Teacher
self-study for exploring effective practices of inclusion: in the context of engaging
with student cultural diversity in the Curriculum – What works?
Yaqub Murray,
Jack Whitehead, Department of
Education,
Interactive session at the HE Academy Forum on Engaging
with Student Cultural Diversity in the Curriculum – What works?, at the Graduate Centre, London
Metropolitan University, Wednesday 26th October 2005
Summary
What we intend to do - Using access to web pages we
intend to demonstrate how Jack knows 'what works' for him, and
others, in the engagement of student cultural diversity focusing on his PhD
supervision as a critical self-reflective practice of Self-Study and Living
Educational Theory. Jack's living commitment to Self-Study
of teacher education practices is mune, open and welcomingly inclusive of
yours, mine, and his own. Jack's educational and political
influence on the social formation of curricula in Higher Education Academies
owes much to his joint publications with Jean McNiff. They have developed
a unique approach to evidence-based practice in the form of twenty
years of PhD supervision of students, in cultural diversity. Jack
will show how he creatively and critically encourages students to craft their
own curriculum within the 'formal' curriculum in ways that work in students'
own terms, and against the benchmark of doctoral theses legitimized by the
Academy. Jack has a remarkable web archive, that breathes and grows,
pointing to his commitment to engage with his own knowledge accounts of 'what
works?' in his own engagement with Self-Study of his inclusive and emancipatory
practice. Yaqub will explore 'what works' for him through a personal
narrative of inclusivity in which he hopes to show how as a
mixed-race, mixed heritage, white~brown, Muslim with indigenous
traces, his multiple-practices as a doctoral educational researcher,
as senior lecturer, as College diversity adviser, as a Masters programme
facilitator, as a change consultant, and as a counselor, in
short, his nomadic and border life as an educator is the very
evidence of what seems to be working in his engagement with student cultural
diversity in the curriculum. While, simultaneously, Yaqub explains how his
consciousness of the significance of first-person evidence of
'what works' in second person (with colleagues and students) and third
person (the College and wider Academy) contexts of student cultural diversity
has been augmented by his current doctoral Self-Study. Both Jack and Yaqub
have, together, nurtured a project since 1999 in which we explore White
and White with Black Teacher Identities, which has led them both toward
developing a research nomadology that includes a compassionate and critical
conversation with racism, critical race theory, whiteness postcolonial subject
positions, and inclusional identities as loyalty to humanity.
Notes for
Yaqub Murray’s contribution
1. Overture:
Honoring and celebrating our tracks together – Today’s
interactive session has its genesis or ‘rootprints’ in a journey
that began nearly ten years ago when I first met Jack Whitehead. In 2000 we
presented a paper at the American Educational Research Association in New
Orleans in which we began an enquiry, which continues in different and diverse
ways, to captivate our mutual fascination and curiosity as we ask a question of
the kind, How do we account for what it means to us to be white, and black with
white, educators? (Murray and Whitehead, 2000). This is the enquiry that has
brought us here today as we apply our own journey of scholarship and life
affirming enquiry to the theme of today’s interactive session.
What I would like to contribute through this session is my energy for an
open, engaged, dialogical exploration of what seems to work for me, and for us,
in terms of my/our engagement as educators with student cultural diversity in
British Higher education.
The process of engagement I focus on in these notes is my supervision of
more than a hundred undergraduate and taught Masters Dissertations since 1995.
The relationship that can be sustained in the supervision relationship,
I believe, is a most creative site for resistance in the face of totalizing
curricula.
I contribute to the formal curriculum and educational provision of a
business school through subject lecturing in organization studies, HRM, and
action research.
In addition I continue to craft two hidden curricula activities in the
form of the MSc in Management Studies by action research that I designed and
now facilitate, and my teaching of postcolonial studies wherever my friends
allow me some space in the curriculum of their courses and programmes.
Since 1993 I have been a College race equalities and generic diversity
adviser. I am finding creative ways to weave this work into my teaching
activities as a hopeful/helpful contribution to systemic cultural change in the
College.
My aim in these notes is to frame my understanding of my inclusive
practice as an educator that I continue to develop through Self-Study and
writing (Murray 2002, 2004) and this is an educative practice that has helped
me to demonstrate in my one hundred plus supervisions of undergraduate and
taught postgraduate dissertations a commitment to the expression of my students’
creativity and selfhood, keeping in mind what matters for them in terms of
their cultural and existential diversity.
By Self-Study I am referring to an established approach to teacher
research in the Academy that foregrounds story, narrative and autobiographical
reflexivity -
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/17425964.asp
The story I have in mind is a research story of my practice. What
distinguishes a research story from other kinds of stories that I use in my
pedagogic practice is that a research story is formalized, disciplined and held
open to public scrutiny in the form of an emergent doctoral thesis. However, in
anticipation of my thesis I have a web page that serves a similar function,
that of announcing my story, or as indigenous people might express this, of
leaving the traces of my life path.
http://www.rac.ac.uk/~paul_murray/default.htm
Recently my story was enriched and augmented by Ochre Doyle. Ochre is a grass roots indigenous Australian woman in the final
units of a two year Masters of Indigenous Social Policy at
http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gnibi/
Ochre emailed to thank me for the tracks I had left
online (on my web page) of my own life journey and sent me some of her
recent writing to honour that. Ochre is also a beautiful artist. My evidence of the
inclusivity of my web page is held in Ochre’s recognition of my tracks,
my traces and my life path. And in this I feel ‘seen’ by Ochre.
Being seen is a crucial relational gesture for non-Western people.
My unfolding narrative is one that explains how I work in inclusive and
relational ways in British education as a mixed-race, mixed heritage educator
who both likes to be seen, and likes to see the student in her/his learning
journey. I have for the past fifteen years, been developing a practice of
engagement – ‘engaged pedagogy’ after bell hooks (2003) -
with student cultural diversity in my College. Like bell hooks, I imagine my
practice to be a pedagogy of hope.
Key to my notion of ‘cultural diversity’ is the idea that my
cultural referents are not Western, white and British; instead they are
Griqua-European, southern African, Islamic, and white~brown with indigenous
tracks and traces. There is ‘cultural diversity’ in British HEI’s
to be sure. Though I am no longer certain that ‘cultural diversity’
has quite the same meaning as when I write and speak of multicultural living,
which is what I appreciate and aspire to in these difficult racist times in
which multiculturalism has become unfashionable. Though there is no escaping
the reality of my practice; every time I supervise the dissertation of a white
student in my College I feel privileged, challenged and excited to be working
with the ancestors of those who colonised my people. Rather than the Empire
Writes Back, it also seems to educate, and supervise, too. I never cease to
find this historical reversal, rather than revisionism, most fascinating, and
the socially reality construction flowing from a learning relationship with a
white student still tickles me pink. You see, when I refer to engaging with
student cultural diversity I have in mind the diversity of those students who
are white, British, and ‘Western’. For me, given my subject
position and how I designate my identity as a performativity of what it is not
to be white and Western, working with white students is an engagement with
student cultural diversity from my gaze from the angle of the colonies. That I
am able to gain the trust, sustain relationship and friendship, subordinate
whiteness as loyalty to humanity in the inclusive space of two, with white
students is what counts for me as evidence of ‘what works’ for me
in engaging with student cultural diversity in the curriculum. This phenomenon
of engagement is the subject of my Self-Study.
