By Paul Prinsloo
Retired Research Professor in Open and Distance Learning, University of South Africa (Unisa)
Last year, in Issue 23 of inspired, I reflected on various issues in publishing research in open, distance and distributed/digital learning (ODDL), such as the dominance of descriptive statistics, assumptions that ODDL research does not need to meet the same scientific rigour as other disciplinary research, and the impact of the asymmetries in knowledge production and dissemination between the Global North and the Global South. I also stated that “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.”
it would seem as if ODDL researchers also finds theory overrated, boring, useless
I also remarked that it would seem as if ODDL researchers may find theory overrated, boring, useless, or maybe they just do not have the time to find new or use less-applied theories to educational phenomena and issues, or to critique/expand/update theory through research. In the mad rush to publish or/and respond to just-in-time conference calls, we don’t allow ourselves the creative space to quiet down and (re)consider theory.
The lack of theory, or attention to theory in ODDL research can possibly also be attributed to the dominance of quantitative approaches
I also remarked that it would seem as if ODDL researchers may find theory overrated, boring, useless, or maybe they just do not have the time to find new or use less-applied theories to educational phenomena and issues, or to critique/expand/update theory through research. In the mad rush to publish or/and respond to just-in-time conference calls, we don’t allow ourselves the creative space to quiet down and (re)consider theory.
Concerns about the lack of theory and the dominance of certain theories in educational research are not limited to ODDL research but also prevalent in other research foci such as, for example, learning analytics. While many educational researchers would agree with the need to have a strong theoretical basis in research, there is also a general agreement about the ‘deficit’ of theory in much educational research, having an adverse effect not only on the quality of the research, but also on the development of educational theory. There is furthermore a desperate shortage of educational theories developed outside the Anglo-Franco colonial framework, with research from the Global South remaining heavily influenced by theoretical perspectives rooted in the ‘European/North American archive’.
While the links between theory and practice are considered and often contested in designing curricula and pedagogical strategies, the need for theory-informed research or research that result in deepening theoretical understanding is often left out of the picture.
So how do we respond when theory knocks at our door? Will we open the door and invite theory in, or is it easy (and evidence suggests it is) to ignore the knocks?
Forgive me if I do not sound hopeful that ODDL researchers will open the door to theory due to a range of reasons.
Despite the fact that the evolution of distance education resulted in a wide-ranging archive of theories (e.g., the works by Otto Peters, Jane Brindley, Börje Holmberg, Gilly Salmon, Insung Jung, Terry Anderson, and many others), many researchers in ODDL research may not have a formal background in distance education theory, or educational theory for that matter. I am speculating but I have a suspicion that many ODDL researchers do not come, necessarily, from educational disciplines, but from a wide range of other academic disciplines.
Should these researchers, therefore, fail to dedicate time to exploring and engaging with the evolution of distance education, particularly its rich and wide-ranging theoretical heritage, they may end up limiting themselves to the theoretical approaches uncovered in their literature reviews or on worn theories that have already been trialled and tested.
In the mad rush to publish (whether driven new managerialist ranking systems, competitive funding regimes, the need for promotion, and/or our own never-say-die curiosity), there is possibly no time to ‘take longer’, to read widely and deeply, and to allow ourselves to be curious and ask questions without necessarily finding answers.
The lack of theory, or attention to theory in ODDL research can possibly also be attributed to the dominance of quantitative approaches, and especially the belief some have that when you have data, especially lots of data, then you don’t need theory. Such approaches may be ascribed to the belief that it is ‘enough’ (for publication) to identify and describe trends without necessarily considering the reasons for these trends, or linking the trends to theoretical insights. In the mad rush to publish, no matter the quality of the journal, whether it is an in-house, or a regional journal, many researchers only care as long as their research gets published. This is not to say that research published in in-house or regional peer-reviewed journals are necessarily of poor quality, but many of these journals often do lack quality peer reviewers and processes and serve different audiences and purposes.
