How are the living educational theories of master and
doctor educators contributing to the education of individuals and their social
formations?
Jack Whitehead, Department of
Education, University of Bath.
Paper presented on 12 September 2003
at the BERA Annual Conference, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh
Introduction
One reason I value so highly my presentations at
BERA is that they allow me to share my claims to know my learning from self-studies
of my educational practice. Sharing these claims at BERA enables their validity
to be tested in an open and public forum. These tests of validity are important
to me because I do not wish to persist in holding an erroneous educational
theory in understanding my life, my learning and my educational practices
in my pedagogy. Where ideas have withstood criticism, the acknowledgement
of their value in the work of others enables me to judge the extent to which
I am living a productive life. I mean this in the sense that my knowledge-creation
is part of the learning of others. Each year I use opportunities to present
at BERA to review my learning from my educational research in terms of claims
to educational knowledge. The growth of my educational knowledge this year
has focused on the development of my understanding of my educational influence
in the living educational theories of master and doctor educators as I supervise
the action research programmes of these educational enquirers.
These developments have focused on the use of multi-media
representations of the embodied values of practitioner-researchers in the
creation of living standards of educational judgement and their use as explanatory
principles in living educational theories
(Whitehead,
2003). In previous years I have explained my meanings of living educational
theories (Whitehead,
1989a) and living standards of educational judgement. While being open
to criticism of these ideas, I am working on the assumption that the academic
legitimation of these ideas in different doctoral theses and institutions
enables me now to take them for granted and to focus on the explication of
the meanings of living standards of judgement using multi-media representations.
I also want to focus on the significance of web-based, interconnecting and
branching networks of conversation for the education of social formations
and for the education of social movements of educational action researchers.
I am also curious about your response to my idea that the introduction of
the terms master and doctor educator into our discourses could do much to
enhance research-based professionalism in education (Whitehead, 1989b).
The living educational theories of master and
doctor educators
One
of the outcomes of educational research is educational theory:
"
'Theory' would seem to have the following features. It refers to a set of
propositions which are stated with sufficient generality yet precision that
they explain the behaviour of a range of phenomena and predict which would
happen in the future. An understanding of these propositions includes an understanding
of what would refute them." (Pring, 2000, p. 127).
In the BERA Abstracts for this Conference you
will find the Abstract for this session where I say:
The
purpose of this multi-media presentation is to explore the validity of a
different idea of theory. In this different 'living' theory, explanations for
the educational development and educational influences of master and doctor
educators are grounded in embodied spiritual, aesthetic and ethical values. It
will be argued, on the basis of visual data and evidence from supervisions of
masters and doctoral enquiries, that these values are refractory to
representation within interconnected sets of propositions (Fletcher &
Whitehead, 2003). Using visual accounts from self-studies of teacher-education
practices a multi-media technology will be integrated in a process of
transforming the embodied values of master and doctor educators into publicly
communicable educational standards of judgement. The embodied values will be
shown to form explanatory principles in the self-study accounts of learning
from educational enquiries of the kind, 'How do I improve what I am doing?'
My interest in the development of living
theories stems from my belief that the mistake acknowledged by Paul Hirst in
1983 can be extended to those who think of educational theory in terms of
interconnected sets of propositions. I am thinking of the mistake in thinking
that understanding of educational theory will be developed:
"...
in the context of immediate practical experience and will be co-terminous
with everyday understanding. In particular, many of its operational
principles, both explicit and implicit, will be of their nature generalisations
from practical experience and have as their justification the results of individual
activities and practices.
In many characterisations of educational theory, my own included, principles justified in this way have until recently been regarded as at best pragmatic maxims having a first crude and superficial justification in practice that in any rationally developed theory would be replaced by principles with more fundamental, theoretical justification. That now seems to me to be a mistake. Rationally defensible practical principles, I suggest, must of their nature stand up to such practical tests and without that are necessarily inadequate." (Hirst, 1983, p. 18)
Through the influence of Paulus Murray (2003) I have come to understand the mistake of such a replacement, in pegagogic practice, as 'colonising'. I mean this in the sense that the power of a pedagogic relationship can be brought to bear on a learner in teacher education in a way that seeks to 'replace' the practical principles used by educators to make sense of their own lives with other principles with more 'theoretical' justification.
In recognising the practitioner-researchers I supervise as master and doctor educators I acknowledge that these terms are not widely legitimated in the academy or in professional associations. The State of Utah in the USA is a notable exception. That is why I value Mike Bosher's doctoral enquiry so highly as the first living theory thesis to have educator in the enquiry title: How can I as an educator and Professional Development Manager working with teachers, support and enhance the learning and achievement of pupils in a whole school improvement process? (Bosher, 2001). If you do access the living theories constructed from the embodied knowledge of master and doctor educators I am wondering if you can add your recognition of these terms in your educational discourse as a way of enhancing professionalism in education.
