Hi Jerome. I have the great pleasure of being one of the proof-reader/editors of your paper as it is prepared for publication. I have really enjoyed going through your paper and find it a really exciting read. Thank you.
One of the things I am doing is go through your text and check the formal aspects of its presentation so that it can be formatted into the EJOLTS house-style. I find that your abstract is quite a bit longer than usual, and thus will not fit into the space provided in the final formating. It does also seem to include more spcific detail about the content than is usual for EJOLTS' abstracts, which usually simply offer the reader a synopsis of what the paper is about.
I hope you don't mind, but for purely editorial reasons I've taken the liberty of reducing the length of the abstract, which I produce below for your evaluation.
"This article is an outcome of my doctoral journey and the challenges of developing my living-theory. The aim of the article is to give my readers insights into the journey I undertook. I look at the incommensurability between cultures, i.e. the oral versus the literate, and seek to demonstrate how the differences in culture can be seen as a development of new epistemologies.
I discuss some of the influences of cultural translation (Whitehead, 2016, p. 91, after Santos, 2014) and the links to be made between cultural perspectives. These recommend a movement away from the abstract universalism currently embedded in western-centric philosophies. I show how the development of new hybrid forms of cultural understanding and intercommunication can help me with the difficulties I encounter as a doctoral student. It is my contention that each culture produces unique and valuable knowledge, which can itself become the means for solving diverse problems. I argue that cultures need what Sienaert (2000) refers to as a ‘humble awareness’ of our own lack of understanding as a means for solving problems that cannot be solved if we stick to established theories not relevant to the challenges being faced (Gumede, 2000 p. 33).
Keywords: Living contradictions; Living Theory; Development; Induku (stick-fighting); Critical Cross Field Outcomes (CCFOS); Mimism."
Do please let me know if this meets with your approval, Jerome. I am very happy indeed to discuss this with you, and I don't want you to feel that you have to agree with what I've written here: this is your work and does not belong to me. I may have phrased or emphasised something inappropriately, so do let me know. I look forward to hearing from you.
And again, may I please say what a pleasure it is for me to go through your paper as it goes through the editorial proof-reading stage?