Can I communicate the educational influence of my embodied values, in self-studies of my own education, in the education of others and in the education of social formations, in a way that contributes to a scholarship of educational enquiry?

 

DRAFT 12 June 2004

 

Jack Whitehead, Department of Education, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY.

 

(My thanks to the gentle urgings of Linda Fitzgerald and Deborah Tidwell – without their expressed desire for inclusionality this presentation would not have been made)

 

Presentation for a Validation Exercise at the Fifth International Conference of the Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices, Herstmonceaux Castle, UK, 27 June – 1 July 2004.

 

Context

 

At the AERA 2004 Symposium of the S-STEP SIG on “The transformative potential of individuals' collaborative self-studies for sustainable global educational networks of communication” practitioner-researchers shared the following commitments:

 

“We are a group of teachers, professional educators, and education administrators, working across the levels of education systems. Each of us asks, ‘How do I improve what I am doing for personal and social good?’ Each of us aims to generate our personal educational theories (Whitehead, 1989) to show how we are doing so through our contributions to the education of social formations in our own settings. This symposium is an opportunity to test the validity of these claims against the critical judgement of peers, in the spirit of the AERA organisers' themes, to make public a consideration of 'what counts as evidence in high-quality educational research, how educational research informs and is informed by practice, and the nature of the social, political, and historical contexts in which educational research is conducted and used' (see http://www.aera.net) (AERA 2003).

 

This Fifth International Conference of S-STEP on ‘Journey’s of Hope: Risking Self-Study in a Diverse World’, offers another context with s-step researchers, to continue this process of validation by providing time for a more sustained focus on the validity of a claim to know how to transform ontological commitments in a self-study of educational influence into living and epistemological standards of judgement. Part of this context is provided by the 38 contributions by s-step researchers in the International Handbook of Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices with what I think is a shared concern with ontology:

 

“The consideration of ontology, of one’s being in and toward the world, should be a central feature of any discussion of the value of self-study research”  (Bullough & Pinnegar, 2004, p.)

 

If the claims I make stand up to your critical evaluations in relation to their evidential base then the outcome will be a contribution to the new scholarship of educational enquiry.  I am thinking particularly of a contribution to the epistemology of the new scholarship in terms of the living and communicable standards of judgement that can be used to test the validity of claims to educational knowledge that are being made from within a living theory approach to self-study.

This focus on the nature of living standards of judgement follows my contributions to conversations in s-step communities on the significance of including ‘I’ as a living contradiction in enquiries of the kind, ‘How do I improve what I am doing?’ It also follows a contribution on the significance of contributing to the knowledge-base of education a story of one’s learning in such enquiries as an explanation that constitutes one’s own living educational theory.

 

In the context of my work in higher education my supervision and support for action research programmes includes practitioner researchers with a range of different enquiries into their own personal and professional contexts. As far as I understand both self-study and action research, action research necessarily involves a self-study because the practitioner-researcher is studying his or her own practice. However, self-study does not necessarily involve doing action research. There are many ways of studying the self that do not involve engaging in enquiries that are focused on improving one’s own practice, one’s understanding of that practice or of understanding and improving the social context in which the practice is located.

 

Having said that my self-studies of my teaching and teacher education practices are focused on the growth of my educational knowledge in understanding my educational influence in the learning of action researchers as they engage in a process of self-realisation within their educational enquiries. My self-studies are also focused on understanding the influence of living educational theories in the education of social formations.

 

My choice of focus on my educational relationships with doctoral researchers is because of the extended period of time of their research programmes. The minimum period of supervision for the doctorates in the living theory section of http://www.actionresearch.net is five years and the maximum is eight years with a period of two year’s suspension. This gives time to understand the meanings of the individual’s ontological values and their clarification and transformation in the course of their emergence in practice into living and communicable epistemological standards of judgement.

 

Purpose

 

Participants in this validation exercise are invited to evaluate the validity of my claims to educational knowledge as I continue to create my living educational theory. My claims are:

 

i)                                               That I can communicate the educational influence of my embodied ontological values in explanations of my learning in self-studies of my own education, in the education of others and in the education of social formations.

ii)                                            That I can demonstrate how my embodied ontological values can be clarified in the course of their emergence in my educational relationships and transformed, in this process of clarification, into communicable and living epistemological standards of judgement.

                                              

I am seeing the significance of my claim in terms of a contribution to a scholarship of educational enquiry that shows how embodied ontological values can be clarified in the course of their emergence in educational relationships. The key epistemological point is that the embodied values are transformed, in the process of their clarification and emergence, into epistemological and living standards of judgement that can be used to evaluate the validity of the knowledge claims.

 

In Schön’s terms, I see that, the problem of introducing and legitimizing in the university the kinds of action research associated with the new scholarship is one not only of the institution but of the scholars themselves”.  (Schön, 1995, p.34)

 

What Schön means by this is that the development of an epistemology of practice for the new scholarship will be hindered by a double impediment. He says that on the one hand there is the power of disciplinary in-groups that have grown up around the dominant epistemology of the research universities. On the other hand there is the inability of those who might become new scholars to make their practice into appropriately rigorous research. (Schön, 1995, p.34)

 

This presentation can be seen as a continuing enquiry into the implications of the question that formed my address to the British Educational Research Association in 1988 on ‘How do we Improve Research-based Professionalism in Education? - A question which includes action research, educational theory and the politics of educational knowledge.’ (Whitehead, 1998). If I can make my practice into appropriately rigorous research it can also be seen as a contribution to what counts as evidence in self-studies of teacher education practices in claims to know one’s educational influence in the education of oneself, of others and of social formations (Whitehead 2004a).

 

Method

 

From the ground of my personal knowledge of a flow of a cosmic life-affirming energy of well-being in my educational practices as a supervisor of educational research programmes, I will invite the participants in this validation exercise to engage in a dialectic of question of answer in relation to the answers I have given (Whitehead, 2004b) to the questions:

 

In my being with you in the here and now am I communicating a flow of cosmic life-affirming energy of well-being in my relationships with you? In considering the values that carry hope for the future of humanity I am suggesting that this cosmic life-affirming energy of well-being carries such hope.

 

Do video-clips of supervision sessions with doctoral practitioner-researchers, together with my commentary, justify my claim that I express this flow of an energy of well-being in my educational relationships?  I now want to show some very short video-clips to communicate my meaning of a flow of a life-affirming energy of well-being.

