The Australian Educational Researcher

, Volume 37, Issue 4, pp 79–101 | Cite as

Digital media, technologies and scholarship: Some shapes of eResearch in educational inquiry

  • Lina Markauskaite
Article

Abstract

This paper discusses some recent developments in digital media, research technologies and scholarly practices that are known under the umbrella term of “eResearch”. Drawing on conceptual ideas of digital materialism, epistemic artefacts and epistemic tools, this paper discusses how the digital inscription of knowledge and knowing could change the nature of knowledge work in educational research and inquiry. This paper argues that eResearch challenges the conventional divide between “monological” and “dialogical” research practices and provides opportunities to create “trialogical” ways of inquiry. These trialogical practices involve not only the collaborative development of answers to research questions, but also require explicit attention and development of new digital epistemic infrastructures — digital resources, software and conceptual tools and social structures. Our limited understanding about educational knowledge building practices is one of the major challenges for further advancement of educational research.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2010).My school website. Retrieved August 23, 2010, from Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority web site: http://www.myschool.edu.au.Google Scholar
  2. Australian Council of Deans of Education (ACDE). (2009).Data repository for teacher education scoping study. Australia: The Australian Council of Deans of Education.Google Scholar
  3. American Council of Learned Societies Commission (ACLS). (2006).Our cultural commonwealth: The final report of the American council of learned societies commission on Cyberinfrastructure for the humanities and social sciences. Retrieved August 23, 2010, from ACLS website: http://www.acls.org/uploadedFiles/ Publications/Programs/Our_Cultural_Commonwealth.pdfGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, T., & Kanuka, H. (2003).E-research: Methods, strategies and issues. Boston: Pearson Education Inc.Google Scholar
  5. Armstrong, V., Barnes, S., Sutherland, R., Curran, S., Mills, S., & Thompson, I. (2005). Collaborative research methodology for investigating teaching and learning: The use of interactive whiteboard technology.Educational Review, 57, 457–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Atkins, D. E., Droegemeier, K. K., Feldman, S. I., Garcia-Molina, H., Klein, M. L., Messerschmitt, D. G., et al. (2003).Revolutionizing science and engineering through Cyberinfrastructure. Report of the National Science Foundation blueribbon advisory panel on Cyberinfrastructure. Arlington, VA: Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering, National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  7. Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The “digital natives” debate: A critical review of the evidence.British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bishop, L. (2005). Protecting respondents and enabling data sharing: Reply to Parry and Mauthner.Sociology, 39(2), 333–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blanke, T., Hedges, M., & Dunn, S. (2009). Arts and humanities e-science — current practices and future challenges.Future Generation Computer Systems, 25(4), 474–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Borgman, C. L. (2007).Scholarship in the digital age: Information, infrastructure, and the internet. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Borgman, C. L., Abelson, H., Dirks, L., Johnson, R., Koedinger, K. R., Linn, M. C., et al. (2008).Fostering learning in the networked world: The cyberlearning opportunity and challenge, a 21st century agenda for the National Science Foundation. Arlington: NSF Task Force on Cyberlearning.Google Scholar
  12. Broom, A., Cheshire, L., & Emmison, M. (2009). Qualitative researchers’ understandings of their practice and the implications for data archiving and sharing.Sociology, 43(6), 1163–1180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1999).How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  14. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions.The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 141–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Burton, L. M., Purvin, D., & Garrett-Peters, R. (2009). Longitudinal ethnography: Uncovering domestic abuse in low-income women’s lives. In G. H. Elder Jr. & J. Z. Giele (Eds.),The craft of life course research (pp. 70–92). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  16. Carmichael, P. (2007). Introduction: Technological development, capacity building and knowledge construction in education research.Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 16(3), 235–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Carusi, A., & Jirotka, M. (2009). From data archive to ethical labyrinth.Qualitative Research, 9(3), 285–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cole, F. T. H. (2008, December 3–5).Taking “data” (as a topic): The working policies of indifference, purification and differentiation. Paper presented at the 19th Australasian conference on information systems, Christchurch, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  19. Conklin, J. (2006).Wicked problems and social complexity. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  20. Commonwealth of Australia. (2008).Success through partnership: Achieving a national vision for ICT in schools. Strategic plan to guide the implementation of the digital education revolution initiative and related initiatives. Retrieved August 26, 2010 from http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/DigitalEducationRevolution/ Documents/DER%20Strategic%20plan.pdfGoogle Scholar
