A mediator has created a project page on a social network (i.e. ResearchGate) and placed an open invitation for potential collaboration on the composition of a crowd-authored book. More and more invitees from around the world have accepted the invitation. Invitees from outside the field of education and technology have also accepted the invitation. They were particularly welcomed, as the project has the intention to authorise non-educationalists and non-technologists to enquire into and therefore invade ‘the tribe of education and technology’ (Al Lily, 2014).
Invitees were informed that each academic would contribute with only one non-educational and non-technological theory and/or one non-educational and non-technological notion, which he or she believes might benefit the field of education and technology and could be used by researchers of education and technology. This means that the book would consist of many non-educational and non-technological theories and notions. If these many such theories and notions could be introduced to the field of education and technology, this would surely change the history of the field, refresh its approaches and offer fresh conceptual and theoretical lens for its potential studies. Contributors were not expected to come up with a new theory or notion, but rather to refer to a pre-existing, generic theory or notion and argue for its possible benefit to the field of education and technology. The concept of education is used loosely here, therefore including formal and informal learning, educational and professional learning (e.g. learning in the workplace).
Each contributor was supposed to contribute with two items: one pre-existing, generic, major non-educational and non-technological theory; and one pre-existing, generic, major non-educational and non-technological notion. Many invitees did not understand the difference between a theory and a notion or even between a theory and a topic. Hence, the invitees were informed of the difference between theories and notions. That is, a theory can be defined as something that helps us better understand the world and the functionality of human society. Yet, a notion can be defined as something that helps us improve the world and that calls for some kind of intervention in social affairs. Whereas a theory shows us how things are done, a notion shows us how things should be done. To illustrate, homophily (i.e. ‘love of the same’ or the tendency of humans to associate and bond with similar others) is a theory, not a notion. Yet, Divide-and-Conquer Approach (which refers to solve a big problem by recursively breaking down it into two or more sub-problems of the same or related type, until these become simple enough to be solved directly) is a notion, not a theory. A theory is about explanation (i.e. explaining the world and how human society functions), whereas a notion is about description (describing the world and how human society should function).
The field of education and technology entails more notions and less theories, because this field tends more to direct, describe and advise and less to theorise and explain. Researchers of education and technology tend to see themselves more of technicians/practitioners and less of philosophers. One may wonder if the field of education and technology is a theoretical and philosophical field or a practical field. Normally, the answer is that it is a practical field, thus undermining its theoretical and philosophical aspect. A theory should be the basis on which a practice relies. Undertaking a practice without knowing the theory behind it is like jumping before learning how to walk. There should be more efforts to enrich the theoretical basis of the field. This book is intended to be one of these efforts.
The project has two aims:
- To identify non-educational and non-technological theories that may help understand technology in education.
- To identify non-educational and non-technological notions that may help improve technology in education.
Accordingly, what a contributor has been asked to do is to write about two elements:
- A Theory: Writing 200 words defining a generic, pre-existing theory from whatever field, and then writing 200 words arguing how the chosen theory could possibly help us better understand technology in education.
- A Notion: Writing 200 words defining a generic, pre-existing concept/notion from whatever field, and then writing 200 words arguing how the chosen notion could help us improve technology in education.
Each contribution of the contributors is presented as a chapter, meaning that it can be cited and referenced as a chapter in a book. This has resulted in many chapters, thus challenging the convention regarding the number and structure of book chapters. One contributor suggested that the mediator should ‘cluster contributors so that around ten authors will compile a chapter, as that will be a reasonable academic output from scholars’. The mediator responded by explaining that ‘the intention is to destabilise the chapter convention! Why do not we have a short input, just as Twitter does (i.e. by allowing restricted, limited contributions)! The business sector (e.g. Twitter) is way more advanced than academia, so why do not learn from their experience and from their advancement?’
The invitees were advised that, to decide on a theory and concept, they could consult the long list of academic disciplines on Wikipedia and the book Dictionary of theories by Bothamley (1993), which has over 5000 theories. The proposed book is different from Bothamley’s in three ways: (a.) Its authorship approach is different; (b.) The structure of its chapters is different; and (c.) Its focus is different, in that it concentrates on the field of education and technology.
It is stated in the invitation that no degree was required for one to contribute to this project, since the domain of education and technology is a field ‘for all’. That is, anyone who has experience with education and technology should be allowed to contribute to the field of education and technology, regardless of the background or field that he or she comes from.
There were weak contributions, on which the mediator provided comments, at times in more than one round. Some contributors were trying to address them, but after the third or four rounds of comments from the mediator, they decided to withdraw. In other words, no contributions were rejected, and the mediator tried to work with the contributors to strengthen their contributions, until the contributor felt that s/he could not address these comments and consequently decided to give up owing to lack of patience/time or because of disagreement with the comments made by the mediator.
An advantage of such a project is that it is an academic development opportunity for the mediator. Although normally academic ‘hunt’ for interesting information, but, the mediator, through this project, is hunted for. Academics’ practice of doing reading outside their field should be seen as part of their continuing professional development. It should be seen as an attempt to keep themselves ‘young’, avoiding to be cognitively aging. Yet, a problem with academia is that academics, with the passage of time, establish their path and career around a particular theory and school of thought, and hence any attempt to make them deviate or temporarily depart from this well-established path can make them lose balance or even control and temper. Professors and ‘senior’ academics, with long academic career, were particularly upset by the feedback from the mediator. The mediator informed one ‘senior’ academic that the ‘theory’ that s/he had chosen for the project was not a theory. S/he responded: ‘I am too old, and I have studied for more than 20 years. So, after that, I am able to know what a theory is? Plus, I have worked for more than 21 years in multinationals companies and 15 years as a university professor’.
The mediator informed the invitees that they must gain the approval from the mediator over which theory and notion to write about before starting writing about them. Despite this, some invitees went ahead and wrote their contributions without the approval from the mediator, thus placing the mediator in a critical situation, who might feel that he must accept the contributions since the contributors put so much effort in it even if the choice of the theory and notion is inappropriate. That said, when contributors wrote their contributions without approval from the mediator, and their choice of the theory and notion is inappropriate, the mediator rejected them, causing anger and strong reactions on the part of some contributors.
Some contributors dealt with the mediator as if they did him a favour through contributing to ‘his’ project and therefore making ‘his’ project successful. To illustrate the point, when there was disagreement between the mediator and a contributor, the contributor said: ‘You know what; I give up’. Some contributors dealt with the mediator as if they were ‘consumers’ and he is the waiter, acting constantly mean to him. Some contributors dealt with the mediator as if he was paid for running this project–––not as if he voluntarily initiated and managed the project.
The current project required, as one contributor noticed, ‘a massive organisational effort’. It involved a great deal of politics. Some invitees could be characterised as trouble-makers, who repetitively try to provoke and tease the mediator, for example, focusing on certain aspects of his replies and making dramas out of them. When some trouble-makers wanted to question the mediator, they used, for example, many question marks (e.g. ‘???????’). Or, they, likewise, used many exclamation marks when challenging the mediator. Some exaggerated and moreover made fun of the mediator’s decisions. Such invitees ended up leaving the project and moreover trying to encourage other invitees to leave too, with the intention of jeopardising the whole project.
One contributor ‘stood by’ the mediator, believing that ‘some invitees were so mean to the mediator because they are from developed countries and therefore do not take seriously people from developing countries and moreover do not mind treating them badly’. Another contributor, likewise, added that ‘some invitees from developed countries just do not want to accept feedback from people from developing countries, looking down at their intellectual capability’.
Some contributors’ English is limited and weak, which can be noticed from their correspondence. Yet, their submission was written in excellent English. There are possible reasons for this. First, they plagiarised. That is, after investigation, three contributors were found to have copied and pasted many sentences in their contributions from somewhere else. Consequently, the mediator sent back their contributions and asked them to paraphrase. Second, they write it in their native non-English language and asked someone else to translate it for them into English. Actually, one submitted his/her contribution in non-English, and the mediator returned it to him/her and asked him/her to translate it or get it translated. Third, some contributors wrote it in English and asked someone else to proof-read it. Actually, the mediator at times returned the contributions and asked the contributors to get their contributions proof-read or even copy-edited.
Some contributors carefully followed the instructions of the project and ensured that their contribution is well-written and easy to understand, thus making the life of the mediator easy. On the other hand, other contributors did not follow the instructions and format, and even if the mediator asked them to resubmit because they did not follow the instruction, they resubmit without, again, following the instructions.
Ideas with no History of Application in Education and Technology 