The theme for the 2002 AERA annual meeting, the validity and value of educational research, raises several questions that are particularly germane for those involved in the self-study of teacher education practices, for example: "How do I know when I know?" and "How do I determine the value of my findings?" In this symposium we continue the conversation begun with the publication of Robert Bullough and Stefinee Pinnegar’s Educational Researcher article on quality in autobiographical forms of self-study (2001). In their article they focus on autobiography and correspondence as forms of self-study and draw upon literary conventions to suggest guidelines for quality. In this interactive symposium we continue their exploration by considering other forms of self-study of teacher education practices that draw upon other theoretical frameworks. The symposium format will be a brief presentation by each panel member (all papers will be available on the S-STEP SIG website at least one month prior to AERA) followed by small groups in which participants will interrogate the ideas posed by the presenters.

A review of the publications and presentations of members of the S-STEP SIG indicates that the vast majority of self-studies use qualitative forms of research. While the "paradigm wars" between quantitative and qualitative researchers ended more than a decade ago (Gage, 1989), questions of the validity of qualitative studies still linger. These questions were formulated by Denis Phillips in his alliteratively titled paper, "Why the worry about warrant will not wane (Phillips, 1987)." Phillips argued that qualitative researchers must pay attention to how they warrant their claims to know because they want to be believed. He went on to show what he sees as the inadequacies of arguments for the validity of qualitative research presented by Elliot Eisner (1994) and Egon Guba and Yvonna Lincoln (1981). In short, he argues that qualities such as believability, credibility, consensus and coherence may convince, but they do not necessarily indicate that what has been written is true. Phillips concludes that while the seeking of truth is akin to Don Quixote’s impossible dream, "truth is a regulative ideal (1987, 23)" that helps us in our quest for educational situations that are democratic, equitable, and educative for all involved in the process.

In the years since Phillips’ article was published, qualitative researchers have continued to present reasons why we should believe their (and our) findings. For example, Patti Lather suggested that praxis-oriented research that draw upon triangulation, construct validity, and catalytic validity (Lather, 1991) can convince us of the validity and value of research. Other examples of sets of criteria for validity can be found in books on qualitative research methods, including those that focus on action research. However, we still find ourselves raising questions about what we mean by value and validity in educational research, as can be seen by Bullough and Pinnegar’s article and the theme of this year’s AERA annual meeting. Therefore, we find it imperative to continue the conversation about these issues in regard to self-study of teacher education practices because we want to ensure that our research is valued and valuable as we seek to improve education for all.

My research over the past ten years has focused on the need to come to a better understanding of what it means to be a teacher and to teach if we are going to be able to effect significant changes in the practice of teachers. It has uncovered increasing amounts of data that suggest that teachers' actions, intentions, and beliefs are manifestations of their ways of being teachers (Feldman, 1997; Stengel, 1996). Way of being is an existential concept. What this means is that it is not a teacher characteristic, such as teachers' knowledge or reasoning skills. It is the person being in the situation in a way that is defined and informed by what was and is for the teacher, and his or her intentions for what could be. The teacher's way of being a teacher is essentially the way that that person is a teacher âÄ" where "teacher" is one of the many ways that that person is and can be.

Therefore, for teachers to change they must change their ways of being teachers (Feldman, in press). When we engage in self-study of our teacher education practices, we are engaged in an existential form of action research that can not only lead to new knowledge, but may also lead to a change in our ways of being teacher educators. I argue in this paper that the current focus in self-study on the use of literary and artistic representations of research is due to the difficulty of making explicit personal and professional transformation through traditional forms of representation of educational research. I also argue that while literary and artistic conventions for quality are valid and valuable for assessing literary and artistic merits, they fall short as measures for the quality of educational research. In addition to a representation of one’s personal and professional transformation, it is also necessary for the researcher to make explicit how he or she knows that a transformation occurred and what precipitated it. I conclude my paper by suggesting that in addition to the representation of the transformation of one’s way of being a teacher educator, it is necessary for the researcher to include the evidence that it occurred, and how it was collected and analyzed. In addition, and possibly most important, self-study researchers must not only represent their transformation, they must demonstrate why it is important and useful for other educators to understand how and why they changed themselves and their practice.

