5: Distance Education as a Discipline: In Conclusion |
After reading the literature on this topic, coupled with the responses by Devlin and Holmberg, I am struck by one of Holmberg's final comments: "Whether distance education is a discipline or not is a matter of definition." Given that I looked up the definition of the word "discipline" in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1977). There were six ordered interpretations given and I would like to use them to provide summary to this debate.
The first definition is that of "instruction." However, it was not clear to me whether instruction was referring to the process of providing instruction or the process of providing direction. I looked up the word "instruction" in Webster and found that instruction was defined as "a direction calling for compliance." Therefore if a discipline is defined as instruction, then it is also a direction calling for compliance. Given the importance of compliance in the interpretation of epistemology and philosophy, I now begin to understand the importance of these concepts to the debate over the disciplinary status of distance education (or for that matter, any area of research or study). As a pragmatist, on the other hand, I see little utility to this debate with respect to the development, advancement, or application of distance education. I am struck with the thought that such a debate is of no consequence.
The second definition of discipline is "a subject that is taught: a field of study." Clearly, distance education fits such a definition in that it is possible to teach and be taught distance education concepts and methods. It is also possible to study distance education concepts and methods. However, I see the dilemma with this definition that many critics of Holmberg's position have also seen. You can teach, be taught, and study a range of topics and areas that are not academic disciplines. For example, you can teach, be taught, and study skiing (and people do). Would anyone consider skiing to be an academic discipline? Given that it requires "direction calling for compliance," I guess many people would consider it a discipline, although I doubt the term academic would be used. Again, perhaps the issue is of no consequence.
The third definition of discipline indicates that it is "training that corrects, molds, or perfects the mental faculties or moral character." One who has discipline is apparently one who has training of both mental faculties and moral character. Many academic disciplines attempt to develop this type of discipline and perhaps that is where the concept originated. It is unlikely, however, that contemporary definitions of conventional academic disciplines adhere closely to this definition, especially in regard to moral character!
The remaining three definitions deal with discipline as punishment, enforcing obedience, orderly conduct, or sets of rules governing conduct and/ or activity. Apparently to be a discipline you must have discipline. There must be rules, orderly conduct and activity, and some level of obedience. It could be argued that distance education meets this definition. Although the debate over the boundaries of distance education may cloud the valid-ity of this definition, it does appear that the practice and study of distance education is emerging along somewhat consistent lines of conduct and activity. I've frequently heard newcomers to distance education comment that they experienced an entirely new set of rules and activities when they began to work in this mode. Distance education appears to differ from other forms of education, including the related areas of adult education, independent study, and individualized instruction. In this context, it could be argued that distance education is different from education (as a conventional profession and discipline) as education is from the profession and discipline of psychology (or other social science disciplines).
The differences between education (as a discipline) and distance education (as an emerging discipline) strike me as important in this debate. It occurs to me that an educational expert would probably know little about the current practice, study, and philosophy of distance education simply as a result of the study and knowledge of education. There would be much to learn, new rules to follow, new attitudes and values to acquire; much would be different from your existing store of knowledge, attitudes, and philosophy. Moreover, the total volume of that new knowledge and philosophy has grown considerably over the last ten years and there is every indication that it will continue to grow over the years to come. I would guess there are few who would pronounce themselves as coming from the academic discipline of distance education at present. As distance education continues to flourish, perhaps that will change.