1,404
Views
1
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Articles

Teaching research methods in education: using the TPACK framework to reflect on praxis

ORCID Icon
Pages 288-308 | Received 02 Feb 2021, Accepted 15 Aug 2023, Published online: 27 Oct 2023

References

  • Adler, J., 2000. Conceptualising resources as a theme for teacher education. Journal of mathematics teacher education, 3 (3), 205–224. doi:10.1023/A:1009903206236.
  • Akkari, A., and Fuentes, M. 2021. Repenser l’éducation: alternatives pédagogiques du Sud. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000377797.
  • Albero, B., and Thievenaz, J. 2022. Traité de méthodologie de la recherche en Sciences de l'éducation et de la formation. Éditions Raison et Passions.
  • Amin, T., and Levrini, O., 2018. Converging pserspectives on conceptual change: mapping an emerging paradigm in the learning sciences. Oxon and New York: Routledge.
  • Aspers, P., and Corte, U., 2019. What is qualitative in qualitative research. Qualitative sociology, 42 (2), 139–160. doi:10.1007/s11133-019-9413-7.
  • Badenhorst, C., 2023. Bridging the unknown. Threshold concepts in doctoral research writing. In: L. Buckingham, J. Dong, and F. Jiang, eds. Interdisciplinary practices in academia: Writing, teaching and assessment. Routledge, 1st ed., 147–166. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003263067-11
  • Ball, J., and Savin-Baden, M., 2022. Postdigital learning for a changing higher education. Postdigital science and education, 4 (3), 753–771. doi:10.1007/s42438-022-00307-2.
  • Beaufort, A., 2007. College writing and beyond: a new framework for university writing instruction. Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press.
  • Bedin, V., and Franc, S., 2019. Introduction générale. In: V. Bedin, S. Franc, and D. Guy, eds. Les sciences de l'éducation: pour quoi faire?: entre action et connaissance. Paris: L'Harmattan, 21–37.
  • Bedin, V., Franc, S., and Guy, D., (Eds.). 2019. Les sciences de l'éducation: pour quoi faire?: entre action et connaissance. In Pratiques en formation. Paris: L'Harmattan.
  • Bengry-Howell, A., et al., 2011. A review of the academic impact of three methodological innovations: netnography, child-led research and creative research methods. ESRC national centre for research methods. https://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/id/eprint/1844/
  • Boyer, E., 1990. Scholarship reconsidered: priorities of the professoriate. Princeton NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
  • Brew, A., 2001. Conceptions of research: a phenomenographic study. Studies in higher education, 26 (3), 271–285. doi:10.1080/03075070120076255.
  • Brinkmann, S., Jacobsen, M.H., and Kristiansen, S., 2014. Historical overview of qualitative research in the social sciences. In: P Leavy, ed. The Oxford handbook of qualitative research. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 17–42.
  • Cakata, Z., Radebe, N., and Ramose, M. 2023. Azibuye emasisweni. Reclaiming our space and centring our knowledge.
  • Carr, W., and Kemmis, S., 1986. Becoming critical: education, knowledge and action research. Lewes: Falmer.
  • CERN., n.d. The birth of the Web. https://home.cern/science/computing/birth-web.
  • Charmillot, M. 2020. Définir une posture de recherche. Université de Genève.
  • Chatterjee-Padmanabhan, M., and Nielsen, W., 2018. Preparing to cross the research proposal threshold: A case study of two international doctoral students. Innovations in education and teaching international, 55 (4), 417–424. doi:10.1080/14703297.2016.1251331.
  • Chatterjee-Padmanabhan, M., Nielsen, W., and Sanders, S., 2019. Joining the research conversation: threshold concepts embedded in the literature review. Higher education research & development, 38 (3), 494–507. doi:10.1080/07294360.2018.1545747.
  • Chevallard, Y., 1991. La transposition didactique. Du savoir savant au savoir enseigné. 2nd ed. Grenoble: La Pensée sauvage.
