Explorative research requires spaces of movement

A recent speech I held about my PhD research reminded me of how fortunate I’ve been. Being able to turn to Actor-Network-Theory and engage in reconfigurations of the research field of e-learning is not just something you do. It requires space for such research movements.

This research space for movements is something that we cannot take for granted, and it involves many more actors than just our own will to move research. This is a small entry on some of my thoughts about research as living, research as movements, engagements, relationships and shifting partial commitments with variations of contexts of knowledge. All of which take part in the makeup of our agencies as researchers.

We must acknowledge that there are always strings attached to our research. Thus knowledge is not just the result of research but knowledges take very much part in the makeup of research. The same point can be made about learning. Learning is not just something out there we study. We also study with our knowledge of learning while learning.

ANT argues for a focus on relationships, associations, engagements, translations and movements. The focus is not so much what we know as what makes what we know – how do things become things? ANT oriented research thus require a foundation that invites explorative moves into its projects. I’ve been extremely fortunate to have such supportive foundations for my research – both at the Danish University School of Education and in Microsoft Denmark. I’ve been able to spend 4 years studying whatever I wanted in the ways I wanted. This does not mean that my research is any more or less free of strings attached than any other research. As all research, my PhD research has required a lot of workings, relationships, (dis-)engagements, translations and movements. But I’ve been able to let go of some of the taken-for-granted theories and knowledges that the research field of e-learning seems deeply entangled with. For this I’m grateful, and I wish for other PhD students that they’ll be granted as much space for creativity and explorativity as I have.

In my experience, today’s PhD students seem much more caught up in pre-described programs of research, project plans to be held and ways of ordering, organizing and working with fields of knowledge, than I’ve been. Being an Industrial PhD student, I was already to begin with baptized the odd angle (in a positive sense). Being the odd angle in both university and industrial life has provided me with action possibilities that many of today’s PhD students in universities don’t have. They are being evaluated, measured and weighed, and I’m meeting stressed out co-students in the hallways at university that express their deepest concern that they are behind or not far enough because they are not following the plan.

Not following the plan, of course, has always been a part of research. But in my PhD time, I’ve been granted space to experience similar situations in quite other terms. To me not following the plan meant that I was getting wiser, learning more, moving and getting closer to – not further away from - the empirical matters. Moving away from the plan may in fact be moving closer. I believe that it is a dangerous path that university follows when PhD-students get caught up in these destructive ways of fixing research. In order to create new knowledge, researchers need to be able to move the contexts of knowledge. In this sense PhD research should not be an apprenticeship - if that means learning a trade. PhD research needs to be explorative research, live research, involving research and researchers that move.  Thus, rather than being concerned with whether plans and programs are followed, universities should engage, encourage and be supportive of the fruitful and odd relationships and movements that clever PhD students enact. Supervisors should guide students to ways of argumentation for the necessities of the mobility of research, so that they prepare for future research relations involving audits, ministries, plans, schedules etc.

If research doesn’t move, it is dead. This cannot be anyone’s dream about the kind of workings and relationships that universities should take part in.     

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bruno Latour’s homepage

I can really recommend a visit to Bruno Latour’s homepage where it’s possible to find a huge amount of his interesting publications online. See: http://www.bruno-latour.fr/biography.html 

Where am I heading with the thesis?

In my PhD research, I’m trying to study e-learning and ICTs in everyday living, and at the same time I’ve become engaged in reconfiguration of the field of research called e-learning. I didn’t start out with the latter ambition, however my research interest “studying learning movements across virtual and physical context of activity in everyday living” (today, of course, I understand all the words and their implications and entanglements differently) led me to a makeup of empirical materials and analyses that became entangled with the accomplishments of not only e-learning in relation to education but also the field of e-learning research.

