CARRP 7: Keith Kinsella
MPhil Transfer Paper
Abstract: this proposal describes research
into ways of enhancing managers� capabilities to offer appropriate and
effective leadership in their organisations, as they pursue an E Learning
Coached MA in Leadership Studies at Exeter University, It will focus on
exploring leadership as a �process� phenomenon and seek to develop a �relational
epistemology� to help participants make sense of their lived experience through
accessing marginalised knowledges. The research will engage critically with
ideas coming from several fields including the systemic and social construction
traditions, Foucault�s work on power relations, complexity theory, and tacit
knowledge. The research will also develop insights into pedagogy for the
education of practitioner researchers in higher education by inquiring into relations
between the macro �conditions� which create contexts for learning and working,
and the relational �micro-practices� which help translate these into embodied
practice.
I
originally started my studies in January 2002 and successfully completed the
Diploma Transfer process after a very enjoyable and stimulating 15 months, in
April 2003. In September that year I decided I would benefit from a break in my
studies due to several complicating factors which were disrupting my
concentration and focus – care for my ailing mother in South Africa, a
house sale and re-location to Oxford, supporting a daughter who was suffering
from severe depression, and establishing a suitable work platform from which to
operate. I subsequently got permission to withdraw for a year, and during that
period very fortunately resolved or had resolved for me, the several
complications referred to earlier.
I therefore felt able to re-register in October, 2004, and since then
have been actively thinking about and preparing my arguments for the �rapids�
of the Diploma Transfer process which I hope to successfully negotiate before
the start of the new academic year in October this year.
This
paper is the result of my reflections over this period and the further
experiences I�ve had as a consulting fellow at Exeter University Centre for
Leadership Studies since March 2004: principally during two substantial
consulting assignments with Exeter University and then the Royal Mail Group;
and in my role as a coach over the past 9 months on the E Learning Coached MA
in Leadership Studies. Though both consulting assignments have turned out to be
unsuccessful from my point of view, they have been very rich learning
experiences, while the more successful ongoing academic work with six mature MA
students and colleagues at the Centre for Leadership Studies, has provided an
energising and intellectually stimulating contrast to the more pragmatic
requirements of work in the commercial environment. So despite a lack of formal
supervision and challenge from co-researchers since September, 2003, I believe
I have managed to continue making good progress with my inquiry. I hope to
demonstrate this progress in this document, and in the attached paper delivered
at Exeter�s Leadership Refrains Conference last November, which was the focus
of the first discussion with Jack Whitehead. I further hope these will justify
Jack�s comment made at the end of this meeting, when he jokingly remarked:
��..supervision – who needs it!�
Over
the next few pages I draw out what has been emerging since my last formal piece
of writing for CARPP on July 4, 2003. This will cover how I�m now framing the
purpose of the research and the many ideas and interests that have been
attached to the project like barnacles to a boat – or as Donna Ladkin
remarked at the Diploma transfer discussion, �like a smorgasbord� - and how I
intend to approach and carry out the next phase of work.
Focusing on
�leading� – approaching leadership practice �as an art�
Though
in a proposal made to NATS during the early stages of the Diploma, I did imply
that my research would be focused on how I could help managers improve their
leadership, my general approach during the Diploma stage does in retrospect
look quite open ended – as though I was preparing myself to study
anything. I think this was what Judi Marshall was pointing to when she remarked
during our discussion in Bristol in June, 2003, that my research questions were
mainly about the �how�, and therefore asked what my inquiry was about. There is the
supportive point made by Dadds and Hart (2001) about the importance that
practitioner researchers place on developing a unique methodology for their
work, but on reflection I think Judi and others were right: I didn�t have a particular �content� focus and
probably with my MBTI �perceiving� preference, didn�t want to close down my
options – and so I was content to focus mainly on the methodology issues.
Although I�ve almost always been involved in one way or another with leadership
development work of one kind or another, I�ve known for some time that I
generally resist being tied down to just a focus on the individual managers.
Instead I�ve talked much about the importance of �context�, how �management�
development must become �organisation� development if it is to work, and so on,
always seeing the work with managers as an important lead into the organisation
and culture change work that I believe is so important.
Then
in March, 2004 I was appointed a consulting fellow at Exeter Centre for
Leadership Studies and in addition to starting to work on some
leadership-focused consulting assignments, got interested in and involved with
the MA in Leadership Studies that the Centre offers. Being one of the very few
academic centres specialising in leadership, the focus at Exeter is, and
obviously has to be, more on the leadership development strand, and the
research, teaching, and consulting consequently focuses particularly on this theme.
Wanting to establish myself in this new domain, I rapidly became immersed in
reading academic papers, teaching and coaching work with mature MA students,
working with clients on consulting assignments, discussions with academic and
consulting colleagues, and taking part in academic conferences - all with a
focus on leadership. And so it began to dawn on me that despite my long held
interest in the wider aspects of organisation behaviour, I had quite
fortuitously located myself in an institution that offered a particularly rich
context in which to pursue inquiry into one crucial element of that complex
domain – that of leaders and leadership - and the questions about what it
is, how it�s done, how to develop it, and so on. These now constitute a high
profile and hotly contested area of research, and so I began to think maybe
this could become the main �content� focus of my inquiry – but given my
trajectory of interests, what in particular might I look at?
An
academic colleague Peter Case who had re-designed the Exeter MA for the e
learning version of the MA in Leadership Studies, introduced me to the work of
Keith Grint and I started reading one of his recent books called The Arts of
Leadership (Grint, 2000). What I
particularly liked about his treatment of the subject was the notion that
successful leaders depend far more on their followers than is usually
understood: ��what distinguishes a successful leader from a failed leader is
whether the subordinates can and will save the organisation from the mistakes
of its leaders� (Grint, 2000, p 419); and that leadership is �an indeterminate
skill that masquerades as a determinate skill� (ibid, p 419) and is much more
to do with the skillful application of a number of �arts� rather than as a
mainly technical achievement:
�...leadership might best be considered as an art
rather than as a science, or more specifically, an ensemble of arts...to do
with identity, the formulation of a strategic vision, the construction of
organisational tactics, and the deployment of persuasive means to ensure
followers actually follow.� (Grint,
2000)
In
contrast to my usual preference for looking to contextual interpretations of
events, this caused me to reflect on the very personal and unique nature of the
artistic process. Following Foucault and others, we might be creatures of
discourse; but when it comes to actually producing art there does seem to be
something intensely private and personal that�s at work. And leading others
effectively along difficult paths, as Heifetz (2002 ) analyses so eloquently,
does involve risk and putting yourself �on the line� in a personal way –
otherwise people are unlikely to follow you. So I thought perhaps I needed to
be a little less closed to insights from the �individual as centre of the world�
perspective. If leadership is better seen as an art then there certainly is
something important to be learned through this lens.