  • Clark, R., 1994. Media will never influence learning. Educational technology research and development, 42 (2), 21–29.
  • Class, B., et al., 2016. Enseigner la méthodologie de la recherche en technologie éducative: des conceptions aux concepts seuils. Distances et médiations des savoirs, 13, 2–17. doi:10.4000/dms.1349.
  • Class, B., et al., 2017. Pistes réflexives sur l’apprentissage de la méthodologie de la recherche en technologie éducative. Frantice.net Numéro spécial, 12-13, 149–174.
  • Class, B., 2020a. Enhancing knowledge and practice: research competences of a distance learning coordinator. In: J Theo Bastiaens, ed. Edmedia + innovate learning. Netherlands: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), 1198–1212.
  • Class, B., 2020b. Features for an international learning environment in research education. Paper presented at the international conference on computer supported education.
  • Class, B.M.d.B., et al., 2021. Towards open science for the qualitative researcher: from a positivist to an open interpretation. International journal of qualitative methods, 20. doi:10.1177/16094069211034641.
  • Class, B., et al., 2021. Towards open science for the qualitative researcher: from a positivist to an open interpretation. International journal of qualitative methods, 20, doi:10.1177/16094069211034641.
  • Class, B., 2022a. Open education: towards epistemic sustainability. In: Mutlu Cukurova, Nikol Rummel, Denis Gillet, Bruce McLaren, and James Uhomoibhi, eds. International conference on computer supported education. Springer, 646–653.
  • Class, B., 2022b. Revisiting education: On the role of imagination, intuition and other “gifts” for open scholars. Frontiers in education, 7, doi:10.3389/feduc.2022.846882.
  • Class, B., and Akkari, A., 2021. Le projet RESET-francophone: vers une formation ouverte et libre à la méthodologie de la recherche en éducation. L’éducation en débats: analyse comparée, 10 (2), 192–217. doi:10.51186/journals/ed.2020.10-2.e346.
  • Class, B., and Schneider, D., n.d. Manuel de recherche en technologie éducative. http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/fr/Manuel_de_recherche_en_technologie_%C3%A9ducative.
  • Class, B., and Schneider, D., 2019. La ressource: de la réforme de Bologne à l’ingénierie pédagogique. Paper presented at the Ludovia.ch, Yverdon-les-bains.
  • Class, B, B Schneider, R Canal, and M Laroussi. 2014. A project for transitional education of doctoral applicants in educational technology. Paper presented at the Ed media - world conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications, Tampere, Finland, 23-26 June 2014.
  • Collins, D., 2019. The NCRM quick start guide to: teaching social research methods online. National centre for research methods. https://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/id/eprint/4246/1/Quick-start-guide-teaching-online.pdf
  • Collins, A., Joseph, D., and Bielaczyc, K., 2004. Design research: theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of the learning sciences, 13 (1), 15–42. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1301_2.
  • Cooper, H., 1998. Synthesizing research: a guide for literature reviews. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  • Deimann, M., 2019. Openness. In: Insung Jung, ed. Open and distance education theory revisited: implications for the digital era. Singapore: Springer Singapore, 39–46.
  • de la Higuera, C., and Iyer, J. 2023. AI for Teachers, An Open Textbook.
  • Descarpentries, J. 2021. Les Épistémologies du Sud à Paris 8 UAES. https://hal.science/hal-03896929/.
  • Descarpentries, J., and Charmillot, M. 2022. Théories critiques et épistémologies du Sud. https://education.cuso.ch/?id = 902&L = 0&tx_displaycontroller[showUid] = 6140.
  • de Sousa Santos, B., 2014. Epistemologies of the south: justice against Epistemicide. London & New York: Routledge.
  • de Sousa Santos, B., 2016. Epistémologies du Sud : mouvements citoyens et polémique sur la science. Paris: Desclée de Brouwer.
  • de Sousa Santos, B., and Meneses, M.P., 2020. Epistemologies of the south. Knowledge born in the struggle. Constructing the epistemologies of the global south. New York: Routledge.
