1: Distance Education as a Discipline, A Debate |
Although distance education is certainly a rapidly expanding area of both practice and study, the question of whether or not it is a discipline in its own right continues to be contested. In an attempt to clarify the issue of the disciplinary nature of distance education, this series of Dialogue contributions represents a debate between two distance experts with opposing opinions on the issue. Both have had the opportunity to read and respond to each other`s opinions. In addition, this author serves as the moderator of the debate by introducing the issue and providing a final commentary. The intention in presenting this debate is not to provide closure to the issue, but to encourage a thorough analysis of the many factors that affect the question of whether distance education is a discipline.
The issue of the disciplinary status of distance education has received considerable attention. Holmberg (1986) has made his position on the disciplinary status of distance education clear and attempted to identify the key factors that justify distance education as having such status. Although Holmberg would be considered one of the major proponents of distance education as a discipline, he was not the first to discuss this issue. Sparkes (1983), for instance, outlined some of the problems which must be addressed in considering distance education to be a discipline. Likewise, Holmberg (1983) proposed that distance education could be characterized as a discipline and in doing so took the discussion one step beyond simply by identifying the factors that constitute disciplinary status.
More recently, other responses have questioned the need and justification for distance education having academic disciplinary status. In a recent article Rumble (1988) indicated that distance education lacked the autonomy and independence from education in general and did not represent an independent disciplinary culture. He concluded that distance education could not be regarded as a discipline in its own right.
In addition to the questions of distance education as a discipline, there have also been many concerns over the definition of distance education and how to determine the boundaries of the field. Keegan (1986) and Garrison and Shale (1987) have debated definitional concerns that affect the distinction between distance education and other forms of educational service and study. The debate over disciplinary status for distance education is critically tied to issues surrounding the definitional boundaries of the field.
The structure of this debate is organized as follows: First, the reader should be familiar with some of the literature outlined above, especially Holmberg's article entitled "a discipline of distance education" which appeared in this journal in 1986. Second, the issues addressed in Devlin's response to Holmberg should be reviewed. Third, Holmberg`s direct response to Devlin in the form of two items each dealing with aspects of the critique should be read. Finally, this author will attempt to summarize the positions and suggest ways to consider the validity and importance of what both participants have contributed.
Garrison, D. R., & Shale, D. (1987). Mapping the boundaries of distance education: Problems in defining the field. The American Journal of Distance Education, 1(1), 4-13.
Keegan, D. (1986). The foundations of distance education. London: Croom Helm.
Holmberg, B. (1983). Distance education as a discipline. ICDE Bulletin, 6, 49-53. Holmberg, B. (1986). A discipline of distance education. Journal of Distance Education, 1(1), 25-40.
Sparkes, J. J. (1983). The problem of creating a discipline of distance education. Distance Education, 4(2), 179-186.