Self-Study is a vital form of educational theorising because the
researcher is a teacher-practitioner – in this case my research, my teaching, my self as practitioner -
engaged in an intentional self-study of his/her practice in action. I agree
with Coghlan and Brannick (2005) when they suggest that Action Research –
and in my view Self-Study, too – is where the inquiry process is a value
in itself.
However, to reassure those of a more positivistic bent that the criteria
I draw upon to validate the generation of ‘good knowledge’ through
Self-Study are rigorous, I would point to researcher authenticity, inclusional
practice, critical self reflection, listening in a state of humility, and being
available to the other, and the craft skill of framing a compelling ‘research
story’ as key criteria of quality that I choose to hold myself
accountable to as a practitioner-researcher. I would ask those who prefer
positivism as a route to knowledge to keep in mind Coghlan and Brannick’s
(2005) helpful reminder that,
The action
research paradigm requires its own quality criteria. Action research should not
be judged by the criteria of positivist science, but rather within the criteria
of its own terms (page 27).
Self-Study of my practice as a teacher has become a powerful and trusted
process for crafting a particular narrative of my practice in the form of a
living educational theory account (Whitehead, 1993), and living educational
theory is a member of the extended family of action research approaches to
inquiry.
I am sharing my story with you today because mine is a passionate
commitment to multicultural inclusivity as a progressive and ‘grassroots’
educator. I am senior lecturer (Lecturer B equivalent) and at 53 years old I do
not seek, nor do I anticipate promotion in my College.
My HEI now has a public statement of ‘strategy’ in which the
aspirations of equal opportunities and multicultural diversity are clearly
claimed to contribute to what is influencing the development of the
institution. In this context, the relationship between what I do, and who I am
as an educator form part of my contribution to institutional change and
transformation within my College. I am a change agent, a potential for change
in my College, and so my agency counts.
Set against this strategic intent is what I recognise, and Robert Jensen
refers to in his book, the Heart of Whiteness (2005), as a performance of
lingering white supremacy and monoculturalism: what feels like a paralyzing
vestige of whiteness, a particular form of power relations in whiteness-centred
societies such as UK that have the effect of stultifying institutional ‘cultural’
change in ways that ‘disappear’ the multicultural other. While I
follow Jensen’s literary depiction of what is meant by ’white
supremacy’ (pages 3-7 of his book), my definition of white supremacy as a
College race equalities and generic diversity adviser is, realistically, more
anodyne. I tend to draw on numerical and quantitative data to explore the ridge
and furrow of the multicultural landscape of my agricultural HEI. Up to and
including this academic year the College has never registered a student from an
African Caribbean (Black) heritage, and the registration of African British and
Asian students is a mere trickle of the overall white population of the
College. That I encounter a situation where I am the only member of the
academic staff who asks in public spaces why this might be (for example, in
College meetings, and email exchanges) provides evidence of my empirical
approach to defining ‘white supremacy’ in a British HEI.
British BME staff and students simply do not exist in my College: we are
not present, we are not included, and we are not a part of ‘their’
landscape. We are the invisibly Othered. We disappear in the glare of
whiteness.
After many years of teaching in the College during pre-public funding
days in which I was actively subversive as a conscious political choice, I now
find myself in an accommodation with the equalities aims and purposes of the
College where there is much more congruity between who I am, my values as an
educator, and what my College now espouses as being important. HEFCE funding
has made a difference. And this begs a question: How do I make a difference of
engagement with student cultural diversity in the curriculum of a publicly
funded College?
That is the story I’d like to share with you today. I’d like
to explore it with you today for the value it holds and the insight it provides
into the question – What works for me as I engage with student cultural
diversity in the curriculum?
To support that discussion, I’d like to provide some brief notes
on two themes –
- context
- what it means for me (and how I sustain meaningful and purposeful
teaching) as a mixed-race educator in a frighteningly white HEI
- the
students I’ve worked with – spaces of love, challenge,
realization and selfhood
2. A Context
for my Engagement:
I am a multicultural and postcolonial educator. I describe myself this
way because I believe that postcolonial studies has proved important and
developmental for my competence and sensitivity in analyzing contemporary Western
society and illuminating the socio-political context in which I seek to
practice inclusive education. By
inclusive I mean an education that is ontologically and epistemologically accepting
of my students transformation of self-knowledge from a tacitly held quality, to
a profoundly spirited and expressive public account in which the students own
consciousness of her/his personhood is taken as the very grounds for knowledge.
My commitment to inclusivity arises from my passionate hatred of
apartheid and my encounter with my Griqua grandmother’s humiliation by
racist apartheid laws supported by white social mores. I am descended from the
Khoikhoin and Griqua of southern
I work in an Academy which seems to be caught in a crisis of self-representation. Barnett (1999) explains that by 'post-modern' and 'postmodernity' he means the post-modern world we are actually in. By 'postmodern' and 'postmodernism' he means a philosophical position which he repudiates. I do not travel with Barnett into this rendering of a context for contemporary British Higher Education. I believe that part of the challenge facing British HEI is the impact on epistemology and methodology of the tradition of the ‘P’s as Pushkala Prasad (2005) rather elegantly states – postmodernism, poststructuralism, and postcolonialism. Each of these ‘P’s’ represents a rich new vein of critical social theory. It is because I share Prasad’s insights that I am able to engage with Barnett’s suggestion that the university has to realize itself in an age of supercomplexity, where a situation of supercomplexity exists when one is faced with multiple frameworks of understanding, of action, and of self-identity.
http://www.prs-ltsn.leeds.ac.uk/generic/solt/barnett.html
Central to my engagement with student cultural diversity is the response of some of my students to those multiple frameworks of understanding, as they choose between action and passivity in giving meaningful expression to their lives, to which I attend in the capacity of loyal midwife, or travelling companion, as required of me by the other, and which in turn revolves around an existential matter of self-identity.