  • Earley, M., 2014. A synthesis of the literature on research methods education. Teaching in higher education, 19 (3), 242–253. doi:10.1080/13562517.2013.860105.
  • Eduvista. 2018. Innovation Maturity Model. Accessed 25 mai. http://files.eun.org/fcl/eduvista/eduvista-tool-2p1.pdf.
  • Escaño, C., and Mañero, J., 2022. Postdigital intercreative pedagogies: ecopedagogical practices for the commons. In: Petar Jandrić, and Derek R. Ford, eds. Postdigital ecopedagogies: genealogies, contradictions, and possible futures. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 231–246.
  • Evans, R., 2007. Comments on shulman, golde, bueschel, and garabedian: existing practice is not the template. Educational researcher, 36 (9), 553–559. doi:10.3102/0013189(07313149.
  • Foucault, M., 1982. The subject and power. Critical inquiry, 8 (4), 777–795.
  • Freire, P., 1994. Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
  • Galliers, R., and Huang, J.S., 2012. The teaching of qualitative research methods in information systems: an explorative study utilizing learning theory. European journal of information systems, 21, 119–134. doi:10.1057/ejis.2011.4.
  • Garner, M., Wagner, M., and Kawulich, B., 2009. Teaching research methods in the social sciences. London: Routledge.
  • Giri, A.K., 2021. With and beyond epistemologies from the south: ontological epistemology of participation, multi-topial hermeneutics and the calling of planetary realisations. Sociological bulletin, 70 (3), 366–383. doi:10.1177/00380229211014666.
  • Given, L., 2008. Positivism. In The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909
  • Guibert, P. 2021. Manuel de sciences de l'éducation et de la formation. Louvain la Neuve: Louvain-la-Neuve De Boeck Supérieur.
  • Haigh, N., and Withell, A., 2020. The place of research paradigms in SoTL practice: an inquiry. Teaching & learning inquiry, 8 (2), 17–31. doi:10.20343/teachlearninqu.8.2.3.
  • Hameline, D., 1979. Le sujet de l'éducation. Paris: Beauchesne.
  • Hayes, D., 2007. What Einstein can teach us about education. Education 3-13, 35 (2), 143–154. doi:10.1080/03004270701311986.
  • Herring, M.C., Koehler, M.J., and Mishra, P., 2016. Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) for educators. New York & London: Routledge.
  • Herrington, J., Reeves, T., and Oliver, R., 2014. Authentic learning environments. In: M Spector, D Merrill, J Elen, and M Bishop, eds. Handbook of research on educational communications and technology. New York: Springer Science, 401–412.
  • Hofstetter, R., and Schneuwly, B., 2001. L’avènement d’un nouveau champ disciplinaire. Ressorts de l’universitarisation des sciences de l’éducation à Genève, 1890-1930. In: R Hofstetter, and B Schneuwly, eds. Le pari des sciences de l’éducation. Bruxelles: de Boeck, 79–115.
  • Hofstetter, R., and Schneuwly, B., 2002. Institutionalisation of educational sciences and the dynamics of their development. European educational research journal, 1 (1), 3–26. doi:10.2304/eerj.2002.1.1.9.
  • Honebein, P.C., and Reigeluth, C.M., 2021. To prove or improve, that is the question: the resurgence of comparative, confounded research between 2010 and 2019. Educational technology research and development, 69 (2), 465–496. doi:10.1007/s11423-021-09988-1.
  • Hubball, H., and Clarke, A., 2010. Diverse methodological approaches and considerations for SoTL in higher education. The Canadian journal for the scholarship of teaching and learning, 1 (1), doi:10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2010.1.2.
  • Hutchins, E., 1995. Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Innerarity, D., 2015. Chapitre 3. La société de la connaissance et l’ignorance. In Innerarity, Daniel, ed. Démocratie et société de la connaissance. FONTAINE: Presses universitaires de Grenoble, 47–65.
