How can I support my Voluntary Services Overseas colleagues in their Action Research enquiries as they seek to clarify their values in action?
By Professor Moira Laidlaw, December 2006.
Background: This writing is intended as a response to the idea of the BERA e-seminar on sharing our living standards of judgement as we seek to enjoy and contribute to a worthwhile and productive life. I invite readers to let me know how far and in what ways you would like to see further or different evidence for any claims I am making in order to convince you of the veracity of this story.
I am struck by Bassey’s (1991) notion of conviviality in his BERA presidential address, as it encapsulates what I believe I am trying to do with the work in China.
Conviviality has a profound meaning, concerned with the nature of
human life. A convivial person is trying to achieve a state of deep and
satisfying harmony with the world, which gives joyful meaning to life.
Convivial people are striving for harmony with their environment,
with their fellows and with their self.
Striving for harmony with their physical environment
convivial people use it for their needs but do not exploit it: they conserve
the land and the living things which the land supports, and seeing themselves
as stewards, aim to safeguard the land for future generations.
Striving for harmony with the intellectual environment
they seek to explore and understand the world of ideas, and, where appropriate,
to relate them purposefully to the world of action.
Striving for harmony with their fellows they seek to
co-operate rather than to compete with them; they neither exploit them or are
exploited by them: they try to live in concord with
their fellows: to love and be loved.
Striving for harmony with the self, convivial people have sufficient understanding of both their rationality and their emotions to develop their talents effectively; by using their talents harmoniously in relation to their society and their physical and intellectual environment, they become self-reliant and thus experience the joy of convivial life. (p.5)
This present writing is an attempt to show how I am trying to live
my values of conviviality in my professional life in China as a Voluntary
Services Overseas programme office volunteer in Beijing.
Context:
After working for VSO as a volunteer in Ningxia Province for five years as advisor to China’s Experimental Centre for Educational Action Research in Foreign Languages Teaching (CECEARFLT – see www.bath.ac.uk/~edsajw/moira.shtml for papers, case-studies, reports and information about the project), I was lucky enough to secure a position in the VSO Beijing office as the programme-office volunteer for six months. During the five years of my placement in Guyuan, I worked at the Teachers College (now Ningxia Teachers University) in the development of pre-service and in-service education using Living Educational Theory Action Research (Whitehead, 1989, 1993, 2006) as a methodology and philosophy in the implementation of China’s New Curriculum. Together with colleagues at the University, we published a book of case-studies of our methodology in relation to the implementation of the New Curriculum for English (Tian and Laidlaw (ed.) 2006). In addition we published reports and case-studies at above websites and in international and national journals (Tian, 2003; Tian and Laidlaw, 2005; Li (2005); Li & Laidlaw, 2006; Ma, 2005; Gong, (2005), Liu, 2005; Tao, 2005). I conceived my five-year placement as a post-doctoral enquiry into how I might promote sustainable development through the teaching methodology and educational research as advocated by VSO (Goldring, 2002).
Through my work in Guyuan, I developed a logic, which has acted as a framework for my continuing research. A paper on this subject (Laidlaw, 2004) can be found at: http://www.actionresearch.net/moira/mllogic.htm In short my logic is like this:
I believe in people’s essential goodness and their potential to construct meaningful lives. I don’t deny the reality of evil, but, like Peck (1981), I see it as a mental aberration, or as Mitchell (1996) expresses it in terms of his understanding of 老子 (Lao.zi) 道德经 (Book of the Way), that: ‘Evil is an opaqueness through which light cannot pass.’ Through a conscious concentration on what is life-affirming in my relationships and in my productive work, I hope to give meaning and purpose to my life. By ‘life-affirming’ here I am referring to nurturing those aspects that give shape and meaning to life, and acting in the direction of what is generative (McNiff, 1993). I can see no greater purpose to my life than that. Furthermore I have learnt that the degree of choice I am able to exercise in my life gives me a greater responsibility to act in the direction of those aspects. Thus I chose VSO from a largely instinctive response to constructing a more meaningful life, and have continued through a developing understanding of linking my life-affirming instincts to practical outcomes. In refining my own logic I am not seeking to denigrate the logic of others, and do not seek to set up my own logic as superior: I aim only to clarify my own logical framework within the contexts in which I find myself in ways which enable myself and others to clarify our own logic in the pursuit of improvements in our chosen advocacy of certain values in the service of humanity. In Bassey’s words;
Striving for harmony with the self, convivial people have sufficient understanding of both their rationality and their emotions to develop their talents effectively; by using their talents harmoniously in relation to their society and their physical and intellectual environment, they become self-reliant and thus experience the joy of convivial life. (p.5)
In my Ph.D. thesis (Laidlaw, 1996) I put forward the idea of the developmental nature of values, that they were alive as you and I are alive, and that they are clarified, but also developed, in relationship over time in context. To understand what constitutes the convivial won’t simply be through a linguistic linearity, but through triangulation of evidence, in relationship with people over time in context. My heavy reliance on words in this account is a pity. The technology at my disposal doesn’t allow me to show directly what I mean by conviviality in a visual form, although I think Jack’s video of me and students at: http://www.jackwhitehead.com/jack/my_videos.html entitled: ‘Moira Laidlaw’s non-verbal communications in teaching in China’ comes close to what I am writing about in reference to conviviality in this paper.
My move to Beijing was a conscious response to a need to widen my understanding of general education and social issues in China, as well as understand more about the contextualisation of my work as a volunteer with VSO in China. My contract here has three distinct strands:
· Supporting the development of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) documentation and processes with particular reference to education;
· Supporting Action Research enquiries with colleagues and at placement level with volunteers;
· Supporting any other aspects, which are deemed to be a useful deployment of my time and skills (in negotiation with my line-manager - Country-Director, Li Guozhi).
I was aware that the formulated tasks would give me openings to work flexibly, in ways that would utilize my strengths and enable me to nurture those qualities of learning, empowerment and ability to combat disadvantage, which I hold as essential to me in living a worthwhile life. VSO (2004) expresses its belief-system thus:
·
We believe that everyone must be
able to exercise their fundamental human rights;
·
We believe that people working
together can achieve positive and lasting change;
·
We value diversity and
cross-cultural understanding;
·
We value partnerships based on
honesty and respect;
·
We value the innovation and
creativity generated by shared endeavour;
· We value openness in learning. (p.2)
What did I do?
My first priority was to find out what my title – Programme Office Based Volunteer (POBV) entailed. My placement was to last six months, and would be for the purpose of supporting my colleagues in the office with their development work as they facilitated volunteer-teachers in rural placements in China in schools, colleges and universities with short term national and international volunteers. In addition, VSO China is advocating knowledge, treatment and care in the realm of HIV/AIDS and has a variety of methods to enable services to reach the most disadvantaged. I was struck by the emphasis on the word ‘support’ in all the documentation about my role during my induction period (VSO Beijing induction documentation, August 2006). In early discussions with Li Guozhi we highlighted the need for me to listen to colleagues and work with them on a one-to-one basis in delineating individual research enquiries. I called together an informal meeting, drawing on a previous programme office volunteer’s facilitation of Action Research enquiries. Although there had been speculation about my facilitating Action Research enquiries with partner-institutions in rural placements, I realized that it wasn’t going to be ethical for me to encourage volunteers’ Action Research when there wasn’t yet sufficient capacity in the office to offer the necessary support for enquiries. I explained this to Li Guozhi and he agreed.
I have always been reluctant to specify
precise processes for the facilitation of Action Research enquiries when a) I
don’t know the people well and b) I don’t know the work-routines sufficiently.
Thus for the first few weeks of my placement here I did not try to convene
AR-group meetings, but worked on a needs-basis with individuals. I wanted
people to develop their own sense of purpose and meaning in the work without
being stymied by group-norms. In the early stages of working individually, I
was having conversations with five colleagues (Laidlaw, 2006). I believed that
if the work was meaningful it would, as with a slip-stream, draw others in.
Such has proved to be the case. At the time of writing there are now nine
people undertaking their Action Research. Here is the list of enquiries:
Li Guozhi: How can I improve the communication of my values?
Li Hongyan: How can I prioritise my responsibilities in the workplace?
Li Qian:
How can I improve my translation skills in order to enhance my professional
abilities?
Lin Zhiping: How can I improve my writing skills?
Luo Lai Lai: How
can I improve my professionality through daily work in order to build up a
sustainable, fulfilling and satisfying professional development in the long
run?
Aileen O’Donnell: How can I improve my communication skills?
Wang Lumeng: How can I improve my strategic planning?
Wang Xiaoqian: How can I improve my abilities in my financial work?
Wen Qiuhong? 1) How can I complete my work on time and to a high standard? 2) How can I communicate my support-needs in order to enhance
collaborative relationships in the workplace?
One of the chief learnings I gained in Guyuan was the different emphasis placed on the relationship between process and outcome in China from what I was used to in the North[1]. (Li and Laidlaw, 2006). In my experience the kind of Action Research I have chosen (Living Educational Theory Action Research) places great emphasis on negotiation in relationship over time as holding the key to improvement, and conclusions about reliability and validity (Winter, 1989). Although Living Theory approaches to Action Research begin with a focused question, the process is open to change in order to suit the growing understanding of the enquirer. That makes it impossible to relate outcomes to intentions as a linear process. When I first arrived in the Beijing office I did find some hope of ensuring pre-determined outcomes from planning, in the sense that documentation was inferred to indicate clear processes arriving at the documentation. However, I found myself questioning this.
For the purposes of brevity in this paper, I would like to concentrate on the collaborative work in one colleague’s enquiry. I have gained permission from Luo Lai Lai to write about my facilitation of her work[2]. This case-study should accord with the principles that we, as a VSO Programme Office, have discussed, which relate specifically to the six beliefs outlined above.[3]
I spent some time preparing teaching materials for processes in connection to the M&E documentation with the whole programme office as part of my contractual role (see first aspect of my role as described in the contract at the beginning of this paper). One of the further aims I had was to represent some of the key aspects of case-study to the Action Research group. I knew they would later need to use case-studies in a presentation of their own enquiries.
The use of case-study in this paper will make the point that although each individual in this process of facilitation is of course unique, there are some general conclusions I can draw about the usefulness (or lack of it) of my facilitation. Drawing conclusions from a single case-study will use Bassey’s (1998) idea about ‘relatability’ in order to secure validity. In other words, I will not be saying that Luo Lai Lai’s action enquiry is replicable, or that my methods with her are replicable, but that her case-study and my facilitation should yield a wide comprehensibility for those engaged in values-driven enquiries as they explore their own values. I will also not be claiming that Luo Lai Lai’s progress in her enquiry is directly caused by my facilitation, rather it is in the way in which Luo Lai Lai’s own creativity and originality interact with my facilitation and all the other influences on her, that promote progress. I believe I exercise an educational influence on her, but like Whitehead (2000) I do not claim to be educating anyone other than myself. The ownership of Luo Lai Lai’s achievements lies in her own hands, not mine. As 老子(Lao.zi) said:
太上，不知有；其次，亲誉之；其次畏之，其次 ？之。
信不足焉，有不信焉。
悠兮，其贵言。功成事遂，百姓皆谓：‘我自然！’[4]
Working with
Luo Lai Lai:
In September, Luo Lai Lai and I put
aside some time to work on her enquiry. We met twice to initiate some aims for
her work, and she came up with the question: How can I feel my own
professionality?
We discussed the difference between ‘professionalism’ and ‘professionality’ and agreed that the first placed emphasis on accordance to structures, and the second to the spirit or values underlying certain actions. I recognized some research limits in this question, in terms of basing her actions towards an outcome involving the impact of her work on others. I wrote in my journal:
LL’s question needs strengthening…but for the moment I think it important to allow her her own time to develop a sense of what professionality means for her. (Laidlaw, September 2006)
Instead of ‘hassling’ her about my perceptions, I encouraged her to tell me what her learning-needs were, and she stressed the importance of building knowledge about education and the New Curriculum. I therefore sent her websites and documentation that might stimulate her interest.
Late in September, Luo Lai Lai refined her question to: How can I
improve my own professionality in order to fulfill my potential to deliver good
quality to the world?
In her earlier Action Plan, her reasons for her work were imprecise:
Because I don’t want to waste time, do the wrong things and don’t want to hinder things. I will feel happy if I do a good job. (September 2006)
In the later reworking she was more explicit about directions and values:
How can I improve my own professionality
in order to fulfill my potential to deliver good quality
to the world?
Doing the right thing, meaning not working for just keeping the job; but seeing the connection of my work with my own value; seeing what I am doing has the value of being effective to the development, in terms of inspiring others with the mission of building a happier and healthier world. (Luo, September 2006)
She then wrote down the following reasons for her enquiry:
Because I see the connection of individuals with each other and how this connection will affect our work and life and living environment. I have the desire to fulfill my potential thus gain the life satisfaction; and I realize that the only approach is by working with others to keep connection of my inner self with the world. Working in a professional way, meaning with clear identification of organization goals and teamwork approach, will undoubtedly help the connection to be smooth and without conflict. (Luo, 2006)
I wrote in my journal: This strikes me as a very exciting self-insight. There comes a time for me in each facilitation of an enquiry, when I am galvanized by the humanity of the other. I see that person as full of potential. Suddenly, my former two-dimensional insights expand into infinite possibilities in which not only the enquirer seems to grow before my eyes, but I feel the expansion of my own possibilities. It is for me the moment of inspiration, the generative purpose and joy of action research enquiries. It is reading this document after talking to Luo Lai Lai that I feel personally committed to her enquiry. (Laidlaw, September, 2006)
Luo Lai Lai and I continued to meet regularly and discuss the progress of her enquiry. Early on she suggested keeping her action plan and ideas on our N-drive (intranet system), which we could both have access to and interact with as necessary.
In her own words, here is what she wrote about her activities during the first two months (September and October):
Question: How could I improve my
professionality through daily work and life in order to build up a sustainable,
fulfilled, and self-satisfying professional development in a long run?
On 31st
Oct, Luo Lai Lai made her AR enquire more clearly as stated above. My concern
is that to connect current work with a long-term goal, to see the consistency
and act the consistency.
Approach:
During the past
two months, Sept to Oct, Luo Lai Lai familiarized herself with VSO values,
approach, program, policies, and management system by more reading,
implementing BE workshop (Oct 17th to 20th), conversation
with VSO staffs (Don and Mike Silvey), and office staffs.
In terms of
Improving professional skills and understanding in Education, Luo Lai Lai got
improved by meeting with other agencies, such as meetings with Plan China (22nd
Sept) for a deep understanding about their project approach; Shaanxi Education
Science Research Institute (27-28th Sept) for “New Curriculum”; BE
guest speaker Professor Zhang Li Li for the link between education and
livelihood.
Following my
performance management plan, Luo Lai Lai knows her task priority based on
office need and agreement with team leaders and has confidence to implement
tasks in a time frame.
Luo Lai Lai
also get familiar with other agencies in education and children development
sectors, such as Baoji Xinxing Aid for Street Kids and Child Abuse Prevention
& Treatment Center. When meeting with these agencies, Luo Lai Lai realized
that because she has enough knowledge about VSO and Education, so that she can
promote VSO education program development by representing VSO, feeling
confident with this role.
In terms of
teamwork, being both receiver and provider; both participant and facilitator;
both individual and team player, Luo Lai Lai has improved her confidence
through BE workshop and office works.
Priority
issues in the following:
Continually working on improving:
1.
Planning
and implementation skills.
2.
Presentation
skills;
3.
Document
writing and reporting skills;
Data collected so far:
My own diary.
Moira gave me her feedback based on her observation of BE
workshop performance. Her feedback increases my confidence in facilitation and
communication. In terms of presentation skills, her suggestion about focusing
on audience is very helpful. I noticed that more cases will improve the
effectiveness of a presentation and I will pay attention to case study.
Need think about more channels to collect data.
I see it as a mark of Luo Lai Lai’s
growth towards her own sense of professionality that she drove many of the
processes. In my experience taking responsibility for one’s own actions tends
to lead to an improvement in actions and outcomes (Laidlaw, 1996). She was
deciding what actions were necessary and when to take them, and quite often
would not simply follow my advice because it was my advice. Luo Lai Lai was
empowering herself. She was taking her own path and by taking such
responsibility, I felt convinced that her enquiry would eventually embody those
qualities, which she wanted to see emerging more fully in her professional life:
It’s a joy working with Luo
Lai Lai because she will not accept any diminution of her own right to choose.
Perhaps it is that quality that makes an action researcher. We don’t like being
told. We don’t want others to circumscribe our abilities and potentials. I know
that as a teacher with young children I would always feel the process was
successful when a child would counter my suggestion and come up with one of
their own…When I talk to Luo Lai Lai I have this sense of someone designing her
own life in the image she wants it to be. That’s a beautiful process to be any
part of…(Laidlaw, 2006)
An example of her determination
to practice in her own way was at the Shangluo Basic Education workshop in
Beijing that she helped to organise and facilitate.
Respect:
If one of my core values is
empowerment, then I have to be aware of people’s individually-experienced sense
of what learning something of value in their own time means to them. I may be
able to foresee problems in a process, but my sensing it doesn’t necessarily
mean I can communicate it in a meaningful way to someone else, or even that my
preconceptions are valid for that person. In my experience, empowering someone
doesn’t mean ensuring they avoid the mistakes I believe I can foresee.
Foresight may be linked to empowerment, but I believe people can only learn something
deeply and meaningfully to them through their own experience and not by being
told about someone else’s. Empowerment for Luo Lai Lai would necessitate coming
to her own conclusions in her own way about her experience. If I were to insist
on my knowledge as superior, thus claiming a hierarchy of knowledges, it might
denigrate Luo Lai Lai’s own sense of her emerging competence and the direction
that competence should take. This, anyway, was the rationale for my behaviour.
These deliberations fundamentally derive from a sense of respect for others
(Peters, 1966). I try always to be mindful of Foucault’s idea (1977) of the
indignity of speaking for others, and that only those directly concerned should
have authority. Another layer is constituted by the inappropriate cultural
hegemonies that can occur through working cross-culturally. I believe I have no
right to push my agenda onto anyone else. I must, if you like, (changing
Bassey’s words to suit the occasion):
Striv[e] for harmony with my fellows as I seek to co-operate rather than to compete; I neither exploit or are exploited: I try to live in concord with my fellows: to love and be loved.
Luo Lai Lai, Aileen (a programme
manager in the office) and I spent some time going through some of the aspects
of the workshop. As one of the sessions was to be about monitoring and
evaluation (M&E) I was asked to contribute ideas. From the outset of the
planning, however, I made it clear I would not facilitate the session. This
followed from one-to-one sessions with Li Guozhi at which we discussed that my
role as supporter was about helping others to do something independently,
rather than doing it for them. This built easily on my work in sustainable
development in Guyuan (see papers at the Bath website mentioned earlier).
I was therefore unusually
resistant to any attempt to get me to facilitate the session on M&E. I knew
that this would be a powerful learning opportunity for Luo Lai Lai. I also
wanted to show my belief in Luo Lai Lai’s ability to do it by herself. I felt this was the most meaningful
outcome so far of her enquiry. I also don’t attribute to myself any part of Luo
Lai Lai’s ability to take responsibility – I think she already did that
before she took up the AR enquiry. What I do believe
I may have influenced was her ability to perceive this decision-making process
as significant in itself. A letter from her (16th November) in
response to a request to her to detail her sense of my influence on her
enquiry, suggests this supposition may be correct:
‘I feel comfortable with my senses and
judgment, and realize how important to search energy and power from the inner
self and then bring it out to the world with a kind of courage which is based
on valuing each individual’s intelligence and spirit.’
I gave her some very forthright
feedback for her presentation at the Shangluo workshop. I directly related my
observations to her own sense of professionality as stated in her later action
plan in September: participatory
training, improving… skills as a team builder,
facilitate
partners to take initiative (Luo, 2006) What I had seen in her facilitation
did not appear to live up to those standards she had set herself. In this
living contradiction (Whitehead, 1989) I felt there might indeed be a way
forward. Trusting Luo Lai Lai’s commitment to her own professionality, I
reasoned that she might benefit from my feedback on her performance at the
workshop.
Generally-speaking I tend to ‘gild
the lily’ when I offer feedback to inexperienced action researchers, in order
not to discourage them, but with Luo Lai Lai I felt her sense of
self-responsibility demanded that I tell her my impressions without
sugar-coating them. Therefore I took a risk, as I saw it. I criticised her
choice of presenting didactically, although at the same time delighting in her
ability to go her own way. I said this:
I'd like to say how much I admire the way in which you took this
enterprise on. I sensed at first you were not comfortable with my refusal to do
the presentation. You suggested facilitative help, but as it turned out, you
took full responsibility for it yourself and I want you to know how much I
respect that…
It's fascinating to me, that everywhere in the world presenters
who are not completely relaxed and comfortable in such a role react
in similar ways to presenting information: they become more didactic, more
content-oriented, more stressed out; similarly they become less concerned
about the people they're talking to and how they're feeling, less sensitive to
the learning needs of the people in front of them, more goal oriented, less
process-focused. When the balance is lost in either of those scenarios, my
experience shows me that people don't learn well.
I waited with bated breath for
her response. She wrote this on 19th October:
Dear Moira, I just quickly went through your feedback and then printed one copy for my reading in this evening when I have more time. Thanks indeed for your help and I feel the love and care from what you are doing for me. I can't imagine without a generous heart, someone would write feedback in such a strict and thoughtful way to me and the feedback is very valuable. I share the same thoughts over your comments. Actually I realize that due to lack of practice and experience, I only can go through the dry materials in a theoretical way and can't help much with lively examples, which I am in a process of accumulation. So the presentation, the workshop will deep my understanding about professionality and reminds me what aspects I need to put effort. Thanks again, Love from Luo Lai Lai Trustworthiness:I heaved a sigh of relief! For me it’s always a matter of judging on an individual level what approach might work best, without being manipulative. Poor judgement on my part can jeopardize trustworthiness in the relationship (Kincheloe, 1991), which I hold as essential for our productive work together. I have found trustworthiness and deep learning to be intimately related in the AR enquiry process. In Bassey’s words:
Convivial people are striving for harmony with their environment,
with their fellows and with their self.
