Table Of ContentHow am I generating a living theory of
environmental activism with inclusionality?
by
Philip J. Tattersall
Dip. Lab. Tech., Grad. Dip. Sust. Ag.
M.Sc. (Honours)
A Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the
award of the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
From
The University of Western Sydney
School of Natural Sciences
October, 2011
Statement of Authentication
The work presented in thesis is, to the best of my knowledge and belief,
original except as acknowledged in the text.
I hereby declare that I have not submitted this material, either in whole or in
part, for a degree at this or any other institution.
....................................................................................
Philip J. Tattersall
i
ABSTRACT
This thesis is a self-study of my development as an environmental activist. I
trace the generation of my living theory of environmental activism over a
period of 37 years, working and researching within the cultural context of a
th
6 generation Tasmanian. The originality of the thesis lies in both its
methodological inventiveness and original contribution to knowledge in
explaining the development of an environmental activist through
propositional, dialectic and inclusional phases of inquiry and understanding.
Methodologically the thesis uses insights from ethnomethodology in a life
history narrative that shows the importance of creative responses to both
family relationships and scientific enquiry in growing through a dialectical
process towards an inclusional self-awareness of oppressive colonising
influences. The development of my ‘activist’ approaches and styles are
described and analysed in terms of two transitional phases, firstly into a
young scientist using detached, propositional methods of inquiry, then into
environmental activism, using dialectical methods, prior to my on-going
emergence into natural inclusional approaches. The analysis includes
categories from traditional learning theories.
In an analysis of my values and standards of judgement Living Theory is
used to describe, analyse and discuss a series of ‘Living Contradictions’
leading to my unexpected appreciation of ‘Natural Inclusional ways of
knowing’. I see Natural Inclusionality as having possible future application
in social activism. Natural Inclusional standards of judgement of
environmental activism are used as a fluid creation to evaluate the quality of
the thesis, including its contribution to living epistemologies and ontologies.
This thesis offers an original contribution to knowledge of a new form of
social activism, Community Based Auditing (CBA), as a methodology
conceived within what is described as ‘Post Normal Science’. The need for
further development and refinement of this methodology is discussed, along
with the case for its use and illustrative examples of its application.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The thesis is a distillation of an odyssey lasting nearly 40 years. The research
reported here represents some 7 years work and it too has been an odyssey
of sorts. Like all journeys it is much more than the deeds of a single person. I
owe much to those who have supported and encouraged me.
My thanks go to Maree Gruppetta, my Principal Supervisor, for her
invaluable support and encouragement during thesis production and
editing. Thanks also to Gavin Ramsay and Tony Webb for their advice
during the early stages of my research.
I thank the University of Western Sydney for making available a Research
Training Scheme Placement.
Without the insights and guidance from my mentor Professor Jack
Whitehead the thesis would never have taken on its final form – I owe Jack
so much for showing me a ‘new way’. Jack encouraged me to publish my
work on Living Theory and I have grown so much through that experience.
1
In introducing me to the ideas of Natural Inclusionality (Rayner 2011a ,
pp.12 - 124 ) Dr. Alan Rayner enabled me to take a new path as I continue to
develop my ideas on community involvement. Alan is a true visionary and I
have benefited immensely from our collaborati on.
I thank Branko Bognar, senior Editor of Educational Journal of Living
Theories, for his support and guidance in the publication of my work.
My thanks also to Professor Brian Martin for his support and encouragement
during the research process
1 'Natural inclusionality' is a new way of understanding allv eolutionary organization as 'flow-form'. It
arises from two fundamental innovations in though t:
1. The recognition that natural boundaries are intrinsically energetic 'dynamic interfacings' between
distinct localities, not the 'inert limits' of discrete ojbects 2. The recognition that natural boundaries can
only be dynamic through the inclusion of space as infinite, intangible, frictionle-sasnd hence receptive
presence. (http://www.inclusionality.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3&Itemid= 4)
iii
Last but not least a big thank you to my family and friends for bearing with
me as I recounted and penned my story. My wife Roxanne and daughter
Emma have been my main supporters, reading work and acting as sounding
board for all manner of arguments and ideas. Their tolerance has been
exemplary.
iv
Preface
This thesis is an example of ‘writing from beneath’, in which I build a
personal theory through an examination of my lived experience. To qualify
as a Doctoral thesis the researcher is expected to make an original
contribution to knowledge in his or her field. This for me was the first
challenge I faced when deciding upon appropriate field into which my
research would fit. Writing from beneath in essentially the first person
would suggest a narrative methodology. However, Doctoral research should
also explore epistemological and ontological issues pertinent to the research.
In a sense while research is about improving and challenging our
understanding in relation to a ‘research issue’ (problem) it can also be about
improving our understanding of the very philosophical frameworks in
which research is conducted.
In the case of the research reported in this thesis I attempt to come to grips
with understanding the development of my practice and at the same time
seek to locate my contribution into a philosophical framing that not only
brings clarity to my discoveries, but also enriches the framing itself. I argue
that a narrative approach is one way to achieve these lofty ambitions. I start
with the broad questions: how did I become who I am and how can I
improve what I do? These, as it turns out, are questions that do not have
straightforward answers.
