Paper: A narrative of my ontological transformation as I develop, pilot, and evaluated a curriculum for the healing and reflective nurse in a Japanese faculty of nursing.
some problems with this in uploading but I can see it on the site and open it OK. The document is in 2003 word not 2007 so should be OK.
Tian Fengjun has agreed to review the paper. GREAT news!
However, am I missing something? I can't find the paper. And I can only read part of the message you've written to accompany it as well. I need access to the paper a.s.a.p. so that I can send it to Dean Tian: he's not always able to gain access to the site.
Cheers, Moira x
Yep, I can see the paper now. Cheers, JeKan. Will send it to Dean Tian posthaste!
Love from, Moira x
My suggestion is to publish this paper as it stands.
Dear Jack, a warm hello from a cold Japan. Thank you for all the time and effort taken of the review of my paper. I have amended the errors and suggestions and feel nurtured by your focused attention to the paper. I cannot access EJOLTS to upload my paper which is strange, nor can I access EJOLTS via Google links. I can however access through your mail.
Dear Jack , friends. Something is very strange with my uploading. I will recheck the paper again to see why the amendments were not all included. I shall do this over the weekend and I will upload it again on Monday. I distinctly remember changing the reference removing the p and pp from two of them and correcting the cited reference of Palmer. I found a couple of double spaces I had missed changing to a single space as required by the journal. I will continue with proofing it again tomorrow. Once again, many thanks for the attention to detail that has been given to my work. My deepest respects Je Kan
Hi Jack, Eating humble pie here!! I have no idea why I have it locked in my head that our journal is APA5. I know it’s not and have re-down loaded the guidelines and put in the pp as required. Over worked and not paying attention to the criterion of the journal I have submitted my paper in. I am confusing myself between APA 5, Vancouver and Harvard styles which I use in my reviewing for other journals. Please accept my apology.
Dear Ian, Je Kan here, it has been a busy time and I have not had the free space to respond to you with the depth and consideration that your review requires. I have been in Thailand working in hospice care and email access has been limited. So the fault is mine. I wish to thank you for the consideration that you gave my paper.  I can see from your review that it did pose some difficulty for you and that perhaps we have a very different understanding as to what the paper was about and the role of the reviewer is that process. You did however bring up some valid points which I have tried to address in my resubmission and there are several areas where I chose not to engage with what you said. This I believe is healthy as I as the author of my accounts of my own learning do not seek or need the approval of others to be the individual I am. I opened a window in my life as explained in the paper invite the reader to share with me my understandings of that journey and my learning not only in the text but by expanding the story outside of the framework of words to the works of others and to the multimedia. From the different reviews I had, it was clear to me that
 people had different experiences of engaging with what I offered. Each reviewer brought to my text their own understandings and context. Again, this is good and healthy and is as it should be.
One of the great things about this new journal is the open review process. I review for many journals in the different disciplines I follow such as education, nursing and philosophy. I have had my papers rejected by faceless individual that have used language that is hardly conducive to scholarship and often their comments actually scarify. I am sure that this is something that is familiar to all of us. Therefore when I review I do so from the position that an author has made an effort to communicate something to me. What that something is, will I hope, evolve from my reading the text. Often I am placed in a position where I do not understand what the author is saying and need to think about the reason for my not understanding. I do not take the position that the author has to spoon feed me with an idea or a body of knowledge. I do hope that the author invites me to question and seek for myself understanding if I am so inclined to do so. If the author makes a mistake or violates an understanding that I have then I am challenged in how I respond. I hope that I can respond in such a way that I can question the account and that my questioning of the account can raise questions and or improve and strengthen the account.
This journal is very conscious that it crosses cultures and borders; it is one of our aims to open up the stories of others in their learning and to learn of their context in which they tell their stories.
We also believe that the relationship between the author and reviewers is one of respecting the differences and seeing difference as an inclusional gel to bring us to a greater degree of new understandings. Reviewers are not judges in the sense of having the power to say publish or not publish even though it is nice to see the recommendations. Reviewers are I believe a snap of comprehension of the document. Authors are not obligated to change their texts to suit the reviewers opinions and or comments as the reviewer may not have the same insights and or experience as the author or the author does not wish to change what they are saying in terms of content and meaning. Reviewing is we hope, a journey of communication between the author and the reviewers.
We seemed to come from very different places and your responses to my paper did cause me to pause and think how badly I had failed to communicate my meanings to you. After considerable reflection I concluded that we have very different understandings and that my approaches and outlook did not work for you..smile. Again that is Ok. I often read books on quantum physics because of my deep interest yet I cannot seem to understand the theory or the writing or the physics or the maths..smile. I feel that it is important to understand that there is no one correct way to do living action research and thankfully, it cannot be held up to any particular model. Each account is unique and is the authors account. This as we have seen from your review, I say we as the review is in the public domain, can be a challenge to the reviewer.
 I have to admit I have had a few problems loading and navigating around the site this last couple of weeks as well. Many thanks for all that you have taught me. Once again I am sorry for any delay in responding.
I look forward to the continuing dialogue, My deepest respects.
Je Kan
Draft 6 ..as asked for ..smile. many thanks..to all Je Kan
Dear Je Kan
First, my apologies to you; I did not notice your reply to me dated 21 January till this morning. I will read your reply and Draft 6 with attention. Maybe I should tell a little story. I have a colleague who practices action research not too far from me. Over some years our paths have crossed and we have worked on a few projects together. At first, we clashed whenever we met. We would sometimes spend hours trying to understand each other’s different perspectives. Though we seemed to have very different ways of seeing the world and described our actions in quite different language, we still shared important common values, especially social justice, equality and truth – yet it seemed that we used these words in quite different ways. Now we look back and laugh together over our heated debates, and we are planning to try working together once more.
Thank you for your expression of respect, which is mutual; and thank you for your willingness to grapple with continuing dialogue. I will try to read Draft 6 with fresh eyes.
In friendship
Ian
Ian, Well all I can say is thank you, if you place two action researchers in the same room they often disagree on method or understanding but as you so truly stated we have I feel common issues and values that bring us together. Our differences are the solvent to dogmatic approaches and or views If we embrace the journey as we are going then what and where we go is only limited by our own limitations of self. I have found that all deep and meaningful relationships require effort and compassion as the other reaches out in a sense of vulnerability. What EJOLTS is aiming at is a space where we can all be safe and secure enough to disagree and still remain good friends and scholars   I hope that I can stand you a pint when we meet some time in the future.. and look forward to what your new  eyes will teach me. My deepest respects for your honesty and openness. I am presenting a key note tomorrow in Osaka which is several hours drive by bike in the snow to an audience of a few hundred medical Drs.. so I am certain that I will soon be buried in new learning experiences of difference ..smile. Je Kan
Dear Ian, I have to say what a pleasure it was to receive your thoughtful and scholastic comments as my reviewer. I have modified my account to incorporate new understandings and clarifications that your comments have given me. I can also see that some are just that we agree to differ on certain Philosophical points. I have really enjoyed this process and even as I do not accept all your comments walking with you in this process has given me invaluable insights and learning. This I feel is the beauty of the open reviewing process that EJOLTS is offering. I would like to continue the debate after the dead line has been met, purely because I appreciate your insights and would like to remain in contact with you. I know we differ, but these differences are the celebration of how we can differ with compassion and understanding of the other, even if we do not understand them..smile.
Â
Once again Thank you.
Je Kan
Social networks