# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Those of us who are keen on exploring OEP in our work do so because we think that education needs to change. In the higher education sector the divide between research and teaching has become ridiculously wide, and the disproportionate benefits accruing to the research side of the ledger only serve to weaken interest in teaching. Open education almost by definition requires that educators become more deeply involved in teaching and the dissemination of knowledge. This is a good thing, but it runs counter to a culture where teaching is often seen as a necessary evil, one to be avoided or at the very least made as rudimentary and unobtrusive as possible so that it does not interfere with a professor's "real work." But the sense that openness can transform the education we provide runs deep in the open education community, and it motivates many to continue their work.

Stigma

That there is a stigma attached to Open Education strikes many as absurd. But it's true: educators who produce open educational resources often get very little respect or recognition for their efforts. This is related to the general stigma attached to teaching in higher education: research is king, all hail research!

At OEGlobal 2018, some presentations addressed OE stigma. @ProfJasmine has undertaken a study that identified some of the attitudes preventing faculty members from getting involved in OEP. Prestige, image management, and professional identity are the leading causes, which in effect creates what in German is known as a Teufelskreis ("devil's circle"): that there's a stigma attached to participating in OE practices perpetuates the stigma attached to OE practices.

Another related topic was that peer review would help alleviate the stigma. Perhaps this would gain recognition for those who create OER. But how would it help those who practice OE in their teaching? We don't really do much peer review of teaching practices generally. Sure, there's the obligatory classroom observation when someone is up for tenure or promotion, but rigorous examination of teaching practices tends to be highest during the job search, and on a steady downward decline after one is appointed to the position. (There is, of course, a lot of variety from institution to institution, but I think this holds true as a summary of higher ed practices generally.)

That the stigma stems from a sense of a lack of rigor in OE strikes me as generally true. But it's also a sign of ignorance. Those involved in OE content creation know that there is a lot of quality work being done. This stigma can only be countered by making more people aware of that quality work. OE practitioners, especially faculty members, need to share their work, not just among the initiated, but with those who know little about it.

Sustainability

With the amount of discussion around the notion of sustainability, I came to the conclusion that, for many, Open Education is at a crossroads. There is a sense of real growth in the field - the 300+ attendees at OEGlobal 2018, over double the number who attended OEGlobal 2017, is evidence of that. But with growth comes questions: can the growth be maintained? Does the trajectory need to take different directions? Should there be a pause for stocktaking, or should the pace of growth be accelerated?

I don't think there's a need to fear that open education isn't sustainable. But whether it can compete in a landscape where technology and commerce are changing so rapidly remains an open (ha!) question. A key takeaway from the conference, a term that was on everyone's lips, and to which I hope people are paying more than just lip service, was collaboration. Open education thrives on collaboration. Sharing forms the basis of open education, and it is the collaboration built on sharing that will provide the sustainability of this educational approach.

Policy

Top-down versus bottom-up. At first, I thought people were just describing different ways of consuming alcohol. They were attending a conference, after all. But it's really a vexing issue in the OE world. There is a general desire that OE practices be adopted by more people, and that those practices become recognized for their valuable contributions to education. But there is opposition to OE, from publishers who fear a loss of sales, from colleagues who fear a loss in prestige, from administrators who don't understand the point of the whole enterprise in the first place.

That's why "policy" was another buzzword of OEGlobal 2018. UNESCO is considering the adoption of an official Recommendation on open education (you can learn more about that here: https://www.oercongress.org/unesco-oer-recommendation/). Numerous presenters described their efforts to influence or establish OE policy-making at their institutions. The general consensus was that both bottom-up and top-down approaches were required, depending on institutional context and other circumstances. But certainly policy development was seen as key to improving the visibility of OE on the educational landscape and to removing the stigma associated with OE practices.

Movement

There's a lot of talk about the Open Education "movement" at conferences like OEGlobal. Participants were excited about being part of a movement; it gave them a sense of community and belonging, especially in the face of the obstacles that face anyone trying to open up educational practices and make them more inclusive.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Those of us who are keen on exploring OEP in our work do so because we think that education needs to change. In the higher education sector the divide between research and teaching has become ridiculously wide, and the disproportionate benefits accruing to the research side of the ledger only serve to weaken interest in teaching.

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.text
The #OpenEd19 keynote panel has been canceled. You can read the Program Committee's statement on this decision, together with the questions that were submitted for the panel, here - https://t.co/zFRPDJZLCH

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.original_text
The #OpenEd19 keynote panel has been canceled. You can read the Program Committee's statement on this decision, together with the questions that were submitted for the panel, here - https://t.co/zFRPDJZLCH

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Something went wrong, but don’t fret — let’s give it another shot.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
The #OpenEd19 keynote panel has been canceled. You can read the Program Committee's statement on this decision, together with the questions that were submitted for the panel, here - https://t.co/zFRPDJZLCH
— David Wiley (@opencontent) October 21, 2019

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props_source.data.text
The #OpenEd19 keynote panel has been canceled. You can read the Program Committee's statement on this decision, together with the questions that were submitted for the panel, here - https://t.co/zFRPDJZLCH

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.original_text
The #OpenEd19 keynote panel has been canceled. You can read the Program Committee's statement on this decision, together with the questions that were submitted for the panel, here - https://t.co/zFRPDJZLCH

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.text
The #OpenEd19 keynote panel has been canceled. You can read the Program Committee's statement on this decision, together with the questions that were submitted for the panel, here - https://t.co/zFRPDJZLCH

# data[].attributes.body
1. Preliminary stage - emergence of social disquiet

2. Coalescence - organization and strategy

3. Institutionalization - bureaucratization

4. Decline - result of repression, failure, success, co-optation, and/or alignment with mainstream

# data[].attributes.headline
Sources (on social movements and their rise/decline)

# data[].attributes.subject
Sources (on social movements and their rise/decline)

# data[].attributes.body
Blumer, H. (1969). Collective behavior. In Lee A.M., (Ed.),
Principles of sociology (3rd Ed.). Barnes & Noble.