  21. Computing Research Association (CRA). (2005).Cyberinfrastructure for education and learning for the future: A vision and research agenda. Washington, DC: Computing Research Association.Google Scholar
  22. Cuban, L. (2001).Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Dede, C. (2009). Comments on Greenhow, Robelia, and Hughes: Technologies that facilitate generating knowledge and possibly wisdom.Educational Researcher, 38(4), 260–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST). (2006).An Australian eresearch strategy and implementation framework: Final report of the e-research coordinating committee. Commonwealth of Australia: Australian Government, DEST.Google Scholar
  25. Dzemyda, G., Saltenis, V., & Tiesis, V. (2003). Forecasting models in the state education system.Informatics in Education, 2(1), 3–14.Google Scholar
  26. EDM (2010) International Working Group on Educational Data Mining. Retrieved April 23, 2010, from: http://www.educationaldatamining.orgGoogle Scholar
  27. Eisner, E. W. (1997). The promise and perils of alternative forms of data representation.Educational Researcher, 26(6), 4–10.Google Scholar
  28. Erickson, F. (2006). Definition and analysis of data from videotape: Some research procedures and their rationales. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, P. B. Elmore, A. Skukauskaite & E. Grace (Eds.),Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 177–191). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  29. Freeman, M., deMarrais, K., Preissle, J., Roulston, K., & Pierre, E. A. S. (2007). Standards of evidence in qualitative research: An incitement to discourse.Educational Researcher, 36(1), 25–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Greenhow, C., & Robelia, B. (2009). Informal learning and identity formation in online social networks.Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 119–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital age: Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now?Educational Researcher, 38(4), 246–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hey, T., Tansley, S., & Tolle, K. (Eds.). (2009).The fourth paradigm: Data-intensive scientific discovery. Remond: Microsoft Research.Google Scholar
  33. Hine, C. (Ed.). (2005).Virtual methods: Issues in social research on the internet. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
  34. Hine, C. (Ed.). (2006).New infrastructures for knowledge production: Understanding e-science. Hershey: Information Science Publishing.Google Scholar
  35. IEA (2010). IEA online database. Retrieved April 23, 2010, from International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement web site: http://www.ieadata.orgGoogle Scholar
  36. Jackson, E. A. (2000). The unbounded vistas of science: Evolutionary limitations.Complexity, 5(5), 35–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jacobson, M. J., & Wilensky, U. (2006). Complex systems in education: Scientific and educational importance and implications for the learning sciences.The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 11–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jankowski, N. W. (Ed.). (2009).E-research: Transformation in scholarly practice. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Jirotka, M., Procter, R., Hartswood, M., Slack, R., Simpson, A., Catelijne, C., et al. (2005). Collaboration and trust in healthcare innovation: The eDiaMoND case study.Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 14(4), 369–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kaestle, C. F. (1993). The awful reputation of educational research.Educational Researcher, 22(1), 26–31.Google Scholar
  41. Kelly, A. (2009). In defence of anonymity: Rejoining the criticism.British Educational Research Journal, 35(3), 431–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999).Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Koro-Ljungberg, M., Yendol-Hoppey, D., Smith, J. J., & Hayes, S. B. (2009). (e)pistemological awareness, instantiation of methods, and uninformed methodological ambiguity in qualitative research projects.Educational Researcher, 38(9), 687–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lagemann, E. C. (2000).An elusive science: The troubling history of education research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  45. Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (Eds.). (2008).Digital literacies: Concepts, policies and practices. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  46. Laterza, V., Carmichael, P., & Procter, R. (2007). The doubtful guest? A virtual research environment for education.Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 16(3), 249–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Law, N., Pelgrum, W. J., & Plomp, T. (Eds.). (2008).Pedagogy and ICT use in schools around the world: Findings from the IEA sites 2006 study. Hong Kong: CERCSpringer.Google Scholar
  48. Lintott, C. J., Schawinski, K., Slosar, A., Land, K., Bamford, S., Thomas, D., et al. (2008). Galaxy Zoo: Morphologies derived from visual inspection of galaxies from the Sloan Digital Sky survey.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 389(3), 1179–1189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Manovich, L. (2001).The language of new media. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  50. Markauskaite, L. (in press). Digital knowledge and digital research: What does eResearch offer education and social policy? In L. Markauskaite, P. Freebody & J. Irwin (Eds.),Methodological choice and design: Linking scholarship, policy and practice. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  51. Markauskaite, L., Aditomo, A., & Hellmers, L. (2009).Co-developing eResearch infrastructure: Technology-enhanced research practices, attitudes and requirements. Full technical report. Sydney: Intersect & The University of Sydney.Google Scholar
  52. Markauskaite, L., & Reimann, P. (2008a, June 30 — July 4). Enabling teacher-led research and innovation: A conceptual design of an inquiry framework for ICT-enhanced teacher innovation. InProceedings of the world conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications. ED-MEDIA 2008 (pp. 3484–3493). Austria, Vienna: AACE.Google Scholar
  53. Markauskaite, L., & Reimann, P. (2008b, July 24–28). Enhancing and scaling-up designbased research: The potential of e-research. InProceedings of the international conference of learning sciences. ICLS 2008. Utrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  54. Markham, A. N., & Baym, N. K. (Eds.). (2009).Internet inquiry: Conversations about method. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  55. Maxwell, J. A. (2004). Causal explanation, qualitative research, and scientific inquiry in education.Educational Researcher, 33(2), 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. McWilliam, E., & Lee, A. (2006). The problem of “the problem with educational research”.Australian Educational Researcher, 33(2), 43–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy (NCRIS) Committee. (2008).Review of the national collaborative research infrastructure strategy’s roadmap. Commonwealth of Australia: DEEWR.Google Scholar
  58. Nersessian, N. J. (2009). How do engineering scientists think? Model-based simulation in biomedical engineering laboratories.Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(4), 730–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. O’Brien, L. (2005). E-research: An imperative for strengthening institutional partnerships.Educause Review, 40(6), 64–77.Google Scholar
  60. Paavola, S., & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). The knowledge creation metaphor — an emergent epistemological approach to learning.Science & Education, 14(6), 535–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Parry, O., & Mauthner, N. (2005). Back to basics: Who re-uses qualitative data and why?Sociology, 39(2), 337–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Pea, R., Lindgren, R., & Rosen, J. (2008). Cognitive technologies for establishing, sharing and comparing perspectives on video over computer networks.Social Science Information, 47(3), 353–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Pea, R. D. (2006). Video-as-data and digital video manipulation techniques for transforming learning sciences research, education and other cultural practices. In J. Weiss, J. Nolan & P. Trifonas (Eds.),International handbook of virtual learning environments (pp. 1321–1393). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Poschl, U. (2004). Interactive journal concept for improved scientific publishing and quality assurance.Learned Publishing, 17, 105–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Prenksy, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants.On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Public Library of Science (PLoS). (2010). PloS computational biology: An official journal of the international society for computational biology. Retrieved April 23, 2010, from http://www.ploscompbiol.org/home.actionGoogle Scholar
  67. Radford, M. (2006). Researching classrooms: Complexity and chaos.British Educational Research Journal, 32(2), 177–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Reimann, P., & Markauskaite, L. (2010). New learning — old methods? How e-research might change technology-enhanced learning research (pp. 249–272). In M. S. Khine & I. M. Saleh (Eds.),New science of learning: Cognition, computers and collaboration in education. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  69. Ritchie, S. M., & Rigano, D. L. (2007). Solidarity through collaborative research.International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 20(2), 129–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Romero, A. C., & Ventura, S. (2007). Educational data mining: A survey from 1995 to 2005.Expert Systems with Applications, 33, 135–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Romero, A. C., & Ventura, S. (Eds.). (2006).Data mining in e-learning. Southampton: WITpress.Google Scholar
  72. Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.). (2006).The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Schleyer, T., Spallek, H., Butler, B. S., Subramanian, S., Weiss, D., Poythress, L., et al. (2008). Facebook for scientists: Requirements and services for optimizing how scientific collaborations are established.Journal of Medical Internet Research,10(3), Retrieved April 23, 2010 from http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/ articlerender.fcgi?artid=2553246.Google Scholar
  74. Schneider, B. (2004). Building a scientific community: The need for replication.Teachers College Record, 106(7), 1471–1483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Schooneboom, J., Levene, M., Heller, J., Keenoy, K., & Turcsanyi-Szabo, M. (Eds.). (2007).Trails in education: Technologies that support navigational learning. Rotterdam/Taipei: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  76. Schroeder, R. (2007).Rethinking science, technology and social change. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Schroeder, R., & Fry, J. (2007). Social science approaches to e-science: Framing an agenda.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,12(2), article 11.Google Scholar
  78. SciVee. (2010).Scivee: Making science visible. Retrieved 23 April, 2010, from http://www.scivee.tv.Google Scholar
  79. Seringhaus, M., & Gerstein, M. (2007). Publishing perishing? Towards tomorrow’s information architecture.BMC Bioinformatics, 8(1), 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors of learning and the dangers of choosing just one.Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.Google Scholar
  81. Shulman, L. (1981). Disciplines of inquiry in education: An overview.Educational Researcher, 10(6), 5–23.Google Scholar
  82. SkyServer. (2010).Sloan Digital Sky Survey/SkyServer. Retrieved April 23, 2010, from http://cas.sdss.org.Google Scholar
  83. Slavin, R. E. (2008). Perspectives on evidence-based research in education — what works? Issues in synthesizing educational program evaluations.Educational Researcher, 37(1), 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Smeyers, P., & Depaepe, M. (2007).Educational research: Networks and technologies. The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Underwood, J., Smith, H., Luckin, R., & Fitzpatrick, G. (2008). E-science in the classroom — towards viability.Computers & Education, 50(2), 535–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2005).The deepening divide: Inequality in the information society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  87. Voithofer, R. (2005). Designing new media education research: The materiality of data, representation, and dissemination.Educational Researcher, 34(9), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Whitty, G. (2006). Education(al) research and education policy making: Is conflict inevitable?British Educational Research Journal, 32(2), 59–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Woolgar, S., & Coopmass, C. (2006). Virtual witnessing in a virtual age: A prospectus for social studies of e-science. In C. Hine (Ed.),New infrastructures for knowledge production: Understanding e-science (pp. 1–25). Hershey: Information Science Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Wouters, P. (2005, June 22–24).The virtual knowledge studio for the humanities and social sciences. Paper presented at the first international conference on e-social science, Manchester, UK.Google Scholar
  91. Wouters, P., Vann, K., Scharnhorst, A., Ratto, M., Hellsten, I., Fry, J., et al. (2008). Messy shapes of knowledge — STS explores informatization, new media, and academic work. In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch & J. Wajcman (Eds.),The handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 319–352). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  92. Wyatt, S., Henwood, F., Miller, N., & Senker, P. (Eds.). (2000).Technology and in/equality: Questioning the information society. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  93. wwPTB. (2010). Worldwide protein data bank. Retrieved April 23, 2010, from http://www.wwpdb.org/.Google Scholar
  94. Zhang, J. (2009). Towards a creative social web for learners and teachers.Educational Researcher, 38(4), 274–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Zhao, C.-M., & Luan, J. (2006). Data mining: Going beyond traditional statistics.New Directions for Institutional Research, 131, 7–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Australian Association for Research in Education 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lina Markauskaite
    • 1
  1. 1.University of SydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations