One of the lessons drummed into me during my doctoral studies was to always remain mindful of the ‘So What?’ question (sometimes expressed more bluntly as ‘Who Cares?’). The wisdom of this advice soon became clear as I began venturing beyond the relative safety of my own academic department and into the harsh world of academic conferences and publishing. Here I was confronted by a barrage of challenging questions. What is the significance of your research? What is its relevance? Why should anyone be interested in what you have to say outside of the handful of people researching your particular niche area?
The issue of ‘So What?’ has stuck with me throughout my academic career. When planning any piece of writing I still start by considering the reasons why anyone else could be interested in reading it. I then try to ensure that the final text makes it abundantly clear why other people should be reading. From a pragmatic perspective, this is now a necessary aspect of writing in a ‘publish or perish’ environment of citation indices and impact factors. Indeed, any new book/article/blog posting has to work harder than ever to persuade potential readers to take note of whatever it has to say. Yet in a more scholarly sense, academic authors have always been expected to justify their ‘contribution to knowledge’. To me, this is why any academic authors needs to be clear about the relevance, significance and wider value of their writing. As such, ‘So What?’ is a question that needs to be taken very seriously indeed.
Besides my own writing, I most frequently find myself confronting the ‘So What?’ question when carrying out editorial work for Learning, Media & Technology. With the growing popularity of research into education, technology and media around the world, more articles are now being submitted to the journal than ever before. Many of these are of very high quality, making the decision-making process a difficult one. Yet we have also noticed a few submissions – often from authors early on in their academic publishing careers – that suffer from a basic lack of clarity with regards to explaining their significance and relevance. Often it is simply not clear what the ‘contribution to knowledge’ of these articles is. In order to help future authors avoid being rejected on these grounds, I thought it worthwhile reflecting on the ‘So What?’ question, and how it should be an important element of any article that ends up being published in this (or any other) academic journal.
When writing a journal article it is often easy to lose sight of how it will look to the outside world. One can simply get caught up in the minutiae of the specific research study at hand or distracted by the battle to keep within the recommended word count. This predicament was illustrated with the recent submission of two different articles to the journal within hours of each other. The first of these articles described the use of a particular computer game in Grade 7 history classrooms, while the second article described the use of another computer game in Grade 9 science classrooms. The problem with these two submissions was not one of collusion or plagiarism – indeed, these articles were written by teams of authors in different countries working totally independently of each other. Instead, the fatal problem with these articles was their lack of self-awareness. For example, neither article attempted to explain why their case study might be of interest or relevance beyond the particular classrooms that had been studied. There was no reference back to previous debates within Learning, Media & Technology on games and gaming. There was no elaboration of the possible nuances of the specific research contexts (e.g., the different epistemological bases of history/science, the cultural contexts of schooling in the respective countries, the nature of Grade 7/9 students and so on). Other than the specific teachers and students who had participated in the studies and perhaps the producers of the actual games being studied, it was hard to see why anyone else should be interested in either of these articles.
I suspect that both these sets of authors had fallen foul of a common trend within technology and new media studies of conflating academic ‘research’ with more practically focused ‘evaluation’. Of course, there is nothing wrong with work that is primarily evaluatory in nature. These ‘proof of concept’ and ‘best practice’ studies of the application of specific digital devices and practices in particular educational settings are clearly necessary and worthwhile stages in the development of any educational technology. Yet work of this kind does not translate automatically into scholarly, academic writing. A social science journal such as Learning Media & Technology is not looking to publish endless variations on describing the potential of ‘gadget X + classroom Y’. Instead, we are looking to publish articles that have substantially more to say about the ‘wider picture’ of education, technology and society. What some submitting authors perhaps fail to recognize is that the most significant aspect of their work is not the actual piece of technology or new media under scrutiny.
Indeed, over the past three years or so of editing this journal I have observed waves of submissions focusing on the educational potential of successive technological ‘next big things’. These have progressed from studies of interactive whiteboards in the classroom, to clickers in the classroom, then Facebook in the classroom, Twitter in the classroom and undoubtedly soon an emerging trend for studies of 3D printers in the classroom. While we have published some of the more insightful articles along these lines, many more have failed to make the cut. These rejected articles have generally been those that failed to think beyond the technology in question. The ‘wow’ factor of a new digital device, digital application or digital practice is not enough to merit publication. Moreover, just because we have published three papers on the topic of Twitter is not an indication in itself that we are happy to publish more. What we are keen to publish are articles that add to understandings of the social complexities of digital technology and media use in education. This is what the ‘So What?’ question means to us.
