How do we
develop a twenty-first Century knowledge base for the teaching profession in
South Africa? How do we communicate our passion for learning?
A paper
to be presented at an invitational
seminar, The University of Stellenbosch, November 10th, 2003
In her Presidential Address to the American Educational Research
Association, Catherine Snow (2001) called for the development of a knowledge
base for the teaching profession. It was time, she said, for teachers to be
able to communicate their learning to other colleagues, and for their learning
to be recognised as the basis of their professionalism. Teaching, she suggests,
should be a profession that is informed by the practical accounts and insights
of teachers, and the profession should be informed by professional debates
about teaching. What is currently missing, according to Snow, is the means for
the systematic dissemination of teachersÕ accounts of their professional
learning so that they can learn with and from one another. Continuing the
theme, Hiebert et al. (2002) asked, ÔWhat might a knowledge base for
the teaching profession look like, and how do we get one?Õ From the perspective
of researchers such as Snow and Hiebert in the USA, it appears that gaps exist
which need to be filled. From my perspective in the UK, I know that there is
already a great deal of work going on, that a knowledge base already exists,
and that it needs to be strengthened by contributions from practising teachers
around the world. In this paper therefore I would like to set out how I
understand what this knowledge base looks like, and how it could be developed,
and to examine the part that South Africa might play in that development.
Until quite recently, the knowledge base for the teaching
profession has been seen to reside not in the professional accounts of teachers
but in the views of theorists who speak about teaching in
conceptual terms. In this sense, the knowledge base has not been a professional
knowledge base at all. It has been the accumulation of propositions about
teaching, generated by theorists who are not professional teachers. Indeed,
many theorists regard themselves as professional philosophers, or professional
sociologists, not as professional teachers (see for example Straughan and
Wilson, 1987). Further, the form of the knowledge base that these theorists,
usually positioned as academics at the Academy, have generated has been
distinctly abstract and conceptual (see for example OÕConnor, 1956; Peters,
1965; A.N. Whitehead, 1967). Consequently, a literature has built up about the
theory of teaching that deals with issues such as which disciplines should
inform teaching and the outcomes of teaching; and this literature is also
premised on issues such as who should be seen as entitled to comment on matters
to do with the theory of teaching and its outcomes. Until quite recently, there
was an overwhelming assumption on the part of policy makers, who take their cue
from the academic literature, that abstract theories of teaching, generated by
university-based academics, should inform real practices. Those assumptions
remain today, as a legacy from the past, in that some policy makers see the
future of the teaching profession to lie in the capacity of teachers to apply
expert knowledge to their own practices. Indeed, until recently, policy in the
UK and elsewhere has been to judge teachersÕ professionalism in terms of how
successfully they implement policies that are grounded in the conceptual
theories of specialists.
In my view, it is hardly surprising that this state of affairs has
led to the erosion of the creative energies of the teaching force, and the
serious depletion of numbers and lack of retention. When people do not feel
personal ownership of their work, their commitment flags; when one does not
feel involved, it is best to distance oneself. We do not need Hawthorne
experiments or Kurt Lewin (1946) to tell us that. It is common human
experience. To feel that we have a stake in any development, we have to commit;
and to commit, we have to feel that we belong, that we are valued, and that our
contributions are valuable. Happily, this recognition is beginning to permeate
discourses to do with teacher professionalisation in the UK. The fortunes of
the teaching profession in the UK look as if they might be on the turn, because
new discourses are to be heard, about how teachersÕ professional knowledge
might be valued, and how new policies might become based on the insights of
teachers (Joan Whitehead, 2003). Out of this turn in fortunes, I believe, a
new, Twenty-First Century knowledge base is rising.
At this point it is important for me to emphasise that I am not
suggesting that the contributions of professional philosophers and sociologists
are unimportant or do not inform teaching. What I am saying is that the
profession of teaching should not be premised primarily on the insights of
philosophers or sociologists, but on the insights of teachers from the ground
of their educative relationships, as they draw on the insights of philosophers
and sociologists to inform the development of their own theories of teaching. I
believe that a Twenty-First Century knowledge base for the teaching profession
would be one that is informed by professional debates among teachers about what
they are doing in order to encourage learning and in order to achieve their
educational and social goals, not one, as in much of the Twentieth Century
literature, that is informed by conceptual debates among philosophers and
sociologists about what might be the optimum way to encourage learning and what
might be the educational and social goals of teaching.
