Porter, A.L., Kongthon, A., and Lu, Jye-Chyi (2002). Research profiling: Improving the literature review process. Scientometrics, Vol. 53, No. 3, p. 351-370. Abstract: We propose enhancing the traditional literature review through "research profiling." This broad scan of contextual literature can extend the span of science by better linking efforts across research domain. Topical relationships, research trends, and complementary capabilities can be discovered, thereby facilitating research projects. Modern search engine and text mining tools enable research profiling by exploiting the wealth of accessible information in electronic abstract databases such as MEDLINE and Science Citation Index. We illustrate the potential by showing sixteen ways that "research profiling" can augment a traditional literature review on the topic of data mining. Notes: This paper is about new research methods for exploiting databases and analytical software to broaden research perspective. It says the typical research paper has 20 references and there is a problem with limiting research to specialized areas  vs. connecting with other areas. The writer says profiling deals with gaining an understanding of structure of the subject, variables, pertinent methods, key needs.  Meta-analysis emerging method; "bibliometrics" (counting) transitions into ‘text mining.’ (examining the content of abstracts or full-text documents) Describes ‘payoffs’ of research profiling: central issues, techniques, who is scholarly community in the research domain, and how the domain is evolving. Compares "old" literature review approach and "new" literature review approach with note that research profiling should "augment, not replace, the traditional literature review." Old: micro focus  (paper-by-paper) narrow range (~20 references) tightly restricted to the topic text discussion New: macro focus (patterns in the literature as a body) wide range (~20 - 20,000 references) encompassing the topic & related areas text, numerical, and graphical depiction Notes promise for an "information engineering" dissertation. VantagePoint text-mining software used.

McIlveen, P. (2008). Autoethnography as a method for reflexive research and practice in vocational  psychology. Australian Journal of Career Development, 17(2), 12-30. Abstract: This paper overviews the qualitative research method autoethnography and its relevance to research in vocational psychology and practice in career development. Autoethnography os a reflexive means by which the researcher-practitioner consciously embeds himself or herself amidst theory and practice, and by way of intimate autobiographic account, explicates a phenomenon under investigation or intervention. Autoethnography is presented as a vehicle to operationalise social constructionist research and practice that aims to establish trustworthiness and authenticitiy. Furthermore, the method is presented as a means to operationalise the notion of critical consciousness within researchers and practitioners. It is concluded that autoethnography should be admitted to the methodological repertoire of methods for vocational psychology research and practice. Notes: I explored this a bit last semester as a possible methodology for conducting research. My general understanding was that it wasn’t always considered real ‘research’ and had to be defended as a methodology on its own. It would be considered contemporary.  This whole idea of ’story as data and method’ appears to be a possibility for studying professional development (since I am in fact using the very method I wish to study, using the tools I wish to study in my own professional development). Autoethnography has been used in anthropology, sociology, and education. This seems narcissistic on the face - writing about oneself as a researcher-practitioner (but not as autobiography).  The primary difference, as noted in this paper, is "critical enquiry that is embedded in theory and practice." So, my enquiry would be embedded in my career development as an instructional design research practitioner. This paper lists indicators of quality, limitations, and research application.

I finished the spring semester Monday night. A bit of a struggle for me to get through because I started thinking it would be my last class. However, a really good professor can make all the difference in attitude so I’ve decided I’m now in it for the long haul and at the very least have some sort of direction. Which, of course, will require me to be less lackadaisical about ePortolios, qualifying exams, and paperwork for transfer credit, etc. Very much a ‘rough draft’ of my area of interest, here is my presentation and paper. Keep in mind this is just a short paper that addressed various assignments for the course so it’s not to be read as a complete paper. I’m a total newbie to the research in the microlearning area. If you stumbled across this post and know of key players in this area, please let me know who I might want to connect with.