The
next important step on the road came when I started working with the Centre�s
Director, Jonathan Gosling last May on a leadership development proposal for
the Royal Mail Group. What
struck me during the early stages of our discussions with the client was the
lack of specificity in the request. In contrast to the usual �this is what we
want and how we want it�, the two client representatives seemed not to know quite
what the new deregulation challenge for Royal Mail implied, what qualities
their leaders subsequently needed, or how these new attributes might be
developed! As I put it in the paper to the Leadership Refrains Conference last
December:
�...we
and all those associated with the enterprise would have to adopt an emergent approach
if the programme were to help deliver this capability in the face of a largely unknown
and uncertain future, in terms of: the content of the programme –
what kind of leadership?;
the processes
used – how to develop this?; and the framing context – leading
to do what (vision/strategy)? (Kinsella, 2004)
What
this encouraged me/us to do was to take up a far more open perspective on what
we might be up to: if nothing was seen as fixed and we had to keep all three
variables in play, we not only could but had to pay particular attention to the
nature of the boundaries around each and the interactions between them. Almost immediately I began to feel
that the boundaries or �punctuations� around these three �activity systems� - which I�ve long
thought were rather arbitrary e.g. �this� is �leadership� and �that� is
�development� – could be treated in a more flexible way. In other words
instead of being the expert developers who delivered a brand of �universal�
good practice, we could instead frame the programme as a joint exploration with
delegates of what kind of local leadership might be appropriate as the
strategic circumstances changed, and what particular development processes
seemed to work.
As
no one seemed to be clear quite what we might end up with, and bearing in mind
Grint�s metaphor of leadership as an art, I decided to frame the work at one
level as investigations into two interacting processes - �leading� i.e. the
what and how of leadership, and �developing leading� i.e. the what and how of
managers learning how to enact appropriate and timely leading in their local
contexts. Following Bergson (1911, p 11 in Wood, 2005) I decided to use verbs
rather than nouns to emphasise movement and process. We accordingly invited
participants on the programme – which interestingly we�d decided to call
�A Difference�! – to join us in an exploration of improving on-the-job
performance with conventional academic inputs very much bringing up the rear is
a supportive role. But how to do this�..?
Using a
�process-as-ontology� perspective – interpreting �fleeting moments�
As
referred to earlier, in my conference paper I mentioned that we hoped to ��enable
them (the participants) to offer leadership in a more involving and de-centred style,
where leading becomes more a function and expression of a network of
relationships (Gergen, 1999) and less that of actions of the leader.� (ibid p 6) Further,
in contrast to more conventional approaches where capability is seen as
something �out there� and something to learn to do, we were being more
ambitious and were �hoping participants might move more towards
qualities/performances that they were a part of i.e. constituted by the
relations they were in. This represents a more extreme form of relatedness or
�becoming� and pointing towards what Martin Wood has referred to as the
�excluded middle� (2005), and what we were calling a more de-centred form of
leading� (ibid, p 5). A key paragraph in my paper - responding to pressure from the client for a more
straight-forward approach to the programme - points to this shift in my
thinking:
�However, if we are to gain real insights into
leading �as an art�, and how to develop it, there is a need to keep the less
punctuated �process� view of leading as a possibility in our own ecology of
ideas. If we can do this it will help us keep our frame/canvas wide and our
brushes and palette of colours rich and sensitive enough to capture imprints of
whatever might emerge as we work together. If then as Wood (ibid) remarks, we
think of leading as something that appears only in �the most fleeting moments�
against �a background of complex dynamic relations�, what can we help set up
with other members of the development network to make this more possible?
(ibid, p 14)
During
this period I realised that one thing the RMG opportunity was doing was
allowing me to be more open, at least with Jonathan Gosling, about my interest in
exploring a more relational view of human behaviour, moving from a first
transition where the freestanding individual is still predominant but where
communications between individuals are seen as being circular in nature –
NLP�s �the meaning of a communication is the response it generates� (O�Connor
et al, 1994); to a second transition where the concreteness of this
freestanding individual begins to disappear, to be seen essentially as being at
the vortex of a long history of many past and current relationships (Gergen,
1999). This also has echoes of a conversation with Jack Whitehead about Alan
Rayner�s work on inclusionality (2004), where his use of terms such as the
�complex local self� and �relationally dynamic awareness� also point towards a
more relational ontology.
However
it was reading a late draft paper by Martin Wood, a colleague at Exeter, about
the �fallacy of misplaced leadership� (Wood, 2005) that nudged me to a third
transition where he talks of �the
excluded middle� and where, in this instance, the studying of leadership needs
to be about capturing and understanding events which presuppose relations,
connections, reciprocities over time�and how these become associated with
background processes of individuation (ibid, p 16). Here the concrete
individual disappears as the focus turns to the relations themselves –
the excluded middles – and where everything is seen as part of process.
The following quote from Wood on Bergson�s view captures this new �process
metaphysics� perspective well. Referring to Bergson�s starting point to do with
process-as-ontology, he says �His focus is on the emergence of enduring
patterns having to be seized from the original flow of process and not on the
fallacy of misplaced concreteness� (ibid, p12). These are the �fleeting
moments� (Widder, 2002, p 59 quoted in Wood, ibid) which occur against a
background of complex dynamic relations.
But
my work with the MA students was also influencing my thinking. During Phase 2
of the programme we studied a wide range of conventional approaches to
leadership like �trait�, �situational�, �transformational� etc. Included in
this survey was a new term for me called �distributed leadership� which a
commentator like Gron (2002) describes as: �relations of �reciprocal influence��
and where he sees �distributed leadership as �concertive action� extending the
existing unit of analysis to include leadership as joint action, rather than
simply aggregated or individual acts� (quoted in Wood, ibid, p 7). There is
also the survey by Bennett et al for the National College for School Leadership
(2003) which states that �the concept of distributed leadership is in its
infancy� (p. 11) and identifies the challenges of �undertaking research into it
as an emergent property of interacting individuals and gaining insight into the
dynamics which operate between or �stretching across� individuals. Innovative
ways of doing this or applying it to leadership studies�are likely to be
fruitful�. (p. 13)
I
was also getting interested in exploring views of leadership which recognise
and challenge the associations triggered by history e.g. Lipman-Blumen (1992)
and where basic definitions might be more sensitive to what is actually
happening in the present. For instance, as Alvesson and Deetz suggest (ibid, p
130), we could use �connective organising processes� and �connection
initiators� rather than the usual �leaders� with all its male gender
connotations. These rang bells for me as I�d long held the view that the few
high profile acts of designated leaders were always just the tip of the iceberg
when it came to the everyday leadership of change in large organisations
– and that by focusing just on the top few we were ignoring the reality
of what goes on (echoes of Grint�s views on the importance of followers here
too, and his concept of �mobilisation�). This seems especially so with the rise
of knowledge workers, the increase in market dynamism demanding intelligent
responses at the frontline, and the continuing demand for increased
democratisation in the workplace. But these are �shoulds� and my intuition was
and is more about the �is-ness� of leadership being much more dispersed and
emergent in nature than conventionally claimed.
