The literature records that educational technologies have the power to 'colonise' societal cultures. However, this study asserts the co-existence of a counter power through which societal cultures may 'colonise' educational technologies too. This assumption of power struggle is examined by addressing the question: to what extent do societal cultures colonise educational technologies? This question is answered using a qualitative and quantitative enquiry into Israeli society. Having analysed the data, it is found that societies consist of beliefs, attitudes and behaviours that may challenge the determination of educational technologies. This could be seen as empirical evidence suggesting that, although educational technologies may seek to colonise societies, societies may seek to colonise educational technologies as well, with the two entities engaging in a politically reciprocal relationship.
This article spans the domains of education, technology and geo-politics. It uses as an instance the Arab scholarship of education and technology, viewing its scholarly community through the geographical lens of regionalism. It enquires into the power relations among scholars in the Arab region and between scholars in the Arab region and their fellows from outside the region. It addresses the research question: to what extent have region-informed factors affected the scholarly community of education and technology in the Arab region? This question was answered by both qualitative and numerical enquiry, analysing documents, interviews and a survey of native Arabic-speaking scholars. Having analysed the data using the grounded theory approach, two categories of power relations among scholars were identified: power relations within a particular region and power relations across regions. Considering these two categories, a theoretical proposition could be posited that there could be power relationships among scholars that exist on a regional basis. The recommendation is therefore that research should further shed light upon the regionalistic (and thus geographically informed political) dynamics of scholarly communities.
WOS: 000401148100005 ; This article theorizes the functional relationship between the human components (i.e., scholars) and non-human components (i.e., structural configurations) of academic domains. It is organized around the following question: in what ways have scholars formed and been formed by the structural configurations of their academic domain? The article uses as a case study the academic domain of education and technology to examine this question. Its authorship approach is innovative, with a worldwide collection of academics (99 authors) collaborating to address the proposed question based on their reflections on daily social and academic practices. This collaboration followed a three-round process of contributions via email. Analysis of these scholars' reflective accounts was carried out, and a theoretical proposition was established from this analysis. The proposition is of a mutual (yet not necessarily balanced) power (and therefore political) relationship between the human and non-human constituents of an academic realm, with the two shaping one another. One implication of this proposition is that these non-human elements exist as political actors', just like their human counterparts, having agency' - which they exercise over humans. This turns academic domains into political (functional or dysfunctional) battlefields' wherein both humans and non-humans engage in political activities and actions that form the identity of the academic domain. For more information about the authorship approach, please see Al Lily AEA (2015) A crowd-authoring project on the scholarship of educational technology. Information Development. doi:10.1177/0266666915622044.
In: Al Lily , A E , Foland , J , Stoloff , D , Gogus , A , Erguvan , I D , Awshar , M T , Tondeur , J , Hammond , M , Venter , I M , Jerry , P , Vlachopoulos , D , Oni , A , Liu , Y , Badosek , R , Cristina Lopez de la Madrid , M , Mazzoni , E , Lee , H , Kinley , K , Kalz , M , Sambuu , U , Bushnaq , T , Pinkwart , N , Adedokun-Shittu , N A , Zander , M , Oliver , K , Teixeira Pombo , L M , Sali , J B , Gregory , S , Tobgay , S , Joy , M , Elen , J , Jwaifell , M O H , Said , M N H M , Al-Saggaf , Y , Naaji , A , White , J , Jordan , K , Gerstein , J , Yapici , I U , Sanga , C , Nleya , P T , Sbihi , B , Lucas , M R , Mbarika , V , Reiners , T , Schoen , S , Sujo-Montes , L , Santally , M , Hakkinen , P , Al Saif , A , Gegenfurtner , A , Schatz , S , Vigil , V P , Tannahill , C , Partida , S P , Zhang , Z , Charalambous , K , Moreira , A , Coto , M , Laxman , K , Farley , H S , Gumbo , M T , Simsek , A , Ramganesh , E , Birzina , R , Player-Koro , C , Dumbraveanu , R , Ziphorah , M , Mohamudally , N , Thomas , S , Romero , M , Nirmala , M , Cifuentes , L , Osaily , R Z K , Omoogun , A C , Seferoglu , S , Elci , A , Edyburn , D , Moudgalya , K , Ebner , M , Bottino , R , Khoo , E , Pedro , L , Buarki , H , Roman-Odio , C , Qureshi , I A , Khan , M A , Thornthwaite , C , Kerimkulova , S , Downes , T , Malmi , L , Bardakci , S , Itmazi , J , Rogers , J , Rughooputh , S D D V , Akour , M A , Henderson , J B , de Freitas , S & Schrader , P G 2017 , ' Academic domains as political battlegrounds : A global enquiry by 99 academics in the fields of education and technology ' , Information Development , vol. 33 , no. 3 , pp. 270-288 . https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666916646415
This article theorizes the functional relationship between the human components (i.e., scholars) and non-human components (i.e., structural configurations) of academic domains. It is organized around the following question: in what ways have scholars formed and been formed by the structural configurations of their academic domain? The article uses as a case study the academic domain of education and technology to examine this question. Its authorship approach is innovative, with a worldwide collection of academics (99 authors) collaborating to address the proposed question based on their reflections on daily social and academic practices. This collaboration followed a three-round process of contributions via email. Analysis of these scholars' reflective accounts was carried out, and a theoretical proposition was established from this analysis. The proposition is of a mutual (yet not necessarily balanced) power (and therefore political) relationship between the human and non-human constituents of an academic realm, with the two shaping one another. One implication of this proposition is that these non-human elements exist as political actors', just like their human counterparts, having agency' - which they exercise over humans. This turns academic domains into political (functional or dysfunctional) battlefields' wherein both humans and non-humans engage in political activities and actions that form the identity of the academic domain. For more information about the authorship approach, please see Al Lily AEA (2015) A crowd-authoring project on the scholarship of educational technology. Information Development. doi:10.1177/0266666915622044.
Academic cognition and intelligence are 'socially distributed'; instead of dwelling inside the single mind of an individual academic or a few academics, they are spread throughout the different minds of all academics. In this article, some mechanisms have been developed that systematically bring together these fragmented pieces of cognition and intelligence. These mechanisms jointly form a new authoring method called 'crowd-authoring', enabling an international crowd of academics to co-author a manuscript in an organized way. The article discusses this method, addressing the following question: What are the main mechanisms needed for a large collection of academics to collaborate on the authorship of an article? This question is addressed through a developmental endeavour wherein 101 academics of educational technology from around the world worked together in three rounds by email to compose a short article. Based on this endeavour, four mechanisms have been developed: a) a mechanism for finding a crowd of scholars; b) a mechanism for managing this crowd; c) a mechanism for analyzing the input of this crowd; and d) a scenario for software that helps automate the process of crowd-authoring. The recommendation is that crowd-authoring ought to win the attention of academic communities and funding agencies, because, given the well-connected nature of the contemporary age, the widely and commonly distributed status of academic intelligence and the increasing value of collective and democratic participation, large-scale multi-authored publications are the way forward for academic fields and wider academia in the 21st century. ; peerReviewed
This article theorizes the functional relationship between the human components (i.e., scholars) and non-human components (i.e., structural configurations) of academic domains. It is organized around the following question: in what ways have scholars formed and been formed by the structural configurations of their academic domain? The article uses as a case study the academic domain of education and technology to examine this question. Its authorship approach is innovative, with a worldwide collection of academics (99 authors) collaborating to address the proposed question based on their reflections on daily social and academic practices. This collaboration followed a three-round process of contributions via email. Analysis of these scholars' reflective accounts was carried out, and a theoretical proposition was established from this analysis. The proposition is of a mutual (yet not necessarily balanced) power (and therefore political) relationship between the human and non-human constituents of an academic realm, with the two shaping one another. One implication of this proposition is that these non-human elements exist as political actors', just like their human counterparts, having agency' - which they exercise over humans. This turns academic domains into political (functional or dysfunctional) battlefields' wherein both humans and non-humans engage in political activities and actions that form the identity of the academic domain. For more information about the authorship approach, please see Al Lily AEA (2015) A crowd-authoring project on the scholarship of educational technology. Information Development. doi:10.1177/0266666915622044.