  • Jhangiani, R.S., 2017. Open as default. The future of education and scholarship. In: Rajiv S. Jhangiani, and Robert Biswas-Diener, eds. Open. The philosophy and practices that are revolutionizing education and science. Ubiquity Press, 267–280. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv3t5qh3.5
  • Jonassen, D., 1984. The mediation of experience and educational technology: a philosophical analysis. Educational communication and technology journal, 32 (3), 153–167.
  • Jonassen, D.H., 1991. Objectivism versus constructivism: do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational technology research and development, 39 (3), 5–14. doi:10.1007/BF02296434.
  • Jonassen, D., Campbell, J., and Davidson, M., 1994. Learning with media: restructuring the debate. Educational technology research and development, 42 (2), 31–39.
  • Jonassen, D., and Land, S., 2012. Theoretical foundations of learning environments. 2nd ed. New York & London: Routledge.
  • Kalpokaite, N., and Radivojevic, I., 2020. Teaching qualitative data analysis software online: a comparison of face-to-face and e-learning ATLAS.ti courses. International journal of research & method in education, 43 (3), 296–310. doi:10.1080/1743727X.2019.1687666.
  • Keefer, J.M., 2015. Experiencing doctoral liminality as a conceptual threshold and how supervisors can use it. Innovations in education and teaching international, 52 (1), 17–28. doi:10.1080/14703297.2014.981839.
  • Kemmis, S., and Edwards-Groves, C., 2018. Education, practice, and practice architectures. In: Kemmis, Stephen and Edwards-Groves, Christine, eds. Understanding education: history, politics and practice. Singapore: Springer Singapore, 115–158.
  • Kilburn, D., Nind, M., and Wiles, R., 2014. Learning as researchers and teachers: the development of a pedagogical culture for social science research methods? British journal of educational studies, 62 (2), 191–207. doi:10.1080/00071005.2014.918576.
  • Kiley, M., 2015. 'I didn't have a clue what they were talking about': PhD candidates and theory. Innovations in education and teaching international, 52 (1), 52–63. doi:10.1080/14703297.2014.981835.
  • Kiley, M., 2019. Threshold concepts of research in teaching scientific thinking. In: M Murtonen, and K Balloo, eds. Redefining scientific thinking for higher education. higher-order thinking, evidence-based reasoning and research skills. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 139–155.
  • Kiley, M., and Wisker, G., 2009. Threshold concepts in research education and evidence of threshold crossing. Higher education research & development, 28 (4), 431–441. doi:10.1080/07294360903067930.
  • Koehler, M.J., and Mishra, P., 2005. What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of educational computing research, 32 (2), 131–152. doi:10.2190/0ew7-01wb-bkhl-qdyv.
  • Koehler, M.J., Mishra, P., and Cain, W., 2013. What Is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? The journal of education, 193 (3), 13–19.
  • Koers, H., et al., 2020. Recommendations for services in a FAIR data ecosystem. Patterns, 1 (5), 100058. doi:10.1016/j.patter.2020.100058.
  • Kozma, R., 1994. Will media influence learning? reframing the debate. Educational technology research and development, 42 (2), 7–19.
  • Lagemann, E., 2000. An elusive science: the troubling history of education research. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Lancaster, L. 2021. Technology. Oxford University Press.
  • Langlais, P.-C., 2015. Quand les articles scientifiques ont-ils cessé d’être des communs? Sciences communes. On-line: https://scoms.hypotheses.org/409
  • Laot, F., and Rogers, R., 2015. Question éducative et recherche dans l'après Seconde Guerre mondiale. In: F Laot, and R Rogers, eds. Les Sciences de l'éducation. Emergence d'un champ de recherche dans l'après-guerre. Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes, 7–24.
  • Lather, P., and St. Pierre, E.A., 2007. Postpositivist new paradigm inquiry. In: P Lather, ed. Getting lost: feminist efforts toward a double(d) science. Albany: State University of New York Press, 164.
  • Lave, J., and Wenger, E., 1991. Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.
  • Lewthwaite, S., et al. 2019. Developing pedagogy for ‘Big Qual’ methods: Teaching how to analyse large volumes of secondary qualitative data. National Centre for Research Methods.
  • Lewthwaite, S., and Nind, M., 2015a. The NCRM quick start guide to: principles for effective pedagogy. National centre for research methods. https://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/id/eprint/3766/
  • Lewthwaite, S., and Nind, M., 2015b. Pedagogy in context: international experts’ insights into the teaching of advanced research methods. Society for research in higher education annual conference, United Kingdom.
  • Lewthwaite, S., and Nind, M., 2016. Teaching research methods in the social sciences: expert perspectives on pedagogy and practice. British journal of educational studies in continuing education, 64 (4), 413–430. doi:10.1080/00071005.2016.1197882.
  • Mboa Nkoudou, T.H., 2020. Epistemic alienation in African scholarly communications: open access as a pharmakon. In: Martin Paul Eve, and Jonathan Gray, eds. Reassembling scholarly communications: histories, infrastructures, and global politics of open access. The MIT Press, 25–40.
  • McKenna, S., 2017. Crossing conceptual thresholds in doctoral communities. Innovations in education and teaching international, 54 (5), 458–466. doi:10.1080/14703297.2016.1155471.
  • McKenney, S., and Reeves, T., 2019. Conducting educational design research. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.
  • Meyer, J., and Land, R., 2003. Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: linkages to ways of thinking and practising within the disciplines. In: ETL project. Coventry and Durham: University of Edinburgh, 1–2. http://www.etl.tla.ed.ac.uk//docs/ETLreport4.pdf
  • Meyer, J., Land, R., and Baillie, C., 2010. Threshold concepts and transformational learning. In: Michael A. Peters, ed. Educational futures: rethinking theory and practice. Vol. 42. Rotterdam, Boston, Taipei: Sense Publishers.
  • Meyer, C., Shanahan, J., and Laugksch, R., 2005. Students’ conceptions of research. I: a qualitative and quantitative analysis. Scandinavian journal of educational, 49 (3), 225–244.
  • Mialaret, G., 2016. Les origines et l’évolution des sciences de l’éducation en pays francophones. Les Sciences de l'éducation - Pour l'Ère nouvelle, 49 (3), 53–69. doi:10.3917/lsdle.493.0053.
  • Miller-Young, J., and Yeo, M., 2015. Conceptualizing and communicating SoTL: a framework for the field. Teaching & learning inquiry: The ISSOTL journal, 3 (2), 37–53. doi:10.2979/teachlearninqu.3.2.37.
  • Mishra, P., 2019. Considering contextual knowledge: the TPACK diagram gets an upgrade. Journal of digital learning in teacher education, 35 (2), 76–78. doi:10.1080/21532974.2019.1588611.
  • Mishra, P., and Koehler, M., 2006. Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers college record, 108 (6), 1017–1054.
  • Nicola-Richmond, K., et al., 2018. Threshold concepts in higher education: a synthesis of the literature relating to measurement of threshold crossing. Higher education research & development, 37 (1), 101–114. doi:10.1080/07294360.2017.1339181.
  • Nind, M., 2009. Conducting qualitative research with people with learning, communication and other disabilities: methodological challenges. ESRC national centre for research methods NCRM/, 012.
  • Nind, M., et al., 2013. Risk, creativity and ethics: dimensions of innovation in qualitative social science research methods. Brtish educational research association annual conference, United Kingdom.
  • Nind, M., et al., 2019. Student perspectives on learning research methods in the social sciences. Teaching in higher education, 1–15. doi:10.1080/13562517.2019.1592150.
  • Nind, M., 2020. A new application for the concept of pedagogical content knowledge: teaching advanced social science research methods. Oxford review of education, 46 (2), 185–201. doi:10.1080/03054985.2019.1644996.
  • Nind, M. 2023. Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods. Elgar.
  • Nind, M., Curtin, A., and Hall, K., 2016. Research methods for pedagogy. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
  • Nind, M., and Katramadou, A., 2022. Lessons for teaching social science research methods in higher education: synthesis of the literature 2014-2020. British journal of educational studies, 1–26. doi:10.1080/00071005.2022.2092066.
