[quoting Wild, 25 Oct 96] Tom, I fail to see how, by implication, you can classify Steve's or similar research as socially irresponsible.
[quoting Rieber, 26 Oct 96] However, I'm left with some troubling thoughts on how to correctly judge research to be socially responsible and very concerned about inaccurately (and unjustly) deeming some research not to be so. It seems that if we are not careful too much good research will be inappropriately maligned.
I view much of educational research (including research on media) as socially irresponsible for several reasons:
1. First and foremost, at some point, we have to be held accountable for the impact of our research. Now many scientists and academics will protest this, arguing that science is the search for knowledge in and of itself, and need have no practical value. Perhaps that is acceptable for sciences such as physics, chemistry, and even biology, but I cannot accept it for human or social sciences. We have a moral responsibility to be accountable for our results. (Those holding the pure "knowledge for knowledge's sake" view might even defend Josef Mengele's horrific experiments with twins which he viewed as "medical research.")
2. The type of empirical media research that Steve Tripp conducts is irresponsible in terms of its lack of contribution to the general body of educational knowledge. When I challenged Steve to provide evidence of the progress he proclaimed to have resulted from his approach to research, he brought up "pharmaceutical research and things like that." Steve knew I was referring to progress in education, so he had to escape by changing the topic. I'll repeat my question: "Where is the evidence that 50 plus years of media research has had significant influence on the design or implementation of educational innovations?" And if that evidence is not forthcoming, and yet we continue to conduct media research as we have for decades, then I think a case can be made that our research agenda is socially irresponsible.
3. All human activities have multiple agendas, some open and some hidden. Much of the media research I view as socially irresponsible emanates from colleges and schools of education that have graduate programs in instructional technology. Kramer (1991) pointed out that these institutions are "intent on proving that education is an academic discipline with its own subject matter worthy of a place alongside other university schools and departments" (p. 8). The faculty in these programs are subject to the same "publish or perish" pressure as their colleagues in arts and sciences. They quickly learn that it is the number of refereed publications they can amass, not the relevance or value of their research, that really matters when they come up for tenure and promotion. Of course, this problem is hardly limited to instructional technology programs. Colleges and schools of education reward pseudoscience in every discipline from early childhood education though adult education. Tenure and promotion guidelines should be revamped so that professors are rewarded less for research and publication and more for work in the public schools or work sectors. If such a shift in the reward structure could be accomplished, I cannot believe that we would continue to conduct socially irresponsible pseudoscience when we could be rewarded for making a difference in the real world where the needs are so great.
[quoting Wild, 25 Oct 96] I guess what I'm saying here, is that research has to question everything and anything in our respective domains; and it should be based in the most appropriate methodologies--moreover, the findings of our research don't always have to be "development" or "action" focused (in terms of the descriptions you provide for these terms), to be of value.
I agree completely. I am simply saying that regardless of our research goals or our research methodologies, we should consider issues of social responsibility to be foremost in our minds.
Kramer, R. (1991). Ed school follies. New York: The Free Press.