Dear all - I usually try to avoid long postings and put these into urls from my server, but Barra's posting stimulated the following responses to what I think are a number of misunderstandings about the nature of living theories and I'd like to share my thinking with you.

Hi Barra - I find my creativity most stimulated by your postings. I'm always willing to extend my range of sense-making and I may be able to do this through responding to your last posting. So, I hope you will bear with me if I've mistaken the intentions in your writing.

On 28 Apr 2008, at 15:24, Barra Hallissey wrote:

"A cynic" said Oscar Wilde, "is somebody who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing". 

In these dumb ass, bean counting, tick the box, nonsensical times courteousy of "McKenzie management consultants" and their ilk, [who it wouldn't surprise me to learn inform EU and OECD policy for a very unreasonable fee], educational research is conducted to perverse "tick box" [indicators] and "self-aggrandisement" ends - not for any inherent value the research itself might have.

That may sound harsh and exaggerated but there is a more than a grain of truth to it imho.

I'm focusing on your point that educational research is being conducted not for any inherent value the research itself might have.

My questioning of your point is focused on the educational research I feel competent to judge. I'm thinking of the educational research I've supervised and examined in several universities in the UK, Ireland and Australia. I'm thinking of the educational research in the self-study special interest group of the American Educational Research Association and in the research of participants in this practitioner-researcher e-seminar.  I'm seeing that the educational research conducted by Je Kan Adler-Collins and Jane Spiro in their doctoral programmes was conducted from a grounding in the inherent value of their educational enquiries.

My reason for questioning your point is that I'm seeing educational research being conducted from this grounded. I think it is the generalisation in your assertion that "educational research is conducted to perverse 'tick box' (indicators) and 'self aggrandisement' ends - not for any inherent value the research itself might have",   that made me pause to question the validity of this point.

If someone responds by telling me they agree with me, but advising that I should adopt "living I" theory as the antidote to the nefarious influences outlined, they will be "rendered" to Shanon airport and force fed two decades of dissertations from the Centre for Research in Education at University of East Anglia en route - don't worry too much, it's a short flight!

Having raised questions about the validity of your point about educational research, I'm wondering what point you are making about 'Living I" theory and two decades of dissertations from the Centre of Applied Research in Education? The theorising supported by supervisions at East Anglia, seems very different to the living theories flowing from http://people.bath.ac.uk/edsajw/living.shtml . If I'm mistaken in this belief I'd like to know. 

The antidote to one totalising imposed 'theory' [what can be measured can be managed] is not, imho an 'anti' but similarly 'totalising alternative theory' [whatever you're having yourself once you use the "how do I" question in the title - "the anti-method turned ultimate method".  It seems it doesn't matter what your values are, once you use the living I theory.

I found this paragraph stimulated my creativity the most, in comprehending your meanings about 1) 'totalising alternative theory',  2) 'Anti-method turned ultimate method' and 3) ' It seems it doesn't matter what your values are'.  

1) Totalising Alternative Theory

Here is where I need help the most in understanding your meaning. I understand what a totalising theory is. What I don't understand is how a living theory that is constituted by the unique explanations that individuals give for their educational influences in learning, can be a totalising theory. I thought a totalising theory was an explanation that applied to everyone. I'm not sure how a living theory can be totalising when it is being generated by an individual to explain their own educational influence? As I say it is the claim that a living theory can be a totalising theory that I need help in comprehending.

2) Making sense of "the anti-method turned ultimate method"   

Because of the uniqueness of each individual's living theory I am attracted to the methodological insights of Marion Dadds and Susan Hart and use these in my tutoring and supervision of living theory accounts:

" The importance of methodological inventiveness

Perhaps the most important new insight for both of us has been awareness that, for some practitioner researchers, creating their own unique way through their research may be as important as their self-chosen research focus. We had understood for many years that substantive choice was fundamental to the motivation and effectiveness of practitioner research (Dadds 1995); that what practitioners chose to research was important to their sense of engagement and purpose. But we had understood far less well that how practitioners chose to research, and their sense of control over this, could be equally important to their motivation, their sense of identity within the research and their research outcomes." (Dadds & Hart, p. 166, 2001) 

"If our aim is to create conditions that facilitate methodological inventiveness, we need to ensure as far as possible that our pedagogical approaches match the message that we seek to communicate. More important than adhering to any specific methodological approach, be it that of traditional social science or traditional action research. may be the willingness and courage or practitioners – and those who support them – to create enquiry approaches that enable new, valid understandings to develop; understandings that empower practitioners to improve their work for the beneficiaries in their care. Practitioner research methodologies are with us to serve professional practices. So what genuinely matters are the purposes of practice which the research seeks to serve, and the integrity with which the practitioner researcher makes methodological choices about ways of achieving those purposes. No methodology is, or should, cast in stone, if we accept that professional intention should be informing research processes, not pre-set ideas about methods of techniques.." (Dadds & Hart, p. 169, 2001)

Dadds, M. & Hart, S. (2001) Doing Practitioner Research Differently, p. 166. London; RoutledgeFalmer.

I can't think of one living theory that has been "anti-method". The form of questions like, 'How do I improve what I am doing?' implies a method/methodology in the sense that the practitioner-researcher will be able to account for how they are doing what they are doing. 

Having focused much of my academic life on supporting individuals who wish to bring into the Academy the values they use to give meaning and purpose to their lives, as the standards of judgment in their living theories, I'm puzzled about the conclusion that:

3)  "It seems it doesn't matter what your values are, once you use the living I theory". 

In my understanding of the unique explanations that individuals produce for their educational influences in their own learning, in the learning of others and in the learning of the social formations in which they live and work, it does matter what your values are. It matters in the sense that these are the values that the individual uses to give meaning and purpose to their life. The meanings of the values emerge in the course of their clarification in practice and become the explanatory principles of living theories. Each individual has a unique constellation of values and understandings, hence each living theory is unique. 

Write out 500 times: "we know what theory is best for you, and you and you and you ..." by Tuesday morning or I will give you a piece of my mind in the form of 30 lashes of my cane upon your arrival at Shannon.

I liked Jane Spiro's description of the difference between The Thought Doctor and  The Fellow Traveller (See http://www.jackwhitehead.com/janespiropdfphd/storyepilogue.pdf ) because it focuses on the importance of recognising and respecting the capability of each individual for generating their own living theory. Doesn't this avoid the perception that 'We know what theory is best for you.' ?

The academy used to have a role in questioning "received wisdom", what happened to the questioners - did they all take up the option of early retirement and/or consultancy?

The academy still does have this role. The 1988 legislation continues to protect the Academic Freedom of academics to question 'received wisdom'.  There are numerous recent cases of academics expressing themselves with courage in questioning received wisdom. I know that this freedom is under continuous threat within our institutions, but I do see academics continuing to express the value of academic freedom.  I think you might enjoy the work of such academics in:

Satterthwaite, J., Watts, M. & Piper, J. (2008) Talking Truth, Confronting Power, Sterling; Trentham Books.

Love Jack.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

When Martin Dobson, a colleague, died in 2002 the last thing he said to me was 'Give my Love to the Department'. In the 20 years I'd worked with Martin it was his loving warmth of humanity that I recall with great life affirming pleasure and I'm hoping that in Love Jack we can share this value of common humanity.