How have I engaged with the power relations in the academy in supporting the self-studies of practitioner-researchers?
Jack Whitehead
School of Education, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY
A paper presented to the Symposium on:
How do we co-create and share our educational knowledge and theories through talking together in our self-studies of our educational research and practices?
American Educational Research Association Conference, March 24-28 1997, Chicago.
Introduction
In the successful proposal for this symposium (Appendix) the objectives included a presentation to show how I am contributing to creating a space in the Academy to enable the self-studies of practitioner researchers to be validated and accredited for M.Phil. & Ph.D. degrees. I based the title of this paper on a modification of the question asked by Trapedo-Dworsky and Cole (1996) at AERA 1996:
How do we, as a community of researchers committed to self-study both in theory and in practice, create a legitimate space for ourselves and our work both within our own institutions and within the broader educational and academic community?
In the proposal I said that I would draw on insights from Habermas (1987), Foucault, (1977), MacIntyre (1988), Bernstein (1991), and Bataille (1987), to show how I have engaged and am engaging with the power relations in one Academy in a way which contributes to answering Ardra's question.
I said that the data source would include previous publications on the story of my educational development in the academy between 1973-1993, (Whitehead 1993) and data on my work with my research students, including the two Ph.D. studies of Eames (1995) and Evans (1995), would be analysed in relation to my educational development (1993-1997).
I have extended this data source to include two further Ph.D. self-studies of Laidlaw (1996) and Hughes (1996) and experiences from collaborating with Pam Lomax, Zoe Parker and Moyra Evans (Lomax, Evans, Parker, Whitehead,1997) and with Jackie Delong (Delong & Whitehead 1997) in joint presentations at this conference.
Engaging with the power relations in the Academy.
I am writing this on the 12 March 1997, 21 years to the day when a Mr. K. Wright, the Personnel Officer of Bath University signed a letter which included the following statements clearly intended to end my employment at the University of Bath:
The Academic Staff Committee grounds for recommending that a new appointment should not be offered are as follows:
1.That you have not given satisfaction in the teaching of prescribed courses..
2.That there is an absence of evidence to suggest that you have pursued research of sufficient quality ...
3.That you have exhibited forms of behaviour which have harmed the good order and morale of the School of Education.
It is a matter of chance that I am writing to you on the 21st anniversary of this letter. Nevertheless I can use this contingency to explain why, once a year on this anniversary, I 'like' to revisit my experience of receiving this letter and regenerate my fury at the abuse of institutional power which this letter represents to me. I think an understanding of my fury can help to explain my engagement with the power relations in the Academy and the source of my energy to persist in the face of pressure.
When I see Mr Wright's name on this letter I feel violently angry. I 'like' to keep in touch with this 'violence' as it represents my insistence that individuals, as far as possible, take responsibility for their actions. It fires my commitment to engage with the power relations in the Academy to support the power of truth rather than the truth of power. I can use the energy in Bataille's (1987, p. 20.) sense of a violence matched by the separate individual's sense of continuous violation, to help to explain my educational development.
In my book on the Growth of Educational Knowledge (Whitehead 1993) I analysed how I created my living educational theory in describing and explaining my educational development in my professional practice as an educational researcher and teacher-educator. In this analysis I integrated insights about the role of the specific intellectual from the work of Michael Foucault (1977), Habermas' criteria of social validity from his theory of communicative action and his view of the importance of learning (Habermas 1987, p . 383). For example:
I accept Foucault's (1977) distinction between the 'specific intellectual' as opposed to the 'universal intellectual'. He says that for a long period the 'left' intellectual was acknowledged as a champion of truth and justice. The universal intellectual was a spokesperson of the universal in the sense of moral, theoretical and political choices. In opposition to the universal intellectual, he describes the specific intellectual in terms of an engagement in a struggle at the precise points where their own conditions of life or work situate them. Foucault takes care to emphasise that by 'truth' he does not mean 'the ensemble of truths which are to be discovered and accepted'. By 'truth', he means the ensemble of rules according to which the truth and false are separated and specific effects of power attached to the true. The struggles 'around truth' are not 'on behalf' of the truth, but about the status of truth and the economic and political role it plays.
(Whitehead 1993, p.81)
In offering the account of my educational development as I engage with power relations associated with the legitimation of self-study I agree with MacIntyre's (1988) point that:
The rival claims to truth of contending traditions of enquiry depend for their vindication upon the adequacy and the explanatory power of the histories which the resources of each of those traditions in conflict enable their adherents to write.
(p.403)
I also agree with Bernstein's (1991) point about the importance of the question which Derrida compels us to confront when he speaks of affirmation:
For all their differences (and speaking past each other) Derrida does not disagree with Habermas on the symbiotic relation between critique and affirmation. He forthrightly declares ‘I cannot conceive of a radical critique which would not be ultimately motivated by some sort of affirmation, acknowledged or not.’. He also says ‘every culture and society requires an internal critique as an essential part of its development..... every culture needs an element of self-interrogation and of distance from itself, if it is to transform itself.’ The question that Derrida compels us to confront when he speaks of affirmation is: what precisely are we affirming and why?