In
the Abstract I also say that:
From
the accounts of research from the self-studies of educational researchers a
case will be made that the evidence shows:
1.
How
living educational theories are being created and tested from the ground of the
embodied knowledge of practitioner-researchers who are engaged in educational
enquiries of the kind, 'how do I improve what I am doing?' (McNiff, 2003, p.
226)
2.
That
the embodied values of the s-step researcher (Self-study of teacher-education
practices) can be transformed into communicable and living standards of
judgement that can be used to test the validity of claims to knowledge made
from within a living theory perspective on educational research.
3.
The
emergence of educational research methodologies as distinct from the
application of social science methodologies in educational research.
4.
A
logic of educational enquiry that questions Gadamer's (1975, p. 333) point that
we are still not ready for a logic of question and answer.
5.
That
living educational theories can explain the education of oneself and the
educational influences in the learning of others and in the education of social
formations.
In a 20 minute presentation all I think I can do
is to outline my main points and then to draw your attention to the e-forum on
living-action-research where we could continue an educational conversation.
My first point is that each of the
successfully completed research doctoral and masters programmes made publicly
available in the living theory section of http://www.actionresearch.net contains evidence of
how living educational theories are being created and tested from the ground of
the embodied knowledge of practitioner-researchers who are engaged in
educational enquiries of the kind, 'how do I improve what I am doing?' (McNiff,
2003, p. 226). Each doctoral thesis has been accepted on the grounds that it
demonstrates the originality of mind and critical judgement of the researcher
and demonstrates an extent and merit worthy of the award of a doctoral
degree.
My second point is that in the here and
now I think I embody the spiritual, aesthetic and ethical values that help to
form my educational relationships. In playing back to you these images of what
I am doing the digital technology allows me to show my practice and to clarify
the meanings of my embodied values in the course of their emergence in my
practice. This process of clarification transforms the experience of my
spiritual, aesthetic and ethical, embodied values, into communicable and living
educational standards of judgement. These meanings, with their reliance on the
expression of embodied values, cannot be communicated clearly from within a
solely propositional form of discourse.
My third point is that each of these
doctoral theses and masters dissertations demonstrates a form of methodological
inventiveness recognised by Dadds and Hart (2001):
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).
In living educational theories
each methodological approach is unique in its form and content as it emerged
in relation to the particular constellation of values that help to constitute
the individual's form of life and enquiry learning. The emergence of each
educational research methodologies is different and distinguishable from the
application of social science methodologies in educational research.
My fourth point is that each living
educational theory can be understood in terms of a logic of educational enquiry
that questions Gadamer's (1975, p. 333) view that we are still not ready for a
logic of question and answer. My own doctoral thesis focused on this point of
developing a logic of educational enquiry in the creation and testing of an
individualšs educational theory. As the comprehension of each living theory
requires an understanding of a logic of question and answer (Whitehead, 1999),
I think educational action researchers have moved beyond Gadameršs point that
we are still not ready for a logic of question and answer.
My fifth point is that living
educational theories can explain the education of oneself and the educational
influences in the learning of others and in the education of social formations.
I think the validity of
the idea that living educational theories can explain the education of oneself
and the educational influences in the learning of others has been well tested
(Holley, 1997; Laidlaw,
1996; Delong,
2002). The idea that living educational theories can explain an individualšs
influence in the education of social formations has not been sufficiently
tested and I am hoping to encourage such testing through this presentation.
I will focus on the idea that the influence of action researchers in a social movement can be understood in terms of the education of social formations. I am using social formation in the sense used by Bourdieu when writing about a limitation of social science:
Paradoxically, social science makes greatest use of the language of rules precisely in the cases where it is most totally inadequate, that is, in analysing social formations in which, because of the constancy of the objective conditions over time, rules have a particularly small part to play in the determination of practices, which is largely entrusted to the automatisms of the habitus. (Bourdieu, p. 145, 1990)
Here is an example of what I mean by the education of a social formation.
In the 1980 and 1990s there was a change in the regulations of many universities in the UK. Up to this time the regulations governing these universities did not permit questions to be raised about the judgements of examiners of research degrees under any circumstances. In my own university the regulations changed in 1991 to permit questions to be raised on the grounds of bias, prejudice and inadequate assessment. It is such changes in the regulations that govern a social order and that enable educational values to be lived more fully, that I am referring to as the education of a social formation.
Such changes in University regulations, supported in the UK by the Campaign for Academic Freedom and Democracy fulfil Gustasven's criteria for defining a social movement as a series of events that are linked to each other and where the meaning and construction of each event is part of a broader stream of events and not a self-sufficient element in an aggregate:
First and foremost:
the idea is not to replace the single case with a number of cases but to create
or support social movements.
