244
J. Schulz et al.
redefined. Specialist areas that previously only held advisory roles, as well as civil
society, with its needs and independent initiatives, must be involved in the planning
process. Bottom-up and top-down actors then form a planning process that takes all
aspects into account, contributing to the equal development of educational spaces.
As shown by Köhler and Schilde (2003) and Schulz (2018), many different factors
affect the topic of digitalisation, education and space. On the one hand, there are
users’ behaviours arising from the technical possibilities. These are characterised
by individual influences driven by society and peer groups. As associated changes
occur in social behaviour, the methodological case of learners and their educational
needs also change. Digital components support individuality and are simultaneously becoming increasingly important. Similar to the case of online mail order,
the proximity of the offer also plays a largely subordinate role in this case. As the
distance from the learner increases, the proportion of digitally depicted elements
and processes increases, which is an important point for education providers, be it
universities, schools, libraries or private further education companies. However, in
the absence of local providers, the competitive situation may be intensified, particularly at local or regional borders. This is shown in exaggerated form in the following
three hypotheses:
1. Despite new ICTs, knowledge, control and monitoring functions are spatially
concentrated, and routine functions are generally performed decentral
(Meusburger et al. 2011).
2. Traditional teaching/learning arrangements will be largely superseded by selfdirected, flexible and individualised forms in the medium term (Köhler et al.
2018, 2019).
3. Physical learning spaces in schools, universities/colleges and vocational education and training institutions will be replaced by digital learning spaces, as
learners can access the same resources anywhere, anytime (ibid.).
Obviously, the necessary research would have to address the greater integration of
(A) spatial ideas about cooperation in the context of digitalisation and (B) the development of new visions and models based on this, including all domains involving
the creation of knowledge and its dissemination into society.
12.5.3 Methodological Critique and Future Research Needs
Finally, it is necessary to briefly present a methodological critique of the presented
research, and to address the need for future research. Due to the multi-perspectives
and the high dynamics of the (socio-)technological development around digitalisation
and the variety in its adoption (cf. Fischer 2012), there are certainly inaccuracies in
the scientific findings, both in theoretical and methodological terms, which must be
discussed briefly in the following.
J. Schulz et al.
redefined. Specialist areas that previously only held advisory roles, as well as civil
society, with its needs and independent initiatives, must be involved in the planning
process. Bottom-up and top-down actors then form a planning process that takes all
aspects into account, contributing to the equal development of educational spaces.
As shown by Köhler and Schilde (2003) and Schulz (2018), many different factors
affect the topic of digitalisation, education and space. On the one hand, there are
users’ behaviours arising from the technical possibilities. These are characterised
by individual influences driven by society and peer groups. As associated changes
occur in social behaviour, the methodological case of learners and their educational
needs also change. Digital components support individuality and are simultaneously becoming increasingly important. Similar to the case of online mail order,
the proximity of the offer also plays a largely subordinate role in this case. As the
distance from the learner increases, the proportion of digitally depicted elements
and processes increases, which is an important point for education providers, be it
universities, schools, libraries or private further education companies. However, in
the absence of local providers, the competitive situation may be intensified, particularly at local or regional borders. This is shown in exaggerated form in the following
three hypotheses:
1. Despite new ICTs, knowledge, control and monitoring functions are spatially
concentrated, and routine functions are generally performed decentral
(Meusburger et al. 2011).
2. Traditional teaching/learning arrangements will be largely superseded by selfdirected, flexible and individualised forms in the medium term (Köhler et al.
2018, 2019).
3. Physical learning spaces in schools, universities/colleges and vocational education and training institutions will be replaced by digital learning spaces, as
learners can access the same resources anywhere, anytime (ibid.).
Obviously, the necessary research would have to address the greater integration of
(A) spatial ideas about cooperation in the context of digitalisation and (B) the development of new visions and models based on this, including all domains involving
the creation of knowledge and its dissemination into society.
12.5.3 Methodological Critique and Future Research Needs
Finally, it is necessary to briefly present a methodological critique of the presented
research, and to address the need for future research. Due to the multi-perspectives
and the high dynamics of the (socio-)technological development around digitalisation
and the variety in its adoption (cf. Fischer 2012), there are certainly inaccuracies in
the scientific findings, both in theoretical and methodological terms, which must be
discussed briefly in the following.