The project is taking a collaborative research approach which includes practitioners/teachers from a number of different educational sectors and countries as well as the “core” team of researchers based at the OU. Given the global spread of project fellows a key challenge for the project is to ensure that the team are able to share their findings and experiences between themselves effectively and provide the basis and data for the OER Research Evidence Hub.
One of the approaches the team has been experimenting with is taking the premise of agile programming and adapting it to a research project (see Patrick’s post about the first research sprint for a bit more detail).
Now, when I heard about this I was intrigued. Typically educational research “products” don’t really lend themselves to anything particularly agile, particularly some peer reviewed journal outputs. Any research based on actual teaching practice does need more than a few sessions to generate meaningful results. Agile programming tends to have very specific, pre-defined outputs, it’s actually often not the most creative of approaches. Whereas academic research (particularly in the education domain) tends much more open ended. Hypothesis are there more to be broken as well as to be proved, the unexpected is embraced.
Bringing researchers who form part of a globally distributed team together for set periods to focus on certain aspects of research project does make sense. As does having some kind of structure, particularly for focusing “group minds” on potential outputs (products), adaptation of peer programming could be useful for peer review etc. However implementing “proper” agile programming methodology to research is problematic.
But if we stick with the programming analogy and stop thinking in terms of products, and start thinking of research as a service (akin to software as a service) then maybe there is more milage. A key part of SaS approaches are APIs, allowing hooks into all sorts of sites/ services so that they can in effect talk to each other.
I noticed earlier this week a post from Brian Proffitt on readwrite talking about the need for personal APIs to help organise individuals interactions, but what I’m thinking of in this context is quite the reverse. I’m thinking of researchers seeing themselves as APIs. They need to be the hooks providing entry points into their research which create effective, interactive dissemination or more accurately communication (as described in this Is it time to ban the term ‘dissemination? post by Caroline Cassidy).
In any research based on teaching practice as is the case with the OER Research Hub, there is always (imho) a tension between research and practice. Sharing effectively lessoned learned with actual teachers and at the same time producing the empirical data that qualified “proper” research requires is challenging and can actually create a gulf between research and practice. I think Learning Design suffered a bit from this. For example, as a teacher I really want to know quickly and easily what people did with OER, where they found it, how it actually changed things for them in the classroom, the pragmatic stuff, not the “science bit” with all the statistics. I probably don’t have time to read an academic paper. As a researcher I may well be more interested in the quantitive data, and reading a “proper academic paper”. As a funder I really want to know what you’ve done with my money, what difference have you made? I don’t need you to regurgitate in several different ways the original project proposal. Equally in all cases I might be interested in more “lite” reflection such as a descriptive blog post, video interview etc, or a combination of them all.
The key thing therefore is for the researcher to think of themselves more as the interface between their work, the data, the findings, the “what actually happened in the classroom” bits and focus on ways to allow as wide a range of stakeholders to easily “hook” into them so they can use the outputs meaningfully in their own context.
In many ways this is actually the basis of effective digital scholarship in any discipline and of course what many researchers already do. In the context of open collaborative research into OERs and wider open educational practice in particular, I wonder if the research as API analogy could help focus development of sharing research outputs and developing really effective interactions with research data and findings?
The team have already identified a number of key challenges for next year including measuring impact -v- attitudinal data, the validity of comparing diverse contexts as well evidence for critical reflection and its relation to OER so have lots of potential hooks and the project blog is filling up with some really useful reflection and early findings from the research to date.
I’m joining the the team next month for their next sprint so will be getting lots more insights into how a ‘research sprint” actually works, but in the meantime I’d love to hear any views you may have.