Blumer H. (1951) Social Movements. In: Alfred M. Lee (ed.), New Outline of the Principles of Sociology, 2nd edn, revised (Barnes & Noble, Inc.), pp. 199–220

Little, W. and R. McGivern. (n.d.) Introduction to Sociology, 1st Canadian Edition. BCCampus.

Tilly, C. (1978). From mobilization to revolution. Addison Wesley.

# data[].attributes.body
David Wiley CC BY 4.0 International

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Lisa Petrides, Douglas Levin, and C. Edward Watson

Introduction

The creation, curation, and widespread use of open educational resources (OER) is making a significant difference in democratizing access to a high-quality education. From a burgeoning movement launched over 15 years ago, to a growing field, to national and global impact, teachers and learners in increasing numbers are participating in and benefiting from a process driven by the collaborative development and sharing of educational materials that are freely available for anyone to use, unrestricted by traditional copyright.

From K-12 districts, to academic libraries, to ministries of education, to consortia of community colleges and universities, what started as a small group of loosely coupled academic institutions, organizations, and education-facing foundations has catapulted to the front pages of education journals and the mainstream press. Aligned to issues such as college affordability, equal access to education, personalized learning, and the professionalism of teaching, it is clear that the field of OER is not only here to stay, but is central to global efforts to improve education outcomes for all students.

Rooted in analogous "open" efforts, including open source software and open access journals, the field of OER has come to be recognized as one that can inject innovation into long-standing institutional practices, such as procurement and curriculum decision-making, but also into business models that can better serve the interests of both students and educators.

However, similar to the debates in open source software over the past three decades, the mechanisms for how individuals, organizations, and institutions should be able to use and reuse OER have become more complex. In some cases, OER creators have expressed concerns about the perceived use of their contributions. In other cases, the restricted rights of users to access and use learning objects, especially in digital platforms and in a commercial context, add to uncertainty around OER adoption.

If the field of OER is to continue on its trajectory from a nascent movement to the mainstream of education, it is incumbent on OER advocates and stakeholders-including educators, librarians, instructional technologists, and content developers-to address how we might sustainably scale the movement over time and across diverse contexts, while still staying true to the values of openness that attracted so many to OER in the first place.

It is for that reason, we developed and are pleased to introduce the CARE Framework. Its purpose is to both support and make more explicit the valuable work that is being done and needs to be done in building a sustainable open education ecosystem.

The CARE Framework

The purpose of the CARE Framework is to articulate a set of shared values and a collective vision for the future of education and learning enabled by the widespread adoption and use of OER. It aims to address the question of how an individual, institution, or organization seeking to be a good steward can contribute to the growth and sustainability of the OER movement consistent with the community's values.

While OER typically reside in the public domain or have an alternative license that specifies how a resource may be reused, adapted, and shared, the use of an open license is in itself insufficient to addressing broader sustainability and ethical questions. Indeed, the predominant business models of the educational technology and publishing industries have been predicated on the concept of access limitations and scarcity. As such, the time is past due for the OER community to be more explicit and intentional about the ways in which OER are produced, packaged, and delivered.

At the center of the CARE Framework (see figure below) are a wide variety of stakeholders-OER creators and users, working as individuals and as part of organizations, in traditional and non-traditional educational settings-seeking to act as good stewards of the values of a sustainable OER movement. Locating people at the center of the CARE Framework serves to remind us first and foremost of the broader social context and purpose of the OER movement.
Figure 1: The CARE Framework for OER Stewardship

People serving as OER stewards pursue a wide variety of strategies and tactics relevant to their specific context to improve access to education and opportunity over time. Yet, what all good OER stewards should have in common is a commitment to practices that serve to demonstrate their duty of care to the broader OER movement:

1. C ontribute: OER stewards actively contribute to efforts, whether financially or via in-kind contributions, to advance the awareness, improvement, and distribution of OER; and

2. A ttribute: OER stewards practice conspicuous attribution, ensuring that all who create or remix OER are properly and clearly credited for their contributions; and

3. R elease: OER stewards ensure OER can be released and used beyond the course and platform in which it was created or delivered; and

4. E mpower: OER stewards are inclusive and strive to meet the diverse needs of all learners, including by supporting the participation of new and non-traditional voices in OER creation and adoption.

It is our belief that if the four practices that comprise the CARE Framework- Contribute, Attribute, Release, and Empower -are widely adopted, the ecosystem of OER stakeholders will diversify, the use and adoption of OER will grow, and the future of education and learning will benefit via greater access, equity, affordability, and relevance.

Contribute
OER stewards actively contribute to efforts, whether financially or via in-kind contributions, to advance the awareness, improvement, and distribution of OER.
The OER movement is a growing community of individuals working across institutions and organizations all around the world, collaborating to improve educational access and outcomes for all learners. In any community, fostering the need or desire of people to contribute to its success is of paramount importance. It is not enough for individuals to simply take, but also to give back, if the goal is to create a sustainable and thriving community. The OER community is no different. It behooves good OER stewards to be intentional about the ways in which their actions support the health and well-being of the broader OER movement itself.

With respect to the OER community, we define 'contribute' to mean several specific activities and means of support. First, financial and in-kind contributions are necessary to support efforts that raise awareness of the benefits and affordances of OER, in policy and in the classroom. Second, the development, maintenance, continued improvement, and customization of OER is a vital service that OER community members can provide. And, third, contributions and support are needed to help further the distribution and dissemination of OER for students who have historically lacked such access, including support for multiple languages, accessible formats, and for low bandwidth use. Today, while many benefit from the past contributions of members of the OER community, the sustainability of the movement itself is directly related to the future health and vibrancy of new community contributions.

