Skip to main content

Is "Open Scholarship" still locked?

Scholars writing about Open Educational Resources (OER), including myself, use expansive vocabulary about the potential for the democratization of learning.  For instance, this "lockbox" statement from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation (2013) regarding the OER movement provides an example of such liberal democratic sentiment:

 "These digital materials have the potential to give people everywhere equal access to our collective knowledge and provide many more people around the world with access to quality education by making lectures, books, and curricula widely available on the Internet for little or no cost. By enabling virtually anyone to tap into, translate, and tailor educational materials previously reserved only for students at elite universities, OER has the potential to jump start careers and economic development in communities that lag behind. Millions worldwide have already opened this educational lockbox, but if OER is going to democratize learning and transform the classroom and teaching, then it must move from the periphery of education practice to center stage."

This "education for everyone, everywhere" philosophy of unlocking the lockbox applies to open scholarship, as well.  Publishing scholarship openly should allow people all over the world, regardless of situation, to have access to the most current information.  In this way, learning is "unlocked."  However, Velstianos and Kimmons (2022) suggest taking a constructively critical view of these assumptions.

The problem is that the potential for open scholarship is in conflict with multiple difficult realities.  For instance, these authors point out, scholars publishing in open access journals may be asked to pay (through their institutions) for publishing costs, which sets up a paywall and limits all voices from participating equally.  Hence, learning appears to be open but is still selectively locked. Furthermore, Velestianos and Kimmons (2022) point out how MOOCs that were originally meant to provide educational opportunities for those without traditional access to higher education has become "commodified education" in the case of initiatives like Coursera and Udacity and EdX.  As the embodied practices of openness iterate, it is important that they not iterate too far from the ideals of OER founders.  The danger is that the most vulnerable learners and scholars will be blocked by the banner of openness in a way that openness actually obscures their disenfranchisement.  


 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Academic Echo Chambers

Academic echo chambers “Twitter makes smart people dumb,” tweeted George Siemens.  Siemens is reflecting on the fact that algorithms based on retweets make our networks more and more homogenous, and our language is limited to 140 characters and conversation bytes.  He is also throwing out argument bait to elicit counter-discourse, in my opinion. Or he is just privileged and arrogant calling his colleagues dumb, some of whom find a voice and self-positioning with social media that they would not find otherwise.  Sherrie Spelic took the bait, indicating that she was annoyed by both his baiting and his apparent arrogance.  She replied on her blog that Twitter does not have that kind of control over us, and that she is “nobody’s version of dumb.”  Spelic is making the point that with some amount of effort and a general mindset of growth, we need not dismiss the forum altogether.  An article from Science in conjunction with Facebook shows that users actually cu...
1 comment
Read more

Another Look at Care Work in Higher Education

In her article, "The University Cannot Love You," Brenna Clark Gray discusses the care-work of faculty members in mentoring and providing pastoral care for students, especially during the emergency shift to online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic.  She makes a strong point that "care does not have to be burdensome, but it becomes so within systems that refuse to make space for it."  In other words, if a university's demands on its faculty members are not realistic given the amount of time and energy faculty spend in care-work, then the care becomes a burden. While Gray acknowledges the fact that this burdensome care falls more squarely on the shoulders of female faculty and that the pandemic highlighted the role women played universally as shock absorbers for care-work, the university DOES provide a great deal of student care.  The question is, should the "help" the university is providing be redesigned or redistributed to better serve faculty and...
2 comments
Read more