All
of these factors were prodding me towards a different view of �leading� and
daring me to adopt a more adventurous frame for the work with RMG. The
Leadership Refrains paper (ibid) elaborates on how this experiment developed
and some of the difficulties I experienced in trying to use what is currently
an esoteric perspective in a business completely driven by the everyday
�24/7/365� routine of meeting targets and cutting costs. However I had been
�infected� and writing the paper further exposed my �hand� both to myself and
others. This exposure has encouraged me to go further down this line of thought
and I�m now sufficiently persuaded that this will provide an appropriate and
flexible overall frame to guide my research. Of course I�m only too aware of
the challenge I face: is it possible to entertain a notion of diffused, dispersed,
and distributed leading implied by the process perspective, while engaging and
working effectively with individuals who are called leaders and who wish to
develop their own skills? This research will explore what is possible. However
I do believe it meets what Judi Marshall was referring to when, in commenting
on my desired multi-modal approach to research in her notes on my Diploma
paper, she wrote �need to nest �it� within some more encompassing
frame/being/set of practices� (private communication, 2003)
Towards
multi-modal forms of knowing-developing a �relational epistemology�
So
now to the �it� that Judi was referring to – the range of perspectives
(or to use in a different sense now the Batesonian phrase, an �ecology of
ideas�) that I talked enthusiastically about in the Diploma paper and
which in Judi� words �offer
exciting �integrations��. Just to briefly refresh my/our memory of what these
were, here are elements grouped into three strands:
Social
construction/power relations: the argument that meaning and identity are
largely constituted
by how we use language in networks conditioned by power/knowledge relations, and how through
problematising dominant discourses and institutions and seeking to re-value experiences which
have been marginalised, we can encourage new ways of relating, talking, and behaving (e.g. Gergen, Foucault,
Elias, etc)
Tacit
knowledge/embodiment/metaphor (cognitive science): the notion that mind is embodied, thought largely
unconscious, and abstract concepts mostly metaphorical, and how through better access to these processes and
levels of experience, we can increase our insight
into how and why things are the way they are, and improve the quality of our everyday practices (e.g. Polanyi,
Lakoff and Johnson, Burkitt, Belenky et al, etc)
Complexity
theory/systemicity(emergence)/process: the proposition that these ideas and associated human
behaviours can usefully be seen as embedded in complex responsive processes which though non-linear
in nature, offer the potential for thinking and working in more fluid, flexible, non-hierarchical, conversational,
and innovative ways ( e.g. Stacey, Shaw,
Rayner, Bergson, etc)
When
I spoke to Jack Whitehead about �next steps� in November, one of the things I
did raise with him was the critique of the possibly dilettante-like nature of
this �smorgasbord� of perspectives that I was interested in. Encouragingly he
spoke of �ideas that are resonating� and �a narrative that is emerging� where
my multi-modal approach could help others voice their own stories, perhaps
bringing to life things that are not part of dominant narratives. I liked the metaphor of resonance and
it reminded me that perhaps I was now less driven by in the idea of
�integration� and the development of a new �approach�. Perhaps I�m now more
interested in the insights each perspective can offer and how these might
resonate with each other at a tacit level bringing new insights if not
integrations - that in addition to insights from each it will also be possible
to generate further insights �between�. As Alvesson and Deetz put it ��work
with unresolved tensions within a text where one follows different themes
of�without attempting synthesis.� And further ��allow space for various
discrete voices in texts through organising these around conversations between
various theoretical perspectives or interest groups�� (2000, p 109) In other
words I think I�m now more interested in understanding the relatedness of these varied
perspectives, how I might deal with their differences and tensions, and how
this might contribute towards a �relational epistemology� that I referred to in
my original candidature statement. (see revised version at end of this proposal)
The
last part of Jack�s comment in the paragraph above – the �bringing to
life things� bit - also reminded
me of my abiding interest in one of these �modes�, that of tacit knowledge; and the notion that
there are all kinds of experiences existing at a tacit level within the spaces
not touched by power relations/dominant discourses. For instance the work done
on on �women�s ways of knowing� (e.g. Burkitt, 1999, Chapter 5, and Belenky in
Hartog, 2004, Chapter 3) demonstrate the kinds of knowledges that can lie
hidden beneath the surface of everyday commonsensical views. So at a deeper
level there are potentially all kinds of varied but unvalued experiences that
with alternative story frames to give them shape and purpose, could offer
important insights into e.g. (and
bringing things right up to date)
- what �really� happens when leading is regarded as a process –
the new focal point of my research. Following Alvesson and Deetz (2001, p
139-140) my aim would be to help bring forward the �progressive development of
distinctions�and alternative conceptions�, through a process of insight,
critique and transformative re-definition of these �marginalised� experiences
and phenomena – �what is seen as natural, self-evident, unproblematic,
and unavoidable� (ibid, p 147). I would be hoping in this participative process
to problematise rather than confirm and reproduce the views of dominant
institutions and discourses.
The
overall metaphor that is now guiding my thinking is circular, and is that of
the spiral. What
I see happening as I use these different perspectives is like a �triple
hermeneutic� process (Alvesson and Skoldberg, 2000). In this I may typically
start from a position of commonsense appreciation in
observing/dialoguing/making sense, but then in response to the interaction, I
may �submerge� myself beneath the surface and go through a varying and dynamic
sequence of more particular and specialised views/interpretations of the process/event.
By going through a spiral I�m able to �resurface� at the same but now subtlety
different point of observation with a more enriched/varied/questioning quality
of understanding. And from this I can question my own and others�
understandings and actions with a view to helping contribute towards a
reframing and revaluing of what is emerging.
No
doubt much of this �spiralling� is likely to take place as reflecting on events
after
the fact. But I�m hoping I will steadily be able to do this more and more in
the present moment – what Stacey (2003) and colleagues refer to as �in
the living present� – and thus be able to make the timely interventions
that both Torbert (2004) and Scharmer (2000) speak of in their different
formulations of what it is to be �strategic� and able to �presence� i.e. embody
emergent futures. If I�m able to model this behaviour myself I�m hoping others
may become interested in developing the identities and embodied skills that are
involved in this relational mode of knowing and the associated process mode of being.
Methodology for
evolving a new social formation 1:
Collaborating
with �practitioner researchers�
In
my conclusion to the presentation to the Leadership Refrains conference I ended
with:
�To
reprise: the challenge for us in this programme has been how to mutually create
a context where insights into �leading� and �developing leading� could be
elicited, distilled, amplified and embodied by participants and ourselves, in a
situation where �strategising� also remains an uncertain entity. We find
ourselves in the difficult position of having to work within a �system�
comprising these three ambiguous/uncertain phenomena, in an emergent and
co-creative way�� (ibid, p 10)
Despite
this ambiguity, one area where the client representatives and ourselves had found
common cause, at least at a conceptual level, and where we could reduce some
ambiguity, was the decision to place the major focus of the programme on encouraging
managers to regard their everyday work as the primary source of development.
This move positioned the managers and their professional work as the central
core of the development process and allowed us to think in a new way about the
kind of ideas which would support this approach. Following Bateson, I used the
term �an ecology of ideas� to gently group together and link the range of
different concepts and methods we gradually developed to frame and support the
on-the-job development process. The five main features listed in the conference
paper (ibid, pp 4-5) emphasise: the valuing of local and tacit knowledge; the
embodiment of new learning in everyday practice; creating a supportive
performance context for changed behaviour; adopting an emergent approach to the
design and support of the programme; and involving a wider network of people in
using an �appreciative eye� to seek out and talk up examples of �what�s
working�. As I suggest in the paper, these ideas provide in a concentrated
form, a glimpse of what we might have called the �ontology, epistemology, and
methodology� underpinning the programme�but wisely, in the circumstances, we
didn�t!
In
essence this ecology of ideas very much implies a process of mutual inquiry
into what works, where we work with each other rather than on each other, and
where the participant managers are at the centre of an inquiring and supportive
network. After meetings with several potential participants it became clear to
me that for this process to work, we would need to find ways of engaging
participants themselves (and/or their coaches) in some form of action research
activity. In other words they would need to become practitioner researchers if the issues around �leading�
and �developing leading� were to become more than just words in the programme
but the source of active debate and dialogue amongst participants and their
close associates. The ambitious way I put it in the conference paper was as
follows:
In summary: these practical steps were seen as a
way of introducing a framework of interlocking ideas that we felt were
associated with developing effective leadership in uncertain times. With the
resolution of key work issues as the main driver for new thinking and the
source of participant development, a series of workshops and regular coaching
would seek to develop practitioner researchers who could critically examine
their ways of working in order to improve their leadership practice. In
particular the three �mindsets� would help managers understand in a more
sophisticated way what flows through their organisation�s �capillaries� in
Foucault�s net-like concept of power (Foucault, 1977), how they are caught up
in this flow, and their own contribution towards these power relations. We
believed this could enable them to offer leadership in a more involving and
de-centred style, where leading becomes more a function and expression of a
network of relationships (Gergen, 1999) and less that of actions of the leader (ibid p6)
This
I think was the beginning of my drift towards a more process oriented way of
looking at leadership but also illustrates another important aspect which is
never far from my thinking: the idea of encouraging development, learning, and
improvement through, as Jack Whitehead puts it, the education of a social
formation. By this I mean focusing not so much directly on the individuals
involved but on the context in which they are working, and the interaction between the two as the
primary focus. There are echoes here too of Bourdieu�s �habitus� ( Webb et al,
2002), Torbert�s �liberating structures� (1991), and Wenger�s �communities of
practice� (1998). This also links to one of the central elements of my Diploma
paper in 2003 – that of �social architecture for eliciting tacit
knowledge�. – where I�ve invested much time and thought into how to
design learning environments which might favour focused but more adventurous,
enriching and creative action. This leads me on to thinking more directly about
the question of pedagogy.
Methodology for
educating a new social formation 2:
Developing
pedagogy for an age of �supercomplexity�
Though
the broader frame offered by the dual focus on �leading� and �developing leading� will allow me
to inquire into different themes that might emerge, a major part of the
research will remain of the form �how do I improve my practice?� And given that
the focus of this has recently turned much more specifically to my work as a
�practitioner researcher� in higher education, I realise that my long held
interest in pedagogy can now emerge from the shadows. In this context I like
Bernstein�s view of this concept (quoted in Whitehead,
2005, p. 23):
�Pedagogy is a sustained process whereby somebody(s)
acquires new forms or develops existing forms of conduct, knowledge, practice
and criteria from somebody(s) or something deemed to be an appropriate provider
and evaluator - appropriate either from the point of view of the acquirer or by
some other body(s) or both� (Bernstein, 2000, p.78)
To me this very succinctly sums up what I�ve generally tried to do
in the design and facilitation of development events with clients and my search
for �social architectures� that support such learning. Here it is not about
knowledge for its own sake but knowledge for action/practice which contains
within itself the seeds of self-initiated relational assessment. Of course this
applies even more specifically in what I�m now trying to do with my MA students
at Exeter where, to use Bernstein�s terms, there is an opportunity to explore
the links between �institutional� pedagogy and �segmented� (informal) pedagogy.
I think this concept takes me beyond the issue of epistemology (or cognitive
mind), to questions of ontology (being) and to the whole issue of what it means
to �embody a practice�. I develop this point later
A
development in this line of thinking comes from one of the references Jack
Whitehead offered me in his helpful response in May to the first draft of this
paper, that of Ronald Barnett. In his recent book Realising the University,
(2001) he coins the term �supercomplexity� to describe the complex of multiple
frameworks which characterise meaning making, and their fragile nature, being
subject to forces of �uncertainty, unpredictability, contestability and
challengeability�. He identifies six �conditions� which he believes the academy
must embody in its practices in order to forge and sustain anew its vital role
in society. With this as framing background, he goes on the formulate ideas
about the role of research and teaching and the relationship between them.
Referring to the former he talks about academics �becoming practising
epistemologists as well as practising ontologists� who have to �become
different beings as researchers� and go out into the wider world and negotiate
�their knowledge with conflicting interest groups�. (p. 151)
Likewise
with teaching he talks about the task of �educating for the formation of human
being (sic) that is going to be adequate to conditions of supercomplexity�
through assisting students in HE to embark on the formation of their �reflexive
biographies� (Scott, 1995)�made largely in and through action� (p. 158). This
he believes will require teachers (aka researchers –see above), who will
themselves be experiencing the ambiguities and uncertainties of continuing
challengeability of all the frameworks they hold, to constitute conditions of
supercomplexity in the pedagogical situation (KK emphasis). So the
pedagogy itself has to be characterised by uncertainty, unpredictability,
contestability, and challengeability – the constituents of
supercomplexity. Only in this way will students be able to both experience and
learn to live with the epistemological and ontological disturbance associated
with such conditions.
This
view helps me see my interest in multi-modal forms of knowing, and using them
to work with students, in a new light. These several overlapping frames
obviously represent some of the multiple frameworks that Barnett is
characterising as �supercomplexity�. As I�m researching them and using them in
a pedagogic way with students/clients, at the same time (Stacey, 2001 ), it seems to me I�ve probably got enough
resources to start creating with others what Barnett refers to as the pedagogic
conditions for learning to live a worthwhile life in a supercomplex world. As
they say in certain circles, just get on and do it!
However
I�m sensitive here to the advice offered by Reason and Marshall (2001)
concerning the kinds of concerns that older students face when engaging in a
personal process of inquiry, and the �undue weight of apparent authority� (p
417) often given to other people�s thinking. In thinking about how to ensure
they are given enough space to develop their own ideas, I�m mindful here of
Judi Marshall�s caution about the danger of doing too much too early on and so
shutting out as she puts it, �the arriving form� of the participants� agendas
and learning process (personal conversation, July, 2003). However my sense is
that: a) we need practitioner researchers to make real progress here; and b) that
such practitioners will undoubtedly benefit from being involved in co-creating
the pedagogic context in which they do their important learning work, as well
as doing the work that only they can do. I take this point further in a later section.