Attribute
OER stewards practice conspicuous attribution, ensuring that all who create or remix OER are properly and clearly credited for their contributions.
The invitation for anyone with the means and willingness to contribute to the OER movement via the act of authorship-whether of original works, such as activities, lesson plans or simulations, or revisions to previously published works-is one of the key innovations that differentiates the production of OER from traditional educational publishing. This democratization of the production and refinement of instructional materials elevates practitioner and student voices and is welcoming of non-traditional subject matter experts willing to share their expertise with others.

Inherent in this approach is the belief that the quality, relevance, and usefulness of materials is derived, at least in part, from the collaborative contributions of the OER community to those materials over time. In this way, contributions of OER authorship are leveraged time and again to the benefit of learners. At the same time, good OER stewards recognize that the provenance of OER materials matters and that the authors of and contributors to all OER materials deserve the community's respect and recognition for their efforts. For this reason, the CARE Framework asserts that we must practice conspicuous attribution to ensure that all who create or remix OER are clearly credited for their contributions.

Release
OER stewards ensure OER can be released and used beyond the course and platform in which it was created or delivered.
The day-to-day experience that educators and students have with OER is often mediated by one or more technological platforms. While there are many considerations in selecting a technological platform to access and manage OER, it is important to note that not all platforms are designed equally well to foster a sustainable and vibrant ecosystem of OER use and remix. For instance, if a platform mixes OER content with all rights reserved materials and obscures their difference to users, many of the most important benefits of OER are lost.

Therefore, good OER stewards, recognizing these issues, seek to design and use technology platforms and systems that facilitate the goals of the OER movement, including by supporting the broadest possible use and collaborative revision and remix of materials over time. This includes providing tools to allow users to download and share content beyond the course or platform in which it was created or delivered. The evaluation of the features of technological platforms are especially important to OER stewards, given that many students and educators are not able to make individual choices about the platforms they use, as this is most often decided at the institutional level.

Empower
OER stewards are inclusive and strive to meet the diverse needs of all learners, including by supporting the participation of new and non-traditional voices in OER creation and adoption.
Time and again, policy and market forces have failed to incentivize the publishing and technology industries to proactively meet the needs of all learners. What resources get created, how academic topics are covered, from what perspectives, for which learners, and in what formats are all decisions that have been centralized in the hands of commercial publishers. Indeed, the scarcity of affordable, high-quality resources in specific subjects and for select populations has too often been presented as a fait accompli. Yet, this is a future that OER stewards reject. The OER movement values and supports both the creation and the remix of resources for diverse and underserved learners, whether they are individuals with disabilities, speak a minority language, or are seeking education in a non-traditional setting.

In the same way, OER stewards elevate the participation of new and non-traditional voices in OER production and remix. By reducing the traditional barriers to creating and sharing resources and with a commitment to conspicuous attribution, the OER movement benefits and is itself enriched from the broad participation of individuals seeking to share their expertise and contributions with others. In turn, this commitment to new and non-traditional voices will help the OER movement to better serve a more inclusive and diverse set of educators and learners.

Applying the CARE Framework

The values expressed by the CARE Framework support a hopeful vision for the future of OER and education, positively impacting not only issues of access and affordability, but also the seemingly intractable issues of equity and inclusion. Thus the CARE Framework is meant to be applied by all individuals, organizations, and institutions who share a stake in the field's long-term success and sustainability. This includes individuals who create or adapt OER for their own teaching and learning purposes; nonprofit OER publishers and libraries; commercial OER publishers; as well as educational technology vendors looking to incorporate OER into their products or services.

For those new to OER, we hope that the CARE Framework serves to shine a light on a set of norms and practices that serve to encourage, rather than discourage, increased collaboration and sharing of content. And given the existing complexities of content ownership, licenses, and technology platforms, our goal is to provide insights into the mission-driven context of this work. In particular, it is our hope that through application of the CARE Framework that all educators will feel confident in their exploration and adoption of OER.

In advancing this framework, our goal is be explicit about the values that we think are core to the OER movement, including the practices of individuals and organizations that are involved in the production, dissemination, and use of OER. While it is beyond the scope of this initial paper to enumerate all of the many practices that support good OER stewardship, our intent is to invoke a more nuanced and meaningful discussion about the individual and organizational practice of OER and openness in education and for learning. We hope that affiliation with the OER community means something to those who participate in it, and it is with that goal in mind that we offer up the CARE Framework.

Lisa Petrides, Ph.D., is CEO and Founder of the Institute for the Study of Knowledge Management in Education (ISKME).

Douglas Levin is President and Founder of EdTech Strategies, LLC.

C. Edward Watson, Ph.D., is CIO and Associate Vice President for Quality, Advocacy, and LEAP Initiatives at the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U).

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Lisa Petrides, Douglas Levin, and C. Edward Watson Introduction The creation, curation, and widespread use of open educational resources (OER) is making a significant difference in democratizing access to a high-quality education.

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.text
@opencontent I have always felt it is important for non-profits and for-profits to work together in support of our students. We each have our place & purpose. I published about that years ago with lots of angry responses to me. I look forward to the keynote! Thank you!
https://t.co/pER0raNPUZ

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.original_text
@opencontent I have always felt it is important for non-profits and for-profits to work together in support of our students. We each have our place & purpose. I published about that years ago with lots of angry responses to me. I look forward to the keynote! Thank you!
https://t.co/pER0raNPUZ

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.referenced_tweets[].text
On behalf of the #OpenEd19 Program Committee, I want to respond to some comments about this year's keynote panel that includes commercial publishers. (thread)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Something went wrong, but don’t fret — let’s give it another shot.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
I have always felt it is important for non-profits and for-profits to work together in support of our students. We each have our place & purpose. I published about that years ago with lots of angry responses to me. I look forward to the keynote! Thank you!https://t.co/pER0raNPUZ
— Barbara Illowsky (@DrBSI) October 11, 2019

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props_source.data.text
@opencontent I have always felt it is important for non-profits and for-profits to work together in support of our students. We each have our place & purpose. I published about that years ago with lots of angry responses to me. I look forward to the keynote! Thank you!
https://t.co/pER0raNPUZ

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props_source.includes.tweets[].text
On behalf of the #OpenEd19 Program Committee, I want to respond to some comments about this year's keynote panel that includes commercial publishers. (thread)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.original_text
@opencontent I have always felt it is important for non-profits and for-profits to work together in support of our students. We each have our place & purpose. I published about that years ago with lots of angry responses to me. I look forward to the keynote! Thank you!
https://t.co/pER0raNPUZ

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.text
@opencontent I have always felt it is important for non-profits and for-profits to work together in support of our students. We each have our place & purpose. I published about that years ago with lots of angry responses to me. I look forward to the keynote! Thank you!
https://t.co/pER0raNPUZ

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.referenced_tweets[].text
On behalf of the #OpenEd19 Program Committee, I want to respond to some comments about this year's keynote panel that includes commercial publishers. (thread)

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.text
This is a great article that offers the idea that #OER and publishers don’t have to be set up as a binary. There is danger in any “us vs them” mindset. https://t.co/okG2ttJSAV

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.original_text
This is a great article that offers the idea that #OER and publishers don’t have to be set up as a binary. There is danger in any “us vs them” mindset. https://t.co/okG2ttJSAV

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.referenced_tweets[].text
@opencontent I have always felt it is important for non-profits and for-profits to work together in support of our students. We each have our place & purpose. I published about that years ago with lots of angry responses to me. I look forward to the keynote! Thank you!
https://t.co/pER0raNPUZ

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Something went wrong, but don’t fret — let’s give it another shot.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
This is a great article that offers the idea that #OER and publishers don’t have to be set up as a binary. There is danger in any “us vs them” mindset. https://t.co/okG2ttJSAV
— Chad Flinn (@chadhflinn) October 13, 2019

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props_source.data.text
This is a great article that offers the idea that #OER and publishers don’t have to be set up as a binary. There is danger in any “us vs them” mindset. https://t.co/okG2ttJSAV

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props_source.includes.tweets[].text
@opencontent I have always felt it is important for non-profits and for-profits to work together in support of our students. We each have our place & purpose. I published about that years ago with lots of angry responses to me. I look forward to the keynote! Thank you!
https://t.co/pER0raNPUZ

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.original_text
This is a great article that offers the idea that #OER and publishers don’t have to be set up as a binary. There is danger in any “us vs them” mindset. https://t.co/okG2ttJSAV

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.text
This is a great article that offers the idea that #OER and publishers don’t have to be set up as a binary. There is danger in any “us vs them” mindset. https://t.co/okG2ttJSAV

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.referenced_tweets[].text
@opencontent I have always felt it is important for non-profits and for-profits to work together in support of our students. We each have our place & purpose. I published about that years ago with lots of angry responses to me. I look forward to the keynote! Thank you!
https://t.co/pER0raNPUZ

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Something went wrong, but don’t fret — let’s give it another shot.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I remember the first time I heard the term "free riders" being used in the context of the open education movement. It was at the Open Education Conference in 2015 in Vancouver when, during a presentation titled " The Economics of Open," the Chief Executive of a for-profit player in the space was referring to those who reuse OER (including for monetary gain) without contributing anything to the commons. I remember reacting with some surprise because, as a co-author of open textbooks, I saw other people reusing my work as a measure of the impact of my efforts. Even as a relative newcomer to the movement, I know I wasn't the only one in the ballroom to feel this way.

Seems to me, who's a "free rider" and who's not is a societal question fundamental to educational access, not a corporate one. #OpenEd15
- David N. Wright (@davidnwright) November 19, 2015

But the more I thought about it the more I could see how companies for which profit is a primary goal, and whose primary obligation is to shareholders and not students, could perceive differently the reuse of their resources by those who will neither compensate them monetarily or in kind.

But the CEO was also talking about good corporate citizenship, about the importance of giving more than you take, adding unique value, and being transparent around how that is happening. Heartening stuff.

#opened15 economics of open; shifting from open as free rider to framing open as public good. Good corporate citizenship looks like what?
- JohnRobertson (@KavuBob) November 19, 2015

Two and a half years later I witnessed a representative of the same company, Lumen Learning, giving one of the lunchtime vendor presentations at an OER conference that I was keynoting. During his presentation he shared images of home improvement disasters (think photographs of doors that are cut at obviously incorrect angles and so won't shut). His explicit argument was that OER work should be left to the professionals and that his company were the ideal professionals to hire when you wish to create or adapt OER. This was absolutely shocking to me and this time I tweeted out my surprise, because this wasn't a strategy I had seen from Lumen before and I had great respect for much of their work in this space (so much so that I had previously even explored partnering with them). This was quickly followed by an DM from one of the leaders of that company confidently informing me that he seriously doubted the accuracy of my characterization. But I was in the room (as were about 100 other people). And it really was what the rep said. We had a bit more of a chat about it via Twitter DMs and, to his credit, he immediately recognized the need for a company-wide conversation about framing. Good corporate citizenship requires ongoing vigilance.

Over the years I have encountered all kinds of shady strategies by for-profit players looking to capitalize on the growing interest in OER, from a marketing brochure from Pearson that touted a new digital delivery platform for leasing textbooks (but that actually cites open textbook efficacy research), to emails from sales representatives (aka "Senior Solutions Providers") of Pearson Canada that warn my colleagues against adopting OER (email subject line to faculty: "OER Cracks Appearing"), to being on stage with the CEO of Nelson Canada while he compared OER to white rice. "It's great!" he said. "But you don't want to eat it everyday." And this is all without all of the clear cut cases of openwashing that we continue to see.

So while many caution against demonizing commercial publishers, I have to say that characterizing accurate descriptions of publishers' past and present business practices (e.g., price gouging, "new editions" of textbooks with only cosmetic changes, etc.) or the use of quotes from their own public statements as "demonization" is a form of gaslighting. They actually do and say the things that we are sometimes told shouldn't be discussed in polite company.

Characterizing accurate descriptions of publishers' past and present business practices or the use of quotes from their own public statements as "demonization" is a form of gaslighting.

This is why it has been fascinating to follow the discussion of the role of commercial players in the OER space over the past few years (see, for example, these posts by Barbara Illowsky and Jim Luke). On the one hand, I fully understand and appreciate the skepticism that many in our community feel when they see [Large Commercial Publisher] announce a new strategy or platform that includes OER (or even one that includes the word " Open ").

As I described during my presentation at this year's ACRL conference, I see several phases that commercial publishers have gone through in their still-evolving relationship with OER, from largely ignoring it to disingenuously attacking it ("if it's free, how good could it be?"), to the current strategy of co-opting it ("hey you can access OpenStax textbooks in our platform too!"). It was a strategy we could long see coming, especially when Cengage's own research forecast that the use of OER as primary courseware was poised to triple within five years.

As an aside, I take the inclusion of open textbooks in commercial textbook publishers' platforms as a ringing endorsement of their quality 🙂

And yet the narrative is not so simple because some of the for-profit players are making efforts to be good (or at least better) actors in open education. I believe that these efforts should be recognized and lauded. In some cases we are witnessing the outcomes of individual efforts to (slowly) change long-standing organizational culture. I believe these internal advocates need our support to engineer systemic change, to get their organizations to understand the value (and not just the price) of doing right by students. Wilde stuff, I know.

While this may seem like a tricky balance, I see it as quite straightforward to criticize openwashing by a commercial player while also recognizing positive developments from the same actor. What is more, I believe we should be clear about what we mean by openwashing so that commercial players know to avoid it (this way, if they do engage in it they are knowingly embracing their demonic side).

This is why I so appreciated the publication of the thoughtful CARE framework along with the ongoing efforts of Cable Green from Creative Commons to help operationalize what being a good actor in open education means in discussions with commercial publishers. Cable's list includes:

Being open and transparent about what they are charging for (platform, analytics, all-rights-reserved content, etc) and what they are not (OER).

Properly marking (title, author, source, license) their OER and giving proper attribution to others' OER.

Ensuring all publisher OER can be downloaded without any barriers (non-password protected) and in editable file formats.

So when Cengage followed through on one of our suggestions to give back to the commons and released three of their own titles under a CC-BY 4.0 license, I congratulated Cheryl Costantini (VP of Content Strategy), shared this news widely, and celebrated. At the same time, a month later when Cengage exploited the problem of food insecurity among students (which they have played a causal role in creating) as a marketing tool for their proprietary platform, I took issue with it. Similarly, when Lumen Learning provides open content and code to the commons, I applaud and thank them. But when Lumen does not make titles from their OER catalogue downloadable and instead suggests that people copy and paste from their webpages, I take issue with it because they know better.

I use these two companies as examples because they are very different entities, with very different origins and philosophies, very different actors running them, and with very different histories within the open education movement. However, in my view, the same standards should apply to both. Your initial skepticism of Cengage is warranted because of their past behaviour just as your initial trust of Lumen is warranted because of the immense and continuing contributions of David Wiley to the open education movement. But it is not true that nothing that Cengage could do will ever be enough. Because they could be good citizens of the open education movement (I write this knowing some of you will scoff) and open licensing is not incompatible with for-profit business models. At the same time, Lumen does not get a pass on scaremongering around OER adaptation just because David Wiley is their co-founder. I say this as someone who deeply respects David. Indeed, it was listening to David speak that triggered my own entry into this movement ( I recounted this in my keynote address at the 2015 BC Open Textbook Summit, which I began with a tribute to David).

But this conversation is not about one person or one company. If it sometimes appears to be it is because the founder of the Open Education Conference (who for years took on the Herculean task of organizing this event by himself) co-leads a for-profit player in this space, one whose employees are usually seen volunteering behind the registration desk and performing other duties during the conference. This is a tension that David Wright wrote about way back in 2015.

It is true that David Wiley took heat when the Open Education conference in 2017 in Anaheim was slated to include a keynote address by an officer of the Global Education Initiative of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a decision that was revisited in the face of an outcry from the community.

But these criticisms should never be personal. They should instead be structural. Everyone has blindspots positioned according to their worldview, which is why forming a program committee for the Open Education Conference was a positive step (even if one might quibble that the members are selected by David and some of their suggestions may be vetoed by him). So while the current controversy about a keynote panel at this year's Open Education conference keynote panel is merited (see this thoughtful and articulate thread by the wonderful Michelle Reed), this criticism is still not personal.

Among other things, the criticism focuses on the elevation of this session as a keynote panel, its framing as being about the "Future of Learning Materials," the lack of representation from library publishing programs, and the pre-screening of questions that are to be submitted in advance of the conference.

In Michelle's words:

When you dismiss including folks who empower our institutions to manage our uni's own content creation w/ "interesting addition" but too many speakers, alas, no time, you are not being "provocative." You are being exclusionary, willfully and knowingly so. https://t.co/LeJMCJXHpc
- Michelle Reed (@LibrariansReed) October 11, 2019

These are just some of the differences between the announced keynote panel at OpenEd19 and a "Hot Topics" panel during last year's Creative Commons Global Summit in which representatives from Cengage, MacMillan, Top Hat, and Lumen were on stage together. Following presentations by the panelists, the session (which was moderated by Cable Green from Creative Commons) opened for questions. I was in the room that day and used the final audience question to list just a few of the panelists' past (and in some cases present) misdeeds and inquired whether they (in the spirit of their newly-discovered affection for OER) would be willing to publicly commit to changing their ways. Frankly, the answers that were offered were less than inspiring and ranged from denial (e.g., "If we are doing something incorrect please do tell us") to dissent (e.g., insisting that their fear mongering about the discoverability of OER reflected a real challenge that they do not exaggerate for financial gain).

Despite these responses and the press-release style statements issued by the panel, I appreciated that Cable organized that session. You see, I do want to have these discussions with commercial players. I am interested in a diverse and healthy commons and I take no joy in skewering for-profit actors publicly when they perpetrate harm and lie to advance their bottom line. This is why I have volunteered my time to meet with (and continue to have discussions with) both large and small for-profit players in the space.

If you read Michelle's thread in its entirety you will see that she acknowledges several times the value of having these conversations. But a conversation it needs to be. Not a PR exercise with pre-screened questions, plastic smiles, and marketing drivel. Not a reputation cleanse. And certainly not on a platform that frames for-profit players as the future of learning materials.

If there's a silver lining to this kerfuffle, it may lie in the number and diversity of voices in the open education community that have spoken out in thoughtful, nuanced ways against the planned panel. While some may view this conversation as "divisive" or "uncivil," it actually gives me great hope and confidence in the future of course materials.

There are many of us who have been pushing to have more critical conversations about open education at this conference. In some cases these proposals have been rejected, but when they have been included you will note that they have typically been standing room only. This includes a dynamic hybrid session about the Ethics of Open in Anaheim in 2017 and several sessions in Niagara Falls in 2018 (yay conference program committee!) including Jess Mitchell's keynote, Open Education & Student Learning Data by Billy Meinke-Lau and Steel Wagstaff, Dangerous Data? The Ethics of Learning Analytics in OER in the Age of Big Data by Cristina Colquhoun and Kathy Essmiller, Open for Who? Open Practices with Remote Australian Aboriginal Knowledge and Learning by Johanna Funk, and Power, Publishing, and A Broader Vision for OER by Zoe Wake Hyde, Jess Mitchell, Ethan Senack, David Ernst, and myself. Even if you look at other events such as OpenCon, the panels that focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion have been the most powerful and impactful. This is because the community is thirsty for these critical conversations. Not just to hear people cheer on each other's good work within an echo chamber. But to challenge and push one another, and to try to avoid perpetrating harm with the very best of intentions (which will happen if we ignore digital redlining, accessibility, data privacy, and other social justice issues).

While some may view this conversation as "divisive" or "uncivil," it actually gives me great hope for the future of learning materials.

Having critical conversations about open education isn't just possible, it is essential. These are the conversations that resonate and that we need to feed into future planning. They ask tough questions. They don't confuse inclusion with both-siderism. They bring us together and help keep us in check.

Of course the Open Education conference is just an open education conference and it certainly isn't the only place to have these conversations. Regional events such as the Northeast OER Summit, the Cascadia Open Education Summit, Wisconsin's E-ffordability Summit, the Statewide Colorado OER conference and others are wonderful options. Further afield, the OER conference and the Open Education Global conference are both events that welcome critical conversations. As do other events like Digital Pedagogy Lab and the many virtual conference hallway conversations facilitated by Virtually Connecting.

So let me leave you with three thoughts:

1. If you disagree with concerns that have been raised by the community, please try to refrain from the straw man argument that criticisms like those that are being made of the planned keynote panel at Open Ed 19 are made by those who are opposed to any and all commercial activity in open education. This is an inaccurate and intellectually lazy take.

2. If you have concerns, don't be fearful of making legitimate and respectful critiques just because the people associated with the activity are kind and generous (because I assure you that the open education community is home to some of the kindest and most generous people you will ever meet).

3. And finally, if you are in a position of power please don't engage in tone policing, especially with those from marginalized or under-represented groups. As the open education movement seeks to serve those on the margins, we would do well not to weaponize concepts such as civility in order to suppress dissent.

The open education movement is maturing and growing ever more diverse. I firmly believe that a critical open education movement is a much stronger open education movement. I hope you do too.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
For-profit, faux-pen, and critical conversations about the future of learning materials

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I remember the first time I heard the term "free riders" being used in the context of the open education movement. It was at the Open Education Conference in 2015 in Vancouver when, during a presentation titled " The Economics of Open," the Chief Executive of a for-profit player in the space was referring to those who reuse OER (including for monetary gain) without contributing anything to the commons.

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.text
I am a proud member of the #OER and #OpenEd community, which means calling out things that I think are wrong. Having a keynote full of commercial publishers is wrong. Full stop. #OpenEd19

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.original_text
I am a proud member of the #OER and #OpenEd community, which means calling out things that I think are wrong. Having a keynote full of commercial publishers is wrong. Full stop. #OpenEd19

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Something went wrong, but don’t fret — let’s give it another shot.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
I am a proud member of the #OER and #OpenEd community, which means calling out things that I think are wrong. Having a keynote full of commercial publishers is wrong. Full stop. #OpenEd19
— Dr. Amy Nusbaum - 🚨bring BG home🚨 (@amy_nusbaum) October 11, 2019

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props_source.data.text
I am a proud member of the #OER and #OpenEd community, which means calling out things that I think are wrong. Having a keynote full of commercial publishers is wrong. Full stop. #OpenEd19

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.original_text
I am a proud member of the #OER and #OpenEd community, which means calling out things that I think are wrong. Having a keynote full of commercial publishers is wrong. Full stop. #OpenEd19

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.text
I am a proud member of the #OER and #OpenEd community, which means calling out things that I think are wrong. Having a keynote full of commercial publishers is wrong. Full stop. #OpenEd19

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.text
A panel of up-and-coming folx in the #OER community that are making change, pushing back against the dominant commercial forces, and re-centering "open" is a one I'd show up for. Agree that those in power have strayed from the core ethos. Let's reflect on it. #OpenEd19

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.original_text
A panel of up-and-coming folx in the #OER community that are making change, pushing back against the dominant commercial forces, and re-centering "open" is a one I'd show up for. Agree that those in power have strayed from the core ethos. Let's reflect on it. #OpenEd19 https://t.co/LcGDtFBWxU

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Something went wrong, but don’t fret — let’s give it another shot.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
A panel of up-and-coming folx in the #OER community that are making change, pushing back against the dominant commercial forces, and re-centering "open" is a one I'd show up for. Agree that those in power have strayed from the core ethos. Let's reflect on it. #OpenEd19 https://t.co/LcGDtFBWxU
— Billy Meinke (@billymeinke) October 13, 2019

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props_source.data.text
A panel of up-and-coming folx in the #OER community that are making change, pushing back against the dominant commercial forces, and re-centering "open" is a one I'd show up for. Agree that those in power have strayed from the core ethos. Let's reflect on it. #OpenEd19 https://t.co/LcGDtFBWxU

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.original_text
A panel of up-and-coming folx in the #OER community that are making change, pushing back against the dominant commercial forces, and re-centering "open" is a one I'd show up for. Agree that those in power have strayed from the core ethos. Let's reflect on it. #OpenEd19 https://t.co/LcGDtFBWxU

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.text
A panel of up-and-coming folx in the #OER community that are making change, pushing back against the dominant commercial forces, and re-centering "open" is a one I'd show up for. Agree that those in power have strayed from the core ethos. Let's reflect on it. #OpenEd19

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.text
I don't think I have much to learn from those folks. Our community was founded, in some large part, in opposition to them: we know them pretty well. Their recent tactics may be changing, but mostly in ways we've seen before and elsewhere (e.g., #CengageVerylimiting is .. 2/9

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.original_text
I don't think I have much to learn from those folks. Our community was founded, in some large part, in opposition to them: we know them pretty well. Their recent tactics may be changing, but mostly in ways we've seen before and elsewhere (e.g., #CengageVerylimiting is .. 2/9

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.referenced_tweets[].text
@LibrariansReed @thatpsychprof @Caffeinebrarian @amy_nusbaum @oerlib @billymeinke @matt_ruen I have a concrete proposal regarding the issue of the commercial publishers' panel at #OpenEd19.  First, a tiny bit about why: 1/9

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Something went wrong, but don’t fret — let’s give it another shot.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
I don't think I have much to learn from those folks. Our community was founded, in some large part, in opposition to them: we know them pretty well. Their recent tactics may be changing, but mostly in ways we've seen before and elsewhere (e.g., #CengageVerylimiting is .. 2/9
— Jonathan Poritz (@poritzj) October 12, 2019

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props_source.data.text
I don't think I have much to learn from those folks. Our community was founded, in some large part, in opposition to them: we know them pretty well. Their recent tactics may be changing, but mostly in ways we've seen before and elsewhere (e.g., #CengageVerylimiting is .. 2/9

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props_source.includes.tweets[].text
@LibrariansReed @thatpsychprof @Caffeinebrarian @amy_nusbaum @oerlib @billymeinke @matt_ruen I have a concrete proposal regarding the issue of the commercial publishers' panel at #OpenEd19.  First, a tiny bit about why: 1/9

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.original_text
I don't think I have much to learn from those folks. Our community was founded, in some large part, in opposition to them: we know them pretty well. Their recent tactics may be changing, but mostly in ways we've seen before and elsewhere (e.g., #CengageVerylimiting is .. 2/9

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.text
I don't think I have much to learn from those folks. Our community was founded, in some large part, in opposition to them: we know them pretty well. Their recent tactics may be changing, but mostly in ways we've seen before and elsewhere (e.g., #CengageVerylimiting is .. 2/9

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.referenced_tweets[].text
@LibrariansReed @thatpsychprof @Caffeinebrarian @amy_nusbaum @oerlib @billymeinke @matt_ruen I have a concrete proposal regarding the issue of the commercial publishers' panel at #OpenEd19.  First, a tiny bit about why: 1/9

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.text
that toxic air. (Neoliberal hegemony has led, in the US, to the abandonment of public higher ed: don't call it public if a large majority of the funding is tuition, as it is in a large majority of "public" institutions in a large majority of states.) I could ask if any of .. 4/9

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.original_text
that toxic air. (Neoliberal hegemony has led, in the US, to the abandonment of public higher ed: don't call it public if a large majority of the funding is tuition, as it is in a large majority of "public" institutions in a large majority of states.) I could ask if any of .. 4/9

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.referenced_tweets[].text
much like subscription models in music/video distribution) (but worse). More important is how they are leading exponents, in higher ed, of the hegemonic view that markets are always the best structures, which they obviously aren't. I don't need to breathe any more of .. 3/9

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Something went wrong, but don’t fret — let’s give it another shot.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
that toxic air. (Neoliberal hegemony has led, in the US, to the abandonment of public higher ed: don't call it public if a large majority of the funding is tuition, as it is in a large majority of "public" institutions in a large majority of states.) I could ask if any of .. 4/9
— Jonathan Poritz (@poritzj) October 12, 2019

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props_source.data.text
that toxic air. (Neoliberal hegemony has led, in the US, to the abandonment of public higher ed: don't call it public if a large majority of the funding is tuition, as it is in a large majority of "public" institutions in a large majority of states.) I could ask if any of .. 4/9

