Abstract: This paper investigates the degree to which recent digital Open Education literature is aligned to social justice principles, starting with the first UNESCO definition of Open Educational Resources (OER). A critical analysis of 19 texts was undertaken to track dominant and alternative ideas shaping the development of Open Education since 2002 as it broadened and developed from OER to Open Educational Practices (OEP). The paper begins by outlining the method of texts selection, including defining the three principles of social justice (redistributive, recognitive and representational justice) used as an analytical lens. Next the paper sets out findings which show where and how the principles of social justice became lost within the details of texts, or in other digital agendas and technological determinist debates. Finally, a new social justice aligned definition for Open Education is offered. The aim of the new definition is to provide new language and a strong theoretical framework for equitable education, as well as to clearly distinguish the field of Open Education from mainstream constructivist eLearning.
“Open access began about 20 years ago – with the formal definition, justifying O and A capitalisations, being largely settled by 2003. Since then this definition of open access has been most successfully applied to journal articles.
Now books are getting focused attention. Some research funders, particularly in Europe but elsewhere too, are determined to radically increase the pace at which open access grows. Research they fund that is published as books may in many cases need to become open access. However, current approaches to open access for journals cannot work for books at a large scale.
If we apply open access to books in the way it is applied to journals, we will fail. If the failure is simply that books do not become more ‘open’, that would be one thing. But it is possible that academic researchers will find themselves required to publish books in ways that will be unsustainable for academic publishers. For Cambridge University Press, where I work, if our books earned only a few percentage points less revenue than they do now, our books programme would become loss-making. Academic books are a vital part of many researchers’ lives and careers. We must not put them at risk….
A definition of ‘open’ for books will therefore need to focus on content being freely readable while relaxing the requirements for allowing re-distribution and re-use. …”
“One could argue that Audrey Watters’ dismissal of today’s announcement is a little harsh, somewhat cynical. Maybe insistence on open code and open content as necessary conditions for “open education” is a case of ‘zeal over pragmatism’.
But if proprietary content and platforms in service of for-profit enterprises [Udacity] counts as “open education”, just what is the “open” part supposed to be? Audrey’s subsequent tweets offer a clue….
Open as in doors. Open as in hearts. Open as in “for business”. And give them credit, the venture capitalized open education movers have proven tireless in making deals and spewing triumphant press releases. The Open Education Alliance represents the latest landmark in this glorious history.
In any event, while a concept such as open source carries certain obligatory qualities, when we talk about education the application of “open” is more closely related to how ‘All Natural!’ or ‘New and Improved!’ are used on our supermarket shelves. It’s gotten to the point where I find myself hesitant to use a term like “open education” when I speak with people. And I wonder if I still want to be called an open educator….”
“Numerous studies have found that Open Access papers are cited significantly more than the global average. Across all scientific disciplines, the average citation increase is 30%. If that’s not a compelling enough reason to make your research Open Access, I don’t know what is!
According to a new report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the citation impact driven by publishing your research Open Access* is caused by papers that are Green Open Access — where the author “self-archives” their work in a central repository, commonly an institutional archive or a public, discipline-specific repository like MarXiv. The effect is largely not caused by papers that are Gold Open Access, where the paper is available for free directly from the publisher. Why might this be the case? Let’s start by getting our terminology straight, first….”
“This is a presentation given on September 28th by Dr. Eric Archambault, world expert in bibliometrics and founder of 1science, during Scielo 20 Years Conference in São Paulo, Brazil.The panel was entitled ” Open Access – routes towards universalization : gold and hybrid journals, green, and others” His contribution, “Universalization of (OA) scientific dissemination”, demonstrates the limitation of traditional databases in measuring OA and shows how the 1findr product has universal discovery and inclusive measures.”
In our blog series on metaphors of the digital society, we uncover the vocabularies that are thrown around almost haphazardly these days. These terms are often deployed in the scholarly and societal discourse without much thought about their meaning and use. Here, Benedikt Fecher and Tony Ross-Hellauer dismantle one of these metaphors of the digital society: open science. We believe that, depending on how you look at it, open science can be understood as both a tautology and an antithesis.
