Openness…..Economic and Social Implications?
Open practice within higher education is yet to become common place. There are many ‘ifs’, ‘buts’ and ‘maybes’ regarding the logistics of incorporating openness within an institution. “The word ‘open’ signals a broad, decentralised constellation of practices that skirt the institutional structures and roles by which formal learning has been organised for generations” Cronin 2017.[1] We all know that nobody likes change!
In Martin Wellers book ‘Battle for Open’ he suggests “open approaches to the dissemination research, sharing of teaching resources and online access to conferences and seminars helps to reinforce the broader role of the university”.[2]
The role of universities has evolved as such that they are seen as a business with the students being the consumer.[3] There is much debate over the expected role of universities, especially with students paying fees and with the tax payers monies being invested into higher education. The expectations from the public and students has never been higher. Universities are seen as a public good, they are expected to shape the future society. Universities are expected to equip the students with the academic and social skills required to be employable and to be a good citizen.
The National Student Survey (NSS)has played a part in raising the student’s expectations. Universities’ are almost beholden to these NSS scores as they will contribute to the rankings of the university. Where universities are seen as a business it is important to maintain high levels of customer satisfaction.[4]
Universities are seen as a public good and there is strong emphasis on widening participation as research shows a larger proportion of young people from middle class and professional backgrounds will attend university whilst those from working class backgrounds remain consistently low.[5]
Universities have increased their capacities to uptake more students, therefore higher education has become more accessible than ever. Allowances have been made to encourage those from wider backgrounds to apply. However there is still a continual trend that those students from lower socio-class backgrounds tend to be under represented.
In 1999 the Department for education and Employment (DFEE) commissioned a research study at the Institute for Employment Studies (IES) to investigate in more detail the varying factors influencing decisions to partake in undergraduate study by people from lower socio-economic backgrounds. They summarised that one of the key factors were:
There is much emphasis on the widening participation initiative, universities are constantly trying to bridge the educational gap between the socially privileged and socially deprived. Politics of course always plays a part. Now with the looming Brexit deal/no deal there is a risk the economy could enter a recession which would inevitably affect those from poorer backgrounds the most, widening this social class gap.
Widening participation is a concern which is being addressed. However, for those young adults from poorer backgrounds who are not even in a position to apply for university. Should they be able to access education freely? Should all universities play a part in educating society freely?
The term OER’S first emerged in 2002 at a United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) meeting on the impact of open educational systems for higher education in developing countries.
OER’s were defined as “the open provision of educational resources, enabled by information and communication technologies, for consultation, use and adaptation by a community of users for non-commercial purposes” [7]
The importance of openness within education on a global level was recognised here. However prior to this openness had already been at the centre of debate. If we look at the history of openness we can see that the discourse around the role of openness within universities initiated following the establishment of the United Kingdom Open University (UKOU) in 1969.
Wiley & Gurrell 2009 discuss how the open education movement began with Richard Stallman who pioneered and founded the GNU Project and the Free Software Foundation. In 2002 the GNU public licence (GPL) was formed which granted software users a number of permissions such as “to make and share exact copies of software programs, to revise programs and to share these revised copies”. [8]
Businesses however were not accepting of the ‘free’ software model as they would associate ‘free’ with ‘poor quality’. There is something innate within us humans that make us think anything free is of poorer value compared to similar products that we may have paid more for.
Ehlers et al 2010 states “that there is an inherent connection between opening educational practices and quality of education”. He makes a valid point in how quality of a resource only has real meaning when considered within a specific context for example if a learner was to purchase a resource for a particular purpose then the quality of the resource is an important factor.
He states “quality is not an objective characteristic of a learning resource, or a service but is constituted as a specific characteristic of a context which — in turn — is formed through the personal, organisational, social and structural interaction of the stakeholders involved.”[8] The beauty of using OERs through OEPs is that they encourage innovative practices. Collaboration of different users will enhance the educational quality and experience and improve pedagogic practices. Therefore, quality becomes an inherent characteristic of OEPs and OERs.
In 1998 Eric Raymond and Bruce Perens along with a group of others were determined to promote this free software notion however realised the negative connotations attached with the word free and therefore adapted their brand as an ‘open source software’. They also listed the practical benefits of an open source approach.
“● Just as peer review of academic papers creates a culture of scientific rigour, openness in software increases its quality.
● Just as greater transparency in government leads to greater accountability, openness in software increases its security.
● Allowing others to contribute features to your software product makes the product better at a fraction of the cost to you.” [8]
The most compelling argument for a business such as a university to adopt an open source model would be the final point where the product can be derived at the fraction of the cost. This is further reinforced in Martin Weller’s book ‘Battle for Open’ when he discusses Stephen Downes views on the economic argument for learning objects.[10]
This makes complete economic sense however for this to work every university partaking in this process would have to buy into this open practice. This would mean changing the whole infrastructure of the institution. This would be a complex process that would no doubt require time and training and be subject to resilience as with any change. If we can anticipate the resilience then systems could be put in place to gently manage that resilience.