 

Can I communicate the meanings of an ontological expression of an inclusional 'will to live' and 'will to knowledge', through a Daughter's birth, into a productive life in my educational relationships?

 

Joan, my wife, gave birth to our daughter Rebecca on the 23rd December 1975. She was born 9 weeks prematurely and weighed one kilogramme. My first sight of her was in an intensive care incubator, looking still and frail but breathing. The nurse with me said that perhaps she should be Christened because she might not last the night. Not being a Christian caused me to pause and shake my head. The nurse left. Now, I have never focused my will to live and give (gift) life as I did in being with Rebecca. I have never forgotten focusing the power of my own life-affirming energy of well-being into an inclusional 'will to live' with Rebecca. I imagine that you can feel enough of my life-affirming energy to comprehend the nature of that focused will and the embodied value I am expressing.

 

I think that I bring this focused 'will to live' into my educational relationships as it is transformed and expressed as a 'will to knowledge' in living a productive life. While it may appear a little strange to some readers that I am bringing into my account, at this point, my economic theory of living a productive life, I do recognise the validity of the claim that no sophisticated theory of education can ignore its contribution to economic development  (Halsey,  Lauder, Brown, & Wells; 1997, p. 156)  I draw my articulation of an economic theory of human capability and distinguish this theory from the economic theory of human capital with the ideas of Amartya Sen (2001).

 

For Sen the yardstick of assessment between the two economic theories concentrates on their different achievements:

 

Given her personal characteristics, social background, economic circumstances and so on, a person has the ability to do (or be) certain things that she has reason to value. The reason for valuation can be direct (the functioning involved may directly enrich her life, such as being well-nourished or being healthy), or indirect (the functioning involved may contribute to further production, or command a price in the market). The human capital perspective can-in principle-be defined very broadly to cover both types of valuation, but it is typically defined-by convention-primarily in terms of indirect value: human qualities that can be employed as "capital" in production (in the way physical capital is). In this sense, the narrower view of the human capital approach fits into the more inclusive perspective of human capability, which can cover both direct and indirect consequences of human abilities. (p. 293)

 

Sen goes on to say that there is a crucial valuational difference between the human-capital focus and the concentration on human capabilities - a difference that relates to some extent to the distinction between means and ends:

 

The acknowledgment of the role of human qualities in promoting and sustaining economic growth-momentous as it is-tells us nothing about why economic growth is sought in the first place. If, instead, the focus is, ultimately, on the expansion of human freedom to live the kind of lives that people have reason to value, then the role of economic growth in expanding these opportunities has to be integrated into that more foundational understanding of the process of development as the expansion of human capability to lead more worthwhile and more free lives. (p. 295)

 

From within an economic theory of human capability I see my productive life in education as being concerned with enhancing the flow of values, skills and knowledge that carry hope for the future of  humanity in the education of individuals and their social formations and with stemming the flow of values and knowledge that do not carry such hope. My approach to enhancing the flow of values, skills and knowledges that carry this hope is through the influence of my supervision of research programmes. I see my productive life in terms of my effectiveness in supporting those individuals, whose values, skills and knowledges I respect, to  bring their embodied knowledge into the Academy for legitimation, in the form of their living educational theories of their learning as they ask, research, and answer questions of the kind, ‘How do I improve what I am doing?’

 

I believe that the productivity of my 'will to knowledge' is experienced by students I work with as a certainty that their embodied knowledges and values should live in the Academy as legitimated educational knowledge. I think that I communicate this as a belief that their originality of mind and critical judgements will enable them to bring this knowledge into the Academy. These beliefs have some support in the acknowledgements in the theses in the living theory section of http://www.actionresearch.net .

 

In addition to the above expressions of a flow of a cosmic life-affirming energy of well-being, an inclusional will to live that connects with my will to knowledge and desire for a productive life, I also value the expression of a loving warmth of humanity.

 

How do I express the meaning of a loving warmth of humanity through a Father's death, a Son's birth and a Colleague's death.

 

When my Father died in 1990, my son Jonathan, aged 10, was with us both and the experience was one of helping my Father let go of life while included in the love of his family, including his wife, my mother and Jonathan’s grandmother, Alice. Again, I imagine that those of you who have experienced the death of a parent, or have empathized with those experiencing the death of a parent, can bear witness to, rather than comprehending, the process of grieving. Feeling a loving warmth of humanity emerging through grief does, in my experience, feed life with death rather than feeding death with life (Rayner, 2003).

 

The loving warmth of humanity I experienced with my Father through his death and that emerged through the grief resonates closely with the loving warmth of humanity I experienced with my wife Joan and son Jonathan at Jonathan's birth in 1979. In this experience the loving wamth of humanity emerged through the pleasure of the joy in Jonathan's birth.

 

I also experienced a loving warmth of humanity with Martin Dobson, a colleague I worked with for 20 years. Martin exuded this warmth wih a pleasure of recognition in our daily contact. I last saw him a few days before his death through cancer, after a long illness. Close to his death and knowing this with certainty, Martin held my gaze and asked me to 'Give my love to the Department'. Now, I am not sure why I found it difficult (and still feel a twinge of embarrassment) to publicly carry my expression of Martin's loving warmth of humanity, through my own, to others. Yet, I continue to try to bring this quality as a living standard of judgement into the Academy because I believe that such a loving warmth of humanity, if expressed more freely in the world, would help the world to become a better place to be.

 

Some of you will have received e-mails from me with the signature Love Jack.that seeks to carry this quality of loving relationship and hope for the future of humanity.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

When Martin Dobson, a colleague, died in 2002 the last thing he said to me

was 'Give my Love to the Department'. In the 20 years I'd worked with

Martin it was his loving warmth of humanity that I recall with great life

affirming pleasure and I'm hoping that in Love Jack we can share this

value of common humanity.

 

I am identifying such a loving warmth of humanity with the values of a kind and judicious parent. In English Law teachers are held to be in 'loco parentis' which means in the place of a parent. In Canadian Law the phrase is in place of a 'kind and judicious parent'. Evidence for my belief that we will be able to transform the embodied values of a loving (kind and judicious) parent into living standards of educational judgement is beginning to emerge in the accounts of teacher-researchers. For example, Lisa Percy, a teacher at John Bentley School in Wiltshire England is enquiring into the meaning and educational influence of her value of  'in loco parentis' and you can access some of her writings on 'Should teachers be parents too?' at:

 

http://www.actionresearch.net/module/lpparentis.htm

 

 I think that it bears repeating that my ontological commitments to a life-affirming energy of well-being and a loving warmth of humanity are also accompanied by my ontological value of living a productive life in education. As I have said I think I do this through my educational relationships as a tutor and supervisor to practitioner-researchers on the continuing professional development and research degree programmes at the University of Bath. To include such a commitment in an explanation of educational influence, I need to show the transformation from the embodied value of a productive life into an epistemological standard of judgement for testing the validity of my explanation.

