Higher Education Studies; Vol. 4, No. 3; 2014 ISSN 1925-4741 E-ISSN 1925-475X Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education The Tribe of Educational Technologies Abdulrahman Essa Al Lily1 1 Department of Educational Technologies, King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia Correspondence: Abdulrahman Essa Al Lily, Department of Educational Technologies, King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia. E-mail: [email protected] Received: March 13, 2014 Accepted: April 19, 2014 Online Published: May 28, 2014 doi:10.5539/hes.v4n3p19 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/hes.v4n3p19 Abstract This article looks into the claim that the international academic community of educational technologies seems to have functioned in a “tribal” way, having formed themselves around tribe-like patterns. It therefore addresses the research question: What are these claimed tribe-like practices that such a community exhibits? This question is answered qualitatively, examining empirically the habits of three Saudi Arabian Bedouin real tribes, followed by empirical comparison of these tribal habits with the habits of the academic community of educational technologies. Having analysed the data using the grounded theory approach, three key themes emerged: Cultural Similarities between Tribes and Academic Communities; Political Similarities between Tribes and Academic Communities; and Social Similarities between Tribes and Academic Communities. Having considered these themes collectively with reference to the existing literature, a theoretical proposition has been grounded: that academic communities are similar to tribes in the sense that all, naturally, constitute themselves in ethnic groups characterised by distinct cultural, political and social norms. The implication is thus that such communities are, at least partially, culturally, politically and socially different. Echoing such an implication, the recommendation is not to seek to remove such cultural, political and social differences and therefore make them act as one, but rather to foster cross-community cultural, political and social exchange and therefore learning. Keywords: tribe, education, technology, Saudi, anthropology 1. Introduction and Literature Review The editors’ introduction to the Learning, Media and Technology Journal (Selwyn, 2012) directed a criticism to the international academic community of educational technologies, accusing them of having performed in a “tribal” way, having arranged themselves around tribe-like patterns. Since this claim seems fundamental, the editors of the Journal should have explained in some depth what they actually mean here by the term “tribe”. Given the lack of a deeper explanation, one might thus accuse, at least defensively, these editors of using fancy terms with no reflexive attention to their social, cultural and political ramifications. Adams (1976) dedicated a column to such a matter, publishing a book called The Academic Tribes. This was followed by another publication by Becher and Trowler (2001) called Academic Tribes and Territories, enquiring into “the numerous and subtle boundaries within the world of scholarly enquiry” (p. i). Two years ago, Trowler and colleagues (2012) published a book entitled Tribes and Territories in the 21st Century, addressing a variety of issues across disciplines and among academic communities. Despite the significance of these publications, the authors, however, appear to have mostly taken the term “tribe” at face value, using it for the most part as merely a synonym for “social group,” “social community” or “certain culture.” More essentially, these publications seem to show limited empirical understanding of tribal configurations. Considering these limitations, a call can be made for further research intended to first empirically highlight the practices of real tribes and then empirically compare these tribal practices with the practices of academic communities. The current article therefore takes this initiative, examining empirically the habits of three Saudi Arabian Bedouin actual tribes and comparing again empirically these tribal habits with the habits of the academic community of educational technologies. The traditional practices of real tribes, be they for example Arab, Indian, Chinese or African, are well documented through publications on their novels, poems, educational ideas, transitions and anthropological aspects (see for example Tutchin, 1691; Gutkind, 1970; Marshall & Pope, 1873; Caton, 1990; Langloh-Parker, 1905; Cook, 1934; Pompei et al., 1990; Gluckman, 2007; Kornel, 2006; Lowe et al., 1997; Husni, 2013). Some literature moreover sees the term “tribe” as a theoretical concept, arguing that, if a community exhibits certain tribe-like practices, it can thus be theoretically classified as “tribalistic.” Hence, some researchers have used the 19 www.ccsenet.org/hes Higher Education Studies Vol. 4, No. 3; 2014 word “tribe” as an ideology (i.e., tribalism), as a verb (i.e., tribalise), as an adjective (i.e., tribalist or tribalistic) and moreover as a social movement (i.e., the New Tribalism) (see McLuhan, 1970, 1994; Beteille, 1980; James, 2006; Horsman & Marshall, 1994; Vail, 1989; Mafeje, 1971; Gluckman, 1960; Hunter, 1994; Frohnmayer, 1988). Adams and Smith (2008) theorise the ability of offline tribal practices to influence online practices, investigating what they call “e-tribes,” looking at the tribal nature of online environments (see also Samin, 2008). Thus, it is palatable to, as it is the case in the current investigation, view “tribe” as a theoretical concept, thereby examining the extent to which the academic community of educational technologies scholars has “gone tribalistic.” 