Reactivity beyond contamination. An integrative literature review of video studies in educational research

IF 1.5 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
L. Lahn, Kirsti Klette
{"title":"Reactivity beyond contamination. An integrative literature review of video studies in educational research","authors":"L. Lahn, Kirsti Klette","doi":"10.1080/1743727X.2022.2094356","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The growing interest in video research and new technologies for recording human interaction has stirred debates about intrusiveness and ‘reactivity’ understood as researcher-derived changes in subjects. In addition to a plethora of concepts referring to such effects in extant literature, different ontological and epistemological positions provide contrasting frameworks for interpreting and deciding on methodological guidelines. In this article we discuss these elements, that we have called ‘meta-methodological’, from the standpoints of experimental research, social-constructivism and scientific realism. We combine conceptual analysis and a literature review of video-studies in teaching in order to identify both possible traces of contesting beliefs and to provide a glance at different aspects of ‘reactivity’ that needs to be systematized in the ongoing debates. Whereas the methodological literature underline the importance of such effects, these are rarely reported in the reviewed video studies. Moreover, reactivity is seen as a minor problem in the latter, and we found few instances that validated the effects on the field and on the empirical conclusions. Our article ask for more transparency in field researchers’ judgment about reactivity and mitigating measures.","PeriodicalId":51655,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Research & Method in Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Research & Method in Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2022.2094356","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

ABSTRACT The growing interest in video research and new technologies for recording human interaction has stirred debates about intrusiveness and ‘reactivity’ understood as researcher-derived changes in subjects. In addition to a plethora of concepts referring to such effects in extant literature, different ontological and epistemological positions provide contrasting frameworks for interpreting and deciding on methodological guidelines. In this article we discuss these elements, that we have called ‘meta-methodological’, from the standpoints of experimental research, social-constructivism and scientific realism. We combine conceptual analysis and a literature review of video-studies in teaching in order to identify both possible traces of contesting beliefs and to provide a glance at different aspects of ‘reactivity’ that needs to be systematized in the ongoing debates. Whereas the methodological literature underline the importance of such effects, these are rarely reported in the reviewed video studies. Moreover, reactivity is seen as a minor problem in the latter, and we found few instances that validated the effects on the field and on the empirical conclusions. Our article ask for more transparency in field researchers’ judgment about reactivity and mitigating measures.
超越污染的反应性。教育研究中视频研究的综合文献综述
对视频研究和记录人类互动的新技术日益增长的兴趣引发了关于侵入性和“反应性”的争论,这些争论被理解为研究人员衍生的受试者变化。除了现存文献中涉及此类效应的大量概念外,不同的本体论和认识论立场为解释和决定方法论指导方针提供了截然不同的框架。在本文中,我们将从实验研究、社会建构主义和科学现实主义的角度讨论这些我们称之为“元方法论”的元素。我们将概念分析和教学视频研究的文献综述结合起来,以确定争议信念的可能痕迹,并提供在正在进行的辩论中需要系统化的“反应性”的不同方面的一瞥。虽然方法学文献强调了这些影响的重要性,但在审查的视频研究中很少报道这些影响。此外,在后者中,反应性被视为一个小问题,我们发现很少有实例验证了对现场和经验结论的影响。我们的文章要求实地研究人员对反应性和缓解措施的判断更加透明。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
5.00%
发文量
48
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Research & Method in Education is an interdisciplinary, peer-reviewed journal that draws contributions from a wide community of international researchers. Contributions are expected to develop and further international discourse in educational research with a particular focus on method and methodological issues. The journal welcomes papers engaging with methods from within a qualitative or quantitative framework, or from frameworks which cut across and or challenge this duality. Papers should not solely focus on the practice of education; there must be a contribution to methodology. International Journal of Research & Method in Education is committed to publishing scholarly research that discusses conceptual, theoretical and methodological issues, provides evidence, support for or informed critique of unusual or new methodologies within educational research and provides innovative, new perspectives and examinations of key research findings. The journal’s enthusiasm to foster debate is also recognised in a keenness to include engaged, thought-provoking response papers to previously published articles. The journal is also interested in papers that discuss issues in the teaching of research methods for educational researchers. Contributors to International Journal of Research & Method in Education should take care to communicate their findings or arguments in a succinct, accessible manner to an international readership of researchers, policy-makers and practitioners from a range of disciplines including but not limited to philosophy, sociology, economics, psychology, and history of education. The Co-Editors welcome suggested topics for future Special Issues. Initial ideas should be discussed by email with the Co-Editors before a formal proposal is submitted for consideration.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信