Research Landing Page Cynicism

[Alex Halavais]

I tend to think that naysayers are a pain in the ass, so I am OK with
you ignoring this. I probably would.

Just when universities and colleges are trying desperately to remove
the artificial wedge between research and teaching, p2pu is trying to
create it? Shouldn't whatever you are doing on the research page be
something you would do elsewhere on p2pu? What makes a "research"
study group different from any other study group? (And if it is
different, why?)

Now, I work at a university, and I recognize some of the
*institutional* advantages of having a research association: including
an entity that can provide funding, equipment, etc. But I don't think
p2pu is doing that.

Maybe I've missed something, but this seems like a great way to get
rid of peers and remove "research" from "instruction."

Alex

--
//
// This email is
// [x] assumed public and may be blogged / forwarded.
// [ ] assumed to be private, please ask before redistributing.
//
// Alexander C. Halavais, ciberflâneur
// http://alex.halavais.net
//

[Niels Sprong]

Hi Alex,

Thanks for your comments. Some people have been talking about p2pu research for a while, and so far I haven't seen any real reason for it not to be thought of as an interesting endeavour. That said, maybe it's not, and your email comes at the right time. I had some questions though.

Just when universities and colleges are trying desperately to remove
the artificial wedge between research and teaching, p2pu is trying to
create it?

Are they? Moving toward what kind of model? Maybe we can learn from this in stimulating research at p2pu.
 

Shouldn't whatever you are doing on the research page be
something you would do elsewhere on p2pu? What makes a "research"
study group different from any other study group? (And if it is
different, why?)

I was wondering about this myself as well, what a research page would add. A research platform for 'research about p2pu' on p2pu.org (rather than only an email list) seems like a good idea to me. Also, some coordinated effort toward P2PhDs would also be awesome, I think, a sort of place where continuous research can be done with some sort of 'end' to a project. How this will or should take shape is something I wanted to start the previous discussion on.

 

Now, I work at a university, and I recognize some of the
*institutional* advantages of having a research association: including
an entity that can provide funding, equipment, etc. But I don't think
p2pu is doing that.

It's not. Maybe a research area could be the first step toward creating a structure that could facilitate this? Or do you mean you think this is not desirable?

Maybe I've missed something, but this seems like a great way to get
rid of peers and remove "research" from "instruction."

How does it get rid of peers? And what do you mean by removing research from 'instruction' in the context of the current organisation of p2pu, and how is that particularly not desirable?

Thanks for your elaboration! 

[Philipp Schmidt]

Ideally research would be part of practice at P2PU. The barrier to
making that happen is lack of resources rather than intentional.
Definitely not intended to create a space that is "special" or
"exclusive".

Do you think the features needed by such a group are identical with
the features needed by a more typical P2PU study group? I am wondering
about that - especially as we start weaving "challenges" and "badges"
in.

P

[Alex Halavais]

Again, I'm not sure I have a thought out critique. My main concern is
that this doesn't signal that research is different or separate from
learning more broadly.

I think that those in some traditional universities have a chip on
their shoulder about online learning as broadly being about
"training." There are rational reasons for this opinion (a lot of
online ed *is* training, and a lot of the "best practices" of creating
online courses encourage this--though this obviously doesn't mean
*all* online learning is training), and less rational ("OMG, threats
to the university as the only legitimate source of learning!"). But it
seems to me that we could do a nice leapfrog by making clear that
research is a part of everything p2pu does.

That certainly does not speak against having a landing page. If we are
trying to encourage research (of p2pu and/or by p2pu participants)
this seems to me to be a Good Thing, and clearly, spelling that out
somewhere makes sense. I just want to avoid the impression from a
casual viewer (like myself!) that such a space is somehow separate,
and not something that is baked into other parts of p2pu. Every group
on p2pu, from beginners learning to create websites in School of
Webcraft, to those engaged in a research methods collaboration, should
be engaged in research that pushes forward the state of the art.

Especially given courses already offered on citizen science, I doubt
that this would recreate a divide between "learners" and
"researchers," but I would hope that every effort in the wording of
the page and in the architecture (how you get there) would signal that
"research" is not a separate effort, but rather integral to what
happens at p2pu.

I'll note as an aside that part of the question is what the page is
for. I see far less of a concern with a landing page focusing on
P2PhD, on coordinating toward funding/shared infrastructure, or on
researching learning as it happens on p2pu. (Whether any of those
should be something beyond the normal study group is another
question.) My concern is a valorized "Research" hub, since that
suggests research is a thing that is somehow cohesive and stands on
its own, and I don't think it is.

As to Philipp's question: I can't think of what features for any of
those three things *would* be different, though I am certainly open to
suggestions. If not, doesn't it seem like it's making it somehow
separate and special?

Best,

Alex