In the light of the podcast and this week’s work, consider how you might revise the way in which you are making notes on studies. Do the questions from Activity 1.4 need elaborating?
Look back at Reading 1 and consider the questions that were asked in that research. Do you think they represent a dominant ‘paradigm’ for research in any particular period? Are the research questions and methods still relevant today?
Questions : what research questions are being addressed?
Setting : what is the sector and setting?
Concepts : what theories, concepts and key terms are being used?
Methods : what methods if data collection and analysis are used?
Findings : what did this research find out?
Limitations : what are the limitations of the methods used?
Implications : what are the implications (if any) for practice, policy or further education?
1) I will still ask, what was the problem? What is the hypothesis? I may ask why this research is being carried. I will certainly look at who the authors are, how the research is funded and the methods used.
2) There’s more to setting than a name and an address for where and when something took place. It matters and helps to know the context, the time, people and environment.
3) They may only be noticed if they are unusual or controversial, but there will be reasons why a certain theory or concept is used. This will put a slant on the research, because of the choices made by the authors, the choices that are current and appropriate and whether they have been used before and what the conclusions were then. Activity Theory, for example, is going through changes, Diffusion of Innovation theory transmogrified with the idea of a ‘chasm’. Activity Theory is becoming ‘Cultural Historical’
4) Methods are taking advantage of computers to gather and analyse data, including ‘big data’ in new and revealing ways.
5) There is inertia of approaches and adopting new technologies, even a bias towards conformity and ‘old ways’ of doing things which is how and why the breakthroughs and disruption tends to come from outside.
6) The implications are for HE and schools to try to do what industry has been doing for the last 20 years – to embrace change as a constant to be embraced, rather than as a rare occurrence to be resisted. New ways of doing things, new ways if undertaking research, new ways of analysing and sharing the data and outcomes.
7) Keep an open mind. Have a set of questions that require a comprehensive view and be prepared to be a magpie – to think outside these parameters in terms of scope, depth and spread – so cross disciplinary, historic as well as the future.
I can see if you go in armed with a list of forensic questions you could get bogged down, in particular it is just another reason to lose the sense of narrative in a piece of research.
Which reminds me of an ancient OU Text called ‘How to Read’ or was it ‘How to study?’ Anyway, the idea from Richard Northridge (I think) was that you read a piece of text three times: skim read to get the gist of what is going on, the ‘landscape’ as it were, read a second time taking notes and then a third, more surgical read extracting what you want and being critical where criticism is due – in the light of your own interests.
Jo Neil (26th Feb, H809 Student Forum) suggested that when creating a framework for reviewing research papers thought should be given to:
- Structure of the research – imposed or emergent
- Existing research in this area
- What is the methodology/philosophy background
- What frameworks?
- Terminology – are the questions relevant
- What research does it build on/contribute to
And my response:
I am struck by the dichotomy between ‘imposed or emergent’.
I wonder, my reading, if you are saying ‘traditional’ or ’emergent’. I don’t supposed traditional or imposed are any the less valid, just choices alongside the ’emergent’ that have to be made.
Just as the old structures are going into meltdown, becoming transparent, fluid and available to all courtesy of Web 2.0 so all manner of approaches need to change to keep up.
Further down the line the entire academic publishing route is under scrutiny: academics and those who ought to be influenced by these papers aren’t reading them – they prefer to speak directly to experts/authors where they can; journals take too long to publish in a rapidly changing environment; institutions are fed up with paying academic publishers and authors are fed up of the current necessity of giving up copyrights/IP (varies), volunteering their content when it isn’t necessarily adding to their reputation or career anyway.
This all comes back to your single word – emergent.
In commercial e-learning at the micro scale real-time student analytics, monitoring progress, tailoring content, managing a learning ‘career’ is producing a new level of detail and immediacy to research while at the macro scale ‘Big Data’ is able to isolate factors that would have gone unnoticed with smaller student numbers. This in turn enables finer fine tuning of a module or course.
The old manufacturing paradigms of incremental and evolutionary change, where everything is bolted down and would have to be demolished in order to allow change and over. Modules created in a digital environment or ecosystem need to be seen to be growing and changing all the time and institutions should reflect this and come in like gardeners with bamboo canes (scaffolding), nutrients (social learning and student support) and pruning shears – cutting out the dead growth and guiding this ‘organic thing’ in the desirable direction.
Methodologies and Frameworks are were I need to do some work.
I need to get the terms, definitions and explanations firmly in my mind or in a table. Like a deck of cards, or a set of choices, or herbs in the kitchen from which I can make an informed choice. To use the cooking metaphor I am at the minute inclined to stick everything in because I know no better! Which is of course why I am on H809.
I don’t question the importance of knowing what research has gone before and what research it contributes to – building on the shoulders of giants and all that, though, given this ’emergent’ field we are entering a transitioning period.
Related to some thoughts above, the technology permits the author to cite far more that they feel has touched or is touching upon their thinking. This will influence how a report is written as we must all now have examples where in any sentence or paragraph more of the text might be taken up with references than it is with the line of thought. Whilst the references need to be there, within reason, there are other ways I’ve seen of doing it. For example, numbering references like footnotes and giving them in chronological rather than alphabetic order at the end of the text. This ‘system’ probably has a name.
Relevance of questions too – that they are pertinent, of the study, not imposed on it. My feeling is that considered choice of the questions is crucial. Knowing the right question(s) to ask is a fundamental technique or approach in business consultancy where intractable problems need to be resolved … the answer does lie in asking the right question in the first place.
And ‘motives’ as well ‘motivation’.
This isn’t to be cynical, but research has to be funded and institutions look for academics who attract or can secure grants. The grant making bodies in turn have their own criteria and agendas. Are there no ‘fads’ here. There was something I was reading recently where the authors refer back to the requirements or stipulations of the funding body – not a negative view, just a statement or re-statement of the parameters that institution had set so that readers could decide ok a) there is further research to be done beyond these parameters c) the research was undertaken under these conditions.
As for motivation, it matters why we/they the authors are doing the research. I enjoy the opportunity to hear an academic present their findings as you then get a sense of what their motivations are … because of a virtuous, altruistic love of the topic, to get a paper published – another one notched up, to move on (another institution is more suited, or attractive) … and the commercial potential of going into an agency or client, or starting your own operation. Or because they like being centre stage.
Am I being unfairly cynical here? Everyone has a motive of some kind or another. Should these motives be apparent in the research – probably not, which is where, perhaps, fairly or unfairly, some of us may have been judgmental about the Hiltz paper (I was).
I keep finding myself reading article and books on e-learning and the Internet written by Journalists.
They are another breed entirely. Too often the desire to sensationalise to get an article and books sold produces a plausible package that convinces thousands but on close inspection is either highly dubious, ‘thin’ and speculative or has extracted only excerpts from research to support their hypothesis. Yet they get the message out in a way that must academics and institutions repeatedly fail to do.
From which I conclude – greater scrutiny is required over what I read. I’ve got to ditch an indulgence that was encourage two decades ago when I was studying Francois Truffaut the French filmmaker who argued that it was necessary and appropriate to read everything. This of course was in the context of writing fiction, but his reading list (he wrote letters and kept a diary of soughts) was eclectic to the extreme ends of pulp fiction to literary greats.
Still a valid approach if you want to nourish you mind with the unpredictable?