Methodology for
educating a new social formation 3:
�Crafting� new
standards of evaluation
As Ronald Barnett�s views mentioned earlier make clear, for
students to learn to live and contribute in an age of �supercomplexity�, they
need to experience not only epistemic but ontological uncertainty and
dislocation. And this notion gets further support form the work reported by
Bullough and Pinnegar �The
consideration of ontology, of one's being in and toward the world, should be a
central feature of any discussion of the value of self-study research� (2004 p. 319)
So
how might I judge that what we�re doing is relevant and of acceptable quality? In
a recent research paper, surveying current methods of assessing quality in
practice-based research, Furlong and Oncea (2005) refer to Gibbons et al (1994) who describe �Mode
2� as an emerging form of �context based knowledge production� where �knowledge
is generated in the process of providing solutions to problems which have been
identified on the ground in the context of application� (p. 8). They use this
idea to broaden the perspective for assessing research quality in general, and
put forward a fourfold framework with which to better assess the value of
practice based or applied work. These are: economic (e.g. cost effective),
technological (e.g. operationalisability), epistemic (e.g. contribution to
knowledge), and a final factor they describe as �capacity to act� or �value for
people� (e.g. personal growth). They suggest the framework could be used in a
flexible way with some factors being more relevant to some research projects
e.g. claiming to add to public (codified) knowledge would be different to say,
another claiming to make a contribution to developing practices.
This
�capacity to act�, usually equated to practical wisdom is characterised as
making a �contribution to
collective and personal growth of practitioners and policy makers: changing
them as people through establishing forms of collaboration and partnership, increasing
their receptiveness, reflexivity, virtousness and morality. This they call �capacity
building and value for people in terms of the development of tacit knowledge
and of the ethical, interactional and critical dimensions of practice.�
(Furlong and Oncea, 2005, p. 10)
In
supporting the claims of �practical wisdom�, the authors turn uncertainty and
situatedness from being a weakness (i.e. lack of accuracy and definite
knowledge) into a strength (i.e. ethical human encounters where virtue develops
and is enacted). This they feel will support critique and collaboration for a
better understanding of educational practice through the �enhancement of
(ethically) authentic action rather than the accumulation of (theoretical)
knowledge)� (ibid p. 14) They then list several factors that could be taken
into account in judging whether research was meeting this �value for people�
criterion by encouraging e.g. partnerships, plausibility, self-reflectiveness,
receptiveness, and so on - but they say this within a framing statement:
��because the roots of this dimension are in ethical concerns and in tacit,
situated knowledge, it is extremely difficult to capture in the research
appraisal process.� (p. 14). So it seems that knowledge about what is probably
the most important of the four factors for practice-based research, is hidden
below the surface embedded in the tacit dimension (Polanyi, 1966).
However,
given the view that such standards of judgement are implicit in how one goes about
work and will usually emerge after the doing (Lyotard, 1979) there seem to be
grounds for believing that properly focused collaborative reflection during a
practice oriented education like the MA in Leadership Studies, could make a
useful contribution to this area.
This is clearly something that I would need to take account of in
working with my students as we co-create a pedagogy which helps them achieve
their own personal ends while at the same time producing knowledge that could
have a wider audience in the public domain.
Obviously
here I�m going to be involved in questions of �interpretive validity� and how
we might validate what are likely to be creative practices which don�t
necessarily fit into the conventions of the academy. For instance assessing the
validity of findings on leading as �process� in different local situations, or
establishing the contribution of a relational epistemology to pedagogy in
higher education are not going to be straightforward matters. So my mind is
reaching towards some ideas I first came across at the first Social
Construction conference I attended in 1993 when I heard Patti Lather talk about
four different kinds of validity for post modern research. Here is what I wrote
in June, (Kinsella, 1993) as a note to file on my visit to the conference:
��validity is
less a matter of looking harder or more closely but of seeing multiple frames which are able to
co-exist while at the same time appearing to be mutually incompatible�It is important to be open to counter
interpretations and to look for inconsistencies as well as consistencies�and to the question of what
one backgrounds and foregrounds��
At the time I was both bewildered and seduced by
her use of words like �rhizomatic�, �ironic�, and �voluptuous�. But now over a
decade later I can see them coming to my aid: if I�m going to be using
multi-modal ways of knowing and seeking to validate claims of the usefulness of new locally determined norms of
understanding, �in an age of supercomplexity�,
I think the rhizomatic metaphor might come in very useful!
Methodology for
educating a new social formation 4:
Modelling
relational knowing – steps towards embodied practice
I
found it illuminating and encouraging reading Chapter 4 of Jackie Delong�s
thesis, Creating my Embodied Knowing in Being a Leader (2004). I like the way
she linked her readings of various authors with her own practice, using the
narrative form to point out her own unique understanding and application of
ideas in her own work. I was particularly interested in ideas to do with �relational
knowing� she identified in the Feminist literature, like in Regan & Brooks
(1995): e.g. �Hollingsworth (1992a) located relational knowing at the
intersection of three bodies of knowledge: theories of social construction of
knowledge, theories of feminist epistemologies, and theories of self/other
relationships� (p. 79). Obviously
this stimulated me to wonder what lies at the intersection of my chosen �bodies
of knowledge� which though different bear a family resemblance. This has
awakened within me a greater curiosity in this body of literature, which
appears to address this question of relatedness more directly and personally.
I was also interested in her experience of using ideas from
the wider literature. For example:
�I have engaged with
the ideas of the researchers but not used them in a generalized or complete
way. When I think back on myself as an aspiring leader, I looked for a way to
turn my sense making into a general theory or a grand narrative�Gradually I
found I had faith in my creativity and a confidence in my embodied knowing as
part of my growth of awareness as a superintendent. I gradually recognized that
for me there is no definition. Through my descriptions and explanations of
my life as a leader I give meaning to my embodied knowledge on leadership. (KK emphasis) While I
have read, used and integrated the traditional research, theory and writing on
leadership, I have transformed that work through my own creativity so that the
meanings are mine, based on my experience and research.� (ibid, p. 239)
Further
on she summarises her position:
�And now for my answer to
the meaning of educational leadership�My theory is that in order to be an
effective leader, I need to research my practice to form my own living theory
of education (Whitehead, 2000). The only �model� that I know that works is to
recommend that each person develop his/her own living educational theory to
discover the values that are their standards by which to live and be
accountable. I am �modelling� this approach to leadership in my system� (ibid,
p. 266)
These
remarks reminded me of my own metaphor, that of �seeking roots in the future�,
where I see myself understanding what my embodied knowing is (naturally
conditioned by what I�ve read and experienced), mainly through reflection on my
experiences in how I respond to others in live interactions. So though
influenced by the ideas of people like Foucault and Polanyi, I won�t know what
knowing is actually embodied – in other words what I�ve decided at some
level of awareness to make my own, to root me - until I become aware of it in
practice i.e. after the fact. As for Delong (see italicised sentence above),
providing explanations of my life e.g. as a practitioner researcher teaching in
HE, will show �how I give meaning to my embodied knowledge�. But I want to go
further: at this stage I feel there may be an important difference between
embodied �knowing� and embodied �practice�. For example, my tacit knowledge is
necessarily embodied but I�m not sure I embody most/all of it in my practice -
it may be blocked or distorted and quite probably remains latent much of the
time. For instance, isn�t this a major ongoing issue for me and others in doing
this kind of �first person� oriented research: letting out/getting out for public critique, all
the practical wisdom of over 60 years?
