Open practices are, indeed, continually negotiated. This is another way of looking at openness - that doing things in the open leave them in a contingent state. i.e. openness as the opposite of 'closure'. Perhaps then what we need is to create structures for teaching and learning that enable this kind of contingency - the ability to review and re-negotiate what we are doing and how we are doing it? This is a form of metacognitive learning on a personal and organisational level. Each teacher/learner needs to be able to observe the system they are in and negotiate how to change it as they proceed. In my own OEP, I do this, this way:

"Nonaka’s and Takeuchi’s practical adaptation of ‘Nishida philosophy’ – their SECI model of organisational knowledge creation – proposes everything is implaced within a “ba” (field). Such Ba can be physical or conceptual. We can think of the basho as a shifting context (such as being a student in a University) or set of moving constraints (like the rules of a game). Either way, what we do / what we are is something implaced within a larger field.

When it comes to learning, a key thing here is to think less not only about how and where we implace ourselves, but equally about what sort of field we are generating. Ba/sho is akin to a habitat; habits develop in relation to specific habitats. If we want to change our habits, we need to also change our habitat. In ‘Nishida philosophy’ subject and object are one, people and environment correlate." Source: Neil Mulholland Build-A-Basho | Thursday 23rd September 2021