2.0 Chapter 2: Literature Review
Research frameworks are foundational to all qualitative and quantitative research. (Grant & Osanloo, 2014). While my research ideas are emergent, as I invest time and energy examining my field of study and research paradigms, the frameworks examined in this research proposal will guide my research and help me stay on track, yet also allow me to push into new directions. These ontologies, epistemologies, methodologies, and methods frame my research story. In this way, I will take others on a “quest with some guiding principle (theory), using one or more ways of traveling (methods) in order to obtain some hitherto elusive prize (results) that is valuable to one or more interested parties (applications and implications)” (Ellingson, 2017, p. 66). As bell hooks posits, my “engaged voice must never be fixed and absolute but always changing, always evolving in dialogue with a world beyond” (hooks, 1994, p. 11).
The theoretical framework, or blueprint for this proposed research outlines the “foundation from which all knowledge is constructed (metaphorically and literally)” (Grant & Osanloo, 2014, p. 12). In this proposal, I make a distinction between theoretical and conceptual frameworks as these are “neither interchangeable or synonymous” (Grant & Osanloo, 2014, p. 16). The conceptual framework outlines the factors, constructs, variables, and relationships in the research design (Grant & Osanloo, 2014) while being reflexively analyzed through my ontological and epistemic lenses. For this research proposal, I will next explicate these core, foundational elements as I begin building the dissertation ‘house’.
2.1. Theoretical Frameworks
A theoretical framework identifies a researcher’s worldview, from the heart, not the head, and impacts every decision made in the unfolding of the research (Grant & Osanloo, 2014). Since theoretical frameworks are built from existing theories, mine are shared here as borrowed blueprints and the lens through which I view the world, as I describe key concepts, assumptions and beliefs (Grant & Osanloo, 2014).
This research proposal is grounded in the theoretical foundations of socio-cultural constructivist theories of learning originating from Dewey (Dewey, 1916), Vygotsky (Lowenthal & Muth, 2009; Roth & Lee, 2007), and Papert (Papert & Harel, 1991). This constructivist paradigm adopts a relativist ontology, suggesting there are many possible realities, and a subjectivist epistemology whereby the researcher and participant co-create shared understanding (Denzin & Lincoln, 2013). Interpretivist research strives to construct knowledge from individual meaning and viewpoints (Tomaszewski et al., 2020). The interpretive researcher is described as a bricoleur (Denzin, 2017; Denzin & Lincoln, 2011) informed by “personal history, biography, gender, social class, race, and ethnicity and those of the people in the setting”; one who stitches, edits, and puts slices of reality together” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011, p. 5). In this proposed research, I will push this notion of researcher as bricoleur by applying a crystallization approach (Ellingson, 2009) by mixing elements into something precious and worthy of recognition. I will further explore crystallization in the methodology section of this research proposal.
This research is further framed by a ‘post’ paradigm since I “question totalizing truths and certainty, reject grand theories and master narratives that tidily explain a phenomenon, and resist the idea that, with just more research, we can better control the world” (Tracy, 2020, p. 55). As a scholar with a post-paradigm view, I consider knowledge and power as “fragmented, multiple, situated, and multi-faceted” (Tracy, 2020, p. 56). While puzzling issues of power and hegemony, my research will examine the layers of reality experienced by open educational practitioners in faculties of education in Canada. From this approach, I will explore the lived experiences that emerge through teacher educators’ agency and choice (Tracy, 2020) as media and digital literacies are acquired and applied.
As a post-paradigm scholar, I recognize that meaning is dependent on the signs, signifiers, and relationships between textual elements residing within a context, where the conception of text is extended to incorporate multiple and varied communicative formats such as images, video, audio, and multimodal compositions (Gee, 2011). From this post-paradigm stance, this crisis of representation suggests that the meaning of images and text constantly shift and intertwine, that “explanations and descriptions are unstable and relational”, and that “one type of text is not necessarily more real than another” (Tracy, 2020, p. 56). In this way, I will not only examine texts that are rhizomatic interwoven, and interconnected, but also create and share texts emerging from this research that are multi-faceted, interdependent, and relational (Ellingson, 2009; Tracy, 2020).