Who am I in this research enquiry and dissertation is a question that students working with me frequently ask and urgently want to respond to in the form of research enquiry, and this despite an active discouragement of my students by some of my peers, and by some external examiners, who do not accept that the realization of selfhood is a legitimate goal or aspiration of the College curriculum. Within my difference or diversity from the dominant paradigm concerning what constitutes curriculum, pedagogy and learning in my College is embedded my commitment to engage in my practice of (multi-)cultural diversity, working with those students who choose to work with me, while enriching my own multicultural potential in order to live my humanity more fully.
The world in which Higher Education is
situated is rapidly globalizing (Boje, Gephart, and Thatchenkerry, 1996). A feature
of this globalisation is empire, the American new world order, and the flexing
of British neo-colonial muscle in
I teach against this violence, the violence of global capitalism with its characteristic convergence of the social, political, cultural and military in the new imperialism (McLaren and Farahmandpur, 2005). I have developed a pedagogic approach to working with students which I am describing in my doctoral thesis as a postcolonial critical pedagogy. I challenge performativity, sharing Lyotard’s 1979 view of the ‘terror’ of ‘systems performativity’ that is homogenizing, totalizing and naturalising. As an educator I want to denaturalise the world and subject the seemingly natural to deconstruction. I want to bring anarchy to disrupt and subvert the status quo. I have to walk a finely balanced line between my agenda and the self-realization of my students because imposition is always close by. In extending my consciousness of what this delicate balancing act means for my pedagogic actions I am engaging with a persistent notion of student cultural diversity as a quality of humanity to be protected against the fiat of those who control, and those educators who, like me, seek to work for good in an educative sense, but who can also self-delude when reason is subordinated to the frenzy of educational passion.
I teach reaching out towards a ‘Post-Racial’ world while keeping in mind the realism expressed by Farhad Dalal (2002) in his book, Race, Colour and the Processes of Racialization, which he chose to reiterate at a recent day conference at the University of the West of England on the psycho-social dimensions of groups and racism (May 2005):
“I agree that the capacity for racism is not the sole privilege of the white or the ‘West’, however, at this moment in historical time not only do the notions of black and white dominate contemporary dynamics of racism in Britain, the structure of power relations are such that blacks have the larger burden to bear in regard to racism and tend to be the primary recipients of the negative consequences of racism” (page1).
Like Loomba et al (2005), I am finding it productive in my supervision of my students work to move beyond tightly held and narrow definitions of postcolonialism. I am embracing globalisation, and forms of scholarly enquiry that ‘travel’ under different names, like ‘travelling theory’, and ‘border pedagogy’, which seem in fact to be postcolonial in both intent an impact. I share Loomba et al’s hopes where they write,
“Thus the beyond in the title of this volume…charts a path between utopianism and ‘hip defeatism’, as much by renewing engagements with analytical models developed by older anticolonial thinkers as by positing new forms of critique that will address the ideological and material dimensions of contemporary neo-imperialism.” (p.4).
In explaining the context for Higher Education, I am increasingly drawn to the work of Henry Giroux ( 2001; 2001, and Myrsiades) who questions with rigour and passion the distraction of higher education away from being influenced by educative and democratic values, in favour of ‘market values’ that are icons of commodification and that are now ubiquitous in the Academy.
I am beginning to grapple with the notion that market values and student cultural diversity are mutually incommensurable and this begs the question, ‘How can educators and students work together to ensure the primacy of those embodied values that will enable an inclusive curriculum, a curriculum in which student cultural diversity is not a ‘thing’ to be treated with ‘equality’ but is a constituent of the living process of a democratic and emancipatory education, and one that mirrors my sensory experience of walking down East Ham high street?’
3.
Students I’ve worked With – Plotting a Pedagogy
of Hope and Tracing what Works:
On my web page you can access details of the action research, and other dissertations I’ve supervised. What I would like to do today is talk through my account of my experience of what has worked in supervising some of my students. The student stories of multicultural engagement I’d like to share with you are those of Nceku Nyathi, Kunwal Khan, Lisa Wooding, Claudia Llanes-Canedo, Anne-Lise Riise Jensen, Steve Bridges, Andrew Bayliss, Polis Pantilides, Carrie Milsom, Pei Shuang, James Staples, Debbie Smith, and currently Katy Simon, and Gilly Peck.
Each of these students represents, for me, and to some extent for them, too, I imagine, a voyage of multicultural engagement.
What seems to have worked with them points to the creation of a concept of curriculum that is not totalizing, that is far from homogenizing, that is in flux, that is emergent, mutual, and has a vital intersubjective quality of ‘mutual availability’. Each one of these stories of engagement while supervising student research enquiry do seem to constitute a living archive of knowledge of ‘what works?’ for me in engaging with student cultural diversity seemingly ‘within’ the curriculum, while actually transcending the most constraining aspects of the formal curriculum. What seems to work is finding agreement with students, creatively and respectfully in each case, about what counts as a productive and meaningful research enquiry. Enabling students to talk freely about their difference, their needs and wants which may appear to be ‘culturally’ different from the established College culture is to engage with student diversity. Talking freely about difference is to envisage what an alternative curriculum could look and feel like. It enables students to come to the realization that their diversity is expressed in the processes by which they mediate their formal curriculum, and the space of supervision becomes an oasis of curricula alterity. These stories are not generalizable, nor are they replicable. However, in their particularity I believe they have a rich rigour of relatability (Bassey, 1995), in which we can see ourselves, literally and metaphorically, in ways that add a heuristic dimension to our ways of engaging with student cultural diversity in the curriculum.
Providing, of course, there is a mutual willingness to abandon the ‘Curriculum’ for curricula inventiveness.
References
Barnett, R. (1999) Realizing the University in an Age of Supercomplexity, Open University Press, 2000,
Bassey, M (1995), Creating Education Through Research: A Global
Perspective of Educational Research for the 21st Century, Kirklington
Moor Press
Boje, D., Gephart, R. and Thatchenkerry,
T.J. (eds.) (1996) Postmodern Management and Organization Theory,
Coghlan, D, and Brannick, T. (2005) (2nd
edition) Doing Action Research In Your Own
Organization,
Dalal, F. (2002) Race, Colour and the Processes of Racialization, Hove: Brunner-Routledge
Giroux, H. (ed.) (2001) Theory and
Resistance in Education,
Giroux, H., and Myrsiades (eds.) (2001)
Beyond the Corporate University,
Hooks, b. (2003) Teaching Community: A Pedagogy of Hope
Hardt, M., and Negri, A. (2000) Empire,
Jensen, R. (2005) The Heart of Whiteness:
confronting race, racism and white privilege,
Loomba, A., Kaul,
S., Bunzl, M.,
McLaren, P., and Farahmandpur, R. (2005) Teaching Against Global Capitalism and the New Imperialism : A Critical Pedagogy, Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers
Murray, Y P J (2004) http://www.bath.ac.uk/~edsajw//bera04/pmbera1.htm - Speaking in a Chain of Voices ~ crafting a story of how I am contributing to the creation of my postcolonial living educational theory through a self study of my practice as a scholar-educator, 2004
Murray, Y P J (2002) http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Mutse+Atsi&btnG=Google+Search
Keeping in Mind my Epistemic Responsibility: self, other and connecting lineage
Prasad,
P. (2005) Crafting Qualitative Research: Working in the Postpositivist
Traditions, M. E Sharpe
Whitehead, J. (1993) The Growth of Educational Theory: Creating Your Own Living Educational Theories, Hyde Publications
Notes for Jack Whitehead's contribution
What I am seeking to do in this contribution to our interactive session is to provide evidence of what works as I engage with student cultural diversity in the curriculum in Higher Education. I will analyse the evidence in terms of a self-study of an exploration of effective practices of inclusion in my work at the University of Bath. The analysis connects to the mission of the University in that it focuses on the creation of the living theories of educational influences in learning of professional practitioners. These living theories are offered as a distinct academic approach to the education of professional practitioners in our universities that fosters high achievement and promotes original inquiry, innovation and collaboration.
Because misunderstandings can sometimes be caused by differences in our understandings of the words we use I want to begin with my meanings of the words, culture, diversity, curriculum, inclusion, self-study, effective practice, living educational theories, postcolonial and whiteness.
In my understanding of 'culture' I use Edward Said's meanings:
As I use the word, 'culture' means two things
in particular. First of all it means all those practices, like the arts of
description, communication, and representation, that have relative autonomy
from the economic, social, and political realms and that often exist in
aesthetic forms, one of whose principal aims is pleasure. Included, of course,
are both the popular stock of lore about distant parts of the world and
specialized knowledge available in such learned disciplines as ethnography,
historiography, philology, sociology, and literary history.....
Second, and almost imperceptible, culture is a concept that includes a refining and elevating element, each society's reservoir of the best that has been known and thought. As Matthew Arnold put it in the 1860s.... In time, culture comes to be associated, often aggressively, with the nation of the state; this differentiates 'us' from 'them', almost always with some degree of xenophobia. Culture in this sense is a source of identity, and a rather combative one at that, as we see in recent 'returns' to culture and tradition. (Said, pp. xii-xiv, 1993)
To illustrate what I am meaning by cultural diversity I use the following statement from a text on Educational Theory: A Qur'anic Outlook (Abdul-Rahman Salih Abdullah, 1982, p.35)
There exists in Islam a mechanism for consulting the believers, the Shura, which is an integral part of Islam. However the system in Western democracy whereby the majority decides what is lawful and what is not, can never be acceptable in Islam, where the laws and framework of society are revealed by Allah and are unchangeable. (Abdul-Rahman, 1982, p. 35)
to contrast this with the system referred to in representational forms of Western democracy where a majority vote empowers the lawmakers to decide what is lawful and what is not.
In my
concept of the curriculum I distinguish between the given curriculum and
the living curriculum. I see the given curriculum in Pinheiro's
(2005) terms as a connective link between teacher and student, organized in such
a way to achieve goals previously set by the teacher, the learning organization
or by the curriculum specialists:
I
advocate the definition of curriculum that supports a complex network of
physical, social and intellectual conditions that shape and reinforce the
behavior of individuals, and takes in consideration the individual's
perceptions and interpretations of the environment in order to reinforce the
learning objectives and to facilitate the evaluation procedures. (Pinheiro,
2005)
In my view of a living
curriculum an individual exercises an educational influence in their own
learning as they engage with the given curriculum. It is through the responses
of the living curriculum to the given curriculum that the individual creates
their own form of life.
I am using inclusion
to mean the relationally dynamic awareness that Alan Rayner (2005) understands
as inclusionality. In this form of awareness space and boundaries are
experienced, perceived and understood as connective, reflexive and co-creative.
In the analysis of what works below I shall explain more fully the significance
of inclusionality as I distinguish propositional, dialectical and inclusional
logics in the curriculum and knowledge-base of Higher Education.
In using the idea of self-study
in relation to my own teaching I am drawing on my understandings as a founder
member in 1992 of the Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices (S-STEP)
Special Interest Group of the American Educational Research Association. As I
said in my account of what counts as evidence in S-STEP research (Whitehead,
2004a).
I do
want to be clear that I am not starting with a conceptual definition of the
'Self' in the form of a linguistic abstraction. I am starting from the
experience of my own enquiring 'I', in questions of the kind, 'How do
I improve what I am doing?'. I am starting from the assumption that you, I, and
others, experience the content of our own enquiring 'I' and can make sense of
this content. I am assuming that we can communicate the content of the embodied
knowledge in what we are doing in a way that transforms it into public
knowledge. This assumption carries Patti Lather's notion of the ironic validity
that the embodied knowledge can never be represented as it is, in and for
itself:
First the practical problem: Today there is
as much variation among qualitative researchers as there is between qualitative
and quantitatively orientated scholars. Anyone doubting this claim need only
compare Miles and Huberman's
(1994) relatively traditional conception of validity <'The meanings emerging from the data
have to be tested for their plausibility, their sturdiness, their 'confirmability' – that is, their validity' (p.11)> with Lather's discussion of ironic validity:
"Contrary to dominant validity
practices where the rhetorical nature of scientific claims is masked with
methodological assurances, a strategy of ironic validity proliferates forms, recognizing that they are
rhetorical and without foundation, postepistemic,
lacking in epistemological support. The text is resituated as a representation
of its 'failure
to represent what it points toward but can never reach.... (Lather, 1994,
p. 40-41)'." (Donmoyer,
1996 p.21.)
By effective
practice I am referring to what I do as a university academic in my
educational research and teaching. My research in focused on
the generation and testing of educational theories. My teaching is
focused on the supervision of higher degrees in education and not on
undergraduate programmes. Much of what I believe about my effective practice is
flowing through web-space in the form of my own living educational theory and
the living theories of practitioner-researchers whose educational enquiries I
have supervised. You can access the evidence of my effective practice at http://www.actionresearch.net/ and
question my belief that the living theories flowing through web-space are
contributing to the transformation of what counts as educational knowledge and
theory in the Academy.
