The fascination of research

Retrieved from the TEL opinion blog, December the 17th, 2005

The word “Research” evokes the fascination of knowledge as well as the expectation of the mastery of the unknown. Research outcomes are expected to be innovative by nature and reliable by construction. Everything works as if being based on research, actions and decisions should be less risky than being based on any other grounds; namely, opinions and beliefs. Indeed, “opinion” is an intellectual category hazardous and anything but reliable, while “belief” is as contingent as opinion with the worse characteristic that facing failures it does not leave room for much revision.

The strength of research results lies in their justification, ruled argumentation (proof) or systematic empirical evidence, and their accessibility to revision under the pressure of refutation. Research results have the epistemic characteristic of knowledge; they are products of a human activity which transcend the historical and anecdotal context marking their origin. However, from a scientific perspective, a piece of knowledge is not a statement, but the complex “object” shaped by the relations between a statement, a proof and a theory—all framed by an accepted problématique that informs about the relevance of a question. The return of investment in research is the reliability, universality and openness of its outcomes, its cost is theory, proofs and dealing with refutations. This has two meanings: (i) research is not about the so called “reality”, but phenomena identified through the lenses of a problématique; (ii) the dialectic of proofs and refutation is not empirical but of a theoretical nature, possibly addressing not a result but its rationale or even its underlying problématique.

Nothing new there, but something to bring back to the fore when we question the role and the contribution of research to the development of TEL. Something which has been forgotten (or lost) with the emergence of “acadustry”!

Continuity, a political condition for sustainability

  Retrieved from the TEL opinion blog, June the 30th, 2006

 

Continuity! I think that the main challenge for the ECs technology-enhanced learning (TEL) research policybut it might not only be the case of TELis ensuring a continuity of its policy that will be directly in line with the sustainability challenge that the Commission offered to the new FP6 instruments. It is clear that if the policy doesnt have a long-lasting vision of the development of the field, researchers - because of their need for financial support - will just try to surf the wave of the always-changing priorities. As I suggested somewhere else, it will stimulate the development of the Acadustry, a chimera of industry and academia that will indeed be sterile. On the contrary, a policy informed by a long-lasting vision of what I deem necessary for the development of the European research area will be a strong and productive support to research. Ahead of that, academic research and R&D have the responsibility for developing a research domain that is both scientifically robust and productive.

Among the priorities I see for us, is the responsibility to organise the fight against reinventing the wheel and developing technologies that are all-but-forgotten soon after their development by PhD students or projects. A stable EC policy would be a real incentive to make this effort. In particular, the challenge will be less a question of seeing the future twenty years ahead, but rather one of understanding what we know, where the current problems and barriers are, and in which areas we can make real breakthroughs. I would like to suggest that if we engage this direction, we will be more efficient in supporting the development of SMEs in the field, offering real solutions to them, and methods to issues they have to face now, in todays market.

Kaleidoscope has already shaped elements to support the EU efforts to set a productive TEL research area; a good example of this is the Kaleidoscope virtual doctoral school. Soon the Kaleidoscope open archive initiative will demonstrate the capacity of researchers to share and document their production properly and at an international level. However there are difficulties that come from the fragmentation of TEL on a regional basis. The obstacle raised by this fragmentation is quite difficult to overcome because the research needs are not expressed in the same way by all the European nations and the needs are not shared; learning is not yet a global market. This has an impact on the relations with users and SMEs, whose markets are in general quite local and specific. However by setting up European research teams on concrete and precise topics, Kaleidoscope has initiated a movement to build a European research force with a sustainable scientific agenda. Moreover, while building the network, a fragmentation of the research field itself appeared. We are now reducing it, though, with initiatives like the convergence workshop to be held next December to bridge research on collaborative, mobile, and inquiry learning.
 

Beate had some more questions, our discussion continues on elearningeuropa.info