Open Access in Higher Education: it’s all good?

Over the past year I have learned a lot about the notion of open access; a lot, that is, compared to what I knew before. And I like most of what I have learned, a lot is great, while I do have some remaining reservations. So, let’s explore!

Open Access: definition and the key principles

As some have said, one of the issues in defining OA is that, by its nature, it is constantly evolving and continually negotiated. However, here is one definition which addresses many of its dimensions: ‘resources, tools and practices that employ a framework of open sharing to improve educational access and effectiveness worldwide’ (Open Education Consortium).

There are a number of frameworks attempting to summarise the issues in OA, the one above being, in my view, as good as any (Santoz, Punie, Munoz, 2016). The four points at each corner of the diagram (strategy, quality, etc.) and referred to as ‘transvernal’, in that they will influence all of the remaining six core elements. I want to focus on some of the dimensions in more depth.

Among the many benefits of Open Access (OA) is the simple fact that the research, information, and opinions are open to all; there are no apparent barriers to reading and gaining from it. And the notion of openness is not necessarily just about easy access, but also contains the implicit assumption that those who have made their work freely available are themselves open to reviews by others; challenges, counter-positions, and so on. Given this exchange — indeed, encouragement — to comment on the work of others and to fully engage in online debate and discussion, it is argued that such debate can — in the education field — lead to pedagogic innovation within the education sector. Further, this access is seen to democratise the knowledge highway and enfranchises those previously excluded through financial or technological access reasons. So, there is a Widening Participation (WP) angle to OA, noted by Robin De Rosa among others.

However, we can also view OA as a massive disrupter to the overall market of knowledge, much as Uber has been to the established set-up for taxis in the UK and worldwide. Within the education sector, this has come at some cost to established publishers such as Elsevier. With profit margins of 30%+, this much have been a very unwelcome development, and the debates and concessions given — if any — are still playing out regarding how much if any ground such publishers are willing to concede. Prior to the emergence of OA, the state of affairs seemed pretty one-sided in favour of publishers, with researchers signing away their copyright when an article was published in one of the major journals. Such publishers argue that OA is detrimental to the quality of research — which introduces the issue of quality assurance (QA), referenced in the framework referenced earlier. The QA argument also begets the overall governance issue: how to ensure quality assurance unless there is some understanding about the rules of engagement, what is or is not possible, who signs off and why? Such arguments can seem at odds with the very notion of open access, but I would agree that unless they are addressed, credence could be given to concerns about issues of quality, provenance, due recognition, protection of intellectual property (in whatever form), and use of content in other works.

Such regulation or governance arrangements are increasingly being put into place and, as with any emerging field of activity, some organisations are becoming prominent and introducing frameworks of their own, such as the OE Consortium. Many Higher Education (HE) institutions have introduced their own policy statements. Possibly the most famous of these is the Glasgow Caledonian University policy for Open Access to Research, published in 2014 (https://www.gcu.ac.uk/library/servicesforstaff/openaccessatgcu/openaccesspolicies/). The policy addresses a number of key areas for clarification on OA arrangements, and many other HEIs have produced similar documents. The policy also references ORCID (Open Researcher and Contributor ID), a not-for-profit independent organisation dedicated to the development of an open and independent registry intended to be the standard for author identification on academic publishing, clearly linking an author to their work. I think such moves are essential for people to freely and confidently engage in OA, and I am reminded of similar processes emerging in the field of coaching, an area in which I work, with a number of organisations becoming increasingly pre-eminent, and establishing codes of practice, with some likely to dominate in the near future. This says something about the stage of evolution of OA, and it would appear to be some way from ‘maturity’ as yet.