When I write about living
educational theories I am meaning the explanations that individuals produce
for their educational influences in their own learning in enquiries of the
kind, 'How do I improve what I am doing?' I use this idea of living theories to
distinquish these explanations from the explanations
of education generated by the propositional theories of the philosophy,
psychology, sociology, history, economics, politics, theology, leadership and
management of education. I see the development of such
living theories as helping to fulfil the mission of the University of Bath. The
University has a distinct academic approach that emphasises the education of
professional practitioners, fosters high achievement and promotes original inquiry,
innovation and collaboration. (University of
Yaqub Murray (2005) has
influenced my understandings of the significance of integrating postcolonial
insights and the power relations of whiteness into my living educational
theory. I relate to postcolonialism as I do to postmodernism as highly original
transformations of perception that inform how I make sense of my experience and
the world in which I live. I trace my postcolonial values to the awesome
recognition at the age of 6, on seeing images of Auschwitz concentration camp,
that human beings were capable of exterminating other human beings on the
grounds of racial characteristics. I later came to appreciate that this
systematic extermination was supported by a racist ideology:
It
was and it is Jews who bring the Negroes into the Rhineland, always with the
same secret thought and clear aim of ruining the hated white race by the
necessarily resulting bastardization, throwing it down from its cultural and
political height, and himself rising to be its master. (Adolf Hitler, My Struggle. The
Jewish Virtual Library http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/kampf.html
)
Within critical race
theory institutionalised racism can be analysed using whiteness to mean
the power relations that sustain white supremacy and white privilege. In
understanding how I can be perceived by others as sustaining whiteness I seek
to demonstrate and sustain a loyalty to humanity, understood as treachery to
whiteness (Race Traitor 2005), by ensuring that I am supporting the
knowledge-creation and legitimation of the living theories of individuals from
different cultural contexts. I am thinking of individuals whose living
theories, flowing through web-space http://www.bath.ac.uk/~edsajw/living.shtml
, are enhancing the values that carry hope for the future of humanity.
Having explained my meanings of the above words I now want to use them in my teacher self-study
Exploring effective practices of
inclusion in the context of engaging with student cultural diversity in the
curriculum – what works?
The evidence that
something has worked is in the living theory and masters programme sections of http://www.actionresearch.net/
I imagine that academic
colleagues in Higher Education will recognise that the 19 successfully
completed living theory doctorates, http://www.bath.ac.uk/~edsajw/living.shtml
all by practitioner-researchers who have engaged in self-studies of their own
professional practices with my supervision and graduated between 1995-2005,
show that something has worked effectively in my supervision without detracting
from the primary motivations of the researchers themselves. The successfully completed living theory
masters degree dissertations, with individual educational enquiries http://www.bath.ac.uk/~edsajw/mastermod.shtml
, also show that something has worked effectively. In thinking about what has worked effectively
I shall concentrate on the working of the individual researchers in relation to
their cultural diversity, then on my understanding of what has worked
effectively in my educational influence in my own learning, in the learning of
others and in the learning of social formations.
What and who has
worked effectively?
In each of the living
theory doctorates at http://www.bath.ac.uk/~edsajw/living.shtml the individual practitioner-researchers have
created their own living curriculum in expressing their originality of mind and
critical judgement, their contribution to knowledge and the extent and merit of
their work. These are criteria used by the University of Bath and other
Universities to judge a doctoral thesis. In each thesis the individual
researcher has explained their educational influence in their own learning as
they seek to live their values more fully in what they are doing. These values
have worked to sustain the motivation and commitment of the research to a
successful completion. Each individual can be understood in terms of the unique
constellation of values they use to explain why they are doing what they are
doing. It is the ontological and embodied nature of the values that can explain
what has worked. I mean this in the sense that each individual expresses a
life-affirming meaning and purpose in the values they are seeking to live as
fully as they can. Here is the list of who has worked effectively in creating
their own living theory as their higher education curriculum. The theses
explain what has worked effectively in terms of the values and
knowledge-creating activities of each researcher.
Eames, K. (1995) How
do I, as a teacher and educational action-researcher, describe and explain the
nature of my professional knowledge? Ph.D. Thesis,
Evans, M.
(1995) An action research enquiry into reflection in
action as part of my role as a deputy headteacher. Ph.D. Thesis,
Hughes, J.
(1996) Action planning and assessment in guidance contexts: how can I understand
and support these processes while working with colleagues in further education
colleges and career service provision in Avon. Ph.D.
Thesis,
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,
D'Arcy, P.
(1998) The Whole Story..... Ph.D. Thesis,
Loftus, J. (1999) An
action enquiry into the marketing of an established first school in its
transition to full primary status. Ph.D. thesis,
Whitehead, J.
(1999) How do I improve my practice? Creating a discipline of education
through educational enquiry.
Cunningham, B.
(1999) How do I come to know my spirituality as I
create my own living educational theory? Ph.D. Thesis,
Finnegan,
(2000) How do I create my own educational
theory in my educative relations as an action researcher and as a teacher? Ph.D. submission,
Austin, T.
(2001) Treasures in the Snow: What do I know and how do I know it through my
educational inquiry into my practice of community? Ph.D.
Thesis,
Mead, G. (2001)
Unlatching the Gate: Realising the Scholarship of my Living Inquiry.
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?
Delong, J. (2002) How Can I Improve My Practice As A Superintendent
of Schools and Create My Own Living Educational Theory?
Scholes-Rhodes,
J. (2002) From the Inside Out: Learning to
presence my aesthetic and spiritual being through the emergent form of a
creative art of inquiry.
Roberts, P. (2003) Emerging Selves in Practice: How do I and others create my
practice and how does my practice shape me and influence others?
Punia, R. (2004) My CV is My Curriculum: The Making of an International
Educator with Spiritual Values.
Hartog, M.
(2004) A Self Study Of A Higher Education Tutor:
How Can I Improve My Practice?
Church, M. (2004) Creating an
uncompromised place to belong: Why do I find myself in networks? Ph.D.
University of Bath Retrieved
Naidoo, M. (2005) I am Because We Are. (My never-ending story) The emergence of a living theory of inclusional and responsive
practice.
I think of teachers who
have explicated their embodied knowledge in their living educational theories
as master educators. You can access the living theories of such master
educators, from a range of cultural and ethnic contexts, and who are working in
Singapore, Argentina, UK and Japan, at:
Leong (Kok) P. (1991) Action Research: The Art of an
Educational Inquirer.
http://www.bath.ac.uk/~edsajw/peggy.shtml
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?
Adler-Collins,
J. (2000) A Scholarship of Enquiry.
Grandi, B. (2004) - An action research expedition: how
can I influence my students in developing their creativity and critical
thinking? M.A. University of Bath http://www.bath.ac.uk/~edsajw/grandi.shtml
Walsh, D. (2004) How do I improve my leadership as a team leader in
Vocational Education in Further Education?
Potts, M. (2005) How can I improve my practice by communicating more
effectively with others in my role as a professional educator?
http://www.jackwhitehead.com/monday/mpmadis.pdf
Why has the what and the who, worked effectively?
