• Continue PhD?
  • Continue with ABC Education?
  • Re-focus on Reflexive Reading?
  • Attempt mathematical description?
  • How does this fit into life journey?



My supervisors walked me through the sequence of failure I am faced with: resubmit and fail, dropping me from PhD to DPhil, and at the end of three years, failure and I get nothing. Nice. Basically, is there any point in continuing? I say, yes, because at least it gives me time to consolidate my own experience and learning in a way which at least attempts to connect with academic institutions. 

Although my supervisors were adamant that I not study ABC State from the start of my PhD, it looks like the reviewers recommend that I should. Trouble is, Coronavirus continues to wreak havoc on secondary schools, and what little chance is now near-zero.

Looking at the pros and cons, I don’t think it is wise to focus on ABC State, which means that a shift to Reflexive Reading will involve a Re-Candidacy procedure. I will need to find another supervisor. If I don’t, whatever I submit will not be accepted, indeed will not even be read.


  • Theory Defined
  • More Reading 
  • They Don’t Get It
  • Coronavirus


ABC State

  • Worked for me
  • Theory Defined
  • School Interest
  • Simple Research
  • Coronavirus
  • Schools Busy
  • I Created ABC
  • Unnecessary Constructs


REflexive reading

  • Theory Strong
  • Research Ok
  • Interesting
  • Academic Only
  • Abstract
  • Threatening
  • No Supervisor



  • Consolidate XQ
  • Avoid Language
  • Fundamental
  • Dangerous
  • May Not Succeed
  • Radical



No ABC State?

The reviewers of my Confirmation Report advise me to ditch RR and focus on ABC State, and look into a wealth of material in education. Admittedly, of the hundreds of documents I read, the thousands I searched through, I put in a handful relating to education. I find the suggestion to go into eg maths teacher, missing the point entirely. And the evidence I produced regarding how little we know about relations in teenagers wasn’t enough. I was reluctant to dive into specific group of concepts, like cognition, motivation, emotion and social learning (Panadero 2017), self-behaviour-environment and metacognition-motivation (Zimmerman 1990, 2003, 2009; Bandura), goal-motivation and emotion-regulation (Boekaerts 1991, 2011), meta-cognition and goal-motivation (Winnie & Hadwin 1998, 2008; Efklides 2011), to mention but a few. So many concepts, and correlations between these constructs. And evidence that connects these constructs. The idea of doing so seems to me to fall into categories, and crude models. And the whole point of ABC State is to avoid this spurious academic game. That’s harsh. These concepts are valid. And the clever mechanisms to try to capture data which provides evidence for these theories is considerable. However, in the end, they are not influencing teaching practices. Or at least, they do in the sense of telling the teacher things. ABC State is a social tool, and I haven’t been able to find anything like it. Closest description is Doll (2012) who delightfully connects complexity maths to social dynamics. But he doesn’t provide a tool.

Although my supervisors were adamant that I not study ABC State from the start of my PhD, it looks like the reviewers recommendation that I should has changed their mind; they are willing to continue to be supervisors. It is like I am completely ignoring my literature research and work, to start off where I was meant to begin a year ago. A waste of time. I am reluctant to do that. And also, it looks like further lockdowns is going to seriously disrupt schools, so the small chances of finding schools who are willing to conduct research will be further reduced. In sum, if I continue with ABC State, there is a high chance no school will be in a position to do it (hence postpone now), or the reviewers will not like the standard of my work. This second is a little more serious, and I will consider it below. Seems like the wrong path.

However, Wendy things it a shame that I am leaving ABC State. She advises to write a paper. This makes sense. I think I can do this. I am also creating a website and will be writing to the schools who indicated an initial interest before Coronavirus. I will thus be in a position to move forwards if anyone shows an interest.

reflexive reading

It shouldn’t be too hard. Do more reading around the academic process of reading. Construct a research programme for online participants. Perhaps conduct a Delphi Study for those who are interested. How interesting or useful is the method?

visit Reflexive Reading

relational Social science

I’m not suited for academia. Too creative. However, academia needs to change. Social science is based on the wrong method, the science of objects (ie physics) and its more recent mathematical tools (ie statistics). Social science needs to be relational. Reflexive Reading and its consequence does that.

visit social self

mathematical basis

Ever since I first explored XQ, back in 2008, I’ve teased out a few potential threads of exploration. But it isn’t easy. It is not a thing ‘to solve’. Rather a thing to contemplate. However, now’s the time to see if I can actually produce a minimal description of psycho-social dynamics.

visit XQ

Reflexive Reading, and some…

To focus on Reflexive Reading is a major risk. I might not find a supervisor. Which means that whatever I do write from now, nobody will read. And even if I do find supervisors, what I submit will probably suffer from the same problems my current submission suffers from: the lack of categorical manipulation, linear logic and simplicity. I might be able to present a relatively simple research project, but it is far from clear that anyone will ‘get it’. Look at how current submission has been dismissed, where academics are asking ‘so what?’ when I press them.

Which leads me to consider whether I might as well take a massive jump and attempt to formalise the XQ maths I’ve played around with, to see if I can present a more mathematical account rather than the verbal one which they seem to have problems with. Radical.

They seem to not want to engage the content, and the content is inherently reflexive and requires verification on their part. Without their verification, they must rely on a standard academic account, which is primarily category manipulation. The moral/ethical argument is ignored.

Decisions, Decisions…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>