In September this year I attended the annual conference of the
British Educational Research Association (BERA). It was easily my best
experience of BERA ever, and gives me great hope for the future of the teaching
profession. I experienced a greater openness to ideas about teaching as a
profession than ever before. There were more debates than heretofore about the
practical nature of teaching, how teachers could come together to share their
work and their visions for the future, how partnerships could be developed
between schools and higher education and what might be the different
contributions that all parties might make to support learning in classrooms. It
was an exciting and uplifting experience. A few days after that I attended a
practitioner research conference at St. MaryÕs College, Twickenham. There I
listened to the professional narratives of practising teachers, as they offered
their accounts of practice. It was an inspiring time. I link these experiences
to the excitement I feel from accessing the living educational accounts of
practitioners whose work is now available on the web, some of which are
grounded in their experiences of working in contexts such as South Africa Ð see
for example Potts (2002). I shall speak more of this presently.
I want to draw on these and similar experiences here. I would like
to explain how it appears that much progress has been made in establishing
contexts in which the teaching profession seems to be progressing in new
directions with new visions. I also want to spell out what I see as a core
condition for these new directions. Consequently, my feelings are that,
although much has been achieved, much still needs to be done in terms of establishing
the conditions for the ongoing professionalisation of teaching, primarily in
terms of generating new forms of theory, so that the knowledge base actually
does show the development of professional knowledge, and is not trapped in the
same commitment to propositional forms of knowledge as was evident in the
Twentieth Century.
In terms of this discussion, the significance of the kind of
knowledge that constituted the knowledge base of the Twentieth Century was both
its form and also the form of theory it used. Those forms were propositional,
conceptual and abstract, that is, theory and its products existed in linguistic
form as words about words. The theory existed as abstract propositions about
teaching. The theory could be demonstrated as valid (or so the thinking goes)
provided it demonstrated a logical consistency between its component parts. In
much of this body of words about words, however, what counts as theory, what
are the legitimate concerns of theory generation, and who is considered competent
to be a theory-generator are issues that receive interesting treatment.
Consider, for example, the following statement about the nature of educational
theory by P.H. Hirst, one of the most influential philosophers of education in
the Twentieth Century:
ÒIn my contribution to Professor J.W. TibbleÕs volume The Study
of Education I sought to characterise educational theory as a domain of
practical theory, concerned with formulating and justifying principles of
action for a range of practical activities. Because of their concern for
practical principles I sharply distinguished domains of practical theory from
domains concerned simply with purely theoretical knowledge. The function of the
former is primarily the determination of practice. The one is concerned with
achieving rational understanding, the other with achieving rational action.Ó
(Hirst, 1966, reproduced in Hammersley, 1993)
The Twenty-first Century continues to draw on the legacy that the
main focus of theory generation is to do with achieving rational understanding,
which can then be applied to rational action. The form in which the theory is
couched goes unquestioned. This tacit acceptance of the hegemony of conceptual
theory underpins the following definition of theory given by Richard Pring, one
of the foremost philosophers of education in the UK:
Ò ÔTheoryÕ 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 ÔbehaviourÕ of a range of phenomena and predict what
would happen in future. An understanding of those propositions includes an
understanding of what would refute them Ð or at least what would count as
evidence against their being true. The range of propositions would, in that way,
be the result of a lot of argument, experiment and criticism.Ó
(Pring, 2000: 124Ð125)
Even more significant for this discussion is the issue of who is
to be counted as capable of generating educational theory. Consider these views
of John Wilson, also widely regarded as an eminent philosopher, especially in
the field of moral education (I question the morality of his position in the
following, however). Speaking about why teachers are not widely regarded as
autonomous agents (and in the language of todayÕs discourses, as
knowledge-generators), and of the status of educational theory, he says:
ÒÉ not many people of really high intellectual ability go into
education É one would not expect, nor perhaps want, most teachers to be of the
very highest intellectual quality Ð the job is largely a practical one, and the
required qualities are somewhat different [from administration and leadership].
But such an allowance can only be safely made if these practical workers are
supported and guided by people who (or some of whom) are of top quality. This
is, very obviously, not the case. The most able academics tend not to go in for
Ôeducational theoryÕ or for the philosophy, psychology, sociology, etc. of
education: it may even be true, though the point is somewhat less obvious, that
the most able administrators tend not to go in for educational administration.
The whole business has the air, not only of something lacking in glamour or
smartness, but of something intellectually second-rate.Ó
(Wilson, 1981: 72)
The ideas that theory is to do with achieving rational
understanding as a precursor to rational action, that valid theory exists only
in propositional form, and that teachers are not capable of thinking for
themselves (and only when supported by academics for whom the generation of
educational theory is intellectually second-rate), have gone unquestioned for
many years. It might even appear that assumptions about these issues go
unquestioned because they are not even perceived. When something is not
perceived, at an individual or cultural level, it cannot then be part of
individual or collective experience because it does not exist in the individual
or collective imagination. Take for example a recent case in England, where a
black woman amputee applied for a new prosthetic leg. She was told that she
would have to be fitted with a white prosthetic leg, because black prosthetic
limbs appeared to be in short supply. In the public mind, the norm is white
prosthetics, because artefacts such as prosthetics are the products of dominant
discourses, in this case, white discourses. Black prosthetics are not the norm
because black discourses are not recognised as of equal weight as white
discourses. In a television interview the woman hotly protested that if a white
person had been told that only black prosthetic limbs were available, they also
would feel devalued and marginalized; yet that is not part of normal cultural
experience in the UK. It is not part of most peopleÕs experience that black and
white discourses exist side by side on an equal basis, or that they should
become integrated as a seamless communicative whole. In similar vein, two
teachers I work with in Ireland teach Traveller children. The needs of
Travellers are not recognised in Irish schools curricula (Sullivan, 2003), and
Traveller children are expected to accept what is appropriate for children from
the settled community. Edward Said (1995) taught us that we position others in
terms of our own experience, and the experiences of the dominant voices in a
community are taken as normal and normative. Other people are expected to
conform to the dominant mores, and be happy with their lot.
Radical intellectuals (such as Chomsky, 2002) have enabled us to
appreciate that what is hidden is hidden usually for reasons of power, and
therefore is not spoken about. The work of radicals, so-called because they
speak about things that the dominant elites would prefer to be left unsaid,
raise awareness about the conditions that foster injustice (Young, 1990).
Indeed, the use of the term ÔradicalÕ is often used as a weapon of control, a
term of derision that is aimed to demoralise those who wish to raise questions
about the status quo.
Fortunately for practitioners, new insights have been developed by
prominent theorists who are active in the realm of educational theorising.
Significantly, many of these theorists are in the Academy, and seek to reform
the Academy from within. Interestingly, in former times these people tended to
be positioned as radicals, but, because their work is now accepted as
influential in policy debates, they are today positioned as valuable
contributors and leading theorists (see, for example, Elliott and
SarlandÕs 1995 view of the status of Jack Whitehead Ð see below Ð, who
was subjected to intimidation and the threat of sacking for challenging the
status quo Ð Whitehead, 1993; and my own story of being harassed and
intimidated because of my challenge to institutional norms Ð McNiff, 2000).
Radical intellectuals have seriously challenged the hegemony of dominant
propositional forms of theory, and have reconceptualised theory in favour of
the practical wisdom of teachers. Prominent among these theorists is Jack
Whitehead, working at the University of Bath, who suggests that the personal
practical theories of practitioners should carry as much weight as conventional
social science approaches. In his view, practitioners should be encouraged to
offer accounts of their work, in terms of descriptions and explanations of
their practice, and these accounts should be seen as the living educational
theories of practitioners as they endeavour to live more fully in the direction
of their educational values (Whitehead, 2000). This view has gained much
credibility over recent years, and has influenced the development of new forms
of professional education in the UK and elsewhere. WhiteheadÕs award-winning
website Ð http://www.actionresearch.net Ð contains the accounts of
teachersÕ professional narratives world wide, and also contains accounts of how
higher education institutions and policy-making bodies are able to support the
practical classroom-based enquiries of professionals, often for higher degree
accreditation, with the intent of offering choices about professional learning
pathways to all. My own experience of working in Ireland for over ten years has
been that Irish teachers now have opportunities for the recognition and
accreditation of their practical knowledge (McNiff 2000, 2002), opportunities
that were previously denied them. The influence of the initiatives with which I
have been associated has gone far to inform the development of new partnerships
between schools and higher education, and is influencing discourses about what
counts as knowledge and who counts as a knower (see for example McNamara,
2003).
So we have hope for the future of the teaching profession. In the
UK and elsewhere, new initiatives are afoot that are underpinned by the view
that teachers are increasingly able to speak on their own behalf, and that
their voices should be valued. Initiatives such as the Best Practice Research
Scholarships and the Training School Project, and the establishment of local
and national institutions to support the initiatives, such as the National
College of School Leadership, are manifestations of this faith in practice. In
her keynote presentation to the Standing Committee for the Education and
Training of Teachers Annual Conference, Joan Whitehead, former Dean of the
Faculty of Education for the University of the West of England, Bristol, spoke
about her optimism for new directions in the profession:
ÒI believe we are at the onset of a different and much more
exciting era. I believe we have reached a period in which the framing of our
activity is becoming looser and offers considerably more scope for the profession
actively to engage in shaping its own future and hence the future of teaching.
É Alongside the continuation of central control over specific strategies, what
we are also witnessing is the active encouragement of grass roots developments,
of greater trust in the skills and professional knowledge of teachers and
teacher educators and support for knowledge-sharing and the dissemination of
good practice by the profession for the profession. These I see as
indications that the profession is becoming increasingly recognised and valued
as able to propose and enact its own solutions to the fulfilment of external
agenda, be those to do with the better preparation of entrants to the
profession, or to further developing those within it.Ó (Joan
Whitehead, 2003)
Yet the importance of the development of new forms of theory must
not be underestimated. If the teaching profession is to advance in these
optimistic new directions, if teachers are to have a say in what counts as good
practice and how it should be disseminated, then teachersÕ practical theories
need to be valued as contributing to those debates; and the recognition of
teachersÕ practical theories means, first, raising awareness of, and second,
raising questions about, the positioning of dominant forms of propositional
theory and the reasons for its present hegemony. Questions need to be raised
about whose interests are being served in maintaining a faith in dominant
forms, and what purposes might be served by introducing more democratic forms
of theorising.
My own work in education is premised on the idea that education is
a context in which all participants may come together, on an equal footing, in
order to achieve commonly negotiated personal and social goals (see also
Chomsky, 1996). I believe, like others, that practitioners need to be
encouraged to make their accounts public, and show how they hold themselves
accountable for their educative influence in the lives of others (the
development of ÔIÐtheoriesÕ rather than ÔEÕÐtheoriesÕ: McNiff 2002). My own
research consistently takes this focus. I believe that moral professional
commitments need to be grounded in moral epistemologies of practice, where
professional educators, alongside the practitioners whom they support, need to
demonstrate how they hold themselves accountable for their work as they ask,
ÔHow do I improve what I am doing?Õ (Jack Whitehead, 1989), and show how they
are exercising their educative influence as they practise with social intent.
If the new directions for the teaching profession are to have any
bite, they must be grounded in a form of educational theorising that enables
practitioners to hold themselves accountable for their work. It is no use
introducing initiatives and expecting them to take hold immediately, without
the firm bedrock of underpinning theory. A form of theory that makes formal
propositions about practices but that does not engage the practical imagination
and commitment of practitioners is no good at all in terms of contributing to
sustainable forms of social development, where practitioners come to make
decisions about their own futures and how those decisions might be realised as
everyday practices. A form of theory in which practitioners willingly
demonstrate their accountability in seeking to achieve their collaboratively
negotiated goals has greater chance of success in driving social evolution than
static forms of propositional theory.
