How have I engaged with the power relations in the academy in supporting the self-studies of practitioner-researchers?
Jack Whitehead, School of Education, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY
A paper presented to the Symposium on:
How do we co-create and share our educational knowledge and theories through talking together in our self-studies of our educational research and practices?,
at the 1997 American Educational Research Association Conference, March 24-28, in Chicago.
In the successful proposal for this symposium (Appendix) the objectives included a presentation to show how I am contributing to creating a space in the Academy to enable the self-studies of practitioner researchers to be validated and accredited for M.Phil. & Ph.D. degrees. I based the title of this paper on a modification of the question asked by Trapedo-Dworsky and Cole (1996) at AERA 1996:
How do we, as a community of researchers committed to self-study both in theory and in practice, create a legitimate space for ourselves and our work both within our own institutions and within the broader educational and academic community?
In the proposal I said that I would draw on insights from Habermas (1987), Foucault, (1977), MacIntyre (1988), Bernstein (1991), and Bataille (1987), to show how I have engaged and am engaging with the power relations in one Academy in a way which contributes to answering Ardra's question.
I said that the data source would include previous publications on the story of my educational development in the academy between 1973-1993, (Whitehead 1993) and data on my work with my research students, including the two Ph.D. studies of Eames (1995) and Evans (1995), would be analysed in relation to my educational development (1993-1997).
I have extended this data source to include two further Ph.D. self-studies of Laidlaw (1996) and Hughes (1996) and experiences from collaborating with Pam Lomax, Zoë Parker and Moyra Evans (Lomax, Evans, Parker, Whitehead,1997) and with Jackie Delong (Delong & Whitehead 1997) in joint presentations at this conference.
Engaging with the power relations in the Academy.
I am writing this on the 12 March 1997, 21 years to the day when a Mr. K. Wright, the Personnel Officer of Bath University signed a letter which included the following statements clearly intended to end my employment at the University of Bath:
The Academic Staff Committee grounds for recommending that a new appointment should not be offered are as follows:
1. That you have not given satisfaction in the teaching of prescribed courses..
2. That there is an absence of evidence to suggest that you have pursued research of sufficient quality ...
3. That you have exhibited forms of behaviour which have harmed the good order and morale of the School of Education.
It is a matter of chance that I am writing to you on the 21st anniversary of this letter. Nevertheless I can use this contingency to explain why, once a year on this anniversary, I 'like' to revisit my experience of receiving this letter and regenerate my fury at the abuse of institutional power which this letter represents to me. I think an understanding of my fury can help to explain my engagement with the power relations in the Academy and the source of my energy to persist in the face of pressure.
When I see Mr Wright's name on this letter I feel violently angry. I 'like' to keep in touch with this 'violence' as it represents my insistence that individuals, as far as possible, take responsibility for their actions. It fires my commitment to engage with the power relations in the Academy to support the power of truth rather than the truth of power. I can use the energy in Bataille's (1987, p. 20.) sense of a violence matched by the separate individual's sense of continuous violation, to help to explain my educational development.
In my book on the Growth of Educational Knowledge (Whitehead 1993) I analysed how I created my living educational theory in describing and explaining my educational development in my professional practice as an educational researcher and teacher-educator. In this analysis I integrated insights about the role of the specific intellectual from the work of Michael Foucault (1977), Habermas' criteria of social validity from his theory of communicative action and his view of the importance of learning (Habermas 1987, p . 383). For example:
I accept Foucault's (1977) distinction between the 'specific intellectual' as opposed to the 'universal intellectual'. He says that for a long period the 'left' intellectual was acknowledged as a champion of truth and justice. The universal intellectual was a spokesperson of the universal in the sense of moral, theoretical and political choices. In opposition to the universal intellectual, he describes the specific intellectual in terms of an engagement in a struggle at the precise points where their own conditions of life or work situate them. Foucault takes care to emphasise that by 'truth' he does not mean 'the ensemble of truths which are to be discovered and accepted'. By 'truth', he means the ensemble of rules according to which the truth and false are separated and specific effects of power attached to the true. The struggles 'around truth' are not 'on behalf' of the truth, but about the status of truth and the economic and political role it plays. (Whitehead 1993, p.81)
In offering the account of my educational development as I engage with power relations associated with the legitimation of self-study I agree with MacIntyre's (1988) point that:
The rival claims to truth of contending traditions of enquiry depend for their vindication upon the adequacy and the explanatory power of the histories which the resources of each of those traditions in conflict enable their adherents to write. (p.403)
I also agree with Bernstein's (1991) point about the importance of the question which Derrida compels us to confront when he speaks of affirmation:
For all their differences (and speaking past each other) Derrida does not disagree with Habermas on the symbiotic relation between critique and affirmation. He forthrightly declares "I cannot conceive of a radical critique which would not be ultimately motivated by some sort of affirmation, acknowledged or not.". He also says "every culture and society requires an internal critique as an essential part of its development..... every culture needs an element of self-interrogation and of distance from itself, if it is to transform itself." The question that Derrida compels us to confront when he speaks of affirmation is: what precisely are we affirming and why? (p. 317).
