This reflective piece is on publishing research in open, distance, and distributed/digital learning (ODDL) from a Global South perspective. It is partly in response to two recent publications in the field of ODDL – namely the newly-launched Journal of Open, Distance and Digital Education (JODDE), and the open-access book (two volumes) edited by Folake Ruth Aluko and Daniella Coetzee with the title, Does Distance Education in the Developing Context Need More Research? (2024). Volume 1 covers the history, philosophical and theoretical approaches and paradigms in distance education; building frameworks in distance education research; and praxis in distance education research; while Volume 2 focuses on regional trends and gaps in distance education research; scholarship in distance education research; and quality assurance in distance education research.

I have also just returned from an extended visit to the National Open University of Nigeria (NOUN) as Visiting Professor where I was hosted by the Regional Training and Research Institute for Distance and Open Learning (RETRIDOL), an institute dedicated “To build[ing] and maintain[ing] a regional network of expertise in the West African sub-region that is highly proficient in the delivery of training, development, and practice-based research in ODeL [online, distance, and e-learning]”. Among other things I supported the development of a framework for ODeL research at NOUN which attempts to not only foreground the need for reflexive praxis but also its dissemination, as well as mapping some of the enabling conditions.

In the context of evidence of asymmetries in knowledge production and dissemination between the ‘Global North’ and the ‘Global South’, it can be assumed that ODDL research from the African continent may be vastly underrepresented in the broader context of international ODDL research.

These two linked but very different ‘events’ caused me to reflect on some of the factors that impact on ODDL research in the Global South.

Clarifying the Use of ‘Global South’ and ‘ODDL’

The ‘Global South’ is an uncomfortable term, more preferable than outdated terminology such as ‘the developing world’, and possibly more used than another alternative, namely ‘the Majority World’. Interestingly, there has been an increase in the frequency with which the term ‘Global South’ is used as a generic clustering of countries and/or communities that are regarded as poor, less developed, and not equal to and oppressed by the ‘Global North’. Not only are the countries included in the ‘Global South’ scattered across the globe (not only in the ‘South’), there are also vast differences between countries.

Acknowledging the various legitimate concerns about the term, I use it as a broad, provisional category.

The second term or cluster of descriptors, namely ‘Open, Distance, and Distributed/Digital Learning/Education’ (ODDL), is equally contested. Without blaming Covid-19 for naturalising, to a large extent, digital or online learning, there has been a proliferation of terms and clusters of descriptors to describe the different modalities that became possible in the context of the increased digitalisation, datafication and platformitisation of education. In the first issue of the JODDE referred to earlier, Mark Nichols reflects on the terminologies used in an article titled “What’s in a Name? Wrestling with ‘ODDE’” (2024), to which Zawacki-Richter et al. (2024) respond in the editorial in the same issue.

I do not want to get involved (in this reflection) on the ‘battle of the terms’, and I want to nod respectfully to everyone with an opinion on the issue by saying “All protocol observed”.

What do We Know About ODDL Research in the Global South?

Due to the contestation and vagueness of both central terms – the ‘Global South’ and the various umbrella terms used to designate education post Covid-19 – it is practically impossible to determine the ‘state’ of ODDL research. More doable, and without making generalisations to the broader cluster of countries in ‘the Global South’, I reflect on some of the issues impacting ODDL research on the African continent.

In the context of evidence of asymmetries in knowledge production and dissemination between the ‘Global North’ and the ‘Global South’, it can be assumed that ODDL research from the African continent may be vastly underrepresented in the broader context of international ODDL research.

We often think descriptive statistics is ‘enough’.

These asymmetries in knowledge production and dissemination have emerged and continue to be sustained and even perpetuated by, inter alia, funding regimes, paradigms and politics, researcher identities in the nexus of asymmetries in power and expertise, and/or the continuing matrices of coloniality to mention but a few.

It is also important to note that much of ODDL research on the African continent, and possibly in the Global South, is still non-digital, published by universities as hard copies with distribution networks limited to national and at most, regional networks. As a result, the findings of these research efforts often go unnoticed by researchers outside and beyond the original context.

