Exploring an extended role for legitimizing self-study action research projects: from examiners' perspectives - final submission accepted for publication for June 2014 issue
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)
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.
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
I hereby upload the latest version of my article: "Exploring an extended role..." after the reviewing process.
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.
Have now had time to read your latest version.
Please find attached my comments and suggestions.
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.
Paul has asked me to upload his latest response to the reviewers' comments - 5th December 2013
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.
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