Hope and Creativity as educational standards of judgement
Dear Jackie, Saddrudin and Sigrid. Thank you very much indeed for agreeing to be my reviewers. I could not be more pleased.
I am attaching my paper, Living Hope and Creativity as educational standards of judgement for review. I look forward very much to engaging with you about it.
Best wishes, Moira
Hi, Moira. This article is a true pleasure to read. I find it inspirational, influential and exciting! This article is ready for publication in my opinion.
The following are just some ideas to consider. None of them
is essential to the value of the paper but may contribute to strengthening it.
I inserted page numbers on the article which started around 50 (not sure why) and thus, I am attaching
the paper with this numbering. My comments are in italics.
p. 53 In addition, the writing of this article is helping me to understand the ways in which my own and others’ creativity and hope have become living educational standards of judgement for me in my current practice at the Open University. Not clear how others' creativity become standards of judgement for you??
p. 58 Peter, grieving for his dead father and wondering how to be a man when he was only eleven, asked whether he could be in charge of the lifeboats. I found that unutterably touching and had to push back the tears. Alison [acting as the captain of the ship] said yes, that was an excellent idea. Alison is a very special girl: she has empathy in spades, which is unusual in someone who also loves to be in charge. Her first decision of responsibility seemed a fair one and I smiled at her. Should these quotes from your writing have page numbers?
remarked on my fussiness with the use of written language. We do share this ‘fussiness’!
On 5.9.18. Alison and I had a conversation about how she was going to present some of her findings, which would mean having to cut some aspects back in order to accord with the stringent word-count. In my experience this can be a difficult time for a student, who can be emotionally as well as intellectually invested in their work. Writing a dissertation is often a creative process (Kahl, 2012; Yoo, 2017) which, to my understanding, is a process that involves not only the intellect, but the emotional and even the spiritual dimensions of a person. This was my personal experience of writing up my M.Ed. dissertation (Laidlaw, 1988) and my Ph.D. thesis (1996). This resonated with me: in 2001-2, I had to remove 20,000 words from my doctoral thesis as I was over the 100,000 word limit!!!
p. 70 Video 2. Giulia and Moira 2.7.18. Would a script of part of this video strengthen your argument? There's a line in there about discipline that might be appropriate and another about where "we“ is permissible – I liked that explanation!
C. Carozzi and M. Laidlaw, personal communication, August 5, 2018.) (C. Carozzi, personal communication, August 19, 2018)
And on p. 70 C. Carozzi, personal communication, August 19, 2018)
Should these be G. Carozzi?
p. 71 Video 3. Giulia and Moira: 6.9.18.
Would some the part on ‘power
with’ near the end be important to pull out of the script?
Dear Jackie. Thank you so much for your encouraging, analytical and constructive comments. I am really touched by how you have responded to the paper. It was mostly a pleasure to write, although in places, like where I let Richard down, I found it extremely painful. I do like all the points you've made, and the one that most challenges me (quite rightly) is about how others' creativity can become an educational standard for me. You are right when you say I haven't made this explicit at all, and it's crucial.
I will go through each of your comments in turn and amend the paper where appropriate. THANK YOU AGAIN!
I care more about this paper than any other paper I've written in my career. I think I have started to grow educationally. Not quite sure precisely how, but something's stirring.
Watch this space.
With love, Moira
Thank you for writing such a beautiful paper, Moira, and for asking me to be on your reviewing team! I have truly enjoyed reading your paper. Not least your lively educational narratives. I love the way you use them in your article.
I have a few comments for you to consider. First, I believe there is a saying: “Less is more”. You have included three narratives and two sets of data from your recent supervision, five stories. I suppose you have considered that you want to show them all, maybe you can make it even more explicit to the reader why. Your explanation of why you chose to the two students is enlightening to me. You mention your PhD-student, but then you leave her out. Why mention her?
Secondly; have you read Freire’s book Pedagogy of Hope? I think you could strengthen the argument why hope is such a vital educational value.
Thirdly, you present some valuable concepts for discussing forms of power. However, this beginning discussion comes before we have read the narratives. In my opinion, this discussion could be even more interesting if it were to come after the narratives (before the conclusion of the paper), and elaborated to enhance the understanding of how constructive use of power and power distribution may serve to enhance creativity and hope. What do you think?
In the conclusion, you write that your insight about how your living theory resonate or deviate from others’ is a kind of triangulation. I can understand that, however, I do not find in your paper that you have done this. Have you?
Again, thank you for an insightful paper, Moira!
Hi Sigrid. Thank you for your review. I have read it with real interest and an grateful for the insight and depth of your feedback. I will reflect on your comments and amend the paper accordingly. I will wait until the third reviewer has made his comments and then post my latest edition in response to each review.
Thank you again.
Best wishes, Moira
Firs of all, i must say congratulations Moira for creating such a wonderful opportunity for me and for the living theory community to learn and enjoy powerful insights. In this paper the most beautiful thing that personally inspired me was the educative endeavors (between Moira and her research students) that appears to be very much natural in terms of how living theory research supervisors and supervisees engage in a rigorous process of co-evolving with a relationship that flourishes hope and creativity which Moira calls generating educational knowledge.
