Open educational practices are many, George Veletsianos
and Royce Kimmons look at open
scholarship in ‘Assumptions and Challenges of Open Scholarship’. The following
are some thoughts on the 4 assumptions they make within the article.
Assumption #1: Ideals of Democratization, Human Rights, Equality, and Justice
Anecdotally it would seem that those who work within the ‘open education’ community, who advocate for and publish openly would describe themselves as having ideals that are congruent with this assumption, being involved with movements that reach openly beyond education such as Open Access and Open Standards. However there is potentially a coincidental relationship between the assumption and those engaged in open scholarship at this stage in the ‘evolution’ of openness.
Veletsianos and Kimmons identify Open Scholarship as not always
having to be entirely noble, as the benefits of working openly increase to
enhance personal academic practice and the markets value this openness so this
assumption becomes diluted based on needs. MOOCs are perfect example of this
with first steps into this space coming from the more altruistic nature of
access to learning and connectivist approaches but with the rapid rise of
Universities and private companies providing ‘open’ access to learning, or some
might argue just content, the drivers for openness become more about economics
than learning (or the assumptions outlined).
Assumption #2: Emphases on Digital Participation for Enhanced Outcomes
It would be
fair to say that openness is not predicated on technology although the ability
to engage in networked communities through ICTs does support or, as described
by the assumption, enhance the ability to disseminate, engage and learn openly.
As Veletsianos and Kimmons recognise it not just about having the tools their
but about the ability of those to utilise the tools and understand the contexts
and the participatory nature of those digital tools in developing their digital
literacies.
Assumption #3: Co-Evolutionary Relationship between Technology and Culture
Here we see an extension of the above assumption in the development of digital literacies. Being able to understand how you are potentially being manipulated by the technology in its impact on how we see ‘open’ based on a set of algorithms. Being able to develop strategies to deal with or at least understand this is key in contextualising your approach. For example the Wikipedia view of the world comes from a predominantly male, global north perspective http://geography.oii.ox.ac.uk/?page=the-geographically-uneven-coverage-of-wikipedia with more articles written about Antarctica than any country in Africa or South America.
Assumption #4: Practicality and Effectiveness for Achieving Scholarly Aims
Again in this assumption Veletsianos and Kimmons see the need for the development of digital literacies as a key component of scholarly practice. Being able to efficiently filter data, stay on top of publications and disseminate your work in an increasingly (over) crowded space is essential. The other issue that this poses is an extension of the last point the ability to be ‘recognised’. This is exemplified in the world of online sponsorship before the support of technology to gather sponsorship for your local 10 mile run you would see people raising £50 maybe £100 pounds now this has (as the authors say) sky rocketed with targets set in the thousands and seeing daily campaigns that begin to reach the millions. One no longer needs the approval of 5 or 10 peers reviews but 100s or 100s of thousands to be seen as successful. The value of this is of course debatable in the week that sees Wayne Rooney reach his 10 millionth follower on twitter will we soon see value given to scholarly practice based on the number of hits or followers (paid for or real)?
