I am beginning to wrap my brain around the idea of "Internet research." I am also refining and clarifying my vision for this blog as "research tool," a process I started to explore in an earlier post.
What is Internet research? It could mean two things. There is a distinction between gathering data through the Internet (email, videoconferencing, discussion groups) versus gathering data about the Internet (crowd sourcing, marketing analytics, "trending," and so on).
In other words, the Internet functions as both a method and object of study. As diverse approaches for studying the Internet flourish (Dominguez et al. 2007), the Internet gives rise to new approaches for studying the offline world as well. Dominguez et al. claim this diversity is the result of "the way in which the Internet is conceptualized as both culture and context for social interaction."
What is Internet research? It could mean two things. There is a distinction between gathering data through the Internet (email, videoconferencing, discussion groups) versus gathering data about the Internet (crowd sourcing, marketing analytics, "trending," and so on).
In other words, the Internet functions as both a method and object of study. As diverse approaches for studying the Internet flourish (Dominguez et al. 2007), the Internet gives rise to new approaches for studying the offline world as well. Dominguez et al. claim this diversity is the result of "the way in which the Internet is conceptualized as both culture and context for social interaction."
Of course, in a very Marshall McLuhan sort of way, there is no clear distinction. I may choose a face-to-face, "real world" research context, but with the constant proliferation of digital tools in contemporary society being what it is, it would be foolish to ignore "the current blending of offline and online worlds" (Garcia et al., 2009, p. 53). As such, I must remain consistently reflexive of the influence of digital technologies on my everyday practices as a student and novice researcher, regardless of my research context.
It's time to review "The Machine is Us/ing Us."
It's time to review "The Machine is Us/ing Us."
To take this one step further, I was struck by Dr. Paulus' comment in class last night that researchers tend "to put the practice first, then choose the tool." The same can be said about educators. For a long time, the conventional wisdom in K-12 education was that content and pedagogy should drive teachers' decision making around the integration of technology. But what if the pedagogy and the theory stagnates or fails to keep pace with the technology? We are prevented from envisioning and leveraging new pedagogies -- and new research practices -- that never would have been possible without the new tools.
Thus, the traditional lecture format is "transformed" by presentation and slide software, with the phenomenon of death by PowerPoint following soon after. Similarly, O'Connor (2008) claims a similar lack of inspiration exists among online researchers, who "have done little more than transfer traditional, and in some cases outdated, approaches to a new arena" (p. 281).
People across all sectors of society, public and private, are beginning to rethink common, everyday practices in light of Web 2.0 tools. In a recent online column Daniel Pink called it flip-thinking, in which digital technology "melts calcified thinking and leads to solutions that are simple to envision and to implement." Pink described the work of U.S. educator Karl Fisch, who assigns YouTube lectures as homework. The Kahn Academy is another example.
Thus, the traditional lecture format is "transformed" by presentation and slide software, with the phenomenon of death by PowerPoint following soon after. Similarly, O'Connor (2008) claims a similar lack of inspiration exists among online researchers, who "have done little more than transfer traditional, and in some cases outdated, approaches to a new arena" (p. 281).
People across all sectors of society, public and private, are beginning to rethink common, everyday practices in light of Web 2.0 tools. In a recent online column Daniel Pink called it flip-thinking, in which digital technology "melts calcified thinking and leads to solutions that are simple to envision and to implement." Pink described the work of U.S. educator Karl Fisch, who assigns YouTube lectures as homework. The Kahn Academy is another example.
I am curious about how "the tools are enabling new research practices," as Dr. Paulus said. I would like to continue to explore this idea, particularly as it relates to the blog as a writing repository documenting the research process and as a venue of reflexive practice for the researcher.
Specifically, I want to learn more about:
- The blog as a "methodological strategy for research" (Wakeford & Cohen, 2008, p. 311)
- Sharing research with participants--But how to get them to read it??
- Using a blog to expose the process of doing research
- "Compensating for the relative isolation of graduate work" (p. 312)
- Better organization of ("tagging") fieldnotes, possibly using Richardson's typology in the 1994 version of her essay "Writing: A Method of Inquiry" (if I can get my hands on it!!!)
- Gregg's (2006) idea of blogs as "conversational scholarship"
And we haven't even gotten to the cool tools yet! :)
ReplyDelete"But what if the pedagogy and the theory stagnates or fails to keep pace with the technology? "
ReplyDeleteI like this. Our students are learning technology to learn, not merely learning technology.