EJOLTs: Exploring an extended role for legitimizing self-study action research projects: from examiners' perspectives - final submission accepted for publication for June 2014 issue

Published papers

Exploring an extended role for legitimizing self-study action research projects: from examiners' perspectives - final submission accepted for publication for June 2014 issue

Action research transcends constraints of poverty in elementary, high school and post-graduate settings
Improving Practice as a Headteacher Through Living-Theory Research and Communicating Meanings of Embodied Values

Hey guys I understand Jack will be reviewing my paper, that will be lovely Jack. However, anyone is welcomed to assist me in making my paper one of the best. Thank you Marie for assisting me in joining this group of fantastic people. I feel welcomed already. In brief my paper reports on the reviewing/examining process of the PhD thesis and Masters-Dissertation by self-studies examiners using an incorrect/inappropriate instrument. I became worried by their silence - the least they should have done was to raise the alarm to the university research ethics committee, may be just may be the committee was going to change the instrument to accommodate self-studies. You will realize I did not attach the instrument because of the protocol.
Regards, Paul Mokhele

(Edited by Marie Huxtable - original submission Monday, 18 November 2013, 12:56 PM)

(Edited by Marie Huxtable - original submission Sunday, 26 January 2014, 1:05 PM)

Mokhele_EJOLTs_paper_171113.docx

Excellent to see you here! Phil Tattersall is your second reviewer. The delight of the open review space is that other people can chip in too so dont be surprised if you get more responses than just from Jack and Phil.

Show parent

Hello Mokhele,

I like this paper. It covers issues dear to my heart. I experienced similar things during my M.Sc. writing. A very useful and helpful text that was of great comfort to me is the one by Denzin and Lincoln (The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research). There are several contributing authors, some of whom discuss in detail the complex issues surrounding claims to authority, the art of interpretation and judgement criteria. As you point out so well, many matters are far from settled when it comes to questions of judgement criteria. All very fascinating and worthy of research.

Overall your paper requires some rewriting and tightening up. I have attached some initial comments and suggestions to help with flow and referencing.

I am happy to be of further support.

Warm regards,

Phil

Mokhele_EJOLTs_paper_Some_suggestions_Phil_T.docx

Show parent

Hi Paul, and welcome to the EJOLTS community. I've had a quick look through your paper as I'm not a designated reviewer for it, and would certainly encourage you to continue your work. You touch on a very important area - in fact I have recently been asked to review a proposal for a student who has fallen foul of her unclear understanding of what constitutes rigour in her thesis. I did find the 'voice' a little confusing in Section 8 - might need a little more clarifying for readers, perhaps? But see what your designated reviewers think.

By the way, I note you have a copyright statement dated 2008 - not sure why? It may be a typo. As I understand it, you've just submitted this.

Warm regards

Pip

Show parent

Dear Phillip

I have attended to the suggestions and I believe once we have Jack's comments and/or corrections the article will make a lot of sense.

regards, Paul Mokhele

Mokhele_EJOLTs_paper_Some_suggestions_Phil_T.docx

Show parent

Dear Paul - I have enjoyed very much reading your paper. It is focused on one of the most important topics facing self-study action researchers in gaining academic recognition for the knowledge that we are generating. I liked the way you integrated the examiners' responses with your own creative and critical responses to the issues of academic legitimation. My recommendation is that with the modifications I have outlined in my responses to your paper (attached) it should be published in EJOLTS. I also liked your point about the role of literature in self-study action research as individuals generate their own living-educational-theory. You stress that this engagement is an on-going process. Many researchers are encouraged to do a traditional literature review as if the engagement with the literature is separate from the enquiry itself.

The additional modification concerns your careful attention to your referencing, just to make sure that all the references in the text are within your reference section.

Mokhele_EJOLTs_paper_171113jw.docx

Show parent

Dear Jack

Thank you recommending my work.

regards, Paul

Show parent

Hi to you ALL

I hereby upload the latest version of my article: "Exploring an extended role..." after the reviewing process.

regards, Paul

Mokhele_EJOLTs_from_Jack.docx

Show parent

Hi Paul

Well done on getting the paper to this form. As I read your comment "I argue therefore that if universities are
serious about ‘contribution to development of new knowledge’ the epistemology of educational policy must legitimize the use of self-study action research terminology in their ‘evaluation instruments’" it reminded me that one of the ways we can help institutions in this kind of work is to get onto key committees. I used this in my own PhD study. The then-Research Committee was dominated by traditional scientists, and I could see that if we wanted wider understanding of types of research to develop and be validated, it was important to be at the forum that made those decisions. So I sought and obtained nomination to the committee as a staff rep, and was voted on. From inside those committees you can make arguments on issues that might otherwise never be aired publicly. Just a thought, and good luck with your ongoing work.

Warm regards

Pip

Show parent

Hello Paul,

Have now had time to read your latest version.

Please find attached my comments and suggestions.

Warm regards,

Phil

Mokhele_EJOLTs_from_Jack phils suggested edits and comments Dec 1 2013.docx

Show parent

Hi Philip and Jack

I am attaching my second reviewed article after attending to the suggestions/changes by Philip. Ejolts site has changed it is no longer easy to upload articles. Let me see if I can win. Allow me to attach it directly to Jack from my private e-mail.

regards, Paul

Show parent

Paul has asked me to upload his latest response to the reviewers' comments - 5th December 2013

Mokhele_EJOLTs_from_Jack phils suggested edits and comments Dec 1 2013.docx

Show parent

I have enjoyed reading Paul's resubmitted paper and I am recommending it for publication in EJOLTS. It is an important contribution to educational knowledge and highlights the importance of some constraining influences of the present criteria used to judge self-study, action research and living-theory accounts in the Academy. It also offers appropriate criteria for judging the quality of these accounts. It is also inspiring, in this week of celebrating the life of Nelson Mandela, to see research emerging from South Africa of global significance.

There are some small typographical corrections such as:

learning. .Examiner D

Whitehead, J., & McNiff, J. (206).

that I will take responsibility for correcting in the proof-editing of the paper for publication.

Show parent

posted on behalf of Phil Tattersall

My comments on the paper only relate to minor matters – also added a helpful comment re qualitative paradigm and questions of ‘judgement and evaluation’...

Subject to these changes I recommend the paper is published

Mokhele EJOLTs redraftptresponse.docx

Show parent