I found this critical-creative engagement between you and both of Alison and Giulia outstanding. In both the case the relationship found very interesting that served the purpose of developing creativity and hope as your embodied values of practice. For example in case of Alison, through email texts and dialogical logic, which play vital role in this case, show how you could keep Alison working on her ideas (which initially you were not thought would make a sense in DM). There at the same time making her realize that you need more convincing ways of her creativity to justify her claims to build a strong link with the subject matter that you were interested in as part of the demand of the course that you were teaching, could enable her to be more creative and hopeful to work on her ideas independently. This is what you have wonderfully created the space for developing creativity and carry hope in her ideas to come true in her life. And i think this to happen in students life (i.e., experiencing such a development in a student' life) is the most challenging job for living theorist that you have perfectly done it.
However, my little worry is about the more thick descriptions (I might be
wrong but it looks too lengthy, e.g., in case of Alison's the text is too long)
of this story which even through some few conversations and emails can serve the
purpose briefly. If it is possible you
can just shorter the text in Asison' case like Giulia' case and you can put the
more details of the conversations with Alison in Appendix part for readers to
get more clarity if they need. Secondly, i have found prologue part little bit
difficult to develop a strong connection of the text (in prologue) with the two
cases you came up with. If possible just revisit the few early paragraphs
otherwise its oky. I have also few comments here and there in the paper attached please.
I believe, this paper is almost ready for the publication. Congratulations once again!
Many many thanks for your very helpful review, Sadruddin. I will look carefully at your comments on the paper and again on this page, and then, with my responses to my other reviewers' insights, I will post the paper again at this site.
All the best, Moira
Dear Jackie, Sigrid and Sadruddin.
I have gone through my paper and worked on the points that
you raised. I outline them below.
· The page numbers in the stories have been added.
· I have added something to Video Two about Giulia’s creative response to the ‘linear’ challenge of the form of the dissertation. I think this is more compelling than the issues raised about discipline and the ‘we’.
· I have corrected the wrong initial for Giulia’s name.
· I have moved most of the reflections and explanations about power to the Conclusion, as I think this strengthens the deliberations about the connections between hope and creativity as educational – a point Sigrid raised later.
· I feel all five case-studies are important and have flagged up in the paper why I have used them. I have also introduced the Kimmy story at the beginning and offered a rationale for its inclusion and repetition at the end.
· I have integrated very helpful insights from Freire in the book you mentioned. I’ve bought it and have read it from cover to cover. Marvellous book! Thanks for the tip.
· I have placed the power explanations in the conclusion, rather than after the Part Two case-studies, as power is an issue in its many different forms, and is connected to the quality of the educational processes. I think the reflections are better there and strengthen the links between power issues and hope, creativity and education.
· I have cut out the mention of triangulation through the EJOLTS papers because I don’t have direct proof of it and it is not in fact the focus of the paper.
· In cutting down the detail of the case-study material in Part Two, although having with Giulia increased it a little in terms of content (because of Jackie's review and because I agree with it) and added a couple of paragraphs here and there on the advice of the other reviwers, the word-count of the paper is now shorter than it was before by about 500 words. I have cut out the details that add nothing to the flow or the significant content. I hope this is now sufficient. I feel cutting down any more would harm the quality of the insights we are expressing.
· I don’t feel the full material from Giulia and Alison is necessary to add into the appendices. The Educational Stories are there in full (Appendices One and Two) as the detail of the stories in terms of educational solutions to problems are raised with more than with the particular individuals focused on in the main paper and may offer readers richer contextual insights.
· I hope your misgivings about the Prologue have now been covered in this new version.
I hope these amendments satsify you. I feel that their inclusion has strengthened the paper and I thank you very much for your constructive feedback.
Best wishes, Moira
Thanks for your efforts to enrich your paper based on reviewers comments/suggestions. I am reading the paper and will get back to you soon with my final views/ decision on your insightful paper.
with best regards and
Once again thanks for providing such a wonderful opportunity to read an improved version of your paper that i enjoyed a lot.
Yes, I can understand that you "haven't done everything" I "asked in terms of
shortening Part Two's data, although the whole is now fewer words" that is fine and this altogether also fulfills the word limit. However, your justifications makes better sense to me.
Now, this paper fully meets the criteria for publication and I recommend this article for publication.
Congratulations for this great contribution!
with best regards and
Hi Sadruddin. My grateful thanks for your kind comments. I have found the whole process of writing and reviewing the paper very educational from beginning to end, and I know I have learnt a lot. As a result of your and the other reviewers' comments I can see how much stronger the paper now is as a claim to know something worth knowing!!
Thank you. All the best,
I want to thank you again for your insightful article, it is truly educational. The conclusion is now better showing how creativity and hope are linked, and vital educational values. I loved reading it.
The paper is ready for publishing.
Only a couple of very minor typos/questions:
Below Video 2 you write
1) In the above video, in particular I want to draw your attention to our discussion around form and content (23:20 – 24:32) The numbers here do not seem to correspond with the video which is only 4 min long?
2) …. With me the creativity is realised my facilitation of her to create her own space in which her own creativity… Should it be BY my facilitation?
At the end of the conclusion: i.e. become more worthwhile, more hopefuland creativeBest wishes,
Oh, thank you, Sigrid. I am so glad you like the revisions. I wouldn't have been able to do them were it not for you and the other reviewers' comments: they have helped me to signpost more clearly what it was I was really trying to say, or should have said!
I will make the corrections and then let you know.
All the best and thanks again.
Hi, Moira. Once again, I enjoyed reading your article. Moving the power issues to the end strengthens the paper as do the changes in the response to the video.
This is a major contribution to our still-emerging understandings of creating living-theories as means to improve ourselves, to influence others to consider values as standards of judgement and to contribute to the flourishing of humanity.
I recommend this article for publication.