328 Matching Annotations
  1. Sep 2019
    1. empathy

      but earlier they say, of course, that we are unconsciously more empathetic to people in our in-group, right?

    2. We must support the creation of structures of inclusion that recognize and accommodate difference, rather than seek to erase it

      Yes. But this article has not described concrete examples of this

    3. Democratic societies may tend to advantage electoral majorities over the interests of minorities, which merely underscores the need for structural safeguards for fairness and inclusivity. There must be representational forms that give voice to minority needs and to ensure that the structures and political processes do not burden minority groups.

      This!

    4. it required proactive accommodations to ensure that merely “equal” treatment did not produce or reinforce inequality.80Title 42 of the US Code, chapter 126 § 12101 et seq., accessed on May 30, 2016, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_42_of_the_United_States_Code. Public Accommodations and Commercial Facilities (Title III) or see 42 US Code §§ 12181–12189, accessed on May 30, 2016, http://www.ada.gov/ada_title_III.htm. jQuery("#footnote_plugin_tooltip_4891_80").tooltip({ tip: "#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_4891_80", tipClass: "footnote_tooltip", effect: "fade", fadeOutSpeed: 100, predelay: 400, position: "top right", relative: true, offset: [10, 10] }); Formal guarantees of equal protection or equal rights are often insufficient to create inclusive structures.

      Equity vs equality here

    5. Many groups require more than access; they require special accommodations.

      This is really important and is what i always say re tables. Not just access to what exists, but opportunities to modify the experience itself into what would work for them

    6. reaching out to at-risk students with welcoming messages.79

      I am seriously disappointed by this example. It is so... feeble?

    7. Widening the circle of human concern involves “humanizing the other,” where negative representations and stereotypes are challenged and rejected.

      Who are groups in Egypt who are often dehumanized and stereotyped? Religous minorities incl even Shia and Bahai? What other groups?

    8. American values.

      I am beginning to be irritated by the Americanness of this article despite international examples

    9. Rather than reduce intergroup inequality or marginality, assimilation seeks to erase the differences upon which othering is structured. If those differences or identities become socially

      Of course by centering the dominant culture and erasing all others rather than merging them

    10. South Suda

      Thinking of Brexit. And a recent episode of Doctor Who (first i ever watched) was about the secession of Pakistan from India and how it would cause exactly the problems outlined in this section

    11. Moreover, group-based identities are multifaceted and complex. No matter how homogenous a society may appear along one dimension of difference, it will always contain a multitude of possible diversities along other dimensions of human difference. There will always be human difference in any society, and a minority or marginalized group in any geography can never be fully extirpated without violence.

      Wait. What does extirpated mean, how can violence be inevitable?

    12. Segregation is not simply physical separation; it is an attempt to deny and prevent association with another group. Denying association with another group is another way of denying that group’s basic humanity. In that sense, segregation is not just spatial projects but ontological.

      My students may need to look up ontological

    13. gender-segregated schools are sometimes demanded, even in the United States, as a way to improve learning outcomes for boys and girls, who, its defenders argue, have difficulty learning in cross-sex environments,

      This could be an interesting discussion!

    14. At a minimum, there is evidence that markets do not do an effective job of promoting tolerance.58Niclas Berggren and Therese Nilsson, “Does Economic Freedom Foster Tolerance?” IFN Working Paper, no. 918 (2012): 177–207, accessed February 16, 2015, http://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/81340. jQuery("#footnote_plugin_tooltip_4891_58").tooltip({ tip: "#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_4891_58", tipClass: "footnote_tooltip", effect: "fade", fadeOutSpeed: 100, predelay: 400, position: "top right", relative: true, offset: [10, 10] }); This suggests that curbing discrimination is the provenance of policy rather than market forces.59

      Reminds me of Sherri Spelic "inclusion must be engineered" it does not happen naturally

    15. to separate and inferior schools, jobs, train cars, restaurants theatres, public bathrooms, parks, and even water fountains.

      Makes me think of online education when it is meant to be inferior...not necessarily because of pedagogy but because of lack of social capital

    16. As harmful as discrimination, conscious or unconscious, may be on shaping group outcomes, it is the institutionalization and structural features of othering that perhaps most explain group-based inequalities.51See Charles Tilly, Durable Inequality (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999). Charles Tilly identifies exploitation and opportunity hoarding as two of the critical mechanisms for institutionalizing group-based difference. The most extreme mechanism of othering is outright exploitation of marginalized groups. Exploitation allows one social group to expropriate resources produced or held by another social group, as was the case during antebellum slavery or European colonialism. See also Ali Jarbawi, “Israel’s Colonialism Must End,” New York Times, August 4, 2014, accessed February 16, 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/05/opinion/ali-jarbawi-israels-colonialism-must-end.html. Centuries of European colonialism have provided the world with certain basic lessons about subjugating colonized peoples: the longer any colonial occupation endures, the greater the settlers’ racism and extremism tends to grow. This is especially true if the occupiers encounter resistance; at that point, the occupied population becomes an obstacle that must either be forced to submit or removed through expulsion or murder. In the eyes of an occupying power, the humanity of those under its thumb depends on the degree of their submission to, or collaboration with, the occupation. If the occupied population chooses to stand in the way of the occupier’s goals, then they are demonized, which allows the occupier the supposed moral excuse of confronting them with all possible means, no matter how harsh. jQuery("#footnote_plugin_tooltip_4891_51").tooltip({ tip: "#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_4891_51", tipClass: "footnote_tooltip", effect: "fade", fadeOutSpeed: 100, predelay: 400, position: "top right", relative: true, offset: [10, 10] }); Today, the most common mechanism for instituti

      This. This is what turns biases (normal, inevitable?) Into behavior that is endorsed in such ways to be truly harmful to certain groups

    17. hostility toward the unfamiliar or unknow

      This is quite a different argument from pushing back against what is different - the unknown mystery or our own ignorance is the issue here, rather than because something is different. Is there an assumption that "if only we knew each other" things would be better? Or is it that the differences are irreconcilable? I don't think this is clear cut. Would be good to give examples of situations where ignorance does contribute to Othering... and examples where knowing the Other helped reduce the problem. Or notm

    18. collision of culture

      This sounds suspiciously like Clash of Civilizations so ...

