## Published papers

### Deepening Connectivity: learning about ourselves through others as a way to experience integrity as an inquiry educator

Deepening Connectivity: learning about ourselves through others as a way to experience integrity as an inquiry educator

Hi everyone!

This attached paper, Deepening Connectivity... was inspired through Sunday morning Skype calls with membersof the BARNi group. Sabre and I found Living Educational Theory research to be a powerful tool for our professional growth and a way to examine how our thinking and actions either connect or disconnect us from our values and from others. BARNi members helped us challenge our old ways of being and to develop new 'maps' (Wheatley, 2012) to help us reach the outcomes we desired. Over a 5 month inquiry period we: reflected weekly witheach other through a joint on-line reflective journal and at bi-weekly face to face meetings; we joined Bluewater Action Research Network International (BARNi); and we developed theoretical lenses of East Asian epistemology (Inoue, 2012), mindful learning (Langer, 1989) and systems thinking (Scharmar, 2009; Senge, 1990; Wheatley, 2012). We use these lenses to communicate our Living Educational Theory, our explanation of what influenced us through this inquiry.  We would love your feedback on our ideas on this paper.

Warm Regards,

Kelly Hanson

Re: Deepening Connectivity: learning about ourselves through others as a way to experience integrity as an inquiry educator

Here is the copy of the paper that I meant to attach the first time, the one that is properly formatted!

Cheers,

Kelly

Re: Deepening Connectivity: learning about ourselves through others as a way to experience integrity as an inquiry educator

Hi, Sabre and Kelly. I do love this article for the risks you take in challenging maps and boundaries and assumptions, for the creative ways that you challenge space and time and for the insights from mindfulness and Japanese ways of 'seeing'. You caused me to think and re-think my own self-imposed  limits.

You have clearly examined the nature of your influence on self and on others, the very essence of Living-Theory research.

I believe that it would be strengthened with further clarification of the roles of "I" and "we", of which person is speaking/writing and of the impact of the collaborative work on your relationship. A clip from the video of a SKYPE conversation, perhaps with some script would also assist in clarification.

It is very well-written. I have attached the article with a few typographical notes.

I recommend for publication with modifications.

Love, Jackie

Re: Deepening Connectivity: learning about ourselves through others as a way to experience integrity as an inquiry educator

Thank you for your reading and feedback Jackie. We look forward to exploring your suggestions. Hope you are well.

Kelly

Re: Deepening Connectivity: learning about ourselves through others as a way to experience integrity as an inquiry educator

Posted here is a revised draft of our paper Deepening Connectivity: learning about ourselves through others as a way to experience integrity as an inquiry educator.

The feedback we have received through the last review was very valuable and helped us extend our thinking.

We look forward to hearing what people think about our edits.

Warmly,

Kelly

Re: Deepening Connectivity: learning about ourselves through others as a way to experience integrity as an inquiry educator

Kelly and Sabre,

I find this paper to be very important and wish I had read it before completing my dissertation process!  It really discusses what it is to be human in community with others.

I found this draft to be much smoother, with its parts more connected, and with a clearer sense of voice.  I liked your recognition that things are just a bit more complicated with multiple authors and to a certain extent, the reader just has to deal with that fact!

The comments I have inserted here are mostly minor, tiny details that if addressed, bring a bit more ease and clarity for the writer (punctuation, a few typos--I think)

When I review the paper conceptually, I think what would increase its strength would be to state more explicitly how the end of intention one is an expression of love.  Kelly's store there is powerful but I think needs to directly come back to your concept of the word love as otherwise we are left thinking about space or a different concept.  The second intention doesn't tie back to the word "fluidity" and yet the example is clearly demonstrating change in self-awareness.

With these revisions, I think the paper is a nice inclusion to the journal.  Thank you for allowing me to be a part of your experience.

Aloha,

Jocelyn

Re: Deepening Connectivity: learning about ourselves through others as a way to experience integrity as an inquiry educator

Dear Kelly and Sabre

In my earlier comments, I concentrated on your use of 'We' as your voice within the paper. I shall limit myself to this area in this response because other reviewers have covered the bulk of the EJOLTS evaluation criteria.

Put simply, I think that you have achieved a shift in the text to the point where it can act as an exemplar to others who wish to research and write with a 'We' / I~We methodology and voice. In my experience, others have previously expected me to take their 'We' on trust (as a sort of conflation of two 'I's); you make quite clear how you individually and collectively work within your 'We' so that the voice within the text is distinctive, authoritative and convincing. Thus, at the start of the paper, you introduce the notion of a joint enterprise:

"We were learning about ourselves through each other and, in turn, deepening our capacity to connect to others. ... how we relate and engage with others, including each other, through our roles as inquiry leaders and learners ..." (p.1) and "... Our narrative weaves two primary voice(s) into what we use as 'we' in our writing. Our 'we' is the result of collaborative writing and reflecting between [us]. Although we use the language of ‘we’ in the body of the text, we also include our individual voices, indicated in italics, to share the individual nature of our experience, perspectives and growing awareness of the influences on and of our learning." (p.2)

The section I~we Collaborative Writing fully works out these initial points and completely addresses (and then some more) my earlier concerns, especially where you say:

"As we joined together in this co-writing dialogue we noticed that our lived ontologies (how we come to know the world) reflected an understanding of our shared social constructionist (Gergen, 1999/2015) and humanist (Rogers, 1961) orientations to knowing the world as interconnected and relational, and where we see the inherent potential goodness in individuals and groups from the assumption that we are each striving to become self-actualized as part of what it means to create a better world and reach our highest good (Lange, 2006 as cited in Groen & Kawaliluk, 2015, p. 172). Our co-writing helped us make the relational nature of our knowledge(s) more explicit and facilitated our desire to inquire more deeply into the ways that we worked and lived with others …" (p.3).

When in the Concluding Reflection you state ...

"Through this inquiry we noticed that ‘I's’ became ‘we's’ through our emerging collective wisdom. We see this wisdom as holding the power to generate new and greater potential through how we each enact this growing collective wisdom in our separate worlds." (p.13)

... I feel that the paper as a whole feeds directly to this point and enables me to fully hear the voice of your 'We' as I understand and embrace your concept of "growing collective wisdom in our separate worlds".

In addition to the main subject-matter of your paper (whose review has been covered by others), you have laid out some important principles about 'understanding your we' in a clear and accessible form. As noted above, I would recommend a close reading of it to anyone who wishes to present such a joint Living Theory enquiry.

Best wishes

- Peter

Re: Deepening Connectivity: learning about ourselves through others as a way to experience integrity as an inquiry educator

I feel very grateful for this editing process, it has given us the opportunity to wrestle with the paper in new and exciting ways. I would love to write a paper on this process, it has been so interesting!

Attached is our most recent draft.

Smiles,

Kelly

Re: Deepening Connectivity: learning about ourselves through others as a way to experience integrity as an inquiry educator

Hi Kelly,

I am looking forward to reading your paper and responding to you in the next couple of days.

Aloha,
Jocelyn
Re: Deepening Connectivity: learning about ourselves through others as a way to experience integrity as an inquiry educator

Kelly and Sabre, I feel like my life has been enhanced by reading this paper!  I resonate deeply with the values you put forth--as a person and as an educator.  I love the multi-cultural references, as well as the actual references you cite. Some of the authors I also like to quote; others I look forward to getting familiar with.  As a professional within a Steiner/Waldorf school, I share the approach you are advocating. Thank you!

I have inserted a number of comments that I think would strengthen this paper.

First, I think it would help to identify your context of inquiry learning more up front in the intro. Then your reflections have a place to nest.

Explicitly connecting the experiences you had in the skype convos to love and relationships would also help me follow your thinking directly and give more credence to the points you are making.

I have used inserted comments that appear on the side of the doc, as well as read text between paragraphs for broader concepts.  I also highlighted in a couple areas to clue myself to something important that you were referring to that I wanted to come back to.

I am really looking forward to seeing the next iteration and to sharing this article with others.

Aloha,

Jocelyn

Re: Deepening Connectivity: learning about ourselves through others as a way to experience integrity as an inquiry educator

Thank you for your thorough feedback Jocelyn. Your insights and probing will really push this work forward. I am also excited to hear your interest in Theory U, Scharmer's work influences my thinking greatly. I would love to hear about how you are considering taking up his work.

Take care,

Kelly

Re: Deepening Connectivity: learning about ourselves through others as a way to experience integrity as an inquiry educator

Dear Both

Main conclusion - a well-written paper that fully meets the requirements of ejolts and which is, most importantly, a good educational read. The Abstract that opens the paper and the Concluding Reflection that closes it make clear and significant claims to knowledge. The main text supports these claims in a logical and developmental manner and offers evidence that helps me to validate those claims in terms that I understand.

However . . .

I remain confused in places about the voice that is speaking to me through 'we', a composite that I am given to understand from the Abstract exists within the relationship "... graduate student and supervisor" – which is implicitly a hierarchical relationship unless explained otherwise. Why mention it at all? Or - why do you ignore it (your stated respective labels) within the working-out of the main narrative?

If the explanation of voice at the top of page 2 is to be convincing – " Our 'we' is the result of collaborative writing and reflecting ... We were learning about ourselves through each other" and "Our narrative shares what we learned about ourselves through our inquiry and how we learned"  –  then there must be no 'jolts' in my perspective and grasp as I read through the paper and follow its argument. And there is a big jolt for me in the Concluding Reflection, where you state "... There were moments in the process where we were able to see ourselves becoming a person we didn’t want to be". Especially at this end point, the voice of the 'we' and the relationship between its components needs to be made clearer to me earlier so that the reference to 'A person'  (not adequate to amend to 'persons') does not confuse my grasp of the core meanings of this paper that I have developed while reading it and blur the educational significance that it has for my life and practice.

But, in the end, it's just my sensitivity to the voice that I relate to when engaging with a paper and its protagonists. I like to have a smooth and non-problematic conversation as I read. Perhaps knocking against 'we' is, in itself, a main part of the learning that I need to do.

Publish, with or without attention to my 'however'.

- Pete

Re: Deepening Connectivity: learning about ourselves through others as a way to experience integrity as an inquiry educator

Thank you Peter, I appreciate your thoughtful critique around the voice of this text and think it is very much worth attending to your feedback.

I look forward to continuing this conversation with some fresh writing around the I~We relation in the next draft of our paper.

Thanks!

Kelly

Re: Deepening Connectivity: learning about ourselves through others as a way to experience integrity as an inquiry educator

Hi, Kelly and Sabre. I  have been asked to respond to the following criteria for acceptance to publish:

1.     There is sufficient detail for a reader to understand the value-based explanation of the authors for their educational influence in their own learning, the learning of others and the learning of the social formations where they live and work. The authors are transparent about what constitutes their driving values, why and how these are manifested in their practice, and through what process of reflection. The authors have  provided sufficient detail of their living-educational-theory for it to be understood.

2.     It is potentially comprehensible to an audience interested in extending their knowledge of the transformational possibilities of Living Theory research.

3.     I can  be understood by practitioners from diverse fields of practice and research and context-specific language and jargon are clarified.

4.     There sufficient evidence to support the claims that are made.

5.     There are sufficient details of how the authors have validated their claims to know so that the reader can share in that knowledge through the creative aspects of their own reading.

6.     The normative background of the authors and their work is clear. The authors have provided sufficient details of their socio-cultural, historical, and inter-personal relationships.

7.     The intra-personal context of the authors is clear. There is sufficient detail for the reader to know enough about the authors to understand their account.

8.     The authors' explanatory principles and living standards of judgement are clear in this paper.

9.  The paper is of a high intellectual and scholarly quality. A reasonable and well-reasoned argument has been made and the authors have critically engaged with the thinking of others.

10.  The paper is in the EJOLTS house style. (See http://ejolts.net/submission.)

Therefore, I feel that this paper is ready for publication. Well done, you two! Truly a pleasure to read.

Love, Jackie

Re: Deepening Connectivity: learning about ourselves through others as a way to experience integrity as an inquiry educator

Hi, Kelly and Sabre. I  have been asked to respond to the following criteria for acceptance to publish:

1.     There is sufficient detail for a reader to understand the value-based explanation of the authors for their educational influence in their own learning, the learning of others and the learning of the social formations where they live and work. The authors are transparent about what constitutes their driving values, why and how these are manifested in their practice, and through what process of reflection. The authors have  provided sufficient detail of their living-educational-theory for it to be understood.

2.     It is potentially comprehensible to an audience interested in extending their knowledge of the transformational possibilities of Living Theory research.

3.     I can  be understood by practitioners from diverse fields of practice and research and context-specific language and jargon are clarified.

4.     There sufficient evidence to support the claims that are made.

5.     There are sufficient details of how the authors have validated their claims to know so that the reader can share in that knowledge through the creative aspects of their own reading.

6.     The normative background of the authors and their work is clear. The authors have provided sufficient details of their socio-cultural, historical, and inter-personal relationships.

7.     The intra-personal context of the authors is clear. There is sufficient detail for the reader to know enough about the authors to understand their account.

8.     The authors' explanatory principles and living standards of judgement are clear in this paper.

9.  The paper is of a high intellectual and scholarly quality. A reasonable and well-reasoned argument has been made and the authors have critically engaged with the thinking of others.

10.  The paper is in the EJOLTS house style. (See http://ejolts.net/submission.)

Therefore, I feel that this paper is ready for publication. Well done, you two! Truly a pleasure to read.

Love, Jackie