Getting published in whatever journal may be a huge temptation for ODDL researchers
Getting published in whatever journal may
be a huge temptation for ODDL researchers in
the Global South, especially in the context of the
asymmetries in knowledge production between
the Global North and the Global South. Of course,
it is a vicious circle. Not only is it, generally, very
difficult for ODDL researchers from the Global
South to get published in educational journals
based in the Global North, but the fact that their
research often lacks substantive, theoretically
informed advanced analysis (irrespective of
whether the quantitative, qualitative, or mixed
method is employed) invariably results in their
submissions being rejected from the outset by the
editors of more reputable journals.
Ignoring theory is furthermore exacerbated by
the lack of resources that many ODDL researchers
face, not only with regard of access to affordable
and sustainable internet, but also to journal articles
that are behind paywalls. Many researchers are
located in institutions that simply cannot afford to
pay the licencing fees charged by large publishing
companies such as Elsevier, or Emerald and Taylor
and Francis. It is soul-destroying to be confronted
with slow download speeds, and breaks in internet
connectivity, combined with not having access
to an article or articles that are seminal to your
research.
We should also not ignore the increasing role
and impact of Large Language Models (LLMs)
such as ChatGPT and its ilk, that arrived like
family members whom very few knew about and
broke down the front door without knocking and
announced they are moving in. Many educators
and educational researchers were left scrambling
to respond with very little or no time to make
sense, theoretically, of what was happening and
how to approach the unwelcome guest. Early
educational research on this development were
focused on student, staff and management
perspectives on, for example, ChatGPT, and we
rushed to find the various technology adoption
models from our toolboxes, dusted off research
into digital and technology literacies, and panicked
as many of the accepted notions of the writing of
essays and doing independent research vanished
like political promises after an election.
Combined with the range of factors referred
to above, many researchers in the Global South
may find the temptation of using ChatGPT or
its alternatives just too much to resist. Looking
for articles, dedicating time to discover and
read educational theory, and making time to
make sense of the theoretical questions that a
specific phenomenon poses have just been made
superfluous and outdated with the writing of
prompts and asking ChatGPT for an answer.
So, where to now?
I recently discovered an article by bell hooks,
“Theory as Liberatory Practice” (1991), in which
she describes her own love affair with theory, how
discovering, engaging with and embracing theory
was “liberatory”. She writes: “Let me begin by
saying that I came to theory because I was hurting
– the pain within me was so intense that I could not
go on living. I came to theory desperate, wanting
to comprehend – to grasp what was happening
around and within me. Most importantly, I wanted
to make the hurt go away. I saw in theory then a
location for healing.”
So how do we respond when theory knocks at our door?
bell hooks documents her need for theory to
help her make sense of her growing up as a bright,
black female child in a household as one of seven
children, governed by patriarchy, with a working
dad and a stay-home-mom. She narrates how she
was looking for a place to belong and she found a
sanctuary in theorising to make sense out of what
was happening. Theory provided her with a space
to “imagine possible futures, a place where life
could be lived differently.” She learned that “theory
could be a healing place.”
hooks continues to insist that there is no gap between theory and practice, but the potential of theory to liberate is not ‘inherent’ but emerges “when we ask that it do so and direct our theorising towards this end.”
We can only look for liberation when we realise we are captives.
I must confess that I left the PDF version of this article open on my laptop, as a genie, as a constant reminder of the liberatory potential and power of theory.
We can only look for healing when we realise we are hurting. We can only look for liberation when we realise we are captives.
The long history of decolonisation theories and praxis showed that those impacted and dehumanised by colonisation can only be free, can only be healed once their minds, their way of thinking, the ways they think of themselves and others, are decolonised and set free.
Research into ODDL can only be set free, when we take time to slow down, stop scrolling and stop prompting, and listen. Only when we break away from being held captive by the artificial and increasingly algorithmic Medusa gaze of rankings, of easy and immediate answers, of the madness of publish and perish, and of short-lived dopamine-addictive joys after an article has been published, only then may we hear the knock of theory at our doors.
Only when we take the time to look at our data and ask, “what does this mean?”, “how do we understand this?”, “how can this be understood?”, and “what alternative understandings are there?”, only then, if we quiet down and stare at the complexities of ODDL practice, only then will we hear the knock.