2. Methodology 2.1 Method of Enquiry Arguably, any employed academic belongs to at least two “institutions.” One is the establishment by which one is employed, whereas the other is the international academic community with which one is associated. By way of illustration, although I am employed by an institution called King Faisal University, I am, at the same time, associated with the international academic community of educational technologies scholars. Thus, each employed academic has two “workplaces.” One is physical, being the workplace in the establishment by which one is employed. The other workplace is imaginary, i.e., the hypothetical loose intellectual domain within which one works. These two workplaces should consequently become equally subjected by the employed academic to academic investigation through action research. In action research, one researches the institution with which one is concerned (Herr & Anderson, 2005), and therefore employed academics are encouraged to, the author argues, conduct action research not only on the institution by which they are employed, but moreover on the hypothetical international academic community with which they are associated. Following this argument, the author in the current study conducted action research on the academic community (i.e., the community of educational technologies scholars) with which he was involved, seeking to highlight tribe-like practices that this community exhibited. However, academic communities are essentially “institutions,” and institutions are inherently political and have politics which will unavoidably be encountered by action researchers studying their academic community (Herr & Anderson, 2005). Action researchers, who are keen to take a questioning stance, will more likely find themselves swimming “against the current,” clashing with these politics. Action researchers who seek to challenge the theories set up by other members of their academic community cannot be expected to end up being liked or even accepted by their peers. Such action researchers are encouraged to challenge their own academic community; yet the ability of anyone to challenge his/her own community must be weak, considering that s/he is an insider in relation to this community and therefore is likely to take the surroundings for granted. In order for action researchers to avoid taking the surroundings for granted, they should thus research their own communities in collaboration with other action researchers from other communities (Herr & Anderson, 2005) and should read the literature produced by these other academic communities (Selwyn, 2012). Academics are normally educated within a certain academic community (i.e., within a certain intellectual domain), thus likely taking “ready-made” academic values and norms as an unquestioned and unquestionable guide for all situations arising within the academic societal world (Schütz, 1944; Al Lily, 2012). Such values, handed down to subjects by the academic authorities, carry their evidence within themselves and are likely to be taken for granted until evidence to the contrary emerges (Schütz, 1944; Al Lily, 2012). Such evidence can be realised through reading others’ literatures, attending others’ academic events, becoming involved with others’ networks and collaborating with members of other academic communities. The awareness of such evidence can therefore interrupt the flow of habit and can even lead in turn to “perspective transformation” (Mezirow, 1990, 1991; Schütz, 1944; Al Salem, 2005). Keeping this in mind then, the current study is informed by my readings of others’ literatures, my attendance of others’ academic events, my involvement with others’ networks and my academic and social collaboration with members of other academic communities. 2.2 Research Question The current study was conducted as part of the author’s research activity as a member of the international academic community of educational technologies. It, in other words, is carried out as part of his own action research cycle, reflecting his concern to address the issues related to the academic community with which he is associated. It, as mentioned earlier, addresses the research question: What are the claimed tribe-like practices that the academic community of educational technologies exhibits? In order to address such a question, the study shall first investigate the cultural patterns of the so-called “tribe” and, likewise, the cultural patterns of the so-called “academic communities.” Then, the study shall cross reference the patterns of tribes and the patterns of academic communities, thus highlighting the similarities and points of departure between them. The study will 20 www.ccsenet.org/hes Higher Education Studies Vol. 4, No. 3; 2014 eventually draw out some conclusions on just how tribal academic communities have actually been. 2.3 Data Collection The current study was conducted in 2012 to 2013. Its main focuses were, as mentioned previously, the cultural patterns of tribes and the cultural patterns of academic communities. In order to collect data on the cultural patterns of tribes, the author did reading in anthropology, carried out an unstructured observation of three Saudi Arabian Bedouin real tribes over a year, conducted unstructured individual interviews with two subjects of each real tribe and carried out one unstructured focus group that contains one subject of each tribe. In order to collect data concerning the cultural patterns of the academic community of educational technologies, the author analysed its literatures and did an unstructured observation of its research dynamics through its academic events, conferences and seminars in America, the UK, Italy, Bulgaria, Japan, Malaysia and Saudi Arabia. In addition, the author conducted one unstructured focus group that consisted of three subjects from the international academic community, American, English and Saudi. This is in addition to unstructured interviews with thirteen researchers and practitioners from the international academic community of educational technologies, besides a linguistic researcher, a historical researcher, an economic researcher and a researcher with a mathematics background. A key reason for including subjects from other academic communities is that it is believed by Herr and Anderson (2005) to be good practice if action researchers research their own community in collaboration with outsiders, i.e., researchers from communities other than theirs. The academic participants in the study come from the five main continents in the world. A strength in this study is its idea of looking at actual tribes and academics. 