    19. wrapped within or organized around one or more dimension of group-based difference.

      Is that self-evident? Examples? Are there counter examples?

  2. Mar 2019
    1. Constructing scales to assess self-regulatory efficacy requires prelimi-nary work to identify the forms the challenges and impediments take.People are asked in open-ended interviews and pilot questionnaires todescribe the things that make it hard for them to perform the requiredactivities regularly. The identified challenges or impediments are builtinto the efficacy items. In the formal scale, participants judge their abilityto meet the challenges or to surmount the various impediments. Suffi-cient gradations of difficulties should be built into the efficacy items toavoid ceiling effects

      important to do some qualitative interviewing before creating the scales... so it is based on things students struggle with or at least instructors expect students to struggle with

    2. perceived self-efficacy will account formore of the variation in weight if the assessment includes perceived capa-bility to regulate food purchases, eating habits, and physical exercise thanif it is confined solely to eating habits

      this is a good example in how it clarifies you need to know the domain you're asking about very well to ensure you ask the questions on all the different factors where self-efficacy matters

    3. Perceived self-efficacy should also be distinguished from other con-structs such as self-esteem, locus of control, and outcome expectancies. Perceivedefficacy is a judgment of capability; self-esteem is a judgment of self-worth. They are entirely different phenomena.

      self-efficacy is not self-esteem (self-worth), locus of control (how much they believe they can achieve outcomes) and outcome expectations (self-efficacy is about belief in ability not outcomes that result, per se)

    4. Self-efficacy isconcerned with perceived capability. The items should be phrased interms of can do rather than will do. Can is a judgment of capability; willis a statement of intention.

      phrasing with "can" not "will"

    5. Generic self-manage-ment strategies developed in one realm of activity are serviceable inother activity domains with resulting co-variation in perceived efficacyamong them

      so there may be a correlation with generic self-efficacy and it may transfer to performance in particular domains... but is not the full story

    6. There is no all-purpose measure of perceived self-efficacy. The “onemeasure fits all” approach usually has limited explanatory and predictivevalue because most of the items in an all-purpose test may have little orno relevance to the domain of functioning.

      key point here is that the more generic the assessment is, the less useful it is for understanding self-efficacy in a particular domain or context. Therefore all these generic tests need to be contextualized for each research project

  3. Feb 2019
    1. We need it from a 360 degree perspective. We need the students perspective because they are in, I hate to use business

      The task force TFQE mentioned above took the perspective of students, parents, chairs and faculty with new data collection and included previous data from employers. However AUC is not a business in the traditional sense, nor should any Educational institution of value call itself a business.

    2. s + Development Entrepreneurship Finance and Markets Arts and Culture

      AUC already did this! Provost assigned a task force for undergrad edu in 2017 and one for grad edu 2018 https://www.aucegypt.edu/faculty/center-learning-and-teaching/provost%25E2%2580%2599s-task-force-quality-undergraduate-education-auc

      This included extensive research and recommendations!!! Contact Dr. Aziza Ellozy who led both

    1. . And to do that work together with friends, my colleagues, my students.

      I find this really important because we need the mirror of colleagues and students to know if we are on the right track as well as trusting ourselves

    2. greater empathy for my students and not to take things as personally

      This is really important... empathy for students. Pregnancy and my experience then and as a mom also helped me with this

    3. Like many college professors, I find the rhetoric of "outputs" and "outcomes" artificial, a fake metric that feeds the bureaucratic machine.

      me too. It is important to recognize this sense in many professors even if accreditation and institution require us to do these

  4. Jan 2019
    1. With such a definition in place, other related definitions such as OER may remain unchanged to denote different foci within the field. For example, the definition of OEP could remain more broadly about the processes of collaboration and sharing in a wide range of educational practices to improve pedagogy for all learners. The term “critical open pedagogy” could continue to be used to identify the set of intentionally empowering OEP which seek to shift the power balance between learner and teacher as a particular strategy to reduce inequality (DeRosa & Robinson, 2017).

      Love distinction between OEP and critical OEP

    2. Open Education is the development of free digitally enabled learning materials and experiences primarily by and for the benefit and empowerment of non-privileged learners who may be under-represented in education systems or marginalised in their global context. Success of social justice aligned programs can be measured not by any particular technical feature or format, but instead by the extent to which they enact redistributive justice, recognitive justice and/or representational justice.

      Love this definition

    3. What happens when something is “open" in all the ways that Open Education and open source and open data advocates would approve. All the right open licenses... All the right nods from all the right powerful players within “open.” And yet, the project is still not equitable. What if, in fact, it’s making it worse? What are we going to do when we recognize that “open" is not enough? I hope, that we recognize that what we need is social justice. We need politics, not simply a license. We need politics, not simply technology solutions. We need an ethics of care, of justice, not simply assume that “open” does the work of those for us (Watters, 2014).

      Need to re-read Watters to see if mostly rhetorical or more concrete. This paragraph is a good calling out

    4. the genesis and assumptions of OEP are tracked back to recent trends in the broader educational  literature, namely social constructivist, student-centred learning (Cronin & MacLaren, 2018). I would suggest that OEP can alternatively be considered a contemporary online iteration of social constructivist learning, positioned against OER as a more positivist resource and teacher-focussed paradigm

      OEP as social constructivist, OER as positivist. Critical OEP as critical paradigm? Is there a postmodern version? I think the nuanced critical OEP is that.

