![](bg2.png)
more priority being given to practical issues rather
than on theory building. In this paper we wish to
highlight some of the issues around methodological
designs that have typically underpinned educational
technology research as a way of advocating for
alternate ways to do so.
In the past methodological designs in educational
technology research have followed a similar pattern.
At their heart has often been a world-view that
implicitly assumes that technology is good, that for
example, it is aligned with the future, and drives
desired changes in education. One only has to
peruse school education policy documents to find
plenty of examples of this way of thinking, and
where a technological road map that schools, school
leaders and teachers should follow is provided, and
where there is little capacity to consider detours or
alternate routes. Underpinning this world-view is a
techno-centric discourse, which places technology at
the centre of the research if not the determining
factor in it. This techno-centric discourse is the
dominant discourse around educational technology
research (Harris, 2005). It is important to note that
dominant discourses, tend to subsume other less
dominant ones (Gee, 1998), and as such, this may
help explain why our educational technology field is
under theorised.
In order to build a case for the research, or a
justification for it, a problem in current practice is
identified and a particular technological application
is then later pitched as the solution (Bigum, 1998).
Usually this case is made in overly enthusiastic
terms, in what Selwyn (2002) refers to as the
“technological evangelism” (p. 8) typifying this
discourse. When building this case for the research,
arguments usually take one or two forms. One way
is to compare the ‘new’ to the ‘old’, with arguments
around the superiority of the new, resulting in the
conclusion, that the new technology must replace the
old. Usually, there is little, if any consideration that
both ‘the old’ and ‘the new’ can indeed co-exist.
This has been the case historically, for example, in
the 1980’s revising writing was seen as time
consuming (the old) and word processors (the new)
were seen as making revising easier. In the 1990’s
conventional face-to-face participation in class
discussion was seen as enfranchising those who
think quickly on their feet. Electronic discussion
was then juxtaposed, as enabling leaners to discuss
when and where they want to.
A second way that the case is made is that
particular affordances within a ‘new’ technology are
identified as solutions to the problem (Zhao & Rop
2001). This was the case in the 2000’s, were web
2.0 technologies, such as blogs and wikis were
readily positioned in research as enabling greater
collaboration, interaction and knowledge building.
The specific research questions then set out to prove
that ‘the new’ or the ‘affordances within the new’
did in facto solve the problem. So for example in
the late 1990’s questions in hypertext research set
out to examine how the new text structures afforded
by this technology enabled the realisation of post-
modern views of text – which were desired
(Lankshear et al., 2000). Methods of data collection,
particularly in the early years of educational
technology research used anecdotal reports, or
descriptions of practice. Findings were typically
generalised, so that the particularities in the
technologies being examined were overlooked, as
well as the context of use. As a result, it was often
assumed that all schools, all students, all teachers
were the same and that predetermined
technologically-enabled outcomes would be realised
(Orlando, 2009).
Of concern to us is that without robust theoretical
frameworks to both guide and shape research, that
encourage us to assume diverse worldviews - with
different questions in mind - techno-centric views
will continue to underpin the landscape.
Technocentric views only offer one lens with which
to view our research, one that is based on binaries of
good/bad, old/new, which limit alternate ways of
conceptualising research. One theory which
encourages this practice of looking at the complexity
and multiplicity in educational technology is Third
Space theory.
3 POTENTIAL OF THIRD SPACE
THEORY
Third Space theory is essentially used to explore and
understand the spaces ‘in between’ two or more
discourses, conceptualizations or binaries (Bhabha,
1994). Soja (1996) explains this through a triad
where Firstspace refers to the material spaces
whereas Secondspace encompasses mental spaces
(Danaher et al., 2003). Thirdspace, then becomes a
space where “everything comes together” (Soja,
1996, p. 56, original emphasis) by bringing together
Firstspace and Secondspace, but also by extending
beyond these spaces to intermesh the binaries that
characterise the spaces. Third Space theory is used
as a methodology in a variety of disciplines and for
different purposes. For example, it has been used to
illustrate issues from colonization (Bhabha, 1994)
and religion (Khan, 2000), to language and literacy
ThroughtheLensofThirdSpaceTheory-PossibilitiesforResearchMethodologiesinEducationalTechnologies
221