The more trustworthy I become in the process, in other words the more my sincerity is transparent, the more likely enquirers are to feel safe to challenge their own precepts. This helps deepen their learning and heighten the sense of achievement and affirmation of the value of the process - and therefore, ultimately, the greater trust in the relationship as well. Trust and learning are, in my experience, symbiotic. Respecting learning-needs as a way of enhancing trust to deepen learning, also accords with my value of respecting the other’s potential to make life-affirming decisions for themselves within the process of development. What, however - specifically relating to Luo Lai Lai’s enquiry - did this ‘trustworthiness’ entail? In contextual terms I was placed here to support staff in their professional development (in terms of facilitating AR enquiries). The values that VSO isolates as being of most significance in reaching their goals are ‘empowerment, learning and combating disadvantage and poverty,’ (VSO, 2004). Therefore, as an employee of VSO I was expected to further the development of these values. As an action researcher, however, I was aware that facilitation of such values in an enquiry would be about enabling individuals to develop these values in their own ways. Bassey says:
Striving for harmony with the intellectual environment
they seek to explore and understand the world of ideas, and, where appropriate,
to relate them purposefully to the world of action. (p.5)
‘Professionality’ as Luo Lai Lai termed it, would, for her, mean to understand the significance of her values as she attempted to integrate them in her actions, so I must as facilitator, balance the requirements from VSO with an attendance to her particular learning needs. Trustworthiness would be gained through balancing my overall aims to support individuals’ professional development with Luo Lai Lai’s own particular professional needs. If Luo Lai Lai could feel safe to pursue her own professional needs in a supportive environment, I felt she would more likely be able to determine her own progress and enhance the quality of her own learning. In clarification of this point, I picked up Li Guozhi’s point in an Action Research meeting (15th November) about the difference between an enquiry aiming at communicating VSO values and communicating his own. My contention was that one cannot communicate the values of others (I mean communicate in the sense of enabling others to understand through relationship over time), but can only successfully communicate one’s own values through relationship over time. My impression is that I didn’t push Luo Lai Lai very much towards anything, but rather was alongside her (Pound, 2003) as she became proactive, and to state what she needed. I feel this was demonstrated as helpful by Luo Lai Lai when she wrote:
As a mentor, Moira’s comments to my performance in BE
workshop is uniquely helpful. It gives me an opportunity to learn myself from
the other person’s eyes, especially when this person’s value is agreeable with
mine and I feel loved, in stead of being upset, when she can directly speak out
some shortcomings and mistakes I made. Even though I already know my lecture
based “M&E” session was not a participatory way due to lack of working
experience and accumulation of cases, but only until she frankly challenged
this conventional session, I may just let this flow away and won’t further
question the way of organizing a session and won’t have really reflection of
what I need to further improve. And her overall comments are addressing how to
professionally delivery a “people-centered” facilitation. I see this as an
example of integrating our value into our professionality.
Moira’s way of facilitating my AR itself
is another good example of valuing individual’s unique experience, opinion,
thoughts and value. I don’t feel… pushed or … forced to go for one dimension of
enquiry.
Colleagues’ comments about Luo Lai Lai’s
enquiry into her professionality.
In ensuring greater validity for my conclusions about Luo Lai Lai’s AR enquiry, I wrote the following to the AR group:
I wonder if you
can help me, and also help Luo Lai Lai. As you know I’m writing up something
about my facilitation of Luo Lai Lai’s AR: ‘How can I improve my professionality through
daily work and life in order to build up a sustainable, fulfilled, and
self-satisfying professional development in a long run?’ I would like to
offer the paper some triangulation in terms of viewpoints.
The aim of the paper I am writing is
three-fold.
O.K., here’s how I
need your help.
For Luo Lai Lai, as
I understand it, professionality is linked to:
Would it be possible
to write a few sentences giving details (dates, actions, purposes) on whether
you have noticed any of the above in Luo Lai Lai’s work?
Please let me
be clear here. We are NOT commenting on Luo Lai Lai herself, but on her own
designation of particular aspects of her work she wants to improve.
Could you do this as
soon as possible, as I would like to share the results of my research with Luo
Lai Lai before I share it with everyone else?
Thanks a lot. (email to colleagues, 17th November)
The following comments are the perceptions of one colleague about Luo Lai Lai’s enquiry, rather than comments on Luo Lai Lai herself. Her comments are structured by Luo Lai Lai’s own delineation of aspects of professionality. Aileen, a programme manager in the Beijing office, closely associated with Luo Lai Lai in her daily work, wrote this.
Dear Moira and Luo Lai Lai,
I have outlined below my comments and observation on Luo Lai Lai's AR's
enquiry on 'professionality'.
Expanding her
knowledge about VSO’s missions and processes, and her part in this.
There is good
evidence to suggest that Luo Lai Lai takes initiative and has become
familiar with VSO's mission and processes. An example of this is
during our preparation for the BE workshop, Luo Lai Lai was able to put
forward suggestions and share information and documentation for example on
Partnership Development and the VSO Tool Box. She took the initiative to
source this information and share it with her colleagues and team members by
circulating an e-mail to all the education team (October 2006).
Team-work
Luo Lai Lai has been a team player from the start but has gained confidence in her own skills. This is evident during the preparation and implementation of the BE Partnership Development Workshop where she actively put forward ideas and suggestions to inform and strengthen the agenda of the workshop. She effectively co-chaired the workshop and facilitated the Shangluo participants sessions at the BE Partnership Development Workshop (24-27 October 2006).
Luo Lai Lai is a
very good listener and builds trust by doing what she says she is going to
do and, where she is not in a position to do this, by informing her colleagues
in advance. These are essential skills to ensure effective
collaboration in a team. There are numerous examples of this e.g. team meetings
where she takes action and initiatives. A concrete example
is following the BE workshop she agreed to draft the BE report and
was able to do this within the agreed time frame (October 2006).
Where she has questions and/or feels she needs support
she raises questions and is happy to accept suggestions from colleagues
and/or counter these suggestions where she has a different view.
This ads another dimension to the collaboration of the team and
strengthens learning across the Education Team.
Inspiring
Luo Lai Lais is an
inspiration for the education team - she is hard working, enthusiastic,
full of ideas, which she is happy to share with the team and is
very committed to 'sharing skills changing lives'. I have
enjoyed our discussions on a variety of topics ranging
from education, gender, environment and volunteering both on an informal basis as
well as her contribution to the team meetings and education team meetings
(refer to meeting minutes for details). She is able to capture
opportunities and maximise global campaigns and influence others around
her by translating some of these larger global campaigns into realities at a
local level. Examples of where she has facilitated this process and
inspired others include her encouragement of YFD Volunteers in
campaigns such as the "Stand Up For Poverty Campaign" in Shang Luo
and International Volunteering Day activities in Yulin.
Conclusion:
What claims am I making?
I am claiming that:
First, that I have influenced Luo Lai Lai in the clarification of her professional values, whereby she has enhanced the quality of professionality in her work. I perceive my influence as one of nurturing her own emphases in order to help her gain the necessary confidence in her own insights, which lead to greater professional competence in her chosen areas of development.
Secondly I am claiming that I have learnt something from this professional relationship. There is a Maori (New Zealand indigenous population) saying: What is the most important thing in life? It is people. It is people. It is people. Time and again I come to the conclusion that it is only through the development of harmonious relationships with individuals and groups that we can change the world. A Talmudic (Jewish) saying is: ‘He who saves a single life, saves the world entire.’ Through investing time and loving effort with individuals, we are able together to face those difficulties we encounter, and find the courage to overcome them in the name of humanity. I can think of no better way of spending a life than that.
This may not appear to be new learning, but in fact, with every individual I experience it, I learn it anew and find my own inner courage to continue working in this way.
Facilitating action research enquiries seems to me to be a peculiarly Zen-like activity. On the one hand I have a sense of direction. On the other, the direction must be driven by the person finding out for themselves. Secondly, I understand that there is no causal relationship between my intervention and the outcome, and yet, there is a relationship between my influence and what someone is able to do. Holding these apparent paradoxes together is challenging for me. I must bear in mind 老子(Lao-zi’s) maxim: 常有欲，以观其徼. He that has never rid himself of desire can only see the outcomes. Although I am to an extent driven by outcome (I believe it’s a limitation inherent in Western analytical thought), I must also trust the process and the people involved and recognize that the outcome may change through relationship over time. I find it is through harmonizing paradoxical mindsets and being open to the other in their uniqueness that helps us to enter into the infinite possibilities of goodness, harmony and purpose that our lives offer, and live more fully in the direction of conviviality.
Acknowledgements:
· First I would like to thank Luo Lai Lai for her openness in allowing me access to her thinking and feeling as I have worked with her on her enquiry and in the preparation of this paper.
· Secondly, I would like to thank all my colleagues in the VSO office for their continuing support in creating a convivial environment for our work.
Bibliography:
Bassey, M., (1991), ‘Creating Education through Research’, British
Educational research Journal, vol. 18 no.1, pp 3-16.
Bassey, M., (1998), ‘Fuzzy generalization: an approach to building educational theory’, Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, The Queen’s University of Belfast, Northern Ireland, 27th - 30th August 1998, at: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/000000801.htm Last retrieved November 16th 2006.
Foucault (with
Deleuze) (1977). Intellectuals and power. In Donald Bouchard (Ed.), Language,
counter-memory practice (Donald Bouchard &
Sherry Simon, Trans.). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Goldring, M., (2002), Letter to volunteers, partners and
donors. May.
Gong, L., (2005), ‘How can I help two young English major students
with their English?’ in McNiff, ‘
Kincheloe, J., ‘Qualitative Inquiry as a Path to Empowerment’,
Falmer Press, New York.
Laidlaw, M., (2006), ‘Data Archive’, VSO Beijing.
Laidlaw, M., (2004), ‘A description of my own logic’, paper for discussion of Bath University Action Research Group at: http://www.actionresearch.net/moira/mllogic.htm
Laidlaw, M., (1996), ‘How can I create
my own living educational theory as I account for my educational development?’
Ph.D. thesis, Department of Education, Bath University, at: http://people.bath.ac.uk/edsajw/moira2.shtml
老子， 道的净，Lao-zi, ‘Dao De Jing’, transl. Waley,
A., (1997), 外话教学与研究出版社， 北京。Wordsworth
Editions Ltd., Cumberland House, Hertfordshire.
Li, P., (2005), 反思温特的反思维批判原则，外语教学（核心期刊, 2005 专刊.
Li, P. & Laidlaw, M., (2006) Collaborative enquiry, action
research, and curriculum development in rural China: How can we facilitate a
process of educational change? Action Research Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 333-350.
Liu, X., (2005), ‘How
can I help my students through respect and encouragement?’ in McNiff,
Luo, L., (2006), Data
Archive, VSO Beijing.
Ma, H.,
(2005), ‘How can I help students who are comparatively poor at English?’ in
McNiff, J.,
McNiff, J.,
(1993), ‘Teaching as Learning’, Routledge, London.
Peters, R., (1966),
‘Ethics and Education’, Allen and Unwin.
Pound, R.,
(2003), ‘How can I improve my health-visiting support of parenting? The
creation of an alongside epistemology through action enquiry,’ Ph.D thesis,
Bath University, Department of Education at: http://people.bath.ac.uk/edsajw/pound.shtml last retrieved 11th December, 2006.
Tao, R.,
‘How can I improve my students’ motivation so that they can improve their
learning?’ in McNiff,
Tian, F.,
(2003), 'Educational Action Research and Creativity in Foreign Languages
Teaching', in Foreign Language Education, Journal of Xi'an International Studies University, Vol. 24,
no. 104, pp 63-67.
Tian, F. & Laidlaw, M., (2006), 'Action Research and the
New Curriculum in China: case studies and reports in the teaching of English',
Shan'xi Tourism Publication House, Xi'an, China.
Tian, F. & Laidlaw, M. (2005) How can we enhance educational
and English-Language provision at our Action Research Centre and beyond?
Retrieved 16th November 2006 from http://www.arexpeditions.montana.edu/articleviewer.php?AID=87
VSO China, (2006),
‘Notes for induction of programme office volunteer,’ Beijing Office archives,
Beijing.
VSO London, (2004), ‘Focus
for Change’, Voluntary Services Overseas, Pultney Bridge Road, London.
Whitehead, J., (2006), ‘The Living Educational Theories of Workers as Action
Researchers and Lifelong Learners’, A web-based keynote address to the
Work-based Learning Network Conference 25th April, 2006, University
of Northampton.
Whitehead, J., (2000) ‘The Living Standards of Practice and Judgement of Professional Educators’, a paper produced whilst a visiting professor at Brock University Ontario. Retrieved 17 November 2006 from http://people.bath.ac.uk/edsajw/stand/brst.html
Whitehead, J., 1993, ‘The Growth of
Educational Knowledge’, Hyde Publications, Dorset.
Whitehead, J., (1989), ‘Creating a living educational theory from questions of the kind, "How do I improve my practice?'. Published in the Cambridge Journal of Education, Vol. 19, No.1,1989, pp. 41-52
Winter, R., (1991), ‘Learning from Experience’, Falmer Press, London, New York.
[1] I use the term ‘north’ here to refer to a geographical concept largely used in developmental work of the division in the world between northern and southern countries, rather than the term West and East. These are also the terms used by VSO in their literature.
[2] Of course the emphasis here is about my facilitation
of Luo Lai Lai’s enquiry, rather than value-judgements about her competence.
[3] This is not to suggest that we are tools ‘delivering’ values, but we are expected to show that we are living out certain values in the name of our organisation. This is articulated in all VSO contracts and thus is a condition of employment. This paper is partly written out of a desire to account for my own embodiment of particular kinds of values in action over time in the name of VSO.
[4] This essentially is about the influence of leaders/teachers on people’s actions. Of the Sage’s influence, Lao-zi says that when the task is accomplished, people say: ‘It happened of its own accord.’ This seems to me consistent with my own distinction between educating others and influencing others. I claim only to educate myself, but that I influence others educationally so that they can take ownership of it.