Literature Use for this Practitioner (prepared draft for thesis, 2004, Dianne Allen)p.1

Literature Use for this Practitioner

Dianne AllenMy first step in an investigation is to gather data/information about what is new and unknown tome - the problem that has arisen for me. The second step is to analyse and synthesise theinformation gained from the gathering process, with a view to considering: Where does this leadme?; What is a reasonable action outcome addressing the problem that has arisen for me?Chapters 2 and 3 of my draft thesis mirror this kind of investigatory process. I indicate myfindings from a general review of the recent literature of the field focused towards this study.In the process of reaching that point, I examined the following for each of the identifiedcomponents - learning, inquiry and evaluation:

•

Selected stories, derived from my practice experience, which demonstrate theway in which certain aspects of learning, inquiry and evaluation have become distinctand salient for me.

•

What are the essential aspects of learning, inquiry and evaluation that I need tofocus on as I seek to identify its ‘practice’ implications. Some of that examinationincludes acknowledging my currently formed understanding of these concepts - the premises I take into the process.Once I have introduced, scoped and refined the issues that I am engaging with in a study, I thenseek to take into account the work of others relevant to my aim of improving my practice.There are a number of ways to approach and use the literature in scholarship:1.To scope the field and place a particular inquiry in its relevant context, indicatingin what way it builds on current knowledge, and/or fills an identifiable gap2.To confirm that there is no previous study of a particular issue in a way thatanswers the inquirer’s question about that issue3.To identify what previous study of a particular issue has found, and to engage incritical review of such findings: how soundly based are they?; how relatable are they tothe particulars of a practitioner’s practice?; when assessed by the practitioner do theysuggest reasonable action to try in-action?4.To undertake an intentional survey of the extant literature, to gather, to converge,to engage in critical analysis of the work of other scholars in the field, and perhapsgenerate a novel synthesis moving the field forward. Examples that come to mind thatare associated with my inquiry interests include (Candy, 1991; Abraham, 1994).5.If an inquirer has a clear hypothesis, the literature can be used to test thehypothesis with the documented findings of others in the field.Where there is an appreciable body of literature on an issue it can be extensive enough to makethe task of comprehensive review a thesis in its own right. Given the body of literature onlearning, on inquiry, on evaluation, I do not claim to be comprehensive in my review. Rather, Ihave had to apply the risky ‘practical’ criteria to this unit of the study (being limited, by timeand energy resources available, to only some of the literature).One technique in applying a practical frame is to look closely at those items which endeavour tosurvey the field. The results of those reviews are then taken on trust, on authority, providing Iam satisfied that the methodology of the review was soundly based, and the interpretation was afair one. But note, at the point of taking the results on trust, I am reliant on someone else’ssense of validity, reliability, their capacity to analyse, evaluate and synthesise. Further, at the

Literature Use for this Practitioner (prepared draft for thesis, 2004, Dianne Allen)p.2

point of deciding to take the results on trust, I will have exercised my evaluative criteria(whatever they may be) on what I have read, and how I have understood it.Another technique relevant to building knowledge is to look at material which identifies‘disconfirmatory’ results, to see what can be learned from the process of the contestation of theconcept. The efficacy of this technique can be thwarted by the phenomenon that when aconcept is ‘new’, ‘fresh’, experientially ‘relatable’, and capable of being embraced by many as asort of homecoming, it is often difficult to present, and have accepted for publication, thecontrary view, unless the author with the contrary view is already renown. If the author withthe contrary view is already renown, then their contribution can also be interpreted as the ‘oldschool’, ‘conservatism’ challenge; and their challenge may be from an inappropriatemethodological and/or epistemological and/or ontological frame. Schon notes some of this inone his final published articles (Schon, 1995) when in his concluding remarks he says

"… new forms of scholarship call for a new institutional epistemology. If the scholarship of synthesis, application, or teaching requires that the scholar contribute toknowledge according to norms shared and developed within a community of inquiry,then the new scholarship cannot achieve legitimacy within an institution exclusivelydedicated to technical rationality - the epistemology around which the modern researchuniversity was originally established and which still underlies its key institutions."

A third approach relies on the assumption that material generated most recently is likely to havetaken into account some of the earlier material. In this instance the ‘practical’ approach is tolook at the literature from a reverse chronological frame using the most recent and going backwards through it. However, this latter approach courts the risk of ‘conventionality’. Ittends to privilege the prior material as the correct way of viewing the problem. Any sense of aneed to be creative, to challenge the basic assumptions of prior material, is consideredunnecessary.At this point another approach with some practical dimensions can commend itself: that of spending more time, what time is available, with the original proponents, to deepen my ownunderstanding of what they are saying and exploring that in the light of my own experience, totest whether it lends itself to being useful and usable knowledge for me. Mezirow’s work onmeaning schemes, and the ideas of constructivism would seem to indicate that such work will be productive and useful (Mezirow, 1991). It may be misconceived, but it will yield somefruitfulness. In-practice there are many roads to Rome. If I ground that understanding in myexperience, past and ongoing, and continue to honour my own experience with the validity itdeserves, and if I can be engaged with other practitioners engaged in the same enterprise,allowing the testing of my thinking to be subject to enunciation and negotiation, then theunderstanding that develops for me will be my working hypothesis. In time it might ripen tosomething worth publishing, for others to use to test their thinking and to relate to their experience as a grounding for validating.My personal approach is one with a greater practice orientation. My use of the literatureincludes the following objectives:6.To know the field well enough to frame my question and know where it fits inthe field7.To have evaluated the literature at a sufficient level to know what it is likely toyield - there is a limit to comprehensiveness, the practical consideration of the law of diminishing returns operates here8.To take into account the work of others so that I am not duplicating effort - a practical criterion of efficiency

Literature Use for this Practitioner (prepared draft for thesis, 2004, Dianne Allen)p.3

9.To work with the findings of others to engage in the process of learning tochange for myself, by building on, or revising, my current conceptual framework 10.To use the findings in the literature to garner ideas for improvement of practice -ideas for different action options11.To use the findings in the literature to question and challenge my currentthinking-action complex12.And by steps 9, 10, and 11 to use the findings in the literature as a springboardfor creative designingIn the draft thesis tendered to supervisors, parts of Chapter 2 and 3 represent a first round of such a study, using techniques 1-3 for recent journal publications.My second round of study which was directed to refining my understanding of learning tochange and facilitating learning to change was more in the nature of techniques 6-12 than 1-5.Here I have chosen to work in some depth with the material of Chris Argyris (and DonaldSchon), Jack Mezirow, Gregory Bateson, Donald Schon and John Heron. My choice of theseauthors is on the basis that I have found their work to be

•

based on a significant period of persistent and systematic practice;

•

dealing with a similar context to the one I wish to deal with – ie demonstrating anecological match

•

demonstrating change and development of fundamental ideas in response to peer interactions about findings and processes;

•

relatable;

•

challenging; and

•

capable of stimulating ideas for action for/in me.By comparison, my refining of my understanding of the inquiry needed to engage in learning tochange and facilitating engagement in that kind of inquiry shows more signs of items 1-5 than 6-12. At this stage I attribute this to being more conscious of becoming an aware practitioner of inquiry, and that I am in the beginning stages of such conscious awareness.Further, as far as evaluation is concerned, I barely know what it is that I am seeking to becomemore aware about here. The discussion of the literature of evaluation, as it applies in thecontext of my particular study, as it develops and unfolds, is therefore limited.The text I presented was then the construction of my current conceptual framework of learningto change, as informed by these scholars’ work and mobilisable by me in a way that informs mythinking-action complex.My stance, in my ongoing inquiry approach, is one of seeking to improve my practice, and bydoing reflective work on that practice, and, in particular, focusing on my thinking-actioncomplex that is in-forming that practice. To do that involves enunciating the thinkingcomponent - the conceptual framework. When that thinking component is enunciated it isavailable and open to review, its quality can be tested. In some measure it is one of the ways inwhich I can have a dialectic discussion with peers. In the current world of academia, withincreased fragmentation of studies, this may be one of the more significant opportunities for a peer dialectic.Dianne AllenMore details available at