On rejection: A mini-rant about current academic scholarship

by | Wednesday, November 13, 2024

It started with a rejection. That’s nothing new – we academics collect rejections like kids collect Pokemon cards (or whatever it is that they collect these days). But rejection, if it must come, must be for the right reasons.

This particular rejection hit differently, not because of the rejection per se. I have been an academic too long for that to bother me. But rather the reasons for the rejection and what it revealed about our field.

Here’s what happened: Nicole Oster and I submitted a theoretical piece to be presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association (AERA). Our paper focused on the psychological reality of generative AI, and what it meant for education. We argued that AI isn’t just another technology – it’s fundamentally different because it activates our theory of mind in ways no previous technology has never been capable of. We see it as psychologically “real” in a way that transforms the educational landscape. As any reader of this blog knows, I think this is an extremely important issue and one that has not received the attention it deserves. Hence the submission.  

So what did the reviews say? The reviews were fascinating – not for what they criticized, but for what they assumed. One reviewer put it bluntly: “The paper has more the style of an opinion than of a research paper.” Even those who praised our work couldn’t quite cross the empirical divide. “Your study is well-grounded in a robust theoretical framework,” wrote one reviewer, “offering significant insights into the potential impact of genAI on educational landscapes.” But then came the inevitable “however” – “consider incorporating empirical evidence, such as case studies or experimental findings, to support your theoretical claims.” Another noted our “theoretical rigor is commendable” but worried about the “lack of empirical data.” The pattern was clear and consistent: good ideas, important insights, but where’s the data?

Think about that for a moment.

How exactly does one gather empirical evidence about the psychological reality of a technology that is fundamentally reshaping our relationship with knowledge itself? What dataset would capture the profound ways AI is transforming the social-emotional landscape of youth, within and outside of our classrooms?

This reminds me of a piece my colleague Michael Barbour recently shared on LinkedIn: Alan Wolfe’s 2016 essay, titled “The Vanishing Big Thinker” from The Chronicle of Higher Education. Wolfe argued that the triumph of the graduate-school model has led to an overemphasis on specialized research and technical methodologies at the expense of broader humanistic inquiry. Our fields, he argued, are becoming increasingly specialized and self-referential, writing primarily for other specialists rather than engaging with broader ideas.

Sound familiar?

My friend John Curry recently wrote an editorial in TechTrends (Where have all the cowboys gone?) that hits this same nerve. He reminisces about a time when our field had researchers willing to challenge themselves and each other through academic discourse. When the field was EXCITING. When we grappled with BIG IDEAS.

The irony isn’t lost on me. At precisely the moment when we need big thinking most – when AI could be fundamentally reshaping education, learning, and human relationships – we’ve become more focused on methodology than meaning.

Methodology over meaning!

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not dismissing empirical research. Data matters. Methodology matters. Analysis matters. But they can’t be all that matters. If McLuhan were submitting “Understanding Media” today, would we reject it for lack of empirical evidence? Would we tell Postman that “Amusing Ourselves to Death” needs more data points? We’re so busy measuring the trees that we’ve lost sight of the forest.

Because here’s the thing: techniques, methods, data, analysis – they’re all essential tools. But tools for what? They’re meant to help us understand this complex reality of learning, education, media, culture, and technology we’re swimming in. When they become obstacles to understanding rather than pathways to it, something’s gone wrong.

It is also important to ask ourselves what kind of message this is sending to future scholars like Nicole. Does this just reinforce certain ways of being an academic and deemphasize others, perpetuating exactly what John decried in his editorial?

So maybe it’s time to remind ourselves why we got into this field in the first place. Not just to gather data, but to understand. Not just to measure, but to illuminate. Not just to analyze, but to envision. Not just to measure but to design.

And also, if we can’t think big thoughts in academia, where can we do that?


Note about the title image: The title image for this post was created using a combination of ChatGPT and Adobe Photoshop. Building on something that Nicole Oster had shared with us, I found an image online (you can see the original here) that I liked but didn’t want to use as is, without permission.

I then asked ChatGPT to describe the image in great detail and used that description as a prompt to create a new image. I then exported that image to Photoshop to make some tweaks, for instance widening its ratio to be 16:9 and adding academic robes and a mortar board to the silhouetted figure. The final composition of the text and image was done in Keynote.

A few randomly selected blog posts…

New Gandhi ambigram

The quest for a better design continues... Much better, I think, than my previous attempt

e. e. cummings on the battle for identity

Patrick Dickson just quoted e. e. cummings (one of my favorite poets) and I just had to look it up. To be nobody-but-yourself — in a world which is doing its best, night and day, to make you everybody else — means to fight the hardest battle which any human being can...

TPACK & the moon OR why I love the web

I recently blogged (here and here) about the experiment conducted by students in Italy that allowed them to use publicly available NASA audio recordings from the moon landings to determine the distance between the earth and the moon. I bit more online research led to...

Post-lunch session: Geetha Narayanan

Geetha Narayanan, Director Mallya Aditi International School and Srishti School of Art Design and Technology, is someone I have wanted to meet for a long time. One of the pleasures of of this conference is getting an opportunity to hear her speak ... and I was not...

Visually representing a song

How can anybody resist this flowchart / visual representation of Hey Jude! Check it out. Don't you just hear the song as you move through the boxes and arrows.

A defining moment!

Barack Obama is the democratic nominee for the president of the United States!!! Five months ago, after he had won the Iowa caucuses I had blogged his acceptance speech video (see it here) and had asked a question, "Is this a defining moment of our time?" Today I am...

India’s Silicon Valley

I arrived at Bangalore (now known as Bangaluru) this afternoon. Bangaluru is known as India's Silicon valley and this my first time here. I am here for a conference (as described here). Incidentally, Bangalore is also on its way to becoming a word in the English...

MAET virtual help desk

Theresa Hamilton & Amy Gracik are two of our Technology Interns in Education. They are now part of a pilot project to offer software technology support to students in our MAET program. This help-desk available online at http://groups.google.com/group/maetsupport....

Design related videos

Just a link to online videos related to design. Check it out by clicking here Relevant to CEP817 and CEP917 (and maybe even CEP818)

0 Comments

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *