Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
The Australian Educational Researcher Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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.pdf

  • Anderson, T., & Kanuka, H. (2003).E-research: Methods, strategies and issues. Boston: Pearson Education Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, L. (2005). Protecting respondents and enabling data sharing: Reply to Parry and Mauthner.Sociology, 39(2), 333–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borgman, C. L. (2007).Scholarship in the digital age: Information, infrastructure, and the internet. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions.The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 141–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Carmichael, P. (2007). Introduction: Technological development, capacity building and knowledge construction in education research.Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 16(3), 235–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carusi, A., & Jirotka, M. (2009). From data archive to ethical labyrinth.Qualitative Research, 9(3), 285–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Conklin, J. (2006).Wicked problems and social complexity. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.pdf

  • 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 

  • Cuban, L. (2001).Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dede, C. (2009). Comments on Greenhow, Robelia, and Hughes: Technologies that facilitate generating knowledge and possibly wisdom.Educational Researcher, 38(4), 260–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Dzemyda, G., Saltenis, V., & Tiesis, V. (2003). Forecasting models in the state education system.Informatics in Education, 2(1), 3–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • EDM (2010) International Working Group on Educational Data Mining. Retrieved April 23, 2010, from: http://www.educationaldatamining.org

  • Eisner, E. W. (1997). The promise and perils of alternative forms of data representation.Educational Researcher, 26(6), 4–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenhow, C., & Robelia, B. (2009). Informal learning and identity formation in online social networks.Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 119–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hey, T., Tansley, S., & Tolle, K. (Eds.). (2009).The fourth paradigm: Data-intensive scientific discovery. Remond: Microsoft Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hine, C. (Ed.). (2005).Virtual methods: Issues in social research on the internet. Oxford: Berg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hine, C. (Ed.). (2006).New infrastructures for knowledge production: Understanding e-science. Hershey: Information Science Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • IEA (2010). IEA online database. Retrieved April 23, 2010, from International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement web site: http://www.ieadata.org

  • Jackson, E. A. (2000). The unbounded vistas of science: Evolutionary limitations.Complexity, 5(5), 35–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jankowski, N. W. (Ed.). (2009).E-research: Transformation in scholarly practice. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaestle, C. F. (1993). The awful reputation of educational research.Educational Researcher, 22(1), 26–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, A. (2009). In defence of anonymity: Rejoining the criticism.British Educational Research Journal, 35(3), 431–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999).Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lagemann, E. C. (2000).An elusive science: The troubling history of education research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (Eds.). (2008).Digital literacies: Concepts, policies and practices. New York: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laterza, V., Carmichael, P., & Procter, R. (2007). The doubtful guest? A virtual research environment for education.Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 16(3), 249–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manovich, L. (2001).The language of new media. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • Markham, A. N., & Baym, N. K. (Eds.). (2009).Internet inquiry: Conversations about method. Los Angeles: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, J. A. (2004). Causal explanation, qualitative research, and scientific inquiry in education.Educational Researcher, 33(2), 3–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McWilliam, E., & Lee, A. (2006). The problem of “the problem with educational research”.Australian Educational Researcher, 33(2), 43–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy (NCRIS) Committee. (2008).Review of the national collaborative research infrastructure strategy’s roadmap. Commonwealth of Australia: DEEWR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nersessian, N. J. (2009). How do engineering scientists think? Model-based simulation in biomedical engineering laboratories.Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(4), 730–757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, L. (2005). E-research: An imperative for strengthening institutional partnerships.Educause Review, 40(6), 64–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paavola, S., & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). The knowledge creation metaphor — an emergent epistemological approach to learning.Science & Education, 14(6), 535–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parry, O., & Mauthner, N. (2005). Back to basics: Who re-uses qualitative data and why?Sociology, 39(2), 337–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Poschl, U. (2004). Interactive journal concept for improved scientific publishing and quality assurance.Learned Publishing, 17, 105–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prenksy, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants.On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.action

  • Radford, M. (2006). Researching classrooms: Complexity and chaos.British Educational Research Journal, 32(2), 177–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Ritchie, S. M., & Rigano, D. L. (2007). Solidarity through collaborative research.International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 20(2), 129–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romero, A. C., & Ventura, S. (2007). Educational data mining: A survey from 1995 to 2005.Expert Systems with Applications, 33, 135–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romero, A. C., & Ventura, S. (Eds.). (2006).Data mining in e-learning. Southampton: WITpress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.). (2006).The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Schneider, B. (2004). Building a scientific community: The need for replication.Teachers College Record, 106(7), 1471–1483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Schroeder, R. (2007).Rethinking science, technology and social change. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • SciVee. (2010).Scivee: Making science visible. Retrieved 23 April, 2010, from http://www.scivee.tv.

  • Seringhaus, M., & Gerstein, M. (2007). Publishing perishing? Towards tomorrow’s information architecture.BMC Bioinformatics, 8(1), 17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors of learning and the dangers of choosing just one.Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. (1981). Disciplines of inquiry in education: An overview.Educational Researcher, 10(6), 5–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • SkyServer. (2010).Sloan Digital Sky Survey/SkyServer. Retrieved April 23, 2010, from http://cas.sdss.org.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smeyers, P., & Depaepe, M. (2007).Educational research: Networks and technologies. The Netherlands: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Underwood, J., Smith, H., Luckin, R., & Fitzpatrick, G. (2008). E-science in the classroom — towards viability.Computers & Education, 50(2), 535–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2005).The deepening divide: Inequality in the information society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voithofer, R. (2005). Designing new media education research: The materiality of data, representation, and dissemination.Educational Researcher, 34(9), 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitty, G. (2006). Education(al) research and education policy making: Is conflict inevitable?British Educational Research Journal, 32(2), 59–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Wyatt, S., Henwood, F., Miller, N., & Senker, P. (Eds.). (2000).Technology and in/equality: Questioning the information society. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • wwPTB. (2010). Worldwide protein data bank. Retrieved April 23, 2010, from http://www.wwpdb.org/.

  • Zhang, J. (2009). Towards a creative social web for learners and teachers.Educational Researcher, 38(4), 274–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, C.-M., & Luan, J. (2006). Data mining: Going beyond traditional statistics.New Directions for Institutional Research, 131, 7–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Sydney, Australia

    Lina Markauskaite

Authors
  1. Lina Markauskaite
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Markauskaite, L. Digital media, technologies and scholarship: Some shapes of eResearch in educational inquiry. Aust. Educ. Res. 37, 79–101 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03216938

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03216938

Keywords

Search

Navigation