  • Nind, M., Kilburn, D., and Wiles, R., 2015. Using video and dialogue to generate pedagogic knowledge: teachers, learners and researchers reflecting together on the pedagogy of social research methods. International journal of social research methodology, 18 (5), 561–576. doi:10.1080/13645579.2015.1062628.
  • Nind, M., and Lewthwaite, S., 2018a. Methods that teach: developing pedagogic research methods, developing pedagogy. International journal of research & method in education and information technologies, 41 (4), 398–410. doi:10.1080/1743727X.2018.1427057.
  • Nind, M., and Lewthwaite, S., 2018b. Hard to teach: inclusive pedagogy in social science research methods education. International journal of inclusive education, 22 (1), 74–88. doi:10.1080/13603116.2017.1355413.
  • Nind, M., and Lewthwaite, S., 2020. A conceptual-empirical typology of social science research methods pedagogy. Research papers in education, 35 (4), 467–487. doi:10.1080/02671522.2019.1601756.
  • Nind, M., and Vinha, H., 2016. Creative interactions with data: using visual and metaphorical devices in repeated focus groups. Qualitative research, 16 (1), 9–26. doi:10.1177/1468794114557993.
  • OECD. 2022. OECD Framework for the Classification of AI systems. doi:10.1787/cb6d9eca-en.
  • Peters, M.A., 2014. Openness and the intellectual commons. Open review of educational research, 1 (1), 1–7. doi:10.1080/23265507.2014.984975.
  • Phillips, M., et al. 2017. Unpacking TPACK: reconsidering knowledge and context in teacher practice.
  • Piron, F., 2019. L’amoralité du positivisme institutionnel. L'épistémologie du lien comme résistance. In: L Brière, M Lieutenant-Gosselin, and F Piron, eds. Et si la recherche scientifique ne pouvait pas être neutre? Éditions science et bien commun. https://scienceetbiencommun.pressbooks.pub/neutralite/
  • Piron, F., and Arsenault, E. 2021. Guide décolonisé de formation à la recherche en sciences sociales et humaines. Éditions Science et bien commun.
  • Reeves, T.C., and Lin, L., 2020. The research we have is not the research we need. Educational technology research and development, 68 (4), 1991–2001. doi:10.1007/s11423-020-09811-3.
  • Sackstein, S., Matthee, M., and Weilbach, L., 2023. Theories and models employed to understand the Use of technology in education: a hermeneutic literature review. Education and information technologies, 28 (5), 5041–5081. doi:10.1007/s10639-022-11345-5.
  • Savin-Baden, M., 2022a. The death of data interpretation and throwing sheep in a postdigital age. Education ouverte et libre - open education, 1, 1. doi:10.52612/journals/eoloe.2022.e11.754.
  • Savin-Baden, M., 2022b. Landscapes of postdigital theologies. In: Maggi Savin-Baden, and John Reader, eds. Postdigital theologies: technology, belief, and practice. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 3–19.
  • Schäffer, B., and Lieder, F.R., 2023. Distributed interpretation – teaching reconstructive methods in the social sciences supported by artificial intelligence. Journal of research on technology in education, 55 (1), 111–124. doi:10.1080/15391523.2022.2148786.
  • Schmieder, C., 2019. Qualitative data analysis software as a tool for teaching analytic practice: towards a theoretical framework for integrating QDAS into methods pedagogy. Qualitative research, 20 (5), 684–702. doi:10.1177/1468794119891846.
  • Sheller, M., 2018. Mobility justice: the politics of movement in an age of extremes. London: Verso.
  • Shulman, L.S., 1986. Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational researcher, 15 (2), 4–14. doi:10.2307/1175860.
  • Shulman, L., 1987. Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. Harvard educational review, 57 (1), 1–22.
