In the mid-20th century Postmodernism offered the world a coherent critique of grand theoretical narratives and pointed to the haughtiness of enlightenment pronouncements once praised following years of intellectual darkness. Postmodernism called into question the notion of the dispassionate scientist free from cultural contestations and mysticism (Layton 1997; Latour 1987) [offering] the world a vocabulary for critique. Critical theory (e.g. Horkheimer 1982) offered the world a set of hypotheses and lenses through which to not only describe conditions but also find ways to change them and Critical Race Theory (CRT) (Ladson-Billings 1995)
Ladson-Billings & Tate (1995) offered the world a set of assumptions that could be used to foreground some ideas and background others for the purpose of illuminating injustices deconstructing oppressive legislation and leveraging convergent interests to further the cause of social justice.
How do people talk and think about educational technology in different parts of the world in the context of globalization? How do people of differing cultural inclinations and from different identity complexes talk about think about and enact technological change in learning contexts? Who are the winners and losers in this enterprise? To what extent are claims of its appropriateness inflated by vendors? What is the future likely to be for children today?
Future research should contribute to a conversation among educators educational technologists and instructional designers to work toward the emergence of a robust critical theory of educational technology that may function as a lens to examine the discourses we produce about educational technologies and a prism through which to view and to critique the products and systems we design develop and implement.
The application of Critical Theory to educational and communication technologies might interrupt the largely celebratory claims coming from industry the government from some sectors in academia and organizations such as the Partnership for 21st Century schools opening the discourse for improvement and equitable dissemination of the power and responsibility granted by technology. The goal of this is not to show that technology in schools is a bad thing but rather to open up a space for asking these questions in the first place.
While there have been many critiques of educational technology implementation (e.g. Cuban 1986; 2001) there is still a lack of research that looks specifically at the implementation of educational technology systems in countries outside of North America and Europe conducted with a view to contributing to a critical theory of educational technology of the sort that Feenberg (1991; 1995; 1999) has called for and that is informed by philosophers of technology such as Horkheimer and Adorno (1972) Marcuse (1964; 1966; 1969) Haberrnas (1984) and Heidegger (1977).
Research that approaches these questions must focuses on culture and concepts and not be essentially ideological but be able to leverage theory to highlight the problems in data-driven ways. Simply put we must look not only to the validity of the celebratory claims made about technology as a panacea for economic and educational deficits in only certain pockets of Western society. Coming at ECT from a skeptical perspective and thus illuminating the discourses that animate the drive for technology in schools will find uncover uses for technology that equitably distribute power and responsibility thus avoiding the perpetuation of irreparable harm. By meaningfully confronting issues of power culture equity inclusion privilege hegemony and oppression the field will systemically integrate critical inquiry across the entirety of our field's research and practice.