RETURN TO DIALOGUE WITH DIFFERENT VIEWS OF MY WORK
Ken Stewart and David Morris Dialogue
DM TO KS
Have you had experience with a book written in the dialogue form?
KS to DM
I've even written some myself. It's a useful rhetorical device for certain kinds of material.
Was there anything with the dialogue form that hindered or enhanced your reading of the book?
At the risk of repeating myself, I think there's nothing wrong the dialog form as a pedagogical approach in itself, especially in the hands of a skilled writer and the right subject matter, but otherwise it can easily become overused and appear "gimmicky".
I honestly felt that was the case with your book.
I used the terms simply to distinguish the roles of the notional participants in the dialog - one takes the role of student, i.e. one who is studying or seeking knowledge, and the other takes the role of teacher,
i.e. one who teaches or imparts knowledge. At least, that was my reading of it.
DM to KS
For that matter, what do you think the reason was for my review?
DM to KS
Sometimes there are people that will use a review to disparage someone's work for reasons unrelated to the actual work.
As an academic I have found this to happen throughout history.
The ideas put forth in Marketing Strategy: A Storytelling Approach are not part marketing academic thinking. As I am sure you are aware to challenge the main stream thoughts in academics is not easy.
I was interested in who the person was that did the review and their motivation.
I was not interested in an argument or an attempt to change the persons mind.
I found the review to be aggressively negative. I did not know what the motivation may really be.
I also am really interested in improving my work especially the transfer of positive understanding.
I do not believe that anyone reads or see anything the same way.
My interest is to communicate with others as a fellow learner so that both find value from their own perspective.
Not from mine or yours.
DM to KS
You do not know me and your responses appear to be looking at my work in isolation.
This is an opportunity for me to learn. It is an opportunity for my students to see a dialogue.
I do not expect great changes in either point of view. I am interested in the thinking of a person that does not know me.
I am interested in understanding within the context of our own experiences.
Do you consider your editor to be a trusted advisor?
DM to KS
It is far easier and effective to attack editing to avoid the discussion of ideas.
This is not to suggest that I am against editing but I have found too often editing is really not the issue.
We have two tools in our academic arsenal one is to attack the research methodology and the other we could call editing or writing.
My philosophy is to take responsibility for errors in editing that I concur are correct.
7 Question from David Morris to Ken Stewart
Was there anything in the book that you believed you could understand?
As I stated above from your own contextual framework. Anything that was written that makes sense to you as a reader?
8 Question from David Morris to Ken Stewart
Your comment in the review in reference to Celtic philosophy. Are you interested in Celtic philosophy?
9 Question from David Morris to Ken Stewart
From your perspective do you think that different philosophies are at play in the world?
If so do you believe a reader that holds one philosophy would find it difficult to follow or embrace the outcomes derived from reading something founded on a different philosophical point of view.
Do you think they may see it as some kind of joke or a ignorant threat to their own worldview?
Let's Keep the dialogue going. DM
Ken Stewart did not continue but I am happy that he was willing to discuss his position to a point. I believe that there is nothing wrong with critics who then must face the ones that they are discussing.
David Morris Ph.D., on Radio Show WNHU 88.7 fm
Without out dialogue criticism can lead to abusive behavior.