I now want to extend my understanding of my engagement with the power relations in the academy in supporting the self-studies of practitioners by focusing on the political, ethical and legal implications of naming colleagues who are influencing my educational development in relation to the values of academic integrity.
In the Growth of Educational Knowledge (Whitehead 1993, pp. 41-52) I describe my experience of having two Ph.D. submissions rejected in 1980 and 1982, each submission being judged and rejected by three examiners. The rejections were made on grounds which included the judgements that I had not shown that I was able to conduct original investigations and to test my own ideas and those of others and that the thesis did not contain matter worthy of publication.
On approaching the University with a complaint about the competence of my examiners I received a letter which stated that:
Once the examiners have been appointed, their competence cannot in any circumstances be questioned.
This was the position until 1991 when the University regulations were changed to permit such questioning on the grounds of bias, prejudice or inadequate assessment. The regulation was not to operate retrospectively.
In 1987 the Secretary and Registrar wrote a letter, following a disciplinary meeting to hear complaints made by two Professors of Education, which claimed that my activities and writings were a challenge to the present and proper organisation of the University and inconsistent with the duties the University wished me to pursue in teaching and research. In 1990 colleagues brought this to the attention of the University Senate who set up a working party to investigate on a matter of academic freedom. The conclusion of their report to Senate in May 1991, contained the point:
The Working party did not find that, in any of Mr. Whitehead's seven instances, his academic freedom had actually been breached. This was, however, because of Mr. Whitehead's persistence in the face of pressure; a less determined individual might well have been discouraged and therefore constrained.
In understanding this persistence in the face of pressure I want to suggest that Bataille's insights into eroticism are important. He said that eroticism is assenting to life up to the point of death (Bataille 1987, p.11). He writes of the energy associated with this assent to life. My fury is engaged with this life-assenting force which enables me to persist in the face of pressure, and to engage with both the power relations which support the power of truth in order to transcend, overcome or move around those which support the truth of power. I associate such life-assenting forces with the commitment to 'subordinate all else to the search for a standpoint that brings out the fundamental unity of the human spirit' (Bataille, 1987, p. 8.).
Exploring the political, ethical and legal implications of naming colleagues who have influenced my educational development in the course of my research.
I now want to focus on the importance of the power relations and the value of academic integrity associated with the creation of a legitimate space for practitioner research. I want to focus on the legitimation of four Ph.D. Theses and the questions which their legitimation might raise for the academic integrity of members of the Board of Studies which recommended three of the Theses for acceptance to the Senate of the University of Bath. Here are the details of the examiners, researchers and titles of the four Ph.D. Theses:
Prof. Michael Bassey and Prof. Jean Rudduck for Moyra Evans' (graduated Feb. 1997) An action research enquiry into reflection in action as part of my role as a deputy headteacher. Ph..D. Kingston University. Supervisors, Pam Lomax and Jack Whitehead.
Prof. Ian Jamieson and Prof. Michael Bassey for Jacqui Hughes' (Graduated Dec. 1996) Action planning and assessing in guidance contexts: how can I understand and support these processes? Ph.D. University of Bath. Supervisor Paul Denley and advice from Jack Whitehead.
