Date: June Sun, 26 2005 16:05
Reply-To: Brian wakeman
Subject: Fwd: "non-inclusionality"

Dear Colleagues,

I have decided to share my e-mail to Jack with you all. I have been wanting to raise issues that are real for
me and may be of concern or interest to others. I hope I do not offend, but rather open up discourse
for the common good.

Kind regards

Brian
(Convener of BERA SIG Practitioner Research Group

_____________________________________
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 10:21:13 +0100 (BST)
From: Brian wakeman
Subject: "non-inclusionality"

Hi Jack,

I'm writing to you first, because I sincerely want to avoid giving offence, or stirring frustration or
resentment from colleagues on the JISCMAIL.

I have been wanting to express some impressions about the conversations on our JISCMAIL, but have not
been A1 after an operation for bladder tumours..

I have followed the conversations, contributing occasionally publically and replying privately.

What I've noticed is a real risk of " non-inclusionality" by the the non-standard English,
the rather esoteric discourse. The juxtaposition of words, density of expressions and almost impenetrable
phrases, long clauses of the language that at times gives rise to feelings of marginalisation, and
disempowerment in me.

(I've been associated with action-research for twenty-five years: CARN Steering Group, EAR Journal
editorial panel, AR projects like TIQL, running workshops in UK Spain, Ireland Austria etc...)...so if
I get these feelings maybe others do to?

If you'll forgive my temerity, to understand the language of several contributors it's almost as if the
reader needs induction into a latterday saints 'new gnosticism'. There is a dense jargon, convoluted
sentences, inaccessible language. As I've tried to read all the mails, my impatience and
frustration has grown: not with colleagues involved, but with the specialised almost 'cryptic' phraseology
that Bath and satellites has accepted. Some e-writing on the site I have found almost unintelligible.

Now of course this may be the effects of medication, sleep deprivation in my recovery period, or the limits
of my cerebral functions. I guess I lack understanding of some concepts and the language of particular
discourses. I am ready to accept deficit in my own powers, and gentle correction about my perceptions.

What worries me in relation to the e-discourse is that we are in danger of a new tyranny: the power of language to exclude and marginalise the very people we want to engage in practitioner research. I want AR to speak to people I meet in an intelligible way. I want folks to be able to make sense of whatt they are hearing.

I've been associated with AR for over twenty five years (CARN; TIQL Project; EAR Journal editorial
panel; running workshops at home and abroad). If I (with guilt, and reluctance to express it) feel this
way, I guess other may feel the same sense of exclusion and spectatorship at some new ball game that
you ought to understand but find baffling.

I want AR to communicate with the folks I meet (having retired as teacher, school leader), and now as
advisor, trainer, PGCE assessor. I'm afraid some of our writing is like a cryptic crossword, inaccessible, unless you have the means and techniques of possible ways of solving the clues, the'gnosis' of the right ontolology, or social theory.

I've looked at some of the web sites you kindly recommended in Canada, at Sarah's students' impressive
web-pages, at Bridget's teachers' accounts in the IT AR project with great relief and proved myself wrong!
Accessibility is not a problem. People tell their stories, relate theoretical concepts to their work,
analyse and theorize in the language of the people, or profession.

Articles in the EAR Journal vary, but generally speaking, the language is accessible. I feel I have
something of a grasp of what they are talking about. Then another series of e-mails arrives from JISCMAIL
with the same linguistic inaccessibility, jargon-barriers, with attendant feelings of frustration and anxiety. 'I ought to understand'. 'I must be more patient'

In this second phase I feel we need to address the issues of the politics of action-research language:
esotericism; feelings of disempowerment; the new 'gnosticism',legitimacy for insiders with this
powerful new language and knowledge, surrounding ourselves with inpenetrable jargon that excludes
outsiders(even some friends), a danger, of ironically, at worst, a new kind of colonial tyranny, and
exclusion by discourse language, and at best risking alienating readers in the various professions.

Secondly , as we've discussed previously I believe we need to think further about appropriate language for
specific audiences.

Thirdly I am surprised that 'truth-tests', methodological checks and balances, validity, generalisability, the cute "C's" ( coherence; comprehensiveness; compatibility; congruence; criticality; community; etc) have not been discussed.
The traditions and cannons of anthropological research, historical case study research methodology,
" Beyond the Numbers Game"; the influence of ethnography and qualitative research on AR, and the
epistemology of 'claims to know'`do not appear to have been invoked or discussed.

Do you think our discourse might attract criticism that it has echoes of subjectivism, or the conversation of support group therapy?

Is there an avoidance of discussing and critiquing previous writing about methodological issues?

Well I feel better at having got this 'off my chest', but am still anxious that I might have caused offence.

For the greater good, Brian