Hi everyone,
A few weeks back I posted an invitation, in a number of learning networks, to participate in some Masters level research that I'm undertaking to find out "the salient characteristics of those people or organisations whose websites form the hubs within a learning network".
To be honest, I've had very little response so far. So I'm starting on my second phase of invitations.
Even though the title talks about the "hubs", I need to get responses from as wide a range of people as possible, in order to reliably find out who the hubs are, and why they become hubs.
The survey is available at: http://capitald.mbdissertation.sgizmo.com/ - where you will also find a 2 minute video which explains the rationale behind what I'm doing.
Many thanks,
Mark
Mark,
I certainly mean no disrespect and I do think that your study could lead to interesting results. But I have several issues with your research design. The keyword here is transparency. Because we should be transparent in research, I'll be transparent. And, in this case, a bit blunt. Sorry!
Many researchers in North America have been worried with the excesses of Human Subjects Committees but we have become accustomed to having academic surveys prefaced with a clear description of the goals of the research and how the results will be used. Your video helps understand your project a bit but many of us expect to have something much clearer. Despite your assurance that items in our OPML file will not be used against our will, we have no way to know who will have access to those results or how you secure the data to ensure malicious hackers don't have access to our private feeds. You might give some thought to using publicly-available data.
After taking your survey, I wonder even more about what you mean by "learning networks." As this seems to be the centre of your attention, it might be useful to be explicit about those concepts, at one point or the other.
The questions about the use of RSS feeds are quite interesting and I personally hope that answers to these questions will help you put the RSS data in context. For instance, those who say that they could easily live without RSS in their professional and personal lives may not have their actual "hubs" show up in their RSS feeds.
Going through the actual survey is a bit cumbersome. Not that it takes that much time to go through it but some of the actual questions and the task of sending you the OPML file take some consideration and pondering. At one point, it almost feels as if we're doing work for you instead of simply providing you with data.
As an ethnographer, I would prefer something more collaborative.
Again, sorry to be so blunt.
I certainly mean no disrespect and I do think that your study could lead to interesting results. But I have several issues with your research design. The keyword here is transparency. Because we should be transparent in research, I'll be transparent. And, in this case, a bit blunt. Sorry!
Many researchers in North America have been worried with the excesses of Human Subjects Committees but we have become accustomed to having academic surveys prefaced with a clear description of the goals of the research and how the results will be used. Your video helps understand your project a bit but many of us expect to have something much clearer. Despite your assurance that items in our OPML file will not be used against our will, we have no way to know who will have access to those results or how you secure the data to ensure malicious hackers don't have access to our private feeds. You might give some thought to using publicly-available data.
After taking your survey, I wonder even more about what you mean by "learning networks." As this seems to be the centre of your attention, it might be useful to be explicit about those concepts, at one point or the other.
The questions about the use of RSS feeds are quite interesting and I personally hope that answers to these questions will help you put the RSS data in context. For instance, those who say that they could easily live without RSS in their professional and personal lives may not have their actual "hubs" show up in their RSS feeds.
Going through the actual survey is a bit cumbersome. Not that it takes that much time to go through it but some of the actual questions and the task of sending you the OPML file take some consideration and pondering. At one point, it almost feels as if we're doing work for you instead of simply providing you with data.
As an ethnographer, I would prefer something more collaborative.
Again, sorry to be so blunt.
Hi Alexandre,
Thanks for the feedback. I don't mind you being blunt at all. I'm new to academic research so any feedback is useful.
To answer your points:
The goals of the research are to find out what is special about the individuals or organisations that become the hubs in a learning network.
By learning network I'm focussing very much on the online network that is produced through the use of RSS feeds. Partly because this will give me quantitative data to use, and partly because it keeps the focus manageable.
I will be the only person with access to the OPML files (unless someone hacks my inbox - which I hope is unlikely). The raw data will not be published, only the aggregated statistics.
I would love to use publicly available data. The only way I could do that is to guess which places might be the hubs and use the tools available to confirm the guess. In which case I may miss significant hubs that would otherwise have come out of the OPML file analysis.
I realise the survey takes a bit of thought. I have tried to keep it as simple as possible. The alternative is to collect the data through interviews - which would have taken far longer - although may have provided much richer information.
Thanks again.
Mark
Thanks for the feedback. I don't mind you being blunt at all. I'm new to academic research so any feedback is useful.
To answer your points:
The goals of the research are to find out what is special about the individuals or organisations that become the hubs in a learning network.
By learning network I'm focussing very much on the online network that is produced through the use of RSS feeds. Partly because this will give me quantitative data to use, and partly because it keeps the focus manageable.
I will be the only person with access to the OPML files (unless someone hacks my inbox - which I hope is unlikely). The raw data will not be published, only the aggregated statistics.
I would love to use publicly available data. The only way I could do that is to guess which places might be the hubs and use the tools available to confirm the guess. In which case I may miss significant hubs that would otherwise have come out of the OPML file analysis.
I realise the survey takes a bit of thought. I have tried to keep it as simple as possible. The alternative is to collect the data through interviews - which would have taken far longer - although may have provided much richer information.
Thanks again.
Mark
Mark,
Glad you're open to discussion. The mark of a real researcher.
On hacked inbox, even though it's highly unlikely that it may happen, a disclosure about the risk and benefits of your study would go a long way to reassure participants. Maybe telling people how you protect your inbox, that the results will be destroyed after the study is over, etc.
On publicly available data, you might give some thought to studying blogrolls, influence ratings (Technorati, Alexa), and/or pingbacks/trackbacks. If what you're interested in is the set of most prominent players, it shouldn't be too hard to identify them from people's online activities.
On "learning networks," I'm pretty sure I can guess what you mean but what exactly does the connection with "learning" need to involve? Should participants be active teachers in formal institutions? Are networks which include non-teaching learners (such as students and enthusiasts) fair game? Are there administrators involved? Is there a presupposition that the most active nodes in the network are influential for learning-related reasons? Aren't we all learners?
I don't mean this to be too "philosophical" but it's actually the same question I had upon joining the "edublogger" group on Facebook. As I teach university courses, I consider myself "edu." And I do blog. Some of my secondary blogs are dedicated specifically to pedagogical and academic functions. I also post blog entries about "educational issues" on my main blog. Does this make me an edublogger? If so, should I be worried?
Anyhoo... I'm sure you'll have a lot of fun looking at the data you can gather. Do post back to the Lounge as you go along with your study!
Glad you're open to discussion. The mark of a real researcher.
On hacked inbox, even though it's highly unlikely that it may happen, a disclosure about the risk and benefits of your study would go a long way to reassure participants. Maybe telling people how you protect your inbox, that the results will be destroyed after the study is over, etc.
On publicly available data, you might give some thought to studying blogrolls, influence ratings (Technorati, Alexa), and/or pingbacks/trackbacks. If what you're interested in is the set of most prominent players, it shouldn't be too hard to identify them from people's online activities.
On "learning networks," I'm pretty sure I can guess what you mean but what exactly does the connection with "learning" need to involve? Should participants be active teachers in formal institutions? Are networks which include non-teaching learners (such as students and enthusiasts) fair game? Are there administrators involved? Is there a presupposition that the most active nodes in the network are influential for learning-related reasons? Aren't we all learners?
I don't mean this to be too "philosophical" but it's actually the same question I had upon joining the "edublogger" group on Facebook. As I teach university courses, I consider myself "edu." And I do blog. Some of my secondary blogs are dedicated specifically to pedagogical and academic functions. I also post blog entries about "educational issues" on my main blog. Does this make me an edublogger? If so, should I be worried?
Anyhoo... I'm sure you'll have a lot of fun looking at the data you can gather. Do post back to the Lounge as you go along with your study!
I realise the survey takes a bit of thought. I have tried to keep it as simple as possible. The alternative is to collect the data through interviews - which would have taken far longer - although may have provided much richer information.
A survey may give you exactly the data you need for your research question. However, if you have doubts and want richer data, interviews can be excellent and do not necessarily take any longer timewise. You need only a few participants. Many researchers also point to mixed methods as ideal--for example, a survey followed up by selected interviews.
A survey may give you exactly the data you need for your research question. However, if you have doubts and want richer data, interviews can be excellent and do not necessarily take any longer timewise. You need only a few participants. Many researchers also point to mixed methods as ideal--for example, a survey followed up by selected interviews.
It's OK to be blunt Alexandre - but do be realistic
Ethnographic research may be possible for Masters students but not necessarily realistic in many cases. I speak as Postrgraduate Director for students who are struggling to complete a dissertation in 3 months. A frequent piece of advice is "It's not a PhD you know".
Ethnographic research may be possible for Masters students but not necessarily realistic in many cases. I speak as Postrgraduate Director for students who are struggling to complete a dissertation in 3 months. A frequent piece of advice is "It's not a PhD you know".
Well, I mentioned my ethnographic background as a kind of disclaimer. I don't expect Mark to do ethnography if he hasn't been trained in it. BTW, some ethnographers are now doing mini-projects which only take a few days to complete. And I've had hundreds of students do quick projects based on a short participant-observation session and an open-ended interview. I'm frequently surprised by the amount of insight they get from the experience.
What I meant was just that, in the interest of speeding the data gathering, it might be easier to either use publicly available data or to do something more collaborative with the people involved.
But that part is just me.
What I meant was just that, in the interest of speeding the data gathering, it might be easier to either use publicly available data or to do something more collaborative with the people involved.
But that part is just me.
I would agree that ethnographic studies, case studies, and action research studies (which I believe overlap a lot in philosophy and methods) can be designed for scope in months or weeks. It does not surprise me that a mini-ethnography can be done in days. On the other end of the spectrum, my PhD on blended language learning is an action research dissertation where the field work will go through eight cycles over 4 years with a collaborative teaching team.
A research intervention can be expressed crudely as get in, get on, get out (with academic and moral /ethical credibility intact). The trouble with research that has to take place within a compressed space of time like an MSc is that get in and get out take about as much time as for PhD but leaving very little time for get on.
Thanks everyone for the really useful feedback. I hope you won't mind if I include parts of it in my write-up.
Frances, I think you've been talking to my supervisor. That's exactly what she says to me - "It's not a PHD you know!"
It looks like I may have to include some interviews in the process, particularly to get some more detail from the "hubs".
Thanks again,
Mark
Frances, I think you've been talking to my supervisor. That's exactly what she says to me - "It's not a PHD you know!"
It looks like I may have to include some interviews in the process, particularly to get some more detail from the "hubs".
Thanks again,
Mark