Splitting what is into good/bad, perfect/imperfect, proper/improper, success/failure, and so on creates false dichotomies. A false dichotomy produces a perception of alternatives to what is. A belief that the reality does not have to be what it is at any given moment leads to a desire for it to be what it is not. Constant rejection of what is and a desire for what is not is the essence of perfectionistic suffering.
P. Somov (2010). Present perfect. New Harbinger Publications.
Issue 1 of EDeR – Educational Design Research is finally online.
The Journal is published in collaboration with Hamburg University Press… and this is where we met our final bottleneck to get things online. Hamburg Uni Press is hosting the OJS Server on which we run EDeR. However, due to some unfortunate staffing situation there (somebody had left, somebody else was sick for multiple weeks, and so forth), we had to wait a good while until some significant irks and quirks of this OJS installation got worked out.
Nevertheless, we now have the first visible product of our collective effort online. Six Academic Articles authored by scholars from Australia, Estonia, Finland, Germany, and Switzerland. All issues and problems that we had to struggle with aside… I personally think that we are off to a rather decent start. It is going to be very interesting if we can build and maintain the necessary momentum to turn this project into an ongoing success.
Offering regular updates on the project via Researchgate has worked surprisingly well to built up a small following of interested researchers. I hope we can convert this initial attention into various levels of engagement and participation over time.
Things are actually looking quite promising in this regard. I have already seen a draft of the first Discussion Article in reply to Dieter Euler’s “Design principles as bridge between scientific knowledge production and practice design” in Issue 1. I know of another Discussion Article in the making.
Futhermore, I have already received a submission for Issue 2. And tonight I have been promised another submission of an Academic Article. Keep them coming… ! :-)
Thanks to everyone who has been contributing to EDER in one way or another. Your continuous support and engagement is highly appreciated!
Oh… and this is the DOI of EDeR Issue 1: http://dx.doi.org/10.15460/eder.1.1
“Interessant ist dabei, dass Bürokratie vorrangig als politikveranlasste Überregulierung von außen erlebt wird. Die hausgemachte Bürokratie wird nicht thematisiert. Aber was ist mit der internen Engstirnigkeit, was ist mit der managementgetriebenen Regelungswut? Was ist mit den explodierenden Standard Operating Procedures? Was ist mit den unendlich vielen Online-Formularen und Fragebögen, all den Vorschriften und Instrumenten, die wenig mehr erzeugen als Kundenablenkungsenergie? Was ist mit den Unmengen an Sitzungen, Tools, Plänen und Kontrollsystemen? All den Transaktionskosten-Schleudern, den Budgetrunden, Controlling-Routinen, Dokumentationspflichten, Performance-Messungen, all den zeitraubenden Aufgaben, die uns von dem abhalten, was uns bei der Arbeit Freude macht? All das ist Absicherungsaktionismus, es dient der Angst vor dem Risiko, vor Macht- und Kontrollverlust. Ohne große Mühe kann man in den Unternehmen ganze Misstrauens-Abteilungen identifizieren, die ihre Zeit damit verbringen, Leute zu überwachen. Zu überprüfen, ob sie auch tun, was sie tun sollen. Und sie mit Formularen und Regularien unter neurotischen Dauerstress setzen.”
Reinhard K. Sprenger (2014). Das anständige Unternehmen.
“The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.”
Issue 1 of EDeR – Educational Design Research is finally taking shape. We have 5 contributions in the pipeline that have successful passed phase 1 (text mentoring) and phase 2 (blind peer review) of our workflow model and have been revised according to reviewers’ feedback. These will definitely make it into Issue 1.
We are still working with two additional, somewhat controversial, contributions. However, these might have to be pushed over to Issue 2. Our Editorial Board will make final decisions on these texts by next week.
This week we have kicked off our reformed Master of Higher Education (MoHE) programme.
The last day of the introduction week features a “project conference” in which a variety of research projects on aspects of teaching and learning in higher education are presented.
Over time, the project conference is meant to bring different cohorts of programme participants together. Those who are about to finish off their own research projects will present their work to the new incoming participants.
I am particularly happy that for this first project conference we were able to integrate a presentation of Emanuele Bardone from the Educational Science department of the University of Tartu, Estonia. I hope this will help to set the stage for a more international outlook within our MoHE programme and invite our participants to look beyond the confines and particularities of our system of higher education.
Step by step the first issue of the EDeR Journal is taking shape. Four contributions have successfully passed the second phase (blind peer review) of our workflow and review model. One is basically ready for publication, while the others are currently reworked by their authors.
For two additional contributions we are still in the process of completing the blind peer review phase.
An additional submission requires major changes. Not sure if this will still make it into the first issue. We are looking into this right now.
We are also already eliciting contributions for the second issue. If your work falls broadly in the framework of “design based research” in education, feel free to get in touch.
On Thursday and Friday (08.09 and 09.09.2016) we held our first in-house conference at the Hamburg Center for University Teaching and Learning (HUL) in collaboration with researchers from the Competence Center for Educational Development And Research in Higher Education (CEDAR) at the University of St. Gallen, Switzerland.
The event was titled “Perspektiven und Zukunft der Forschung zum Lehren und Lernen an Hochschulen” (Perspectives and future of research on teaching and learning in institutions of higher education) and catered to German speaking researchers who work in the area of research and development of teaching and learning in higher education.
The final programme (in German) offered 4 parallel tracks of “symposia” that grouped a number of related contributions from a variety of German and Swiss institutions.
An interesting element of the overall event was labeled “conference phenography” which Gabi Reinmann had initiated as part of the conference design. Teams of two observed and participated one particular conference track, took notes, and finally recorded a conversational commentary on video that is finally going to be shared with the other participants. I had the privilege to go through this exercise with Frank Vohle (Ghostthinker company) and my HUL coworker Eileen Lübcke. It’s going to be interesting what others make out of our short video snippets.
I will try to write up my overall impressions in the coming days.
“It is what you read when you don’t have to
that determines what you will be
when you can’t help it.”