With these thoughts in mind, there are at least four distinct strands of the ‘So What?’ question that we would urge authors of future submissions to the journal to pay close attention to. In brief (and in no particular order) these are …
What is the relevance of the article to educational practice … or any other aspect of the ‘real world’?
How is the article of interest or importance to broader priorities in education, technology and society? How does the article correspond with the general concerns of practitioners and other people with a stake in the areas that you are researching? Education is replete with trends, movements and priorities that the use of digital technology and media corresponds with. Take, for example, the recent prioritization of personalization, self-assessment and parental engagement within compulsory schooling or the focus on widening participation to higher education. Similarly, there are often many broader trends in digital technology that research in education, technology and media will articulate with. Take, for example, the growing importance of ‘open’ philosophies and designs, so-called ‘big data’ or the emerging ‘maker movement’. A good academic article will make these connections and explore these implications.
What is the relevance of the article to policy?
How does the article relate to broader concerns of policy and policymakers? These might be state or federal educational priorities, the politics of curriculum or public investments in digital technology and infrastructure. National policymaking is often concerned with matters of social justice and inclusion, risk and regulation, and of participation and engagement. On a broader scale, educational technology and media research will also often articulate with supra-national policy trends and concerns. Take, for example, recent global concerns with so-called ‘twenty-first century skills’ or the universal right to education. Again, a good academic article will make these connections and explore these implications.
What is the relevance of the article to other academic research and writing?
Obviously, most journal articles will contain some form of literature review. Yet the best articles do not passively regurgitate the literature but will actively review it. This involves pointing out existing gaps and silences that the article addresses. This also involves making connections with existing debates and issues that the article contributes to and (ideally) advances. On one hand, it is obviously important to demonstrate the article's relevance to previous writing in the journal that you have chosen to publish in. How does the article build upon the conversations that have been taking place within Learning, Media & Technology over the past 5, 10 or 20 years? On the other hand, it is also important to look beyond the immediate education, technology and media literatures. Often the articles that are submitted to our journal are not really ‘about’ technology or media at all. Instead, they might be primarily concerned with matters of identity, social class and so on. A good article will therefore make clear how it sits within/against these broader bodies of research and theory outside of the technology and media domains? Why should a researcher from these ‘non-technology’ areas turn to this particular technology-related example?
What is the relevance of the article to theory?
What wider theoretical traditions does the article draw from (if not deliberately then perhaps implicitly)? What wider theoretical concerns and current controversies does the article ‘speak to’ – be it in terms of learning theory, educational theory or broader social theory? Awareness of the theoretical precedents of one's research is an essential element of avoiding simply ‘reinventing the wheel’. Conversely, thinking carefully about the broader theoretical foundations of one's research can be a useful way of making connections with academic disciplines and traditions beyond education, technology and media. Regardless of the novelty of the digital technology being investigated, you are probably not the only person in the world to have thought about the ‘big issues’ that underpin the article. Therefore make sure that the article tells readers how the research sits within the myriad traditions of academic work that already exist.
Of course, many authors who submit articles to our journal are well aware of these issues, so I apologize for re-stating what might be obvious advice. However, I hope that these points might serve as a useful checklist for authors preparing submissions to Learning Media & Technology for the first time. As journal editors we do not necessarily expect an article to explicitly address all these issues (after all, not every article will be especially relevant to policy or be particularly theoretically rich). However, we do hope there to be some indication of having thought these issues through before submitting an article.
Most of what has just been argued relates to the general point that successful articles tend to be those display having a good awareness of what they ‘are about’ – i.e., what their primary audiences are, and their value to these audiences. These articles are clearly aware of their broader significance and generalizability. These articles are mindful of the warrant of their data, and the limitations and parameters of their argument. These articles avoid making sweeping statements and refrain from reaching speculative or unjustifiable conclusions. These articles move beyond description to deeper forms of discussion, analysis and debate. In short these articles have something to say! These, then, are the articles that we are looking to publish in Learning Media & Technology … we look forward to receiving many more submissions along these lines.