Paradigmatic pluralism in educational technology is a largely unaddressed reality, and we have heretofore not provided guidance to professionals on how to navigate it. Pushing back against mainstream views of scientific progress (e.g., linear, progressive), we must recognize the processes by which paradigms are born, adopted, and rejected and that paradigmatic pluralism reflects deep-seated diversity of ontological, epistemological, and axiological assumptions among our professionals. As a result, our professionals must develop strategies to navigate pluralism, which will be determined by their stance on at least two core issues: (1) Monism vs. Pluralism and (2) Commensurability vs. Incommensurability. We propose that our stances on these issues organize us into four navigation techniques: Specialists, Evangelists, Opportunists, and Multihyphenates. Each technique has benefits and limitations, but we argue that the Multihyphenate technique is the most valuable for the field insofar as it values pluralism, demands rigor, and embraces the contradicting realities that pluralism implies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Ayers, W., Quinn, T. M., & Stovall, D. (2009). Handbook of social justice in education.New York, NY: Routledge.
Bernstein, R. J. (1989). Pragmatism, pluralism and the healing of wounds. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 63(3), 5–18.
Burkhardt, H., & Schoenfeld, A. H. (2003). Improving educational research: Toward a more useful, more influential, and better-funded enterprise. Educational Researcher, 32(9), 3–14.
Center for Innovative Research in Cyber Learning. (2019). “Call for papers: Learning in and for collective social action.” Retrieved from https://circlcenter.org/jls-special-issue-learning-in-and-for-collective-social-action/. Accessed 20 June 2019
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluation quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River: Pearson.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Education, equity, and the right to learn. In J. I. Goodlad & T. J. McMannon (Eds.), The public purpose of education and schooling. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Darwin, C. (1859). The origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. United Kingdom.
Daston, L. (2016). History of science without Structure. In R. J. Richards & L. Daston (Eds.), Kuhn's 'Structure of scientific revolutions' at fifty : Reflections on a science classic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.
Farrell, S., & Lewandowsky, S. (2018). Computational modeling of cognition and behavior. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Feyerabend, P. K. (1975). Against method: Outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge. London: Verso.
Galison, P. (2016). Practice all the way down. In R. J. Richards & L. Daston (Eds.), Kuhn's 'Structure of scientific revolutions' at fifty : Reflections on a science classic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goodlad, J. I., Mantle-Bromley, C., & Goodlad, S. J. (2004). Education for everyone: Agenda for education in a democracy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hacking, I. (2016). Paradigms. In R. J. Richards & L. Daston (Eds.), Kuhn's 'Structure of scientific revolutions' at fifty : Reflections on a science classic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.
Kimmons, R., & Hall, C. (2016). Emerging technology integration models. In G. Veletsianos (Ed.), Emergence and innovation in digital learning: Foundations and applications. Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.
Kimmons, R., & Hall, C. (2017). How useful are our models? Pre-service and practicing teacher evaluations of technology integration models. Tech Trends, 62, 29–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-017-0227-8.
Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakatos, I. (1978). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I. Lakatos, J. Worrall, & G. Currie (Eds.), The methodology of scientific research programs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marsden, G. M. (1997). The outrageous idea of Christian scholarship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mclaren, P., & Farahmandpur, R. (2002). Breaking signifying chains: A Marxist position on postmodernism. In D. Hill, P. McLaren, M. Cole, & G. Rikowski (Eds.), Marxism against postmodernism in educational theory. Oxford: Lexington.
McLaren, P., Hill, D., Cole, M., & Rikowski, G. (2002). Postmodernism adieu: Toward a politics of human resistance. In D. Hill, P. McLaren, M. Cole, & G. Rikowski (Eds.), Marxism against postmodernism in educational theory. Oxford: Lexington.
Mertens, D. M. (2004). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Rieber, L. (1998). The proper way to become an instructional technologist. In R. E. West (Ed.), Foundations of learning and instructional design technology. EdTech Books Retrieved from http://edtechbooks.org/lidtfoundations/proper_way. Accessed 20 June 2019
Schwartz, J. E. (1997). Christians teaching in the public schools: What are some options? Christian Scholars Review, 26, 293–305.
Soder, R. (1997). Democracy: Do we really want it? In J. I. Goodlad & T. J. McMannon (Eds.), The public purpose of education and schooling. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Veletsianos, G., & Kimmons, R. (2012). Assumptions and challenges of open scholarship. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(4), 166–189.
Willingham, D. T. (2012). When can you trust the experts?: How to tell good science from bad in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass.
Willingham, D. (2019). Politics’ uneasy bedfellow. Daniel Willingham – Science & Education Retrieved from http://www.danielwillingham.com/daniel-willingham-science-and-education-blog/politics-uneasy-bedfellow. Accessed 20 June 2019
Willis, J. W. (2007). Foundations of qualitative research: Interpretive and critical approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452230108.
Wise, M. N. (2016). A smoker’s paradigm. In R. J. Richards & L. Daston (Eds.), Kuhn's 'Structure of scientific revolutions' at fifty : Reflections on a science classic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Yanchar, S., & Williams, D. (2006). Reconsidering the compatibility thesis and eclecticism: Five proposed guidelines for method use. Educational Researcher, 35(9), 3–12.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Kimmons, R., Johnstun, K. Navigating Paradigms in Educational Technology. TechTrends 63, 631–641 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00407-0
- Methodological pluralism
- Mixed methods