Research

The aim of research is to discover and/or interpret behaviour in an attempt to “explain, predict, and control events” (Ary, Jacobs, and Sorensen, 2010, p.38). Research generates many valuable outcomes: it helps us to produce new knowledge; enables us to predict whether our actions are likely to result in successful outcomes; leads to the development of future thought leaders; helps protect researchers from inappropriate measurement requirements driven by political pressure; and links scholar communities (Gravey, 2005). In an era dubbed by many pundits as “post-truth”, this last outcome may be the most valuable of all, allowing the public to have an avenue for seeking evidence, rather than continually questioning whether they are being swept up in interest-driven claims and research.

Primary and Secondary Research

Primary research involves the collection of new information or data, typically in an attempt to answer a new research question. Common methods include questionnaires/surveys, focus groups, interviews, observation, and experiments. As primary research requires the researcher to actively collect information or data, it is sometimes referred to as “field research”. By contrast, secondary research involves considering the findings of completed research (primary and/or secondary) and summarizing or synthesizing it. In some cases, this aggregate view can result in new insight. Common secondary sources include journal articles, competitor information, and scientific research, though information from any credible source can be included. As secondary research does not require the researcher to collect new information, it is sometimes referred to as “desk research”. Whether a primary or secondary approach is most appropriate for your research is best decided after an analysis of the benefits and drawbacks of each.

There are several benefits and drawbacks to both primary and secondary research from the researcher’s perspective. In the case of primary research, there are two key benefits: the research can be tailored to the specific research question; and quality is entirely controlled by the researcher, from design through construction. The primary research process is a time consuming one that is often costly to undertake, which are the two key drawbacks of this approach. By contrast, secondary research has the benefits of typically being inexpensive and relatively quick. However, secondary research has the disadvantage of requiring that the researcher analyze and integrate information/data that was not collected for reasons related to the current research question or objectives, which can be challenging. To complicate matters, the secondary sources that more closely align with the research question(s) can be old and therefore less credible. Ultimately, it is the nature of your research problem or question that dictates the appropriate research approach.

Selection of Primary or Secondary Research

Researchers need to consider when it is appropriate to invest time and money in primary research versus simply being a consumer of secondary research. Many types of research projects benefit from primary research, including cases where: the research question(s) is novel and there is little to no existing research on the topic (i.e. customized findings are required); the research is focused on a select individual or group of individuals (Purdue, 2017); or the research is intended to confirm or refute previous research findings (e.g. attempts to generalize research findings) (Purdue, 2017). By contrast, secondary research is appropriate in cases where: the research question(s) at hand can be adequately addressed with existing research; existing research can answer your research question while a single study could not; or there are cost, resource, or time constraints that preclude the undertaking of primary research.

Conclusion

Research is a critical activity which helps us produce new knowledge; predict outcomes; develop thought leaders; protect against political pressure; and combat interest-driven claims and research (Gravey, 2005). The latter being arguably the most important feature of all, as we try to operate effectively in a “post-fact” era. Given the importance of research, it is critical to continue to seek out new information to add to our body of knowledge (primary research), while also adding to our understanding of existing research through summary and synthesis (secondary research).

References

Ari, Donald, Lucy Cheser Jacobs, and Chris Sorensen. (2010). Introduction to Research in Education. Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 8th ed.

Garvey, Dan. (2005). The Importance of Research and Evaluation. Journal of Experiential Education, 28, 3, 290-293.

Purdue. (2017). What is Primary Research and How do I get Started? Retrieved July 27, 2017. https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/owlprint/559/

Visual Network – Socilab

Using Socilab, I generated a visual depiction of my LinkedIn network. An interesting observation is that there are distinct network clusters in my professional network with very little connectivity between them. I hadn’t previously given much thought to how connected my connections are, but this observation has sparked a question: Am I doing my part to be a “network activator” (McLean & Company, 2017)? In other words, should I be making an effort to facilitate connections between people in my network who could benefit from one another’s knowledge or skills?

Research done by McLean & Company in the past couple of years indicates that the answer is yes – that to be an effective leader in the volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) environment in which we all now operate, we must make a concerted effort to forge these connections (2017). This act of network activation helps both our network members and ourselves: network members are able to more efficiently and effectively navigate their challenges and optimize their opportunities; and we are better able to identify the competencies of those in our network, while simultaneously deepening our connections within our digital community.

As I consider the implications for my digital plan, I am interested to hear my MALAT network’s thoughts on network activation: Do you currently engage in network activation? If so, is it often in response to a request (e.g. a personal ask or a post asking for expertise on a specific topic)? and/or Do you seek out opportunities to create connections for members of your network?

 

References

McLean & Company. Integrated Leadership. May 9, 2017.  https://hr.mcleanco.com/research/ss/integrated-leadership

Digital Presence & Identity Plan

Digital Presence & Identity Plan

Overall goal and purpose

My aim is to cultivate a professional, authentic digital identity. My purpose is to develop my competence in the field of learning and technology, as well as increase my professional network awareness and contribution.

Approach for goal achievement

I will actively contribute content to two sites: WordPress and LinkedIn; the former to develop my knowledge in the learning and technology space, and the latter to contribute to my digital network of HR and learning professionals.

Competency gap identification

On social media sites, I almost exclusively observe and privately reflect on my discoveries; to use White and Cornu’s terminology, I am a pure ‘visitor’ (2011). As a result, I have no experience writing my opinions in a public forum and I have given little thought to my digital identity.

Gap remediation strategies

My plan for remediation is twofold: to carefully construct an authentic digital identity; and to begin to actively participate, knowing the comfort and confidence will come with practice.

Measure of success

I will post to both LinkedIn and my MALAT blog at least once per month for the next six months – August 2017 to January 2018. I will also actively monitor relevant Twitter feeds on a daily basis.

 

 

References

White, D. S., & Le Cornu, A. (2011). Visitors and residents: A new typology for online engagement. First Monday16(9). https://doi.org/doi:10.5210/fm.v16i9.3171.

Visitor Resident Map

Visitor Resident Map

I tend to be a visitor in my personal life, favouring observation and private interaction over participation in public dialogue. By contrast, I am a relatively active institutional participant, as my professional life requires me to use several social web tools to engage with virtual teammates and ready content for publication. That said, my resident status does not hold beyond the institutional firewall – I am primarily a visitor in the public domain. My aim over the course of the MALAT program is to become a more active digital learning community member through this blog and an increased use of LinkedIn.

Symposium Reflection

The MALAT symposium offered insight into the complex and burgeoning field of digital learning. One of the elements that took me by surprise was the abundance of terms that exist in the field, as well as the sometimes-subtle lines of distinction between them. For instance, in his talk on the Intentional Messiness of Online Communities, Dave Cormier explained the distinction between “open to” and “open by”, where the former is focused on including people in the learning process and the latter is simply an author or content owner giving access to another person (Cormier, 2017). This distinction between open as in content (OER) and open as in participation (OEP) was novel to me; particularly the role of pedagogy as central to OEP, while unspecified in OER (Cormier, 2017). Cormier’s use of the rhizome as a simile for open was a revelation for me as it was such an apt comparison; it easily and successfully painted a picture of the natural proliferation of learning; learning as “bounded only by the limits of its habitat” (Cormier, 2017). With this expansive image in mind, it’s easy to see the passion for open participation among educators and learning consumers, just as it’s easy to imagine how unstructured and unruly a learning environment can become with few or no boundaries.

Another surprising element came in Catherine Cronin’s talk on Open Culture, Open Education, Open Questions, wherein she revealed the findings of her PhD study on Exploring the use of open educational practices (OEP) in higher education. Through her research, Cronin was able to uncover four dimensions shared by open educators: balancing privacy and openness; valuing social learning, developing digital literacies, and challenging traditional teaching role expectations (Cronin, 2016). The discovery and articulation of these commonalities among open educators is exciting because it offers a framework by which we can reflect on, and discuss, openness; helping us to examine how each element limits or eliminates participation.

The most enlightening part of the Symposium for me related to one of Cronin’s dimensions: balancing privacy and openness. Cronin offered four separate levels upon which privacy can be considered: Macro (“Will I share openly?”), Meso (“Who will I share with?”), Micro (“Who will I share as?”), and Nano (“Will I share this?”) and suggested that many would-be contributors opt out of participation due to difficulty navigating the Micro level; they struggle to construct a digital identity (Cronin, 2016). The notion of digital identity is of particular interest to me as it is so personal, complex, and nuanced. I may pursue this topic in future research as I am interested in the effects of inauthentic or incomplete digital identities on their creators and other members of their digital communities.