I had lunch with some people at Panera Break a couple of weeks ago. They were interested in talking about social media. They thought I was a good fit knowing that I have been embedded in various social networks, blogging communities, etc. for several years in my role as an industry analyst. As a follow-up, I sent some information post-meeting on getting started with blogging. Basically this: You should start by setting up an account with Google Reader (if you don’t have one already). Here is a link to a tour so you can see what it looks like. Here’s a video that explains it very simply. Find some blogs about your niche market to follow. Start commenting on them (if you haven’t already). Start writing about your area of expertise and link to others writing about similar things. This is how you enter the blogging community. I got a thank you email for the links and this: I am working to improve my understanding of the tools and potentials of social media/networking, I am also trying to think-through my "persona(s)" with respect to the multiple spheres (professional, entrepreneurial, social, avocational), that are available. User name(s), email address(es), domain name(s)… these seem to me to be a starting point for creating a presence, a "brand". Great things to think about. I’ll address each of these separately at some point. Understanding the tools (functionality, technical aspects) Potential of the tools (how are others using them/what success are they having) Multiple persona/multiple spheres Web details - user names, emails addresses, domains, search terms, etc. Creating a personal and/or professional brand. I’m going to answer these by deconstructing my own experiences with the above.

I began to get tired of working from home about a month after I started working from home in 2006 but I was never ‘tired’ enough to return to the office environment. I wrote about the challenges at one point - people thinking you’re not working because you’re home, noise from kids, misunderstandings, balance, isolation, support, etc. So, for the past 3 years, I have worked around some of those issues by working from local bookstores, cafes, fast food restaurants, libraries, etc. just to break away and see some ‘real people.’ I always longed for the shared workspace of the office - but without the office job or politics. Then along came the coworking movement. For several months now I’ve been daydreaming about starting a coworking location in  my area. Why not? Certainly, there are other "cloudworkers" like me. Actually, there is at least one, right in my own house…because my husband works at home too. So, I’m eager to get started setting up a coworking space.

I’ve had a minivan since the early 90s. Gold, green, maroon, blue…gosh, where has the time gone? Only one more lease payment and I’m free of minivans. FOREVER! But I might miss it just a little…

In this months T+D there is an article called "One for the Ages" about tackling the classroom generation gap. It assumes there is one… Here are just two statements from within the article that caused me to raise my eyebrows: "Now, for the first time in history, multiple generations sit together in the classroom." This is absurd. We’ve always had multiple generations in the workforce (and therefore the workplace classroom). Specific dates for specific named generations are often disputed but considering the fact that we are employed from around age 20 to around age 65 (US), you have a ~40-50 year age span at any one time and the average time period for a generation is just under 20 years (US) so you have (with overlap) 3 or more generations at any one time. "When developing a training regimen, learning professionals should be conscious that a generic method to engage learners is no longer appropriate when traditionalists , boomers, Generation Xers, and Millennials  are sitting in the same room." Specific examples stereotypes are given: the 70-year old woman prefers traditional classroom settings and doesn’t like group activities and started work after her kids were adults; the baby boomer prefers interaction; the 30-something grew up with video games and chat rooms, is impatient and tends to address people informally…which the baby boomer doesn’t like, blah blah. Then, of course, there is the recent college grad that likes group work, interactive learning, blah, blah, blah. Have you ever used generic methods to engage different learners in the same room? Presumably, you have various backgrounds, level of knowledge, personalities, gender, culture, and yes age… but not just a bunch of chairs with people with numbers on their forehead. Quick, I have 1962 on my head…how should I act? Clearly, it’ll depend on what the subject is. If it’s new information I’ll approach the topic much differently than if I know a fair amount and my behavior will reflect that. Anyway, there’s a bunch of techniques for dealing with this "problem" - passing a leadership baton, circle wrong answers on papers and let students figure out the correct answer, trivia openers with stars awarded for correct answers, partnering up and sharing something (complete with ringing bell), 3 x 5 card decks for questions (Millennials and Gen Xers work in teams), etc. We’ve all done our different activities… In the end the writer says this: Addressing the needs of multiple generations does not require upending an entire curriculum. Learning professionals just need to find engaging methods that are flexible enough to appeal to everyone in the room. You think? This isn’t a research piece I know. Just the same, how many people do you think read this type of article and think they have to find engaging methods for "everyone in the room" BECAUSE OF A GENERATION GAP? And then repeat it? I say let that shit die already.  We should find engaging methods because it’s our freaking job and because people are individuals. I have nothing against The Bob Pike Group ( I think I have some stuff from them), Becky Pike Pluth (VP of T&D, quoted in the article), or Liz Pike Wheeler (the author, unknown if related) and am guilty of making some giant assumptions myself but this just strikes me as the wrong type of advice for dealing with multiple generations in the classroom.