“Walker et al 2004 proposed four aspects of resilience:
1. Latitude: the maximum amount a system can be changed before losing its ability to recover.
2. Resistance: the ease or difficulty of changing the system; how ‘resistant’ it is to being changed.
3. Precariousness: how close the current state of the system is to a limit or ‘threshold’.
4. Panarchy: the influences of external forces at scales above and below.” [11]
This model would be a useful tool for analysing the institutions ability to adapt to change. In 2012 The UKOU successfully implemented the introduction of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) using the model above. Therefore, we know it is doable.[12]
OEPs facilitate the production of OERs through institutional policies. If institutionalised effectively they can create higher education learning opportunities for those individuals who have been previously excluded. In a climate where universities are striving for the competitive edge, the implementation of OEPs and OERs can increase the universities awareness and reputation. The altruistic culture of the university will no doubt seem appealing to students. Especially to those young students who are moving from afar. The sense of social responsibility may be akin to the sense of nurture for them.
Manchester University in particular has a strong focus on social responsibility. It is the only university in the UK to have it as a core goal. . To the extent that they have pioneered a social responsibility initiative ‘Stellify’ which allows students to carry out activities to make a difference to the world.
Fiona Lynch discusses this in more detail in her blog:
‘Provision of Open Access Knowledge as a Social Responsibility in Universities’
Unfortunately, institutions are faced with challenges when it comes to adopting OERs and OEPs. The largest issue is sustainability and Murphy 2013 lists the main areas causing concern:
-a lack of institutional support
-lack of technological tools for sharing and adapting resources
-lack of skills and time
- quality or suitability of OERs
-personal issues such as lack of trust.[13]
On an individual level Padma discussed how one may feel vulnerable about sharing information. This is something I have experienced on a personal level. In the day and age of social media where carping keyboard warriors are in abundance it’s understandable why one may feel vulnerable when sharing their personal work publicly.
I am part of a social media network group namely for the Dental Therapists/Hygienist Professionals. Essentially the group was formed to support fellow dental health professionals and to share knowledge openly. Unfortunately, I have witnessed colleagues sharing information and then being belittled by fellow health professionals. Witnessing this almost discourages you from sharing your knowledge and adopting the open educational practice. There is a strong sense of vulnerability when sharing your professional views/work online.
How can this fear be overcome?
Sandra discusses this in more detail in her blog:
‘The role of teachers’ beliefs in the use of Open Educational Resources (OER)’
She suggests that knowledge and experience of how OERs may improve the pedagogy of teaching could play a role in its acceptance of adopting the practice. This makes complete sense as often we fear the unknown.
Padma discusses in her post ‘Sharing is Caring: Hidden Barriers to Being Open’ her experience of the ‘My Learning Essentials’ online skills programme. She discusses how access barriers were removed to make the programme available for reusing, revising, remixing and redistributing by anyone involved in Information literacy or academic skills teaching. This was a great turning point for HE libraries, IL and open educational resources (OERs). Seeing the benefits that openness had, they then gradually over time removed all barriers to make the programme available to all public.
Sharon with great enthusiasm shares her ‘Reflections on an OER’. This further reinforces the benefits of OERs. The proof is in the pudding right!
As discussed, earlier OERs and OEPs can be a strategic move in increasing awareness and reputation of the university. However, on the flip side surely creating OERs/OEPs that are available to all the public could lead to exploitation by other institutions and used for their own marketing strategies. If the businesses were to adopt this practice long term for the sake of social responsibility then surely financially this will be difficult to sustain unless they were provided with grants/bursaries.
Anne Hesketh discusses the conflict of OER and the economic need to sell a product in her post ‘Open for Business’
From personal experience I feel that ‘time’ spent on creating OERs is a commodity that is overlooked. Upon colleagues request I have created and shared OERs with permission to engage in the 5R activities. However I have found that this is a process that I can only fully engage in when I have the time. I am fully on board with the integration of openness within higher education however I do think careful consideration needs to be given to not overload employees at an individual level.
To summarise openness within higher education is a complex notion which I believe will take decades to institutionalise fully.
Personally, I believe openness in higher education makes economic sense. A collaboration of knowledge can only innovate the pedagogic practices we have in place with quality not being compromised. Higher education is a complex ecosystem where over time it may revolutionise whereby OEPs and OERs will become standard practice. I do believe on an individual and institutional level we as educators carry a moral responsibility to facilitate education to those less privileged. In a world where we are surrounded by diversity and cultural differences, we should encourage openness which will enable us to connect on a global level and learn from one another.
I will end my blog with this message from Treviranus 2016 who talks about how our differences can complete or complement one another.
- Cronin. Open Education, Open Questions.2017
2. Martin Weller. The Battle For Open 2014: 13
3.Douglas et al. Understanding student satisfaction and dissatisfaction: an interpretive study in the UK higher education context. 2014
4. Langan & Harris. National student survey metrics: where is the room for improvement? 2019
5. Connor et al. Social Class and Higher Education: Issues Affecting Decisions on Participation by Lower Social Class Groups. 2001
6. Murphy. Open educational practices in higher education: institutional adoption and challenges.2013
7. D’Antoni. Open Educational Resources: The Way Forward: Deliberations of an International Community of Interest.2008
8. Wiley & Gurrell. A decade of development.2009
9. Ehlers et al. Open Educational Practices: Unleashing the power of OER. 2010
10. Martin Weller. The Battle For Open. 2014:68
11. Martin Weller. The Battle For Open. 2014:173
12. Yuan & Powell. MOOCs and Open Education: Implications for Higher Education A white paper By Li Yuan and Stephen Powell. 2013
13. Murphy. Open educational practices in higher education: institutional adoption and challenges. 2013
14. Treviranus. Life-long learning on the inclusive web. 2016
