Ok, that is fine by me . any thing that helps you.

I thought you were on holiday?? smile

Hello Jack, JeKan, Jacqui and colleagues,

I have joined the review cycle fairly late at the end of this summer, but hope it is not too late to make a contribution - apologies Jack, as I know you are rewriting probably at this moment. My review seems to mirror JeKan and Jacqui's, but I hope offers you some further deep attention. 

Jack Whitehead’s Paper  Using a Living Theory Methodology in Improving Practice and Generating Educational Knowledge in Living Theories

 

Review from Jane Spiro:  August 31^st 2008

 

Accept with modifications

 

General thoughts

 

I think this is an important â€keynote’ paper that provides a conceptual framework for the whole journal. A central idea you are exploring is the distinction between education theory, and educational/living theory that places the educator at the centre of the learning and research process: I would love this message to speak, not only to those already converted to it and familiar with its language and ideology, but to those who have not met the concept before, or who are fearful of making the jump.  The affirmation of this approach as an inspiration, as enhancing practice, is what I think this paper is doing, and could do even more strongly.  I think I would like this affirmation – the life-affirming energy - to occupy the space currently occupied in the article by a description of institutional opposition.  I am mindful, for example, of colleagues who have said: “I am excited by the idea of researching my own practice, but do not wish to come into head-on collision with the establishment in doing this!”.  The fact that the establishment is threatened by this approach seems to me to be a separate issue: Before confronting this issue, I would like as a reader (and imagining myself new to the concept) – to be really clear why this approach is so important, so liberating, so transformatory, and how it has really worked in your practice.  For example, I see your account at the end, of the supervisory relationship, as an amazing example of your practice in theory, and your theory in practice: your generosity, your capacity to learn from others in a mutual learning cycle that enhances a whole community’s practice (not just you: not just they – but us).    How have you transformed the â€traditional’ supervisor: student relationship – by what process of change and decision-making, and why exactly is this so frightening to the institution?  How is this new dynamic different to the one you first experienced as a science teacher in secondary school?  The journey you describe, from science teacher to doctorate supervisor, is implied, but there seems to be a huge undescribed leap from the former to the latter. I as reader would have been fascinated to see some more of the stages of transformation on the way.  For me, WHAT the institution is really objecting to is so much more important here than the fact of their objection.  The other point of this, is that I as the living theory reader, would like to see and be reassured that your passion for this comes from the fact that it is meaningful and congruent with your beliefs: the fact that it subverts other paradigms is something you have explained really clearly in the first half. The consequences of this, of course, are political – but the flow of your argument leads towards its meaning for the practitioner in practice (ie rather than practioner in combat). 

 

To summarise what I think this means in terms of possible and suggested changes:

1)      I would like some of the language to be clearer, sometimes leaner.  Often this is about paring down some of the terminology or a tendency to repeat the same terms in one sentence.  I think the language can travel further without repetition. I have made some specific suggestions below.

2)      I would like as reader to see more of the grounded examples of your own practice and the evolution of your own living theory from science teacher to Lecturer in Education and supervisor â€extraordinaire’.

3)      I would like much of the institutional crisis to be reframed as a briefer account highlighting your core beliefs as they emerge through pain – rather than the pain itself.  Why is your position so threatening to the institution?  Your first section unfolds the disciplines v. educational approach, but an explicit link here with your transition from one to the other versus institutional entrenchment – would join up the sections a bit more clearly.

4)      You mention the balancing of the local and the general all through, (and I thank you so much for mentioning my work in relation to this): Specifically I think what emerges is the extraordinary nature of the â€mutual learning’ relationships you have with student-colleagues.   You describe this quite briefly at the end, but I think this really is the heart of how you embody your living theory.  I’d love to see a section preceding reference to your student/colleague relationships- where you explore your own role in building these relationships. 

 

Style/editing points:

p. 2 The damage inflicted on --- : first sentence in the final paragraph.  I’d suggest a slightly leaner version of this sentence:

The damage inflicted on the teaching profession by the disciplines approach to education theory, is evidenced (or another verb?) by the fact that Paul Hirst, one of its main proponents  acknowledged it to be a mistake  in 1983.

 

p. 3 Third paragraph beginning â€the hegemony’ – there seem to be too many main verbs?

 

p. 4 last sentence of penultimate paragraph, beginning â€Because of such pressure’:  should the last part come forward like this?:

Because of such pressures I want to integrate the influences of historical and cultural contexts within which my research programme evolved into my explanations of educational influence. 

(Is this what you mean?)

 

p.7 I was a bit confused about chronology at the top of p.5 in that you mention a first introduction to Ubuntu in 2008, but an earlier ref. from Eden in 2007 – a small point, but perhaps the 2008 could be linked to Murray’s writing more obviously (rather than the year you first met Ubuntu, which is now suggested). 

 

p. 9 You mention a distinction between educational and social relationships. I felt as reader that I wanted a brief account of what your own meaning is of an â€educational relationship’ as distinct from social. I began formulating my own versions of what you might have meant, testing against your writing.

 

pp. 15/16: the chronology is a bit unclear here.  I’d like the dates to be chronological to help with the story, so information emerges step by step.  It could be that you will change this anyway with the changes to this section.  (In particular the paragraph at the top of p. 17 doesn’t read as a clear sequence). 

 

p. 18  I was surprised by the word â€restricted’ in the penultimate paragraph (frst line).  I’d like to see a more generative word!  - such as : derived from, generated from, inspired by ---

 

A general stylistic thought:  I wonder a lot about the length and extent of quotation. You use very long quotation and quite a number of them – eg. Habermas p. 7 – and sometimes I’d like more perhaps of your own navigation through the quotation. 

 

Typos:

I think there are some missing words and letters in the Ryle quotation on p. 5. (eg. An interior acknowledgements).

 

I am wondering why most of the long quotations are in italics, but some are not (eg. Habermas section on p. 7). 

 

p. 11 Your reference Whitehead (1985) isn’t in the biblio?

 

p. 14 There’s a word missing in the second paragraph after â€academic’ ----

p. 16 an unnecessary â€of’ has strayed in between well – have in the 5^th paragraph

 

Sometimes you write life affirming, and sometimes life-affirming. (p. 13 second para.)  I find myself distracted from the flow, thinking about the significance of the difference, or whether a difference was intended – but I think just a typo!. 

 

Thoughts about the reviewing process

Just to say it is a privilege to be part of this mutual learning cycle which I see emerging as part of the review process.  I apologise for joining the cycle of response to Jack late in the process, but hope these thoughts are nevertheless a contribution.  I am a reviewer on another journal in which:  papers are sent anonymously, reviews are written in isolation so one reviewer does not have contact with another.; reviewers never enter into direct dialogue with authors – everything is mediated by the editor; a template of criteria is used. 

 

I see this cycle of learning as an amazing opportunity for writers and readers to work together to generate the strongest, clearest way of communicating their meanings.  Here I am enjoying the sense of shared responsibility to support Jack in making his paper speak to as many readers as possible.  I think it involves much humility and generosity on the part of the writer (Jack!), real loving attention on the part of readers, and I feel privileged to participate in this. 

.