I believe that one of my original contributions lies in enriching the framing of
the living standards of judgment that can be used to evaluate the validity of
the contributions to educational knowledge, made from the Living Theory
perspective developed by Whitehead (2008; 2011; 2012). Here, I recognise
iv
especially the living environment standards of judgment I have clarified and
evolved in the course of my inquiry into my environmental activism. In
particular I suggest that the development of Community Based Auditing
with its grounding in community and Natural Inclusionality (Rayner, 2010;
2011b) makes an original and significant contribution to the knowledge-base
and application of living theories. In addition, this development opens up
prospects of new approaches to sustainable socio-political management of
our human relationships with the natural ecosystems that we inhabit, based
on a new kind of scientific praxis (combination of theory and practice).
Embracing Living Theory (Whitehead, 2008) has been a key aspect of this
thesis as it has enabled me to locate my research in a theoretical framing that
encourages and indeed facilitates the further development of my capacity
and allowed the explication of my living standards of judgement. Seeing my
life as series of ‘Living Contradictions’ has been of immense help in making
sense of my journey leading to what I believe are useful contributions to
Tasmanian environmental activism. This journey has already helped
numerous people find hope in their quest for justice, and will hopefully
reach many more through the development of one tool in its wake, namely
Community Based Auditing.
The kernel of Community Based Auditing is accountability and sharing of
responsibility through participation of interested stakeholders, not only in
dealing with substantive issues of concern, but also sharing of personal
development through co-learning partnerships. This thesis explores the
various layers of a journey of understanding as I tell the story of the shared
development and application of standards of judgement, which I ultimately
apply to the thesis itself. I tell of the highs and lows of an at times very
v
painful journey that has taken me to the present moment in my life. In this
sense the thesis is not a nice tidy story with a ‘beginning and an end’, rather
it is open ended in many ways and relies on the reader to generate
interpretations so as to give the story special meaning as the reader
hopefully resonates with the narrative.
It is this flow and melding that gives the story an inclusional (Whitehead and
Rayner, 2009) dimension as it seeks to loosen boundaries and restrictions
between and among people, places, issues and time. In a sense each of us
becomes a ‘living neighbourhood’ where abstract ideas of oneness and
autonomy are transformed. In its arguments and discussion this thesis
wrestles with this while I remain ‘anchored’ in the ideas of dialectic thinking
and still see my life as a series of ‘living contradictions’. That said I see the
goal of inclusional thinking as nonetheless achievable, but will require much
more work on my part as I am still a prisoner of a post-colonial moment.
Thus in a sense the inquiry continues.
Disclaimer
This Thesis reports and interprets my experiences throughout my life.
References to other persons (named and not named) is purely in connection
to my interpretations at the time in years past. The author wishes to make it
clear that he has not purposefully set out to demean, embarrass, deride nor
cast aspersions or judgement on any persons, either directly or by
association. Rather the writings herein are an interpretation of experiences
over a period of many years and the author stresses that those earlier views
and interpretations did and do not necessarily hold at the time of
publication.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Statement of Authentication ................................................ i
ABSTRACT ........................................................................... ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................ iii
Preface .................................................................................... iv
Disclaimer ........................................................................................... vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................... vii
List of Tables ....................................................................... xv
List of Figures ..................................................................... xvi
List of Plates ...................................................................... xvii
PART 1 .......................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION ...................................................... 1
CHAPTER 1 ........................................................................... 2
MY PROBLEM AND MY QUESTIONS ........................... 2
1.1 Introduction ................................................................................... 2
1.2 Motivations and context for this inquiry .................................. 2
1.3 The social formations in which my activism is based ............ 9
1.4 The problem of research when exploring questions of the
self ....................................................................................................... 17
1.5 How best to guide my inquiry into the self? .......................... 18
1.6 Style of writing used in this thesis – from the mind through
the quill .............................................................................................. 22
1.7 The cost of looking within ........................................................ 23
vii
1.8 Structure of this thesis ............................................................... 23
CHAPTER 2 ......................................................................... 26
PHILOSOPHICAL AND THEORETICAL FRAMINGS
FOR THE INQUIRY INTO MY LIVING THEORY ...... 26
2.1 Introduction ................................................................................. 26
2.1 My Philosophy ............................................................................ 27
2.2.1 Methods ....................................................................................................... 30
2.2.2 Methodology ............................................................................................... 30
2.2.3 Theoretical perspective .............................................................................. 30
2.2.4 Epistemology .............................................................................................. 30
2.2.5 Ontology ...................................................................................................... 30
2.3 Introduction to the analysis of my research philosophy ......................... 31
2.4 Analysis of my research philosophy........................................ 32
2.4.1 Ontological perspective ............................................................................. 35
2.4.2 Epistemological perspective ..................................................................... 35
2.4.3 Living Theory theoretical perspective ..................................................... 36
2.4.4 My research as a story rich in metaphor .................................................. 38
2.4.5 Axiological perspective ............................................................................. 40
PART 2 ........................................................................ 42
METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH TO THE
INQUIRY.................................................................... 42
CHAPTER 3 ......................................................................... 43
METHODOLOGY .............................................................. 43
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................. 43
3.2 Choice of theoretical frame ....................................................... 43
3.3 Methodological Frame ............................................................... 45
viii