The claims I am making here about the power of practitionersÕ
theorising are grounded in a firm evidence base, which in itself constitutes an
emergent knowledge base for the profession of teaching. You can see this in the
publications of others and myself, on our websites (see for example http://www.actionresearch.net ,
http://www.jeanmcniff.com
). If you go to http://www.actionresearch.net
you will be able to access live links with others who are
similarly concerned with showing the evolution of knowledge through the
production of their own educational case studies. I am thinking for example of
these links:
To show a direct link with the ideas of Jack Whitehead and my own
writings for the creation of a Training School at Brislington School, go to:
http://pathways2002.uwe.ac.uk/trainingschool/methodology/action-research.htm
For a direct link to the practitioner-researcher masters' module
accounts submitted to the University of Bath, go to:
http://www.actionresearch.net/mastermod.shtml
To access living theory theses accounts go to:
http://www.actionresearch.net/living.shtml
Of particular significance for the next section of my paper, I
would like to draw your attention to Mark Potts' account of September 2002, on
ÔHow can I use my own values and my experience of schools in South Africa to
influence my own education and the education of others?Õ, available from http://www.actionresearch.net/module/mpsama.doc
At this point I would like to set out my understanding of the
contribution that South Africa has to make to educational theorising and the
creation of a Twenty-First knowledge base for the teaching profession.
In my opinion, South Africa has the potential to make massive
contributions, in terms of showing how educational researchers may contribute
to the establishment of more peaceful and productive world orders through
education. I am much taken with the concept of ubuntu. Timothy
Murithi, Programme Officer with the United Nations Institute for Training and
Research (Murithi, n.d.), drawing on the work of Mbigi and Maree (1995),
Desmond Tutu (1999), and others, says that ubuntu is to do
with Ôthe essential unity of humanity and emphasizes the importance of
constantly referring to the principles of empathy, sharing and cooperation in
our efforts to resolve our common problemsÕ (Murithi, n.d.: 2). I believe that
the new directions in educational research and teacher professional education
that I have described go far to encouraging and enabling the teaching
profession to be at the forefront of initiatives that strive to achieve the
goals of establishing the essential unity of humanity and realising in practice
the principles of empathy, sharing and cooperation. Yet the realisation of
these principles will not happen if we stick with traditional propositional
forms of theory, if we do not regard all participants as knowledge-generators
of equal status, or if we choose to understand professional education as a
matter of speaking the rhetoric of principles but not engaging in the practice
Ð rather on the same assumption that one can learn how to drive by listening to
a lecture about how a steering wheel works. What is needed is an entire
immersion in the practice by the whole community, and a commitment to
generating practical theory from within the practice. The principles of ubuntu can be
realised in practice only by a focused commitment to working to those
principles in deed as well as in word.
This vision carries implications that are being systematically
realised, I believe, within what I have set out here as new directions both for
the teaching profession, grounded as they are in the living kinds of theory
that teachers can generate from within their practice, and also in the kinds of
relationships that are being forged to support the creation of those living
theories. New forms of relationships, those that emphasize the importance of
constantly referring to the principles of empathy, sharing and cooperation in
our efforts to resolve our common problems, continue to be developed in the
form of interconnecting branching networks of learning communities. These
networks are constituted of a variety of forms of other networks and
partnerships, such as learning partnerships between schools and higher
education. The quality of these schools-university partnerships enables the
dissemination of the practical work of teachers and professional educators as
they work together for the benefit of learning, both their own and the children
they support. All have expert knowledge about their own areas. Teachers have
expert knowledge about teaching in classrooms, and are able to communicate this
knowledge in terms of the generation of their own practical theories of
education. Professional educators have expert knowledge about mentoring and
supporting schools-based teachers and managers, and also about providing
insights into the presentation of reports that demonstrate methodological and epistemological
rigour; while at the same time producing their own accounts of practice to show
how their professional learning is grounded in their own practice of supporting
the professional learning of others. Children have expert knowledge on what it
means to be at the beginning of creating a life, and the incredible excitement
of learning how to live to the hilt in a world of unlimited potential.
Together, teachers and professional educators, and those whose learning they
support, can generate a powerful body of knowledge that shows how they have
worked collaboratively in the interests of the future of their profession and
the future of others. These schools-university partnerships are part of wider
networks of communicative action, as the living theories of practitioners feed
into the national and world fora of policy debates, and the influence spreads
exponentially.
Such developments take time and commitment. They take the
commitment of individualsÕ energy and the commitment of financial and material
resources. More significantly, they take a commitment to relinquish a faith in
dominant forms of theorising, and a readiness to accept the risk of going
public about holding oneself accountable for work in the present. Moira Laidlaw
is achieving this to a remarkable degree with her colleagues at Guyuan
Teachers' College in China (http://www.actionresearch.net/moira.shtml).
It is my firm belief that the practice of holding oneself accountable for oneÕs
influence in the present is the best foundation for creating the kinds of
futures that one considers the right way forward. Nothing less will do. It is
pointless producing mission statements about oneÕs values and intentions unless
one is willing to hold oneself to account for the practical implementation and
realisation of those values and intentions. This takes courage and commitment.
Yet courage and commitment are the cornerstones of new directions in social
evolution. Such values can be seen in the post-colonial theorising and
practices of Paulus Murray at the Royal Agricultural College in the UK (http://www.royagcol.ac.uk/~paul_murray/Sub_Pages/FurtherInformation.htm
).
In 1990, Ernest Boyer, then President of the Carnegie Foundation
for the Advancement of Teaching, called for new directions for the
Professoriate, in terms of the development of a new form of scholarship. In
1995, Donald Schšn called for a new epistemology for the new scholarship. He
explained that practitioners at all levels of education systems needed to be
prepared to produce their accounts of practice as they sought to improve their
work. Such a vision, he said, carried serious implications for roles, positions
and status; yet it was professionally incumbent on all to work to this end if
they were to stay consistent with their own espoused values of education for
social good. Over the last two decades much work has been done to promote this
view on the ground, and to disseminate the outcomes of its realisation in terms
of the practical theories of teachers. More work needs to be done, not only by
committed individuals, but also by managers and policy makers at systemic
levels.
I perceive this to be happening in South Africa. I believe that
South Africa is especially strongly positioned, given recent history and
efforts to work collaboratively for more peaceful and productive futures, to
make a significant contribution to the democratisation of educational
discourses with particular reference to the democratisation of educational
theory. South Africa has shown the world the potentials of transforming
experiences of social conflict into experiences of social well-being. The
possibility of juxtaposing the potentials of the transformation of educational
theory onto already existing transformations in social experience would send
out highly significant messages to the wider world, and offer potentials for
educative influence on a global level. The contribution of South Africa to the
worldwide knowledge base of professional learning would go far in offering
opportunities for others to learn how to inform the education of their own
social formations.
Margaret Mead (1973, cited in Henderson, 1996: 123) had this to
say: ÔNever underestimate the power of groups of committed citizens to change
the world. In fact, it is the only thing that ever has.Õ The world can learn
from you, about how you are changing your world, in order to change our world.
Your influence is immense. We need to access your accounts of practice, set out
clearly and systematically, so that we can share our expertise and learn from
one another how to do it for ourselves.
References
Boyer, E. (1990) Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities for the
Professoriate. New Jersey, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Chomsky, N. (1996) Power and Prospects: Reflections on Human
Nature and the Social Order. London, Pluto.
Chomsky, N. (2002) Understanding Power: The Indispensable
Chomsky (edited by P.R. Mitchell and J. Schoeffel). New York, The New
Press.
Elliott, J. and Sarland, C. (1995) ÔA Study of ÒTeachers as
ResearchersÓ in the Context of Award-bearing Courses and Research DegreesÕ, British
Journal of Education, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 371Ð386.
Hammersley, M. (1993) (ed.) Educational Research: Current
Issues. London, Paul Chapman in association with the Open University.
Henderson, H. (1996) Building a Win-Win World: Life Beyond
Global Economic Warfare. San Francisco, Berrett-Koehler.
Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R. and Stigler, J. W. (2002) ÔA Knowledge
Base for the Teaching Profession: What would it look like and how can we get
one?Õ, Educational Researcher, Vol. 31, No. 5, pp. 3Ð15.
Hirst, P. (1966) ÔEducational TheoryÕ in J. W. Tibble (ed.) The
Study of Education. London, Routledge & Kegan Paul. Reproduced in M. Hammersley
(1993) (ed.) Educational Research: Current Issues. London,
Paul Chapman in association with the Open University.
Lewin, K. (1946) ÔAction research and minority problemsÕ, Journal
of Social Issues 2(4), pp. 34Ð46.
McNamara, G. (2003) ÔEvaluating the Reflective Practitioner? Ð A
Contradiction in Terms.Õ A paper presented at the Seminar ÔCritical Debates in
Action ResearchÕ, Limerick, University of Limerick.
McNiff, J. with J. Whitehead (2000) Action Research in
Organisations. London, Routledge.
McNiff, J. with J. Whitehead (2002) Action Research: Principles
and Practice. London, RoutledgeFalmer.
Mead, M. (1973) ÔOur open-ended futureÕ, in The Next Billion
Years. Lecture series at the University of California, Los Angeles.
Murithi, T. (n.d.) ÔPractical Peacemaking Wisdom from Africa:
Reflections on UbuntuÕ, Geneva, Programme in Peacemaking and Preventive
Diplomacy, United Nations Institute for Training and Research.
Mbigi, J. and Maree, J. (1995) Ubuntu: The Spirit of African
Transformation Management. Randburg, South Africa: Knowledge Resources.
OÕConnor, D. J. (1956) An Introduction to the Philosophy of
Education. London, Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Peters, R. S. (1965) Ethics and Education. London,
George Allen and Unwin.
Potts, M. (2002) ÔHow can I use my own values and my experience of
schools in South Africa to influence my own education and the education of
others?Õ, progress report, available from http://www.actionresearch.net/module/mpsama.doc
Pring, R. (2000) Philosophy of Educational Research. London,
Continuum.
Schšn, D. (1995) ÔKnowing-in-action: the new scholarship requires
a new epistemologyÕ, Change, NovemberÐDecember.
Said, E. (1995) Orientalism. London, Penguin.
Snow, C. (2001) ÔKnowing What We Know: Children, Teachers,
Researchers. Educational Researcher, Vol. 3, No. 7, pp. 3Ð9.
Straughan, R. and Wilson, J. (1987) (eds) Philosophers on
Education. Basingstoke, Macmillan Press.
Sullivan, B. (2003) ÔDemocratising Practice as a means towards
achieving Social Justice.Õ A paper presented at the Seminar ÔCritical Debates
in Action ResearchÕ, Limerick, University of Limerick.
Tutu, D. (1999) No Future Without Forgiveness. London,
Rider.
Whitehead, A.N. (1957) The Aims of Education and other essays. New York,
the Free Press.
Whitehead, Jack (1989) ÔCreating a living educational theory from
questions of the kind, ÒHow do I improve my practiceÓÕ, Cambridge Journal of
Education, 19(1), pp. 137Ð53. Retrieved 19 October 2003 from http://www.actionresearch.net/writings/livtheory.html
Whitehead, Jack (1993) The Growth of Educational Knowledge:
Creating your own living educational theories.
Bournemouth, Hyde.
Whitehead, Jack (2000) ÔEducative relationships in a new eraÕ, Pedagogy,
Culture & Society 7(1), pp. 73Ð90.
Whitehead, Joan (2003) ÔThe Future of Teaching and Teaching in the
Future: a vision of the future of the profession of teaching Ð Making the
Possible Probable.Õ Keynote address to the Standing Committee for the Education
and Training of Teachers Annual Conference, Dunchurch, October. Retrieved 19
October 2003 from http://www.actionresearch.net/evol/joanw_files/joanw.htm
Young, I. M. (1990) Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton,
New Jersey, Princeton University Press.