I have spent the day making revisions to the paper. So you can see exactly what I've done, I've used track changes on the word document. I hope that helps :).
I hope Jacqui my abstract is improved and communicates the personal at the heart of the paper.
Sigrid, I have also tried to be a bit more explicit about the question: How can I improve what I am doing?
As you will also see, I have included some comment about how I understand 'educational influence'. I hope that this comment will make my writing a bit more transparent about how I am using living theory terminology.
Jacqui: I was not precious at all about 'undergird', so I've simply substituted more common words for this. As for 'troth', it was a term coined by Parker Palmer in his epistemology, so I've tried to explain that a bit better. I'm not hugely committed to it, so in other places I've used a more contemporary word.
I have also added a bit to my introduction which explains the rationale for why I am structuring the paper in the way that I am.
I know that readers tend to make their own meaning from their transaction with a given work, but reading my paper through again, I do see the 'I' all the way through. It is simply that in the first half, the 'I' is explicit about the processes of developing theoretical work, whereas the 'I' in the second half is more to do with personal story. I think in fact the paper works as a whole research story, but inevitably one has to break papers into sections. I am glad, Sigrid, that you felt you could sense a 'core that clearly binds them together'.
I have also removed the Rookmaaker section.
As you peruse these changes, I would be grateful if you could add to the track changes and put comments directly onto the paper. This will help me focus on specifics.
Once again though, thank you both for taking the time to read my work. I think perhaps sometimes reviewing must be a thankless job. Reviewing in academic publishing is such a tricky thing, and I think on balance, EJOLTS has a strength in that it communicates personally with authors in a spirit of openness and warmth. (Although it is a little galling perhaps to think at times that this reviewing discussion is so public. As my grandmother might have said, I sometimes feel like I'm airing my dirty laundry in public!)
As for intentions, Rosenblatt said often about her own writing, once it left her hands people interpreted it in quite a different way to how she understood it herself. While one can aim for clarity, structure, and concision, I think we cannot prescribe how others will respond to the writing. We can only be satisfied with our own efforts, hoping that they align as best they can with one's internal vision.
Best wishes to you both.