During our discussion, I learned many things in terms of ‘online-based research’ and ‘face-to-face’. There are many critical questions and fights in my mind when I think about the conditions and context of online learning. We can make a long and endless list of both advantages and disadvantages of ‘online-based’ and ‘face-to-face’ research. Even though I am not professional and knowledgeable person on new emerging research applications and methods, I am going to look at some practical and critical concerns for both in this post.
Face-to-Face and online research are not alternative for
each other for me since both of them have its own ontological and epistemological
settings. Positively, online technological developments enable researcher free
and independent from the time-space. In other words, we do not need to worry
about accessing to the rest of the world with the help of new research applications
and environments. Survey, interview, naturally-occurring data are easily organized
and developed in online environments. The nature of transactional distance and
theory have been leading to change the traditional nature of ethnographies/inquiries.
On the other hand, online environment is too open to be manipulated, distorted
and controlled by the hegemonic power. This power emerges from the social-political-economic
relations. For example, when we employ the online environment, we are assumed
to be ‘already-there’ costumers. We cannot escape from being informed about the
commodities and nature of capitalism. As we, all, know and experience that conducting
research in online environment and data in those environments force us and our
participants to be part of economic and defined strategic actions.
On the other hand, when I think that the disabled person who
might potentially be researchers, participants, collogues, and collaborative
academicians can design, conduct, improve their research the way in which ‘equality’,
‘equity’, ‘liberty’ and ‘democracy’ as research practice become more doable and
visible in terms of ‘excluded’ individuals and societies. Let’s assume that we
are conducting ‘co-coordinated’ research and knowledge labor practice by including
disabled individuals, the member of other nations, and others in terms of
gender and race. In such a research conducted in the online environment, we can
reach more common and god sense truth for the sake of humanity. From this point
of view, I want to keep my utopian dream for reaching the spirit of humanity by
re-constructing and co-constructing the idea of academia as Prometheus.

You've raised some critical points here, Zulfukar. Indeed, there is potential to take up online spaces as tools for control and manipulation -- which, of course, could be said of many social spheres. Nonetheless, I really appreciate your attention also to the potential access that such spaces provide to individuals. I think this is critical for us to keep in mind, as in certain contexts such sites have become centers for political movement and also centers for people not otherwise comfortable or able to share their life findings ways to share. It is a complex space -- as are most social spheres. As such, as you highlight, we must remain reflexive and recognize that there are a plethora of ethical challenges we will face.
ReplyDelete