Other variables that impact on ODDL in the Global South research include, inter alia, the lack of access to digital databases normally hosted by institutional libraries due to the cost of these licences, the unsustainability and cost of internet access faced by many ODDL researchers, a lack of institutional research cultures, and ignorance about the need for supporting scholarship of teaching and learning.

Publishing on the scholarship of teaching and learning from an ODDL context in the Global South may be tempting for researchers looking for an ‘easy’ win based on the assumption that ODDL research does not need to meet the same scientific rigour as other disciplinary research.

There are also other factors, such as but not limited to how editorial boards are without representation from the Global South, reviewers from the Global North exhibiting epistemic arrogance regarding the value of exposing ‘their’ readers to research from so-called ‘developed world’ contexts, etc.

This makes publishing scholarship in ODDL from the Global South in international journals hosted by institutions in the Global North a daunting task. Often such ODDL research is rejected on the basis of lacking relevance to an international audience or that the value contribution of the research is insignificant due to the fact that the reported findings are anything but novel.

There is, however, also the need for ODDL researchers in the Global South to acknowledge the possibility of their own involvement in maintaining and extending these disparities and own up to accusations that, often, our research designs and methodologies, and our analyses and findings are just not rigorous enough.

We often think descriptive statistics is ‘enough’, or that an international audience may find the findings from a Global South context interesting enough in itself to excuse poor and outdated literature reviews, designs and analyses

Publishing on the scholarship of teaching and learning from an ODDL context in the Global South may be tempting for researchers looking for an ‘easy’ win based on the assumption that ODDL research does not need to meet the same scientific rigour as other disciplinary research.

Some ODDL researchers still confuse correlation with causation and seriously misjudge the complexity of education as an open and recursive system where variables impacting on learning are often mutually constitutive in the nexus of student characteristics, demographics and contexts, the institutional and disciplinary efficacies, ontologies and epistemologies, as well as broader societal factors outside the control of students and/or the institution.

Our research is often theory-poor and uninformed about recent developments in the field, uncritically parroting educational myths like ‘learning styles’ and ‘digital natives,’ while subscribing to normative discourses such as New Managerialism and evidence-based management.

ODDL researchers are often obsessed with effectiveness and impact, forgetting/ignoring that just because some intervention was ‘effective’ does not mean that it was the most appropriate or even ethical option. Researchers are, also, often oblivious to research trends and keep producing myopic and ‘pet’ research projects because of the availability of data, participants, and other ready resources.

There is so much wonderful research on trends in distance and digital education that it is regrettable we often fail to take notice of it. A simple search on any search engine, such as Google Scholar, for trends in ODDL research will reveal many insights, whether related to ODDL trends in China, the Pacific, the Indian subcontinent, Africa or any other region or geopolitical cluster of interest.

There is surely no lack of credible (and often open-access) publication opportunities for ODDL researchers from the Global South. The recent arrival of the new journal, JODDE, can and should be celebrated and embraced.

And while the question in Aluko and Coetzee’s (2024) recent book title “Does distance education in the developing context need more research?” seems like a rhetorical question in the light of this reflective piece, we often underestimate the difficulties and complexities ODDL researchers in the Global South face.

There are no shortcuts in doing ODDL research, no matter the researcher’s geopolitical or institutional context.

Conclusions

There are no shortcuts in doing ODDL research, no matter the researcher’s geopolitical or institutional context. Our research in the scholarship of teaching and learning in ODDL contexts should meet the same scientific rigour expected of any other disciplinary research. Of course, the fact that ODDL research is often inter, trans and multidisciplinary adds a layer of complexity to the research for which we are often not sufficiently prepared.

Publishing ODDL research may not be for everyone who works in ODDL contexts, no matter where they find themselves. There may be many research ideas, reports and reflections from ODDL practitioners in the Global South that never find the way into a journal to be read (and acknowledged) by an international audience.

Still, for many ODDL researchers, writing and reflecting on our practices, and doing ODDL research is not an option, but a ‘calling’, something we must do, as the poet Rilke (2011) advised his young(er) protege: