Dear Jacqui, 

Thanks so much for your clarity in your thoughts here and I am in absolute agreement with you point by point. I find your thinking really helpful in shining a light on the key changes I need to make. I was aware in writing that I had left the doctoral student voices as separate threads which had not been pulled together: but was not sure if and how I should be the concluding word.  But I think structurally this would be more consistent and clearer . 

So to work through your points about structure:

Thank you for identifying what you see as the two main intents of the paper. Yes, you have explained these and as you do, have made it clearer to me where those intentions have been hazy or not tied together. 

1) Surface points: of course the sections should be clearly labelled Part One and Part Two.

2) Yes, I only focused on two of the five values I had identified in my earlier paper on creative space. My thinking was that, on reviewing these 5 years later as self-as-teacher, these two seemed to be the most central values and also those which had changed most, But of course I didn't explain this clearly!  So I will do. 

3) Yes, then I simply throw the reader into four different accounts and voices.  I agree I need to introduce this section with a few key points: how do I wish the reader to connect these voices both with my own, and with one another?  How do these voices demonstrate what I mean by creative space?  

4) And then yes, of course and agreed, the section needs to be concluded. What does this reveal and what does it not reveal about my living theory?  What is the difference between telling a story, and evolving a living theory? How can one lead to the other?  Are these questions which would be interesting to ask and answer as a conclusion to the paper and to Part 2? 

5) Your comment comparing inclusion and joint endeavour is brilliant, Jacqui!  I love it!  Jenny, Dan, Adrian and Kathleen have agreed to inclusion - but it is up to me to make sense of this in the ways I've suggested at 3) and 4) above.   

So I think there are 4 ways I will make changes:  naming sections clearly; explaining  core values more clearly;  introducing a way of reading the 4 doctoral accounts more clearly, showing their links with creative space; pulling threads together in a clear conclusion.  

Thank you Jacqui! Those changes are achievable and I am happy to address them. I'll aim to upload the revised paper in the light of this on Sunday.

Warm wishes and thanks for your really respectful and thoughtful review - much appreciated indeed,

Jane 

Thank you Jack for this delightful link with Jocelyn's paper on the gifts of doctoral learning.

Following up on your thoughts here Jack: I've highlighted in bold below the parts I think are really significant for what I might add to my paper.

I'm wondering if the creative space you have contributed to with Jocelyn, that has enabled her to recognise herself as a Doctor Educator, might nudge you from seeing yourself as a doctoral teacher to seeing yourself as a Doctor Educator in that you have influenced Jocelyn's recognition of herself? 

I think this is about making the leap in self-recognition from Doctoral supervisor/teacher, to Educator, and how this can bring others into its embrace.  

Jocelyn's paper on 'Gifts of the Dissertation Process' might reflect back to you the educational influence of the 'creative space' through which Jocelyn recognises herself as a Doctor Educator.

Your thoughts in connection with Jocelyn make me acknowledge another influence which I'd be happy to develop. This was how I have worked to build a doctoral community and partnership between Oxford/Hawaii. One moment - which seems to me symbolic and quintessential - was when Jocelyn and 5 of her Hawaiian colleagues, joined us at the  Oxford Brookes EdD colloquium. They opened the day by singing the Hawaiian anthem in front of the Hawaiian flag, one part of which includes the Union Jack. Kawehi said, "this reminds us that we have always been connected in some way with the United Kingdom".

Jocelyn and I agreed that this was an incredibly moving moment, and something utterly unique for my Oxford Brookes colleagues. So I think I'd like to share this and then bring into the frame of discussion the synergies between our doctoral communities on opposite sides of the planet, and the beauty of Jocelyn's paper as representative of this.  

 It might be that Jocelyn's gift may also influence your perception of yourself as a Doctor Educator?

Yes, I like the idea of sharing the 'gifts' Jocelyn describes and relating them to I, and to I: Thou in the way we have worked together (and hope to continue to do so as I embark on a book proposal that I hope will involve Jocelyn and the Hawaiian educators she introduced me to). 

Thank you Jack for those ideas and specifically locating them in Part 1 ii where I look at the links between creative space and my doctoral pedagogy. I think it would fit very well into that section.

Then in the conclusion I might pull all the threads together with two points:

sharing gifts:  

building communities: 

where I can bring together Dan, Kathleen, Jenny, Adrian, Jocelyn, myself in a trans-Pacific, pre- and post-doctoral partnership.

Thank you Jackie for these really generous and helpful words.

I absolutely agree that a conclusion would help and I see that clearly now.  In my response to Jacqui I have thought about what I might include in that conclusion - but I think you are right that the most coherent way of structuring these ideas is to return to my credo at the start, and explain it in the light of our 5 testimonies (theirs and mine);

What is interesting, is that, although our stories are highly specific and individual accounts of learning, they connect to form a collective one about the capacity of doctoral learning to transform. 

In my response to Jack he and I have suggested these collective/individual stories include the trans-Pacific partnership I have brokered with Hawaii doctorate students - and most especially with Jocelyn. I have learnt much much more from her than vice versa, and perhaps this is an aspect that would be interesting to refer to.

So thank you Jackie - I will make the links both in Part 1 ii on doctoral pedagogy;  in an introduction to Part 2, and again in the conclusion of Part 2 and the whole paper. 

Pip, thank you so much for this incredibly detailed and deeply appreciative revision of the text. It's so interesting what you have identified as the vulnerabilities and transformations of the doctoral journey.  The Maori word says so much - turangawaewae. I wish there was a single word in English half as evocative!  (perhaps it needs a whole poem in English?).

I will make my own changes now to the track change version you have sent, so these edits are all blended. 

My own changes will be a blend of all those responses above to Jacqui, Jackie and Jack (oops, only just realised how alliterative you all are!). These are:

Part 1 

i: Clearer account of my values 2008 - 2015, which have changed and why   

ii  Reference in the doctoral pedagogy section to the building of doctoral partnerships with Hawaii, and the sharing of doctoral 'gifts'  

Part 2

i Introduction to the doctoral student journeys unpacking the idea of collective v. individual stories as a way of navigating the different narratives   

ii Conclusion pulling all the threads together as sharing gifts - I, I and Thou;

building communities - - learning together, learning from, learning with   

And finally to all dear reviewers: 

It has taken a while to have the clear thinking time to read your four really helpful comments and identify what I think are the recurring and important points.  Now I have these in place I will aim to build these changes into the paper over the next 24 hours or so, and upload another version on Sunday that incorporates all your thoughts and Pip's wonderful track changes.

Thank you so much for this process, for your generous reading, and your clear and constructive  support.