Reply | Original | Permalink | TweetVigdis, this is all quite nicely and simply stated. I agree that considering the ontology and epistemology are both important. However, this seem to be more commonly done in by researchers engaged in qualitative methods rather than by those engaged in quantitative studies. Do you agree, and if so, why do you think this may be the case?Jeffrey
Reply | Original | Permalink | TweetChris-
I have been thinking about your comment all week, and have been struck about the issue related to *practical* permanence in our digital histories. Makes me wonder how our identities may cease to exist if we let our online subscriptions expire.
I wonder what this does with our sense of identities themselves?
Jeffrey
Reply | Original | Permalink | TweetCorinne-
Thank you for the feedback. Yes, indeed, sometimes the most interesting things are found when we stop or otherwise are able to notice those little pieces (that often point to bigger concepts and issues!).
I hope to speak about my work, which I have a sense may continue in some form or another.
Jeffrey
Reply | Original | Permalink | TweetAll the best for this, Sarah; your eportfolio is wonderful and a testament for how much can be done at little cost. Gives me a few ideas . . .
Reply | Original | Permalink | TweetChris, this exhibit left me absolutely breathless. It was like coming over a hill and seeing a landscape ahead that was unexpected and completely engaging. In a museum with priceless works of art, the brilliance of those who put this together and had the mourners walk toward us, with the opportunity to walk around them, as they seemingly continued on with their tasks . . .
Your insight makes me wonder about our electronic world. I know I am engaged nearly full-time on technology-related tasks that, with the flick of a switch, would leave me with little trace of my life. Alas, to be more in touch with the world in which we move and breathe and have our being.
Thank you for sharing.
Jeffrey
Reply | Original | Permalink | TweetStephanie-
Aalborg, too! Small world, isn’t it?
A colleague of mine in the Netherlands is planning to discuss a few articles on Communities of Practice, and this text is the next one on the list to read and discuss. Wonder about the logistics of having a book discussion on a blog? Glad to host it here, especially with the threaded comments I implemented. You open for it if we begin in a month or so?
Jeffrey
Reply | Original | Permalink | TweetSteph, it is wonderful to see you struggling with some of these responses; it is not an easy job to quickly answer something that can be perceived differently on many levels.
In many ways, your writing reminds me of the magazine the New Yorker, where everything in it is detailed, expansive, and quite thought out (with an eye toward encouraging intereaction and discussion).
Jeffrey
Reply | Original | Permalink | TweetSteph, when you stated above:
“The tension that action research taps derives from fairly modest claims: that meaning is co-constructed in interaction, and that the meaningfulness of interaction (especially at the microsocial level) is malleable by human consciousness,”
do you mean that this is the way that action research is used, or that this social form of learning is in fact a required component of learning?
Reply | Original | Permalink | TweetVery interesting article; thank you for sharing it.
Jeffrey
Reply | Original | Permalink | TweetSuzanne, this seems like a wonderful course you are creating. Would love to take (or teach!) it.
As you continue to develop this, will you also share some of the resources you are considering using as a reference or required reading list? Doing this may help others struggling through the same issue (thus building community), as well as gain some feedback from others who may be able to add to the recommendations.
Jeffrey
Reply | Original | Permalink | TweetSuazanne, this also sounds like a wonderful class!
Question; as this course seems to be oriented toward a qualitative (deconstructive)analysis, why have you chosen to limit the external sources of information "data from traditional quantitative studies, literature, mainstream media, websites, blogs, and social media" without including qualitative studies or papes from online reviewed journals (which seem to be more cutting-edge than the more traditional peer-reviewed sources?
Jeffrey
Reply | Original | Permalink | TweetLeigh, I struggle with this as well, more from the perspective of being able to cite materials in open access journals rather than publishing there (my next step!).
You did get me to start thinking more about the issue of linking research to practice, when you said, "I would like to know their response to the growing evidence that these outlets are extremely inaccessible, increasingly irrelevant to those who can't be bothered even trying to access them, and perhaps even corrupt in their peer review and profit taking!" I can't help but wonder to what extent those people who need access to this evidence / research already have it, and the rest of the mass of humanity just does not care about it (especially given that so much peer-reviewed research is somewhat unrelated to problems, issues, or concerns in practice).
Jeffrey
Reply | Original | Permalink | TweetI tend to wonder why higher education is always so slow to adapt, especially with such bright minds doing interesting research.
Perhaps the answers lies in a reward system with a WIIFM (What's In It For Me?) that has not adapted in hundreds of years? Then again, what is in it for me as an adjunct faculty member to change, either (saying rhetorically and sarcastically)??
Jeffrey
Reply | Original | Permalink | TweetHmm, perhaps Wordle like you better!
Reply | Original | Permalink | TweetThank you, Arjun. Appreciate your words of encouragement and support!
Jeffrey
