In “Design-Based Research: A Methodological Toolkit for Engineering Change,” Barab (2022) defines design-based research (DBR) as a variety of approaches with the common goal of observing learning in authentic settings to not only make theoretical advances but ultimately change practice. He situates DBR in the upper right quadrant of Stokes (1997) Pasteur’s Quadrant where basic and applied science meet to create real world impact. This focus on reality and research that makes a difference appeals greatly to me as an instructional designer and is relevant to all educators with a practice focus.
Barab argues that DBR is not merely the foundation for more traditional experimental research but is a rigorous empirical form of research with its own theoretical claims and explanations. He notes that for DBR practitioners in education “the messiness of real-world practice must be recognized, understood, and integrated as part of theoretical claims if the claims are to have real-world explanatory value” (178). This acknowledgment of the ambiguous nature of our practice resonated with me and my work as an instructional designer, which has been described as “messy, complicated, full of wicked problems” (Goodyear & Retalis, 2010). With its pragmatic goals and relevance to complex and complicated environments, I started to see a place for myself and my intentions in this research method which was affirmed by Barab’s assertion that one of the main arguments for DBR is the importance it places on the research being able to add value to the contexts within which it is practiced.
Some research approaches attempt to control their environments. Barab acknowledges this is impossible in learning environments, so researchers must consider confounding variables for their research is to impact practice. The design, theory, problem and real-world context and how they connect and interact with each other are integral to DBR which often involves multiple refinements and iterations.
Rather than viewing participants from a deficit model where they are the recipients of the learning, DBR often takes an invitational approach, allowing participants to have agency. This is an important shift in approach and one I will take to heart as it connects to my own personal ethic of care. This is also an important distinction for researchers wanting to consider equity, diversity and inclusion and decolonization. I agree with Barab that viewing research as a partnership with our learners is a critical shift in perspective and an important one for those who take a social justice approach to their work.
Barab further explores the progression “from stories to truths to storied truths,” describing how design-based researchers look for the underlying cause behind any change and by doing so can generalize the particular story to other contexts, resulting in what Gee refers to as storied truths“ (p. 188). I’ve always been drawn to the power of story so was intrigued by its role in DBR. This emphasis on story and lived experience is important for qualitative researchers . As I am interested in exploring a variety of perspectives on learning in an asynchronous, independent study model (student, instructor and instructional designer), I feel more and more that design-based research will be a good methodological choice for my efforts as it would enable me to explore each of these groups’ stories.
However, no matter how appealing a story may be, Babar argues that a DBR outcome needs to go beyond a specific story. If not, we are left with a collection of disconnected stories that do not increase our understanding of either learning or the design of learning environments. This warning struck me as explaining one of my reasons for my pursuing further education. I feel at times that my varied experience has mostly resulted in a collection of somewhat connected stories but that there could be more cohesion and connection to theory, thereby resulting in greater impact. My hope is that this program will ultimately help me acquire the tools, skills and knowledge to expand and expand my role from leadership and mentorship to more theoretically informed learning expertise.
Barab’s ultimately calls for current learning scientists to adopt a rigorous approach and to prepare new researchers to also adhere to the same standards so that their work will be valued by other researchers who may follow a more empirical method, feeling this is necessary for the learning sciences to be validated as an influential member of the social sciences. I can relate to this last statement. I started my career as an ESL teacher, a little recognized title. I then became an instructional designer, even less recognized and further overlooked by my institution as an instructional support faculty. Now, I have found a research method that appeals to my pragmatic, ambiguity-seeking, entangled self only to discover it too may not get the respect it deserves. So, we are well matched – DBR and me.
I’m interested in exploring Barab’s previous writings, Gee’s scholarship and connections between DBR and Fawn’s entangled pedagogy. I believe DBR is well-suited to my research goals and provides an entrance point into research for those of us whose work does not have clear boundaries or controlled environments. DBR opens up a multitude of possibilities beyond empirical research and I would argue is a more equitable methodology, providing an opening to both non-traditional research and researchers.
References
Barab, S. (2022). Design-based research: A methodological toolkit for engineering change. In The Cambridge Handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 177–195). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108888295.012
Fawn, T. (2022). An entangled pedagogy: Looking beyond the pedagogy-technology dichotomy. Post-digital Science and Education, 4, 711-728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-022-00302-7.
Gee, J. (2013). The Anti-Education Era: Creating smarter students through digitial learning. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Goodyear, P., & Retalis, S. (2010). Learning, technology and design. In P. Goodyear & S. Retalis (Eds.),Technology-enhanced learning: Design patterns and pattern languages (pp. 1-27). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.