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props_source.includes.tweets[].text
much like subscription models in music/video distribution) (but worse). More important is how they are leading exponents, in higher ed, of the hegemonic view that markets are always the best structures, which they obviously aren't. I don't need to breathe any more of .. 3/9

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.original_text
that toxic air. (Neoliberal hegemony has led, in the US, to the abandonment of public higher ed: don't call it public if a large majority of the funding is tuition, as it is in a large majority of "public" institutions in a large majority of states.) I could ask if any of .. 4/9

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.text
that toxic air. (Neoliberal hegemony has led, in the US, to the abandonment of public higher ed: don't call it public if a large majority of the funding is tuition, as it is in a large majority of "public" institutions in a large majority of states.) I could ask if any of .. 4/9

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.referenced_tweets[].text
much like subscription models in music/video distribution) (but worse). More important is how they are leading exponents, in higher ed, of the hegemonic view that markets are always the best structures, which they obviously aren't. I don't need to breathe any more of .. 3/9

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.text
@geoffcain Agree. Between the #OpenEd19 stuff and the connection between Lessig/Creative Commons and Joi Ito, I think now is a good time to reevaluate our values. Will we prioritize intersectionality/anti-oppression or are the movement's heroes considered "too big to fail?" TBD, I'd say.🤷‍♀️

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.original_text
@geoffcain Agree. Between the #OpenEd19 stuff and the connection between Lessig/Creative Commons and Joi Ito, I think now is a good time to reevaluate our values. Will we prioritize intersectionality/anti-oppression or are the movement's heroes considered "too big to fail?" TBD, I'd say.🤷‍♀️

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.referenced_tweets[].text
@MeggieWright There are some weird values at play: what does "watching your tone" have to do with academic freedom and free thought? Truth does not equal vitriol, unless you are violently allergic to the truth.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Something went wrong, but don’t fret — let’s give it another shot.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
Agree. Between the #OpenEd19 stuff and the connection between Lessig/Creative Commons and Joi Ito, I think now is a good time to reevaluate our values. Will we prioritize intersectionality/anti-oppression or are the movement's heroes considered "too big to fail?" TBD, I'd say.🤷‍♀️
— Meggie Wright (@MeggieWright) October 13, 2019

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props_source.data.text
@geoffcain Agree. Between the #OpenEd19 stuff and the connection between Lessig/Creative Commons and Joi Ito, I think now is a good time to reevaluate our values. Will we prioritize intersectionality/anti-oppression or are the movement's heroes considered "too big to fail?" TBD, I'd say.🤷‍♀️

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props_source.includes.tweets[].text
@MeggieWright There are some weird values at play: what does "watching your tone" have to do with academic freedom and free thought? Truth does not equal vitriol, unless you are violently allergic to the truth.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.original_text
@geoffcain Agree. Between the #OpenEd19 stuff and the connection between Lessig/Creative Commons and Joi Ito, I think now is a good time to reevaluate our values. Will we prioritize intersectionality/anti-oppression or are the movement's heroes considered "too big to fail?" TBD, I'd say.🤷‍♀️

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.text
@geoffcain Agree. Between the #OpenEd19 stuff and the connection between Lessig/Creative Commons and Joi Ito, I think now is a good time to reevaluate our values. Will we prioritize intersectionality/anti-oppression or are the movement's heroes considered "too big to fail?" TBD, I'd say.🤷‍♀️

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.referenced_tweets[].text
@MeggieWright There are some weird values at play: what does "watching your tone" have to do with academic freedom and free thought? Truth does not equal vitriol, unless you are violently allergic to the truth.

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.text
I've been in the room when the open edu elites literally refer to _everyone else_ in the movement as "normals". It's frustrating, to say the least. There's some context in here: https://t.co/TyprHEW7KP #OpenEd19

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.original_text
I've been in the room when the open edu elites literally refer to _everyone else_ in the movement as "normals". It's frustrating, to say the least. There's some context in here: https://t.co/TyprHEW7KP #OpenEd19

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.referenced_tweets[].text
Having been both "in" and "out" of the cool kid group (read: the edu elites/celebrities), this is a real thing. The distance between those on the ground, who I think are doing the most interesting work, and those in the clouds, is massive. #OpenEd19 https://t.co/mEmlX78jD4

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Something went wrong, but don’t fret — let’s give it another shot.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
I've been in the room when the open edu elites literally refer to _everyone else_ in the movement as "normals". It's frustrating, to say the least. There's some context in here: https://t.co/TyprHEW7KP #OpenEd19
— Billy Meinke (@billymeinke) October 13, 2019

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props_source.data.text
I've been in the room when the open edu elites literally refer to _everyone else_ in the movement as "normals". It's frustrating, to say the least. There's some context in here: https://t.co/TyprHEW7KP #OpenEd19

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props_source.includes.tweets[].text
Having been both "in" and "out" of the cool kid group (read: the edu elites/celebrities), this is a real thing. The distance between those on the ground, who I think are doing the most interesting work, and those in the clouds, is massive. #OpenEd19 https://t.co/mEmlX78jD4

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.original_text
I've been in the room when the open edu elites literally refer to _everyone else_ in the movement as "normals". It's frustrating, to say the least. There's some context in here: https://t.co/TyprHEW7KP #OpenEd19

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.text
I've been in the room when the open edu elites literally refer to _everyone else_ in the movement as "normals". It's frustrating, to say the least. There's some context in here: https://t.co/TyprHEW7KP #OpenEd19

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.referenced_tweets[].text
Having been both "in" and "out" of the cool kid group (read: the edu elites/celebrities), this is a real thing. The distance between those on the ground, who I think are doing the most interesting work, and those in the clouds, is massive. #OpenEd19 https://t.co/mEmlX78jD4