- 1 -

Exploring Ideas of Innovation and Diversity in a Popular

Technology Journal
Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice

Shubha Sastry
UW Grad Student
shubhas@uw.edu

Reem Sabry
UW Grad Student
reemhs@uw.edu

Anatole Chen
UW Grad Student
anatole@uw.edu

John V. Ford
UW Grad Student
jvford@uw.edu

ABSTRACT
The Journal of Information Technology Education or
(JITE) is an internationally peer reviewed journal which,
according to its mission statement, publishes articles based
on innovative and diverse approaches to learning in the field
of information technology education [1]. This paper will
review six dimensions of JITE that may support or refute
JITEs claims to delivering innovation and diversity.
.
JITE is a multidisciplinary journal that is divided into
several sub fields. This examination of JITEs mission
statement focuses specifically on the sub journal JITE:
Innovations in Practice which will be simply referred to as
(JITE:IIP) throughout the remainder of this paper. The
content of this study has been limited to the sixty most
recent articles counted in reverse chronological order that
were published prior to and including Volume 13, 2014.

Author Keywords
Innovation, Diversity, Education, Teaching, Technology

INTRODUCTION
Communication technologies are redefining the ways
students are taught, and the processes by which they learn.
These changes can be observed and documented in countries
around the world. Internationally, institutions of higher
education are striving to find new ways to adapt to the
supply of new teaching tools and the demand for qualified
students who can further contribute to the field of HCI.
JITE:IIP is a journal that contends to keep pace with this
demand through early publishing of topics relevant to
innovation, and educational diversity [3].

Through the course of this paper, we attempt to define
innovation and diversity through the prism of JITE:IIPs
mission statement. Because JITE:IIP is a journal that
focuses on the field of international education, we argue that
the analysis of innovation and diversity are dependent on
one another as the access to technological tools for teaching,
and methods, may vary by country.

In the following sections we reveal a mixed method
approach to understanding JITE:IIPs definition of
innovation and diversity. According to social psychologist
Charles Teddlie, mixed method research can apply to both
qualitative and quantitative methods [4]. These methods
may be employed in parallel, or sequentially over the course
of a study [4]. Our team employed a mixed method
approach to assess innovation and diversity due to the
complexity guiding our subject matter. A proper analysis
will require both a data driven review and an inquiry into
social and cultural constructs relevant to the field of
education.

BACKGROUND
According to noted ethnographer Jenna Burrell, empirical
research should involve the study of what can be observed
in the world, and not composed of theoretical principles, or
imagined ideals [1] (86). Additionally, Burrell goes on to
state a case for the benefit of combining both qualitative and
quantitative research so long as it lends itself to providing
the reader with confidence in proposed findings [1] (86).
By combining quantitative and qualitative analysis,
researchers are able to build stronger arguments through
divergent viewpoints, and resilient inferences [4] (14-15). It
was important in our analysis of JITE:IIP to draw from a
strong combined methodology because of the complex task
of defining innovation. By using multiple dimensions, we
hope to triangulate a practical definition for what makes a
topic within an article innovative.
In the table below, we list the dimensions weve chosen, and
the mission they support.

Table 1. Dimensions and Methods
Before beginning a discussion on innovation or diversity we
must first operationalize these terms using the definitions
offered in the JITE:IIP mission statement.
- 2 -
Innovation: Publishing cutting edge practices early, often
before generalizable studies become available [3].
Diversity: Exposing the reader to a diverse range of
mindsets, emerging views and unique tactics; [and],
acknowledging and embracing the diversity of teaching and
learning models in use around the world [3].
Some issues regarding the use of empirical research include
maintaining an ethical code of conduct and participant
confidentiality discussed in Considering Ethical Issues in
Technical Communication Research presented by Breuch
Et al [1]. Though ethical methodologies are incredibly
important to conducting research, examining the ethical
practice of each study would require further research and is
outside the scope of this review but is a noble and
worthwhile domain for future research.
METHOD
Quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis was
completely facilitated by our research team. Sixty articles of
JITE:IIP were examined; starting with, volume 13, 2014 and
subsequent archives back to Volume 9, 2010.
Each member was assigned two dimensions to encode
during data collection with the context of the most recent 60
articles. Of the sixty articles, every article in JITE:IIP
Volumes 12, 11 and 10 were fully published online and
were covered. Two articles from volume 13 were covered
and one article of volume 9 gives a total of 60 articles.

Six dimensions were encoded during data collection:
education focus, application focus, epistemology, location
of the study, authors background and the year of citation.
By analyzing these dimensions our team proposes to
identify innovation and diversity as called out by three
of five points made by JITE:IIP mission statement, which
are:

Publishing innovative, cutting edge practices early, often
before generalizable studies become available [3].

Exposing the reader to a diverse range of mindsets,
emerging views and unique tactics [3].

Acknowledging and embracing the diversity of
teaching and learning models in use around the world
[3].

Dimension 1: Education Focus
This dimension proposes to understand if articles published
in JITE:IIP are innovative in that they use new teaching
tools, or propose to teach new subject matter. Three
categorical fields were chosen for this dimension, one of
which we have isolated for being best fit for the claim of
being innovative. For these articles, we have filed them as
being prospective or about the future. For the three
categories prospective, retrospective, and active learning,
we have provided our definitions here.

Prospective: The article focused on new technology tools,
E Learning, or proposed a new subject matter to the field of
education.
Retrospective: The article focused on revisiting existing
constructs in the field of education with the aim of
promoting existing practices, altering existing practices, or
recognizing current and potential liabilities.
Active Learning: The article focused on learning through a
hands on approach, using existing practices either
ethnographically or through a do-it-yourself process.

Dimension 2: Application Taught
This information can provide insight into if there is one type
of application that is more popular than others and if this
ties back to the mission statement of the journal.
To analyze the data for this dimension all the technology
used in each of the papers was considered. Apart from the
three major categories, there are combined categories that
have been added to capture the overall usage.

Re-examining Dimension 2: Application Taught
We re-examined applications mentioned in JITE:IIP
published articles to see how frequently new mobile
technologies and collaborative, web based tools were
mentioned. Articles that explored educational topics using
tools such as mobile phones, laptops, or tablets were
classified as mobile learning, while web based, classroom
tools that supported collaborative learning were classified as
web based.

This re-classification led our team to redefine some of the
technologies /applications from a scope of which the journal
articles included as well as our research point of view. This
point of view is with a specific focus of how/what this
means of technology support, or doesnt support, JITE:IIPs
mission statement, either innovations or diversity.

Web Based: Supports the idea of collaborative learning and
hence supports our argument of diversity, because people
can learn across borders through the world wide web which
entails social sharing, etc. Assuming that learning across
boundaries is innovative, then web-based applications
supports both diversity and innovations.

Mobile Learning: Any means of technology that facilitates
thing the learning atmosphere outside of a school. Foe
example; Mobile Phones, Tablet, Laptop, etc. Through mobile
learning an innovative method of teaching is been applied.

- 3 -
Software: Any means of technology that utilized running a
program, mostly on device that run at school.

Programming: The article focused on teaching
programming code and techniques.

Dimension 3: Epistemology
This dimension is important to understand if the authors of
articles used Qualitative, Quantitative, or Mixed Methods.

The data was analyzed with a numeric countdown and then
categorized into three types, Qualitative, Quantitative and
Mixed methods. Literature reviews, Ethnography were
considered as qualitative methods in our classification.

Dimension 4: Year of Citation
This dimension proposes to further understand if articles
published in JITE:IIP are innovative with a published
cutting edge practices through citing years of which
technology has been shaped in the way we recognize it
today. Citing early publications might show the depth of
which the research has taken into consideration but when it
comes to innovation it might imply an out of date research.

A numerical countdown of several time intervals with how
many researches the authors cited in this time interval was
conducted. The choice of which time interval was decided
based on the years appearing in each article. All time
intervals that were coded were a 10 years time interval
except for the 2000s as a 14 years time interval was taken
into consideration.

Dimension 5: Author Background
This dimension proposes to understand if articles published
in JITE:IIP are exposing the reader to a diverse range of
mindsets as well as acknowledging and embracing the
diversity of teaching and learning models in use around the
world. Authors with a diverse background enrich the content
of most researches especially when broad and different
backgrounds and visions intertwined in a research.
A numerical countdown of the countries in which the
authors had their biggest portion of education has been
coded. Countries are then regrouped into continents of
which the authors received their education.

Dimension 6: Location of Study
The location of study dimension serves to quantify
JITE:IIPs claim of diversity presented in their mission
statement. The location of study refers to where the study
occurred and/or was conducted , not necessarily the location
of the authors institution but the location the research study
occurred. This dimension also represents the national
perspectives of study participants as the location of each
study also reflects the area and perspectives in which
participants for studies were recruited. The data for this
dimension was analyzed with a numeric system which
tallied locations by first categorizing each country that
participated in a research study and then counting
subsequent times a specific country participated in one or
more of JITE:IIPs research articles.

RESULTS
Our team reviewed sixty articles in the reverse
chronological order starting from Volume 13, 2014 until
2010. We reviewed these articles with five different
dimensions; of which two of the dimensions were double
coded and matched findings. What was observed is that in
both cases the findings were dissimilar because of how
differently each of us viewed technology and what
constituted a qualitative vs. quantitative method. Below are
the findings for each of our dimensions.

Dimension 1: Education Focus
Of the sixty articles reviewed, 33.3% either introduced a
new technology into a learning environment, utilized
another method of e Learning, or proposed new subject
matter into the field of education.

Of additional mention, results of our analysis revealed that
nearly half of articles published by JITE:IIP focused on
internal reviews of existing processes, while the remaining
18.3% recommended a hands on learning approach using
constructs currently available out in the field.



Dimension 2a: Application Taught
Applications used to enhance teaching and learning
experience are varied. From the technology used in the
Army training to the undergraduate classroom training, it is
clear that the journal aims at utilizing technology to enable
students to effectively use them in their day to day learning
activities and for the teachers to provide students new ways
to collaborate with each other and with the teachers.
The use of applications are mixed and a combination of
hardware, software and web applications have been utilized.
- 4 -
Use of Hardware (14%), Software (36%) and the largest
utilization is web based applications (50%). Two of the
papers did not have a particular technology that was called
out as they focused on creating frameworks.
Dimension 2b: Double Code (New Perspective)
Double coding of dimension #2 reveals that the introduction
of mobile technology has yet to be introduced. Mention of
mobile technology in articles accounts for only 10% out of
60 reviewed. In addition, Dimension #2b revisited web
based classroom computing by focusing on student
collaboration in participants were recruited, and may not
reflect the authorships institution location.


Dimension 3 : Epistemology
Methods used for collection of data in the articles show that
the researchs have used both methods where possible,
however the use of qualitative method is higher. Out of the
60 articles that were used to collect this data, 30 of them
used qualitative method, 17 used quantitative method and 13
were mixed method where both qualitative and quantitative
studies were formulated for data collection.
This data classification brings the question if qualitative
methods are more popular because more researchers are
interested in the verbal feedback than to quantify the
results?

Dimension 4: Year of Citation
Sixty articles were reviewed resulting in the following
distribution of the citation years in relevance to the means of
technology we are familiar with today, such as computers,
tablets, software, etc.

Table 4 and Chart 1 Show the years of which authors have
cited other articles, the time interval of which our team
decided upon, and the percentage of occurrences of these
citations.

While conducting our numeric countdown we noticed that
one article cited in the 1950s and another article cited in the
1920s. This time interval is added in our numeric
countdown (chart 1) but not considered in our analysis due
to its minimal margin and percentage of 0.1%.

Year of
citation
Time Interval Percentage of citation
2013 - 2000 13 year 84%
1999 - 1990 10 years 11%
1989 - 1980 10 years 3%
1979 - 1970 10 years 1%
1969 - 1960 10 years 1% (~0.9%)

Table 4. Numeric countdown of citation years and percentages of
their occurrences.


Chart 1. Numeric countdown of citation years and percentages of
their occurrences.



Dimension 5: Author background
Sixty articles were reviewed, 53.40% of the authors
background come from the continent of North America
(33.25%), Europe (20.15%), Asia (11.8%), Africa (11.8%)
and from Australia (11%).

This data distribution contradicts JITE:IIPs mission, which
entails: Exposing the reader to a diverse range of mindsets,
emerging views and unique tactics.

Chart 2. Where authors were educated


Dimension 6: Location of Study
The location of study dimension revealed a relatively
diverse sample group among the sixty articles examined. It
- 5 -
was not surprising that the majority of studies occurred
within the United States (38.3%) as this is where JITE:IIP is
based. It is also apparent from the data that other English
speaking countries were more frequently used in this
journal; which makes logistical sense as it would be easier
for JITE:IIP editors to communicate with other English
speaking countries [Australia(10.0%), Canada(5.0%), & The
United Kingdom (5.0%)].

United States 23 38.3%
Australia 6 10.0%
Canada 3 5.0%
United Kingdom 3 5.0%
Norway 3 5.0%
South Africa 2 3.3%
UAE 2 3.3%
Hong Kong 2 3.3%
Finland 2 3.3%
Iran 1 1.6%
Nigeria 1 1.6%
Croatia 1 1.6%
Indonesia 1 1.6%
Israel 1 1.6%
Saudi Arabia 1 1.6%
Mexico 1 1.6%
Spain 1 1.6%
New Zealand 1 1.6%
Hungary 1 1.6%
Botswana 1 1.6%
Japan 1 1.6%
Turkey 1 1.6%
China 1 1.6%

Table 5. The tally of each country hosting a JITE:IIP research study.