Even with such safeguards and quality-drivers being set in pace, there can still be issues and barriers to participation. This theme is explored by Padma Inala in her University of Manchester OKHE1 blog (https://medium.com/open-knowledge-in-he/sharing-is-caring-hidden-barriers-to-being-open-c8951b5ab23e, 2019). Padma, who works for the University of Manchester’s Library, highlight’s the Library’s own My Learning Essentials (MLE) online skills programme, launched in 2013. Padma highlights the question of whether everyone would be comfortable with the idea of their work being ‘out there’ and available for all to see, critique, and comment upon? She raises the question of those who suffer from Imposter Syndrome (IS) — a sense of being found out, found wanting and a fear their view may be dismissed by others. It could be argued, of course, that such concerns could surface whenever an academic or indeed anyone may publish a book, article or paper, and given that peer review and reviews in general will appear, that those who put their work in the public domain will inevitably face criticism, helpful or otherwise. However, it is apparent to me that IS is alive and well in academia; on the leadership programmes I design and co-deliver in the Staff Learning & Development Team at the University of Manchester, from discussions many academics feel, or have felt at some point in their career, a sense of IS. So this may be something from which many of those working in the OA space are likely to suffer (but also in academia in general?). There is also the issue of the permanence of an online article; it can be revised but in many cases not removed. Padma, though, points to encouraging developments, such as Wenger’s Community of Practice principle allied to OA; a supportive relationship among users to help each other. It is to be hoped that, however tentative a step someone may make in online publishing, that such communities of practice do exist and will encourage contributions from others (the opportunity to leave comments with articles can facilitate this). This can’t, it seems to me, be at the expense of academic rigour and a striving for excellence, but can work alongside this in helpful and encouraging criticism of published articles, recognising that most of us are harsher in our judgements of ourselves and our work than others may be.

Padma also cites Martin Weller in his paper The Battle for Open — a Perspective (https://jime.open.ac.uk/articles/10.5334/2013-15/), as a champion of OA. Weller advances many arguments for OA in his paper, including widening the terms of the debate to consider the role of research in HE in re-shaping agendas and understanding, and he argues that, however Reed Elsevier and other publishers may see the research publishing market, that it is not — for him — a compartmentalised commodity market; a ‘content’ market similar to the music industry. This invites an interesting comparison for me. It may well be that many variables are different between the two fields, but a quick look at the impact the notion of ‘open’ has had on the music industry over the past 15 years or so is not, in my view, encouraging. Today, so many can easily enter that market, and it is comparatively simple for anyone to publish online music they may have composed, sung and played. Downloads and streaming have led to a fall in the price of entry into this market . Fifteen years ago a new CD by a major artist could cost £15. Today- for those still buying CDs — we should expect to pay £8–10. And of course if you have a streaming contract, or indeed, access it illegally, there is little or no cost to entry. This means that most established acts now make their money through touring rather than through music sales. And, whilst entry for emerging acts is perhaps easier than it was (given the ability to publish music and videos online) the ability and preparedness for music companies to support and nurture developing acts — such as, for example, EMI did with Kate Bush back in the 1970s for several years before she had her first hits. It has also led to the ‘one-year celebrity’ syndrome of X Factor and similar acts; a hit single, quickly followed by rapidly-declining fame and further album options not being taken up. So, the issue of the right to earn and protect income from research or intellectual property, versus the right to access of others to it, is one which remains a nagging concern for me (are we achieving one and losing the other?). However, even if such research was published by the likes of Elsevier, the author signs away their right to copyright, so is that route really any better?

What then are the parallels with the increased access to the music industry which might apply in OA in education and research? We have all read blog posts which fail to stimulate. Does more necessarily mean better, or simply just more? Does this point to human talent being seen as represented by a bell-shaped curve graph, which will continue to be the case however ‘open’ we make the access to publishing (i.e. is there more ‘talent’ to which OA will give access?). Well, the answer to that question is probably beyond the scope of this blog, but it does touch on the question of whether ‘talent will out’ (will inevitably rise to prominence) or whether, given widely different circumstances for many, the talent of significant groups may well get ‘blocked’ from wider exposure. And this is probably the core argument for Open. In the debate on OA, some have talked of the issue of ‘parity of esteem’ between the publisher and reviewer (as famously noted in the Cape Town Declaration), and of whether this is a justified or appropriate view. Of course much of this depends on the individuals concerned in any particular case and their relative qualifications regarding level of academic attainment or subject matter expertise. However, it also possibly hinges on the notion of the ‘student as consumer’ which some have talked about regarding the ‘marketisation’ of HE, where conventional notions of the academic or lecturer as ‘expert’ and in a position of authority is challenged by the frameworks of REF, TEF and NSS as levelling the playing field, and giving students a clearer voice with which to challenge the views of lecturers and other academics. Whether this extends into the field of OA and the academic debates which take place in online for is a matter for debate. Supporters of OA are likely to see this as a healthy development, as if certain arguments or positions are weaker than others, they will invariably be found wanting, whoever may have made them.

