Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Representations 1.0, 2.0, 3.0

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
A Companion to Research in Education

  • 4176 Accesses

Abstract

Digital media and online communication have become a pervasive part of the everyday lives of youth and most graduate students. Web 2.0 technologies such as social network sites, online video games, content-sharing sites, and YouTube are now well-established fixtures of communication and knowledge exchange. While wary of the claims that there is a digital or Web 2.0 generation that overthrows knowledge generation and representation as currently practiced in graduate programs, I argue that the current adoption of Web 2.0 social media is accelerating a unique period of knowledge exchange, content generation and digital representations in research. How are representations 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 being taken up by researchers and what opportunities do these new digital practices afford? And how do these representational practices change the dynamics of research and scholarly communication? The extent to which new digital technologies can mediate representations of research should call the educational research community, graduate departments and thesis committees to epistemological and methodological attention, creative responses, and serious inquiry. The chapter begins a critical study into issues of representations of educational research through new digital technologies and issues to ponder in digital research design decisions. The goal is to learn how to harness the opportunities that increasing digital fluency presents, and shape our research in ways that advance a more creative participatory culture in educational research.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Agar M (2004) We have met the other and we’re all nonlinear: ethnography as a nonlinear dynamic system. Complex 10(2):16–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen M (2008) Web 2.0: an argument against convergence. First Monday 13(3). Retrieved 6 Mar 2009, from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2139/1946

  • Ayers W (2006) Trudge toward freedom: educational research in the public interest. In: Ladson-Billings G, Tate WF (eds) Education research in the public interest. Teachers College Press, New York, pp 81–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Banchoff TF (1994) Interactive computer graphics, higher dimensional geometry and electronic publication: from flatland to hypertext. In: McMillan G, Norstedt M (eds) New scholarship: new serials proceedings of the North American Serials Interest Group, Inc. Haworth Press, Binghamton, pp 9–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Barone T (2006) Making educational history: qualitative inquiry, artistry, and the public interest. In: Ladson-Billings G, Tate WF (eds) Education research in the public interest: the place for advocacy in the academy. Teachers College Press, New York, pp 347–376

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrett MJ (2013) Responding to environmental crises through multi-media hypertextual research representation. In: Reid AD, Hart EP, Peters MA (eds) A companion to research in education. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 569–574

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd D (2008) Why youth (heart) social network sites: the role of networked publics in teenage social life. In: Buckingham D (ed) Youth, identity, and digital media. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 119–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruns A (2008) Blogs, Wikipedia, second life and beyond: from production to produsage. Peter Lang, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark C, Brody M, Dillon J, Hart P, Heimlich J (2007) The messy process of research dilemmas, process, and critique. Can J Environ Educ 12:110–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Cormode G, Krishnamurthy B (2008) Key differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. First Monday 13(6). Retrieved 26 June 2009, from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2125/1972

  • Dede C (2008a) A seismic shift in epistemology. EDUCAUSE review. Retrieved 27 June 2009, from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0837.pdf

  • Dede C (2008b) Web 2.0: helping reinvent education. THE J. 2008. Retrieved 27 June 2009, from http://thejournal.com/articles/2008/01/25/web-20-helping-reinvent-education.aspx

  • Dede C (2009) Technologies that facilitate generating knowledge and possibly wisdom. Educ Res 38(4):260–263

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (2005) The SAGE handbook of qualitative research, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Federman M (2007) Plagiarism in a cut-and-paste, remix (or bricolage) culture. Retrieved 30 June 2009, from http://whatisthemessage.blogspot.com/2007/09/talking-about-plagiarism-on-cbc-spark.html

  • Freire P (1970/2000) Pedagogy of the oppressed, 30th Anniversary edn. Continuum Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Gitlin T (2002) Media unlimited: how the torrent of images and sounds overwhelms our lives. Henry Holt, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman-Segall R (1999) Points of viewing children’s thinking: a digital ethnographer’s journey. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenhow C, Robelia B, Hughes JE (2009) Web 2.0 and classroom research: what path should we take now? Educ Res 38(4):246–259

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaschik S (2009) Tenure in a digital era. Inside Higher Education (26 May). Retrieved 30 June 2009, from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/05/26/digital

