml

Huxtable, M. & Jones, C. (2006) How can we support educators to develop skills and understandings inclusionally?

Paper prepared for presentation at the BERA 2006 Annual Conference, University of Warwick, 6-9 September, 2006.

Marcuse, H. (1964) One Dimensional Man. London; Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Naidoo, M. (2005) I am Because We Are. (My never-ending story) The emergence of a living theory of inclusional and responsive practice. Ph.D. University of Bath. Retrieved 27 June 2006 from

http://www.bath.ac.uk/~edsajw/naidoo.shtml

Rayner, A. (2004) Inclusionality: The Science, Art and Spirituality of Place, Space and Evolution. Retrieved 16 August 2006 from http://people.bath.ac.uk/bssadmr/inclusionality/placespaceevolution.html

http://www.jeanmcniff.com/bernieabstract.html

Whitehead, J. (1999) How do I improve my practice? Creating a discipline of education through educational enquiry. Ph.D. University of Bath. Retrieved 18 August 2006 from http://people.bath.ac.uk/edsajw/jack.shtml