  • Silver, C., and Woolf, N.H., 2015. From guided-instruction to facilitation of learning: the development of five-level QDA as a CAQDAS pedagogy that explicates the practices of expert users. International journal of social research methodology, 18 (5), 527–543. doi:10.1080/13645579.2015.1062626.
  • Stacey, R., 2002. Strategic management and organisational dynamics: the challenge of complexity. 3rd ed. Harlow: Prentice Hall.
  • Stopford, R., 2021. Threshold concepts and certainty: a critical analysis of ‘troublesomeness’. Higher education, 82 (1), 163–179. doi:10.1007/s10734-020-00628-w.
  • St. Pierre, E.A., 2006. Scientifically based research in education: epistemology and ethics. Adult education quarterly, 56 (4), 239–266. doi:10.1177/0741713606289025.
  • St. Pierre, E.A., 2019. Post qualitative inquiry in an ontology of immanence. Qualitative inquiry, 25 (1), 3–16. doi:10.1177/1077800418772634.
  • St. Pierre, E.A., 2022. Poststructuralism and post qualitative inquiry: what can and must be thought. Qualitative inquiry, 29 (1), 20–32. doi:10.1177/10778004221122282.
  • Tesar, M., et al., 2022. Philosophy of education in a new key: future of philosophy of education. Educational philosophy and theory, 54 (8), 1234–1255. doi:10.1080/00131857.2021.1946792.
  • Thripp, R. 2016. Early explorations of threshold concepts and the doctoral process.
  • Tight, M., 2019. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of higher education research. European journal of higher education, 9 (2), 133–152. doi:10.1080/21568235.2018.1541752.
  • Timmermans, J.A., and Meyer, J.H.F., 2019. A framework for working with university teachers to create and embed ‘integrated threshold concept knowledge’ (ITCK) in their practice. International journal for academic development, 24 (4), 354–368. doi:10.1080/1360144X.2017.1388241.
  • Tondeur, J., et al., 2021. Quality criteria for conceptual technology integration models in education: bridging research and practice. Educational technology research and development, 69 (4), 2187–2208. doi:10.1007/s11423-020-09911-0.
  • UNESCO. 2021. Recommendation on Open Science. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379949.locale = en.
  • UNESCO. 2023. Generative AI and the future of education. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000385877?mc_cid = c5a58bf295&mc_eid = af237fe103.
  • Usher, R., 2018. Experiential learning. In: K Illeris, ed. Contemporary theories of learning. Oxon and New York: Routledge, 189–203.
  • Usher, R., Bryant, I., and Johnston, R., 1997. Adult education and the postmodern challenge: learning beyond the limits. London and New York: Routledge.
  • Valimaa, J., and Hoffman, D., 2008. Knowledge society discourse and higher education. Higher education, 56 (3), 265–285. doi:10.1007/s10734-008-9123-7.
  • Van der Maren, J.-M., et al., 2019. Référentiel pour la formation des chercheuses et des chercheurs francophones en éducation. Document adopté par l’Association des doyens, doyennes et directeurs, directrices pour l'étude et la recherche en éducation au Québec (ADEREQ). Montréal: ADEREQ.
  • Wagner, C., Garner, M., and Kawulich, B., 2011. The state of the art of teaching research methods in the social sciences: towards a pedagogical culture. Studies in higher education, 36 (1), 75–88.
  • Wagner, C., Kawulich, B., and Garner, M., 2019. A mixed research synthesis of literature on teaching qualitative research methods. Sage open, 9 (3), 2158244019861488. doi:10.1177/2158244019861488.
  • Wenger-Trayner, E., and Wenger-Trayner, B., 2020. Learning to make a difference: value creation in social learning spaces. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Wenger, E., 1998. Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Wiles, R., et al., 2013. But is it innovation?: the development of novel methodological approaches in qualitative research. Methodological innovations online, 8 (1), 18–33. doi:10.4256/mio.2013.002.
  • Woo, Y., and Reeves, T.C., 2007. Meaningful interaction in web-based learning: a social constructivist interpretation. The internet and higher education, 10 (1), 15–25. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.10.005.