A social movement is a series of events that are linked to each other
and where the meaning and construction of each event is part of a broader
stream of events and not a self-sufficient element in an aggregate. There
is little point in replacing the single case with a number of disconnected
cases. (Gustavsen, 2003)
I think the strongest evidential base for the claim
that living educational theories can explain an individual's influence in
the education of a social formation can be found in
Delong's (2002) doctoral thesis. In a self-study over six years of her
work as a Superintendent of Schools in the Grand Erie District School Board
in Ontario, Delong analyses her influence in the education of the social formation
of the District Board in relation to the development of a culture of inquiry.
There is also strong evidence in Paulus
Murray's homepage in which he invites responses
to his multiracial and inclusional living educational practice, research and
theory (Murray,
2003).
The extending influence of my use of
interconnecting branching networks of web-based communications to support the
social movement of practitioner-researchers through the processes of enhancing
their educational influence can be seen in the first web-based issue of the
Wiltshire Journal of Education (McCulloch, 2003). The link to the url http://www.actionresearch.net/jbs/bsconnect.html opens access to the
completed educational enquiries of teacher-researchers at Westwood St. Thomas
School in Wiltshire and links these to recent publications on the professional
knowledge-base of teaching in the AERA Journal, Educational Researcher.
If you would like to respond to these ideas you
can access the e-forum of living-action-research, developed by Je-Kan Adler-Collins
from the homepage of http://www.actionresearch.net . My thanks for the opportunity
to place these ideas in the public forum of the BERA 2003 annual conference.
This has enabled me to continue to fulfil one of my responsibilities as an
educational researcher. That is to make available for public testing my claims
to educational knowledge together with their evidential base.
References:
Bosher, M. (2001) How can I
as an educator and Professional Development Manager working with teachers,
support and enhance the learning and achievement of pupils in a whole school
improvement process? Ph.D. University
of Bath. In
the Living Theory section of http://www.actionresearch.net
Dadds, M. & Hart, S. (2001) Doing Practitioner Research Differently, London; RoutledgeFalmer.
Delong,
J. (2002) How Can I Improve My Practice
As A Superintendent of Schools and Create My Own Living Educational Theory? Ph.D. University of Bath. In the Living
Theory section of http://www.actionresearch.net
Fletcher, S. J. & Whitehead, J. (2003) The
'look' of the teacher: using digital video to improve the professional practice
of teaching.
In Clarke, A. & Erickson, G. (2003) Teacher Inquiry: Living the research
in everyday practice. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Gadamer, H.G. (1975). Truth and Method. London: Sheen and
Ward.
Hirst, P. (Ed.) (1983)
Educational Theory and its Foundation Disciplines. London:RKP
Holley,
E. (1997) How do I as a teacher-researcher contribute to the development
of a living educational theory through an exploration of my values in my professional
practice? M.Phil. University
of Bath. In the Living
Theory section of http://www.actionresearch.net
Laidlaw,
M. (1996) How can I
create my own living educational theory as I offer you an account of my
educational development?
Ph.D. thesis, University of Bath. In the Living Theory Section of http://www.actionresearch.net
McCulloch, S. (2003) Editorial on Disseminating
Good Practice and Celebrating Achievement in Wiltshire. The Wiltshire Journal
of Education,
Vol. 4 No. 3.
Retrieved 8 September 2003 from
http://education.wiltshire.gov.uk/docs/volume_4_number_3_autumn_2003.html
McNiff, J. (2003) Working it out: When is
evaluation not evaluation. In Clarke, A. & Erickson, G. (2003) Teacher
Inquiry: Living the research in everyday practice. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Murray, P. (2003) Invitation
to my multiracial and inclusional living educational practice, research and
theory. Retrieved on 8 September 2003, from
Pring, R. (2000) Philosophy of Educational
Research.
London: Continuum.
Whitehead, J. (1989a) Creating a living educational theory from questions of the kind,
'How do I improve my practice?' Cambridge Journal of Education, Vol. 19, No.1,1989, pp. 41-52. Retrieved on 9 September 2003 from http://www.actionresearch.net/writings/livtheory.shtml
Whitehead, J. (1989b) How do we improve research-based professionalism in education? A question which includes action research, educational theory and the politics of educational knowledge. 1988 Presidential Address. British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 15, No.1, pp. 3-17.
Whitehead,
J. (1999) How do I improve
my practice? Creating a discipline of education through educational enquiry. Ph.D. University of Bath. In
the Living Theory section of http://www.actionresearch.net
Whitehead, J (2002) Have we created a new disciplines approach to educational theory? Am I doctor educator? Paper presented at BERA02 at the University of Exeter on 14th September 2002 to the Symposium on Professional Development, Quality in University Teaching and the Impact of Policy. Retrieved on 9 September 2003 from http://www.actionresearch.net/bera02.doc
Whitehead, J. (2003) What is educational in what I do for myself, for others and for the education of social formations? A contribution to a conversation on theory in action research. Paper presented to an invitational seminar on Critical Debates in Action Research, University of Limerick 5-7 June 2003. Retrieved on 8 September 2003 from http://www.actionresearch.net/writings/jwlovework3.htm