Open reviewing process
Towards Living Theory as a Social Movement: On the use of Pac-Man video game models in TQM research
Dear Marie, Moira, Peter, Mark and all,
As you all made me realise, the Pac-Man paper was not as easily digestible for an EJOLTS audience as I had anticipated. Even though the paper was written as Living Theory research, trying to address points that several of you mentioned as relevant, the insights from the paper were of such a kind that I found it difficult to format the paper as a living-theory account. I consequently spent time and effort trying to argue the point that “surely, not all Living Theory research has to be written as a living-theory account”, as I had previously done on the Community Space, but the process seemed to go in circles, probably causing frustrations for everyone involved, so I can understand that Marie saw a need to step in.
This intervention made me realise that a better strategy for arguing my point that “surely, not all Living Theory research has to be written as a living-theory account”, would probably be to write the argument in the shape of Living Theory research written as a living-theory account, and submit it for review and publication at EJOLTS. Not only was I personally motivated to do so, in order to figure out how to proceed with the Pac-Man paper, but I was also motivated by Pip having quoted my statement in her editorial for the current EJOLTS issue (Vol 8, No 2, p. vi) as an important issue.
So, what I did was to write a living-theory account of what I have learned from the experience of trying to submit the Pac-Man paper for review and publication. Essentially it is a study of my own incompetence in trying to argue the value of the Pac-Man paper, but it is researched in the context of ‘how can I improve my own practice as a writer’ by focusing on my own learning as I try to contribute to own Living Educational Theory by collaborating with members on the EJOLTS forums. To make sure I will not bother the editor and review team in presenting another paper that does not live up to expectations, I have presented a draft version of the manuscript at the Community Space. Both Pip and Jack have now given me very good feedback and support. Although they both believed it could be submitted for review as it is, I will still make some final adjustments based on these helpful conversations. My plan is thus to submit the new paper within a week or so, in the hope that it will be accepted for review and ready for publication for the upcoming edition of EJOLTS.
If it is acceptable by the editor and review team, I hope we can keep the review of the Pac-Man paper on hold while the other paper has been dealt with, as I will then be in a better position to understand how to proceed with the Pac-Man research.