    5. Dominant discourse leaves alternative ideas – such as those relating to social justice — at the periphery of a field.

      Epistemic injustice here

    6. openness determinism

      Will use this term openness determinism a lot now!

    7. A process and also a goal to achieve a fairer society which involves actions guided by the principles of redistributive justice, recognitive justice or representational justice.

      A definition of social justice

    8. The editing of such a textbook to include images and cases featuring more diverse communities, businesses and people will be an act of recognitive justice. But what if the textbook features people of colour, but does not value their perspectives, knowledges or histories? What if the textbook takes a white colonial view of black lives, if black stories are told solely by white voices?

      Great point. An OER can even be negative. Not inherently good

    1. There is also a growing community that focuses on challenging the design of algorithmic bias, with a wave of recent feminist publications such as Virgina Eubanks’ Automating Inequality (2018) and Safiyah Noble’s Algorithms of Oppression (2018). There are new organizations such as Data4BlackLives, the AI Now Institute, Data and Society, the Data Justice Lab, the Data Equity Lab, and the Algorithmic Justice League, and conferences such as Fairness, Accountability,and Transparency in Machine Learning

      for work on AI with Paul Prinsloo

    2. discussion of platform cooperativism

      hey isn't that the approach Christian had mentioned before?

    3. valorization of intentionally inclusive hacker and makerspaces

      I like the recognition that these are not necessarily intentionally inclusive :)

    4. Design justice encourages a shift from deficit to asset based approaches to design scoping, the formal inclusion of community members

      i like emphasis on asset not deficit based

    5. values that are reproduced in the social relations of power of the design process itself, as well as what happensto the profits, attribution, and governance of the designed object or system.

      also really important points that may not immediately come to mind - the power in the process, and the profit and attribution aspects.

    6. Design justice centers the perspectives and values of Queer, trans*, Black and POC, indigenous, migrant, decolonial, antiauthoritarian, and commons-based communities, among others, while recognizing that there is always conflict both within and between marginalized groups.

      I like the inclusion of antiauthoritarian and commons-based community here because this would be what a lot of open educational practice is about (not the more common oppressions). Also important to note potential conflicts between marginalized groups.

    7. For example, “Native Americans, African Americans, and other people of color are banned disproportionately because, to Facebook, a “real” name sometimes means “traditionally European” (Kirkham, 2015). This happens, in part, because the algorithms used to flag ‘real’ vs ‘fake’ names were trained on real name datasets that over-represent European names, using machine learning and natural language processing techniques

      I did not know that, how horrible!!! I guess a similar example is facial recognition is not good with dark skin?

    8. The key lessons include: involving members of the community that is most directly affected by the issue that you are focusing on is crucial, both because it’s ethical, and also because the tacit and experiential knowledge of community members is sure to produce ideas, approaches and innovations that a non-member of the community would be very unlikely to come up with. It is also possible to create formal community accountability mechanisms in designprocesses.

      Essential to note this as having an ethical dimension but also as just being really more likely to produce good design short and long term.

    9. Accountability: “Nothing About Us, Without Us”

      concise and to the point!

    10. Designers most frequently assume that the unmarked user has access to a number of very powerful privileges, such as U.S. citizenship, English language proficiency, access to broadband internet, a smartphone, no disabilities, and so on. Diversifying the software workforce, unfortunately, will not automatically produce a more diverse default imagined user. Unless the gender identity, sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, age, nationality, language, immigration status, and other aspects of end user identity are specified in advance, the imagined user for whom technology design teams develop products tends to default to the dominant social group

      so important - how we imagine the user group and their intersectionality.

    11. Structural social injustice and systemic racism are harder to tackle – and that’s where the tech sector has, until recently, thrown up its hands

      what a powerful point. Tech companies and startups work on solving the problems whose solutions SELL to those who can PAY. THerefore the larger structural social injustices and systemic issues never get tackled by them - because more complex to solve, but also who's gonna pay for it?

    12. Design justice as a framework asks us to engage with a series of questions abouthow design processes currently work, and about how we want them to work. These include questions of equity (who gets to do design?), beneficiaries (who dowe design for, or with?), values (what values do we encode and reproduce in the objects and systems that we design?), scope (how do we scope and frame designproblems?), sites (where do we do design, what design sites are privileged and what sites are ignored or marginalized, and how do we make design sites accessible to those who will be most impacted?), ownership, accountability, and political economy (who owns and profits from design outcomes, what social relationships are reproduced by design, and how do we move towards community control of design processes?), and discourse (what stories do we tell about how things are designed?)

      One could write entire articles by unpacking these questions as a way to analyze a particular process for its adherence to design justice (or justice-focused design)

    13. Design justice as a framework urges us to explore the ways that design relates todomination and resistance at each of these three levels (personal, community, and institutional).

      what would every analysis of design look like if we did this? Consider this for workshops using Purpose 2 Practice model.

    14. “People experience and resist oppression on three levels: the level of personal biography; the group or community level of the cultural context created by race, class, and gender; and the systemic level of social institutions.

      I love these three levels. It is a little bit more than what Fricker uses for epistemic injustice in that I think she does not have the personal biography level, but just the community and systemic levels

    15. heteropatriarchy, capitalism, and settler colonialism.

      I'm interested in the conflation of terms here. Using "heteropatriarchy" tackles issues of both gender and sexuality, though I normally think of them as different. They both privilege white hetero males, but I think the gender issues for women are different from transgender people and are different from LGBTQ people. So unsure why all together here?

      Also interested in use of capitalism rather than class here. This might hide the privilege of someone who is of a certain (privileged) class but does not align with capitalism in different ways.

      Finally - I am interested in the term "settler colonialism" because it addresses a particular thing, and not neo-imperialist cultural oppression which may not have settler colonialist history. Why is that?

    16. Universalist design principles and practices, as well as single-axis evaluations of fairness in design, erase certain groups of people: specifically, those who are intersectionally disadvantaged (or multiply-burdened) under white supremacist heteropatriarchy, capitalism, and settler colonialism. When designers do considerinequality in design (and most professional design processes do not consider inequality at all), they nearly always employ a single-axis framework. Most design processes today are therefore structured in ways that make it impossible to see, engage with, account for, or attempt to remedy the unequal distribution of benefits and burdens that they reproduce.

      This is a great quote and so true. When I first learned about critical theory, I was constantly frustrated with non-intersectional analyses... and I thought that intersectionality was called feminist poststructuralism :)) but since I learned of inersectionality, it allows a much more nuanced analysis and contextualizing how the impact of one thing can differ from one person or population to another... and how differences within a population can influence the impact/outcomes.

    17. We center the voices of those who are directly impacted by the outcomes of the design process.We prioritize design’s impact on the community over the intentions of the designer.

      These two particularly resonate with me with my current work. Outcomes/impact not intentions. And full participation of those impacted throughout the process not at certain stages of it. What I hate about design thinking is the "empathy" with end users instead of participation of end users in the design...

    1. OEP

      I do slightly feel like you're using a restrictive rather than expansive understanding of OEP. But perhaps it is what ROER4D focus was... perhaps a different paper can be done by those who work on open pedagogy

    2. Global North can play their part in reducing the social injustices of the global education system — especially the cultural side of it — through engaging with more OER from the Global South and incorporating them into their teaching.

      In general not just in OER, Right? Because if OER material from other cultures does not exist, they could still find ways to incorporate (more difficult). I am surprised this point did not come up explicitly earlier but am glad it is there

    3. more transformative way, as it bypasses, and therefore challenges, the current knowledge production regime, at least as it concerns educational materials

      I wonder if VC achieves some of this as it goes parallel to a conference rather than working within it

    4. specifically mentioned the need for building partnerships between “schools, parents, community members and disabled people’s organisations

      Key for parity of participation and a good role model for education un general, open or not

    5. South

      I wonder if looking at margins not just South is important here. Minorities of all kinds need this. I know this article is mainly from ROER4D experience but perhaps talking about marginal knowledge and populations is important too. May have different nuances and need a different article:)

    6. without catering to the biases or preferences of (often foreign) publishers

      Really important point...as publishers reproduce epistemic injustice in systematic ways that devalue and exclude knowledge from South

    7. southern educators can play a greater role in the globally competitive production of knowledge, insisting on their own epistemic stance.

      Trick here is to join global playing field, u probably want to use English. To affect local u need to use local. To do both takes more resources so i guess one gets priority...but can't achieve both goals in one go

    8. Culturally, the creation of OER allows educators to contribute to the global production of knowledge without regard for various gatekeepers (publishers, peers, etc.) who might otherwise — intentionally or not — stifle their voices.

      Thinking here if Egypt EKB project which is ameliorative in that it makes subscription content available to all Egyptian academics at no cost for each (so levels academic playing field for a good chunk of journal articles) BUT does so within framework of government Paying publishers. So goes against future advocacy for open access from North to South AND does nothing to promote more open knowledge production from South to South for example. Some material gets created locally but working w commercial publishers so not accessible outside....stay locked into existing power structures

    9. an educator can overcome the cost challenges that users face by offering the resource for free, and the legal restrictions of full copyright by making the resource open, while still retaining attribution of the original author/

      Yes...but of course not removing the cost if creating the OER on producers...likely to still be the more privileged in their contexts. Still good, though, of course.

    10. in most cases in the Global South, few governments or institutions have the awareness, resources or volition to mobilise a country, state or institution-wide effort to share their IP as OER. The more feasible option in most cases — which is affirmative, not transformative — would be to allow individual educators to share their own teaching materials as OER. This is a very low-cost alternative to the high-cost efforts required for full-scale institutional mobilization.

      True. And a feasible low cost thing is better than none. But also individuals don't have access or resources if institutions don't offer it, so most still won't do it...for resource reasons or out of ignorance of value or processes... right?

    11. An ameliorative intervention would be to alter the institutional IP policy to allow educators to possess copyright of their own teaching materials, thus allowing them to openly license them and share them publicly. This is the approach taken at UCT (Cox & Trotter, 2017) where the institution automatically assigns copyright to authors

      Wouldn't it be better to reverse this...make institutional default open but allow some educators to close?

    12. critical engagement is necessary for any type of pedagogy to battle against cultural inequality, but OER remixing as a type of OEP is inherently more likely to push educators to do so than simple OER use “as is” or OER translation.

      I agree with this one. Just need to recognize how resource intensive it is

    13. While translation may change the linguistic interface through which students engage with this knowledge, it may not do much to alter the underlying frames of reference upon which that knowledge is built

      Of course. Which means for translation to also be locally relevant requires a translator who can also adapt the material - so someone who knows both translation and the topic (or two people). Goes back to the human resource problem mentioned earlier

    14. It encourages students to engage with the OER but in a way that allows them to understand that the knowledge offered through it is likely not “universal” and that it exists within a complex space of competing knowledge claims, some of which are more or less relevant and compelling for their circumstances.

