Back to the Future Redux: Research Directions for Distance Learning
Research Issues
In the remainder of this brief treatise, we would like to address the nature of research in general, and raise a few questions of some possible shifts in focus and even methodology in order to examine some of the questions we raised. We want to raise issues so that distance learning researchers can overcome traditional faults of educational research. David Wiley claims that there are three reasons why educational research has made little impact: it is just plain bad, poorly done, or it doesn’t matter ( p.55).
When Francis Bacon laid the basis for modern scientific inquiry in his Novum Organum, he established the model that enabled a veritable explosion in both quality and quantity of Western knowledge of the external world. This model is very much with us today and is taught to every youngster in middle school (and now even earlier according to the new Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills guidelines) as the “scientific method.” We ask quite simply, is that model appropriate for research into matters pertaining to distance education?
Take a moment to actually meditate on the last five years and think about the rate of change in technology and distance education. It can take your virtual breath away. Will we ever be able to reach equilibrium by achieving a knowledge level? Change occurs so quickly and we are left to wonder, do we know enough. We in this field have no choice but to embrace this change and realize it is evolving at an increasing rate. Traditional research and reporting methods currently slow down our knowledge dissemination and assimilation. While this pregnant pause in the process of knowledge acquisition and dissemination may be appropriate in the field of cutting-edge pharmaceuticals for example, is it appropriate for our field? Here is a brief list of some of the aspects of the current status quo and the existing research model with which we see a distinct possibility for a conflict.
Technology and techniques for distance education are, and will remain, in a constant state of change.
The traditional research model, by its very design, has large lags between exploration and sharing of information to wider audience.
Traditional research papers are written with the intention of having a “shelf-life,” but even in more conventional areas of research, much of what is written for eventual publication expires before the paper is ever made public.
Contexts for distance education are by very definition quite varied. This diversity causes two on-going problems when one resorts to the traditional forms of research:
- quantitative studies invariably will lack generalizability to different contexts, and
- qualitative studies, while capable of producing significant amounts of valuable information, tend to be so focused that the results of such studies rarely match the situation in which “you” reside.
We suggest, then, an essentially a new goal for research in distance education– we should strive to influence practice, not to create seminal works. That is not to say that we shouldn’t be engaging faculty in scholarly research on teaching via technology. But if we clarify our notion in another way, the questions we have raised may not have, and may never have, definitive answers, but will need to be addressed and assessed in an iterative manner. There will be an immediate benefit to this change in the basic goal of research in topics near and dear to the distance education community. If the research we do is to have any benefit at all to ourselves and to the learners of our community, we must place it in the hands of the practitioners in as short a time period as possible, and in a format that can be used rather than posited for further theoretical discussion. Such a research perspective essentially says that the traditional, prescriptive, “one-best-system” should be dropped in favor or providing multiple points of view based upon “best-practices” and “case-studies”. In a word, we should stop trying to be like the hard sciences. They’re hard enough as it is. And we are viable enough as we are to use our own appropriate methodologies. All of this does not suggest that faculty should not engage in scholarly research, but rather, that the research generated needs to advance the field and influence practice.
In this research paradigm we are proposing, peer review becomes much more important and should have broader reach to include the traditional, recognized experts (defining what they say is ‘good’) but also, and more importantly, include practitioners (defining what they say is plausible and actually ‘works’). You see, we are faced with an enigma in our own field -- the technology and techniques of developing and delivering distance education have changed significantly, but the technology and techniques of reporting research on distance education have not changed significantly. By analogy, we are still looking to the newspapers for descriptions of events that FOX news broadcasted in real time.
Whatever research agenda our community develops and nurtures, we recommend the following three tenets be seriously mulled over for inclusion in any research endeavor:
-
The objectives of research methods should always include
- decreased “time-to-market” while maintaining quality – i.e. better, faster, cheaper
- embrace the fluid nature of the technology and the techniques
-
There should be a basic “shift in focus” that
- embraces the diversity of distance education techniques and technology
- emphasizes smaller studies (case studies) from broader audiences. These case studies should restrict the format and even the language that is used so as not to replicate the existing dichotomy between those who actually read and conduct research, and those who stand to benefit from it. There will undoubtedly be a loss in richness, but a concomitant increase in applicability.
- a clearing house, or catalog, of an ever increasing number of case studies with cross-referenced indexes to simplify search by practitioners.
- a philosophy of localized expertise, but globalized access. Knowledge domains should be non-authoritative (reports, quotes, applications) and authoritative (the researcher, developers). See the Domain Name Service (DNS) model for an example
-
A willingness to explore failure
- the ability to critically scrutinize distance education endeavors helps to illuminate successes and failures.
- sharing failures is essential to expanding our understanding because knowing what hasn’t worked is just as important as knowing what has worked.