What I'm hoping to do in responding to Susie is to connect my response to Maggie's, Jean's and Alan's recent postings, especially where Jean writes: 

I think it is important to be clear about, and articulate, the criteria of the research (to get it recognised as world-leading in terms of knowledge-creation), and also to be clear about , and articulate, the criteria of the research account (to have it recognised as internationally legitimisable). I know Brian is also interested in setting out some criteria for making explicit our grounds for claiming we 'know'?

Maggie asks: 

Jack, you don't say in your email what you mean by research that is internationally recognised.. You don't explain what is required of this but you do say at the end of the email that in your PhD you focused on your new understandings only, and that is what your PhD was about. What were these new understandings?

And Alan explains:

As soon as the boundaries that absolutely define objective rationality are fluidized (through the incorporation of spatial presence), rationality becomes inclusionality, and our worldview somersaults, allowing us to prioritize our natural neighbourhood that includes our individual (local) identities......  So, yes, individual practitioners need a very coherent and committed community of practice around them to do this essential and vital work (in true senses of each word).

I'm wondering if the following responses to Susie are helpful in taking forward our discussion on criteria/standards for assessing the quality of the educational knowledge created by practitioner-researchers:

On 20 Feb 2007, at 23:12, Susan Goff wrote:

Dear friends

I am tracking this conversation with a sense of perplexity.

I know it's in the criteria, but I feel awkward about the ideas of "world leading" (WL) and "internationally recognised" (IR) in relationship to LT.

I can't quite get my head around how a person's living embodiment of their emergent theory, which has to be so finely tuned to the sensitivities of those with whom they are theorising in living terms, can make these criteria  of WL and IR relevant - or perhaps priorities. Possibilities for orientation only,  maybe.

I'm struggling with a similar sense of perplexity of wondering if an individual's living theory can be recognised as world leading, internationally excellent, internationally recognised and/or nationally recognised in terms of its originality, significance and rigour and wondering about the educational significance of engaging with the question. I know the question has very large financial implications for practitioner-researchers in Higher Education in terms of the Research Assessment Exercise in the UK. This year's e-seminar is focusing on the question because of this financial implication. I imagine that any 2007-8 seminar will have a different focus that is not so constrained by the imminence of the RAE.

What I value so highly in Marian's doctoral thesis on her emergent living theory of inclusional and responsive practice (http://people.bath.ac.uk/edsajw/naidoo.shtml) is that it seems to go further as an original contribution to knowledge than a possibility for orientation.  In her communication of the meaning of a passion for compassion as a living standard of judgment, Marian seems to be to be contributing to a new epistemology for practitioner-researchers of the kind that Donald Schon was asking action researchers to produce. Sometimes, new theoretical understandings can transform of field of enquiry and I believe that Marian has shown how new living standards of judgment can help to reconstruct what counts as educational in educational knowledge. If this is what Marian has accomplished I am suggesting that Marian's living standard of judgment of passion for compassion is world leading. I mean this in the sense that if we can find ways of enhancing the flow of this value in different social contexts then isnt' the world becoming a better place to be. Isn't this contributing to the creation or a world of educational quality?

On 20 Feb 2007, at 23:12, Susan Goff wrote:

My concern is that in living theory, we are obliged to make our own difficult learning path the primary pace and direction setter, and in so doing offer equal respect and sensitivity to the learning qualities of our collaborators. Whether this be world leading and internationally recognised or not, for me, is of much less importance to its/our commitment to work with the potentials and limits of ourselves and each other, including the very real socio/political pressures that each living context offers.

Susie, I can appreciate that y/our commitment to work with the potentials and limits of ourselves and each other, including the very real socio/political pressures that each living context offers, is much more important  for you than whether the living theory is world leading and internationally recognised.  One of my own interests is in working with the most advanced socio-cultural and socio-historical theories of the day, so that the knowledge I am creating can be seen to be located in relation to these theories.  In working as an educational researcher within a University I've also felt a responsibility to contribute to educational knowledge and theory that can be appreciated by others as being useful and recognised as of value in interrnational, as well as local and national gatherings of educational researchers. I'm thinking of this recognition  by my peers in their national and international contexts.  I am thinking of my peers as colleagues in this e-seminar. So, for me, in my knowledge-creation as a university academic and practitioner-researcher, it remains important to evaluate the validity of my living theory with peers who form a coherent and committed community of educational researchers and who are seeking to contribute to a world of educational quality.  As I seek to do this the bedrock of my practice is the commitment you speak of. As well as this bedrock of commitment I want to check the value and validity of the knowledge I am generating in terms of its originality, significance and rigour with other researchers, including those who are at the forefront of field.

On 20 Feb 2007, at 23:12, Susan Goff wrote:

If we focus too much on the world class and internationally leading, my fear is that the living context within which the living theory is unfolding through us, will be subjugated to irreverent and destructive imperatives, coercing a sensitive opening for connectivity into a situation of exploitation and hubris. I agree of course, that as practitioners we have a responsibility to be informed about "the latest" thing, but I have seen too many people plucking such things out of the ether and sticking them onto others, (often willingly), for all the wrong reasons. Sometimes the best wisdom is in some of our older texts – which often remain under valued in the time that they were first published, or enjoy renewed relevance in a current situation. My sense is that our responsibility is to as much as possible make use of what we have, with deepest appreciation, and serve the needs of what is - or is being held back from becoming. In my experience, if we can manage such patience, humility and courage to risk mediocrity, there is a pearl waiting. 

Susie

Susie - I'm hoping that we will avoid this danger of permitting our living theories to be subjugated to irreverent and destructive imperatives. I know that it takes much energy and a passion for academic freedom and the exercise of critical judgment to avoid this danger. I've posted on youtube a video that I used in an earlier performance text where I show my lived meanings of a passion for academic freedom in which I'm seeking to resist such imperatives.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBTLfyjkFh0 .

Maggie, you asked me a question about what I mean by educational research that is internationally recognised as distinct from world leading and about the new understandings generated through my doctoral research programme. I was thinking that my own knowledge-creation as a practitioner-researcher could be seen to be internationally recognised through the integration of the following ideas and the citations of my ideas in international publications. 

1) The inclusion of 'I' as a living contradiction in enquiries of the kind, 'How do I improve what I am doing?' in the context of improving educational influences in learning.

2) The inclusion of 'I' as a living contradiction in action reflection cycles of the kind: I experience a concern when my values are not being lived as fully as I think they could; I imagine what to do and choose an action plan; I act and gather data to judge the influence of my actions; I evaluate my influence; I modify my concerns, ideas and actions in the light of my evaluations; I produce an explanation of my learning and submit it to a validation group of peers and participants and continue the process.

3) Through such action reflection cycles clarifying the meanings of ontological values with their expression and emergence in practice and their transformation into living epistemological standards of judgment through this process of clarification and communication.

4) The idea that each individual can generate their own unique living educational theory as an explanation of their educational influence in their own learning, in the learning of others and/or in the learning of social formations.

Where I think you have moved your knowledge generation into a world leading position is that you have acknowledged the integration of some of the above ideas in the development of your own original contributions to educational knowledge concerning the web of betweenness and a pedagogy of the unique. You have also have  explained your systemic influence in an organisation in a way that forms and sustains a culture of educational enquiry and that supports individual practitioners in generating and testing their own living theories.

Where I distinguish Jean's knowledge-creation as internationally excellent is through its international influence in Canada, South Africa, China, the UK, Ireland and Iceland. I have benefitted from the quality of communicability of Jean's writings  in our joint publications. What I think Jean has accomplished in a way that establishes the international excellence of her research and writings is to communicate the living theories of students and teacher-researchers from a range of difference countries in publications that integrate the above ideas about living theories with her generative and transformational approach to action research.  Details of Jean's publications can be accessed from her web-site at http://www.jeanmcniff.com/writings.html . I think the evidence of Jean's world leading knowledge-creation can also be appreciated in her publications and especially in the masters and doctoral degrees that are now in the libraries of the University of the West of England, the University of Glamorgan, Limerick University and that were successfully completed with Jean's supervision.

What excites me most about responding to the questions I have been asked is that I have been able to clarify for myself what distinguishes the knowledge created by practitioner-researchers in terms of it being world leading, internationally excellent, internationally recognised and nationally recognised in terms of its originality, rigour and significance. So, many thanks to everyone for the quality of your questioning.

In distinguishing the knowledge created by practitioner-researchers in terms of its national recognition I am using the standard of recognition for the award of a doctorate in UK Universities. While the external examining system is not beyond error, questions can now be raised about the judgments of examiners in terms of bias, prejudice and inadequate assessment. I trust the way the examiners of all the living theory doctorates and other degrees accessible from http://people.bath.ac.uk/edsajw/living.shtml and  http://www.jeanmcniff.com/reports.html have made their judgments. With the doctorates these have been judged in terms of originality of mind and critical judgment, extent and merit and matter worthy of publication, as well as their contribution to knowledge.

Maggie - you also asked - So how do we link world leading and  internationally recognised research.  I think that this is what Jean is referring to?

I think we can link this research, as well as its national recognition and international excellence, through the way we connect our publications in our local, national and international presentations. For example, at the International Conference of Teacher Research in Chicago (13/14 April 2007) I'll be presenting with Jacqueline Delong on the topic of A living theory approach to educational policy formation, implementation and evaluation:  forming and sustaining a culture of inquiry for teacher-researchers as leaders of learning in a School Board. You can access the successful proposal at:

http://www.jackwhitehead.com/ictr05/jdjwictr07ok.htm

I think that you will see from the proposal abstract that the intention is to draw on the above insights in contributing to the creation of a world of educational quality. What is exciting me as I work on this presentation with Jacqueline is the feeling that the web of betweenness, informed by inclusionality, is holding me, as an individual practitioner, in the flow of a very coherent and committed community of educational researchers. In seeking to contribute further to this coherence the presentation at ICTR will focus on an explanation of how a living educational theory approach to teacher-research has drawn on currently available opportunities for practitioner-researchers to collaborate in influencing policies in local, state, national and world contexts. 

Without your questions and responses I would not have been able to clarify by myself the distinctions I needed to understand in relation to the purposes of the e-seminar. I hope you can feel my pleasure as I write this. Thank you.

If you have any further questions or want me to clarify further, or to suggest improvements in my understandings do please ask and/or respond.

Love Jack.