A Critical Evaluation of : Lindroth, T. & Bergquist, M. (2010) “Laptopers in an educational practice: Promoting the personal learning situation”, Computers & Education, Vol. 54, No. 2, pp. 311-320
The focus of the ethnographical research study by Lindroth and Bergquist (2010) is based on the question “What characterizes laptoping within an educational practice, such as a lecture, from a student perspective?” and the material fulfils what is expected in the introduction and summary. Students’ everyday use of laptops in a Swedish IT university are studied for a four-year period 2003-2007.
The research contributes to wider debates and policy based on how to create a firm foundation for ‘digital competency in a digitized society’ (Lindroth and Bergquist, 2010, p.311). The researchers have focused on how involvements influence the laptop user’s alignment towards educational practice. The analysis shows the importance of separating the educational practice and the personal learning situation.
Their research findings suggest five characteristics that are likely to apply to educational practices – design of laptop etiquette to enhance students learning; rudimentary digital skills of social and annotation services; the laptop as an important learning artefact – extending the learning situation beyond educational practice; design a learning culture to include the laptop so that the lecturer is not in competition and design laptops to avoid distracting features such as fan sounds, the vertical alignment of the screen etc (Lindroth and Bergquist,2010,p.319)
The research is supported by an excellent literature review which has resources dated from 1923 through to 2008 and the research itself is published in a well-known established academic journal ‘Computers and Education’ in 2010 and therefore, sufficiently up-to-date to be of value. The research is well referenced with other developments in the field and verifies points with other research.
The notion of bias is an important aspect to consider. Bias can lead to errors which can arise if values and expectations colour the way the research is conducted. It is important that the researchers were self-critical and scrutinised all their own assumptions and ways of presenting findings. Conclusions drawn out of the research would be subjective without any other evidence, for example, triangulation to infer the reasons, intentions, causes and purposes to instil validity. The research utilised the following methods: student interviews – semi-structured, open ended and in-depth; covert observations in the open shared areas of the university; as a teacher conducing lectures and seminars etc; as an observer during lecturers and through two workshops to test findings. In addition, approximately 1200 hours of observation in open shared café like areas, classrooms and group rooms.
However, there is little discussion on the pros and cons of the methods used and a brief discussion on other possible methods and why they would be less appropriate in this case would have improved the study. Conversation analysis (CA), for example, is described by Gumperz and Hymes (1972) as being “the ethnography of communication, which has aimed to analyse the patterns of language in use and the ways in which these relate to social and cultural patterns” (Hutchby and Wooffitt, 1998 p.5). As a method of research, CA fits in well with ethnography, being qualitative in nature, and seeking to identity both social and cultural implications of conversation.
Another method the researchers’ may have considered is grounded theory; which has been defined as ‘theory that was derived from data, systematically gathered and analyzed through the research process. In this method, data collection, analysis, and eventual theory stand in close relationship to one another’ (Strauss and Corbin, 1998, p.12). A benefit of grounded theory is that it focuses attention on objectivity, which is often seen to be lacking in ethnographic studies. A key process of the theory is organising data into codes; to categorize and label themes as the research progresses and to continue this process until all codes are saturated. Bulmer (1979) questions whether researchers can detach their awareness of relevant theories or concepts until much later in the analysis process and whether grounded theory does result in theory. Layder (1998) argues the approach is naive about the complex relationship between theory and data collection and the way researchers are to approach the data without the use of prior theories and concepts. It is said to rely too heavily on empirical data because of the source of fieldwork data being the basis for theory.
Observation is good when you are not short of time and this study covered a four year period. Data that is observed is closest to the event (Walliman, 2008,p.241) but distortions can occur. Corbin and Strauss (2008, p.29) discuss how people may not always be able to articulate or be consciously aware of the subtleties of what goes on in interactions between themselves and others; thus observation is a most suitable research method to obtain this data.
The study involved students who may have been suspicious that this research has some hidden motive or they may have been worried that they would be penalised in some way if they did not participate. The study is not clear on how these issues were dealt with, nor includes evidence of ongoing consent (points 16, 17, 25 and 30 of the BSA guidelines). The researchers have a responsibility to ensure the well-being of the research participants (points 13-15), to ensure that they do not come to any harm, however that is defined (points 26-30). It is difficult to judge the research as we do not know what protocols were followed.
The students may be unaware of the techniques and ploys of researchers and their power; making it important for the researchers to make participants aware of potential hazards of external interpretation (points 26-27 and 31-33). Also important is making it clear on who owns and controls the data and how it is to be used (points 18-23). Only in editing can the summarised version of the research be presented and this lies ultimately on the control of the researchers and not the participants. This is analogous to any social researcher who has to write the final report, choosing how to interpret and present the data together with the conclusions. In the UK, ethical principles are supported by the Data Protection Act 1998, which sets out the law on holding information about identifiable living individuals. The act relates to the way personal data are processed and obtained. It also concerns what type of data are gathered and the need for the data to be relevant, up to date and not kept for longer than necessary, and states that it must be kept within the European Union.
The Statement (BSA, 2002) focuses on professional integrity and maintaining the integrity of sociological inquiry as a discipline; safeguarding the interests and safety of all involved and ensuring that the research is worthwhile (points 5-9) and seeks to do good. The guidelines veer between taking a deontological approach (guarding people’s rights), and a teleological approach (seeking to do good on balance). Ethical decisions have to be made on a case-by-case basis and researchers have a responsibility to develop and refine their own ethical integrity. Not everything that is ethical is legal and there is a close relationship between law and ethics. The codes of ethics and ethical guidelines are established to enable people to make consistent decisions based on firm ethical principles and to protect human rights; but the aspirations of ethical practice must always be higher than the minimum ethical standards that are set out. An open mind and continued reflection is vital. The researchers need to be aware of the need to make flexible decisions against the need for consistent judgment.