Speculative method in digital education research

References

• Anderson, T., and J. Shattuck. 2012. “Design-Based Research a Decade of Progress in Education Research?” Educational Researcher 41 (1): 16–25. doi: 10.3102/0013189X11428813
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Auger, J. 2013. “Speculative Design: Crafting the Speculation.” Digital Creativity 24 (1): 11–35. doi: 10.1080/14626268.2013.767276
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bannister, J., and A. O’Sullivan. 2013. “Knowledge Mobilisation and the Civic Academy: The Nature of Evidence, the Roles of Narrative and the Potential of Contribution Analysis.” Contemporary Social Science 8 (3): 249–262. doi: 10.1080/21582041.2012.751497
   Google Scholar
• Barab, S., and K. Squire. 2004. “Design-Based Research: Putting A Stake in the Ground.” Journal of the Learning Sciences 13 (1): 1–14. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls1301_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnett, R. 2013. Imagining the University. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Barnett, R., and S. Hallam. 1999. “Teaching for Supercomplexity: A Pedagogy for Higher Education.” In Understanding Pedagogy and its Impact on Learning, edited by P. Mortimore, 137–154. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Bayne, S. 2015a. “What’s the Matter with ‘Technology-Enhanced Learning?’” Learning, Media and Technology 40 (1): 5–20. doi: 10.1080/17439884.2014.915851
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bayne, S. 2015b. “Teacherbot: Interventions in Automated Teaching.” Teaching in Higher Education 20 (4): 455–467. doi: 10.1080/13562517.2015.1020783
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belfiore, E., and O. Bennett. 2010. “Beyond the ‘Toolkit Approach’: Arts Impact Evaluation Research and the Realities of Cultural Policy-Making.” Journal for Cultural Research 14 (2): 121–142. doi: 10.1080/14797580903481280
   Google Scholar
• Biesta, G. 2007. “Why ‘What Works’ Won’t Work: Evidence-Based Practice and the Democratic Deficit in Educational Research.” Educational Theory 57 (1): 1–22. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-5446.2006.00241.x
   Google Scholar
• Biesta, G. J. J. 2010. “Why ‘What Works’ Still Won’t Work: From Evidence-Based Education to Value-Based Education.” Studies in Philosophy and Education 29 (5): 491–503. doi: 10.1007/s11217-010-9191-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buchanan, I. 2015. “Assemblage Theory and Its Discontents.” Deleuze Studies 9 (3): 382–392. doi: 10.3366/dls.2015.0193
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collier, A., and Ross, J. Forthcoming. “Complexity, Mess and not-Yetness: Teaching Online with Emerging Technologies.” In Emergence and Innovation in Digital Learning: Foundations and Applications, edited by G. Veletsianos. Athabasca University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Deleuze, G., and F. Guattari. 1988. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Denzin, N. K. 2009. “The Elephant in the Living Room: Or Extending the Conversation About the Politics of Evidence.” Qualitative Research 9 (2): 139–160. doi: 10.1177/1468794108098034
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DiSalvo, C. 2012. “Spectacles and Tropes: Speculative Design and Contemporary Food Cultures.” Fibreculture Journal, no. 20: 109–122. Accessed May 13. http://twenty.fibreculturejournal.org/2012/06/19/fcj-142-spectacles-and-tropes-speculative-design-and-contemporary-food-cultures/.
   Google Scholar
• Dourish, P., and G. Bell. 2011. Divining a Digital Future: Mess and Mythology in Ubiquitous Computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dreyfus, H. 2001. On the Internet. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Engeström, Y. 2011. “From Design Experiments to Formative Interventions.” Theory & Psychology 21 (5): 598–628. doi: 10.1177/0959354311419252
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enriquez, J. 2013. “Being (T)Here: Mobilising ‘Mediaspaces’ of Learning.” Learning, Media and Technology 38 (3): 319–336. doi: 10.1080/17439884.2012.685744
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldacre, B., and R. Plant. 2013. Department for Education Analytical Review. Department for Education. Accessed February 24. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/department-for-education-analytical-review.
   Google Scholar
• Gonzatto, R. F., F. M. C. van Amstel, L. E. Merkle, and T. Hartmann. 2013. “The Ideology of the Future in Design Fictions.” Digital Creativity 24 (1): 36–45. doi: 10.1080/14626268.2013.772524
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gough, N. 2010. “Can we Escape the Program? Inventing Possible–Impossible Futures in/for Australian Educational Research.” The Australian Educational Researcher 37 (4): 9–42. doi: 10.1007/BF03216935
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gough, N. 2012. “Complexity, Complexity Reduction, and ‘Methodological Borrowing’ in Educational Inquiry.” Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education 9 (1). Accessed December 24. http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/complicity/article/view/16532.