  • Jenkins H, Clinton K, Purushotma R, Robinson AJ, Weigel M (2006) Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: media education for the 21st century. Building the field of digital media and learning. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Chicago. Retrieved 23 June 2009, from http://www.newmedialiteracies.org/files/working/NMLWhitePaper.pdf

  • Korteweg L (2001) Inverted Hollywood: the pitch for e-knowledge meets pre-service teacher education. In: Barrell B (ed) Technology, teaching, and learning: issues in the integration of technology. Detselig Press, Calgary, pp 239–260

    Google Scholar 

  • Korteweg L (2007) Why environmental education should heed open-access technologies. Can J Environ Educ 12:175–182

    Google Scholar 

  • Landow G (1997) Hypertext 2.0. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  • Lather P (2007) Getting lost: feminist efforts toward a double(d) science. SUNY Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lather P (2008) Keynote address: research as Praxis 2.0. Provoking Research, proVoking Community (PRVC) conference, University of Windsor, Windsor, 3–5 July

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenhart A, Madden M (2005) Teen content creators and consumers. Pew Internet and American Life Project, Washington, DC, 2 Nov. Available online at http://www.pewInternet.org/PPF/r/166/report_display.asp

  • Lenhart A, Madden M, Macgill AR, Smith A (2007) Teens and social media. Pew Charitable Trusts, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenhart A, Arafeh S, Smith A, Macgill AR (2008) Writing, technology, and teens. Pew Charitable Trusts, Washington, DC. Retrieved 9 Dec 2008, from http://pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Writing_Report_FINAL3.pdf

  • Levi-Strauss C (1968) The savage mind. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcus GE, Fischer MJ (1999) Anthropology as cultural critique. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller JL (2000) What’s left in the field . . . A curriculum memoir. J Curric Stud 32(2):253–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murthy D (2008) Digital ethnography: an examination of the use of new technologies for social research. Sociol 42(5):837–855

    Google Scholar 

  • Neilsen M (2009) Is scientific publishing about to be disrupted? Retrieved 15 July 2009, from http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/?p=629%3Cbr%20/%3E

  • O’Reilly T (2005) What is Web 2.0? Retrieved 10 Dec 2008, from http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html

  • Rosenau P (1992) Post-modernism and the social sciences. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell CL (2003) Minding the gap between methodological desires and practices. In: Hodson D (ed) OISE papers in STSE education, vol 4. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, pp 485–504

    Google Scholar 

  • Said E (1994) Representations of the intellectual. Vintage Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwandt T (2007) The SAGE dictionary of qualitative inquiry. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Senft T (2009) Questions on micro-celebrity. Retrieved 18 July 2009, from http://tsenft.livejournal.com/

  • Shirky C (2002) Weblogs and the mass amateurization of publishing. Retrieved 30 June 2009, from http://shirky.com/writings/weblogs_publishing.html

  • Shirky C (2008) Here comes everybody: the power of organizing without organizations. Penguin Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Tapscott D (2009) Growing up digital: how the net generation is changing your world. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson C (2007) The age of microcelebrity: why everyone’s a little Brad Pitt. Wired Magazine 15(12). Retrieved 28 June 2009, from http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/15-12/st_thompson

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace RC (2004) A framework for understanding teaching with the internet. Am Educ Res J 41:447–488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willinsky J (2002) Education and democracy: the missing link may be ours. Harv Educ Rev 72(3):367–392

    Google Scholar 

  • Willinsky J (2004) Scholarly associations and the economic viability of open access publishing. J Digit Inf 4(2):XX

    Google Scholar 

  • Willinsky J (2006) The access principle: the case for open access to research and scholarship. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Willinsky J (2013) The new openness in educational research. In: Reid AD, Hart EP, Peters MA (eds) A companion to research in education. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 575–582

    Google Scholar 

  • Windschitl M (1998) The WWW and classroom research: what path should we take? Educ Res 27(1):28–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Woo Y (2008) Engaging new audiences: translating research into popular media. Educ Res 37(6):321–329

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, ON, Canada

    Lisa Korteweg

Authors
  1. Lisa Korteweg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lisa Korteweg .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia

    Alan D. Reid

  2. Faculty of Education, University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada

    E. Paul Hart

  3. Hamilton Campus, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

    Michael A. Peters

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Korteweg, L. (2014). Representations 1.0, 2.0, 3.0. In: Reid, A., Hart, E., Peters, M. (eds) A Companion to Research in Education. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6809-3_73

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation