So What? . . .

a question that every journal article needs to answer

Neil Selwyn
Faculty of Education, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
Published online: 14 Oct 2013.
To cite this article: Neil Selwyn (2014) So What? a question that every journal article needs to
answer, Learning, Media and Technology, 39:1, 1-5, DOI: 10.1080/17439884.2013.848454
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2013.848454

One of the lessons drummed into me during my doctoral studies was to always remain mindful of
the So What? question (sometimes expressed more bluntly as Who Cares?). The wisdom of this
advice soon became clear as I began venturing beyond the relative safety of my own academic
department and into the harsh world of academic conferences and publishing. Here I was
confronted by a barrage of challenging questions. What is the significance of your research? What
is its relevance? Why should anyone be interested in what you have to say outside of the handful of
people researching your particular niche area?
The issue of So What? has stuck with me throughout my academic career. When planning any
piece of writing I still start by considering the reasons why anyone else could be interested in
reading it. I then try to ensure that the final text makes it abundantly clear why other people should
be reading. From a pragmatic perspective, this is now a necessary aspect of writing in a publish or
perish environment of citation indices and impact factors. Indeed, any new book/article/blog
posting has to work harder than ever to persuade potential readers to take note of whatever it has to
say. Yet in a more scholarly sense, academic authors have always been expected to justify their
contribution to knowledge. To me, this is why any academic authors needs to be clear about the
relevance, significance and wider value of their writing. As such, So What? is a question that
needs to be taken very seriously indeed.
Besides my own writing, I most frequently find myself confronting the So What? question when
carrying out editorial work for Learning, Media & Technology. With the growing popularity of
research into education, technology and media around the world, more articles are now being
submitted to the journal than ever before. Many of these are of very high quality, making the
decision-making process a difficult one. Yet we have also noticed a few submissions often from
authors early on in their academic publishing careers that suffer from a basic lack of clarity with
regards to explaining their significance and relevance. Often it is simply not clear what the
contribution to knowledge of these articles is. In order to help future authors avoid being rejected
on these grounds, I thought it worthwhile reflecting on the So What? question, and how it should
be an important element of any article that ends up being published in this (or any other) academic
journal.
When writing a journal article it is often easy to lose sight of how it will look to the outside world.
One can simply get caught up in the minutiae of the specific research study at hand or distracted by
the battle to keep within the recommended word count. This predicament was illustrated with the
recent submission of two different articles to the journal within hours of each other.
The first of these articles described the use of a particular computer game in Grade 7 history
classrooms, while the second article described the use of another computer game in Grade 9 science
classrooms. The problem with these two submissions was not one of collusion or plagiarism
indeed, these articles were written by teams of authors in different countries working totally
independently of each other. Instead, the fatal problem with these articles was their lack of selfawareness. For example, neither article attempted to explain why their case study might be of
interest or relevance beyond the particular classrooms that had been studied. There was no reference
back to previous
debates within Learning, Media & Technology on games and gaming.
There was no elaboration of the possible nuances of the specific research contexts (e.g., the
different epistemological bases of history/science, the cultural contexts of schooling in the
respective countries, the nature of Grade 7/9 students and so on). Other than the specific teachers
and students who had participated in the studies and perhaps the producers of the actual games
being studied, it was hard to see why anyone else should be interested in either of these articles.
I suspect that both these sets of authors had fallen foul of a common trend within technology and
new media studies of conflating academic research with more practically focused evaluation. Of
course, there is nothing wrong with work that is primarily evaluatory in nature. These proof of

concept and best practice studies of the application of specific digital devices and practices in
particular educational settings are clearly necessary and worthwhile stages in the development of
any educational technology. Yet work of this kind does not translate automatically into scholarly,
academic writing. A social science journal such as Learning Media & Technology is not looking to
publish endless variations on describing the potential of gadget X + classroom Y. Instead, we are
looking to publish articles that have substantially more to say about the wider picture of education,
technology and society.
What some submitting authors perhaps fail to recognize is that the most significant aspect of their
work is not the actual piece of technology or new media under scrutiny. Indeed, over the past three
years or so of editing this journal I have observed waves of submissions focusing on the educational
potential of successive technological next big things. These have progressed from studies of
interactive whiteboards in the classroom, to clickers in the classroom, then Facebook in the
classroom, Twitter in the classroom and undoubtedly soon an emerging trend for studies of 3D
printers in the classroom. While we have published some of the more insightful articles along these
lines, many more have failed to make the cut. These rejected articles have generally been those that
failed to think beyond the technology in question. The wow factor of a new digital device, digital
application or digital practice is not enough to merit publication. Moreover, just because we have
published three papers on the topic of Twitter is not an indication in itself that we are happy to
publish more. What
we are keen to publish are articles that add to understandings of the social complexities of digital
technology and media use in education. This is what the So What? question means to us.
With these thoughts in mind, there are at least four distinct strands of the So What? question that
we would urge authors of future submissions to the journal to pay close attention to. In brief (and in
no particular order) these are . . .
. What is the relevance of the article to educational practice . . . or any other aspect of the real
world?
How is the article of interest or importance to broader priorities in education, technology and
society? How does the article correspond with the general concerns of practitioners and other
people with a stake in the areas that you are researching? Education is replete with trends,
movements and priorities that the use of digital technology and media corresponds with. Take, for
example, the recent prioritization of personalization, self-assessment and parental engagement
within compulsory schooling or the focus on widening participation to higher education.
Similarly, there are often many broader trends in digital technology that research in education,
technology and media will articulate with. Take, for example, the growing importance of open
philosophies and designs, so-called big data or the emerging maker movement. A good academic
article will make these connections and explore these implications.
. What is the relevance of the article to policy? How does the article relate to broader concerns of
policy and policymakers? These might be state or federal educational priorities, the politics of
curriculum or public investments in digital technology and infrastructure. National policymaking is
often concerned with matters of social justice and inclusion, risk and regulation, and of participation
and engagement. On a broader scale, educational technology and media research will also often
articulate with supra-national policy trends and concerns. Take, for example, recent global concerns
with so-called twenty-first century skills or the universal right to education. Again, a good
academic
article will make these connections and explore these implications.
. What is the relevance of the article to other academic research and writing? Obviously, most
journal articles will contain some form of literature review. Yet the best articles do not passively
regurgitate the literature but will actively review it. This involves pointing out existing gaps and
silences that the article addresses. This also involves making connections with existing debates and
issues that the article contributes to and (ideally) advances. On one hand, it is obviously important
to demonstrate the articles relevance to previous writing in the journal that you have chosen to
publish in. How does the article build upon the conversations that have been taking place within
Learning, Media & Technology over the past 5, 10 or 20 years? On the other hand, it is also
important to look beyond the
immediate education, technology and media literatures. Often the articles that are submitted to our
journal are not really about technology or media at all. Instead, they might be primarily concerned

with matters of identity, social class and so on. A good article will therefore make clear how it sits
within/against these broader bodies of research and theory outside of the technology and media
domains? Why should a researcher from these non-technology areas turn to this particular
technology-related example?
. What is the relevance of the article to theory? What wider theoretical traditions does the article
draw from (if not deliberately then perhaps implicitly)? What wider theoretical concerns and current
controversies does the article speak to be it in terms of learning theory, educational theory or
broader social theory? Awareness of the theoretical precedents of ones research is an essential
element of avoiding simply reinventing the wheel. Conversely, thinking carefully about the
broader theoretical foundations of ones research can be a useful way of making connections with
academic disciplines and traditions beyond education, technology and media. Regardless of the
novelty of the digital technology being investigated, you are probably not the only person in the
world to have thought about the big issues that underpin the article. Therefore make sure that the
article tells readers how the research sits within the myriad traditions of academic work that already
exist.
Of course, many authors who submit articles to our journal are well aware of these issues, so I
apologize for re-stating what might be obvious advice. However, I hope that these points might
serve as a useful checklist for authors preparing submissions to Learning Media & Technology for
the first
time. As journal editors we do not necessarily expect an article to explicitly address all these issues
(after all, not every article will be especially relevant to policy or be particularly theoretically rich).
However, we do hope there to be some indication of having thought these issues through before
submitting an article.
Most of what has just been argued relates to the general point that successful articles tend to be
those display having a good awareness of what they are about i.e., what their primary audiences
are, and their value to these audiences.
These articles are clearly aware of their broader significance and generalizability. These articles are
mindful of the warrant of their data, and the limitations and parameters of their argument. These
articles avoid making sweeping statements and refrain from reaching speculative or unjustifiable
conclusions. These articles move beyond description to deeper forms of discussion, analysis and
debate. In short these articles have something to say! These, then, are the articles that we are
looking to publish in Learning Media & Technology . . . we look forward to receiving many more
submissions along these lines.