The Methodological Challenge of Networked Learning: (Post)disciplinarity and Critical Emancipation

  • Petar JandrićEmail author
Part of the Research in Networked Learning book series (RINL)


This chapter explores the contemporary shift towards postdisciplinarity in networked learning research through the lens of emancipatory interest and critical theory, and defines the question of disciplinarity as a battlefield between various values and ideologies. It explores the rise of disciplinarity and the relationships between disciplinarity and technique. It places disciplinarity into the context of the network society, and explores emancipatory potentials of various (post)disciplinary approaches. Traditional disciplinarity is dialectically intertwined with education and class. Multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity creatively re-arrange traditional disciplinary knowledge without disturbing its core epistemic assumptions—more efficient in practice than traditional disciplinarity, they still reproduce traditional power relationships and offer little opportunity for emancipation. Transdiciplinarity challenges hegemonic discourses and enables critical social action, and antidisciplinarity completely rejects disciplinarity thus creating an egalitarian research universe. However, research methods in contemporary networked learning are always a hybrid between disciplinarity and postdisciplinarity. Even the most advanced postdisciplinary approaches cannot be conceived without some elements of traditional disciplinarity; even the strictest disciplinary approaches break at least some disciplinary borders. On that basis, the chapter invites readers to embrace the hybrid nature of research methodologies in networked learning, include emancipatory interest in their methodological considerations, and seek an appropriate balance between complex and often contradictory forces which constitute networked learning as we know it.


Networked learning Research methods Critical theory Postdisciplinarity 



I want to thank Christine Sinclair, Sarah Hayes, Constantine D. Skordoulis, Sian Bayne, Thomas Ryberg, Maarten de Laat, and anonymous reviewers, for their valuable criticisms and suggestions.


  1. Bambach, C., Stern, R., & Manges, A. (2003). Leonardo da Vinci, master draftsman. New York, NY: Metropolitan Museum of Art New York.Google Scholar
  2. Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual inquiry and the culture of disciplines. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Braben, D. W. (2002). Blue Skies Research and the global economy. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 314, 768–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buckler, J. A. (2004). Towards a new model of general education at Harvard College. Retrieved April 14, 2013, from
  5. Castells, M. (2001). The Internet galaxy: Reflections on the internet, business, and society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cicero, M. T. (2001). Cicero on the ideal orator (De Oratore). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Conole, G. (2010). Theory and methodology in networked learning. Paper presented at the Networked Learning Conference Hotseat. Available online at view/2881. Accessed 11 Aug 2015.
  8. Ellul, J. (1964). The technological society. New York, NY: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  9. Giroux, H. A. (Ed.). (1991). Postmodernism, feminism and cultural politics: Rethinking educational boundaries. New York, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  10. Giroux, H. A. (1992). Border crossings. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Giroux, D., & Karmis, D. (2012). Call for papers: Cahiers de l’idiotie No 6 – Université/University. Ottawa: Cahiers de l’idiotie. Retrieved April 14, 2013, from
  12. Giroux, H. A., & Searls Giroux, S. (2004). Take back higher education: Race, youth and the crisis of democracy in the post-civil rights era. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goodyear, P., Banks, S., Hodgson, V., & McConnell, D. (Eds.). (2004). Advances in research on networked learning. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  14. Goodyear, P., & Carvalho, L. (2014). Introduction. In L. Carvalho & P. Goodyear (Eds.), The architecture of productive learning networks. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.Google Scholar
  15. Goral, T. (2014). Unintended consequences: The rise-and fall-of adjuncts in higher education. University Business, 17(3).Google Scholar
  16. Habermas, J. (1987). Knowledge and human interest. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  17. Heidegger, M. (1981). “Only a God Can Save Us”: The Spiegel interview. In T. Sheehan (Ed.), Heidegger: The man and the thinker (pp. 45–67). Chicago, IL: Precedent Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hirsch Hadorn, G., Biber-Klemm, S., Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., Joye, D., Pohl, C., Wiesmann, U., & Zemp, E. (2008). The emergence of transdisciplinarity as a form of research. In G. Hirsch Hadorn, H. Hoffmann-Riem, S. Biber-Klemm, W. Grossenbacher-Mansuy, D. Joye, C. Pohl, U. Wiesmann, & E. Zemp (Eds.), Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Berlin: Springer, 19–42.Google Scholar
  19. Hodgson, V., De Laat, M., McConnell, D., & Ryberg, T. (Eds.). (2014). The design, experience and practice of networked learning. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Hodgson, V., McConnell, D., & Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L. (2012). The theory, practice and pedagogy of networked learning. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, & D. McConnell (Eds.), Exploring the theory, pedagogy and practice of networked learning (pp. 291–307). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Horkheimer, M., & Adorno, T. W. (2002). Dialectic of enlightenment: Philosophical fragments. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Illich, I. (1973). Tools for conviviality. London: Marion Boyars Publishers Ltd.Google Scholar
  23. Jandrić, P. & Boras, D. (Eds.). (2015). Critical learning in digital networks. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Jandrić, P., & Boras, D. (2012). Critical e-learning: Struggle for power and meaning in the network society. Zagreb: FF Press & The Polytechnic of Zagreb.Google Scholar
  25. Johnson, R. (1988). “Really useful knowledge” 1790–1850: Memories for education in the 1980s. In T. Lovett (Ed.), Radical approaches to adult education: A reader (pp. 3–34). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Klein, J.T. (2006). Resources for interdisciplinary studies. Change, 38(2): 50.Google Scholar
  27. Kristensen, R. G., & Claycomb, R. M. (Eds.). (2010). Writing against the curriculum: Anti-disciplinarity in the writing and cultural studies classroom. Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Ltd.Google Scholar
  28. Kudera, A. (2010). Fight for your long day. Washington, DC: Atticus Books.Google Scholar
  29. Lawrence, R. J., & Després, C. (2004). Futures of transdisciplinarity. Futures, 36(4), 397–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lotrecchiano, G.R. (2010). Complexity leadership in transdisciplinary (TD) learning environments: A knowledge feedback loop. International Journal of Transdisciplinary Research, 5(1), 29–63.Google Scholar
  31. Marcuse, H. (1964). One-dimensional man. Herbert Marcuse Archive.Google Scholar
  32. Maynard, D. C., & Joseph, T. A. (2008). Are all part-time faculty underemployed? The influence of faculty status preference on satisfaction and commitment. Higher Education, 55(2), 139–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McLaren, P. (Ed.). (1995). Postmodernism, post-colonialism and pedagogy. Albert Park, VIC: James Nicholas Publishers.Google Scholar
  34. McLaren, P., & Farahmandpur, R. (2005). Teaching against global capitalism and the new imperialism. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
  35. McLaren, P. & Kumar, R. (2009). Peter McLaren in an interview with Ravi Kumar: Being, Becoming and Breaking-Free: Peter McLaren and the Pedagogy of Liberation. Radical Notes, February 19. Retrieved April 14, 2013, from
  36. Miller, L. R. (2004). Teaching amidst the neon palm trees. Miami, FL: 1st Book Library.Google Scholar
  37. Nicolescu, B. (2008). In vitro and in vivo knowledge – Methodology of transdisciplinarity. In B. Nicolescu (Ed.), Transdisciplinarity – Theory and practice (pp. 1–22). New York, NY: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  38. Novy, A. (2012). “Unequal diversity” as a knowledge alliance: An encounter of Paulo Freire’s dialogical approach and transdisciplinarity. Multicultural Education and Technology, 6(3), 137–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. One laptop per child initiative. (2015). Mission. Retrieved May 14, 2015, from
  40. Parchoma, G. (2012). Transdisciplinary research in technology enhanced/networked learning practices. In V. Hodgson, C. Jones, M. De Laat, D. McConnell, T. Ryberg, & P. Sloep (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Networked Learning (pp. 496–497). Maastricht: Maastricht School of Management.Google Scholar
  41. Parchoma, G., & Keefer, J. M. (2012). Contested disciplinarity in international doctoral supervision. In V. Hodgson, C. Jones, M. De Laat, D. McConnell, T. Ryberg, & P. Sloep (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Networked Learning (pp. 498–505). Maastricht: Maastricht School of Management.Google Scholar
  42. Parker, H. (1890). The seven liberal arts. The English Historical Review, 5(19), 417–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Peters, R. S. (1972). Education and the educated man. In R. F. Dearden, P. H. Hirst, & R. S. Peters (Eds.), Education and the development of reason (pp. 3–19). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  44. Pickover, C. A. (2008). Archimedes to hawking: Laws of science and the great minds behind them. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Ralston, S. J. (2011). Interdisciplinarity: Some lessons from John Dewey. American Dialectic, 1(2), 309–321.Google Scholar
  46. Standing, G. (2011). The precariat: The new dangerous class. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  47. Standing, G. (2014). A precariat charter: From denizens to citizens. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  48. Sterne, J. (2005). Digital media and disciplinarity. The Information Society, 21, 249–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stiegler, B. (1998). Technics and time, 1: The fault of epimetheus. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Stiegler, B. (2007). Technoscience and Reproduction. Parallax, 13(4), 29–45.Google Scholar
  51. Sutherland, R., Eagle, S., & Joubert, M. (2012). A vision and strategy for technology enhanced learning: Report from the STELLAR Network of Excellence. Bristol: University of Bristol.Google Scholar
  52. Van Dijk, J. (1999). The network society: Social aspects of new media. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  53. Varma, R. (2007). Women in computing: The role of geek culture. Science as Culture, 16(4), 359–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Applied SciencesZagrebCroatia

Personalised recommendations