 

How can my ontological commitment to living a productive life be expressed as an epistemological standard of judgment?

 

I recall the passion behind my decision in 1966 to become a teacher. Looking back, on my experiences of education in school and university at the age of 22, I recognise that many of my teachers were well-meaning and enthusiastic about communicating their subject knowledge. What I felt that I lacked were educational relationships in which I was related to as an individual with his own embodied knowledge and values that were worthy of recognition. I also felt a lack of recognition of my capacities for creative and critical thought that could have been engaged with in a process of enquiry learning. Hence my valuing of the embodied knowledges and values of those I work with and my desire to support their enquiry learning in the legitimation of their knowledge of this learning, in the Academy.

 

So, in explaining my productive life in education I see as significant my ontological commitment to sustaining my passion for  contributing to the legitimation in the Academy of the embodied knowledges and values of practitioner-researchers. This passion is grounded in the expression and legitimation of my own originality of mind and critical judgement in my educational knowledge-creation in the Academy. It was a source of great satisfaction in 2000 to be able to place my own living theory doctorate alongside those of the other researchers whose research programme I had helped to supervise. I imagine that the evidential base, that shows my persistence in the expression of this ontological passion, in the face of power relations that could have constrained the creative expression of this passion (Whitehead, 1993), is clear and strong in the successfully completed research programmes (http://www.actionresearch.net/living.shtml) for the living theory doctorates and other degrees awarded to practitioner-researchers by the University of Bath (Whitehead, 2004).

 

As I contribute such accounts to the interconnecting and branching networks of communication, made possible by the internet, I believe that I am producing something of value as a human being in the ontological sense described by Marx in his early writings:

 

Suppose we had produced things as human beings: in his production each of us would have twice affirmed himself and the other.

 

In my production I would have objectified my individuality and its particularity, and in the course of the activity I would have enjoyed an individual life, in viewing the object I would have experienced the individual joy of knowing my personality as an objective, sensuously perceptible, and indubitable power.

 

In your satisfaction and your use of my product I would have had the direct and conscious satisfaction that my work satisfied a human need, that it objectified human nature, and that it created an object appropriate to the need of another human being.

 

I would have been the mediator between you and the species and you would have experienced me as a re-integration of your own nature and a necessary part of yourself; I would have been affirmed in your thought as well as your love.

 

In my individual life I would have directly created your life, in my individual activity I would have immediately confirmed and realized my true human nature. (Bernstein, p. 48, 1971)

 

So, in being accountable to my ontological commitment to living a productive life it is affirming to see that others find that my ideas and educational influence have use-value within their own form of life. It is also important to me because of this view of living a productive life, that I openly acknowledge the influence that others have had in the creation of my own form of life.

 

Given that I don't seem to avoid learning through enquiry  I also recognise my embrace of enquiry learning as an ontological commitment.

 

What is my ontological commitment to enquiry learning?

 

By an ontological commitment to enquiry learning I mean that I create and come to understand myself through a process of question and answer. My ontological questions include 'Who am I?' 'What am I doing' 'Why am I doing what I am doing? and 'How am I improving what I am doing?'

 

As I come to a better understanding of who I am, I see more clearly the embodied values to which I hold myself accountable for living as fully as I can. These values are a source of my experience of myself as a living contradiction as I find myself working in relationships and contexts where some of my values are negated in what I am doing. As I clarify my values, in the course of their emergence in my practice of enquiry learning, they are transformed, through this process of clarification, into the living standards of judgment I use to test the validity of my knowledge-claims. In other words the values in my ontological commitments provide the source for my epistemological standards of judgment. This is such an important connection for me because my sense of identity includes my sense of living a productive life by extending the influence of values that carry hope for the future of humanity, through education and knowledge-creation.

 

To emphasise my sustained commitment to enquiry learning here is something I wrote in 1980 about questioning:

 

“Gadamer's ideas appealed to me because I could identify with his emphasis on the importance of forming a question. For Gadamer, questioning is a 'passion'. He says that questions press upon us when our experiences conflict with our preconceived  opinions. He believes that the art of questioning is not the art of avoiding the pressure of opinion.

 

"It is not an art in the sense that the Greeks speak of techne, not a craft that can be taught and by means of which we would master the knowledge of truth".

 

Drawing on Plato's  Seventh Letter, Gadamer  distinguishes the unique character of the art of dialectic.  He does not see the art of dialectic as the art of being able to win every argument. On the contrary, he says it is possible that someone who is practising the art of dialectic, i.e. the art of questioning and of seeking truth, comes off worse in the argument in the eyes of those listening to it. (Gadamer, 1975. p.330).

 

According to Gadamer, dialectic, as the art of asking questions, proves itself only because the person who knows how to ask questions is able to persist  in  his questioning. I see a characteristic of this persistence as being able to preserve one's  openness to the possibilities which life itself permits. The art of questioning is that of being able to continue with one's questions. Gadamer refers to dialectic as the art of conducting a real conversation.

 

"To conduct a conversation requires first of all that the partners to it do not talk at cross purposes. Hence its necessary structure is that of question and answer. The first condition of the art of conversation is to ensure that the other person is with us…. To conduct a conversation…. requires that one does not try to out-argue the other person, but that one really considers the weight of the other's opinion. Hence it is an art of testing. But the art of testing is the art of questioning. For we have seen that to question means to lay open, to place in the open. As against the solidity of opinions, questioning makes the object and all its possibilities fluid. A person who possesses the 'art' of questioning is a person who is able to prevent the suppression of questions by the dominant opinion.... Thus the meaning of a sentence is relative to the question to which it is a reply (my emphasis) , i.e.  it necessarily goes beyond what is said in it. The logic of the human sciences is, then, as appears from what we have said a logic of the question.  Despite Plato we are not very ready for such a logic." (pp. 330-333)

 

I was shocked by this last sentence. What could it mean? Despite Plato we are not very ready for a logic of question and answer. I read on with increasing excitement to the point where he states that R.G. Collingwood developed the idea of a logic of question and answer, but unfortunately did not develop it systematically before he died. Having assimilated Gadamer's views on the art of conversation and of the necessity of finding a common language I then found myself disagreeing with the following ideas on the relationship between 'I', 'language' and 'the world'.

