This page is referenced by:

• 1 2022-06-04T15:43:12+00:00 Glossary 17 alphabetic listing of glossary items with links to notes that describe each item plain 2023-06-27T12:14:19+00:00 Here is an alphabetic listing of the glossary items included in this dissertation document. Each item is linked to a note where the item is defined, described, and/or examples provided. These glossary items are also embedded throughout the document as notes within pages, where they provide 'just in time' clarification for you, the reader.
  • Actor Network Theory
  • Affinity Spaces
  • Alternative Dissertation
  • Artificial Intelligence (AI)
  • Black Box technology
  • Block Chain
  • ChatGPT
  • Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software (CAQDAS)
  • Creative Commons
  • Cynefin framework
  • Data Gathering
  • Data Analysis - deductive
  • Digital Rights Management (DRM)
  • Educommunication
  • Emirec
  • Episteme / Phronesis
  • Faculty of Education (FoE)
  • #FemEdTech
  • Free and Open Software (FOSS)
  • Homo Faber
  • Hupomnemata
  • Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA)
  • Learning Management Systems (LMS)
  • Makerspace
  • Massive Open Online Course (MOOC)
  • Media and Information Literacy (MIL)
  • Open Education
  • Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
  • Open Educational Practices (OEPr)
  • Paywall
  • PDF
  • Platforms
  • Portable Graphics Network (PNG)
  • Post-Intentional Phenomenology (P-IP)
  • Practice - both noun and verb
  • Research Ethics Board (REB)
  • Safety, Security, Privacy, Permission (SSPP)
  • Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, Canada (SSHRC)
  • Teacher Candidates (TCs)
  • Teacher Educators (TEds)
  • Teacher Educator Technology Competencies (TETCs)
  • TPACK
  • Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans
  • UNESCO
  • Uniform Resource Locator (URL)
  • Universal Serial Bus (USB)
  • Visitors / Residents
  
   
• 1 2023-04-24T17:26:28+00:00 Limitations 6 here I outline in the conclusion some possible limitations when considering this research plain 2023-06-25T21:34:06+00:00 In this section, I identify potential limitations emerging from the research design particularly in the study participation, the methodological suitability of P-IP and crystallization for solitary novice researchers, and limitations in the data collection and analysis from this research. 

  Study Participation

  I acknowledge the generosity of the participants in this research who shared their lived experiences with MDL within their OEPr as TEds. One consideration of the time gifted by the study participants was the challenge of conducting the interviews during the latter part of an academic year, in the second year of pandemic impacted teaching and learning constraints. Participants shared their passion and interest in teaching, while revealing many challenges and barriers in their efforts to infuse MDL into teaching and learning practices which was influenced by factors specific to the constraints imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic. 
  
            While a limited number of participant interviews were conducted, this in no way reduces the potential of the generated findings and analysis. Errors and omissions are mine, as these resulted from moments when my focus shifted away from the phenomenon. Issues of bias or binary thinking occurred. A research approach that requires fluidity and impermanence by applying “blurry rather than rigid boundaries” (Cronin, 2017, p. 171) makes this MDL in OEPr research challenging.
  
            One limitation of this research is that the narrow scope of participant criteria may render this research not applicable to other contexts such as higher education in general or TEds in other FoE contexts. Additionally, the limitation of data gathering methods to one interview and one artifact may not reveal the potential depth of the MDL that could be found in the OEPr of TEds, not could it uncover the breadth of MDL that TEds may apply to their OEPr over time. One caution and potential limitation for me as a new researcher is to maintain a clear focus on the research questions. 
  
            An additional limitation is that the limited participation numbers in this research, precludes the potential for generalizability or theory building. While I hope this research opens new avenues of thought relative to MDL within the OEPr in faculties of education, it will require further study in broader categories and crossing boundaries between fields of study beyond the field of teacher education, for extensive confirmation and extended conversation. This hinders the potential implications but does not negate the importance of this proposed research.
   
            I understand that my research may be impacted by conceptions of the participants’ self-efficacy (Bandura, 2012; Taimalu & Luik, 2019) and their pedagogical beliefs about the importance of MDL, or perceptions about OEPr. While investigations into the use of technology among teacher educators (Taimalu & Luik, 2019) may lead to some understanding, teacher educators’ perceptions and lived experiences of MDL within their OEPr may be influenced by their confidence in their abilities to create and model media and digital literacies (McDonagh et al., 2021), their perceived skills, fluencies, and competencies with MDL and OEPr, as well as their positive mindsets when using technologies within their teaching practice (Falloon, 2020).
  