In the acknowledgements
section of each doctoral thesis there is an affirming reference to my
influence. Doctoral supervisors are rightly not permitted to examine the theses
of their own students at the University of Bath. Hence my belief that the
affirmations are made freely rather than with any coercive power that might be
felt by the researcher!
Here are some of the
insights I bring into my self-study of my effective practices of inclusion.
While ideas from each form of knowledge or field of enquiry may appear
distinguishable in a list, they form interconnecting and branching networks of
communication in my understandings.
I recognise the vital
significance of the economic in living a productive life. My parents were most
aware of this. They pointed out that a degree in science in the early 1960s
would provide entry to a range of economic possibilities. They were right. The
joint honours degree in Chemistry and Physics from Durham University did give
me entry into the economy as I became a teacher. My following engagements with
the philosophy, psychology and sociology of education for an Academic Diploma
in 1970 and then a Masters Degree in 1972 in the psychology of education at the
My doctorate on the
creation of a discipline of education through educational enquiry, from the
University of Bath in 1999, was moved by a passion to reconstruct educational
theory into a form of understanding that could explain the educational
influences of individuals in their own learning, in the learning of others and
in the learning of social formations. My move to the University of Bath in 1973
was motivated by this passion. In my earlier writings I have analysed the
educational influences in my learning from responding to threats to my
employment in 1976, to rejections of two previous doctoral theses submitted to
the University of Bath in 1980 and 1982, to the mobilisation of the
disciplinary power of the university in a claim that my activities and writings
were a challenge to the present and proper organisation of the University. I
have analysed these responses in terms of the living meanings of my valuing of
academic freedom and of holding a creative space for knowledge-creation
(Whitehead, 1993, 2004b).
In my self-studies for
exploring effective practices of inclusion I have been aware of the importance
of insights from theories of psychoanalysis, psychotherapy, philosophy,
psychology, sociology, history, economics, politics, theology, science and
cosmology.
Time and space does not
permit me to cover, at this moment, all the influences that have influenced my
self-study of effective practices of inclusion. What I have done in the
web-based contribution to our interactive session is to draw attention to what
I understand as most significant influences in my self-study as I follow the
Socratic dictum, Know Thyself.
I believe that the most
significant qualities that explain my effective practice of inclusion are that
I love what I do and that I communicate to my students my life-affirming
pleasure in being with them with their embodied knowledge, values and enquiry.
In the photograph of Madeline Church following her graduation with her doctorate
in July 2005 in the Bath Abbey Churchyard, I see the expression of such
life-affirming pleasure being expressed by Madeline. You can access the
knowledge created by Madeline in her thesis from the live web-links above. I
think you will see from her Abstract, with its points about her resistance to
bullying, why I value so highly the recognition by the Academy of her
originality of mind and critical judgement and the extent and merit of her
work.
I believe my capacity to communicate my love for
what I do with a flow of life affirming pleasure has been influenced by my
psychoanalytic insights from the work of Anna Freud (1968) on mechanisms of
defence and on pathology and normality in childhood (Freud, 1965). Cho (2005)
has provided an analysis from the work of Jacques Lacan on love that I find
helps to explain my effective practice of inclusion. My expression of love for
what I do is expressed as an affirmation of value for the other's
knowledge-creation. I agree with Cho when he says that with love, education becomes an open space for
thought from which emerges knowledge. For Cho, as for me, it is important to
make clear that in explaining the educational influence of love in learning,
between two or more people in an educational relationship, it is not a matter
of 'merely caring for one another, nor
do they pass knowledge between each other' It is a matter of seeing that love
opens a space for those in educational relationships to 'preserve the
distinctiveness of their positions by turning away from one another and toward
the world in order to produce knowledge through inquiry and thought' (Cho,
2005. p. 95).
In expressing love for
what I do as a free-flow of energy of well-being, I have found helpful a psychoanalytic
understanding of some of the mechanisms of defence that connect with pathology.
I want to be clear here that I am not advocating any specific psychoanalytic
framework for understanding pathology and well-being. I am simply acknowledging
that my own understandings of mechanisms of defence have helped me to
understand issues of projection, transference, intellectualisation and
sublimation that can assist in enhancing the flow of the energies of well-being
in the love for what I do. I find therapeutic, in the sense of enhancing a flow
of a pleasure of well-being, the expression of love for what I do.
In my passion for
freedom and my ability to articulate the significance of this passion I have
been influenced by the psychological analyses of Erich Fromm in Man for
Himself, The Fear of Freedom, The Art of Loving, The Revolution of Hope, The
Sane Society, To Have or to Be. One of Fromm's (1960) insights about freedom
continues to influence me where he said that if a person can face the truth without
panic he will realise that there is no purpose to life other than the purpose
he gives to his life through his relationships and productive one. Fromm said
that we are faced with the choice of uniting with the world in the spontaneity
of love and productive work or of seeking a kind of security that destroys our
integrity and freedom.
Fromm (1949) also
introduced me to the distinction between the productive and marketing
personalities and I continue to use his idea of living a productive life in
accounting to myself for the worthwhileness of what I do. I continue to find
inspiration in a point about affirmation from the early writing of Marx on what
it is to produce something as a human being. In answering the question what is
it to produce something as a human being Marx said that we are twice affirmed.
Suppose we had produced things as human
beings: in his production each of us would have twice affirmed himself and the
other.
In my production I would have
objectified my individuality and its particularity, and in the course of the
activity I would have enjoyed an individual life, in viewing the object I would
have experienced the individual joy of knowing my personality as an objective,
sensuously perceptible, and indubitable power.
In your satisfaction and your use of my
product I would have had the direct and conscious satisfaction that my work
satisfied a human need, that it objectified human nature, and that it created
an object appropriate to the need of another human being.
I would have been the mediator between
you and the species and you would have experienced me as a redintegration
of your own nature and a necessary part of yourself; I would have been affirmed
in your thought as well as your love.
In my individual life I would have directly created your life, in my individual activity I would have immediately confirmed and realized my true human nature. (Bernstein, 1971, p. 48)
Because the explanations of educational influences in living educational theories are connected to the meanings and purposes the individual gives to their life, they are experienced as ontological and embodied values. I am thinking of values as flows of life-affirming energy that motivate us to do what we do. I am thinking of such values, in Bataille's terms, as assenting to life up to the point of death. (Bataille, 1987, p.11) In my own understanding of such life-affirming energy I am aware of its inclusion and flow with the cosmos from spaces outside myself. In my readings of theology I have been fascinated by the ways theologians articulate their theistic beliefs in relation to this life-affirming energy while I acknowledge my sense of mystery and non-knowing of its source in my own non-theistic spiritual experiences and understandings.