In offering a self-study of my educative influence as a supervisor of first-person practitioner-research, I am working with the view in Paper 1 that:

Using video data from my teaching with my research students and shared reflections on our learning experiences I will explicate the transformations in both my own learning and the learning of my students and explain my own transformative learning in terms of my embodied values (Whitehead, 2001). I mean 'explain' in Feldman's sense of knowing that a transformation has occurred and what precipitated it. I will also focus on the validity of the evidence I present to justify my claims to know. Drawing on the successfully completed research degrees in the living theory section of actionresearch.net I will focus on Feldman's point that:

in order to show how such demonstrations can lead to the reconstruction of what counts as educational knowledge through the development of a scholarship of educational inquiry.

In terms of the AERA theme for the 2002 Annual Meeting, validity concerns the adequacy and appropriateness of the interpretations made from research, whereas value concerns the usefulness and importance of the research results (from the Call for Proposals). My paper will deal with these issues of validity and value in terms of one major type of findings and product of self-studies of teacher education research, stories. Specifically, I will explore major issues surrounding the adequacy and appropriateness of the interpretations made by both the researchers and readers, and the usefulness and importance of the research results to both researchers and readers. I will argue, using Guba and Lincoln's constructivist approach, that the validity of self-study of teacher education stories is best "measured" by the trustworthiness and authenticity of the story as judged by the reader. Much has already been written about these topics, so I will focus on a few aspects that I feel have been neglected in the field. One aspect of this "measure" of validity is that the story must "ring true" to the reader in terms of their experiences and understandings of teacher education phenomena. Another aspect of the "validity" of a self-study is the extent to which the reader is able to discern a genuine, authentic self of the researcher. I will then make the case that value of the self-study must be tied to the meaning-making process of the reader in terms of the meanings, symbols, and interpretations gleaned from the story. A story of value must be a "good" story, as described by Bruner (1990) that "wills" the reader to create useful and important meanings. A self-study in teacher education practices story of value must also depict the usefulness and importance of the meanings created by the researcher in living and retelling the story. I will use examples from the knowledge base and my own self-studies to support my discussion

In the desire to do self-study, often, what is left unsaid is the power of unsaid moments to influence our perception of reality. Moments of quiet, of speculation, of inquisitive and caring eyes, can often speak volumes in the preparation and instruction of teacher and teacher educators.

As a part of the symposium, I would like to offer that our stories - our stories of quiet contemplation and personal solitude, of desiring to understand who we are as we reach out to others, - holds validity and value in and of itself for it conveys the essence of teacher preparation and education.

In addition, teacher education is really the study of a performing art for when all is said and done, it is a teacher who stands alone in a room as they try to impart their understandings and perceptions of knowledge and of relationships.

The symposium should reflect on these quiet moments that underscore the validity and value in good instruction.

This contribution to the symposium explores issues relating to the ethics of self-studies that are offered as valid and valuable contributions to educational knowledge.

A criticism sometimes leveled at self-study enquiries is that they are victory narratives constructed to show where learning has taken place. In my contribution, I hope to explore the following questions:

• Though an account of a nodal moment may represent a genuine effort on the part of the writer to show what happened at a given moment in a given context it is one person's view of reality and so how much store can be put by it?
• Can an account be valid when an observer can only see partial reality and thus of any implications of their actions?
• Where a writer is asked by a participant in a nodal moment not to mention their participation in an event, how far is it possible to draw a line around one person's influence and still give a valid impression of what has occurred?
• In funded research, pressure to divulge only what is likely to please and to fulfil various criteria of a research contract can be high. Is it any less high when one needs to satisfy requirements of a doctoral examination where revealing significant weaknesses to colleagues may invoke later reprisals?
• The use of validation groups is often offered as a way of ensuring validation in a self-study. Are these as unbiased as they might initially appear to be?
• Can we (or should we?) define parameters for which enable valid, valuable accounting without exposing the writer to the risk of professional damage?

While not offering definitive solutions it is hoped that we will explore issues of ethically good practice arising from discussion and interaction with the audience.