 

In my effort to write about these ‘things’, I’ve recently found great inspiration in ANT (Actor-Network-Theory). ICTs and E-learning in Denmark (and many other places, I believe) is mostly understood as matters of simply human/organizational/institutional bodies applying and using technical ‘bodies’/entities (represented as ICTs understood as carrying learning potentials) for educational purposes. Therefore, when the different ‘bodies’ are in place, all we need to do is make e-learning take place and thus realize its inherent learning potentials (squarely put). This is what the recent Danish National E-learning Strategy claims. However, I suggest, that ICTs and e-learning may be understood as the result off rather than the beginning of socio-material (dis-)engagements, movements and relations(hips) (which are also to be viewed as continuously on the move – altering and being altered) enacted through everyday livings. In other words I try to move ICTs and e-learning from some ‘things’ in themselves causing things to happen (having effects/impact) to something being and becoming as the result of a lot of sociomaterial engagements and workings.

 

Inspired by especially Marilyn Strathern’s work and Bruno Latour’s work, I analyze, explore, and enact the forms and matters of ICTs and e-learning in everyday living in different (from ‘conventional’ e-learning research literature) ways that shed light on some of the ways in which both ICTs, learning, and their relations; as well as the spaces, times, and agencies, that become involved with and related to ICTs and learning, may be viewed as continuously on the move through everyday translations.

 

In education there seems to be a quest for educating towards the Knowledge Age society and its inherent demand for future competencies, knowledge worker skills etc. Often this quest in e-learning literature becomes depicted through a paradigm shift, imagined as an educational movement of progression from instructivism towards (social) constructivism with each ism’s having their own naturally related learning/development theories (representing worldviews) and belonging educational instructional practices.

 

In other words, e-learning research and education in the 21st century in Denmark (as well as in many other Euro-American societies) is taken for granted as the natural pursuit of a particular imaginary of the 21st century Knowledge Age society and its inherent educational practices. This imaginary (existing in many different variations) with its background assumptions becomes the background (I argue) against which educations and their ‘e-learning readiness’ is evaluated, and many educations become depicted as in a state of non-development. I call this (inspired by R. P. McDermott) the acquisition of educations by an e-learning disability. I suggest that in order to see the daily movements and entanglements, we need to understand the contexts of research as well as its forms and matters - times, spaces and agencies - differently. Part of this involves engaging with an analytic strategy that emphasizes uncertainty and questions the taken-for-granted-institutions and identities of everyday livings (including times, spaces and agencies of everyday living).  

 

Through the concept of everyday living (which I understand as also on the move and realized through sociomaterial relationships, engagements and movements), and with great inspiration from Marilyn Strathern’s ideas presented in her book “Partial Connections”, the imaginary of the living world as fractal, ANT as symmetrical research (to begin with), Latour’s metaphor of phantom publics, and emphasis on ‘things’ as sociomaterially engaged and engaging actor-networks - events - complicated assemblages of assemblies (actors) that dissemble - I have found great sources of inspiration that have fundamentally taken part in reworking my previous engagements, imaginaries, relationships and movements with ‘the’ research field and practices of e-learning. 

 

One of Marilyn Strathern’s arguments is that research should maybe be much less about knowledge and much more about variations of engagements and relationships. The same (I believe) can be said about learning. Coming from the Danish University School of Education, it seems quite persuasive that ‘suddenly’ the whole world becomes matters of learning. Matters of learning, is what everything seems to be all about. I think that Strathern’s argument about engagements and relationships is extremely important. When studying everyday engagements and relationships it becomes quite obvious that not everything is about learning and knowledge. Everyday living is about being and becoming. And, especially, it becomes clear that the ‘packages’ of knowledge and learning in which observations of learning and knowledge often come, take part in producing the makeup of rather than simply describing the everyday movements and entanglements that we seek to study and become more knowledgeable about.

The thesis will be written in English. 

 

Please feel free to comment the above. I’m still in the process of formulating ‘things’, and maybe I need to reconsider my ways of explaining my research. Any comment (in Danish as well as English) will be gratefully accepted. Regarding content, disagreements, misunderstandings, misinterpretations, unclear formulations, things to reconsider, to be added etc. Thanks

     

On-Line writings – CopyrightThe online writings on this website may be cited or briefly quoted in line with the usual academic conventions. You may also copy or download them for your own personal use. However, the writings must not be published elsewhere (e.g. to mailing lists, bulletin boards etc.) without the author’s explicit permission. Please note that if you copy my writings you must:• include this copyright note

• you should observe the conventions of academic citation in a version of the following form:

e.g. Hansbøl, Mikala: “Where am I heading with the thesis”, published at Mikala’s Klumme - A researcher’s blog: http://mikalasklumme.wordpress.com/2008/04/21/where-am-i-heading-with-the-thesis/ Version April 21, 2008. 

 

 

 

 

 

Forsmag på afhandlingen

Hvad kan man forvente af afhandlingen?

 

Jeg betragter ikke afhandlingen som afslutningen på mit arbejde. Den er blot én måde at sætte et punktum på. Afhandlingen bliver en variation af mange mulige over resultaterne af 4 års inspirerende forskningsarbejde i samarbejde med Handelsskolen København Nord (den del og de aktører, der tidligere gjorde Hillerød Handelsskole til Hillerød Handelsskole). 

 

Afhandlingen er ikke skrevet helt færdig endnu. Så dette er blot en ’appetizer’ J.

 

I min forskningstilgang, er det væsentligt at nævne, at jeg tager afsæt i at al forskning begynder ‘midt i noget’. Al forskning må således betragtes som partiel. Hillerød Handelsskoles hverdagsliv eksisterede før jeg blev inviteret som aktør til bl.a. at deltage i e-læringsgruppen, og Hillerød Handelsskoles hverdagsliv fortsatte imens og efter at jeg tog del i aktiviteterne. Jeg har naturligvis ikke haft mulighed for at dække ‘alt’, og præsenterer således kun snapshots af relationer i det meget komplicerede sammensatte hverdagsliv med IKT’er som involverer, bevæger og engagerer en uddannelse som Hillerød Handelsskole. Herudover præsenterer jeg ikke ‘rene beskrivelser’ af hverdagslivet. Min forskning - som alt andet - må betragtes som sociomaterielt konstrueret i forhold til de engagementer, relationer og bevægelser, som lod sig gøre i forbindelse med Projekt Læringsscenarier med IKT. 

 

Hvad er IKT og e-læring? Hvordan skabes IKT’er og e-læring i hverdagslivet?

 

Det er nogle af de spørgsmål, som afhandlingen relaterer til.

 

Jeg arbejder med en forståelse af teknologier som effekter af sociomaterielle aktør-netværk i relationer til hverdagslivet. 

 

I e-læringsforskningen er der meget fokus på ‘det nye’, og jeg har set på noget så ‘ordinært’ som hverdagslivet med IKT og e-læring. Det der måske berører  mange flere af os. Der er (argumenterer jeg) i e-læringsforskningen (som for mig er forskning i læring relateret til IKT’er) en tendens til at gøre ‘det nye’/'det innovative’ til det der a priori interessant, og det som er/ bør være relevant for alle. Problemet er, at sådan hænger hverdagslivet ofte ikke sammen. Når hverdagslivet skabes med IKT’er og e-læring involverer det meget mere komplicerede forhold, bevægelser og engagementer, end det vi beskriver med det nye versus det gamle, tradition versus fornyelse, innovation versus stilstand, godt versus dårligt dikotomier. 

 

Aktør-Netværks-Teori (ANT) og Science, Technology and Society studies (STS), som jeg er inspireret af (og særligt som den repræsenteres af Bruno Latour, Marilyn Strathern og Annemarie Mol), gør op med de a priori begreber og moderne distinktioner, som ‘vi’ har haft tradition for at tænke i og arbejde med, derfor kan det være en svær kamel at sluge ‘min tilgang’. Aktør-Netværks-Teorien er et radikalt opgør med (sådan som jeg ser det) paradigmetænkningen, såvel som vores a priori samfunds- og udviklingsforståelser, verdenssyn og dertilhørende læringsteorier.  

 

I forbindelse med mit ph.d.-projekt har jeg arbejdet med analyser af IKT og e-læring i hverdagslivet. I afhandlingen argumenterer jeg for at e-læringsforskningen har haft en tendens til at betragte IKT’er såvel som e-læring som faste ’kroppe’/entiteter/enheder/aktiviteter der først udvikles (et sted) og derefter anvendes (et andet sted fx applikationer udvikles og bruges) formålsrettet, og med effekter som umiddelbart kan beskrives (og delvist tages for givet). Herudover argumenterer jeg for, at e-læringsforskningen ofte tager læringsbevægelsernes tid, rum, aktører samt deres relationer for givet.

 

Jeg diskuterer hvordan teknologier kan analyseres som deltagere i hverdagslivet, der producerer og bliver produceret i multiple sociomaterielle aktør-netværk (heriblandt forskningens egne). Dette ‘blik’ aktualiserer “teknologi-making” som efforts/workings/accomplishments, der involverer multiple sameksisterende læringsbevægelser, og sammensætninger af tider, ‘rum’ (spaces) og aktører (humane såvel som nonhuman / materielle såvel som immaterielle) i hverdagslivet. I denne forståelse er teknologier altså aldrig noget i sig selv.

 

Herigennem foreslår jeg at vi som e-læringsforskere og uddannelsesplanlæggere bør være mere usikre på hvad, hvornår og hvor bevægelser og læring foregår i hverdagslivet med teknologier. Herudover diskuterer jeg ‘the quest for learning potential’ samt ‘the acquisition of an education by e-learning disabilities’ (nogle af Jer genkender måske inspirationen her fra R. P. McDermott’s interessante artikel “Acquisition of a child by a learning disability”).

 

Jeg viser hvordan såvel læring, tid, rum, teknologier og agenturer (jeg skriver på engelsk og bruger “agencies” - forslag til andet begreb end agenturer modtages gerne) kan betragtes som værende i ’konstant’ bevægelse i hverdagslivet. Jeg foreslår, at der åbnes op for nye områder af forskning i læring relateret til IKT i hverdagslivet, når vi betragter e-læring og IKT’er som effekter, snarere end som ‘noget’ a priori med effekter. I sidstnævnte tilgang tager vi e-læringens og IKTs ’forms and matters’ for givet, og undersøger læring som resultat af disse. Imidlertid står vi ofte med den udfordring, at det der foregår langt de fleste steder, langt fra repræsenterer ‘vores’ konstruktioner af hensigtsmæssig IKT-integration, e-læring og udvikling (med mindre vi selv har deltaget aktivt i udviklingen af aktiviteterne). Dvs. at vi ’måler’ og ’vejer’ aktiviteterne i uddannelseshverdagen med afsæt i bestemte forståelser og konstruktioner af IKT-integration og e-læring.

 

Dette er (mener jeg) bl.a. med til at skabe en forestilling om at mange uddannelser ikke udvikler sig. Hillerød Handelsskole kunne betragtes som sådan et sted. Men med andre forestillinger om hvad der bevæger sig hvor og hvornår i hverdagslivet, når det gælder IKT og e-læring, viser jeg at Hillerød Handelsskoles hverdagsliv består af en masse dagligt arbejde for at integrere IKT og e-læring, som forandrer hverdagslivet på måder, tidspunkter, og involverer aktører, som vi ofte ’overser’. Jeg argumenterer for at uddannelser konstant arbejder. Dvs. at når vi er i stand til at beskrive uddannelser som værende i stilstand, så må det være fordi vi skaber uddannelser og uddannelsesrelationer på måder, der ikke inkluderer dette arbejde.

 

I stedet for at fokusere på om uddannelser udvikler sig, foreslår jeg at vi ser på hvordan uddannelser arbejder. Det kræver meget energi at skabe og vedligeholde uddannelser, uanset om arbejdet anerkendes som havende en bestemt form og et bestemt indhold. Hvis vi gerne vil forstå, hvordan uddannelser bliver skabt som uddannelser der bruger IKT og e-læring, så må vi stille spørgsmålstegn ved uddannelsernes, IKT’ers og e-læringens relationer og eksistensformer. Det er denne udfordring Projekt Læringsscenarier med IT har taget op.   

