Research practices in transition: investigating the relationship between emerging digital and open scholarship in higher education settings

Antonella EspositoNovember 2010

Introduction

These notes take cue from the reflection on my dissertation’s topic I am working on in current days: so, the exploration of theoretical concepts identified in the selected readings is intended as a work in progress towards a more thorough review of my initial proposal and the definition of a theoretical approach.

Key readings

My early analysis of useful theoretical concepts for my prospective study was driven by the following needs:

- To find definitions and frameworks of ‘scholarship’, in order to classify (digital) scholarly activities.

- To find frameworks to interpret ‘knowledge production and distribution’ in academic work.- To find frameworks to interpret (academic) work practices in transition.

Given the above choice, I am aware that I excluded other interesting strands of analysis on the same topic, such as any application of a digital literacy’s framework, or theories of innovation or organizational change.

Reading 1

Pearce, N. (2010), Digital Scholarship Audit Report, Open University, Milton Keynes

Summary

This paper reports research approach and findings of an internal audit recently carried out at the Open University and focusing on digital scholarship’s practices being adopted by a sample of OU faculty. The aim of the research is to explore emergent open approaches in research behaviours, as prompted by the use of digital tools. Sixteen interviews were conducted, after selecting as many digital scholars’ champions, belonging to a range of research areas.

Theoretical concepts

This exploratory study uses a conceptualization of ‘digital scholarship’ as devised by Pearce et al. (2010) and built on the model of ‘scholarship’ by Boyer (1990). Analyzing US higher education sector at that time, Boyer tried to elaborate a more comprehensive understanding and valorisation of the nature of academic scholarship, encompassing the following four dimensions: Discovery (creation of new knowledge in a specific area); Integration (position of the individual discoveries in a wider context); Application (engagement with the world outside university); Teaching (management of all these procedure supporting teaching and learning). Pearce et al. (2010: 4) compared the above four dimensions with as many “trends towards openness”: ‘open data’, ‘open publishing’, ‘open boundary between the academia and the public’ and ‘open education’. Therefore, this conceptualization of ‘digital scholarship’ assumes ‘openness’ as the only actual ‘break’ with

respect to traditional research practices. Pearce mainly considers individual researchers’ behaviours coping with Web 2.0 tools, rather than their use of digital infrastructures. He explicitly states to avoid any technological determinism, maintaining that any shift towards more open forms of scholarship, as enabled by the use of technologies, is a potentiality whose ongoing enactement is to be verified. However, he reports a quote underlining that ‘openness’ implies the uptake of a certain ideology and open values leading practices. It is worth noting that neither ‘digital scholarship’ or ‘openness’ here are being conceptualized as further dimensions that transform the other ones (as explicitated in Boyer’s model): digital tools and practices are apparently thought as embedded in current research practices, while ‘openness’ is merely being defined by its identified practices (open data, open publishing, open boundary, open education). This adaptation of Boyer’s model of scholarship really lacks an authentic theoretical enhancement, but I think is just being used as a springboard by the author, in order to rethink later the conceptualization of research practices in transition only in the light of the interviews to faculty to be carried out.

Relationship between concepts and data

The correspondence between scholarship’s dimensions and trends towards openness is being used to guide the collection of data in the interviewing process: the interviewees were invited to recognize themselves in Boyer’s four dimensions and to count how their use of digital tools is shifting their own behaviour towards different practices.Indeed, the collected data challenge the above conceptualization of digital scholarship, giving evidence that tools can be used for different purposes and activities: for instance, a blog can be an instrument for open publishing as well as a means for researcher to communicate with the world outside of academia. So, digital scholarship seems to blur boundaries between dimensions of scholarship, in particular where communication activities are implied (‘open publishing’ and ‘open boundary’).

Relevance for my study

The approach, aim and limited extension of this study makes it close to the intent of my draft proposal. Boyer’s notion of scholarship is popular enough (in an Anglo-saxon context) to be easily used to spark reflection in the interviewed faculty on their own changing research practices as driven by technology. However, I identify some issues that are not considered in this study and that in my opinion would deserve a theoretical reflection:

- problematize the use of digital tools as a means to transform existing practice (i.e. the concept of co-evolution of tools and practices as applied in educational technology studies);

- operationalise the four dimensions in Boyer’s model, so that they could be translated into “scholarly activities” (i.e. information access, communication, curation, etc.) to be investigated as many evolving practices;

- take into account the research context with its concurrent drivers and inhibitors of innovation.

Finally, the author momentarily draws my attention to the contextual and historical value of a theoretical concept, inducing a more careful consideration, for instance, of the actual importance of the dimension of ‘teaching’ in a definition of scholarship to be applied to a specific national higher education setting (discrepancy between US and UK higher education contexts).

Reading 2

Houghton, John W., Steele, C. and Henty, M. (2004), ‘Research practices and scholarly communication in the digital environment’, report (in particular Chapter 2 – The production of knowledge which focuses on theoretical frameworks).

Summary

This large-scale Australian study investigates how research practices are changing in the digital environment, in order to draw policy recommendations at a national level. A wide-ranging statistical and literature review constitutes the basis on which Houghton et al. build their framework and grounding for analysis. The authors conducted a series of in-depth interviews to a small sample of senior researchers working in a number of fields and institutional settings. The study focuses on three aspects of academic activity: communicaton and collaboration; information search and access; dissemination and publication. The authors aim to gain a systems view of the issue being researched, through an analysis of the multiple factors (i.e. funding opportunities, commercialisation of research outcomes and impact of ICTs) and conflicting forces at work (i.e. the presence of international publishers and open access institutional repositories) which have influenced the current landscape of research practices. They consider ICTs both as digital infrastructures and as digital use for personal use by individual researchers. Their key findings reveal that new forms of knowledge production and distribution are emerging: these forms are shaping research practices, envisioning more sustainable and cost-effective ways to information access and communication. These new modes of knowledge production and distribution are to be strategically supported (through new forms of evaluation, incentives, facilities of communication, publishing based on open access’s principle) to yield sustainable approaches to research. To this purpose, the authors suggest to take an holistic approach to ‘re-engineering’ the system for the creation, production and distribution of scientific and scholarly knowledge.

Theoretical concepts

In Chapter 2 they discuss four main frameworks which they retrieved from an international literature review: the systems of innovation, that encompasses a wide body of study focusing on functions of the systems in which the knowledge is being produced and communicated; the Triple Helix, aiming to describe the interplay among academia, industry and state; the post-academic science, that encompasses work analyzing the contrast between traditional ‘academic science’ and the emerging era of science; the new knowledge production (based on Gibbons’s work, 1994), which is based on the conceptualizations of a traditional mode of production of knowledge (Mode 1) and an emerging, transdisciplinary and problem-oriented mode of knowledge production (Mode 2).

In particular the authors widely use Gibbon’s conceptualization of Mode 1 and Mode 2 of knowledge production, which is also of interest for my study.

Mode 1 of knowledge production refers to a complex of traditional values, practices, social norms – originating from a Newtonian model of science - which must be followed “in the production, legitimation and distribution” of what is considered scientific knowledge and sound scientific practices. Knowledge is being driven by disciplinary norms and communities and theory and application are distinguished.

Otherwise, Mode 2 of knowledge production is characterized by a focus on problems more than on techniques, and on interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary research; by an emphasis on collaborative approaches and diverse and informal modes of communication; by a

diversity of location of research activities. Knowledge is transdisciplinary, integrative and consensual and there is a dynamic between theory, application and context.

“Mode 1 is disciplinary, while Mode 2 is transdisciplinary. Mode 1 is characterised by homogeneity, Mode 2 by heterogeneity. Organizationally, Mode 1 is hierarchical and tends to preserve its form, while Mode 2 is more heterarchical and transient” (Gibbson, 2001, as quoted in Houghton et al., p. 5).

Gibbson maintains that there is interaction between Mode 1 and Mode 2 and that the latter supplements rather replaces the former. Moreover, Mode 2 is critically dependent on new information and communication technologies, due to its transdisciplinary, dispersed and interactive nature.

Relationship between concepts and data

This conceptualization helps Houghton et al. to frame current tensions emerging in research practices at a cultural, institutional and organizational level: for instance, the coexistence of traditional (i.e. peer review) and emerging approaches (open peer review), as well the need for a multidimensional system of rules, i.e. research evaluation, which should combine quantitative, qualitative and ‘relevance’ factors, Mode 1 and 2 of knowledge production. It is worth noting that in this study there is no conceptualization of digital or open scholarship, but the framework being used allows us to gain an understanding of whether evolving practices enabled by technologies are merely improvements of pre-existing ways of conduct or whether they are disruptive breaks against tradition (i.e. open access repositories), which should be ruled and supported. ICTs are identified as a key factor in Mode 2, while features of Mode 2 help to identify distinctive approaches to ‘openness’ – beyond ideological positions - as many signs in an evolving research landscape, driven by a plenitude of contextual, political and economic factors.

Relevance for my study

The system view adopted by the authors is particularly relevant to understanding digital scholarship as one of the variables at work when we look at research practices in transition. The framework of the contrasting modes 1 and 2 of knowledge production provides me with a tool for interpreting change in scholarly practices from a number of viewpoints, from economic to cultural, from organizational to epistemological.

However, I think that Gibbson’s model could be a starting point to analyse structures of knowledge production and distribution. There are some problematic issues related to this framework, referring to my study:

- given the selected framework and since they focus on a range of settings, the dimension of teaching – so typical and controversial in academic scholarship – is quite missing;

- the ‘commodification of knowledge’ is seen as a given to be coped with and not as threat (as in many higher education contexts and in postmodern debates);

- the role of ICTs is not critically thematized (thinking of the idea of ‘pedagogised society’ by late Bernstein);

- the transition from disciplinary to transdisciplinary knowledge sparks a good hint for analysis focusing on evolving differences in diverse subject areas: this needs to be faced using further instruments (i.e. vertical and horizontal discourse);

- the contrast beween Mode 1 and Mode 2 of knowledge prompts a new question: what are the emerging modes of legitimation of knowledge in academia? Here I think that the use of

theory of Legitimisation Device by Karl Maton (2005) could help to render academic disciplines as many fields of practice in transition, animated by agents competing for power and control.

Reading 3

Bernadou, A., Constantopoulos, P. Costis, D. and Gavrilis, D. (2010), ‘A Conceptual Model for Scholarly Research Activity’, in iConference 2010. Retrieved 17 October 2010 at: https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/14945

Summary

The paper presents a conceptual model of scholarly research activity, as being developed within a European project aiming to define prerequisites for a digital infrastructure to be designed for scholarly work in the humanities, arts and cultural heritage. The study originated from the statement that in humanities effective research is increasingly dependent on expert use of an expanding mass of scholarly resources. The aim is to formalise the research process in order to facilitate the design and development of digital repositories which can support research in arts and humanities. The model was founded on an empirical study carried out through an open-ended questionnaire and used the Activity Theory framework to consider both historical development of inquiry work and research planning.

Theoretical concepts

Activity Theory focuses on the concept of activity, intended as the “purposeful interaction of a subject with the world”. Using the AT framework (following Leont’ev’s elaboration), the authors define scholarly work as a purposeful process, carried out by actors, individuals or groups, according to specific methods. The research process is thought of as a series of tasks and sub-tasks, specified by procedures, which have a normative character and convey what in the related community is being defined as good practice. Given that representation, the authors define the research process as “an enactment of the corresponding procedure”, carried out by an individual or group of researchers for specific goals. These goals can be represented in a more specific way in the different tasks of the research process and “can be associated with the performance of the services designed to support the respective tasks” (Bernadou, p. 3). Three kinds of ‘objects’ in the research process are identified: ‘physical objects’, which are researched and stored (original domain material); ‘conceptual objects’, which are concepts created and propositions formulated (the content of scientific theories); and ‘information objects’, which are a particular class of conceptual objects (content of digital repositories). The authors keep on elaborating their conceptual model of the research process, combining it with another normalisation model (CIDOC CRM), internationally utilized for historical and documentary purposes.

The use of the AT framework allows the authors to better detect and understand relationships beween specific activities, goals, methods and tools, through a comprehensive description which facilitates communication with the stakeholders.

Relevance for my study

The object and purpose of this study is quite different with respect to the intent of my initial proposal. However, I find it interesting as an example of the conceptualization of scholarly

activities being investigated and as utilization of the cultural-historical Activity Theory framework in order to capture the dynamics of scholarly work. The AT framework is an analytical lens focusing on explaining social and cultural work practices through the environmental and historical context in which the activity is taking place.

As a set of descriptive principles (Barab et al., 2006) it constitues a framework particularly suitable to explain the goal-oriented, socially and culturally grounded work practices of scholars using digital tools and artifacts. It can help highlighting the dynamics of scholarly practices in transition, because it combines the active engagement of researchers with monitoring the developmental change of participants.

Framed by the AT principles, the issue being researched can be analyzed to investigate scholars’ work practices in transition, as situated in a higher education context typically organized by consolidated rules, driven by subjects within a community of peers, shared with students and non-teaching staff, and mediated by digital artifacts which are affecting ways scholars establish rapport with their own practices.

I think that the use of this analytical lens could be productively combined with other levels of analysis - using theoretical constructions such as Gibbson’s Mode 1 and 2 or Maton’s Legitimation Device - aiming to identify deep structures of knowledge production and distribution.