| Abstract: | My original paper, “Toward a Post-Modern Agenda in Instructional Technology” (Solomon, 2000), was an interdisciplinary review
of the literature and offered multiple perspectives of the subject, a post-modern approach sometimes referred to as multivocality.
I found several themes inherent in the literature, which I presented as eight general assumptions about post-modernism for
consideration, discussion, and adoption. Then, I concluded the paper with a discussion about the potential contributions of
post-modern concepts in instructional technology. In a reaction to my paper, Voithofer and Foley (this issue) misinterpreted
some of the purposes and assumptions expressed, by seeing my view as an effort to construct a model of a post-modern agenda,
which could not be further from my original purpose. This paper serves to clarify my position as a sequel to their response.
David L. Solomon is Creative Director in Training Operations at PentaMark Worldwide. He is also Research Fellow at the Learning
Development Institute
Author's note: I was introduced to post-modernism during a group project in one of Rita Richey's graduate classes at Wayne
State University. My interest in the subject flourished, and post-modernism became the focus of my dissertation research.
Clearly, I found a problem to solve: No one I knew could explain post-modernism, and almost everyone I encountered in the
field had no idea what it was. Gary Morrison was a member of my doctoral committee and introduced me to the classic works
of Morris (1946), Knowlton (1964;1966), Stevens (1969; 1970), and Cassidy (1982). Under his guidance, I submitted my work
to the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) and was awarded the 2000 ETR&D Young Scholar Award.
Richey and Morrison encouraged me to explore this topic with rigor and clarity and I am grateful for their support. |
