Advertisement

Responsible Practices in the Wild: An Actor-Network Perspective on Mobile Apps in Learning as Translation(s)

  • Oliver LaaschEmail author
  • Dirk C. Moosmayer
  • Frithjof Arp
Original Paper

Abstract

Competence to enact responsible practices, such as recycling waste or boycotting irresponsible companies, is core to learning for responsibility. We explore the role of apps in learning such responsible practices ‘in the wild,’ outside formal educational environments over a 3-week period. Learners maintained a daily diary in which they reflected on their learning of responsible practices with apps. Through a thematic analysis of 557 app mentions in the diaries, we identified five types of app-agency: cognitive, action, interpersonal, personal development, and material. Findings were interpreted from an actor-network perspective using the lens of ‘translation.’ To understand how apps enabled the learning of responsible practices, we analyzed app agency throughout four moments of translation: problematization, interessement, enrolment, and mobilization. Based on our analysis of how students’ app mentions changed over time, we further theorize learning as a sequence of subtranslations that form the larger translation process: learning as translation(s). Each subtranslation cycle is centered on enrolling a different set of human and nonhuman actors, with their competence, into the network. We contribute to the learning for responsibility field by showcasing how app-enabled learning may create real-life actor networks enacting responsibility, and by priming an actor-network pedagogy for ‘learning in the wild.’ We also contribute to the actor-network learning discussion by conceptualizing heterogeneous human–nonhuman competence and the first processual model of learning as translation(s).

Keywords

Mobile apps Actor-network theory Responsible practices 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

Oliver Laasch, Dirk C. Moosmayer, and Frithjof Arp declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaratio± its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Adams, C. A., & Thompson, T. L. (2011). Interviewing objects: Including educational technologies as qualitative research participants. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 24(6), 733–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akrich, M., & Latour, B. (1992). A summary of a convenient vocabulary for the semiotics of human and nonhuman assemblies. ¿W. E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology, building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 259–264). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Alario-Hoyos, C., Estévez-Ayres, I., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., Leony, D., & Kloos, C. D. (2015). MyLearningMentor: A mobile app to support learners participating in MOOCs. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 21(5), 735–753.Google Scholar
  4. Alexander, B. (2004). Going nomadic: Mobile learning in higher education. Educause Review, 39(5), 28–34.Google Scholar
  5. Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (1996). Situated learning and education. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 5–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Auer-Srnka, K. J., & Koeszegi, S. (2007). From words to numbers: How to transform qualitative data into meaningful quantitative results. Schmalenbach Business Review, 59(1), 29–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bengtsson, F., & Ågerfalk, P. J. (2011). Information technology as a change actant in sustainability innovation: Insights from Uppsala. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 20, 96–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bigum, C. (1997). Teachers and computers: In control or being controlled? Australian Journal of Education, 41(3), 247–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bishop, J. L., & Verleger, M. A. (2013). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research. In ASEE national conference, Atlanta.Google Scholar
  10. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Bullock, A., Dimond, R., Webb, K., Lovatt, J., Hardyman, W., & Stacey, M. (2015). How a mobile app supports the learning and practice of newly qualified doctors in the UK: An intervention study. BMC Medical Education, 15(1), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cabantous, L., & Gond, J. P. (2011). Rational decision making as performative praxis: Explaining rationality’s eternel retour. Organization Science, 22(3), 573–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of Saint Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge? (pp. 196–233). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Callon, M. (1991). Techno-economic networks and irreversibility. In J. Law (Ed.), A sociology of monsters? Essays on power, technology and domination (pp. 132–161). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Callon, M. (1999). Actor-network theory—The market test. The Sociological Review, 47(1), 181–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Callon, M. (2007). What does it mean to say economics is performative? In D. MacKenzie, F. Muniesa, & L. Siu (Eds.), Do economists make markets? On the performativity of economics (pp. 311–357). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Callon, M., & Law, J. (1995). Agency and the hybrid Collectif. South Atlantic Quarterly, 94, 481–507.Google Scholar