2.1.1. Constructivism
This research is grounded in the theoretical landscapes of constructivism outlined by John Dewey and Jean Piaget (DeVries, 2008) who posit that teaching and learning should be an active, experiential process. Social-constructivism, as advocated by Lev Vygotzky (Burkitt, 2006) extends constructivist theory to include social and historical context into the learning equation. Learning occurs through the active construction and engagement with objects, which can be manipulated in time and space (Papert & Harel, 1991). Dewey, Vygotzky and Papert are theorists who ground this research since this confirms that MDL and OEPr occur within active, experiential, engaging, constructions, not bound by time or space, while interacting with others. Further to this, situated cognition theory, that builds on Vygotzky’s work (Burkitt, 2006), proposes that learning is constructed through interactions within social settings, engaging with semiotics, and interacting with material artifacts (Seely Brown et al., 1989). Situated cognition theory adds to research since the practice of teaching and learning simultaneously occur in mind, body, and activity, through relationships, bounded in communities of practice. Paying attention to the cultural, situational, and logistical signs and signifiers will impact my understanding of the phenomena being researched and how I navigate into MDL infused digital enable OEPr spaces.
2.1.2. Connectivism
Since my field of study is cognition and learning, the theory of connectivism (Siemens, 2018) is foundational to this research. Connectivism relates to the role of cognition in generating connections and networks, both internally and externally to the human brain. Siemens (2012) set out the principles of connectivism as a “response to a perceived increasing need to derive and express meaning, and gain and share knowledge. This is promoted through externalization and the recognition and interpretation of patterns are shaped by complex networks” (Tschofen & Mackness, 2012, p. 125). The four key principles of connectivism – autonomy, connectedness, diversity, and openness – (Siemens, 2012; Tschofen & Mackness, 2012) are supported by emerging technologies that are shaping human cognition in the way we “create, store, and distribute knowledge” (Couros, 2010, p. 114). For this research, the cognitive and metacognitive processes, the thinking about thinking with technology, and the thinking with others within connectivist structures enabled by technology, as an expression of the liveworlds of teacher educators, will be explored in the stories of their lived experiences as they navigate and make sense of complex MDL and OEPr amalgamations.
2.1.3. Philosophy of Technology
This research is influenced by the philosophy of technology and material engagement theory (Ihde, 2011; Ihde & Malafouris, 2019) to better understand the human–technology relationship. While the conception of open education does not absolutely require the use of technology, for this research, with its focus on digital literacies, the integration of technology is essential. Ihde and Malafouris (2019) posit that “the difference that makes the difference is the recursive effect that the things we make and our skills in making seem to have on human becoming” (p. 195). I recognize that the everyday use of technology in education does not take place in a vacuum or embodies a neutral stance (Van Den Eede et al., 2015). Mediations of reality, as experienced and practiced, are shaped by the tools we use, since “artifacts are able to exert influence as material things, not only as signs or carriers of meaning” (Verbeek, 2011; emphasis in original). An understanding of Latour’s actor network theory (ANT) was necessary for this research, since it offers some comparison to a philosophy of technology. Similarities include an inter-relational ontology, a material sensitivity, and a rejection of subject-object dichotomy (Ihde, 2015). While both are considerations for this research, it is the appeal of the philosophy of technology which focuses on the human action and perception as embodied with/through technology, rather than the linguistic-textual semiotics of engagement offered by ANT, upon which I intend to base my research (Ihde, 2015). My interest lies in understanding how technological mediations and artifacts, and the individual and socially negotiated actions that lead to a teacher educator’s enacted OEPr, are influenced by MDL considerations.
2.1.4. Pragmatism
While not a primary focus for this research, the theoretical and ontological approaches found within pragmatism hold some sway over my worldview and thus need to be explicated within this research proposal. First, as a pragmatist, I understand that past patterns of action may not suit future problems, which suits the uncertainty and rapid change that occurs within MDL and OEPr spaces (Belshaw, 2011). Second, pragmatism suits this research since this world view sees assimilation or ‘truth’ rather than discovery as a primary means of gaining understanding. Third, the allowance for error and chance makes pragmatism a practical philosophy and removes the need for perfection and the all-knowing-eye of the researcher (Belshaw, 2011). Fourth, since pragmatism rejects the notion of objective stance through which truth or belief are established, “reasoning is allied to experience rather than replacing it” (Belshaw, 2011, p. 131). Fifth, pragmatists understand that experiences are more than the sum of the compilation of all the parts. In this way, pragmatic projects are not bound by explicit frameworks, but are reflections in action as a way to ‘unthink’ the experiences (Belshaw, 2011). For these reasons, the shadows of pragmatism may be evident in the practical applications and decisions within this research work.
NEXT SECTION – 2.1.5 Phenomenology