For example, I like Tillich's language of being grasped by the power of being-itself when he says:
Faith is not a theoretical affirmation of something uncertain, it is the existential acceptance of something transcending ordinary experience. Faith is not an opinion but a state. It is the state of being grasped by the power of being which transcends everything that is and in which everything that is participates. He who is grasped by this power is able to affirm himself because he knows that he is affirmed by the power of being-itself. In this point mystical experience and personal encounter are identical. In both of them faith is the basis of the courage to be. (Tillich, 1962, p,168)
For Tillich, the power of being-itself is intimately related to his theistic belief in a God. In my non-theistic spirituality I recognise the vital significance of the power of being-itself as a life-affirming energy and a mystery I do not name.
I also like Buber's poetic expression of the meanings of I-You relations in his I and Thou, without moving with Buber
into his relationship with God.
In vain you seek to reduce this I to something that derives
its power from itself, nor can you limit this You to
anything that dwells in us. Both once again deactualize
the actual, the present relation, I and You remain; everyone can speak the You and then becomes I......
(Buber, p. 117, 1970)
I also feel myself bringing Buber's insight about the special humility of the educator into my practices of inclusion:
"If this educator should ever believe that for the sake of education he has to practise selection and arrangement, then he will be guided by another criterion than that of inclination, however legitimate this may be in its own sphere; he will be guided by the recognition of values which is in his glance as an educator. But even then his selection remains suspended, under constant correction by the special humility of the educator for whom the life and particular being of all his pupils is the decisive factor to which his 'hierarchical' recognition is subordinated." (Buber, p 122, 1947)
My educational practices of inclusion are also influenced by my historical, sociological and philosophical understandings of what explains social reproduction and what explains social transformation in relation to issues of social justice, compassion, ideology, values, knowledge and power relations.
Going back to Hitler's Mein Kampf serves to remind me of the potential and real effects of ideology on in the reproduction, transformation and destruction of social formations. The work of Bourdieu on the 'habitus' serves to raise questions about the power relations that serve to sustain an existing social order:
"The objective adjustment between
dispositions and structures ensures a conformity to objective demands and
urgencies which has nothing to do with rules and conscious compliance with
rules, and gives an appearance of finality which in no way implies conscious
positing of the ends objectively attained. Thus, 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)
I recognise the influence of Bourdieu's sociology as I seek to bring into my awareness and understanding the autonmatisms of the habitus that influence the reproduction and transformation of social formations. I also recognise the influence of Bernstein's (2000) sociology where he points out the centrality of education in the production and reproduction of distributive injustices:
Education is central to the knowledge base of society, groups and individuals. Yet education also, like health, is a public institution, central to the production and reproduction of distributive injustices. Biases in the form, content, access and opportunities of education have consequences not only for the economy; these biases can reach down to drain the very springs of affirmation, motivation and imagination. In this way such biases can become, and often are, an economic and cultural threat to democracy. Education can have a crucial role in creating tomorrow's optimism in the context of today's pessimism. But if it is to do this then we must have an analysis of the social biases in education. These biases lie deep within the very structure of the educational system's processes of transmission and acquisition and their social assumptions. (p. xix).
In the creation of living educational
theories in the context of the education of social formations, I integrate and
work towards Bernstein's two conditions of an effective democracy. His first
condition is that people must feel that they have a stake in society. His
notion of stake has two aspects to it, the receiving and the giving. People
must feel that they have a stake in both senses of the term. His second condition
is that people must have confidence that the political arrangements they create
will realise this stake, or give grounds if they do not.
In the creation of living educational theories in the education of social formations I seek both the inclusional affirmations of what Bernstein refers to as the solidarities of mythological discourses and an educational engagement with hostile forces that undermine the affirmations of inclusion, from the social arrangements of society.
" By creating a fundamental identity, a discourse is created which generates what I shall call horizontal solidarities among their staff and students, irrespective of the political ideology and social arrangement of the society. The discourse which produces horizontal solidarities or attempts to produce such solidarities from this point of view I call a mythological discourse. This mythological discourse consists of two pairs of elements which, although having different functions, combine to reinforce each other. One pair celebrates and attempts to produce a united, integrated, apparently common national consciousness; the other pair work together to disconnect hierarchies within the school from a causal relation with social hierarchies outside the school." (p. xxiii)
In other words, in the creation of living
educational theories I do not disconnect hierarchies within an organisation
from the social hierarchies outside the organisation. In saying this I
recognise the importance of the individual's imagination in seeing possibilities
that can serve, in the evolution of a social formation, to live values of
humanity more fully. You can see evidence of the importance of an individual's
imagination in seeing such possibilities in Margaret Farren's accounts of how
she has developed a pedagogy of the unique through a web of betweenness at
Habermas' (1976) early work on the legitimation crisis in relation to what counts as knowledge in the Academy continues to influence my focus on extending and transforming the units of appraisal and the logics and standards of judgement in what counts as valid educational knowledge (Whitehead, 2004).
What I valued particularly in my study of philosophy was epistemology with its focus on the unit of appraisal, standards of judgement and logic in claims to knowledge. I followed Popper's (1963, p. 317) rejection of dialectical theorising, with its nucleus of contradiction, as entirely useless because dialectical theories appear to embrace contradictions between statements. I accepted Ilyenkov's (1976) dialectical theorising with his nucleus of living contradiction. I understood the significance of his question, 'If an object exists as a living contradiction what must the thought be (statement about the object) that expresses it?'
I believe that one of the original contributions my research has made to educational theorising is the academic legitimacy of including 'I' as a living contradiction in claims to educational knowledge and in the creation of living educational theories. In relation to standards of judgement I think an original contribution is the legitimacy of living epistemological standards of judgement in living theories. These living standards are formed from embodied ontological values in the course of their emergence in the practice of enquiries of the kind, 'How do I improve what I am doing?' Moira Laidlaw (1996) introduced me to the idea of living standards of judgement and to the recent development of this idea in the idea of living collective~individual standards of judgement. This idea originated in conversations between Moira Laidlaw and her colleague Li Peidong in their research in China's Experimental Centre for Educational Action Research in Foreign Languages Teaching (CECEARFLT), hosted by Guyuan Teachers College. For substantial evidence of what works in teachers' self studies for exploring inclusion and engaging with students' cultural diversity in the curriculum I can recommend the living theory accounts flowing through web-space from http://www.bath.ac.uk/~edsajw/moira.shtml While the five years of Moira Laidlaw's influence on Voluntary Services Overseas at Guyuan Teachers College in China has been recognised in her 2004 award as a 'Friend of China', Moira is the first to recognise the educational influence of Dean Tian Fengjun. Dean Tian Fengjun is Dean of the Faculty of Foreign Languages and Director of CECEARFLT. He is developing the systemic influence (Marshall, 2004) of a culture of educational enquiry (Delong, 2002) in the college as he explores the implications of asking questions of the kind: How can I help my colleagues in the three Action Research groups to move from competence to performance in their professional roles as living educational theorisers?