 

Jeg præsenterer hverken en fortælling om hvordan IKT’er bliver katalysatorer for forandringer, eller hvordan nye sociale uddannelseskulturer forandrer brug af IKT’er. I stedet foreslår jeg, at vi engagerer os i re-konfigurationer af de spatio-temporale og sociomaterielle forståelser af hvad der skaber IKT’er, e-læring, uddannelse og relationerne derimellem. Herigennem kan åbnes op for at forstå kreativitet, innovation og udvikling i uddannelserne som sociomaterielle konstruktioner i hverdagen, og således ikke som særlige ekstraordinære aktiviteter, der efterfølgende skal integreres i hverdagen. Kreativitet, innovation og udvikling er som alt andet (i min tilgang) sociomaterielle konstruktioner der engagerer, relaterer og bevæger aktører i hverdagslivet på bestemte måder.  

 

Inspireret af ANT arbejder jeg med en tilgang, der hverken a priori tager IKT, læring eller relationerne derimellem for givet. Dvs. at jeg heller ikke knytter a priori an til en læringsteori og et ‘worldview’. Det betyder imidlertid langt fra, at jeg forestiller mig at arbejde forudsætningsløst.

 

Mit arbejde repræsenterer en bevægelse væk fra at tænke a priori i e-læring som computer-medieret læring. Jeg arbejder hen imod en re-konfigurering af såvel ’e'-et, ‘-’ bindestregen som ‘læringen’ i “e-læring”, og de tider, ’rum’ og aktører, som e-læring involverer, engagerer og relaterer til. 

 

Usikkerhed, cirkuleringer, bevægelser, aktører og delvise forbindelser er nogle af mine analysestrategiske nøgleord. 

 

Den 30. april holder jeg et oplæg i Forskningsprogrammet Medier og IT i Læringsperspektiv, hvor jeg illustrerer via et par empiriske eksempler, hvordan et LMS/VLE og læringsbevægelser relateret til dette, skabes på multiple sameksisterende måder i hverdagslivet - i relation til (det der tidligere hed) Hillerød Handelsskole.

 

Jeg problematiserer bl.a. hvordan vores a priori begreber om undervisningsaktiviteter og læring som sekventielt relaterede, og ’vores’ forestillinger om face-to-face aktiviteter som umiddelbare synkrone læringssituationer, er med til at få os til at glemme, at også disse forståelsesmåder er særlige sociomaterielle konstruktioner, der skaber læringsbevægelser, -relationer og -engagementer i hverdagslivet på særlige måder.

 

Ved at stille spørgsmålstegn ved hverdagslivets ‘rum’, tider og aktører, viser jeg at for at blive anderledes klog på læringsbevægelser relateret til IKT i hverdagslivet, så må vi inkludere de fx aktiviteter, hvor computere ikke nødvendigvis er fysisk til stede, og endvidere opgive vores forantagelse om at e-læring er et spørgsmål om at IKT’er er katalysatorer med læringspotentialer, at computere medierer elevernes læring i undervisningen, og om at udvikling og kreativitet med IKT er et spørgsmål om at skabe nye og særlige sociale (uddannelses-)kulturer.     

Afhandlingen skrives på engelsk.

 

Kommentér endelig. Alle kommentarer modtages. Jeg er fortsat i en skriveproces, hvor jeg skal finde ud af hvordan jeg bedst formidler mine pointer. Så alt hvad der lige måtte falde dig ind af tanker er velkommen. Hvad tænker du, når du læser ovenstående? Tak

 

On-Line writings – Copyright

The online writings on this website may be cited or briefly quoted in line with the usual academic conventions. You may also copy or download them for your own personal use. However, the writings must not be published elsewhere (e.g. to mailing lists, bulletin boards etc.) without the author’s explicit permission. Please note that if you copy my writings you must:

• include this copyright note

• you should observe the conventions of academic citation in a version of the following form:

e.g. Hansbøl, Mikala: “Forsmag på afhandlingen”, published at Mikala’s Klumme - A researcher’s blog: http://mikalasklumme.wordpress.com/2008/04/21/forsmag-pa-afhandlingen/  Version April 21, 2008. 

 

   

 

        

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contact info

How to contact me?

After 30 April, 2008, I’m no longer an employee at Microsoft Denmark.

You may reach me at my university e-mail: mhan@dpu.dk.