Submission for EARLI 2017

Are you going to participate at EARLI 2017?

skaermbillede-2016-11-06-kl-19-43-28

Well hopefully, I am. I just co-authored a submission to a roundtable discussion about the earlier stated interest in Shifting Positions. The aim is to get more input on the topic. In the following,  you will find the abstract that we hope will be accepted.

We wish to portray and negotiate different perspectives of participation as a basic condition when conducting Design-Based Research.  The position of the researcher is not fixed and must adjust and adapt in-process, and in collaboration with practitioners. Although the literature on Design-Based Research addresses perspectives on roles of the researcher, and the co-designers or practitioners, we find that focus is often on skills needed, e.g. being an expert in the field, rather than on the phenomena of shifting positions in the phases and contexts of research. We propose the phenomenon of shifting positions as consequential to the scope and outcomes of a project. Discussing these shifts in relation to benefits and challenges particular to the Design-based Research approach is necessary to stimulate awareness of these issues. As these issues are  valuable to both researchers and practitioners, considering them may generate  recommendations on how to prepare for these shifts when conducting Design-Based Research. To illustrate how positions shift in actual practice, we draw upon two empirical studies conducted in the context of Teacher Education Programme. We present one case where the researcher is positioned as a second teacher within the classroom, and another case where the researcher needs to renegotiate his position as co-designer and researcher after an intervention in the design experiment. Our goal is to gather ideas and contributions through discussion of the concept and characterisation of shifting positions, collectively considering how this concept may advance Design-based research.  

If you are indeed participating I hope you will join the discussions.

Confrence on Practice-based research methods

On the 19th – 22th of september I’m traveling to the Netherlands together with the rest of the research group.

We are going to meet with colleagues from the Open University to discuss our research. On the 20th september the university facilitates a conference. The title of the conference is “Practice-based research methods”, and the different contributions will look at practice-based research methods from different perspectives. The main perspectives will be:

  • Situated knowledge, practice and networks
  • Practice-based research and valorisation
  • Networked learning
  • Significance of context
  • Designing practice-based research

The program can be found here

Concepts of transfer and transformation in designing for situated knowledge across contexts
In this session, I and my PhD Fellow Lea will introduce ”the transfer dilemma” and present a theoretical overview of transfer and transformation of knowledge in education as it can be seen over the last century including alternative perspectives and critical voices in the theoretical landscape of transfer in education. We will draw upon these views on transfer and transformation of situated knowledge to introduce our own  research and present our own empirical projects on designing for teaching and learning across contexts supported by digital technologies.

The twitter # for the conference is: #OU_OW.

Conducting the Literature Review

One of the first steps to take in the progress of my ph.d. project is to get an overview over what has been published on the topic of my study by accredited scholars and researchers. It’s not an easy task because it involves a great number of decisions and considerations.

First of all I’ll have to consider which review methods my field of study actually has a tradition of conducting. For that I’ve tried to get a grasp of some basic literature, that could guide my choices. So I found an article by Grant & Booth (2009), that gives my a starting point.

In their article aims to provide descriptive insight into the most common types of reviews. In the article Grant & Booth claim that

…the diversity of terminology used means that the full potential of these review types may be lost amongst a confusion of indistinct and misapplied terms.

The method used in the article is SALSA a simple analytical framework—Search, AppraisaL,Synthesis and Analysis, through which the locate 14 different review types.

Although the domain of the article is  ealth information and health care I believe the article can be used generically across domains. A Quick overview over the 14different review types are shortly shown here:

  • Critical review
  • Literature review
  • Mapping review/systematic map
  • Meta-analysis
  • Mixed studies review/ mixed method review
  • Overview
  • Qualitative systematic review/ qualitative evidence synthesis
  • Rapid review
  • Scoping review
  • State-of-the-art review
  • Systematic review
  • Systematic search and review
  • Systematized review
  • Umbrella review

To go into each of the review types here would be to demanding and for that i encourage you to read the article yourself.

For my project it seems that the “Literature review” might be the right way.
Grant and Booth point out that weaknesses of this method is

Literature reviews lack an explicit intent to maximize scope or analyse data collected. Any conclusions they may reach are therefore open to bias from the potential to omit, perhaps inadvertently, significant sections of the literature or by not questioning the validity of statements made. Additionally, authors may only select literature that supports their world view, lending undue credence to a preferred hypothesis. 

So it seem that I will have to cope with this weekness somehow.

Luckily I’m not alone in the progress. But that is another topic for another post.

References:

Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies: A typology of reviews, Maria J. Grant & Andrew Booth. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x