“Open scholarship, which encompasses open access, open data, open educational resources, and all other forms of openness in the scholarly and research environment, is changing how knowledge is created and shared. For research libraries, open scholarship offers opportunities for campus collaborations and new service roles.
SHARE is a higher education initiative whose mission is to maximize research impact by making research widely accessible, discoverable, and reusable. To fulfill this mission SHARE is building a free, open, data set about research and scholarly activities across their life cycle.
Below are links to information and resources on other key topics in open scholarship….”
“Talk given to the Radical Open Access 2 Conference in Coventry, 27 June 2018 as part of a panel on the commons and care. The talk was published as part of a pamphlet alongside pieces by Joe Deville and Tahani Nadim: https://hcommons.org/deposits/item/hc:19817/
The commons’ is a term routinely employed by advocates of open access publishing to describe the ideal scholarly publishing ecosystem, one comprised entirely of freely available journal articles, books, data and code. Usually undefined, advocates invoke the commons as a good-in-itself, governed by the scholarly community and publicly accessible to all. The term itself is not associated with an identifiable politico-economic ideology, nor does it entail any particular form of organisation or practice. Without further justification, the term ‘commons’ has little meaning beyond referring to the various degrees of community control and/or accessibility associated with certain resources. This paper will illustrate some of the uses (and abuses) of the commons in scholarly publishing, aiming to highlight both the ambiguity of the term and some of the drawbacks of treating the commons as fixed and static entity focused on the production and management of shared resources, as many do. While it certainly relates to resources and their governance, I want to reposition the commons – or ‘commoning’ specifically – as a practice of cultivating and caring for the relationships that exist around the production of shared resources. In reorienting the commons in this way, I will show how an attitude of commoning extends beyond the commons site itself and into the relationships present in other forms of organisation also. This allows us to reposition the commons towards a shared, emancipatory horizon while maintaining the need for a plurality of commons-based practices in publishing and beyond. A progressive and emancipatory commons, I argue, is therefore a space of ‘care-full commoning’….”
“Consequently, the last 20 years have seen a transformation of public policies – legislative, regulatory, and administrative – grounded in the philosophy that access to and dissemination of government data is a public right and that any constraints on access hinder transparency and accountability. While there is broad recognition of the need to maximize access to government data, the types of government data are increasingly diverse and complex. For instance, there are many cases where the government collects or licenses private sector data, often combining this data with other data produced by the government. These datasets are often referred to as “hybrid data” or “privately curated data” – data licensed to or collected by the government that comprises both public and private sources. Access to and use of hybrid data is increasingly critical for government to transform data into actionable information….
Examples of curated, or hybrid, datasets include…peer-reviewed scientifc and technical literature that is based on government-funded academic research but published in the private sector. Subjecting this full range of information to unfettered “openness” requirements risks the availability and quality of these valuable data-driven resources. Such requirements will ultimately harm the public interest when the inevitable “tragedy of the commons” scenario compromises the quality of the dataset, as private-sector actors begin avoiding these government partnerships for fear losing control of their data. Unfortunately, some current open data policies invite unintended consequences – specifcally, well-intentioned but overly broad open data mandates that nullify intellectual property rights by extending to data produced in the private sector and collected by, or licensed to, the government….
Collecting, verifying, analyzing, and publishing accurate datasets is a resource-intensive activity that generates valuable assets and solutions which governments need. This effort demands time and money and manages several competing interests, including individual privacy, national security, and intellectual property. Entities – both private and public – who engage in this economic activity prefer not to have the fruits of their investment publicly released in a way that would undermine their value. Yet that is what some open government advocates appear to be demanding as a blanket rule – a rule that, if followed to its logical conclusion, could discourage or eliminate public– private data collaborations that result in enormous beneft for the government and taxpayers alike….”