 

"Our enquiry has been guided by the basic idea that language is a central point where 'I' and the world meet or, rather, manifest their original unity."  (p. 431)

 

The basic difference between Gadamer's enquiry and my own is that I do not hold that language is a central point where 'I' and the world manifest their original unity. I begin with the experience of 'I' as a living contradiction in the world in which I am conscious of holding values which are at the same time negated in practice. I have no understanding of any 'original unity'. If there is to be unity I see my enquiry  as  an attempt to understand how to create a unity between 'I' and the world.

 

I did however find myself in complete accord with the following ideas of Collingwood (1939, Chapter 5. Question and Answer) on the relationship between a dialectical, or question and answer form, and the propositional form,

 

"I began by observing that you cannot find out what a man means by simply studying his spoken or written statements, even though he has spoken or written with perfect command of language and perfectly truthful intention. In order to find out his meaning you must also know what the question was (a question in his own mind, and presumed by him to be in yours) to which the thing he has said or written was meant as an answer(p.31).....

 

Here I parted company with what I called propositional logic, and its offspring the generally recognized theories of truth. According to propositional logic (under which denomination I include the so-called 'traditional' logic, the 'idealistic' logic of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and the 'symbolic' logic of the nineteenth and twentieth) truth or falsehood, which are what logic is chiefly concerned with, belongs to propositions as such (p.33-34)……

 

By 'right' I do not mean 'true'. The 'right' answer to a question is the answer which enables us to get ahead with the process of questioning and answering. ....It follows, too, and this is what especially struck me at the time, that whereas no two propositions can be in themselves mutually contradictory, there are many cases in which one and the same pair of propositions are capable of being thought either that or the opposites, according as the questions they were meant to answer are reconstructed in one way or in another". (Collingwood, 1939. P. 37. Chapt.5)

 

I accept and live with Collingwood's point below that there is an intimate and mutual dependence between theory and practice, 'thought depending upon what the thinker learned by experience in action, action depending upon how he thought of himself and the world'. I also accept the implications of working in education as a vocation in the sense that education, as a value-laden practical activity places a responsibility on the educator to live values in practice. I see educators as moral agents in Collingwood's sense below.

 

" There were, I held, no merely moral actions, no merely political actions, and no merely economic actions. Every action was moral, political, and economic. But although actions were not to be divided into three separate classes - the moral, the political and the economic - these three characteristics, their morality, their politicality, and their economicity, must be distinguished and not confused as they are, for example, by utiliarianism, which offers an account of economicity when professing to offer one of morality (p.149).....The rapprochement between theory and practice was equally incomplete. I no longer thought of them as mutually independent: It was that the relation between them was one of intimate and mutual dependence, thought depending upon what the thinker learned by experience in action, action depending upon how he thought of himself and the world".(Collingwood, 1939. P.150)

 

These assumptions are open to challenge. They will not be abandoned lightly but have been opened up for your criticism because of my commitment to a view of research-based professionalism in education in which it is a responsibility of the researcher to submit her or his work to public tests of validity. I relate this commitment to Macintyre's view (1988) 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 intend to make your criticisms welcome and to 'practise what I preach' in the sense of helping to develop a conversational research community in which you experience the value of academic freedom in helping to take your own enquiries forward.” (Whitehead, 1999, pp. 25-29)

 

Because much of my productive life is spent in the supervision of research programmes to bring the embodied knowledge of practitioner-researchers into the Academy I am living myself through others (Riding 2003). By living myself through others I mean in the relational and inclusional sense that this aspect of my productive life in dependent on others finding use-value in what I do and integrating insights from what I do into their own form of life.

 

How can I communicate an ontological commitment to an inclusional way of being in my educational relationships with my students?

 

Perhaps one of my clearest expressions of the development of an inclusional way of being is the story of my enquiry learning and the growth of my educational knowledge at the University of Bath between 1973-1993 (Whitehead, 1993). I clarified my ontological commitment to an inclusional form of freedom in the course of its emergence in my practice of enquiry as I persisted in the face of pressures that according to the University might have constrained a less determined individual!  I have been fortunate to work with Judi Marshall and Peter Reason in the Centre for Action Research in Professional Practice at the University of Bath as they have done so much to live their own lives of inquiry (Marshall, 1997) and hold open a creative space for individual and collaborative enquiries that has included my own work.

 

My passion for enquiry learning with others is connected with my experience, understandings and ontological commitment to the inclusionality of  I-You and We-I relationships. In my contribution to the AERA Symposium on The transformative potential of individuals' collaborative self-studies for sustainable global educational networks of communication, I wanted to communicate the nature of my ontological commitments to inclusionality and collaboration before I connected these commitments to the transformative potential of the internet for supporting the development of sustainable global educational networks of communication. Here is what I said:

 

Inclusionality is an awareness that space, far from passively surrounding and isolating discrete, massy objects, is a vital, dynamic inclusion within, around and permeating natural form across all scales of organization, allowing diverse possibilities for movement and communication. This awareness radically affects the way we interpret all kinds of irreversible dynamic processes. (Rayner, p.1, 2004)

 

I owe a debt to Martin Buber's work for helping me to express through language a most significant ontological and inclusional commitment in my work to I-You relations. I am thinking of I-You relations in the poetic sense communicated by Martin Buber through his text I and Thou.

 

But how beautiful and legitimate the vivid and emphatic I of Socrates sounds! It is the I of infinite conversation, and the air of conversation is present on all its ways, even before his judges, even in the final hour in prison. This I lived in that relation to man which is embodied in conversation. It believed in the actuality of men and went out toward them. Thus it stood together with them in actuality and is never severed from it. Even solitude cannot spell forsakenness, and when the human world falls silent for him, he hears his daimonion say You.

 

How beautiful and legitimate the full I of Goethe sounds! It is the I of pure intercourse with nature. Nature yields to it and speaks ceaselessly with it; she reveals here mysteries to it and yet does not betray her mystery. It believes in her and says to the rose: "So it is You" - and at once shares the same actuality with the rose. Hence, when it returns to itself, the spirit of actuality stays with it; the vision of the sun clings to the blessed eye that recalls its own likeness to the sun, and the friendship of the elements accompanies man into the calm of dying and rebirth.

 

Thus the "adequate, true, and pure" I-saying of the representatives of association, the Socratic and the Goethean persons, resounds through the ages. (Buber, 1970, p. 117)

 

I also recognise the importance of the point Buber makes about a relationship between an educator and a student not achieving the full mutuality of  I-You relationships because of the special humility of the educator in subordinating his or her own hierarchical view of the world to the particular being of the student. Buber says that with the experience of full mutuality the educative relationship breaks asunder or changes into friendship.

 

Because I agree with Buber's point about mutuality in an educative relationship, I describe my ontological commitment in my educative relationships, as a tutor or supervisor, as a commitment to the inclusionality of We-I relationships. I think that there is a quality of inclusionality in these We-I relationships because I accept a responsibility to enable those I work with to bring their embodied knowledge and values into the Academy as legitimate knowledge.

 

Now, here is a most important tension in my educational relationships. Because of my enthusiasm to live my values I may be experienced as imposing a colonising and potentially damaging relationship on those I teach, tutor or supervise. I think that all those I work with understand that I see my primary professional responsibility being expressed in a We-I relationship which is focused on enabling the other to bring their embodied knowledge into the Academy. In doing this I think that I am doing something that those who seek my supervision want me to do. Yet, there is always the danger that my intuitions about what is in the interest of the other's learning may be mistaken. Hence my commitment to enquiry learning and to learning that I am mistaken. Viewing video-tapes of myself in my professional contexts is a useful reminder of the fallibility of intuition and self-evaluation.

 

In my educative relationships I am conscious that my own I-knowledge is subordinate in the inclusionality of  We-I relationships in my expression of faith in the other's embodied knowledge. I am thinking here of the inclusionality of We-I relationships in which I express my ontological commitment to the other in my faith in their expression of their originality of mind and critical judgement in bringing their embodied knowledges and values into the public domain of the Academy. I am thinking of the educational influence of the expression of my ontological commitment to support the construction of a thesis by a practitioner-researcher. I am thinking of this influence in relation to the embodied values of the other as these have been clarified in the course of their emergence in their enquiry learning and so transformed into communicable and living standards of judgement. The qualities of inclusionality I have in mind are perhaps best expressed in Maggie Farren's research into her pedagogy of the unique at Dublin City University ( http://webpages.dcu.ie/~farrenm/)

and in the presentation of her ontological commitments to self-study in the S-STEP SIG Symposium at AERA 2004.

 

I also feel an ontological commitment to Peter Reason's and John Heron's inclusional ideas of cooperative enquiry (http://www.bath.ac.uk/carpp/layguide.htm ). It is my understanding of these enquiries that individuals work together in helping each other to form and develop their own enquiries. We do this with a willingness to account for ourselves and to others in terms of what we care about or, in my terms, our embodied values. I associate the Monday evening educational conversations at the University of Bath as a forum for such collaborative enquiries.  I can be seen, in the video-clip below expressing my inclusional way of being in such a conversation on the 12th January 2004, as a member of the group responding to Je Kan Adler-Collins as he prepared for a transfer seminar on the 14th January to justify his transfer from a Masters research programme to a Doctoral research programme.

 

You can access my analysis of this meeting and judge my inclusional way of being at:

 

http://www.actionresearch.net//Logics/jwpopper.htm

 

 

by scrolling down to the nine photographs you can click on any one of the these to see the video clips of each contribution. You can see me expressing my values in my educational relationships at:

 

http://www.actionresearch.net//Logics/jackinc.mov

 

I wouldn't try to access the 27 minute video without the fast transfer speeds of a University network but the nine clips of individual contributions are accessible through broadband connections. The individual contributions to the conversation, including my own, communicate to me the quality of inclusionality I am associating with We-I relationships in which the transformative potential of individuals' collaborative self-studies was seen by Alan Rayner and myself in the transfer seminar with Je Kan Adler-Collins where he communicated his ideas from the ground of his own inclusional way of being.

 

My ontological commitment to inclusionality, in the education of social formations, is connected with my actions in contributing to sustainable global educational networks of communication. Here is an example of what I mean by the education of a social formation. Before 1991 the Regulations of the University of Bath refused to permit the questioning of examiners' judgments of research degrees under any circumstances. In 1988 Legislation in England and Wales protected academic freedom under the law to question received wisdom. The change in the University Regulations in 1991 to permit questions to be raised on the grounds of bias, prejudice or inadequate assessment on the part of the examiners is the kind of process I am referring to when I write about the education of social formations. I am meaning that the regulatory principles of a social formation move to support more fully the values that carry hope for the future of humanity.

 

It may sound strange to link my ontological commitments to technology, but I have found that who I am and what I do is intimately linked to my use of technology. I mean this in the sense that the tools I am able to use, help me to define who I am and what I do. For example, in relation to sustainable global educational networks of communication, I spend much time using the web-technology at http://www.actionresearch.net to add to the living educational theory resources produced by self-study researchers. I do this because I believe that the accounts of learning produced by these researchers, as they seek to live their values more fully in their practice, carry hope for the future of humanity. Each researcher I have worked with has contributed to my well-being and productive life. None more so that Jean McNiff whose sustained and sustaining companionship in our generative and transformatory  enquiries over the past  23 years was marked in 2001 in Jean's words as she placed the third edition of Action Research for Professional Practice on the Web:

 

I am placing the work here in celebration of two special events. The first event is that I have (finally!) succeeded in establishing a web site. The second event is that this year marks the twenty-first anniversary of my learning partnership with Jack Whitehead.

http://www.jeanmcniff.com/booklet1.html

 

  I trust that you can feel and see the influence of Jean's creative spirit in our commitment to contribute to the development of sustainable global educational networks of communication through our face-to-face communications and our resources on the web. I think you will also feel and see the influence of other self-study researchers in sustaining and extending our global educational networks of communication. For example, in the Values section of http://www.actionresearch.net you will find:

 

Jackie Delong's keynote address on, Action Research Implemented in The Grand Erie DistrictSchool Board: Impact on Teacher Development, Improvement and the Support System. to the Japanese Association of Educators for Human Development on the 29th February, 2004 at:

http://www.actionresearch.net//monday/jdJapan04.htm

 

  Jill Burton's keynote address - Seeking the Standard - presented at Chulalongkorn University Language Institute's 5th international conference in Bangkok, December, 2003, at:

http://www.actionresearch.net/values/jbCULIpap.htm

 

  Developing Educational Methodologies through a Living Theory Approach to Action Research.Moira Laidlaw's inaugural address (Laidlaw, 2004a) to China's Experimental Centre for Educational Action Research in Foreign Languages Teaching. Presented at the Londong Institute, 20 March 2004. at:

http://www.actionresearch.net//moira/mllect1.htm

 

Developing Some Appropriate Standards of Judgement for our Action Research Enquiries in China. Dr. Moira Laidlaw's Second Lecture (Laidlaw, 2004b) for The Londong Institute, Gansu Province, 20 March, 2004, at:

http://www.actionresearch.net//moira/mlQingyang2.htm

 

 Jean McNiff's paper for an invitational seminar at Stellenbosch University, South Africa, on 10th November 2003 - How do we develop a twenty-first Century knowledge base for the teaching profession in South Africa? How do we communicate our passion for learning? at:

http://www.actionresearch.net/values/jmstellsa.htm

 

 Joan Whitehead's Keynote address to the Standing Committee for the Education and Training of Teachers Annual Conference 3rd-4th October 2003, Dunchurch. The Future of Teaching and Teaching in the Future: a vision of the future of the profession of teaching - Making the Possible Probable, at:

http://www.actionresearch.net/evol/joanw_files/joanw.htm

 

  As part of a continuing enquiry into The transformative potential of individuals' collaborative self-studies for sustainable global educational networks of communication I also want to draw your attention to the BERA e-Seminar/Workshop of the Practitioner-Researcher Special Interest Group 5th February – 19th June which you can join at:

 

http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa.exe?SUBED1=bera-practitioner-researcher&A=1

 

Through sharing our self-study research and contributing to the conversations on the development of ontologically-based and living standards of judgement  in s-step research I believe that we are in a process of spreading the influence of the educational knowledge and the values that carry hope for the future of humanity. Amongst these values I recognise a commitment to post-colonial practices. I associate such practices with my resistance to the experience of power being used to undermine my identity and sense of integrity. I understand the spirit of Ubuntu in the sense of 'a person is a person because of other people to be a way of relating that stems the flow of power and values that do not carry hope for the future of humanity.

 

What do I mean by an ontological commitment to post-colonial practice in the spirit of Ubuntu?

 

I want to draw attention to the significance of the collaborative self-studies of Paulus Murray and Pip Bruce-Ferguson for my educational enquiry. In seeing my educational practices through an ontological commitment to post-colonial practices and theorising I have been influenced by the spirit of Ubuntu (Murray, 2004) that flows through Paulus Murray and which he expresses through his relationships and writings. In an earlier presentation to an AERA S-STEP seminar Paulus and I analysed our 'White and Black with White Identities in Self-studies of Teacher-educator Practices (Murray & Whitehead, 2000). Some more recent understandings are in a multi-media account of my living logics of educational enquiry through which I express my meanings of Ubuntu and post-colonial practice. I do this by pointing towards some limitations in both a propositional logic of domination and a linguistic logic of dialectical enquiry (Whitehead, 2004a) and showing how I transcend these limitations through a living logic in an explanation of my educational influence. In my post-colonial intentions, practices and theorising I am including my ontological commitment to resist a range of different forms of colonising. One of these is the imposition of a logic of domination on my ways of understanding my experience and the world in which I live.

 

What I have in mind here is the logic of domination used by Paul Hirst and Richard Peters (1970) in their Logic of Education which led them to impose a structure on practical decisions, impose wholeness on separate entities and impose the 'stamp' of this logic on the curriculum (Hirst & Peters, 1970, p. 17). This logic supports the view that the practical principles, or embodied values, I use to explain my educational influences are at best pragmatic maxims that have a first crude and superficial justification in practice that in any rationally developed theory would be replaced by principles with more theoretical justification (Hirst, 1983, p.18).

 

I began this paper by saying that as soon as I start to write about my ontological commitments I am conscious that my language is inadequate to express my meanings. Hence my interest in multi-media accounts for the representation of the learning of s-step researchers and my emphasis on the importance of the evidence of this learning in the contributions of our s-step community for transforming the knowledge-base of education (Whitehead, 2004b). I identify with the spirit of enquiry embodied in the life of enquiry of Pip Ferguson as she began the March 2004 conversation of the e-Seminar/Workshop of the Practitioner-Researcher Special Interest Group of the British Educational Research Association. I leave you with some of the implications for the politics of educational knowledge in Pip Bruce-Ferguson's questions and an invitation to join in the on-going conversation at:

 

http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa.exe?SUBED1=bera-practitioner-researcher&A=1

 

 Pip is asking her questions as a practitioner-researcher in a Maori University. Pip's questions resonate with my post-colonial intentions:

 

i) Why, oh why, does the traditional Western system have to INSIST on written expression as its highest pinnacle?

ii) Should we, and if so how can we, cast off the mantle of privileging writing as our main form of evidence of quality research?

 

and perhaps the most challenging question of all:

    

iii) How can we open up our practice to the richness of other cultures, and learn to value their ways of being equally with our own?

 

If we carry our ontological commitments into our practical explorations of the implications of these questions we cannot avoid an engagement with the power relations that legitimate what counts as educational knowledge in the Academy. I have taken to heart Donald Schön's  (1995) point that the problem of introducing and legitimizing in the university the kinds of action research associated with the new scholarship is one not only of the institution but of the scholars themselves (p.33).

 

Presentations at AERA and BERA provide public forums in which I submit my accounts of my learning for evaluation by my peers so that you may show me where I am mistaken and stimulate my imagination to see how I might enhance my effectiveness. I am holding myself accountable both to living my ontological commitments as fully as I can in influencing the legitimation of the embodied knowledge of professional educators and in communicating living theory accounts through global and interconnecting networks of communication. I can be seen to be doing this in the presentation on How do I live more fully the values that continue to energise my life-long learning and influence in the education of myself, others and social formations?

at: http://www.jackwhitehead.com/jbspaperclips/values16dec.html

 

Through the video-clip in this visual narrative I believe that I am doing this by enhancing the communicability of Alan Rayner's ontological commitment and scholarly enquiry into inclusional ways of being. The narrative contains three further video involving Gordon Trafford, a deputy headteacher and Nick Stanton, a colleague of Gordon's at John Bentley School in England where we work together in supporting a group of teacher-researchers. In the second video-clip I can be seen explaining some of the limitations of permitting the educational enquiries of s-step researchers to  be constrained by the assumptions of social science methodologies. The second and third clips show teachers learning from their students as they create a school's mission statement about values into practice, using the student's insights and language. 

