Defining the literature review

Originally posted to eBridge, 24 February 2013

 

I've been using the questions given by Newby (2010, p.217) to further define my literature review:

• Why is this an issue/problem? With the on-going economic instability, organisations are looking for more cost-effective ways of training their staff. Managers are reluctant to release employees for extensive and off-site training, so learning technologies are becoming an area of great interest for ways of training staff remotely and more efficiently. Barriers to adoption of informal learning tools and methods arise because these are not seen as being immediately productive. However, they will become increasingly important for successful cooperation in the era of networked business (Jarche, 2013), and they do not always appear spontaneously, because the existing pressures prevent them from being realised as beneficial. Research to outline benefits of using technologies that support social learning could help to provide a much-needed theoretical basis for convincing stakeholders to adopt them, along with the benefit of self-education for practitioners.

• Is there a political dimension? Potentially, this could have a political dimension. Recent events (Garner, 2011; Orr, 2011) have brought intense political interest in the operations of exam boards. Whilst anti-bribery compliance training has been designed, developed and implemented in-house, this is subject to critical approval and auditing by government and regulatory authorities. My personal interest is in maintaining freedom in how to implement training, and ensure that it is truly successful. Jennings (2012) has questioned the general effectiveness of compliance training, as it focuses largely on 'checking boxes' and doesn't really affect behaviour in the long term. Online communities have the potential to radically alter the way in which training takes place, and ensure that real behavioural changes are achieved. Providing research data on how communities can be of benefit will help to ensure that such initiatives are not dismissed as either ineffective or unnecessary.

• When did this issue first arise? Online communities have been a point of interest for me as a practitioner since beginning my own formal learning using these methods. The concept of communities of practice has been periodically mentioned amongst colleagues, and there is a wider interest in engaging with customers using social media platforms. Online communities could provide an important practice ground for this.

• Who has an interest in the topic? All learning & development (or training) departments have an interest in the evolution of learning technologies, and the alternative methods for achieving learning outcomes that become feasible. See for instance Epic's Social Learning Debate, with interest from many high profile names in the field.

My initial thought is that this literature review should be conducted in a qualitative manner, to allow it to grow inductively. Using the principles outline by Ke & Hoadley (2009) should allow for systematic design along with a self-education aspect.

 

References:

Garner, R. (2011). Profit motive has created corrupt education system, say teachers. The Independent [online] 9 December. Available at: <http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/profit-motive-has-created-corrupt-education-system-say-teachers-6274531.html> [Accessed 5 August 2012]

Jarche, H. [2013]. Perpetual Beta is the new reality. Life in Perpetual Beta [blog] 1 March. Available at: http://www.jarche.com/2013/03/perpetual-beta-is-the-new-reality/ [Accessed March 2013]

Jennings, C. (2012). Compliance Training: does it really work? Performance. Learning. Productivity. [blog] 15 August. Available at: <http://charles-jennings.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/compliance-training-does-it-really-work.html> [Accessed 18 December 2012]

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.

Orr, J. (2011). Exam boards: examiners suspended in 'corrupt practices' row. The Telegraph (online) 8 December. Available at: <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/secondaryeducation/8943300/Exam-boards-examiners-suspended-in-corrupt-practices-row.html> [Accessed 5 August 2012]

Blog post 4.1: Rules vs Principles

Originally posted to eBridge, 17 February 2013

Do we act according to rules or principles? Newby (2010) suggests that there is normally a set of ‘rules’ that are accepted as best practice – but do all researchers accept these, or can they even be held to them like laws? He advises that when researchers make a decision to act differently, they should ensure that they stick to a set of principles that they can defend from a moral standpoint. One thorny question that enters my mind here is the assumption that children’s education will/should be imposed from a top-down perspective by governments and local authorities. Also the teachers themselves are generally forgotten here – no mention is given to their standing as practitioners, or their own right to learn and adapt without excessive intervention.

Honesty – should really go without saying, but when working in a research department I often heard, through hearsay, about professors leaving choice facts out of their research papers to prevent others from successfully replicating their experiments, particularly if they were working competitively with other research groups towards prestigious results. When people are working towards goals concerning commercial competition, it is to be expected that dishonesty would certainly creep into the equation, both externally and internally.

Confidentiality – as for the previous point, it is unlikely that one will always have a clear cut decision to make about this. Relationships and reputations can be destroyed through breach of confidence, but also sometimes through blind adherence to a confidentiality rule over principles.

Publishing – some of the points that Newby raises about publishing data gathered from individuals and organisations, have parallels with concerns that Lanier (2012) mentions with regards to data on the internet. Newby’s talk of ‘intellectual imperialism’ questions the rights of researchers to claim results as being entirely their own when it comes to publishing; Lanier also warns of individuals’ contributions to online material being anonymised, in a form of ‘digital Maoism’, where the finished product is regarded as more important than the contributors. Beyond this there is also the usual tussle over rights to ‘claim’ conclusions, or the petty arguments as to what order names should appear in on a publication!

The problem consistently rearing its head here is the lack of incentive to collaborate effectively, if at all. Jarche (2013) regularly discusses the failure of collaborative ventures, and possible means to break the deadlock.

Participation – with the point raised above about researchers not acknowledging their participants, this is another considerable barrier to effective collaboration. The context of Newby’s (2010) examples is beginning to differ substantially from my own, but some common principles remain, namely that any data and results I gain should be treated carefully with respect to participants, and ensure that they do not suffer from taking part in the study. I would usually expect that people within the same organisation would be more understanding, but cross-organisational collaboration may be more tricky!

Plagiarism – the problem of ‘digital Maoism’ raised by Lanier comes back into play, as people increasingly treat information on the internet as being open-source for all ends. Simply failing to even reference other peoples’ work is bad enough, but often the data is claimed as one’s own work. Without adequate tools for checking plagiarism, we cannot hope to meaningfully assess even undergraduate work, let alone primary research, for plagiarism.

References:

• Jarche, H. (2013). Collaboration is a means not an end. Life in perpetual beta (blog) 14 February. Available at: http://www.jarche.com/2013/02/collaboration-is-a-means-not-an-end/ (Accessed February 2013)
• Lanier, J. (2012). Are we at the beginning of the rise of post human machine intelligence? Available at: <http://dpcloud.co/v3/enterprise/learningtech/index.php?option=com_dpcloud&v=play&p=7117&u=learningtech&cat=Keynotes&Itemid=2> (Accessed October 2012)
• Newby, P. (2010). Research Methods for Education. Pearson Education Limited.