[Oer-community] Introduction to the discussion

Chris Yapp chris_yapp at hotmail.co.uk
Tue Oct 5 11:35:44 MDT 2010


The danger is to get into precise detail before having an agreed narrative. Let me explain.

 

I have long believed that if Mozart was alive today he would spend most of his life in court on plagiarism charges for stealing IPR from salieri et al.

 

In mediaeval times in Europe there were no defined tunes or lyrics for most folk music. Troubadours built their reputation and skill by building on and extending familiar works. They generated reputation and income by performance. It was a world in which there were no defined  “texts”

 

It seems to me that we are living in that world again with educational resources.

 

My belief is that i want educational troubadours in the e-world who will acknowledge, value and build on others efforts to the mutual economic, social and educational benefits of the many.

 

Too often the debate ends up as sterile bits and pieces around minority languages, IPR, institutional goals etc.

 

All of these are important. The devil as always is in the detail. Can i ask us to lift our head from the sand for a while and share what the world looks like in which OER is central to the goal.

I’m waiting for that Martin luther king moment  “i have a dream” that will sustain a movement to tackle what might feel like insuperable barriers.

 

This is too important a debate to get bogged down in technical niceties without clear communicable goals.

 

Be brave...

 

Chris Yapp

 

90 High Street

Wheatley

Oxfordshire

OX33 1XP

 

Mob 07777 667786

Home: 01865 874866

Skype: cgyapp

Blog: http://www.bcs.org/server.php?show=ConBlog.20

Twitter:  @chris_yapp

 

From: oer-community-bounces at athabascau.ca [mailto:oer-community-bounces at athabascau.ca] On Behalf Of rory
Sent: 05 October 2010 4:55 PM
To: oer-community at athabascau.ca
Subject: Re: [Oer-community] Introduction to the discussion

 

Paul, et al.

I did not see this in the same way as you. I saw "in the place of current expenditures" more about external spending than internal. We can replace the payments to publishers and licensing fees of our libraries by using OERs. Then it is no longer zero sum. Internally, I would support (in our context) diverting internal money also from printing and mailing to online access to resources. Of course robbing Peter to pay Paul does not always work as you note below and we should be careful not to penalize  other productive areas of the institution, so I do not disagree there. 

I also would like to respectfully suggest a change in your statement:
"Think of sustainability not in terms of money, but rather in terms of impact that is wholly positive"
To
"Think of sustainability not JUST in terms of money, but rather in terms of impact that is wholly positive"
I would suggest that anyone who is not looking at the financial implications of sustainability(as well as other factors) is not being systematic. Financial considerations need not rule everything, but that does not mean that they are unimportant and should not be considered.

All the best.
Rory



Rory McGreal
Associate VP Research
Athabasca University






Dear Susan, all

 

It's great to see this discussion starting. Thank you for circulating the briefing document (10 10 OER Community-OCWC.doc), which mention three sub-themes:

 

1. Building OpenCourseWare

2. Using OpenCourseWare

3. Sustaining OpenCourseWare

 

Sub-theme 3 states the importance of strategies for long-term sustainability of OCW/OER projects. It says "...think of sustainability not in terms of money, but rather in terms of impact." Fine. Then I begin to worry, because it says "...investments will come IN THE PLACE OF other current expenditures." (my emphasis). "In the place of" sounds like diverting funding from one area to another area. To me, that seems like a zero-sum game. In my view we don't need to make the assumption that our options are limited to what we can do within overall institutional budgets, and we don't have to decide on what to allocate to OCW/OER at the expense of other activities. Diverting funding is potentially very divisive: imagine for example that the "current expenditures" at risk of being diverted to OCW/OER are for social justice programs that have lower impact than OCW/OER on impact measure A, but higher impact than OCW/OER on impact measure B, and that we pay attention only to measure A and use that to justify shifting funds. Sounds fine? Not for me. I'd want to know how to protect people affected by the cuts. They might include people who are surely important to any caring institution, such as the disabled, minority groups, and historically-disadvantaged groups such as women.

 

There is a better way, in my view: create wealth in socially-desirable ways (= benefits to society as a whole, rather than the few), using OCW/OER where appropriate, and direct a proportion of the new wealth to augment the total budget available for social justice interventions including OCW/OER.

 

This is not fanciful. It requires liaison with people in other communities, likely to be well-disposed to OCW/OER. An example is the Open Science community, see eg an open-access book from the National Academies Press, "Managing University Intellectual Property in the Public Interest" [acronym: MUIPPI],  <http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=1300> http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13001

 

The MUIPPI book is representative of a body of well-informed work on how society as a whole, as well as individual public institutions, can benefit from a systemic (and systematic) approach to sharing and using innovations. I shall be contributing to that process in various multi-partner international projects, one of which has just begun. Our commitment to our funders (public bodies) includes interoperability with other programs, eg OCW/OER, and sharing our findings, insights, contacts etc in open ways that have the potential to create societal wealth at a significant level without harming weak groups in society, and, as part of that, can help individual learners and their communities to get lasting benefits, valued by them, from the knowledge created and shared in joint work such as OCW/OER. 

 

My conclusion: I would be delighted to collaborate with anyone who wants to explore projects that implicitly assume a subtext to sub-theme 3 in the following direction:

 

Think of sustainability not in terms of money, but rather in terms of impact that is wholly positive (eg, new forms of wealth creation, compatible with the public-interest). Take action in an integrated way: link OER and OCW to forms of Open Innovation and Open Knowledge Sharing that benefit society as a whole (eg, socially-focused exploitation of publicly-funded intellectual property, to create new sources of wealth for the world) and that can lead to socially-desirable outcomes (eg, creating new types of job, and making students more employable by helping them to apply what they learn via OER and OCW, to bridge the "knowledge-action gap").

 

Best wishes

 

Paul




-- 
The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an exempt charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland (SC 038302). 

 
 
_______________________________________________
Oer-community mailing list
Oer-community at athabascau.ca
https://deimos.cs.athabascau.ca/mailman/listinfo/oer-community





-- 
Rory McGreal
Associate VP Research
Athabasca University
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://deimos.cs.athabascau.ca/mailman/private/oer-community/attachments/20101005/7566775e/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Oer-community mailing list