Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 11:11
From: Jack Whitehead
Subject: How do i~you~we assess the quality of our practitioner-research?

I’d like to work towards an answer to Harriet’s question ‘What do you mean by ostensive?’ in
relation to the meanings of the criteria and standards we use to assess the quality of our practice-
based research.

How do i~you~we communicate with each other the criteria and standards we use?

Can our communications be connected to the meanings of the 1*,2*,3*,4* which will be used in
the UK 2008 research assessment exercise?

I liked Jane’s action research proposal with her question,

How can I improve my practice as a teacher of student teachers?

In relation to the criteria I use to assess practice-based research, I thought the question a ‘good’
practice-based question because it was firmly grounded in professional practice and the
singularity of the practitioner’s ‘I’ with a responsibility to be accountable to the values that
constitute her educational influence in the learning of herself and her students.

I know that in making this judgement about singularity and responsibility I am influenced by
Bakhtin’s insights:

"As Bakhtin explains "I" do not fit into theory - neither in the
psychology of consciousness, not the history of some science, nor in the
chronological ordering of my day, not in my scholarly duties...... these
problems derive from the fundamental error of "rationalist" philosophy...
The fatal flaw is the denial of responsibility - which is to say, the
crisis is at base an ethical one. It can be overcome only by an
understanding of the act as a category into which cognition enters but
which is radically singular and "responsible". (Rethinking Bakhtin p. 13.)
Morson, G. S. and Caryl Emerson, C. (Ed.) (1989) Rethinking Bakhtin :
extensions and challenges. Evanston, Ill. : Northwestern University Press

I liked Harriet’s practical focus on helping children, parents and responsible adults to improve the
quality of their lives. Because of the importance of the voices of others in any claims we might
make about our educational influence in the learning of others, I'm hoping to see some 'dialogical
evidence' of learning as we move the seminar forward.

So, while I feel some confidence that I am sharing an understanding with you of the criteria we
use to judge the quality of a practice-based question, it would be good to see if you think my
confidence is valid in your terms.

When it comes to judging the quality of our answers to our questions I am less confident that our
understandings are shared. This is where Harriet’s question about the meanings of ‘ostensive’
becomes very important. I know that I judge the quality of an answer to a question of the kind,
‘ How do I improve what I am doing?’ in terms of the validity of the explanation an individual
provides for their educational influences in their own learning, in the learning of others and in the
learning of social formations. Sarah - I've mentioned the seminar to Emma in the hope that she
will participate.

The reason that I value explanations in educational research is that they give me reasons that help
me to understand the other and that I can use in helping me to improve my own educational
influence.

Like Alan, I believe that our (Alan and I) reliance on the logic of domination in the relationships
between the words we use became an addiction. If, like me, you work with this addiction, you may
find it can be broken in becoming open to the flow of new meanings with ostensive recognition
and identification of inclusional, life-affirming, loving, compassionate, and productive, living
standards of educational judgement. What I have in mind are the living standards that Moira
Laidlaw has just drawn attention to at: http://www.jackwhitehead.com/monday/mlstand0605.pdf
(this could take a minute or two to download, but is well worth the wait)

Take the living standard of judgement of developing ‘more of that feeling of mutual happiness
and delight in the other into our work’ in relation to the visual narrative that includes a picture of
the Mother and Child in Moira’s account. Do please see if the visual narrative moves you, through
ostensive recognition, into an inclusional awareness of this relationally dynamic standard of
judgement.

I would like to see Pete developing his account of his educational influence in his own learning as
a parent, friend, magistrate, educator, managing editor and educational researcher, in a way that
shows the meanings of his embodied values of dialogue and relationship. Steve Bridges has sent
me his thesis, ‘My movement through a formalistic boundary: A living methodology of continuous
managerial practice development’ and I hope to have this available next week. Here is an extract
from Steve's Thesis Abstract:

“I try to resolve the balance between my Managerial Practice, my Academic Study and my life as a
Husband and Father. The dialectics occur as my personal values that I hold sacred to my life and
humanity are challenged by the duties expected of me as a Manager within Delphi Diesel
Systems.”

I sense that some participants in the e-seminar might be resistant to assessing the quality of our
practice-based research in terms of four categories that can be connected to the four categories
of 4*,3*,2*,1* in the UK Research Assessment Exercise.

I am suggesting that we make our assessments in a way that connects with the symbolic order of
4*,3*2*1* while at the same time developing our own exchange of meanings of our symbols that
are not derived from the dominating symbolic order of the RAE. What I have in mind are our living
educational theories of the educational influences of our learning, as singularities that connect
with Bourdrillard’s insights in:

Boudrillard, J. (2003) The Violence of the Global. Translated by Francois Debrix. Retrieved 21 June
2005 from http:/; http://www.ctheory.net/text_file.asp?pick=385

Where he asks;

"Who can defeat the global system? Certainly not the anti-globalization movement whose sole
objective is to slow down global deregulation. This movement's political impact may well be
important. But its symbolic impact is worthless. This movement's opposition is nothing more than
an internal matter that the dominant system can easily keep under control. Positive alternatives
cannot defeat the dominant system, but singularities that are neither positive nor negative can.
Singularities are not alternatives. They represent a different symbolic order. They do not abide by
value judgments or political realities. They can be the best or the worst. They cannot be
" regularized" by means of a collective historical action. They defeat any uniquely dominant
thought. Yet they do not present themselves as a unique counter-thought. Simply, they create
their own game and impose their own rules. Not all singularities are violent. Some linguistic,
artistic, corporeal, or cultural singularities are quite subtle. But others, like terrorism, can be
violent. The singularity of terrorism avenges the singularities of those cultures that paid the price
of the imposition of a unique global power with their own extinction……..

Only an analysis that emphasizes the logic of symbolic obligation can make sense of this
confrontation between the global and the singular. To understand the hatred of the rest of the
world against the West, perspectives must be reversed. The hatred of non-Western people is not
based on the fact that the West stole everything from them and never gave anything back. Rather,
it is based on the fact that they received everything, but were never allowed to give anything back.
This hatred is not caused by dispossession or exploitation, but rather by humiliation. And this is
precisely the kind of hatred that explains the September 11 terrorist attacks. These were acts of
humiliation responding to another humiliation"

I am seeing our living educational theories as such singularities. I’m wondering if this is a shared
insight in our seminar?

Love Jack.