  18. Callon, M., & Law, J. (1997). After the individual in society: Lessons on collectivity from science, technology and society. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 22(2), 165–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Candy, P. C. (1991). Self-direction for lifelong learning: A comprehensive guide to theory and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  20. Chan, N. N., Walker, C., & Gleaves, A. (2015). An exploration of students’ lived experiences of using smartphones in diverse learning contexts using a hermeneutic phenomenological approach. Computers & Education, 82, 96–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Chiu, C.-K., Tseng, J. C., & Hsu, T.-Y. (2017). Blended context-aware ubiquitous learning in museums: Environment, navigation support and system development. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 21(2), 355–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cochrane, T. D. (2014). Critical success factors for transforming pedagogy with mobile web 2.0. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(1), 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cochrane, T., & Bateman, R. (2010). Smartphones give you wings: Pedagogical affordances of mobile web 2.0. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cressman, D. (2009). A brief overview of actor-network theory: Punctualization, heterogeneous engineering and translation.Google Scholar
  25. David, P., Kline, S., & Dai, Y. (2005). Corporate social responsibility practices, corporate identity, and purchase intention: A dual-process model. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17(3), 291–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. DeLanda, M. (1998). Deleuze and the open-ended becoming of the world, chaos/control: Complexity conference. Bielefeld, Germany: University of Bielefeld.Google Scholar
  27. Deleuze, G. 1968 [2004]. Difference and repetition. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  28. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus. Minneapolis, MN: The University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  29. Dobson, H. E., & Bland Tomkinson, C. (2012). Creating sustainable development change agents through problem-based learning: Designing appropriate student PBL projects. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 13(3), 263–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Dubois, A., & Gadde, L. E. (2002). Systematic combining: An abductive approach to case research. Journal of Business Research, 55(7), 553–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fadeeva, Z., Mochizuki, Y., Brundiers, K., Wiek, A., & Redman, C. L. (2010). Real-world learning opportunities in sustainability: From classroom into the real world. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 11(4), 308–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fenwick, T. (2010). Re-thinking the “thing”: Sociomaterial approaches to understanding and researching learning in work. Journal of Workplace Learning, 22(1/2), 104–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Fenwick, T., & Edwards, R. (2010). Actor-network theory in education. Oxon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Fenwick, T., & Edwards, R. (2013). Performative ontologies: Sociomaterial approaches to researching adult education and lifelong learning. European Journal for Research on the Education and Learning of Adults, 4(1), 49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Fenwick, T., & Edwards, R. (2018). Revisiting actor-network theory in education. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Fenwick, T., & Landri, P. (2012). Materialities, textures and pedagogies: Socio-material assemblages in education. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 20(1), 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Fox, S. (1997). Situated learning theory versus traditional cognitive learning theory: Why management education should not ignore management learning. Systems Practice, 10(6), 727–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Fox, S. (2000). Communities of practice, Foucault and actor-network theory. Journal of Management Studies, 37(6), 853–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Fox, S. (2002). Studying networked learning: Some implications from socially situated learning theory and actor network theory. In C. Steeples & C. Jones (Eds.), Networked learning: Perspectives and issues (pp. 77–91). London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Fox, S. (2005). An actor-network critique of community in higher education: Implications for networked learning. Studies in Higher Education, 30(1), 95–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Fox, S. (2009). Contexts of teaching and learning: An actor-network view of the classroom. In G. Biesta, R. Edwards, & M. Thorpe (Eds.), Rethinking contexts for learning and teaching (pp. 31–43). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Fraley, R. C., & Hudson, N. W. (2014). Intensive longitudinal methods: An introduction to diary and experience sampling research. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  44. Gherardi, S. (2001). From organizational learning to practice-based knowing. Human Relations, 54(1), 131–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Gherardi, S. (2012). How to conduct a practice-based study: Problems and methods. Chelthenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Gherardi, S. (2016). To start practice theorizing anew: The contribution of the concepts of agencement and formativeness. Organization, 23(5), 680–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2012). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia Methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Gond, J., Cabantous, L., Harding, N., & Learmonth, M. (2016). What do we mean by performativity in organizational and management theory? The uses and abuses of performativity. International Journal of Management Reviews, 18(4), 440–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Gu, J., Churchill, D., & Lu, J. (2014). Mobile web 2.0 in the workplace: A case study of employees’ informal learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(6), 1049–1059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hayano, D. (1979). Auto-ethnography: Paradigms, problems, and prospects. Human Organization, 38(1), 99–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Hayles, N. K. (2008). How we became posthuman: Virtual bodies in cybernetics, literature, and informatics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  52. Henze, N., Pielot, M., Poppinga, B., Schinke, T., & Boll, S. (2011). My app is an experiment: Experience from user studies in mobile app stores. International Journal of Mobile Human Computer Interaction, 3(4), 71–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Hesselbarth, C., & Schaltegger, S. (2014). Educating change agents for sustainability: Learnings from the first sustainability management master of business administration. Journal of Cleaner Production, 62, 24–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Heyl, B. S. (2001). Ethnographic interviewing. In P. Atkinson, A. Coffey, S. Delamont, J. Lofland, & L. Lofland (Eds.), Handbook of ethnography (pp. 369–384). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Hsu, Y. C., & Ching, Y. H. (2013). Mobile app design for teaching and learning: Educators’ experiences in an online graduate course. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(4), 117–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Hwang, G.-J., Chu, H.-C., Lin, Y.-S., & Tsai, C.-C. (2011). A knowledge acquisition approach to developing Mindtools for organizing and sharing differentiating knowledge in a ubiquitous learning environment. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1368–1377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Josephson, J. R., & Josephson, S. G. (Eds.). (1996). Abductive inference: Computation, philosophy, technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Kavathatzopoulos, I. (2003). The use of information and communication technology in the training for ethical competence in business. Journal of Business Ethics, 48(1), 43–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Kearney, M., Schuck, S., Burden, K., & Aubusson, P. (2012). Viewing mobile learning from a pedagogical perspective. Research in Learning Technology, 20(1), 14406–14418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Khalid, H., Shihab, E., Nagappan, M., & Hassan, A. E. (2015). What do mobile app users complain about? IEEE Software, 32(3), 70–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. King, N. (2004). Using templates in the thematic analysis of text. In C. Cassell & G. Symon (Eds.), Essential guide to qualitative methods in organization studies (pp. 256–270). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(2), 193–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Kornberger, M., & Clegg, S. (2011). Strategy as performative practice: The case of Sydney 2030. Strategic Organization, 9(2), 136–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Kucirkova, N. (2014). iPads in early education: Separating assumptions and evidence. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Laasch, O. (2018). An actor-network perspective on business models: How ‘Being Responsible’ led to incremental, but pervasive change. Long Range Planning.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2018.04.002.
  66. Laasch, O., & Conaway, R. (2015). Principles of responsible management: Global sustainability, responsibility, ethics. Mason: Cengage.Google Scholar
  67. Laasch, O., & Conaway, R. (2016). Responsible business: The textbook for management learning, competence, innovation. Sheffield: Greenleaf.Google Scholar
  68. Laasch, O., & Moosmayer, D. (2015). Competences for responsible management: A structured literature review. CRME working papers (Vol. 1(2)).Google Scholar
  69. Laasch, O., & Moosmayer, D. (2016). Responsible management competences: Building a portfolio for professional competence. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Conference, Anaheim.Google Scholar
  70. Lai, C. H., Yang, J. C., Chen, F. C., Ho, C. W., & Chan, T. W. (2007). Affordances of mobile technologies for experiential learning: The interplay of technology and pedagogical practices. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(4), 326–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Latour, B. (1994a). On technical mediation. Common Knowledge, 3(2), 29–64.Google Scholar
  72. Latour, B. (1994b). Une sociologie sans objet? Remarques sur l’interobjectivité. Sociologie du Travail, 4, 587–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Latour, B. (1996). On actor-network theory: A few clarifications. Soziale Welt, 47(4), 369–381.Google Scholar
  74. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Law, J. (1987). Technology and heterogeneous engineering: The case ol the Portuguese expansion. In W. Bijker, T. Hughes, & T. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  77. Law, J. (1992). Notes on theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity. Systems Practice, 5(4), 379–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Law, J. (2000). Comment on Suchman, and Gherardi and Nicolini: Knowing as displacing. Organization, 7(2), 349–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Lee, M. K. (2015). Effects of mobile phone-based app learning compared to computer-based web learning on nursing students: Pilot randomized controlled trial. Healthcare Informatics Research, 21(2), 125–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Lee, M. J., & Chan, A. (2007). Pervasive, lifestyle-integrated mobile learning for distance learners: An analysis and unexpected results from a podcasting study. Open Learning, 22(3), 201–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Ligonie, M. (2017). The “forced performativity” of a strategy concept: Exploring how shared value shaped a gambling company’s strategy. Long Range Planning.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2017.04.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Lindberg, O., & Rantatalo, O. (2015). Competence in professional practice: A practice theory analysis of police and doctors. Human Relations, 68(4), 561–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Mara, A., & Hawk, B. (2009). Posthuman rhetorics and technical communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 19(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. McLean, C., & Hassard, J. (2004). Symmetrical absence/symmetrical absurdity: Critical notes on the production of actor-network accounts. Journal of Management Studies, 41(3), 493–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Melhuish, K., & Falloon, G. (2010). Looking to the future: M-learning with the iPad. Computers in New Zealand Schools, 22(3), 1–16.Google Scholar
  86. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Drawing valid meaning from qualitative data: Toward a shared craft. Educational Researcher, 13(5), 20–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Milligan, C., Bingley, A., & Gatrell, A. (2005). Digging deep: Using diary techniques to explore the place of healt· well-being amongst older people. Social Science & Medicine, 61(9), 1882–1892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Montiel, I., Antolin-Lopez, R., & Gallo, P. (2018). Emotions and sustainability: A literary genre based framework for environmental sustainability management education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2(1), 155–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Montiel, I., Delgado-Ceballos, J., & Ortiz-de-Mandojana, N. (2017). Mobile apps for sustainability management education: The example of GoodGuide. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16(3), 488–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Moosmayer, D. C. (2012). A model of management academics’ intentions to influence values. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(2), 155–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Moosmayer, D. C., Chen, Y., & Davis, S. M. (2017). Deeds not words: A cosmopolitan perspective on the influences of corporate sustainability and NGO engagement on the adoption of sustainable products in China. Journal of Business Ethics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3702-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Moosmayer, D. C., Waddock, S., Wang, L., Hühn, M. P., Dierksmeier, C., & Gohl, C. (2018). Leaving the road to Abilene: A pragmatic approach to addressing the normative paradox of responsible management education. Journal of Business Ethics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3961-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Morse, J. M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J. (2002). Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2), 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Motiwalla, L. F. (2007). Mobile learning: A framework and evaluation. Computers & Education, 49(3), 581–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Mouza, C., & Barrett-Greenly, T. (2015). Bridging the app gap: An examination of a professional development initiative on mobile learning in urban schools. Computers & Education, 88, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Murdoch, J. (1997). Inhuman/nonhuman/human: Actor-network theory and the prospects for a nondualistic and symmetrical perspective on nature and society. Society and Space, 15(6), 731–756.Google Scholar
  97. Murillo, D., & Lozano, J. M. (2006). SMEs and CSR: An approach to CSR in their own words. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(3), 227–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Nabi, G., Liñán, F., Fayolle, A., Krueger, N., & Walmsley, A. (2017). The impact of entrepreneurship education in higher education: A systematic review and research agenda. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16(2), 277–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Nicolini, D. (2007). Stretching out and expanding work practices in time and space: The case of telemedicine. Human Relations, 60(6), 889–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Nicolini, D. (2009). Zooming in and out: Studying practices by switching theoretical lenses and trailing connections. Organization Studies, 30(12), 1391–1418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Nicolini, D. (2012). Practice theory, work, and organization: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  102. O’Brien, O. A., McCarthy, M., Gibney, E. R., & McAuliffe, F. M. (2014). Technology-supported dietary and lifestyle interventions in healthy pregnant women: A systematic review. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 68(7), 760–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. O’Malley, G., Dowdall, G., Burls, A., Perry, I. J., & Curran, N. (2014). Exploring the usability of a mobile app for adolescent obesity management. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2(2), 29–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Osagie, E., Wesselink, R., Blok, V., Lans, T., & Mulder, M. (2016a). Individual competencies for corporate social responsibility: A literature and practice perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 135(2), 233–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Osagie, E. R., Wesselink, R., Blok, V., & Mulder, M. (2016b). Contextualizing individual competencies for managing the corporate social responsibility adaptation process: The apparent influence of the business case logic. Business & Society.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650316676270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Park, Y. (2014). A pedagogical framework for mobile learning: Categorising educational applications of mobile technologies into four types. In M. Ally & A. Tsinakos (Eds.), Increased access through mobile learning (pp. 27–48). Vancouver, BC: Commonwealth of Learning Press.Google Scholar
  107. Pohling, R., Bzdok, D., Eigenstetter, M., Stumpf, S., & Strobel, A. (2016). What is ethical competence? The role of empathy, personal values, and the five-factor model of personality in ethical decision-making. Journal of Business Ethics, 137(3), 449–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Pullman, M. E., Maloni, M. J., & Carter, C. R. (2009). Food for thought: Social versus environmental sustainability practices and performance outcomes. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 45(4), 38–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Randles, S., & Mander, S. (2009). Aviation, consumption and the climate change debate: ‘Are you going to tell me off for flying? Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 21(1), 93–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Reychav, I., & Wu, D. (2015). Mobile collaborative learning: The role of individual learning in groups through text and video content delivery in tablets. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 520–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Roehl, A., Reddy, S. L., & Shannon, G. J. (2013). The flipped classroom: An opportunity to engage millennial students through active learning. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 105(2), 44–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Saldaña, J. (2012). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  114. Säljö, R. (2010). Digital tools and challenges to institutional traditions of learning: Technologies, social memory and the performative nature of learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(1), 53–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Sandri, O., Holdsworth, S., & Thomas, I. (2018). Assessing graduate sustainability capability post-degree completion: Why is it important and what are the challenges? International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 19(1), 2–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Sarker, S., & Sidorova, A. (2006). Understanding business process change failure: An actor-network perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 23(1), 51–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Schaal, S., & Lude, A. (2015). Using mobile devices in environmental education and education for sustainable development: Comparing theory and practice in a nation wide survey. Sustainability, 7(8), 10153–10170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Schatzki, T. (2016). Practice theory as flat ontology. Bielefeld: Transcript.Google Scholar
  119. Schneider, J., & Schaal, S. (2017). Location-based smartphone games in the context of environmental education and education for sustainable development: Fostering connectedness to nature with Geogames. Environmental Education Research.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2017.1383360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Semple, J. L., Sharpe, S., Murnaghan, M. L., Theodoropoulos, J., & Metcalfe, K. A. (2015). Using a mobile app for monitoring post-operative quality of recovery of patients at home: A feasibility study. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 3(1), e18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Shove, E., Pantzar, M., & Watson, M. (2012). The dynamics of social practice: Everyday life and how it changes. Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Shove, E., & Spurling, N. (2013). Sustainable practices: Social theory and climate change. Milton Park: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Shove, E., Trentmann, F., & Wilk, R. (2009). Time, consumption and everyday life: Practice, materiality and culture. Oxford: Berg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Sipos, Y., Battisti, B., & Grimm, K. (2008). Achieving transformative sustainability learning: Engaging head, hands and heart. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 9(1), 68–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Soltes, E. (2017). Teaching versus living: Managerial decision making in the gray. Journal of Management Education, 41(4), 455–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Sørensen, T. F. (2018). We have never been Latourian: Archaeological ethics and the posthuman condition. In T. Fenwick & R. Adams (Eds.), Revisiting actor-network theory in education. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  127. Swanson, D. L. (2004). The buck stops here: Why universities must reclaim business ethics education. Journal of Academic Ethics, 2(1), 43–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Tatnall, A. (2005). Actor-network theory in information systems research. In J. A. Rodger & M. Khosrow-Pour (Eds.), Encyclopedia of information science and technology (pp. 42–46). Hershey: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Thumlert, K., Castell, S. D., & Jenson, J. (2018). Short cuts and extended techniques: Rethinking relations between technology and educational theory. In T. Fenwick & R. Edwards (Eds.), Revisiting actor-network theory in education. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  130. Traxler, J. (2007). Defining, discussing and evaluating mobile learning: The moving finger writes and having writ. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 8(2), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. (2002). On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational change. Organization Science, 13(5), 567–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Tucker, B. (2012). The flipped classroom. Education Next, 12(1), 82–83.Google Scholar
  133. Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing and Health Sciences, 15(1), 398–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7(2), 225–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Wenger, E. (2010). Communities of practice and social learning systems: The career of a concept. In C. Blackmore (Ed.), Social learning systems and communities of practice (pp. 179–198). London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Whitehead, A. N. (1927/1928 [1985]). Process and reality. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  137. Wiek, A., Withycombe, L., & Redman, C. L. (2011). Key competencies in sustainability: A reference framework for academic program development. Sustainability Science, 6(2), 203–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Wong, L., & Tatnall, A. (2010). Factors determining the balance between online and face-to-face teaching: An analysis using actor-network theory. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge & Management, 5, 167–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Wright, S., & Parchoma, G. (2011). Technologies for learning? An actor-network theory critique of ‘affordances’ in research on mobile learning. Research in Learning Technology, 19(3), 247–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Wright, S., & Parchoma, G. (2014). Mobile learning and immutable mobiles: Using iPhones to support informal learning in craft brewing. In V. Hodgson, M. de Laat, D. McConnell, & T. Ryberg (Eds.), The design, experience and practice of networked learning (pp. 241–261). London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Nottingham Ningbo ChinaNingboChina

Personalised recommendations