2.4 Data Analysis The data collected were analysed along the lines of the grounded theory method, following the process suggested by Glaser and Strauss (1967): Data  Code  Category  Theme  Theory. Once the data were collected, the author repeatedly went through them in an attempt to find “natural analytical divisions” (Holliday, 2005: 105), bearing the research question in mind throughout. Once these natural analytical divisions were identified, the author began to code the data with them in mind, generating codes. He subsequently assembled similar codes to create categories, which he grouped in turn to form themes and ultimately to constitute a theoretical proposition. In this approach, the data “are taken as a whole and then organised according to themes, but the themes themselves are partly emergent and partly influenced by [the research question] that the researcher brought to the research” (Holliday, 2005, p. 108). The thematic process here was therefore iterative, as the author repeatedly followed the analytical steps back and forth, in an attempt to make better sense of the whole structure (Denscombe, 2007). The data were analysed with the intention of highlighting the tribe-like practices that the international academic culture of educational technologies was claimed to exhibit. The table below shows the data after sorting. 21 www.ccsenet.org/hes Higher Education Studies Vol. 4, No. 3; 2014 Table 1. The data after being sorted using the grounded theory approach (NB the unreadable text in the table will be enlarged and made readable later when discussing the findings) 22 www.ccsenet.org/hes Higher Education Studies Vol. 4, No. 3; 2014 3. Findings and Discussions Analysis of the collected raw data pointed to three key themes: Cultural Similarities between Tribes and Academic Communities, Political Similarities between Tribes and Academic Communities and Social Similarities between Tribes and Academic Communities. A reader might feel that looking for similarities right from the start is a source of concern and that one cannot learn about what it is not similar when only similarities have been sought out. Although such concern sounds fair, the aim of this study is to look into similarities alone and leave dissimilarities for further research. Thus, further research is needed that looks at the differences between tribes and academic communities and therefore challenges the findings of the present research. Thus, the current research displays only one side of the coin and thus is in need of another research initiative intended to display the other side. What follows unpacks and discusses the abovementioned themes, showing how these themes were generated from various categories. 3.1 Cultural Similarities between Tribes and Academic Communities (Theme) The current theme Cultural Similarities between Tribes and Academic Communities stemmed, as illustrated in the table below, from two categories: A Sense of Historical Continuity on the part of Tribes and Academic Communities and A Sense of Cultural Heritage on the part of Tribes and Academic Communities. These categories, each of which consists of similar codes, are discussed below. Table 2. Cultural similarities between tribes and academic communities (theme) 23 www.ccsenet.org/hes Higher Education Studies Vol. 4, No. 3; 2014 3.1.1 A Sense of Historical Continuity on the Part of Tribes and Academic Communities (Category) This category emerged from two similar codes: Pattern of Historical Continuity in Tribes and Pattern of Historical Continuity in Academic Communities (see Table 3 below). These two codes are discussed in some depth below. Table 3. A sense of historical continuity on the part of tribes and academic communities (category) Having observed the three tribes, it appears that, in tribes, there is a sense of stable historical continuity in norms and values. Some of the interviewees report noticing such a sense of stable historical continuity in the academic culture of educational technologies too. The interviewees explain that publications in this field intensively reference former publications, which suggests not only stable historical continuity but moreover limited creative approaches. In conferences the author attended, some of the keynote speeches of full professors were about old theories (e.g., transformative learning theory), representing a common case of how many academics function in such a “circle,” merely keeping repeating old theoretical approaches (in this case transformative learning theory, which can be traced back to the 1970s; Mezirow, 1975). Some participants in these conferences that the author interviewed during breaks agree that, although one of the keynote speakers promotes transformative learning theory which encourages emancipation from the mindless and unquestionable acceptance of the social and 24 www.ccsenet.org/hes Higher Education Studies Vol. 4, No. 3; 2014 cultural “surroundings”, s/he, however, appears not to have shown here an ability to emancipate himself/herself from “surrounding” old theoretical approaches. This could be seen to lend support to the claim that, although academics are perceived as authorities who are associated with the production of knowledge and from whom expertise is sought, they, however, seem to be weak in applying this knowledge to themselves and to their continuing personal and professional development (Hammond et al., 1992; Cornford & Pollock, 2003). Full professors, one can suggest, are encouraged to act as true leading authorities with the ability to “emancipate” themselves from surrounding pre-existing and pre-developed theoretical structures. Some interviewees add another (yet similar) point showing the historical continuity of educational technologies. They say that many researchers appear to do their studies and write their publications in a way that reinforces and is in line with existing structures and configurations, rather than pushing current boundaries and destabilising existing structures. This claim by these interviewees appears to be supported by the literature, which records that, because of the stable historical continuity of educational technologies, the teaching and learning structure and infrastructure of the higher education system as a global concept is “one of the most stable institutions in our civilization, surviving for a millennium through wars and plagues and technological change with its values and roles largely intact” (Duderstadt et al., 2002, p. 1). Thus, although newly designed educational technologies are commonplace, they are constructed in a way that merely serves as a complement to existing instructional tools, i.e., “in a way that only gradually is stretching traditional on-campus practices” (Collis & van der Wende, 2002, p. 62). Thus, the recommendation is that, if the international academic culture of educational technologies would like to avoid being labelled as a tribal unit, its researchers and commentators should consider methodological approaches that promote historical discontinuity, seeking to “knock down” rather than pass on pre-existing rules, resources and theories. A methodological approach that seems an appropriate candidate here is deconstructive postmodernism, which campaigns for the notion of historical discontinuity (cf. Bauman, 1988; Appignanesi & Garratt, 1995). 