One area which seems to have met with widespread approval is the development of MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses). MOOCs allow for unlimited participation, contain content related to a particular subject, may contain recordings of lectures or inputs, and can include interactive sessions for participants. They emerged from the open educational resources (OER) movement, and many Universities and other educational institutions now offer MOOCs (a survey found that 42.5% of HEIs now had MOOCs included as part of their institution’s educational strategy (source: Joint Research Centre into the European Commission’s in-house Science Service). A key platform giving access to many MOOCs is Future Learn (https://www.futurelearn.com). A recent example shared on our course involved a human genome MOOC and the University of Manchester’s Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, to which 2,500 people signed up. In addition to offering a course of study to those who may not otherwise have the opportunity, they also offer the chance to test out new learning pedagogies, and can lead to new research opportunities. As John Gardner and others have noted, knowledge creation and consumption are parallel processes, and that tools such as MOOCs encouraging open pedagogy enable us to move ‘from providing cut flowers to growing plants’ (Open Pedagogy and Social Justice, Rajiv Jhangiani & Robin De Rosa, 2018, https://www.digitalpedagogylab.com/open-pedagogy-social-justice/). Another benefit, highlighted in the chart below, is that MOOCs can often allow for multi-institution development on MOOC content, which can include international as well as within a country.

(Source: The 10 dimensions of open education: An introduction to the OpenEdu framework on openness in higher education, by Andreia Inamorato dos Santos, Yves Punie & Jonatan Castaño Muñoz)

Another key point favouring easy access learning such as MOOCs is the fact that students and young people starting work will likely have several careers and will have to up-skill or learn new skills and knowledge regularly. As Carolyn McIntyre, CEO of MoocLab.club noted (source: The Power of MOOCs input to Edtechx Europe , 2016):

A key question, though, which Carolyn and others have raised regarding MOOCs and related courses of online study, concerns quality assurance questions of content validation and of qualification: if MOOCs are to be taken more seriously by learners and employers, they must be able to offer credits or recognised qualifications. There are, though, developments here. A survey and report conducted between 2014–15 by the EU (OpenCred) into practices among member states on emerging practices in assessment, credentialisation and recognition in MOOCs regarding how European member states HEIs recognise, or not, non-formal courses of study. From this, OpenCred developed a ‘traffic light’ system for HEIs to use regarding the current state of MOOCs with respect to the elements of the system, noted below.

Again, here as elsewhere, there are encouraging signs of a fast emerging field of OA seeking to regulate itself, to ensure the safeguards we take for granted in more formal areas of academic study also will exist in OA.

There is also the issue of governmental encouragement for OA, particularly regarding research publication. This matter is also highlighted regarding the requirements of the Research Excellence Framework (REF). Research England, a council within UK Research and Innovation (which works in partnership with Universities, business and government), has a clear position on the question of OA in research, as set out below (source: https://re.ukri.org/).

Indeed, it is now a UK Government requirement for much research to be published openly. Many HEIs assist this process too: the University of Manchester’s Open Access Gateway (https://www.library.manchester.ac.uk/using-the-library/staff/research/open-research/access/gateway/). This aims to help researchers meet the Government’s OA requirements for the next REF, and for the University of Manchester’s Publications Policy. Many HEIs have similar mechanisms and support.

Summary

So, as someone who has been generally aware of the development of open access, and who has felt the benefit of most if not all of its developments, I began this review with the assumption that ‘it’s all good’, and find myself mostly with that sentiment at the conclusion. It undoubtedly aids widening participation, both within countries, and internationally. And if OA can be seen as a movement, it has now moved into the mainstream, something noted by Martin Weller, who draws an analogy with the Green movement, something, as he puts it, ‘once seen as peripheral and only of concern to hippies’ (Weller, 2013). Evidence for this comes from governmental encouragement and in some cases requirements for researchers to make the results of their research subject to OA. I do have a residual concern about the issue of appropriate recognition, and of the legal and commercial protection of such intellectual property through copyright and other means. Like most movements, the inexorable march of OA probably cannot be stemmed, and, considering all the arguments, there seems no obvious reason to seek to do this.