When investigating the locations of study within the United
States four major states emerged as the biggest contributors
to JITE:IIPs research. These were: Texas (21.7%),
California (17.3%), Massachusetts (13.0%), and New York
(13.0%).

Texas 5 21.7%
California 4 17.3%
Massachusetts 3 13.0%
New York 3 13.0%
North Carolina 2 8.6%
Colorado 2 8.6%
Wisconsin 1 4.3%
Ohio 1 4.3%
Maryland 1 4.3%
Guam 1 4.3%

Table 6. The location of study for research conducted within the
United States categorized by state and the frequency of occurrence
for each.

DISCUSSION
Our process in addressing the accuracy of innovation as a
claim in JITE:IIPs mission statement began with
challenges. In fact, adhering to a claim of innovation is a
standard easily attained by a great many journals because
the term is so general. As an example, Merriam Webster
defines innovation as the act or process of introducing new
ideas, devices, or methods. [3] Because within most
articles a claim can be made for the introduction of a new
idea we chose to pick dimensions that focused instead on
the remainder of this definition namely tools, methods, and
the added aspect of diversity.
In reviewing the entirety of data gathered in our dimensions,
we were able to see that innovative tools and teaching
methods were largely underrepresented in JITE:IIP articles.
When looking at the concept of innovation using the
definition of prospective tools and methods only 33.3% of
the articles applied. This left the remaining articles totaling
66.6% to focus on reviewing existing educational
constructs, or hands on learning approaches.
In addition to educational focuses, we looked deeper into
what, and how proposed applications contributed to both
innovation and diversity in JITE:IIP articles. We took this
approach because the concept of innovation is not just a
relative term to technology, it is relative to the
advancements of specific countries and regions. For
example, while more affluent western countries may be
experiencing a mobile device revolution, other countries
may still be concerned with introducing basic computing
devices into the learning environment. We argue that
innovation and diversity therefore are dependent on one
another.
In our analysis of JITE:IIP articles we observed that mobile
technologies did not factor much in the overall topic of
conversation. In fact, mobile technologies accounted for
only 10% of article focuses. While mobile technologies did
not factor heavily, we observed that JITE:IIP made a better
argument for innovation through web based collaborative
learning, which accounted for the topic of 28.3% of articles
mentioned. We argue that collaborative learning tools
support both the idea of innovation and diversity by linking
knowledge across both cultures and borders.

Much as innovation can be a general term to adhere to, so
too is the concept of being diverse. Through our dimensions,
we looked at a variety of topics that may influence diversity.
Of these, we examined the background of published authors
to see where innovative thoughts might be originating.
While we expected that countries in North America and
Europe would weigh heavily at 40% and 25%, we found
that JITE:IIP articles did host authors from often
underrepresented regions. A review of our findings revealed
that 15% of contributing authors came from Asia, while 8%
were from Africa. It can also be noted that a significant
percentage of studies were performed with the assistance of
universities in Australia. Our position on these numbers is
that JITE:IIP articles do convey location and author
- 6 -
diversity, and that articles continue to trend in the direction
of international inclusion.
Because JITE:IIPs mission statement emphasized general
constructs like innovation and diversity, we expected to see
a heavy balance of qualitative research to quantitative
research methodologies. In fact, half of all articles we
reviewed solely used qualitative methodologies in their
research approach, while an additional 21.6% used a mixed
methods approach.

CONCLUDING REMARKS
In this paper, we used a variety of dimensions relevant to
social and technological perceptions of innovation, and
diversity. Using claims made in their mission statement, we
revealed that articles published in JITE:IIP succeeded in
proposing and promoting international diversity and cross
border collaboration however we also found that according
to our definition claims of innovation fell short.

It is our hope that by addressing innovation and diversity in
a popular, international journal that we created a
conversation on what it means to claim these terms in a
modern technologically advanced and integrated
environment.


REFERENCES
1. Breuch, L.K., A. Olson and A.B. Frantz. Considering
ethical issues in technical communication research.
Research in Technical Communication. L. Gurak and M.
Lay. Westport, Connecticut, Praeger. (2002) Pages 1-22.

2. Burrell, J. What Constitutes Good ICTD Research?
USC Annenberg School for Communication, (2009) Vol.5
No. 3, Page 86

3. Jeffrey, L. Journal of Information Technology
Education: Innovations in Practice, Informing Science
Institute online, (2014) Reviewed on April 19th, Retrieved
at http://www.informingscience.us/icarus/journals/jiteiip/

4. Teddlie, C. Foundations of Mixed Method Research,
published by Sage Publications (2008) Pages 3 49

5. Merriam Websters Online Dictionary (2014)
Reviewed on April 19th, Retrieved at http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/innovative