3.1.2 A Sense of Cultural Heritage on the Part of Tribes and Academic Communities (Category) The category A Sense of Cultural Heritage on the part of Tribes and Academic Communities is composed of the following two codes: Pattern of Cultural Heritage in Tribes and Pattern of Cultural Heritage in Academic Communities. 25 www.ccsenet.org/hes Higher Education Studies Vol. 4, No. 3; 2014 Table 4. A sense of cultural heritage on the part of tribes and academic communities (category) Based on the observation of the three tribes, it seems sensible to contend that a tribe typically sustains a sense of common cultural heritage, shared ancestry and mutual history. Some academic interviewees have shown such a sense of cultural heritage, shared ancestry and history to have existed in the international academic culture of educational technologies via the process of technological reproduction. The literature actually acknowledges this process of technological reproduction. That is, following the classical Marxist notion of reproduction, every social process of production is essentially a process of reproduction (Dear & Wolch, 1989). This notion seems to have a variety of implications for the field of educational technologies. One implication is that any process of production is a procedure that entails not only producing substance (here, educational artefacts and software) but also continually reproducing the associated social relations. An additional implication is that newly constructed educational technologies are influenced by previous such technologies, which refers to the “technological shaping of technologies” (see Graça, 2010). Thus, the notion of reproduction implies much more than the mere replication of pre-existing production processes. Reproduction involves various types of historical continuity in social relations during periods of transition (Dear & Wolch, 1989), and hence the production of educational technologies, as mentioned earlier, needs to take on a deconstructive post-modernistic perspective so as to promote discontinuity in social relations during times of transition. Thus, educational technology is a matter of history and is therefore political, with power relationships between previous generations and following generations. Such historical continuity, according to some interviewees, 26 www.ccsenet.org/hes Higher Education Studies Vol. 4, No. 3; 2014 could be said to exist either because following generations intentionally and politically want their past to continue or because following generations just naively let their past continue to exist and frame their own lives, “embracing the past without doing anything about it” (in the words of an interviewee). An interviewee felt obligated to follow previous generations of academics: “we have to speak the language,” he complained. Another interviewee thought that each academic community had a certain “mainstream worldview” (in his words) specific to this community, thus existing as a tribe of “like-minded people” (to borrow a phrase from Adams and Smith, 2008, p. 2). 3.2 Political Similarities between Tribes and Academic Communities (Theme) This second theme, labelled Political Similarities between Tribes and Academic Communities, resulted, as illustrated in the table below, from two categories, namely A Sense of Hierarchy on the part of Tribes and Academic Communities and A Sense of Political Tension across Tribes and across Academic Communities. Table 5. Political similarities between tribes and academic communities (theme) 27 www.ccsenet.org/hes Higher Education Studies Vol. 4, No. 3; 2014 3.2.1 A Sense of Hierarchy on the Part of Tribes and Academic Communities (Category) This category covers two related codes, which are discussed below. Table 6. A sense of hierarchy on the part of tribes and academic communities (category) According to what was observed, tribes are understood to display a sense of cultural isolation, with a minimum of social interconnection and cultural exchange across tribes. Some interviewees concur that such a sense of cultural isolation seems to have existed within the academic culture of educational technologies, with weak interdisciplinary connections between the field of educational technologies and other fields. The interviewees concur with those writers (e.g., Apple, 2004; Monahan, 2004; Hope, 2007; McPherson & Whitworth, 2008; Selwyn, 2010), who criticise the academic community of educational technologies for concentrating predominantly on the educational and technological aspects of educational technologies, thus undermining their cultural, societal, political and economic aspects. Nevertheless, this community might defend themselves, arguing that anthropology, sociology, politics and economy are not their expertise and thus beyond their comfort zone. Researchers on human geography believe that human behaviour is expressed through a complicated set of social, cultural, political and economic processes which characterise every society to some degree, and that time and space define the two dimensions of a fabric upon which the processes of human existence are inscribed (Dear & Wolch, 1989). Such researchers thus seek to understand the simultaneity of social, cultural, political and economic life in time and space. Researchers on educational technologies should, in the same way, seek to play, 28