CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 5

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The research we don’t need will persist until we dismantle the systems that sustain it

Schmidt, Matthew, McDonald, Jason K., Moore, Stephanie·2025·Journal of Computing in Higher Education
DOI 10.1007/s12528-025-09446-4
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The educational technology field is at a critical juncture, facing the dual pressures of rapid technological advancement and a pressing need for research that genuinely addresses educational challenges. Despite increasing awareness of these issues, a significant amount of educational technology research remains entrenched in superficial or trend-driven inquiries, failing to tackle deeper, systemic issues. This paper critically examines the historical and institutional forces sustaining what we term “the research we don’t need,” and argues for a transformative shift toward “the research we need.” Such research must prioritize depth, long-term impact, and relevance over mere novelty or ease of publication. We outline how entrenched practices, including academic publishing standards, tenure and promotion metrics, and funding structures, contribute to a cycle that rewards superficial research. To disrupt this cycle, we propose actionable strategies to foster a research ecosystem that values substantive contributions and advocates for systemic change. Ultimately, we urge scholars, institutions, and professional organizations to embrace a collective responsibility to redefine research priorities holistically. By doing so, we can foster a field that meaningfully impacts educators, learners, and society. This is not merely a call for incremental improvements; it is a challenge to realign the field’s fundamental purpose toward more impactful, responsible, and enduring scholarship.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12528-025-09446-4

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Image 1
CC-BY · From the PDF