 

If you access Is this a valid explanation of my use of inclusional, dialectical and propositional logics in my living theory of my educational influence in my learning, in the learning of others and in the learning of social formations? Do my values carry the hope of Ubuntu for the future of humanity?

at: http://www.actionresearch.net//Logics/jwpopper.htm

 

you can view the video-clip of a 27 minute Monday evening conversation at the University of Bath on the 12 January 2004 when the group are helping Je Kan Adler-Collins, a doctoral researcher and assistant Professor in the Faculty of Nursing at Fukuoka University in Japan, prepare for his transfer seminar from his M.Phil. to his Ph.D. programme on the 14 January (Successful). The second set of 9 short clips focus on the contributions of individuals to the conversation. The aim of the presentation is to communicate something of the nature of the living logics I use in explanations of my educational influence.

 

To conclude in recognition of Schön's contribution to the development of my understanding of a scholarship of educational enquiry I leave you with his point:

 

Hence, introducing the new scholarship into institutions of higher education means becoming involved in an epistemological battle. It is a battle of snails, proceeding so slowly that you have to look very carefully in order to see it going on. But it is happening nonetheless. (Schön, 1995, p. 32)

 

and the expression of hope in seeing that our combined contributions have speeded up the process!

 

I think the most impressive evidence of the influence of our s-step movement has been gathered and edited by many members of S-STEP including John Loughran, Mary Lynn Hamilton and Vicki LaBoskey and Tom Russell (2004) in The International Handbook of Self-Study of Teaching Practice. The evidence shows clearly our s-step influences in the education of our Academies and other social formations as our ontological values are transformed into living standards of judgement. The evidence also shows that we are bringing our living knowledge of our educational relationships into the Academy as we learn with and from each other and with and from our students and as they do with us.

 

Marian Naidoo is one such doctoral researcher of the University of Bath who is close to submission. In a presentation to a Monday evening conversation in the Department of Education, Marian gave a multi-media presentation that included the following:.

 

"This chapter opens with a video-clip of me explaining to Shaun (Marian's partner) the reasons behind my choice of clips, which is being influenced by the importance I place on my embodied values of inclusional relationship, responsive practice, trust, love and respect for self and for others and the importance of living life creatively."

 

the presentation moved my colleague Alan Rayner to respond:

 

I felt your 'love and respect' for (inner) self was evident in the radiance of your performance, that allowed you fully to express and enjoy your empathy with those you were portraying.

 

Of all the ontological values that carry hope for the future of humanity I am following Marian Naidoo in suggesting that enhancing the flow of love and respect for self and for others, in the education of ourselves and the social formations in which we work and live, would do much to ensure that we leave the world a better place than it was when we came into it. I imagine that many of us could live with this epitaph!

 

How do I distinguish the life-affirming well-being in my laughter in stemming the flow of values that threaten my well-being from a sadistic humour that reveals an insensitivity to the suffering of others and which do not carry hope for the future of humanity?

 

Like the flow of life-affirming energy of well-being I find myself unable to explain the source of the sudden eruption of laughter in the face of some living contradictions. The four illustrations below from my supervision experiences with Alon Serper, Jackie Delong, Paulus Murray and Je Kan Adler Collins could be interpreted as my expression of a sadistic humour that reveals an insensitivity to the suffering of others. Yet I experience the sudden release of energy through the humour as a healthy expression of well-being. Alon is with me today and we won’t know until the living moment how we express ourselves and you experience the ontological value of our humour. Here is an extract from Alon’s writings to give you some idea of his focus on ontological values in his enquiry into human existence:

 

I am proposing a living solution and heuristic tool for the integrative, holistic, dynamic, humanistic, naturalistic (Morse et al., 2002; Guba and Lincoln, 1981; Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Denzin, 1997) and unbiased conception and study of the human subject and human existence in the world within real-life situations and interrelations.  A heuristic tool that is authentic, firsthand, engaging, adaptable and purposely-made for its task and for its interacting with its subject matter.  A heuristic tool that is academic, systematic and scholarly, yet non-scholastic.  I am putting forward the case for the possibility of the implementation and use of the educational living action research technique (Whitehead, 1985, 1989a, 2004b) in the study of human existence.  This comes with the essential modification for the purpose of being accommodated to the different task and objective for which it is borrowed.  Thus, I am suggesting this technique for the study of the holistic, personalised (see James, 1890, chapter, 9 on consciousness), unique (Lomax and Parker, 1995), unreduced, existing, emerging, becoming, constantly changing (James, 1890, chapter 9) and continuously self-transforming, self-constructing, self-defining and self-creating human subject (Serper, 1999, 2003, 2004).  For the emerging individual being in the world (Rogers, 1965, 1967, 1980; Nietzsche, 1967; May, 1953, 1967a, 1967b; May et al., 1958).  And for self-study research into the ontology, of one's being in and toward the world in teaching and teacher-educational practices (Bullough and Pinnegar, 2004). (Serper, 2004, p.1)

 

The expression of the embodied experience of humour through laughter does not appear on any of the recent lists of professional standards of practice for teaching! As a doctor educator I want to emphasise its important in my educative relations. I am thinking of the humour that suddenly erupts spontaneously in an educative relation. As I run the video-clip of Paul Murray and myself backwards and forwards rapidly I think you will see our laughter. As you listen to the clip you may vicariously experience the humour.

 

It's significance may be understood in terms of Paul's enquiry into the influence of his mixed race identity in his educative relations with his students. I think we are both sensitive to the pain in Paul's mixed race identity and while we enjoy each others' company and find humour in many things we have not laughed so spontaneously about his mixed-race identity and my white identity. At the moment of the humour it is also important to understand that Paul's black father was called Jack, and that Paul was given away soon after birth because his white mother could not 'pass' Paul as white to her white husband. The justaposition of Paul's construction of a positive mixed-race identity in the context of his educative relation to one Jack Whitehead, evoked the humour and laughter.

 

Gregory Bateson (1980, p. 124) has related humour to evolution. He says that the mere fact of humour in human relations indicates that multiple typing is essential to human communication. In the absence of logical typing he says that humour would be unnecessary and perhaps could not exist. The significance of the experience of humour I am sharing with you as a standard of educative relation, through the video-clip is focused on the multiple typing of white and mixed-race identities.

 

In the clip with Jackie Delong the humour is focused on my ‘lack of praise’. In the clip with Je Kan Adler-Collins the humour is focused on my ‘lack of compassion’.

 

In the here and now of this educational journey of mine I am interested in hearing your responses to my claims about the significance of showing how the meanings of ontological values can be clarified in the course of their emergence in practice and hence transformed into the living and communicable epistemological standards of judgement of our s-step accounts. I am hopeful that the risks I’ve taken in my educational relationships, some of which have been experienced directly by participants in the Castle conferences and other S-STEP presentations at AERA, have been part of an educational enquiry that can be seen to be bringing more fully into the world the values that carry hope for the future of humanity whilst not shying away from confronting the problems of stemming the flow of values that do not carry this hope.

Love Jack. (11 June 2004)  

 

Presentation Format – Validation Exercise

 

References

 

AERA (2003) 2004 Annual Meeting Theme:Enhancing the Visibility and Credibility of Educational Research. Retrieved on 29 July 2003 from http://www.aera.net/meeting/am2004/call04/theme/

 

Bateson, G. (1980) Mind and Nature, New York; Bantam.

 

Bernstein, R. (1971) Praxis and Action. London; Duckworth.

 

Buber, M. (1970) I and Thou. Edinburgh; T & T Clark.

 

Bullough, R. & Pinnegar, S. (2004)  Thinking about the thinking about self-study: An Analysis of Eight Chapters, p. 310, in Loughran, J. J., Hamilton, M. L. LaBoskey, V. K, Russell, T. International Handbook of Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher-Education Practices. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers.

 

Dalmau, M. C. & Gudjónsdóttir, H. (2002) Framing professional discourse with teachers: Professional Working Theory, in Loughran, J. & Russell, T. (Eds.) (2002) Improving Teacher Education Practices Through Self-Study, London; RoutledgeFalmer.

 

Hirst, P. (Ed.) (1983) Educational Theory and its Foundation Disciplines. London;RKP

 

Hirst, P. & Peters, R. S. (1970) The Logic of Education. London; RKP

 

Laidlaw, M. (2004a). Educational Methodologies through a Living Theory Approach to Action Research.Moira Laidlaw's inaugural address to China's Experimental Centre for Educational Action Research in Foreign Languages Teaching. Presented at the Londong Institute, Gansu Province, 20 March 2004. Retrieved on 21st March 2004 from http://www.actionresearch.net//moira/mllect1.htm

 

Laidlaw, M. (2004b) Developing Some Appropriate Standards of Judgement for our Action Research Enquiries in China. Dr. Moira Laidlaw's Second Lecture for The Londong Institute, Gansu Province, 20 March, 2004. Retrieved on 21st March 2004 from http://www.actionresearch.net//moira/mlQingyang2.htm

 

Marshall, J. (1999). Living Life as Inquiry. Systematic Practice and Action Research 12(2): 155-171. Retrieved on 1st March 2004 from http://www.bath.ac.uk/carpp/judimarshall/LivingLifeasInquiry.pdf

 

Murray, P. (2004) Welcome to my multiracial and inclusive Postcolonial Living Education Theory - practice, research and becoming.  By visiting, I hope to share with you some of my passion and spirit in Ubuntu - "Umuntu ngumuntu nagabantu" ~ 'A person is a person because of other people'. Retrieved on the 8th March 2004 from http://www.royagcol.ac.uk/%7Epaul_murray/Sub_Pages/FurtherInformation.htm

 

Murray, P. & Whitehead J. (2000) White and Black with White Identities in self-studies of teacher-educator practices. Paper presented to the Annual Conference of AERA 2000, New Orleans. Retrieved on 8 March 2004 from http://www.actionresearch.net/A2/aerapj.htm

 

Rayner, A. (2003) Sphagnum Moss. Retrieved 14 March 2004 from http://www.bath.ac.uk/~bssadmr/inclusionality/sphagnummoss.htm

 

Rayner, A. (2004) Inclusionality and the Role of Place, Space and Dynamic Boundaries in Evolutionary Processes. Paper submitted for publication in Philosophica, March 2004.

 

Reason, P. & Rowan, J. (1999) A lay-person's guide to co-operative inquiry. Retrieved on 1 March 2004 from http://www.bath.ac.uk/carpp/layguide.htm

 

Schön, D. (1995) The New Scholarship Requires a New Epistemology. Change, Nov./Dec. 1995 27 (6) pp. 27-34.

 

Sen, A. (2001) Development as Freedom, Oxford; OUP.

 

Serper, A. (2004) Practitioner-Research and {Action} Living Theory As A Post-positivistic Heuristic Tool for the Questions of the Human Subject and Human Existence in the World: Autoethnographical Study/Narrative of the Enquiry into this Question. Draft M.Phil./Ph.D. Transfer Report, University of Bath, June 2004.

 

Whitehead, J . (1988) How do we Improve Research-based Professionalism in Education?-A question which includes action research, educational theory and the politics of educational knowledge. BERA 1988 Presidential Address. Retrieved 25 April 2004 from http://www.actionresearch.net//writings/jwberapres.html

 

Whitehead, J. (1989) 'Creating a living educational theory from questions of the kind, 'How do I improve my practice?'Cambridge Journal of Education 19(1): 137-153.. Retrieved on 27 July 2003 from http://www.actionresearch.net/writings/livtheory.html

 

Whitehead, J. (1993) The Growth of Educational Knowledge. Bournemouth; Hyde.

 

Whitehead, J. (2004a) What counts as evidence in self-studies of teacher-education practices In Loughran, J J., Hamilton, M.L., LaBoskey, V. K & Russell, T. L. (eds,) The International Handbook of Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices. Dordrecht; Kluwer Academic Publishers.

 

Whitehead, J. (2004b)Jack Whitehead's ontological commitments in self-study: A contribution to the AERA 2004 Symposium of the Self-Study in Teacher Education Practices, Special Interest Group on, ‘The transformative potential of individuals' collaborative self-studies for sustainable global educational networks of communication’, in San Diego on the 16th April, 2004. Retrieved on 25 April 2004 from http://www.actionresearch.net//multimedia/jwontoaera.htm

 

Whitehead, J. (2004a) Is this a valid explanation of my use of inclusional, dialectical and propositional logics in my living theory of my educational influence in my learning, in the learning of others and in the learning of social formations? Do my values carry the hope of Ubuntu for the future of humanity? Retrieved on 8 March 2004 from http://www.actionresearch.net//Logics/jwpopper.htm