IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/qualqt/v47y2013i1p421-439.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The complexity of educational design research

Author

Listed:
  • Sanne Akkerman
  • Larike Bronkhorst
  • Ilya Zitter

Abstract

To enhance the relevancy of educational research findings, a research approach known as design research has gained influence. This approach is described as complex, but no satisfying explanation of this complexity has been provided. In this paper we question why design research is complex by nature. Following a longitudinal case conducted by the third author, we argue that design research in educational sciences (EDR) necessitates balancing three different motives and accordingly, three epistemic practices: (1) educational research, (2) educational design, and (3) educational change. An analysis of challenges in the case study shows the difficulty for the EDR researcher to understand and disentangle underlying motives during the research process, but also the difficulty of dealing with different, easily conflicting research positions, resources, quality rules, time frames, audiences, and products. The identification and description of three epistemic practices offers a framework with which difficulties of EDR can be understood and anticipated. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2013

Suggested Citation

  • Sanne Akkerman & Larike Bronkhorst & Ilya Zitter, 2013. "The complexity of educational design research," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 421-439, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:47:y:2013:i:1:p:421-439
    DOI: 10.1007/s11135-011-9527-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11135-011-9527-9
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11135-011-9527-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Piet Verschuren & Rob Hartog, 2005. "Evaluation in Design-Oriented Research," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 39(6), pages 733-762, December.
    2. Sanne Akkerman & Wilfried Admiraal & Mieke Brekelmans & Heinze Oost, 2008. "Auditing Quality of Research in Social Sciences," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 257-274, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Burchert, Joanna & Hoeve, Aimée & Kämäräinen, Pekka, 2014. "Interactive Research on Innovations in Vocational Education and Training (VET): Lessons from Dutch and German cases," International Journal for Research in Vocational Education and Training (IJRVET), European Research Network in Vocational Education and Training (VETNET), European Educational Research Association, vol. 1(2), pages 143-160.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fabian Aulkemeier & Maria-Eugenia Iacob & Jos Hillegersberg, 2019. "Platform-based collaboration in digital ecosystems," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 29(4), pages 597-608, December.
    2. Heise, David & Strecker, Stefan & Frank, Ulrich, 2014. "ControlML: A domain-specific modeling language in support of assessing internal controls and the internal control system," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 224-245.
    3. Stefan Strecker & David Heise & Ulrich Frank, 2011. "RiskM: A multi-perspective modeling method for IT risk assessment," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 595-611, September.
    4. Jacques de Wet & Daniela Wetzelhütter & Johann Bacher, 2021. "Standardising the reproduction of Schwartz’s two-dimensional value space using multi-dimensional scaling and goodness-of-fit test procedures," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 55(4), pages 1155-1179, August.
    5. Marikka Heikkilä & Harry Bouwman & Jukka Heikkilä & Sam Solaimani & Wil Janssen, 2016. "Business model metrics: an open repository," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 337-366, May.
    6. Daniel Scholten & Rolf Künneke, 2016. "Towards the Comprehensive Design of Energy Infrastructures," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-24, December.
    7. Inge Bleijenbergh & Hubert Korzilius & Piet Verschuren, 2011. "Methodological criteria for the internal validity and utility of practice oriented research," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 145-156, January.
    8. Harry Bouwman & Jukka Heikkilä & Marikka Heikkilä & Carlo Leopold & Timber Haaker, 2018. "Achieving agility using business model stress testing," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 28(2), pages 149-162, May.
    9. Mark W. McElroy & Rene J. Jorna & Jo van Engelen, 2008. "Sustainability quotients and the social footprint," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 223-234, July.
    10. Fiorenzo Franceschini & Domenico Maisano, 2012. "Quality & Quantity journal: a bibliometric snapshot," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 573-580, February.
    11. Baartman, Liesbeth K.J. & Prins, Frans J. & Kirschner, Paul A. & van der Vleuten, Cees P.M., 2011. "Self-evaluation of assessment programs: A cross-case analysis," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 206-216, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:47:y:2013:i:1:p:421-439. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.