For me this encourages the use of the
�ready/fire/aim� recipe. In this my intent will be to �model� my own approach
to living and contributing as a practitioner researcher in a supercomplex
world, but subjecting my responsive practice in real world interaction to
critique and dialogue with others, so that at a practice level I become more
aware of the meaning and value of what I�m doing. Like Delong, this will allow
me to make adjustments to my doing and being, and construct a narrative of my
own learning – in parallel to those of my students �reflexive
biographies� – about pedagogy in higher education.
But going back to the question of what embodiment
might really mean. One of the works Delong refers to, Composing a Life by Mary
Bateson, seems to relate directly to my interest in approaching leading �as an
art� – an embodied practice that involves entering and working in the
artistic domain – with implications for identity, the learning of a
specific discipline, and a readiness to take the risks involved in the creative
act. So in order to take my understanding further in this context, I�m thinking
of delving more deeply from several different angles, into what might be
entailed in learning to perform an embodied artistic practice, by subjecting
several of my own personal interests (which are not connected directly to my
work as an educator in HE) to in depth first person inquiry. The various
activities I have in mind include:
1. Chi gung – the
study and embodiment of physical/mental/emotional practices involving the
accessing, generation and circulation of chi for health purposes
2. Singing –
learning to sing/perform songs in the lieder tradition e.g. Schumann, Schubert
and/or in the jazz vocalese idiom (scat singing using words)
3. Portrait painting
– painting �situated� portraits using watercolour/pastel media
4. Golf – learning
to play golf to a standard where I have a handicap of less than 18
Success in any/each of these pursuits involves the
learning and assimilation i.e. embodiment, of the explicit and tacit knowledge
that informs and energises skilled practice of that discipline. Each is of a
solo nature and so provide ample opportunities for introspection and self
reflection, and benefit from skilled teaching/coaching offering a ready source
of feedback. They all require a considerable investment of time and emotional
and mental energy if one is to become proficient, and the development of a
level of physical discipline/capability which is �visible� (in all senses) to
both the performer and observers.
None of this is easy. I studied shiatsu for five
years, completing my formal training and examinations - but then never
practiced as I felt unsure of my ability to feel the changing quality of energy
in meridians that are the fundamental in this kind of healing. I had a similar
experience with t�ai chi, spending many years learning the short and long forms
of the Yang method but stopped practising last year as again I didn�t feel I
was actually working with the chi energies, that is an integral part of the
form. My switch to chi gung since coming to Oxford has quite quickly got me
over this �sensing� barrier I experienced previously, and I can now imagine
taking up t�ai chi again with renewed interest, and possibly shiatsu as well.
But I realise I�m far from having what these disciplines have to offer, in an
embodied way.
No doubt there�s much tucked away at a tacit level
but I�ve not reached a level of practice where these disciplines are a natural
and consistent part of my being - which is what I think embodiment means. So I
believe I can gain useful insights into the process of embodying something e.g.
leadership �as an art�, through such explorations, particularly at the level of
the �micro-practices� that together go towards supporting and energising
authentic performance. Again I feel the shadow of Polanyi, and the need to go
beneath the surface to make progress�.
Methodology for
educating a new social formation 5:
Establishing a
resilient container for research into esoteric frameworks
My
experience over the past year on the RMG
contract has led to me to two contrary realisations: the first is that
I�m definitely interested in using
a multi-modal �process� frame to inform and energise my research – and
into the more constrained content domain of �leading� and �developing leading�
rather than culture change; the second is that it is likely to be very
difficult to get a commercial client sufficiently interested in the benefits of
this approach to provide any sort of guarantee of the kind of protection this
research will require.
Despite
the lack of much penetration into the RMG �mindset� of this new way of thinking
about leadership, I found I was thinking more fluidly and creatively about what
was happening. And my colleague Jonathan Gosling was impressed with what I was
able to achieve in a couple of sessions with the group of 25 managers when
working in this mode – engaging in what he called �crafting a dialogue�
that elicited and helped shape participants� tacit knowledge. From another
context and time, I�d been encouraged at how receptive certain senior managers
at the BBC and NATS had been to the multi-modal ideas I offered them as part of
action learning set discussions.
So I believe this approach could work as long as I stay sufficiently
sensitive to the �arriving form� mentioned earlier, of participants� knowledges
and learning processes.
With
regard to the second realisation – the difficulties of doing this kind of
work in large organisations – I now have a more sober appreciation of
what�s possible, even though the RMG experience was quite probably at the
extreme end of the continuum. I�ve thought for a long time that the action
inquiry/action learning set mode of working with action and research going hand
in hand, could provide a powerful means of inquiring into these and other
issues; my experience at the BBC and NATS certainly supported this. However
even at both of these public/private enterprises with some top level support and
a less fierce commercial imperative to deal with, the short term demands on and
disruptive work patterns of managers made it difficult to foster and sustain
good inquiry processes and climates. In the end these managers wanted and
needed to resolve their immediate issues, and there just wasn�t the drive or
personal discipline to delve much further into why and how some things worked
some of the time but not others, and so on. While I�m hopeful that it might be possible on some future
development contract for the action inquiry set element to provide suitable
inquiry opportunities, I believe I need to recruit a much more focused and
disciplined group of people for this work, if the level of inquiry required is
to have a good chance of happening.
It
is here that the E Learning Coached MA in Leadership Studies that I�m working
on at Exeter fortuitously hoves into view. Here we have a Centre that provides
a more contained environment that actively supports inquiry and knowledge
generation, is particularly focused on the topic of leadership and its
development, and by definition recruits managers who are already not only
interested in the subject but keen to inquire into what makes them more
effective. Further the programme is delivered over two years and so provides an
extended period of time in which to dig deeply into different aspects of the
research question(s). My experience with six of the first cadre of mature
managers over the past 6 months has been encouraging not only in terms of their
intellectual capabilities but their interest and willingness to explore new
ways of thinking about the topic. Already several of the group have expressed
considerable interest in e.g. the �distributed� form of leadership mentioned
earlier, despite themselves working in very hierarchical organisations like
e.g. the RAF.
So
I think it would be possible to interest, engage, and �train� (Cochlan and
Brannick, 2001) a selected group of these students (or the next batch) both in
first person inquiry of their own and in second person inquiry with myself and
the others participating, on questions around the central topic. My aim would
be not just to help with improving awareness and understanding, but in line
with Freire�s description of the role of the intellectual in combining research
with education (Freire, 1975), to encourage participants to enact change in
(Foucault�s) micro-practices at inumerable sites of power relations (Alvesson
and Deetz, p 144). The research situation itself I think presents a number of
possible educative contacts from �text only� to-ing and fro-ing on the
internet, to one-to-one interaction over phone (both of these on a week to week
basis), to reviews of the termly reflective essays, and to face-to-face work
with individuals/small groups at a number of one day and residential weekend
events. In addition to engagement with the set texts and their own work,
students also have a 5 day reciprocal exchange with another course member, and
a five day team consultancy assignment which will provide more �live� experiences
to explore. Finally there is also the more intense and sustained involvement
during the dissertation phase. (It is here that I am thinking I might be able
to do some limited participant observation of the Mintzberg �shadowing� type
(Mintzberg, 1975) – what Alvesson and Deetz refer to as a �partial
ethnography� or �situational approach� (2000, p 201) - if this turns out to be
both appropriate and feasible given the numbers and different locations
involved.)
Obviously
this will require some negotiation, not only with Exeter CLS (as it happens,
this would be with Donna Ladkin who now directs the programme) but with the
students themselves. However on the face of it I feel this shouldn�t present
major difficulties as this is likely to involve only minor modifications to the
coaching role as it is currently constituted. Depending on developments, I could start quite soon with
selected students from the existing cadre and/or engage from the very �start�
so to speak, with students joining in October - assuming that I may be asked to
coach a cadre of this new entry.
Methodology for
educating a new social formation 6:
Towards a
culture of inquiry: from �initiating conditions� to the �real thing�
To
put the issue bluntly: what will I actually be doing on an everyday basis when
I�m �doing my PhD�? In my transfer discussion with Peter Reason and Jack
Whitehead on 23 August, my own concerns about how I actually �operationalise�
the range of ideas in the research were heightened, particularly by Peter –
�I�m not clear quite how you will be creating an inquiry space with your
students�. But they were also played down, primarily by Jack, who felt that I
was already demonstrating what �doing my PhD� involved. His concern was more to
do with my tendency to undervalue what I was doing with my students - our own inquiry practice and the
values and living standards of judgement that are emerging - and to look too readily to the formal
ideas of others for guidance e.g. Wenger�s �communities of inquiry�. So in this
final section on methodology I must deal with the question of how I intend to
create and sustain �a culture of inquiry� which will allow us (my students and
myself) to do work in a university setting which can be judged as �original,
significant and rigorous� - to summarise the standards being put forward for
the 2008 RAE.
Our
debate centred on what might constitute �initiating conditions� for a
university based pedagogy which stimulates and supports a culture of inquiry;
and how this might be developed in this particular context. It seemed natural
to think that we could then continue the process, going through cycles of
action and reflection, to enrich and deepen this to a level where we could
claim we had �the real thing� – a culture of inquiry which enabled us to
penetrate beneath the veil of mainstream thinking about leadership, and what
might constitute a �distinctive� pedagogy for the higher education of
practising professionals (Jack�s story about his discussion with the Vice
Chancellor about the position at Bath about this �distinctiveness� illustrates
the challenge)
It
feels appropriate to respond to questions about this learning journey from
�initiating� to �the real thing� at three levels: my own relational and
communicative practices, mutual interaction within the pedagogic �container�,
and leadership outcomes in the world of work. And to do this by commenting to
what extent the current process already represents satisfactory �initiating
conditions�, and to offer some initial ideas about how this might be taken
forward in future. The following comments outline my understanding at the
present time:
1. The current pedagogy is essentially
one of distance learning of a body of academic knowledge about leadership,
supported by a mixture of �tutoring� (focussing on mainstream theories and
frameworks) and �coaching� (encouraging some thinking about application of this
knowledge to one�s own role and context). Most of this is done through the
media of weekly e mail interchanges in relation to set questions about the
syllabus (non-assessed), and written comments on assessed essays each term.
This �arms length� relationship is leavened with one day seminars once a term
and a couple of residential weekends which provide opportunities for some face
to face relationship building within the cohort.
2.
During this first year I�ve been able to move with most of my students from the
role of supportive �tutor� concentrating mainly on their grasp of the academic
content, to more that of �coach� where I�m able to relate more to issues
arising in their working lives. I�ve found that this came quite naturally as
I�ve plenty of personal doubts/criticisms of the theories put forward, which
I�ve developed over the years. This has allowed me to respond more directly to
their own concerns and interests, outwith those of a strictly �MA content�
nature, and to start encouraging them to express their own values in their
working lives. I�ve also been able to have �starter� dialogues with several
relating to the potential benefits of looking at leadership in more relational
and process terms. The bulk of these are archived in the WebCT e learning
system, so there is already a data base which could provide evidence of how I
have/have not been influencing student thinking.
3.
Following the stimulating and supportive transfer discussion with Jack and
Peter, I believe that these developments over the past year together do now constitute sufficient
�initiating conditions� for my/our research together – the inquiry has
started. However
there is much still to do to create a �culture of inquiry� robust and fit
enough for our purpose, where students focus more on learning to improve their
own practice, and where I�m able to move more strongly from role of tutor/coach
to that of �mutual inquirer�. To bring this closer to reality, I need to find
ways of taking action on the following issues:
I
believe this set of inquiry practices represent an adequate starting point for
what I�ve referred to earlier as �initiating conditions� for inquiry. As they
are for the most part interactional processes, they are not something I can do
on my own: they need to be developed, fleshed out, and brought to life jointly with students as we work
together. And this �dwelling in� (Polanyi, 1956 ) and �bringing to life� is of
course also one of the three areas of central interest in the research.
Earlier
in this paper (pages 10-11), I summarise a current view on the need for new
standards of judgement for the education of practitioner researchers:
�This �capacity to act�, usually equated to
practical wisdom is characterised as making a �contribution to collective and personal
growth of practitioners and policy makers: changing them as people through
establishing forms of collaboration and partnership, increasing their
receptiveness, reflexivity, virtousness and morality. This they call �capacity
building and value for people in terms of the development of tacit knowledge
and of the ethical, interactional and critical dimensions of practice.�
(Furlong and Oncea, 2005, p. 10)
I
believe that the small �community of inquiry� constituted by these proposed
research practices will influence each student�s �capacity to act� and will
allow us to identify through our inquiries together, new standards of judgement
about pedagogy within a university setting which more satisfactorily merit the
term �distinctive�. As I say earlier (page 11) in relation to Patti Lather�s
views on validity:
��validity
is less a matter of looking harder or more closely but of seeing multiple
frames which are able to co-exist while at the same time appearing to be
mutually incompatible�It is important to be open to counter interpretations and
to look for inconsistencies as well as consistencies�and to the question of
what one backgrounds and foregrounds��
* * *
My
revised candidature proposal for this PhD thesis now reads as follows:
This
thesis will explore the question �how do I improve my practice� in the context of
helping managers� on the two year E Learning Coached MA in Leadership Studies
at Exeter University, improve their contribution to leadership in their
organisations, In the process, we will jointly explore the nature, means, and
value of embodying leadership as a �process� phenomenon (process-as-ontology),
as well as the view that leadership and its development is best approached �as
an art� (Grint, 2000 ).
The
research will represent a sustained inquiry into the dialectic of how I and
others shape and are shaped by my/our practices, and to understand what
�embodied practice� means and how to achieve it. Through constructing a
narrative of my own learning as the students/practitioner researchers construct
their own �reflective biographies�, I/we will attempt to realise a more
relational, systemic and timely expression of my/our embodied knowing. To do
this, I/we will seek to create an extended �relational epistemology� to make
sense of our lived experience in both the �teaching /researcher� and the
�field/practitioner� domains.
The
research will engage critically with ideas coming from a number of different
fields: the systemic and social construction traditions, Foucault�s work on
self and power relations, insights emerging from complexity theory, and findings
from cognitive science on the pervasive influence of metaphor and tacit,
embodied knowledge. These ideas will be used intuitively in response to the
perceived needs of students during extended cycles of action and reflection, to
help us access and critique tacit and �marginalised� knowledges relevant to the
issues we are inquiring into, and contribute to a �multi-modal� framework of
knowing. Subsidiary areas of interest will include the role of humour and
improvisation in helping both the managers and myself work creatively with the
dilemmas involved in this study of education for improving leadership in
diverse work situations.
This
work will cast light on the possibility of accelerating the development of
managers to lead in more relational, and emergent ways. In jointly
understanding, improving, evaluating, and explaining the learning and developmental
process that influences our knowing, doing, and being, I/we will search for
insights into our �pedagogic practice�. In this we will look at the
relations between
both the macro �conditions� which can create contexts for learning and working,
and the relational �micro-practices� which help translate these into embodied
practice. The living standards of judgment that emerge and that we consequently
use to account for the claims we make, will indicate the efficacy of this
pegagogy for the education of practitioner researchers in higher education
during an age of �supercomplexity� (Barnett, 2001).
Keith
Kinsella August,
2005.
Alvesson,
M, and Deetz, S, 2000, Doing Critical Management Research, SAGE
Alvesson,
M, and Skoldberg, K, 2000, Reflexive Methodology, SAGE
Bateson,
G, 1973, Steps to an Ecology of Mind, Paladin
Bateson,
M, 1989, Composing a Life, Grove Press New York
Barnett,
R, 2000, Realising the University, SRHE and Open University
Baumard,
P, 1999, Tacit Knowledge in Organisations, SAGE
Belenky,
M, Clinchy, B, Goldberger, N,
Tarule, J, 1997, Women�s Ways of Knowing, Basic Books
Bennett,
N, Wise, C, Woods, P, and Harvey, J, 2003, Distributed Leadership, National College for
School Leadership, Spring
Bullough,
R, Pinnegar, S, 2001, Guidelines for quality in autobiographical forms of
self study,
Educational researcher, Vol 30. N0 3, pp 13-21
Burkitt,
I, 1999, Bodies of Thought, SAGE
Campbell,
Coldicott, and Kinsella, 1994, Systemic Work in Organisations, Karnac Books
Cochlan,
D, and Brannick, T, 2001, Doing Action Research, SAGE
Dadds,
M and Hart, S, 2001, Doing Practitioner Research Differently, Routledge Falmer
Delong,
J, 2004, Creating My Embodied Knowing in Being a Leader, PhD Thesis CARPP Bath
University, Chapter 4
Deleuze,
G, and Parnet, C, 1987, Dialogues ll, Continuum
Deleuze,
G, and Guttari, F, 1987, A Thousand Plateaus, Continuum
Fisher,
Rooke, and Torbert, 2001, Personal and Organisational Transformations, Edgework Press
Foucault,
M, 1977, Discipline and Punish, Penguin
Freire,
P, 1970, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Herder and Herder
Furlow,
J, and Oancea, A, 2005, Assessing
Quality in Applied and Practice-Based Educational Research, Oxford University, Dept of Educational Studies
Gergen,
K, 1999, Introduction to Social Construction, SAGE
Gill,
J, 2000, The Tacit Mode, State University of New York Press
Polanyi,
M, 1956, Personal Knowledge, Routledge and Kegan Paul
Prado,
C, 2000, Starting with Foucault, Westview
Regan,
H, and Brooks, G, 1995, Out of Women�s Experience, Corwin Press
Reason,
P., & Torbert, W. R. (2001). Toward a Transformational Science: a
further look at the scientific merits of action research. Concepts and
Transformations, 6(1), 1-37.
Rescher,
N, 1996, Process Metaphysics, State University of New York Press
Scharmer,
C, 2000, Presencing: Learning from the Future as it Emerges, presented at Conference on
Knowledge and Information, Helsinki School of Economics, May 25-26
Schon,
D, 1987, Educating the Reflective Practitioner, San Francisco, Jossey
Bass
Shaw,
P, 2002 , Changing Conversations in Organisations, Routledge
van
Krogh, Ichijo, Nonaka, 2000, Enabling Knowledge Creation, OUP
Webb,
J, Shirato, T, and Danaher, G, 2002, Understanding Bourdieu, SAGE
Wenger,
E, 1998, Communities of Practice, CUP
Whitehead,
J, 2005, Living
Educational Theory and Standards of Judgement: A contribution to the debate
about assessing the quality of applied and practice-based educational research,
unpublished
draft paper, Bath University
Winter,
R, 1989, Learning from Experience, Falmer Press
Wood,
M, 2005, The Fallacy of Misplaced Leadership, Journal of Management
Studies, forthcoming
Appendix
1: Leadership
Refrains Paper - with suggested
redrafting guidelines
A
copy of the original Leadership Refrains Conference paper is attached with some
thoughts as to how I might develop this paper for possible publication in the
future
Suggested Re-drafting of this Paper
The
current form and content of the paper is not suitable as a research paper. But
the work it reports does cast useful light on the challenges of introducing
into large (public sector) bureaucratic organisations, what Gosling and
Mintberg refer to as �close learning� – the linking of the educational
process as closely as possible to the concerns and challenges facing people in
their local contexts. As such it does provide some useful evidence, admittedly
of a �personal observations� nature, into the �ecology of ideas� that might
give close learning some of its power, and the challenges of using these ideas
in quite hostile conditions – particularly in the sense of short term
pressure for practical results and the consequent demands for high and
immediate face validity.
Alongside
this attempt in the �uncontrolled� conditions of a large organisation under
enormous pressure, we have lots of experience of the International Management
Programme run by Gosling and Mintberg over a period of years, and some
experience of the E Learning Coached MA in Leadership Studies run at Exeter.
These are offered in a far more controlled �classroom� environment where the
principles of close learning can be more easily implemented, but they do suffer
from the fact that they do not (as yet) focus quite as closely on work context
issues and performance, as the RMG programme sought to do.
So
the basic idea for the re-write is to offer a �compare and contrast� analysis
in how effectively �close learning� (and the developments to this approach that
have been made through the RMG assignment) is delivered by these two
contrasting approaches: �university-based� focussing primarily on individual
education; and �organisation-based� focussing more on effecting group wide
practice improvements. The review
of the university based programmes will be restricted to my own experience of
the current MA which I�m doing for a follow-up paper with Peter Case and Donna
Ladkin for the next leadership conference in December. And I will do a review
of the RMG experience through further reflective discussions with Jonathan
Gosling who is still �just� connected and Martin Hird who as Talent Director,
RMG, is currently �running� the programme while he extricates himself from his
current full time role there.
At
this juncture I�m hoping that the review (which I will work on over the summer)
will identify more clearly how, and in what areas, I should focus my
educational work with the MA students to improve my pedagogic performance
– and hence provide critical questions for the PhD agenda.
Keith
Kinsella 27
June, 2005.