Ken Stewart and David Morris Dialogue

Hi Ken,
Question 1 for Ken Stewart from David Morris

Have you had experience with a book written in the dialogue form?

KS to DM
1 Answer 1 from Ken Stewart to David Morris An entire book? No. But magazine articles, bulletins, FAQs and the like? Sure.

I've even written some myself. It's a useful rhetorical device for certain kinds of material.

Question 2 for Ken Stewart from David Morris

Was there anything with the dialogue form that hindered or enhanced your reading of the book?

KS to DM
2 Answer 2 from Ken Stewart to David Morris Tricky - my objections to your book concerned both the form and the content.

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.

Question 3 for Ken Stewart from David Morris What led you to think the dialogue was between a professor and a student?

KS to DM
3 Answer 3 from Ken Stewart to David Morris Well, that's not quite what I said - I said it was between a student and a teacher.

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
I was unaware of this point of view. The dialogue was with myself.

Question 4 for David Morris from Ken Stewart What "other reasons" did you think might have been behind my review of your book?

For that matter, what do you think the reason was for my review?

DM to KS
Question 4 Answer to Ken Stewart From David Morris

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.

Question 5 for David Morris from Ken Stewart What do you hope to get from this dialog?

DM to KS
If I could identify if it is actually the format, errors, or something else it would be interesting to me.

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.

Question 6 Ken Stewart to David Morris I have found that collaborating with another author or using a ghostwriter, and in any case having a good editor, are good ways to improve the quality of my written output. Have you considered either of the former approaches?

Do you consider your editor to be a trusted advisor?

DM to KS
If you would point out some glaring examples it would be helpful. I also believe that the editing trap is a good one to oppose a point of view.

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.

Without out dialogue criticism can lead to abusive behavior.

David Morris Ph.D., on Radio Show WNHU 88.7 fm