Prof. Chris Day and Prof. David Sims for Kevin Eames' (Graduated June 1996) How do I, as a teacher and an educational action-researcher, describe and explain the nature of my professional knowledge. Ph.D. University of Bath. Supervisor, Jack Whitehead.
Prof. Morwenna Griffiths and Prof. Richard Winter for Moira Laidlaw's 1995 submission:
How do I, as a teacher and an educational action-researcher, describe and explain the nature of my professional knowledge? Supervisor, Jack Whitehead.
and her 1996 resubmission:
How can I create my own living educational theory as I offer you an account of my educational development? Supervisor, Jack Whitehead.
(Moira's graduation day is in June 1997)
The criteria used to accredit Ph.D. Theses in the School of Education of the University of Bath are:
1) shows evidence of industry, application and scholarship
2) forms a distinct and original contribution to knowledge
3) contains matter worthy of publication
4) displays knowledge and understanding of the relevant literature
5) is satisfactory as regards style and literary presentation
My explanations of my educational development in my professional context, grounded in self-study, includes my learning as I reflect on the influence of the actions, ideas and relationships of others on my development. The law is clear about academic freedom:
Academic staff have freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom, and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions, without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or privileges they may have at their institutions (Education Reform Act, 1998).
The ethical implications of my naming colleagues whose actions, ideas and relationships have influenced my educational development is less clear. In carrying out an action enquiry of the kind, 'How do I help you to improve your learning?', I have always insisted that the participants in such an enquiry should be free to chose to engage and that their consent is required before publications of papers in which they are named. In carrying out an action enquiry of the kind, 'How do I improve what I am doing?', I have resisted the idea that anyone else's permission is required. I recognise the law dealing with academic freedom and if I name anyone in a way which is open to legal challenge, then I am subject to the law.
Let me give some examples of what I mean starting in what I hope are uncontentious academic responses to the actions, ideas and relationships of two of my colleagues, Dr. William Scott and Dr. Andy Stables in relation to their influence on my educational development.
On 22nd November 1996 the Times Educational Supplement (p.20) published an article by Michael Bassey, the executive secretary of the British Educational Research Association, called: We are specialists at pursuing the truth. He referred to my work in the following way:
The action research movement, stemming from Stenhouse's work on teachers as researchers (in an Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development 1975) and developed by people like John Elliott, Jack Whitehead, Pamela Lomax, Marian Dadds, Bridget Somekh and many other teachers in higher education and in schools has shown how research methods can enhance the quality of learning - in individual situations.... That part of action research which is concerned with reflective practice engages teachers in exploring and articulating aspects of their practice. The result often leads the individual teacher to create for himself/herself worthwhile change.
This is why Jack Whitehead argues strongly for putting the "I" into research - which is, of course anathema to the traditional scientist..
This stimulated the following response from Bill Scott (1997) which was published, with a reply from me in the University of Bath, School of Education, Research Students' Newsletter, Issue No.4 January 1997:
Reflections on Michael Bassey's Valorizing of Jack Whitehead's Pursuit of Truth.
Michael Bassey (TES 22 November 1996) makes a number of points about the differences between the need to relate educational research findings to particular circumstances, and our ability to generalize about such findings for all contexts. He argues strongly for the use of case studies as means of suggesting to other practitioners about how their work in schools might be developed and extended. Bassey says that 'relatability rather than generalizability is the methodological stance needed' and then goes on to argue that the audiences for educational research output (whether practitioners or policy-makes) are 'overall... concerned with the pursuit of truth'.
Now, I'm generally in tune with Bassey's interpretivistic stance on methodology but am I alone in being confused about the contradiction in what he seems to be saying, that is, in wondering how readily such relatability sits with the rather traditional positivist notion of 'truth'. Is 'the pursuit of such truth' really what (all) educational researchers are about?.....
Bassey goes on to say some kind things about Jack Whitehead's (and others) contribution to our understanding of the power of action research to enhance the quality of learning and teaching in schools and I wouldn't want to gainsay any of that, but I do want to question two issues. Firstly, I wonder why action research is continually valorized as, by implication, the approach to take, and sometimes as the only approach to research worth a mention. Clearly, it's not, and Bassey does the practices of education and educational research a disservice by perpetuating this myth. Secondly, I wonder why action research is afforded the status of a methodology, when most of the time, it seems to me that it is a straightforward research method which is capable of being employed in a wide range of contexts and disciplines, and in different ways, to different ends.
