What can be learned from how we have tried to develop our democratic ways of working to create EJOLTs together?
I am now clearer about the purpose of this wiki - The purpose of the Living Theory Wiki is to offer an alternative channel into the understanding of Living Theory research, taking advantage of the hyperlinked relationship between ideas. . So the next step is how to connect the dots.
I think - but am testing out - that this site can offer a space for a conversation which is not limited by the unidirectional form of an email conversation. I am looking forward to Joy launching this with a [conversation about Living Theory Masters]
Context of my enquiry:
I have been involved with EJOLTs from the sidelines since its inception in 2008. After I got my doctorate in 2012 I was really pleased to be invited to join the Editorial Board and Development Team. I subsequently felt very honoured to be asked to take on the role of chairing the Editorial Board. This extract (with corrected typos) from my posting 29the September 2013 in the Editorial Board space on ejolts.org provides the backdrop to the question I would like to enquire into as part of the 10th anniversary review of EJOLTs:
… I am acutely aware that I am stepping into huge shoes created by Moira [Laidlaw] and Maggie [Farren] and having never taken this role before this adds to my concern to learn what I need to do to contribute to EJOLTs continuing to thrive and evolve. So, this is my enquiry, which I hope you will help me with:
- 'How as main editor do I enable the editorial board to express the values of EJOLTs:
- ‘... a flow of life-affirming energy with living values such as love, freedom, justice, compassion, courage, care and democratic evaluation.’
- in the production of two issues a year comprising:
- ‘... submissions from all Living Theorists who understand their living-theories as their explanations of their educational influences in their own learning, the learning of others and the learning of social formations.’?
Since then we have, and continue to, evolve the processes for producing the issues of EJOLTs with content that meets the highest standards of academic and scholarly accounts of educational research undertaken by research-practitioners working in a wide range of fields and contexts, while trying to give expression in practice to the values of EJOLTs.
Branko’s question has stayed with me, ‘how can we develop our democratic ways of working to create EJOLTs together?’ I wonder whether now is a good time to step aside for a moment, reflect over the journey so far and ask, ‘have we developed our democratic ways of working to create EJOLTs together and what might be learned from our experiences of success, failure and the space between?’ I realise that this may not be of interest to anyone else, in which case the first challenge is how to rephrase ‘we’ (comprising other members of the EJOLTs Editorial Board, Development Team, authors and reviewers) as ‘i’ (as a member of EJOLTs, or as ‘main editor’ or… whichever ‘i’)
All thoughts, ideas and help would be very, very welcome.
(Marie - [[link to our co-operative enquiry with Jackie - from Jack 9th May 2018]http://ejolts-wiki.mattrink.co.uk/index.php/Link_to_our_co-operative_enquiry_-_from_Jack_9th_May_2019)]
To make a start with the question, ‘have we developed our democratic ways of working to create EJOLTs together and what might be learned from our experiences of success, failure and the space between?’
I am interested in researching three aspects of how we create EJOLTs together; governance, the review process, and our decision-making, in relationship to our intention to develop our democratic ways of working together. I want to clarify understandings of ‘democratic ways of working together’ in that context and explore how far that enables us to understand and explain our work and judge the efficacy of what we are doing with respect to our values.