            Open educational resources and practices, created and share by experienced practitioners of the art and science of teaching, can potentially improve access to educationally focused media and networks, extend the adaptability of educational practices and resources, provide exemplars of rich digital artifacts of educational information, and lead to the transformation of faculties of education to collaborative and creative learning spaces (Couros, 2006). Since teacher educators’ voices are currently absent from OEPr conversations and discourses, it is through this research that I “make public the knowledge and everyday lived experiences of the oppressed, the silenced, and the lost and forgotten in the service of social justice” (St. Pierre, 2013, p. 648).

  Limitations in methodological suitability for solitary, novice researchers

  One limitation for the application of crystallization as a methodology is that it can be a complex and sometimes chaotic approach that may complicate the efforts of a novice researcher working in isolation. Ellingson (2009) identifies this limitation as: requiring “the capacity to be fluent in multiple genres and forms of analysis”; exploring the “trade-off between breadth and depth”; dealing with a “lack of recognition of crystallization as a viable methodological framework”; and, a willingness to adjust “beliefs about the rightness or correctness of any given method or genre” (p. 16-17). In reflection, as I navigate and make sense of the fluidity and instability in the materials, data, codes, concepts, contexts, histories, textualities, discourses, and experiences that constitute this doctoral research inquiry, I am all at once exhilarated and invigorated, but also confounded, frustrated, and confused (Ellingson, 2009; Snowden, 2011). 
  
            As a novice researcher, the challenge is knowing what to do, and then, what to do next. The limitations of this methodological approach can be mitigated by consistently stepping back to pause and reflect, requiring a strength of will and confidence in a scholarly self, which may not be the case for others in the early stages of their academic life. For me, this limitation was mitigated by my scholarly practice of openly blogging and sharing my thoughts throughout the doctoral program. This helped bridge the silent and gravid pauses in my research work. A similar practice for novice researchers in a solo endeavour of scholarly inquiry can attenuate the limitations of crystallization as a methodology. This is particularly true if seeking feedback from scholarly networks as a standard practice throughout the dissertation process. 
  
            The chaotic and complex nature of crystallization can be mitigated with the practice of hupomnemata (Weisgerber & Butler, 2016) and adopting Mitchell and Clark's (2021) four principles of writing as inquiry – listen for earworms, write stream of consciousness, data have plots, and interpretation is inescapable. Ellingson (2009) suggests that, rather than apologizing for the crystallization approach being partial and challenging, “scholars using crystallization can celebrate multiple points of view with a phenomenon across the methodological continuum” (p. 22). 

  Limitations in data generation and analysis

  I recognize the limitation of the data gathering methods. Using data generated from one interview and one artifact may not reveal the depth of the MDL that could be found in the OEPr of TEds, nor could it uncover the breadth of MDL that TEds may apply to their OEPr over time. While the data gathering occurs over time, one caution and potential limitation in the data gathering and analysis phases is to maintain a clear focus on the research questions. Although my focus was on the multitude of data moments generated from this research, I was challenged when looking at the multiplicity of the moments rather than seeing the overall picture that was being generated. The intended focus for this P-IP research is on the becoming (becoming media and digitally literate, becoming an open educational practitioner) this research may inadvertently lose focus and result in discovering what has been.
  
            Data analysis in P-IP research, particularly when applying a crystallization methodology, is shaped by the research’s positionality, perspectives, and biases. The data analysis and findings from this research should to be considered partial and selective. The generation of findings is a process occurring through the lens of the researcher and framed by the crystallizations created. While my data analysis and findings focus on elements from within the stories and meaningful events, as well as the practices shared through the participants’ lived experiences, these should be considered fragmented and timebound. It is possible that “those with different viewpoints or more significant research experience may interpret the data differently” (Paskevicius, 2017, pg. 171) and crystallize different findings than those shared here. While my crystallizations may resonate with some elements of truth, I invite others to focus on other facets and dimensions to reveal new and different interpretations from these findings (Paskevicius, 2017).