In his published response to Michael Bassey, Bill chose the title: Reflections on Michael Bassey's Valorizing of Jack Whitehead's Pursuit of Truth. Now, the choice of the word Valorizing in the sense of 'giving value to in order to privilege over other ways of seeing/doing/thinking', or ' to fix and maintain an artificial price for a commodity' (Collins 1986) was not value-free. I checked with Bill and his choice of 'Valorizing' was intended 'critically'. I have responded to Bill's article (Whitehead 1997) by explaining the grounds for my belief in the value of living educational theories (Noffke 1997). In responding to his criticism I became clearer about the grounds I use for believing that the living educational theories in the named theses are original contributions to educational knowledge which deserve 'valorizing' in the sense that they have fulfilled the above criteria for the award of a Ph.D. The four Ph.D. Theses which I do believe show clearly the nature of living educational theories and which are contributing to the expression, definition and communication of new educational standards of judgement can be downloaded form the Internet at address:
I value this kind of correspondence and conversation because it enables criticism to be evaluated as part of my learning, and refuted or accepted where appropriate.
Dr. Andy Stables is another colleague who has recently published references to my work in the context of a paper which explored the basic assertion that all educational experience can be seen as text (Stables 1996 p.12). Andy states:
Discourse analysis, critical theory and other forms of textual analysis and response have been used in a variety of educational research contexts. Winter (1991) goes so far as to suggest that response to the texts that constitute educational experience is so important that a 'fictional-critical' method of analysing educational experience is desirable, involving the conscious construction of fictional narrative as a response to educational events, which can then be further analysed by readers. Winter stresses the importance of response to data as opposed to the mere existence of data in governing the creation of theory.
Arguably, a similar belief in response is implicit in the work of the actions researchers, particularly those such as Whitehead (1993), who place emphasis on autobiographic account as a means of attempting to resolve the conflicts inherent in the 'I' who experiences and determined professional practice. Laidlaw (1994) specifically examines the importance of dialogue and shared experience in this question......
It has been argued that modern understandings of the terms 'language' and 'text' enable us to see all human interaction in terms of text. It has also been argued that every kind of educational research involves the creation of a new text (a supertext) by distilling material from source texts; it is merely in the manner of this distillation that research methodologies differ.
A full acknowledgement of the validity of this perspective begs one further question. If it is valid to see all education as text, then surely techniques of textual study used in other disciplines should be used more widely in education. There has already been reference to the work of Winter (1991), Whitehead (1993) and Laidlaw (1994). Both the fictional-critical and the autobiographical methods they espouse lay stress on the interpreter of data as a changing individual who creates meanings from text.
Andy concludes with questions I value: what is the relationship of a literary text to an educational text? what is 'educational'? What kinds of professional response tend to result from differing kinds of supertext?
As part of the enquiry into my own educational development I have analysed the educational value of accepting the basic assertion that all educational experience can be seen as text, and recognised my mistake in holding this position because it failed to permit me to value the other in an educational relationship. I have analysed the experience of a 'validation' group which revealed this mistake in a separate presentation to this conference (Delong & Whitehead 1997).
In naming my colleagues in this way I think you will agree that I am acting within the traditional ethical canons of academic debate.
Now let me move to more contentious areas in naming other colleagues in relation to the politics of educational knowledge. The issue of naming colleagues has been a matter of recent concern in the School of Education and is considered in the Ethical Guidelines of the British Educational Research Association. I want to focus my attention on what I consider to be a value of academic integrity in relation to those of my colleagues who constituted the Board of Studies of the School of Education.
