Hello, Sadruddin. It has been a real pleasure reading through your draft paper and commenting on it. I am enthralled by the detail you've offered of a comprehensive journey towards a more inclusive form of understanding about what you're doing as an educator. You show, very clearly, how you have gone from stage to stage in your gaining of new insights and what this means for your approach to your work.
Please do look at the annotations on the script itself, which deal with the following key areas, 1) The nature of a Living Theory account, 2) The nature of a single or joint authorship and 3) presentational features. I want to go into more detail about the first two of these below.
What is a living theory account?
It is clear that your paper deals with the stages of learning you have gone through. What I don't find convincing, however, from the point of view of a Living Theory account, is that you don't offer any other voices at all, not even anything you did or wrote from the times you are writing about. These notes may not exist, of course, in which case an explanation of the failure to provide primary as opposed to secondary evidence, needs to be made.
A Living Theory, as you clearly state at the beginning of your account, looks at one's own learning and the learning of others, as well as being set in a particular social context. You look very openly at your own learning, at least descriptively, but you don't offer the voices of any one else involved in that process. In other words, you don't show the effects on others of what you say you have learnt. Because learning is neither a linear, nor one-dimensional process, what can be produced to offer some sort of corroboration that it's happened, requires a Living Theorist to be creative in methods of data collection and analysis. In other words, ways need to be found to make any evidence of learning and influence more visible. I feel you don't do this. For example, you don't offer students' insights about the processes they were going through in terms of your claims to have learnt and improved something. Your verifications are presented entirely through the more traditional forms of evidence, i.e. theories by people about learning and influence, and not YOUR world or the world of your students.
One of the problems you may be facing is in terms of not having particular kinds of data - which of course cannot be produced after the event. You do claim that this is your own journey, and as such that is valid. If the kinds of data I am alluding to above do not exist, what is important is for your paper to reflect how far and in what ways a Living Theory account requires particular kinds of evidence, and what, then, perhaps, you are learning from this process of accounting - as you claim - for your growth in learning. Certainly this reviewing process itself might offer you a way in to seeing your paper as an account of how you are now accounting for your own learning. However, I do not want to presume and dictate what YOUR paper needs to be about. That's entirely your responsibility and right to determine. However, at this stage, I am saying that I cannot - yet - recommend your paper for publication without this important issue being dealt with.
2) The issue of joint authorship is just as important as the previous section's comments, but easier - I would suggest - to solve. I can find no indication that this is actually a joint paper at all. It seems to me to be entirely your own writing and responses to your own learning. That your supervisor and others have helped you, is of course clear. However, this doesn't confer joint-authorship. An acknowledgement of what Luitel has done to assist you would, as far as I understand it, be all that is required. If, however, you are saying that this is a joint paper, then a huge amount of work would need to be done. Indeed, you would have to resubmit it as a new paper, because it would transform all claims to knowledge and living theorising that exist at the moment. Luitel's voice is not in this present account as an individual rather than a theorist.
3) There are some typographical errors and formatting issues that need to be worked on.
I would like to conclude by saying that I have genuinely enjoyed reading this paper, because of its clarity around your own personal journey. If you can include details highlighted in 1) and 2) above, I would then be happy to recommend it for publication. I realise that this will require some judicious pruning in places, if you are going to interpolate the issues of appropriate triangulation, so that you don't exceed the word-limit.
I do hope you are not in any disappointed in my review. I hope, however, that as you are clearly someone who cares about the quality of his own learning, you will take the opportunity to see if my comments above are valid and how you might, then, make any amendments. Although I feel strongly about the issues of the nature of a Living Theory approach and the confusion I have about the paper's apparent joint-authorship, I am more than happy to enter into correspondence with you on this page about both these issues. Indeed, I think it's important that we do so, so that I can also be sure I am not missing something.
Wishing you all the best, Moira