Discussion Summary

Discussion here has a variety of focus priorities: the results themselves and their possible implications, reasoning behind technical profiling and literature review selection criteria, and how to improve on methods used for several aspects of the research such as analysis criteria for category allocation and consequent PBH placement. It might be that attempting to combine a variety of research sources and then develop a theme hierarchy, while also attaching some interpreted value to those themes (problem/benefit) might be too wide a remit for one project, and indeed this is a conclusion and recommendation for future analysis of this type.

Discussion also centres around the relevance for metropolitan universities, the noticeable high ratio of themes present that bear close relevance to such universities and any possible implications this might have for future provision, academic role skills expectations, and pedagogical practice involving uses of technology for large, diverse urban student populations.

The Research Approach

  • Discussion of how best to analyse multiple sets of data which together build a rich picture of information
  • Use of mixed methods (‘Integrative Logic’, Mason, 2006) in the context of an interpretivist critical realism paradigm (referring also to Oliver 2012)
  • The project in part became a study of what worked and how to iterate these methods of analysis to best effect

Literature selection and analysis, key points

  • Literature selection criteria
  • An¬†interpretivist approach from a critical realist perspsective¬†to develop category analysis in connection with the literature review and for responses from RG2 and RG3
  • Theme Occurrences
  • More robust criteria for selection and analysis process in order to contribute more meaningfully to a theme hierarchy

Technology profiling, key points

  • Use of the technical profile data in relation to the core interpretation of a theme as a problem or a benefit
  • Rogers Diffusion of Innovations and technical profiling to create an ‘RDI’ indicator

Metropolitan universities, key points

  • Diverse student bodies and learner differences in connection with technology enhanced learning
  • Compliance: accessibility and the diverse student body
  • Training provision with limited resources and a wide variety of academic staff