The nature of academic publishing

Image: forwardcom via freeimages

Building up towards my reflective assignment, I thought it might help to draft this in sections, according to particular areas of interest throughout the module. First stop is publishing...

One of the assumptions that I am interested in challenging is the area of academic publishing. We tend to regard the world of academic journals as ‘an open and public forum’ (Colquhoon, 2006) that is created for the common good, but a growing number of people are beginning to question if this holds true, especially in the age of open web content. Wheeler (2011a, b, c) has written a number of blog posts criticising the traditional system of academic publishing, noting that:

‘It’s a hierarchy that rarely changes.’

Furthermore, the hierarchical nature of the publishing world is often self-defeating in terms of securing the widest possible audience:

‘...many of the top, elite journals we are expected to publish in are in fact read by a very small percentage of the community the research is intended to reach.’

From considering my own worldview, I have noted the restrictions that hierarchical institutions place on the education system, particularly when combined with the solutions offered by market organisations (Hobson, 2012; Ronfeldt, 2012b). Potential disruptive alternatives may yet be found in the emerging network sector predicted by Ronfeldt (2012a), or the peer-to-peer ideology (Bauwens, 2009), although sustainable business models are yet to emerge. It should be noted that there are dangers inherent in the misuse of data for either solution. Newby (2010) warns of ‘intellectual imperialism’ when researchers are able to claim sole ownership of research data, discounting the rights of those involved in the study. At the other extreme of open web publishing, Lanier (2006a, b; 2012) warns of the dangers of ‘digital Maoism’, whereby all ownership and authorship of published data is lost, and transferred to control of the crowd.

References:

• Bauwens, M. (2009). Open Process academic publishing: towards the peer production of academic peer review. P2P Foundation's blog [blog] 15 September. Available at: <http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/open-process-academic-publishing-towards-the-peer-production-of-academic-peer-review/2009/09/15>
• Colquhoon, D. (2006). Research Methods in Education Contexts. University of Hull
• Hobson, J. (2012). The problems with educating a quadriform society. Thinking and learning in the digital age [blog] 7 August. Available at: <http://jimmyhob.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/the-problems-with-educating-quadriform.html>
• Lanier, J. (2006a). Digital Maoism: The hazards of the new online collectivism. Edge.org [online] 30 May. Available at: <http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lanier06/lanier06_index.html>
• Lanier, J. (2006b). Beware the online collective. Edge.org [online] 25 December. Available at: <http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lanier06/lanier06.2_index.html>
• Lanier, J. (2012). Are we at the beginning of the rise of post human machine intelligence? [Video online] Available at: <http://dpcloud.co/v3/enterprise/learningtech/index.php?option=com_dpcloud&v=play&p=7117&u=learningtech&cat=Keynotes&Itemid=2>
• Newby, P. (2010). Research Methods for Education. Pearson Education Limited.
• Ronfeldt, D. (2012a). TIMN in 20 minutes: a video presentation. Visions from two theories [blog] 23 May. Available at: <http://twotheories.blogspot.co.uk/2012_05_01_archive.html>
• Ronfledt, D. (2012b). Q’s & A’s about “TIMN in 20 minutes” (4th of 7): creation of a new sector? Visions from two theories [blog] 29 August. Available at: <http://twotheories.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/qs-as-about-timn-in-20-minutes-4th-of-7_29.html>
• Wheeler, S. (2011a). Sharp practice. Learning with e's [blog] 26 September. Available at: <http://steve-wheeler.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/sharp-practice.html>
• Wheeler, S. (2011b). The open case. Learning with e's [blog] 2 October. Available at: <http://steve-wheeler.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/open-case.html>
• Wheeler, S. (2011c). When the dam breaks… Learning with e's [blog] 18 October. Available at: <http://steve-wheeler.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/when-dam-breaks.html>

Evaluating online communities

Thoughts on Ke & Hoadley (2009)

 

Important point to consider: do we expect online learning communities (OLCs) to appear spontaneously or through design? Study inherently seems to favour studies of those that are well-defined in terms of support & structure, so either well-designed or evolved.

Taxonomy of online learning community evaluations

Recognises that this is a divergent research area, attempts to categorise studies in terms of four key components:

1. Evaluation purpose
Notable distinction between proving and improving purposes – convincing organisations that the community has a value at all, versus looking for ways of systematically enhancing the interactions within it. In my case the interactions don't yet amount to a community, so the emphasis is on making interactions sustainable and of benefit to participants.

2. Evaluation approach
Approaches were sometimes summative, usually for proving, or formative for improving, sometimes with elements of both of these. There are also the participatory and responsive approaches – a choice of whether to include participant evaluation or not. Oliver (2000) and Patton (1997) are cited as primary references here. My approach will be based entirely on participant responses, with a view to formative evaluation of the interactions.

3. Measures for evaluation
Outcome vs process measures. The outcome view looks at the community as a static system, evaluating the raw technical set-up of the environment and the learning outcomes. Process evaluation takes an in-depth look at the factors that facilitate or impede learning within the system. My study will need to focus on the process, with a possibility for pairing this up with outcome evaluations from colleagues.

4. Evaluation techniques
The authors seem to use the term objective in place of quantitative; they also refer to qualitative and mixed-method approaches. An important distinction between the two main forms is made – objective approaches deliberately remove context from the data, focusing on what could be directly comparable between other studies. Qualitative studies allowed for more direct insights for the learning processes within a community. I will be focusing on qualitative approaches, although there is potential for identifying the best factors to use in future studies for building up an objective measure of communities in future.

Conclusions

This gives a very good critical analysis of the factors at play in evaluating OLCs, and can serve as a guide point relating to the higher level discussions of Newby (2010), Cresswell (2009) and Colquhoon (2006). The authors also point out a good number of shortcomings in current research. Partly these are due to the constraints of researchers performing their studies for their own purposes, rather than to sit conveniently into the wider body of research. They also point out that the offline interactions between participants play a large role in the actual learning process, and these are very difficult to find any record of. There are also no studies that show how a community has evolved over time.

Long term goals of the researchers are to establish a framework for understanding OLCs, possibly towards a central theory. They make no reference to the five stage model identified by Salmon (2003); they do refer to phases of community development (Palloff and Pratt, 1999). It will be useful to pursue this systematic approach for research to inform my own understanding, and note if any similarities or contradictions with Salmon’s model emerge, which has previously been central to my understanding of online learning interactions.

Reference:

• Colquhoon, D. (2006). Research Methods in Education Contexts. University of Hull.
• Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. (3rd edition) Sage.
• Ke, F. and Hoadley, C. (2009). Evaluating Online Learning Communities. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(4), pp.487-510.
• Newby, P. (2010). Research Methods for Education. Pearson Education Limited.
• Salmon, G., 2003. E-Moderating: The Key to Teaching and Learning Online. 2nd ed. London: Routledge-Falmer.

Blog post 4.2: What could go possibly go wrong?

Originally posted to eBridge, 17 February 2013

 

Validity, Reliability, Objectivity = language for quantitative researchers

Credibility, Dependability, Confirmability = language for qualitative researchers

The classic research effects noted by Newby (2010, p.120-3) are of interest to me – I will be researching from a very participatory standpoint, as I am actually trying to influence people’s behaviour through my interventions. The best way to balance out this out would seem to be by adopting approaches such as triangulation to give more credibility to findings. As a learning & development practitioner working within an online community, am I actually moving more into the realm of critical research perhaps?

Reading through Colquhoon (2006), I’m struck by the similarity between the language used for reliability and validity, compared to the discussion of reliability and validity in the context of assessment, as referred to by Race (2010, Ch.4) and Crisp (2007, Ch.19). The pre-occupation of most educational institutions has been with stability of a bank of testable items for norm-referenced assessment. However, one has to consider how long this state of affairs can continue with the economy so unstable and all our assumptions about learning and education being questioned? (Wheeler, 2013)

References:

• Colquhoon, D. (2006). Research Methods in Education Contexts. University of Hull
• Crisp, G. (2007). The e-Assessment Handbook. Continuum
• Newby, P. (2010). Research Methods for Education. Pearson Education Limited.
• Race, P. (2010). Making Learning Happen: A Guide for Post-Compulsory Education. 2nd ed. Sage.
• Wheeler, S. (2013). Learning is changing. Learning with e’s [blog] 17 February. Available at: <http://steve-wheeler.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/learning-is-changing.html> [Accessed February 2013]

Blog Post 1.3: What I need to know about research

Originally posted to eBridge, 5 February 2013

Reading through Colquhoon (2006) and watching Robertson's (2007)  video has really made me question the nature of research, and the assumptions that we all make. Trying to carry out research in an objective, scientific manner may not work very well for an educational context, because we must expect that results will differ greatly according to when & where we undertake our research - everyone has different perceptions of reality. Therefore positivist approaches are not as appropriate as interpretive or critical methods. Unfortunately since my background is very much in the positivist disciples, I will have to identify and ditch any assumptions that are influencing me this way…

References:

• Colquhoon, D. (2006). Research Methods in Education Contexts. University of Hull
• Robertson, I. (2007). Major Positions In Research Method. [online video] Available at: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=srRYdpVYD2A> [Accessed February 2013]

Blog Post 1.1: Public vs. Private

Originally posted to eBridge: 3 February 2013 

In the Research Methods reader, Colquhoon (2006, Ch.1) brings up the subject of how formal research is undertaken in 'an open and public forum', but I have to question just how open the world of academic publishing really is. Sure, there is the sense of authority from having the work reviewed rigorously by other academics, but it's then published in pay-to-subscribe journals that are usually not accessible to the general public, even if they knew what they were looking for. Despite having access to Athens, I often find I'm more successful using Google Scholar for tracking down something useful, and my Athens account sometimes doesn't get me access to the material of certain publishers that seem to be on the approved list.

Is there a different way of publishing research? Wheeler (2011) notes that a number of academics are joining a revolt against pay-to-subscribe journals. Perhaps in time this might become more than just a trickle?

References:

• Colquhoon, D. (2006). Research Methods in Education Contexts. University of Hull
• Wheeler, S. (2011). When the dam breaks... Learning with e's [blog] 18 October. Available at: <http://steve-wheeler.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/when-dam-breaks.html> [Accessed February 2013]