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 67

  1. Alvesson, M., Gabriel, Y., & Paulsen, R. (2017). Return to meaning: A social science with something to say. Oxford University Press. · DOI
  2. Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(2), 167–207. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0402_2 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Anderson, T. (2008). The theory and practice of online learning. Athabasca University. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=RifNwzU3HR4C&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=Anderson,+T.+(2008).+The+Theory+and+Practice+of+Online+Learning.+AU+Press&ots=Si7pJjIWps&sig=X0nkAq8aQvUUDadg9fOmWDdjhRQ
  4. Anderson, V., Elliott, C., & Callahan, J. L. (2021). Power, powerlessness, and journal ranking lists: The marginalization of fields of practice. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 20(1), 89–107. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2019.0037 · DOI
  5. Baturay, M. H. (2015). An overview of the world of MOOCs. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 427–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.685 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Bauwens, T., Reike, D., & Calisto-Friant, M. (2023). Science for sale? Why academic marketization is a problem and what sustainability research can do about it. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 48, Article 100749. · DOI
  7. Baydas, O., Kucuk, S., Yilmaz, R. M., Aydemir, M., & Goktas, Y. (2015). Educational technology research trends from 2002 to 2014. Scientometrics, 105(1), 709–725. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1693-4 · DOI
  8. Bernardo, R. (2016). Bandwagons I, too, have known. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 129, 2323–2332. · DOI
  9. Cheung, A. C. K., & Slavin, R. E. (2012). How features of educational technology applications affect student reading outcomes: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 7(3), 198–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2012.05.002 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Clarivate. (2023). Journal citation reports [Online database]. https://jcr.clarivate.com/
  11. Clark, R. E. (1989). Current progress and future directions for research in instructional technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(1), 57–66. · DOI
  12. Cross, N. (2025). Designerly Ways of Knowing. In N. Cross (Ed.), Designerly Ways of Knowing and Thinking (pp. 1–14). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-7541-4_1 · DOI
  13. Cumming, T. M., & Stradnová, I. (2012). The iPad as a pedagogical tool in special education: Promises and possibilities. Special Education Perspectives, 21(1), 34–46.
  14. Davidson, S. B., & Freire, J. (2008). Provenance and scientific workflows: Challenges and opportunities. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM SIGMOD international conference on management of data (pp. 1345–1350). https://doi.org/10.1145/1376616.1376772 · DOI
  15. Davies, I. K. (1996). The management of learning. In D. Ely & T. Plomp (Eds.), Classic writings on instructional technology (pp. 45–54). Libraries Unlimited.
  16. Dedehayir, O., & Steinert, M. (2016). The hype cycle model: A review and future directions. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 108, 28–41. · DOI · Paper page
  17. Ebben, M., & Murphy, J. S. (2014). Unpacking MOOC scholarly discourse: A review of nascent MOOC scholarship. Learning, Media and Technology, 39(3), 328–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2013.878352 · DOI
  18. Edwards, M. A., & Roy, S. (2017). Academic research in the 21st Century: maintaining scientific integrity in a climate of perverse incentives and hypercompetition. Environmental Engineering Science, 34(1), 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2016.0223 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Fitzpatrick, K. (2011). Planned obsolescence: Publishing, technology, and the future of the academy. New York University Press. https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/89411 · DOI
  20. Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157–172. · DOI · Paper page
  21. Hammond, M. (2020). What is an ecological approach and how can it assist in understanding ICT take-up? British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(3), 853–866. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12889 · DOI
  22. Harvie, D., Lightfoot, G., Lilley, S., & Weir, K. (2013). Publisher, be damned! From price gouging to the open road. Prometheus. https://doi.org/10.1080/08109028.2014.891710 · DOI
  23. Haven, T., & Van Woudenberg, R. (2021). Explanations of research misconduct, and how they hang together. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 52(4), 543–561. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-021-09555-5 · DOI
  24. Higgins, S., Beauchamp, G., & Miller, D. (2007). Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 213–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439880701511040 · DOI
  25. Honebein, P. C., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2021). To prove or improve, that is the question: The resurgence of comparative, confounded research between 2010 and 2019. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(2), 465–496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-09988-1 · DOI
  26. Honebein, P., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2020). The instructional theory framework appears lost. Isn’t it time we find it again? Revista de Educación a Distancia (RED), 20(64), 64.
  27. Howison, J., & Herbsleb, J. D. (2011). Scientific software production: Incentives and collaboration. In Proceedings of the ACM 2011 conference on computer supported cooperative work (pp 513–522). https://doi.org/10.1145/1958824.1958904 · DOI
  28. Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Javadpour, A., Ja’fari, F., Taleb, T., Shojafar, M., & Benzaïd, C. (2024). A comprehensive survey on cyber deception techniques to improve honeypot performance. Computers and Security, 140, 103792. · DOI
  30. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools: Engaging critical thinking. Merrill.
  31. Jones, T. C., & Dugdale, D. (2002). The ABC bandwagon and the juggernaut of modernity. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27(1–2), 121–163. · DOI
  32. Lachheb, A., & Watson, N. (2023). Introduction to the special section on design failure in learning design practice. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 14(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.14434/ijdl.v14i1.35893 · DOI
  33. Lincoln, Y. S., & Cannella, G. S. (2004). Dangerous discourses: Methodological conservatism and governmental regimes of truth. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800403259717 · DOI
  34. Lowther, D. L., Inan, F. A., Ross, S. M., & Strahl, J. D. (2012). Do one-to-one initiatives bridge the way to 21st century knowledge and skills? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 46(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.46.1.a · DOI
  35. Luckin, R. (2010). Re-designing learning contexts: Technology-rich, learner-centred ecologies. Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203854754/re-designing-learning-contexts-rosemary-luckin · DOI
  36. Mau, S. (2019). The metric society: On the quantification of the social. John Wiley & Sons. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=nMaKDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP2&dq=Mau,+2019&ots=LbFtguJj-_&sig=nGwsowuyCHaI54BtSfq_eMOjqgo
  37. McDonald, J. K., Yanchar, S. C., & Osguthorpe, R. T. (2005). Learning from programmed instruction: Examining implications for modern instructional technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(2), 84–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504867 · DOI
  38. McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. (2025). Educational design research for relevant and robust scholarship. Journal of Computing in Higher Education. · DOI
  39. Morgan, D. L. (2023). Who is on the bandwagon? Core and periphery in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 17(2), 135–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/15586898221096319 · DOI
  40. Neff, M. W. (2020). How academic science gave its soul to the publishing industry. Issues in Science and Technology, 36(2), 35–43.
  41. Northcote, M., Mildenhall, P., Marshall, L., & Swan, P. (2010). Interactive whiteboards: Interactive or just whiteboards? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(4), 4. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1067 · DOI
  42. Nosek, B. A., Spies, J. R., & Motyl, M. (2012). Scientific Utopia: II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 615–631. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612459058 · DOI
  43. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books, Inc.
  44. Papert, S. (1988). A critique of technocentrism in thinking about the school of the future. In Children in the information Age (pp. 3–18). Elsevier. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780080364643500065 · DOI
  45. Provos, N. (2004). A virtual honeypot framework. USENIX Security Symposium, 173(2004), 1–14.
  46. Puehringer, S., Rath, J., & Griesebner, T. (2021). The political economy of academic publishing: On the commodification of a public good. PLoS ONE, 16(6), e0253226. · DOI
  47. Reeves, T. C., & Lin, L. (2020). The research we have is not the research we need. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(4), 1991–2001. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09811-3 · DOI
  48. Reeves, T. C., & Oh, E. G. (2017). The goals and methods of educational technology research over a quarter century (1989–2014). Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(2), 325–339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9474-1 · DOI
  49. Reeves, T. C., & Reeves, P. M. (2015). Reorienting educational technology research from things to problems. Learning: Research and Practice, 1(1), 91–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/23735082.2015.1008120 · DOI
  50. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Lessons for guidelines from the diffusion of innovations. The Joint Commission Journal on Quality Improvement, 21(7), 324–328. · DOI · Paper page
  51. Siler, K. (2020). Demarcating spectrums of predatory publishing: Economic and institutional sources of academic legitimacy. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 71(11), 1386–1401. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24339 · DOI
  52. Skinner, B. F. (1961). Teaching machines. Scientific American, 205(5), 90–106. · DOI
  53. Slavin, R. E. (2020). How evidence-based reform will transform research and practice in education. Educational Psychologist, 55(1), 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2019.1611432 · DOI · Paper page
  54. Smith, G. J., Schmidt, M. M., Edelen-Smith, P. J., & Cook, B. G. (2013). Pasteur’s quadrant as the bridge linking rigor with relevance. Exceptional Children, 79(2), 147–161. · DOI · Paper page
  55. Stanford, P. K. (2019). Unconceived alternatives and conservatism in science: The impact of professionalization, peer-review, and Big Science. Synthese, 196, 3915–3932. · DOI
  56. Stokes, P. D. (2005). Creativity from constraints: The psychology of breakthrough. Springer Publishing Company. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=XkkmQo10ZVgC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=Stokes,+P.+D.+(2006).+Creativity+from+Constraints:+The+Psychology+of+Breakthrough.+Springer+Publishing+Company,+Inc.&ots=9iCI_FAGpx&sig=Q9a94J8oROlpHwVeZOBuUJf-0L4
  57. Strathern, M. (1997). ‘Improving ratings’: Audit in the British University system. European Review, 5(3), 305–321. · DOI · Paper page
  58. Suppes, P., & Morningstar, M. (1969). Computer-assisted instruction. Science, 166(3903), 343–350. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.166.3903.343 · DOI
  59. Teplitskiy, M., Peng, H., Blasco, A., & Lakhani, K. R. (2022). Is novel research worth doing? Evidence from peer review at 49 journals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(47), e2118046119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2118046119 · DOI
  60. Tuchman, G. (2009). Wannabe U: Inside the corporate university. University of Chicago Press. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=g-dOYdf27LYC&oi=fnd&pg=PP8&dq=Tuchman,+G.+(2009).+Wannabe+U:+Inside+the+Corporate+University.+University+of+Chicago+Press.&ots=YFU3Yap1cF&sig=cOPPphKeI6XY9VE-1iC2HmKq1A4
  61. Walby, K., & Lippert, R. K. (2019). Academic publishing and corporatization: Reflections on professionalism, profits, and peculiarities of today’s presses and journals. Publishing Research Quarterly, 35, 362–376. · DOI
  62. Warburton, S. (2009). Second Life in higher education: Assessing the potential for and the barriers to deploying virtual worlds in learning and teaching. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(3), 414–426. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00952.x · DOI
  63. Ward, C., & Carrigan, M. (2009). Are all forms of scholarship considered equal? Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 2(2), 45–50.
  64. Watters, A. (2023). Teaching machines: The history of personalized learning. MIT Press. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=kH52EAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=Watters,+A.+(2020).+Teaching+Machines:+The+History+of+Personalized+Learning.&ots=NiUSlc3Fs1&sig=FRyd9IOqszKauvUpOgUKPClg6rk
  65. West, R. E., & Rich, P. J. (2012). Rigor, impact and prestige: A proposed framework for evaluating scholarly publications. Innovative Higher Education, 37, 359–371. · DOI
  66. Winn, W. (2003). Research methods and types of evidence for research in educational technology. Educational Psychology Review, 15(4), 367–373. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026131416764 · DOI
  67. Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J., & Evenson, S. (2007). Research through design as a method for interaction design research in HCI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp 493–502). https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240704 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 5

Metadata

Authors
Schmidt, M., McDonald, J. K., & Moore, S.
Venue
Journal of Computing in Higher Education
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2025-05-13
Volume
37
Issue
2
Pages
507-542
ISSN
  • 1042-1726
  • 1867-1233
DOI
10.1007/s12528-025-09446-4
Cited by
5
References
4
Language
en
Licence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review