(p. 317).
I now want to extend my understanding of my engagement with the power relations in the academy in supporting the self-studies of practitioners by focusing on the political, ethical and legal implications of naming colleagues who are influencing my educational development in relation to the values of academic integrity.
In the Growth of Educational Knowledge (Whitehead 1993, pp. 41-52) I describe my experience of having two Ph.D. submissions rejected in 1980 and 1982, each submission being judged and rejected by three examiners. The rejections were made on grounds which included the judgements that I had not shown that I was able to conduct original investigations and to test my own ideas and those of others and that the thesis did not contain matter worthy of publication.
On approaching the University with a complaint about the competence of my examiners I received a letter which stated that:
Once the examiners have been appointed, their competence cannot in any circumstances be questioned.
This was the position until 1991 when the University regulations were changed to permit such questioning on the grounds of bias, prejudice or inadequate assessment. The regulation was not to operate retrospectively.
In 1987 the Secretary and Registrar wrote a letter, following a disciplinary meeting to hear complaints made by two Professors of Education, which claimed that my activities and writings were a challenge to the present and proper organisation of the University and inconsistent with the duties the University wished me to pursue in teaching and research. In 1990 colleagues brought this to the attention of the University Senate who set up a working party to investigate on a matter of academic freedom. The conclusion of their report to Senate in May 1991, contained the point:
The Working party did not find that, in any of Mr. Whitehead's seven instances, his academic freedom had actually been breached. This was, however, because of Mr. Whitehead's persistence in the face of pressure; a less determined individual might well have been discouraged and therefore constrained.
In understanding this persistence in the face of pressure I want to suggest that Bataille's insights into eroticism are important. He said that eroticism is assenting to life up to the point of death (Bataille 1987, p.11). He writes of the energy associated with this assent to life. My fury is engaged with this life-assenting force which enables me to persist in the face of pressure, and to engage with both the power relations which support the power of truth in order to transcend, overcome or move around those which support the truth of power. I associate such life-assenting forces with the commitment to 'subordinate all else to the search for a standpoint that brings out the fundamental unity of the human spirit' (Bataille, 1987, p. 8.).
Exploring the political, ethical and legal implications of naming colleagues who have influenced my educational development in the course of my research.
I now want to focus on the importance of the power relations and the value of academic integrity associated with the creation of a legitimate space for practitioner research. I want to focus on the legitimation of four Ph.D. Theses and the questions which their legitimation might raise for the academic integrity of members of the Board of Studies which recommended three of the Theses for acceptance to the Senate of the University of Bath. Here are the details of the examiners, researchers and titles of the four Ph.D. Theses:
- Prof. Michael Bassey and Prof. Jean Rudduck for Moyra Evans' (graduated Feb. 1997) An action research enquiry into reflection in action as part of my role as a deputy headteacher. Ph..D. Kingston University. Supervisors, Pam Lomax and Jack Whitehead.
- Prof. Ian Jamieson and Prof. Michael Bassey for Jacqui Hughes' (Graduated Dec. 1996) Action planning and assessing in guidance contexts: how can I understand and support these processes? Ph.D. University of Bath. Supervisor Paul Denley and advice from Jack Whitehead.
- Prof. Chris Day and Prof. David Sims for Kevin Eames' (Graduated June 1996) How do I, as a teacher and an educational action-researcher, describe and explain the nature of my professional knowledge. Ph.D. University of Bath. Supervisor, Jack Whitehead.
- Prof. Morwenna Griffiths and Prof. Richard Winter for Moira Laidlaw's 1995 submission:
How do I, as a teacher and an educational action-researcher, describe and explain the nature of my professional knowledge? Supervisor, Jack Whitehead.
and her 1996 resubmission:
How can I create my own living educational theory as I offer you an account of my educational development? Supervisor, Jack Whitehead.
(Moira's graduation day is in June 1997)
The criteria used to accredit Ph.D. Theses in the School of Education of the University of Bath are:
- shows evidence of industry, application and scholarship
- forms a distinct and original contribution to knowledge
- contains matter worthy of publication
- displays knowledge and understanding of the relevant literature
- is satisfactory as regards style and literary presentation
My explanations of my educational development in my professional context, grounded in self-study, includes my learning as I reflect on the influence of the actions, ideas and relationships of others on my development. The law is clear about academic freedom:
Academic staff have freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom, and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions, without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or privileges they may have at their institutions
(Education Reform Act, 1998).
The ethical implications of my naming colleagues whose actions, ideas and relationships have influenced my educational development is less clear. In carrying out an action enquiry of the kind, 'How do I help you to improve your learning?', I have always insisted that the participants in such an enquiry should be free to chose to engage and that their consent is required before publications of papers in which they are named. In carrying out an action enquiry of the kind, 'How do I improve what I am doing?', I have resisted the idea that anyone else's permission is required. I recognise the law dealing with academic freedom and if I name anyone in a way which is open to legal challenge, then I am subject to the law.