   Google Scholar
• Greene, J. C. 2013. “On Rhizomes, Lines of Flight, Mangles, and Other Assemblages.” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 26 (6): 749–758. doi: 10.1080/09518398.2013.788763
   Google Scholar
• Hales, D. 2013. “Design Fictions an Introduction and Provisional Taxonomy.” Digital Creativity 24 (1): 1–10. doi: 10.1080/14626268.2013.769453
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hand, M. 2008. Making Digital Cultures: Access, Interactivity and Authenticity. Aldershot: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Haraway, D. 1991. “A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology and Socialist Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century.” In Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature, edited by D. Haraway, 149–182. London: Free Association Books.
   Google Scholar
• Hargreaves, D. H. 1999. “Revitalising Educational Research: Lessons from the Past and Proposals for the Future.” Cambridge Journal of Education 29 (2): 239–249. doi: 10.1080/0305764990290207
   Google Scholar
• Hoadley, C. 2007. “Learning Sciences Theories and Methods for E-Learning Researchers.” In The SAGE Handbook of E-Learning Research, edited by R. Andrews and C. Haythornthwaite, 139–156. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Knox, J. 2014. “The ‘Tweeting Book’ and the Question of ‘non-Human Data.’” TechTrends 59 (1): 72–75. doi: 10.1007/s11528-014-0823-9
   Google Scholar
• Lather, P. 2006. “Paradigm Proliferation as a Good Thing to Think with: Teaching Research in Education as a Wild Profusion.” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 19 (1): 35–57. doi: 10.1080/09518390500450144
   Google Scholar
• Law, J. 2004. After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Lury, C., and N. Wakeford. 2012. Inventive Methods: The Happening of the Social. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• MacLure, M. 2006. “The Bone in the Throat: Some Uncertain Thoughts on Baroque Method.” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 19 (6): 729–745. doi: 10.1080/09518390600975958
   Google Scholar
• Martin, A. D., and G. Kamberelis. 2013. “Mapping not Tracing: Qualitative Educational Research with Political Teeth.” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 26 (6): 668–679. doi: 10.1080/09518398.2013.788756
   Google Scholar
• Michael, M. 2012. “‘What Are We Busy Doing?’ Engaging the Idiot.” Science, Technology & Human Values 37 (5): 528–554. doi: 10.1177/0162243911428624
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poster, M. 1999. “Underdetermination.” New Media & Society 1 (1): 12–17. doi: 10.1177/1461444899001001003
   Google Scholar
• Ross, J., C. Sowton, J. Knox, and C. Speed. 2015. “Artcasting and ARTIST ROOMS on Tour: Using Mobilities-Informed Methods to Support New Approaches to Arts Evaluation.” In Cultural Heritage Communities: Technologies and Challenges Workshop, Communities and Technologies, edited by L. Ciolfi, A. Damala, E. Hornecker, M. Lechner, L. Maye, and D. Petrelli, 1–4. Limerick: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Selwyn, N. 2012. “Ten Suggestions for Improving Academic Research in Education and Technology.” Learning, Media and Technology 37 (3): 213–219. doi: 10.1080/17439884.2012.680213
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheller, M., and J. Urry. 2006. “The New Mobilities Paradigm.” Environment and Planning A 38 (2): 207–226. doi: 10.1068/a37268
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tracy, S. J. 2010. “Qualitative Quality: Eight ‘Big-Tent’ Criteria for Excellent Qualitative Research.” Qualitative Inquiry 16 (10): 837–851. doi: 10.1177/1077800410383121
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veletsianos, G. 2010. Emerging Technologies in Distance Education. Athabasca University Press. Accessed February 24. http://www.aupress.ca/index.php/books/120177.
   Google Scholar
• Walker, R. 2011. “Design-Based Research: Reflections on Some Epistemological Issues and Practices.” In Methodological Choice and Design: Scholarship, Policy and Practice in Social and Educational Research, edited by L. Markauskaite, P. Freebody, and J. Irwin, 51–56. Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media.
   Google Scholar
• Wilkie, A., M. Michael, and M. Plummer-Fernandez. 2015. “Speculative Method and Twitter: Bots, Energy and Three Conceptual Characters.” The Sociological Review 63 (1): 79–101. doi: 10.1111/1467-954X.12168
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar