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 canÂ send it toÂ 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
It is great to virtually meet you, Je Kan and to renew our contact, Tian Fengjun.
Thanks for inviting me to review this paper. I have started reading and am deeply interested in some of the issues. I am not steeped in living theory and find reviewing challenging in this context, so I am pausing to read a couple of other EJOLTS papers.
I do like this open review process look forward to the conversation. Best wishes for the holiday season and the new year.
In respect and friendship
I am new to this journal and the collaborative review process, so please take this into account. My comments are rather long so I have attached them as a Word document. Maybe they do not fully reflect the purpose and guidelines of the journal - I would appreciate advice or guidance on this from anyone.
I think there is something valuable in this paper, but that it requires major revision to make present this to a general academic audience. I hope you will consider revision and I am very willing to assist.
I feel I am getting lost in this process. First, a couple of technical issues. I have not received email copies of posts to this page since about 10 January. I have been getting email copies of a different EJOLTS review, and assumed there was no discussion on Je Kan's paper till I checked the Noodle web today. When I went to the web site I could not navigate or log in from the EJOLTS home page, but only by clicking a link on within an email and navigating from there.
I have not received Je Kan's revised paper, nor can I see a link to it on the Noodle web page. From the discussion it is not clear to me whether Je Kan has read my comments.
It also appears from comments by Tian and Jack that my reading of the paper is quite different from theirs. Maybe I am on the wrong track or am misunderstanding something pretty basic. I would welcome discussion from somebody.
To the author, it is certainly a long journey through life from military experience to an educational researcher and then to become an educator and researcher, and truly a hard journey to become a "pilot" of nursing education for social reform. The researcher's great mind and hard work for designing the curriculum and progressive practice for his students have made clearly his own "living educational theory action research" manifest. Porter(2005) is right,"The most amazing and original thing about your project, I think, is that you developed a healing curriculum - in another country-culture far different from your own, received the highest level of official approval, gained access to implement the curriculum within a fairly traditional school of nursing, including commitment of resources and it has and is being successful. Your reflections of your experience and why it happen for you that way and how you coped with it and what you learned and how you have changed - it seems to me to be the source of the unique."
This is not only a comment for Je Kan Adler-Collins's textual work but also I agree a considerable endorsement of this report.
I feel sure that a great change will continue to follow Je Kan Adler-Collins's practice through his 'Curriculum' as he has claimed:
"I believe that the classroom can and should be a safe place for learning where the students and the teachers co-create knowledge that is not only the given curriculum but citizenship and life skills as well. I have questioned my values of love and compassion that are grounded in my Buddhist faith. While my understanding has deepened with the process of critical enquiry my basic underpinning, ontology has been strengthened." And my sincere and respectful wishes to him for sharing widely such ideas as: "With the changing in social structuring in Japan under the influence of western thinking [people] are expanding their choices of employment."
My suggestion is to publish this paper as it stands.
"The most amazing and original thing about your project, I think, is that you developed a healing curriculum - in another country-culture far different from your own, received the highest level of official approval, gained access to implement the curriculum within a fairly traditional school of nursing, including commitment of resources and it has and is being successful. Your reflections of your experience and why it happen for you that way and how you coped with it and what you learned and how you have changed - it seems to me to be the source of the unique."
The story captivated my imagination and held my attention as Je Kan presented a clear explanation for his educational influences in his own learning, in the learning of others and in the learning of the social formations in which he lives and works.
The analysis has profound implications for the future of nursing in Japan and for programmes of nurse education in Western Universities that focus only on a western model of research.
My own recommendation is to accept the paper for publication on the understanding that typographical corrections will be made. I know how time consuming proof reading can be and the care that is needed. I have returned to Je Kan a copy of his paper with my suggestions for typographical corrections.
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 itâ€™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. Â 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.Â This I believe is healthy as I as the author of myÂ 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
Â people had different experiences of engaging with what I offered. Each reviewer brought to my text their own understandingsÂ 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 authorÂ 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 textsÂ 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 andÂ 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.
Â 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.
At a quick glance it does not seem that Draft 6 takes account of my comments which I posted in this Noodle forum a Word document on 9 January. I seem to be out of the communication loop. Is there something I should be doing?
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 otherâ€™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 â€“ 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.
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 viewsÂ 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 Â Â I hope that I can stand you a pint when we meet some time in the future.. and look forward to what your new Â eyes will teach me. My deepest respects for your honesty and openness.Â 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
Good luck in your keynote, JeKan.
Love from, Moira xx (one each!)
I am finding this task challenging, time consuming and rewarding, and I hope it is also rewarding for Je Kan. Thanks for the opportunity to be part of such an interesting intellectual community.
PS. I did not get an email copy of your posting. Don't know why.
Hello Je Kan
Hope the Keynote Address went well and the medicos were not too scary. I have now read your Draft 6, and learned more in the process. In response to your post of 23 Jan (above):
You wrote that â€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.â€™ Like Moira I am very pleased we are continuing this dialogue. I paused several times while writing my first review, then decided that I must â€call it as I see itâ€™.
I think that one difference between us is the difference between inside and outside perspectives. I am an outsider in three senses. I am have not been (until now) part of the Living Theory community, I do not have expertise in Educational Action Research, and my action research practice has usually been more heavily focussed on changing external conditions or practices than my own practice (though improving my own practice and knowledge are always part of the process). However I think I have a role as a reviewer if the journal is aimed at a wider audience than only â€insidersâ€™.
I am not sure what you mean when you write that the author does not have to spoon feed the reader, but I do think that in writing for a web based (or any) journal the authorâ€™s task is to communicate with an intended audience. I think that writing for an academic journal is primarily a service to readers, not a means of self-expression for authors (though I often find I clarify or extend ideas while writing, this is a bonus rather than the primary purpose).
I have more comments on Draft 6 in the attached document. They are, of course, suggestions rather than directives and only a small number go to matters of substance. I thank you for engaging seriously with my previous comments, and for your generous response. I hope that this round of comments is useful.
In respectful friendship
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.Â 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.
Once again Thank you.
Thanks for your positive response. I would be very happy to continue dialogue after this article has been put to bed. Two possibilities come to mind immediately. One is a role reversal if I find the energy to write an article for EJOLTS about Learning Circles which have been the leading edge of my developing practice in facilitating learning for about 10 years. I could write about this as practice of my Living Theory.
The second possibility is that you may wish to participate in a project at http://friendly.wikidot.com/ which was inspired by the Buddhaâ€™s saying that â€friendship is the whole of spiritual lifeâ€™ and exploring the notion that friendship is something like a â€śstrange attractorâ€ť in the complex systems we call human society and â€śbeing friendlyâ€ť can serve as a â€śsimple ruleâ€ť for increasingly complex lives.
This process of open review is a tricky one, I believe, because it doesn't allow anything significant to be avoided. People entering into this process are doing so, I hope, out of a trust that certain kinds of responses will be made: that they will be as prompt as possible, that they are always constructive, helpful, respectful, and offered with intellectual and emotional integrity. That's a lot to ask - and I think that is what we are asking - but it is wonderful to see how these values are bearing fruit. As far as I know, this form of review for a refereed journal is unusual - it may even be unique but I couldn't possibly claim that. In our mission statement at the homepage, we state the values that we wish to live by. It really cheers my heart to see how seriously these values are being taken by everyone. Many thanks, Ian, for your contribution to this process.
To make this journal successful we all have to work with each other and for each other and that seems to be what's happening with the review-process.
Respect and love, Moira x