IDT as ethical pursuit
P Clint Rogers eulogises recently deceased academic and mentor Dr. Dillon K. Inouye. They share the view, so eloquently expressed in this 2005 article, that the discipline of instructional design technology (IDT) is primarily an ethical concern.
Too often, our universities and funding bodies push us into research about IDT to reveal universal "scientific" truths, as an engineering design practice, or as economic innovation.
This aligns well with this framework (pdf) by Orrill, Hannafin and Glazier (1999) that categorises educational technology research depending on whether or not it seeks fundamental understanding or it considers usage. Their quadrant includes basic foundational research, use-inspired (theory-building) research and applied research.
Inouye suggested that we take an Aristotelian view of IDT, and research about it, as an ethical pursuit. It is primarily a response to what we ought to do to help people learn and act. The other research approaches are valuable, of course. But if we prioritise our endeavour with the emancipatory at the top, then the research agenda that emerges takes a distinctive shape. Inouye suggested that our focus should be subjective and contextual rather than objective and universal. He advocated methods like naturalistic inquiry and participatory action research where the output of the research endeavour is assistive rather than merely academic.
The ethical underpinning of learning designs is usually taken for granted. This is obscured further when instruction reinforces a closed, absolutist worldview in authorising what "you must" do rather than helping you explore what "you ought" to do.
As Inouye cited of Aristotle, “No one deliberates about the unvarying”.
Too often, our universities and funding bodies push us into research about IDT to reveal universal "scientific" truths, as an engineering design practice, or as economic innovation.
This aligns well with this framework (pdf) by Orrill, Hannafin and Glazier (1999) that categorises educational technology research depending on whether or not it seeks fundamental understanding or it considers usage. Their quadrant includes basic foundational research, use-inspired (theory-building) research and applied research.
Inouye suggested that we take an Aristotelian view of IDT, and research about it, as an ethical pursuit. It is primarily a response to what we ought to do to help people learn and act. The other research approaches are valuable, of course. But if we prioritise our endeavour with the emancipatory at the top, then the research agenda that emerges takes a distinctive shape. Inouye suggested that our focus should be subjective and contextual rather than objective and universal. He advocated methods like naturalistic inquiry and participatory action research where the output of the research endeavour is assistive rather than merely academic.
The ethical underpinning of learning designs is usually taken for granted. This is obscured further when instruction reinforces a closed, absolutist worldview in authorising what "you must" do rather than helping you explore what "you ought" to do.
As Inouye cited of Aristotle, “No one deliberates about the unvarying”.
Post a Comment