Googley design…worth thinking about in the context of instructional design. Focus on people—their lives, their work, their dreams. Every millisecond counts. Simplicity is powerful. Engage beginners and attract experts. Dare to innovate. Design for the world. Plan for today’s and tomorrow’s business. Delight the eye without distracting the mind. Be worthy of people’s trust. Add a human touch. The principle flows from Google’s Corporate Philosophy "Ten things Google has found to be true:" Focus on the user and all else will follow. It’s best to do one thing really, really well. Fast is better than slow. Democracy on the web works. You don’t need to be at your desk to need an answer. You can make money without doing evil. There’s always more information out there. The need for information crosses all borders. You can be serious without a suit. Great just isn’t good enough. Applied to Instructional Design, and corporate learning in general, these lists seem to be a pretty good jumping off point.

I had a brief chat with Bryan Chapman via email the other day. I was giving all the Brandon Hall Research blogs a new look so dropped Bryan a note to let him know I’d be doing some admin stuff in his blog. He sent me a white paper he wrote about LCMSs. In the paper there are several mini case studies  and seven steps for creating a content-centric learning strategy. At the same time, I ran across this post from Xyleme’s blog on how NOT to adopt an LCMS. And while I’m at it, Brandon Hall keeps a KnowledgeBases of 38 LCMS systems. So there you have it…your LCMS fix.

I’ve been slicing and dicing our Authoring Tool KnowledgeBase and doing some online research in response to a question about collaborative rapid authoring tools that developers in multiple locations can use. Thought I’d share what I found for three reasons - (1) hopefully to provide some valuable information, (2) to see who I may have missed so I can add them and/or get them added to our KnowledgeBase (3) to let you know about the type of client-driven research we do at Brandon Hall Research. After looking at the Authoring Tool KnowledgeBase I went to my LinkedIn and Twitter network. Immediately heard back from two people. (gotta love crowdsourcing) My methodology: Rapid = Tool designed for SME with no page design, authoring, or programming experience (this doesn’t exclude tools with additional functionality for advanced users). Collaborative across locations = Server-based authoring environment that one or more content developers access simultaneously using their browser for collaborative authoring. PRIMARY type of content is online courses, CBT, conversion of existing content, presentations (and not tests/assessment, games, simulation tools). Authoring tool vendors sometimes get ticked off about being excluded from this type of filter when their primary type of content is excluded but their secondary type content is not. (e.g. they are primarily a test/assessment tool but also can do online courses). Note to vendors: If you fall in that category, feel free to make comments with information about your authoring tool. (Also note that I have not used each of these tools but am familiar with them. I’m not making recommendations, just a resource) Collaborative Rapid Authoring Tools: AuthoLearn (TrainVision Ltd.) Banshee (McKinnon-Mulherin, Inc.) Brainshark Presentations Platform (Brainshark Inc.) CC2 (Inmarkets) CLI Virtuoso Authoring System (Cisco Learning Institute) Cobent CoAuthor Composica Enterprise (Composica Ltd.) Content Authoring Software (Mediapro Education Technology Pvt. Ltd.) Content Point (Atlantic Link Limited) CourseAvenue (CourseAvenue Inc.) CourseBuilder (Edvantage Group) Edufolio (Terra Dotta) Eedo Force Ten (Eedo Knowledgeware) hylOs (link lab) IBT Content Conversion (time4you GmbH) IBT Web Authoring (time4you GmbH) Intelligent Avatar (Robot Hosting Tenetro) Knowledge Assembler (Generation21 Learning Systems) KnowledgeHub Authoring Tool (Element K) Mindflash Training System (Mindflash Technologies Inc.) Mohive e-Learning Publishing System (Mohive eLPS) (Mohive) MOS SOLO (MindOnSite) *Server version (LCMS) myUdutu (Udutu) Mzinga Publisher OnPoint Course Manager (OnPoint Digital Inc.) podia (podia Ltd.) RapideL-i (Brainvisa Technologies Pvt. Ltd.) SANA Learning LCMS (ISM eCompany) The Qube Learning System (Qube Learning) Unison Web-based e-Learning Development (Rapid Intake) Worldwide Interactive Learning Designer (mySmartSimulation) If you needed more filtering the Authoring Tool KnowledgeBase can break things down to computer platforms (play and develop), plug-in requirement, SCORM, languages, third-party interoperability and ton of of other stuff.