This Board has a responsibility of reporting to Senate on all matters concerning the curriculum, research and teaching in the School. Over the past year the Board has accepted the recommendations of the examiners of three Ph.D. Theses that the researchers should be awarded a Ph.D. (Eames, 1995; Hughes, 1996; Laidlaw, 1996). Kingston University has awarded a Ph.D. to Moyra Evans (1995) with a living educational theory approach. Each of these theses has explicitly drawn extensively on my ideas on the construction of living educational theories (see also Russell & Pinnegar 1995) and dialogical and dialectical forms of professional knowledge. These had their genesis in two Ph.D. submissions (Whitehead 1980, 1982) to the University of Bath. The examiners of both my Theses agreed that they contained no matter worthy of publication and that I had not shown that I was able to conduct original investigations and to test my own ideas and those of others. These judgements have not been overturned and in 1991, whilst the University Regulation was changed to permit research students to challenge the examiners' judgements on the grounds of bias, prejudice or inadequate assessment, the change in regulation was not to act retrospectively. So, whilst the membership of the Board has changed my colleagues are members of the Board of Studies which historically supported the judgements that my theses contained no matter worthy of publication and that I had not shown that I was able to conduct original investigations and to test my own ideas and those of others. These judgements have not been challenged. At the same time the Board is recommending to Senate that Ph.D. degrees should be awarded for theses which are explicitly acknowledged by examiners and researchers as being grounded in my 'living theory paradigm'.
This Board of Studies will cease to exist at the end of the academic year 1997 when the University is restructured into Faculties. It do hope my colleagues acknowledge that there is a question of academic integrity to be faced by this Board of Studies.
This question does have implications for my own educational development in the area of the politics of educational knowledge in relation to Ardra's question:
How do we, as a community of researchers committed to self-study both in theory and in practice, create a legitimate space for ourselves and our work both within our own institutions and within the broader educational and academic community?
What I think I need to learn is how to work with my colleagues in an enquiry of the form:
How do we, as a community of researchers committed to the values of academic freedom and integrity support educational action-researchers in creating a legitimate space for themselves and their work both within our own institutions and within the broader educational and academic community?
If I could share such an enquiry with my colleagues it would help me to resolve a tension I experience within my professional life of knowing that a Board of Studies holds a contradiction in relation to academic integrity. The judgements denying my originality and 'matter worthy of publication' (in the 1980 and 1982 judgements) have not been challenged in the Board, whilst the originality and matter worthy of publication of my Ph.D. students in 1996/1997 have been accepted. This is not of course to deny the originality of my students' work. It is, I believe, to acknowledge the value of some original ideas and 'matter for publication' from my own work which they have integrated into their own.
In 1991 the Senate working party recognised that I had persisted in the face of pressure to support my value of academic freedom. I am now focusing on the value of academic integrity and learning how to support the life of this value in my relationships in the workplace as part of my contribution to the answer the question of how we might support each other in creating legitimate spaces for self-study. I also intend this paper as support for the views of the Academic Assembly of the University of Bath:
'High sounding phrases like "values of freedom, truth and democracy", "rational debate", "integrity", have been used. It is easy to be cynical about these and to dismiss them as hopelessly idealistic, but without ideals and a certain agreement about shared values a community cannot be sustained, and will degenerate. These are the phrases in which members of Academic Assembly have chosen to convey their concept of this community' (The Idea of a University, Academic Assembly, University of Bath 1988)
I wonder if my paper might stimulate your engagement with the relationships which support the values of academic integrity and community if you come to believe that this value is served by overcoming a contradiction within a Board where original contributions and 'matter worthy of publication' are both being denied and accepted. What I am asking you, my colleagues, to do, especially those on the Board of Studies, is to ask each other whether or not you believe that I have made a good case which is worthy of discussion and affirmation and, if you believe that I have made a good case then to act together in supporting the value of academic integrity by helping to resolve the contradiction.
How do we co-create and share our educational knowledge and theories through talking together in our self-studies of our educational research and practices?
A proposal for Division K. Section 6.
Objectives of the symposium
Our objectives are to show the way in which our collaboration in our self-studies in our practitioner researcher can contribute to taking the following questions and theme of AERA 97 into our futures.
We identify with the theme of the conference in talking together in our educational research and practice. We accept the view that every profession improves practice through participating in creating research questions and new knowledge. Our objectives in the symposium will be to show how our self-studies of our professional lives can contribute to answering the following questions:
How are we, as educators, creating and extending our circles of communication among professional educators, researchers, and other publics vested in education?
How are we increasing the impact of new knowledge in education on educational practice?
How are we implicitly and explicitly conveying a spirit of inclusion and discussion with all those interested in education?
The educational importance of the symposium
The contributors are all members of the Action Research in Educational Theory Group of the School of Education of Bath University in the UK. The work of this group is well known in the UK:
i) in creating new forms of living educational theories,
ii) in developing appropriate forms of representation for self-study in practitioner enquiry
iii) in defining new educational standards of judgement for testing the validity of knowledge-claims in self-studies in professional contexts.
The educational importance of the symposium is that it will offer the opportunity to test the validity of these new forms of educational theory, forms of representation and educational standards of judgement, which have been generated from self-studies in practitioner enquiry, in an international forum of educational researchers.
The structure of the session
The structure of the session will follow the organisation of the international symposium which the contributors organised at Kingston University on 12 July 1996 with a group of 80 participants. Terri Austin will introduce the session and explain its purposes and structure. Each contributor will take no more than 2 minutes to introduce their context and the most significant findings from their studies in relation to the three questions: How are we, as educators, creating and extending our circles of communication among professional educators, researchers, and other publics vested in education? How are we increasing the impact of new knowledge in education on educational practice? How are we implicitly and explicitly conveying a spirit of inclusion and discussion with all those interested in education?
They will then take no more than 2 minutes each to outline their current concerns and to explain the nature of their current questions in relation to; the value of community in extending our circles of communication; increasing the impact of our new knowledge by communicating the new standards of judgement we use to test the validity of our new knowledge; the quality of human spirit which enables us to implicitly and explicitly convey a spirit of inclusion and discussion. We will include examples of 'tensions' we have experienced when we have been unable to 'include' some individuals in our community. The audience will be invited to comment on these questions and tensions to draw them into the discussion. Four groups will then be formed with a focus on the issues of defining and legitimating, as educational standards of judgement, the values of community, aesthetic sensitivity, a life affirming human spirit and the politics of educational knowledge.
After 30 minutes discussion the groups will then be brought together for a final session in which the use of the World Wide Web and the Research Homepage at address http://www.actionresearch.net will be explained in relation to testing our claims that, through our self-studies and our talk, we are co-creating new forms of living educational theories, new forms of representation for self-study and new educational standards of judgement for testing the validity of knowledge-claims in self-studies in professional contexts.
Papers by the contributions to show how they are resolving the following questions will be available on the above Research Page by 28 February 1997.
Presenter A- How can I bring my understanding of the values of community as valid educational knowledge into the Academy?]
The objectives of this presentation are to show how I constructed by Ph.D. submission to the University of Bath, in a way which enabled me to retain the integrity of my professional knowledge as a teacher and my sense of community with colleagues in the Alaskan Teacher Research Network. The perspectives I draw on include Eames' (1995) view of teachers' professional knowledge and Evans' (1995) view on the use of story in creating her own living educational theory. The data source includes video-tapes of my classroom practice and self-study group, the journals of my research journey, previous publications (Austin 1994), and taped conversations with pupils and colleagues.
Presenter B - How do I express, communicate and have legitimated as valid knowledge the spiritual qualities in my educational journey.
The objective of this presentation is to represent a story of my educational journey in a way which communicates the quality and the meanings of my spiritual journey in giving a form to my educative relationships with others. My data source includes conversations and correspondences with professional educators during the course of my Ph.D. studies at the University of Bath (1992- ). The perspectives I draw on include those of Osguthorpe (1995) and Whitehead (1993).
Presenter C- How do I communicate the aesthetic morphology of my educative relationships as valid educational knowledge in my living educational theory?
The objective of this presentation is to show how I have defined and communicated the aesthetic morphology of my educative relationships in my Ph.D. submission to the University of Bath. Data sources include video-tapes of my classroom practice. learning journals of my pupils, together with my responses. Copies of the work of individual pupils over time and previous analysis of my educational development in my self-study of my work as a university tutor and classroom teacher (Laidlaw 1994). The perspectives I draw on include the living theory approach to educational action research developed by McNiff, Lomax & Whitehead (1996) and the view of teachers' professional knowledge developed by Eames (1995)
Presenter D - How have I engaged with the power relations in the academy in supporting the self-studies of practitioner-researchers?