Let me give some examples of what I mean starting in what I hope are uncontentious academic responses to the actions, ideas and relationships of two of my colleagues, Dr. William Scott and Dr. Andy Stables in relation to their influence on my educational development.
On 22nd November 1996 the Times Educational Supplement (p.20) published an article by Michael Bassey, the executive secretary of the British Educational Research Association, called: We are specialists at pursuing the truth. He referred to my work in the following way:
The action research movement, stemming from Stenhouse's work on teachers as researchers (in an Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development 1975) and developed by people like John Elliott, Jack Whitehead, Pamela Lomax, Marian Dadds, Bridget Somekh and many other teachers in higher education and in schools has shown how research methods can enhance the quality of learning - in individual situations.... That part of action research which is concerned with reflective practice engages teachers in exploring and articulating aspects of their practice. The result often leads the individual teacher to create for himself/herself worthwhile change.
This is why Jack Whitehead argues strongly for putting the ‘I’ into research - which is, of course anathema to the traditional scientist.
This stimulated the following response from Bill Scott (1997) which was published, with a reply from me in the University of Bath, School of Education, Research Students' Newsletter, Issue No.4 January 1997:
Reflections on Michael Bassey's Valorizing of Jack Whitehead's Pursuit of Truth.
Michael Bassey (TES 22 November 1996) makes a number of points about the differences between the need to relate educational research findings to particular circumstances, and our ability to generalize about such findings for all contexts. He argues strongly for the use of case studies as means of suggesting to other practitioners about how their work in schools might be developed and extended. Bassey says that 'relatability rather than generalizability is the methodological stance needed' and then goes on to argue that the audiences for educational research output (whether practitioners or policy-makes) are 'overall... concerned with the pursuit of truth'.
Now, I'm generally in tune with Bassey's interpretivistic stance on methodology but am I alone in being confused about the contradiction in what he seems to be saying, that is, in wondering how readily such relatability sits with the rather traditional positivist notion of 'truth'. Is 'the pursuit of such truth' really what (all) educational researchers are about?.....
Bassey goes on to say some kind things about Jack Whitehead's (and others) contribution to our understanding of the power of action research to enhance the quality of learning and teaching in schools and I wouldn't want to gainsay any of that, but I do want to question two issues. Firstly, I wonder why action research is continually valorized as, by implication, the approach to take, and sometimes as the only approach to research worth a mention. Clearly, it's not, and Bassey does the practices of education and educational research a disservice by perpetuating this myth. Secondly, I wonder why action research is afforded the status of a methodology, when most of the time, it seems to me that it is a straightforward research method which is capable of being employed in a wide range of contexts and disciplines, and in different ways, to different ends.
In his published response to Michael Bassey, Bill chose the title: Reflections on Michael Bassey's Valorizing of Jack Whitehead's Pursuit of Truth. Now, the choice of the word Valorizing in the sense of 'giving value to in order to privilege over other ways of seeing/doing/thinking', or ' to fix and maintain an artificial price for a commodity' (Collins 1986) was not value-free. I checked with Bill and his choice of 'Valorizing' was intended 'critically'. I have responded to Bill's article (Whitehead 1997) by explaining the grounds for my belief in the value of living educational theories (Noffke 1997). In responding to his criticism I became clearer about the grounds I use for believing that the living educational theories in the named theses are original contributions to educational knowledge which deserve 'valorizing' in the sense that they have fulfilled the above criteria for the award of a Ph.D. The four Ph.D. Theses which I do believe show clearly the nature of living educational theories and which are contributing to the expression, definition and communication of new educational standards of judgement can be downloaded form the Internet at address:
E-mail:
I value this kind of correspondence and conversation because it enables criticism to be evaluated as part of my learning, and refuted or accepted where appropriate.
Dr. Andy Stables is another colleague who has recently published references to my work in the context of a paper which explored the basic assertion that all educational experience can be seen as text (Stables 1996 p.12). Andy states:
Discourse analysis, critical theory and other forms of textual analysis and response have been used in a variety of educational research contexts. Winter (1991) goes so far as to suggest that response to the texts that constitute educational experience is so important that a 'fictional-critical' method of analysing educational experience is desirable, involving the conscious construction of fictional narrative as a response to educational events, which can then be further analysed by readers. Winter stresses the importance of response to data as opposed to the mere existence of data in governing the creation of theory.
Arguably, a similar belief in response is implicit in the work of the actions researchers, particularly those such as Whitehead (1993), who place emphasis on autobiographic account as a means of attempting to resolve the conflicts inherent in the 'I' who experiences and determined professional practice. Laidlaw (1994) specifically examines the importance of dialogue and shared experience in this question......
It has been argued that modern understandings of the terms 'language' and 'text' enable us to see all human interaction in terms of text. It has also been argued that every kind of educational research involves the creation of a new text (a supertext) by distilling material from source texts; it is merely in the manner of this distillation that research methodologies differ.