I am so glad you could feel some warmth traveling over the airwaves! Given that we have never met, that makes me feel good about the dialogue we are engaging in!
You have done an outstanding job in revising your paper. It is so much more explicit and direct for the reader. I hope you feel good about that. I believe you also meet most of the criteria for publication. The one that I would like you to look at again is number 2. The main points are:
- clearly includes the distinguishing qualities of a Living Educational Theory methodology and/or makes a contribution to the field of Living
- Educational Theory research - see
- "Do I present here educational research at the leading edge of the field; provide evidence of originality of mind and critical judgement, and material that is worthy of publication?" Educational Journal of Living Theories 9(2): 1-23, http://ejolts.net/node/284
I do believe that you are presenting an LET methodology, and you present it well.
What I would like to ask you to do is to review your learnings, which are many, and which I have highlighted in your paper. If you looked at your learnings, you could specifically identify an l-e-t that is yours instead of McNiff's. You identify important strategies and learnings; can you summarize them into something a bit more unique? An example might be something like this: "McNiff said X involving doing an "extra bit". My extra bit is Y. If we do Y then Z." This kind of statement may lead to an original Y then X l-e-t. Again, it's about pushing yourself a little bit more to explicitly name your learning and contribution to the field.
Please let me know if you have any questions about this or if it is not quite clear.