The objectives of this presentation are to show how I contributed to creating a space in the Academy to enable the self-studies of practitioner researchers to be validated and accredited for M.Phil. & Ph.D. degrees. Drawing on insights from Habermas (1987), Foucault, (1977), MacIntyre (1991), Bernstein (1991), and Bataille (1987), I will show how I engaged with the power relations in one Academy in a way which enabled me to create my own living educational theory and explicate the standards of judgement I use to validate my claim to know my own educational development.
The data source includes previous publications on the story of my educational development in the academy between 1973-1993, (Whitehead 1993). Data on my work with my research students, including the two Ph.D. studies of Eames (1995) and Evans (1995 - jointly supervised with Prof. Pamela Lomax) on the above World Wide Web address, will be analysed in relation to my educational development (1993-1996).
Austin, T. (1994) Changing the View: Student-Led Parent Conferences. Portsmouth, NH; Heinemann.
Bataille, G. (1987) Eroticism, London; Marion Boyars.
Bernstein, R. (1991) The New Constellation, Cambridge; Polity.
Eames, K. (1995) Teaching, Educational Action-Research and Professional Knowledge. Ph.D. University of Bath. Accessible from the World Wide Web at address, http://www.actionresearch.net
Evans, M. (1995) An Action Research Enquiry into Reflection in Action as Part of My Role as a Deputy Headteacher. Ph.D. University of Kingston. Accessible from the World Wide Web at address http://www.actionresearch.net
Foucault, M. (1977) Intellectuals and Power - a conversation between Michel Foucault and Giles Deleuze, in Bouchard, D.R. (Ed) Michel Foucault, Language, Counter-Memory, Practice. Oxford; Basil Blackwell.
Habermas, J. (1987) Theory of Communicative Action, Vol.2.. Cambridge:Policy
Laidlaw, M. (1994) The democratising potential of dialogical focus in an action research enquiry, Educational Action Research, Vol.2, No.2, pp. 224-243.
Lomax, P. (1996) Quality Management in Education. London; Routledge.
MacIntyre, A. (1991) Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry, London; Duckworth.
McNiff, J., Lomax, P. & Whitehead, J. (1996) You and Your Action Research Project, London; Routledge.
Osguthorpe, R. (1995) "The Education of the Heart: Rediscovering the Spiritual Roots of Learning." In Press.
Whitehead, J. (1993) The Growth of Educational Knowledge: Creating your own living educational theory. Bournemouth; Hyde.
Collins (1986) Collins Dictionary of the English Language. 2nd. Edition. p. 1674, Glasgow; Collins.
Delong, J. & Whitehead, J. (1997) A collaborative enquiry into a Ph.D. researcher and supervisor relationship. A paper presented at the 1997 Annual Conference of AERA in Chicago, U.S.A..
Hughes, J. (1996) Action planning and assessing in guidance contexts: how can I understand and support these processes. Ph.D. University of Bath.
Laidlaw, M. (1996) How can I create my own living educational theory as I offer you an account of my educational development. Ph.D. University of Bath.
MacIntyre, A. (1988) Whose Rationality, Whose Justice. London; Duckworth.
Noffke, S. (1997) Professional, Personal and Political Dimensions of Action Research. Apple, M. (Ed.) (1997) Review of Research in Education, Vol. 22. p. 329., Washington; AERA.
Russell, T. & Pinnegar, S. (ed) (1995) Self-Study and Living Educational Theory. Teacher Education Quarterly, Vol. 22, No.3.
Scott, W. (1997) Reflections on Michael Bassey's Valorizing of Jack Whitehead's Pursuit of Truth. Research Links, University of Bath, School of Education, Research Students' Newsletter. No.4. January 1997.
Stables, A. (1996) Studying Education as Text: parameters and implications. Westminster Studies in Education, Vol. 19, 1996.
Whitehead, J. (1997) Creating Living Educational Theories Through Educational Research: a Response to Bill Scott. Research Links, University of Bath, School of Education, Research Students' Newsletter, Issue No. 4, January 1997.