A recent transformation in my epistemology has occurred in my understanding of inclusionality as a relationally dynamic awareness of space and boundaries (Rayner, 2005 http://www.bath.ac.uk/~bssadmr/inclusionality/). The recent legitimation of living inclusional standards of judgement in Marian Naidoo's (2005 http://www.bath.ac.uk/~edsajw/naidoo.shtml ) thesis on the emergence of a living theory of inclusional and responsive practice, has established passion for compassion as a living, inclusional and responsive standard of practice and judgement.
In seeking to reconstruct what counts as educational theory and knowledge in the Academy I am mindful of MacIntyre's point:
The rival claims to truth of contending traditions of enquiry depend for their vindication upon the adequacy and explanatory power of the histories which the resources of each of those traditions in conflict enable their adherents to write. (MacIntyre, 1988, p. 403)
In this self-study for exploring effective practices of inclusion in the context of engaging with student cultural diversity in the Curriculum I have focused on what works. What seems to have worked is a relational dynamic in educational relationships in which the teacher can show self-study accounts, including his own, of learning from experiences, ideas, values and cultural contexts that the student recognises as relevant to their own. What seems to have worked is the expression, in the educational relationship of a flow of life-affirming energy. I am thinking of a life-affirming energy that communicates pleasure in the practitioner-researchers existing embodied knowledge. I am thinking of a life-affirming energy that carries a faith that communicating living theories will enhance the flow of values, skills and understandings that carry hope for the future of humanity.
Having explained what works I am aware that the creative space I have managed to hold open at the University of Bath owes its existence to the political integrity and activities of others who supported me in my resistance to being overwhelmed and eliminated from this creative space by sustained, constraining and destructive pressures. I am using political in the sense of living values in the context of power relations that influence the reproduction, transformation and destruction of social formations. I have drawn your attention to where you can access an account of my educational influences in my own learning between 1973 to 1993 when faced with these pressures (Whitehead, 1993, http://www.bath.ac.uk/~edsajw/bk93/geki.htm ). Others, like Yaqub, have said that they have found my narrative useful in understanding some of the pressures they are facing as they seek legitimacy for living educational theories in their own Higher Education Academy. The use-value is in the feeling of sharing a struggle to include the living educational theories of individuals in the knowledge-base of the Academy. Understanding the nature of the power relations that support the constraining and destructive pressures can be helpful in resisting and transcending them. I am thinking of these power relations in terms of the political actions of others who seek to retain the ideological hegemony of academic judgements that eliminate dialectical and inclusional understandings from the Academy. These actions can be experienced and understood as they are expressed in university examination boards as forums of constrained disagreement over the nature of the units of appraisal, the standards of judgement and the logics of educational enquiry and educational theory. Resisting the pressures that constrain academic freedom and supporting the values of originality of mind and critical judgement that carry hope for the future of humanity justify, for me, the continued existence of the Universities.
In conclusion I just wish to restate my hope that our interactive contribution, to this Higher Education Academy Forum, with its resources for learning flowing through web-space, is playing its part in developing a distinct academic approach to the education of professional practitioners that fosters high achievement and promotes original inquiry, innovation and collaboration.
References
Abdul-Rahman, S. A.
(1982) Educational Theory: A Qur'anic Outlook.
Bataille, G. (1987) Eroticism. London, New York; Marion Boyars
Bernstein, B. (2000).
Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity: Theory, Research, Critique.
Lanham, Boulder, New York, Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Bernstein, R. (1971)
Praxis and Action,
Bourdieu, P. (1990) The Logic of Practice. Cambridge: Blackwell.
Buber, M. (1947) Between Man and Man. London; Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner
& Co. Ltd.
Cho, D. (2005) Lessons of love: psychoanalysis and teacher-student love. Educational Theory, Volume 55. Number, 1 pp. 79-95.
Delong, J. (2002) How Can I Improve My Practice As A Superintendent of Schools and Create
My Own Living Educational Theory?
Farren,
M. & Whitehead, J. (2005) Educational
influences in learning with visual narratives. A paper and video-conference presentation at
the Diverse Conference 2005 5 July, 2005 http://www.bath.ac.uk/~edsajw/monday/mfjwwebped2.htm
Freud,
A. (1965) Normality and Pathology in Childhood.
Freud, A. (1968) The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defence. London; Hogarth Press.
Fromm, E. (1949) Man For Himself.
Fromm,
E. (1960) The Fear of Freedom, p. 18,
Habermas,
J. (1976) Legitimation Crisis.
Ilyenkov,
E. (1976) Dialectical Logic.
MacIntyre, A. (1988) Whose
Justice? Which Rationality? Duckworth;
Marshall, J. (2004) Living systemic thinking: Exploring quality in first-person action research.
Action Research Vol 2
(3) 2004 pp 309-329
Murray, Y. (2005) Welcome to my multiracial and inclusive
Postcolonial Living Education Theory - practice, research and
becoming. Retrieved 21 October 2005 from http://www.rac.ac.uk/~paul_murray/default.htm
Naidoo, M. (2005) I
am Because We Are. (My never-ending story) The emergence of a
living theory of inclusional and responsive practice.
Pinheiro, V. The Curriculum. Retrieved 21 October 2005 from
http://www.vucapinheiro.com/vucapage/meaning.htm
Popper,
K. (1963) Conjectures and Refutations,
Race Traitor (2005) retrieved 20 October 2005 from http://racetraitor.org/
Rayner, A. (2005) Essays and Talks About Inclusionality. Retrieved 21 October 2005 from http://www.bath.ac.uk/~bssadmr/inclusionality/
Said, E. (1993) Culture
and Imperialism,
Tillich, P. (1962) The
Courage to be.
Whitehead, J. (1993) The
Growth of Educational Knowledge.
Whitehead, J. (2004) What Counts as Evidence in the Self-studies of
Teacher Education Practices? - in Loughran, J. J.,
Hamilton, M. L., LaBoskey V. K & Russell, T. (eds) (2004) International
Handbook of Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices. Dordrecht;
Kluwer Academic Publishers
Whitehead, J.
(2004b) Do action researchers' expeditions carry hope for the future of
humanity? How do we know? An enquiry into
reconstructing educational theory and educating social formations. Action Research Expeditions, October 2004.
Retrieved 21 October 2005 from http://www.arexpeditions.montana.edu/articleviewer.php?AID=80