How can the value of a personal claim to practical and ethical knowledge be assessed? This question matters to me both as a scholar of educational knowledge, and as an educational practitioner whose claim to competence or even expertise must be judged by others. I presume it is an issue for other educational scholars and practitioners as well. At the same time, I have some nagging questions about the reasons underlying our expectations that educators must justify their claims to know. My questions about our motives for justification, and my interest in finding meaningful and worthwhile approaches to assessing the validity of our claims to know, have prompted me to construct some answers that work for me at this stage in my understanding of knowledge and of education.

In this paper, I share my questions and tentative answers. I address justification as a way to claim authority; justification as a potential distraction from ethical considerations; the value of confirmation and affirmation of a claim to know, as opposed to a requirement for justification; justification as a way of gaining trust within a community; justifying our claims to know by exposing our practices; and, finally, justification for illumination and for emancipation. I conclude that the promise of affirmation for the meaningful knowledge gained through deep engagement in educational practice is a worthwhile reason for educators to attempt justification and seek validation -- only, however, if we are careful to place greater value on caring practice than on validation and vigilant regarding overzealousness in articulating details and constructing explanations that blind us to the essence of good practice.

"What has that got to do with research in education?"

"His work is too touchy feely, too soft."

"Who cares about evidence of her achievements?"

"Where’s the relevance?"

Show off!"

"I don’t have time for the luxury or self-indulgence."

"If that’s self-study, I don’t want any part of it!"

"That’s not scholarship, its voyeurism."

"Self-study is just navel gazing, pure and simple. It should be kept

private." (comments overheard at conferences)

This paper will present theoretical reflections and postulates that constitute a response of sorts to several scholars and recent events in the evolving field of self-study. At its heart are some impossibly difficult questions that will likely never go away or be answered completely: What and who is the "self" in self-study? What about the embodied self? The social self? The private self? The multiple shifting and changing selves? What is the relationship between self and other? Is it necessary make the self "other" in some way? What is it about some studies or presentations that seems to shut down curiosity and conversation while others seem to open up dialogues across "selves"? When and how does the personal become social and the social, personal? How might we theorize self-study? What knowledge claims can it make? What values and assumptions about self-study are embedded in our discourse about it? Whose values and assumptions? How and when does self-study become collective self-study? I am certainly not the first or only scholar to ask these questions about self-study. But as Gadamer asserts, good questions seldom die. Because they are so fundamental, some questions just won’t go away–they need continually to be re-asked. Each answering provokes further questions.

In the first section of the paper, I will do a discourse analysis of some of the current language of self-study, seeking the taken-for-granted assumptions that cover over our differences or keep us quiescent and examining how we might benefit from making those assumptions more explicit though self-study.

In the second section, I build on recent work by Jack Whitehead and a new book by Jerry Allender, offering my own take on some of the important questions their work raises for self-study.

In the final section, I take up some of the issues of validity in process raised by Bullough and Pinnegar (2001) in their thoughtful article in a recent issue of Educational Researcher and extends them to other genres of research, such as performance and video.

My conclusion is a serious reflection on the value of the navel to us all.

Bullough Jr., R. V., & Pinnegar, S. (2001). Guidelines for quality in autobiographical forms of self-study. Educational researcher, 30(3), 13-22.

Eisner, E. W. (1994). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs. NY: Macmillan.

Feldman, A. (1997). Varieties of wisdom in the practice of teachers. Teaching and teacher education, 13(7), 757-773.

Feldman, A. (in press). Existential Approaches to Action Research. Educational action research.

Gage, N. L. (1989). The Paradigm Wars and Their Aftermath: A "Historical" Sketch of Research on Teaching since 1989. Educational researcher, 18(7), 4-10.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Lather, P. (1991). Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy with/in the postmodern. NY: Routledge.

Phillips, D. C. (1987). Validity in qualitative research: Why the worry about warrant will not wane. Education and urban society, 20(1), 9-24.

Stengel, B. (1996, April 18-22). Teaching epistemology through cell reproduction: A narrative exploration. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.

Whitehead, J. (2001) Living Standards of Judgement in What We Know and How We Know It. Paper to AERA Annual Meeting 2001, session 44.09, Seattle.