Postmodernism as a basis for research is a philosophy that embraces all of the complexity that surrounds educational technology and the process of learning. Founded in pluralism, the philosophy rejects a single explanation in favor of recognizing differences and acknowledging the influence of various perspectives. For educational technology, this implies that there is no one best theory from which to view or study the field. Next, the postmodernist understands that knowledge, truth, and even reality are constructed as individuals interpret their experiences, alone and with others. This is foundational to constructivism, which espouses that knowledge is created, not found. For the educational technologist, this means that situated and collaborative learning would be essential to any technology that would actually produce significant learning gains.  Further, postmodernism holds true to critical interpretation of layers of meaning, which supports the idea that a variety of ways should be used to investigate questions and problems related to educational technology. Finally, a postmodern viewpoint involves closely looking at systems to determine the contexts in play and their impact on individual experience. In other words, the systems are complex and multiple variables may be needed to ensure significant results in research.

The article was written in three parts. Part One encompasses issues that have made finding a single acceptable definition of postmodernism so difficult, including the misinterpretation of postmodernism as a theory rather than a philosophy. In this same section, Solomon looks at postmodernism through the lens of the intellectual movement in order to identify some of the roots of postmodern thought such as structuralism, semiotics, deconstruction, knowledge and power, and critical theory. Once the background was thoroughly discussed, Solomon reviewed eight postmodern assumptions in Part Two to clarify the convoluted evolution of the philosophy, including pluralism, eclecticism, knowledge, truth, language, communication, complexity, and truth. Finally, the author narrowed the definition to just four points in Part Three. The author took the reader on a journey from broad to specific, and made clear his thinking at each phase. The article was easy to follow, and even though the topic can be very confusing, the author’s logical progression made difficult content accessible. 

Postmodernism serves as a net for collecting all of the ideas that have been bouncing around in my head. It is freeing to know that my resistance to one right answer actually has some deep roots in terms of philosophy. I read this article and thought “that’s why so many studies show no significant results.” How can a researcher make generalizations when focusing on a single variable when the field we are studying is so chaotic? It is, however, daunting to think about how to manage an inquiry that involves multiple variables, but it just seems right. Combined with a question that looks at the problems of education, and not just what works, I feel that a postmodern approach (at least at this moment in time. . .still evolving, after all) might produce some intriguing results. I wonder how the concept of creativity could be merged into a postmodern study? There are many definitions of creativity, none of which is universally accepted, according to a 2002 report from the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. The report also went on to say that even though different theorists, researchers, or educators may use the term creativity, they may be referring to very different constructs. I think perhaps the three–postmodernism, creativity, educational technology–might fit together well. Time will tell.

Treffinger, D. J. (2002). Assessing creativity: A guide for educators. National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.