      I get where this is coming from and it is important but A. This is needed both for ppl to whom knowledge is locally relevant And B. Recognition without inserting alternative epistemic perspectives is not enough. Knowing they exist on the side is not powerful enough to subvert or challenge the hegemony

    15. , a more critical approach is necessary to ensure that OER use does not inadvertently lead to increased cultural injustice

      Which is to say if we don't approach this critically, cultural injustice could be happening

    16. ISSN 2311-1550 Editor Emeritus: Alan Tait Chief Editor: Anne Gaskell Associate Editor: Sanjaya Mishra Book Review Editor: Romeela Mohee     Open Journal Systems Journal Help User Username Password Remember me Notifications View Subscribe Journal Content Search Search Scope All Authors Title Abstract Index terms Full Text Browse By Issue By Author By Title <!-- $(function(){ fontSize("#sizer", "body", 9, 16, 32, ""); // Initialize the font sizer }); // --> Font Size Make font size smaller Make font size default Make font size larger Information For Readers For Authors For Librarians Article Tools Abstract Print this article Indexing metadata How to cite item Supplementary files Email this article (Login required) Email the author (Login required) Home About Login Register Search Current Archives Announcements Home > Vol 5, No 3 (2018) > Hodgkinson-Williams Hodgkinson-Williams @import url("/http://jl4d.org/index.php/ejl4d/article/view/312/main.css"); body,td,th { color: #99000; text-align: left; } @import url("/http://jl4d.org/index.php/ejl4d/article/view/312/main.css"); .footnote { color: #990000; } A Social Justice Framework for Understanding Open Educational Resources and Practices in the Global South Cheryl Ann Hodgkinson-Williams and Henry Trotter VOL. 5, No. 3 Abstract: At the heart of the open educational resources (OER) movement is the intention to provide affordable access to culturally relevant education to all. This imperative could be described as a desire to provide education in a manner consistent with social justice which, according to Fraser (2005), is understood as “parity of participation”. Drawing on her concept of social justice, we suggest a slight modification of Fraser’s framework for critically analysing ways in which the adoption and impact of OER and their undergirding open educational practices (OEP) might be considered socially just. We then provide illustrative examples from the cross-regional Research on Open Educational Resources for Development (ROER4D) project (2014-2017) to show how this framework can assist in determining in what ways, if at all, the adoption of OER and enactment of OEP have responded to economic inequalities, cultural inequities and political exclusions in education. Furthermore, we employ Fraser’s (2005) concepts to identify whether these social changes are either “affirmative” (i.e., ameliorative) or “transformative” in their economic, cultural and political effects in the Global South education context. Keywords: Open Educational Resources, Open Educational Practices, social justice, Global South Introduction Many countries in the Global South face similar educational challenges, including but not limited to: “unequal access to education; variable quality of educational resources, teaching and performance; and increasing cost and concern about the sustainability of education (Arinto, Hodgkinson-Williams, King, Cartmill & Willmers, 2017, p. 6). The need for education in Global South countries is continuing to grow, propelled by high population growth (World Bank, 2017) and the burgeoning demand for post-secondary education. In some countries, such as South Africa, there are additional challenges, such as low participation and high attrition rates in higher education (Baijnath, 2018). The OER movement has been seen as a “means of contributing to the challenge of expansion of scale and opportunity and lowering cost in particular in post-secondary education” (Tait, 2018, p. 111). A few studies in countries in the Global South have indeed reported cost reductions as a result of OER adoption (Arumugam, 2016), including reduction of costs associated with course development (Pande, 2018). However, a recent study in the United States (US) raises a caution about the cost reduction argument for OER and suggests that “touting the financial value of an OER might not solely be a convincing argument for students or instructors independent of their educational use” (Abramovich & McBride, 2018, p. 37). A number of studies, mostly conducted in the Global North, have garnered evidence for cost savings of OER for students (Hilton, 2016; Pina & Moran, 2018), though some suggest that these student savings were not accompanied by any real change in their learning outcomes (Hendricks, Reinsberg & Riger, 2017) or student course satisfaction (Lawrence & Lester, 2018). Thus, the economic value proposition for OER may not be connected to any pedagogical, cultural, or political improvements, which would certainly be the hope for the OER community. Moreover, while OER are “often espoused as enabling educational equity, the reality is not always the case” (Willems & Bossu, 2012, p. 185). For example, in Kenyan schools, Orwenjo and Erastus (2018, p. 148) report that “poor infrastructure, negative attitudes, lack of ICT competencies, and other skill gaps among teachers and lack of administrative support are some of the implementation challenges that have continued to dog the implementation, adoption and use of OERs”. Crissinger (2015) suggests that the perceived relationship between openness and social justice be interrogated as, “in our excitement about the new opportunities afforded by open movements, we might overlook structural inequalities present within these movements”. These perceptions are in line with the findings by the Research on Open Educational Resources for Development (ROER4D) project which investigated the adoption and impact of OER in 21 countries in South America, Sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. ROER4D Project The ROER4D project, funded by Canada’s International Development Research Centre (IDRC), the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development (DFID) and the Open Society Foundations, commenced in 2013 and included 18 independent sub-projects. Hosted by the University of Cape Town, South Africa and Wawasan Open University, Malaysia, a total of 103 research team members from 19 countries worked on these sub-projects. In the ROER4D project OER was seen as a component of Open Education and referred to “teaching, learning and research resources that reside in the public domain or which have been released under an intellectual property licence that permits activities enabled by different degrees of openness” (Hodgkinson-Williams, Arinto, Cartmill & King, 2017, p. 31). The open educational practices (OEP) that undergird the OER referred to are: individual or collaborative conceptualisation; creation, curation (retention), circulation (distribution) of OER through practices such as open pedagogies; crowdsourcing; and open peer review using open technologies so that they can be easily located to encourage copying (re-use “as-is”), adaptation, re-curation and re-circulation. In other words, “for OER to exist, there must of necessity be prior OEP” (Hodgkinson-Williams et al., 2017, p. 31). In the ROER4D meta-synthesis, an “optimal” Open Education cycle (Figure 1) was used to identify the key OEP that underlie the phases of OER creation, use and adaptation (Hodgkinson-Williams et al., 2017, p. 32). Figure 1: An “optimal” Open Education cycle (Hodgkinson-Williams et al., 2017, p. 32). Image CC BY In the main output of the ROER4D project, an edited volume comprising 16 chapters (Hodgkinson-Williams & Arinto, 2017), there are two meta-synthesis chapters, Chapter 2 and Chapter 16. Chapter 2 (Hodgkinson-Williams, Arinto, Cartmill & King, 2017) adopts the key components of Archer’s (2003) social realist model of social change to identify the key factors influencing OEP and OER across the sub-projects. Chapter 16 (Arinto, Hodgkinson-Williams & Trotter, 2017) employs the social inclusion framework of Gidley, Hampson, Wheeler and Bereded-Samuel (2010) to uncover the factors that might account for the extent of OER use, adaptation and creation observed in the ROER4D studies to draw insights into how social inclusion through OER and OEP can be achieved in the Global South. In this paper, we endeavour to move beyond social change and social inclusion to develop a framework to make apparent the relationship between social justice and the adoption of OER and OEP. Drawing on examples from the ROER4D project, we propose a slightly adapted version of Fraser’s (2005) social justice framework as a way to map how and under what circumstances the adoption of OER and OEP by students and/or educators may counter economic inequalities, cultural inequities and political exclusions in education. In addition, we highlight the extent to which these resources and practices can be construed as being what Fraser (2005) terms affirmative or transformative interventions. Social Justice Following Rawls, Fraser endorses the notion that “justice is the first virtue in the following sense: it is only by overcoming institutionalized injustice that we can create the ground on which other virtues, both societal and individual, can flourish” (2012, p. 42). By extension Fraser conceives of social justice as “parity of participation” (2005, p. 73), as both an outcome where “all the relevant social actors […] participate as peers in social life” and a process in which procedural standards are followed “in fair and open processes of deliberation” (Fraser, 2005, p. 87). However, both these outcomes and processes can be socially unjust in three ways, which Fraser terms: (1) economic maldistribution; (2) cultural misrecognition; and (3) political misframing. In relation to economic injustice or maldistribution, Fraser explains that “people can be impeded from full participation by economic structures that deny them the resources they need in order to interact with others as peers” (2005, p. 73). With respect to OER and OEP, this implies that educators and students in the Global South may be impeded from full participation by the lack of access to necessary educational infrastructure and materials, such as adequate buildings for instruction, uninterrupted power supply, functional technological equipment, affordable and stable connectivity and access to requisite educational materials. Because of these challenges, they may then lack the digital literacy necessary for engaging with OER and OEP. These types of obstacles, following Fraser, indicate “distributive injustice or maldistribution” (2005, p. 73) and need to be addressed through economic redistribution or economic restructuring. Economic redistribution is what Fraser refers to as an “affirmative” change, where attention is paid to the inequitable outcomes by ameliorative adjustments. An example of OER as an affirmative response, or what we prefer to call an ameliorative intervention, would be direct cost savings for government for the schooling sector (Wiley, Hilton, Ellington & Hall, 2012), higher education students (Hilton, 2016; Pina & Moran, 2018), and educators and institutions (Arumugam, 2017). By contrast, economic restructuring is a “transformative” shift that addresses the root causes of the maldistribution. An example of OER as a “transformative remedy” (Nilsson, 2008, p. 35) would be a change in the manner in which educational materials such as textbooks and academic journals are created, adapted, used and disseminated and how their production is funded by governments, institutions, donors foundations, etc. With respect to cultural inequality, or “misrecognition”, Fraser points out that “people can also be prevented from interacting on terms of [participatory] parity by institutionalized hierarchies of cultural value that deny them the requisite standing” (2005, p. 73). In relation to OER and OEP this means that educators and students in the Global South may be deprived of participatory parity due to the current domination of Western-oriented epistemic perspectives and proliferation of hegemonic English-language OER, a condition that can only be countered through the creation, localisation and/or redistribution of OER in preferred languages and from alternative epistemic stances. Countering cultural inequality or misrecognition with ameliorative modifications or symbolic change would assist in valuing local languages and esteeming various cultural interpretations; the process and outcome that Fraser refers to as “recognition”. By contrast, a transformative advance would involve what we have termed “re-acculturation” (Fraser does not specify a particular term for a transformative response to misrecognition) which would respect alternative epistemic positions and acknowledge alternative authorities on what is considered to be worthwhile knowledge and dispositions. With respect to education transformation, and therefore directly to OER and OEP, Luckett and Shay suggest that a “transformative approach would involve dismantling the power relations, social hierarchies and cultural hegemonies that currently underpin the canons, the assumed norms and values of inherited curricula and setting up processes to reimagine more inclusive ways of participating in curriculum and pedagogic practices” (2017, p. 3). Referring to political inequality, or “misframing”, Fraser explains that this “tells us who is included in, and who is excluded from, the circle of those entitled to a just distribution and reciprocal recognition” (2005, p. 75). In other words, political misframing surfaces “asymmetries of political power” (Fraser, 2009, p. 103) between those who have, and do not have, rights of membership in a decision-making community. In relation to OER, the question is: Who has the right to decide on what counts as worthwhile knowledge, who decides on school and university curricula and who publishes and disseminates textbooks, journals, etc.? An ameliorative response to political misframing is, according to Fraser, the provision of representation for under-represented people which creates the opportunity for participatory decision-making. However, as Luckett and Shay point out, this “affirmative approach works for justice within a given framing or ‘grammar’ - it accepts the social structures and institutions that have framed the social practices that need changing” (2017, p. 2). For a truly transformative response what is needed instead is a “reframing” so that people excluded from the authorised contexts are given a chance to “democratis[e] the process of frame-setting itself” (Luckett & Shay, 2017, p. 12). In other words, to have what Arendt refers to as the “right to have rights” (1951). With respect to OER and OEP, it refers to the opportunity for all the relevant stakeholders to decide on what is really important educationally in order to avoid becoming “objects of charity or benevolence […] or non-persons with respect to justice” (Fraser, 2005, p. 77). For just as national or provincial ministries of education and institutional agencies might be prescribing what counts as valuable knowledge, appropriate skills and desirable dispositions, so, perhaps unwittingly, do creators of OER. Our conceptualisation of Fraser’s social justice dimensions, injustices, affirmative (or ameliorative) and transformative responses is summarised in Table 1. Table 1: Conceptualisation of Fraser’s Social Justice Framework Dimension Injustices Affirmative response: addresses injustice with ameliorative reforms Transformative response: addresses the root causes of inequality Economic Maldistribution of resources: economic inequality Redistribution: of resources Restructuring: of economic model Cultural Misrecognition: attributes of people and practices accorded less respect, status inequality Recognition: valued, respected, esteemed Re-acculturation: plurality of perspectives, but always fallible Political Misrepresentation: lacking right to frame discourse, norms and policies Representation: social belonging Re-framing: parity of rights In her conceptualisation Fraser (2005) does not use the term “re-acculturation”; this is our suggestion for a transformative response to cultural misrecognition. We currently conceive of “re-acculturation” as a valuing of a plurality of perspectives, with the condition that all these perspectives are fallible and open to deliberation (following the tenets of social realism held by scholars such as Archer [2003]). Methodology Theoretical and Conceptual Framing As this paper is a conceptual piece proposing a way in which to better understand how OER and OEP could be judged as promoting social justice, and whether these are ameliorative or transformative interventions (Fraser, 2005), the main theoretical assumptions and conceptual framing are drawn from Fraser (2005; 2009; 2012), our underlying critical realist position draws on Bhaskar (1997 [1975]) and our social realist position on Archer (2003). The main method is conceptual research and specifically a critical analysis (Epstein, 2001) to illustrate the presence or absence of ameliorative and/or transformative adoption of OER and enactment of OEP. Where an OER or OEP example was not immediately identifiable in the ROER4D studies, we have drawn on examples from other OER initiatives. Data Analysis The data which this paper primarily draws upon is the open data set compiled for the two meta-syntheses of the ROER4D project (Arinto et al., 2017; Hodgkinson-Williams et al., 2017). In this paper, we re-engaged with the meta-synthesis open data and chose examples to illustrate our slightly reworked version of Fraser’s social justice framework which we have tabularised (Table 1) for conceptual clarity and comprehensiveness. Insights With Fraser’s social justice framework in mind, we draw upon the data and insights gained from the ROER4D project in assessing how OER and OEP may or may not promote social justice – in an ameliorative or transformational way – according to their economic, cultural and political dimensions. In each section we focus on various injustices that affect students and educators, assessing how certain OER and OEP strategies represent an affirmative or transformative intervention in different circumstances. Economic Dimension Some of the most powerful arguments made by the open education community regarding OER is that they can improve access to educational materials for students and educators in comparably poorer contexts. They can lower the cost of: (1) learning for students who may need to buy materials (such as textbooks); (2) funding by governments, bursars and philanthropic foundations who sponsor textbooks; and (3) teaching for educators, or their institutions, who must pay licensing fees to incorporate portions of copyrighted materials into their classroom teaching materials. To this end OER is being implemented by policymakers in a number of Global South countries (e.g., Colombia [Toledo, 2017]; Nigeria), states (e.g., Karnataka, India), institutions (e.g., UCT) and inter-governmental agencies (e.g., UNESCO, Commonwealth of Learning). Here we discuss some of the ways in which OER and OEP deal with the challenges associated with educational costs and copyright restrictions from the standpoint of students and educators, seeking to better understand the limits and opportunities provided by OER and OEP, and whether an intervention has neutral, ameliorative or transformative potential. OER in Contexts of Severe Infrastructural Constraint: A Neutral or Negative Intervention The broadest and most obvious type of economic maldistribution in the education system can be seen in the comparison between the levels of technological infrastructure available to students and educators in highly developed countries versus those in less developed ones. It can also be seen within many countries, with well-resourced educational institutions catering to an elite urban strata and poorly resourced institutions serving those in poorer or rural areas. This divergence is often characterised by institutions’ comparably different levels of access to stable electricity provision, functional computer hardware and affordable broadband connectivity – key technological foundations upon which OER adoption is often premised. A number of ROER4D studies focused on educational environments characterised by mild or severe technological constraints in Africa (Adala, 2017; Cox & Trotter, 2017; Wolfenden et al., 2017), India (Kasinathan & Ranganathan, 2017) and Afghanistan (Oates et al., 2017). Considering that OER is often promoted as a pedagogical innovation that helps partially overcome economic maldistribution (or “access”) issues, ROER4D researchers were keen to understand how OER interventions might impact education in these situations. What they found is that, in contexts of irregular power supply, inadequate computer access and/or low levels of internet connectivity, most particularly in rural areas (Kasinathan & Ranganathan, 2017), digitally mediated OER (the type that is most commonly meant when discussing them) are not appropriate to the needs of all students, although less so for educators. What students require most are printed educational materials that do not rely on continuous access to technological platforms for their use. Of course, OER need not be digitally mediated – as printed textbooks, for instance, can also be OER (Goodier, 2017) – but the most comprehensive elaboration of OERs’ value proposition does rely on them being digitally shareable. Thus, in cases where OER are produced in non-digital formats (i.e., printed and physically distributed like traditional educational resources such as the Siyavula textbooks in South Africa), they may reduce government expenditure if the production costs are sponsored (Goodier, 2017), but it is unlikely that they would do much to reduce any economic imbalances faced by the students and educators per se. Such an OER intervention would be neutral from a student and educator perspective regarding social justice. More worryingly, the continued proliferation of digitally mediated OER may, in some ways, unintentionally contribute to a “digital education divide” and inadvertently reinforce economic inequality. It appears that, for students and educators to truly enjoy the benefits of OER, they require a certain minimum standard of technological infrastructure which would allow them to engage with OER in a meaningful way (de Oliveira Neto et al., 2017). This minimum standard need not require great national or institutional wealth, but at least a level of provision where there is no question as to the stability of the power supply, hardware accessibility and Internet availability. Hence, for students and educators, the full value proposition of OER requires that institutions receive the necessary infrastructural and technological inputs to be able to leverage OER. Moreover, creators of OER need to be mindful of technologically impoverished contexts and make resources available in a variety of formats, including the use of open source software that can be quickly downloaded and inexpensively reused (Kasinathan & Ranganathan, 2017). OER for Reducing the Cost of Education: An Ameliorative Intervention With the cost of higher education being borne more and more by students and their families – and less and less by the state – the use of OER has been proposed as part of a broader strategy to bring down education costs (Hilton, 2016). As shown above, this outcome has indeed been noted in US community colleges (Chae & Jenkins, 2015), as the nominally free price of OER reduces the overall education cost burden that students bear. This type of intervention is inherently ameliorative because it reduces costs but does not change the economic foundations of the costly system. For example, in the ROER4D project Czerniewicz et al (2017) describe the value of MOOCs that are made available as OER for non-degree purposes. For many students seeking immediate relief from educational costs, this is the best that can be hoped for. In this sense, in students’ discrete moments of engagement with educational materials, OER can overcome key inequalities produced by otherwise commercialised, expensive educational resources. A more transformative approach to this challenge, not reported in any of the ROER4D studies, would be for governments and institutions to make the successful completion of quality-assured MOOCs or OER count as micro-credentials towards a qualification, as recently announced by New Zealand’s regulated education and training system. Another transformative approach would be for the relevant government agencies to prioritise educational spending to the point that it is free for all students. OER could contribute to this, especially if entire course materials (not just single textbooks) were openly licensed for extensive public use. But fully free education is typically only possible through massive state intervention (such as in Sweden, where even tertiary education is free). Thus, with regard to dealing with economic inequality borne by high education costs, an OER intervention is an affirmative response, and a worthwhile effort given the challenges that most governments face in pursuing the more transformative approach. OER for Abolishing the Cost of Teaching Resources for Educators: A Transformative Intervention For educators, materials can be expensive to source for using as teaching materials due to the commercial nature of how materials are accessed, coupled with copyright restrictions, which ensure that materials remain bound by commercial constraints. In many parts of the world, higher education instructors cope with this by leveraging national fair use (or fair dealing) legislation which allows instructors to use portions of copyrighted works for educational purposes. This offers educators and students limited access to a specific resource but without requiring its purchase. This is a useful, ameliorative intervention which seeks to balance the need of educators to provide high quality materials to their students while protecting the commercial interests of the copyright owners. Yet because the proliferation of digital technologies has made the sourcing and sharing of educational materials so easy, piracy has become a common strategy for students and instructors to overcome copyright restrictions (on a range of materials), allowing them full, yet “illegal”, access to some educational resources (Czerniewicz, 2016). In the ROER4D project a few of the studies pointed out that students and even educators were not sure about the difference between materials available on the Internet and OER per se (Cox & Trotter, 2017; Kasinathan & Ranganathan, 2017) and so may have unwittingly contravened copyright regulations. While this “illegal” approach is certainly transformative in dealing with the cost and access issues associated with copyrighted materials, it also opens up users to potential legal scrutiny, which limits the extent of usability of materials. It is a hazard that few worry about in their own private use of materials but which they would fear for any public sharing of the same. In this situation, OER represents the more transformative intervention than both fair dealing and piracy as open materials overcome the cost challenges associated with copyright restriction, and it does so in a completely legal manner. As OER are free for educators to source and use, whether partially or in their totality, they are potentially transformative financially and legally. This section on the economic dimension of social justice has focused primarily on a particular OEP, which is OER “use” (as opposed to OER adaptation or OER creation). This is because, in the economically deprived contexts we’re concerned with here, it is the greater use of OER (whether derived locally or, quite often, from the Global North) that appears to offer the most relevant OEP response to the issues raised by educational economic injustice. As we will see in the next section, however, while OER use may be a fitting response to the economic inequities faced by many students and educators, it may also inadvertently lead to greater cultural imbalances if OER is used uncritically. Cultural Dimension While the initial promotion of OER largely centred on ensuring broader access to educational materials faced by those in economically deprived circumstances (Daniel, Kanwar & Uvalić-Trumbić, 2006), scholars have begun to be more critical about the cultural impact that OER — much of it produced in the Global North — might have on users, especially those in the Global South (Cannell, Macintyre & Hewitt, 2015; Willems & Bossu, 2012). The question is: Might the proliferation of OER from culturally privileged regions lead to even greater inequalities in the global cultural sphere, as students and educators in low-resource environments become inundated with (and/or reliant upon) “free” OER from more highly resourced contexts? For OER advocates, this is a difficult question because the economic value proposition of OER discussed above seems to be so virtuous as to make other considerations potentially less important. But according to ROER4D’s research, one of the key desires that educators from the Global South have for the educational materials they use is that they be locally relevant with respect to content (Kasinathan & Ranganathan, 2017), language (Oates et al., 2017; Sáenz et al., 2017) and pedagogy (Karunanayaka & Naidu, 2017; Wolfenden et al., 2017). Indeed, because educators are typically as concerned about the pedagogical import of their materials as they would be about their costs (or even more so), the question of a material’s relevance — its meaningfulness and utility in a given cultural context — is often the ultimate one when deciding whether to use it or not (Cox & Trotter, 2017). As we will argue below, OER should not be viewed as culturally neutral materials that can be used without attendant cultural ramifications. In this section we assess how three forms of OEP — OER use “as is”, OER adaptation through translation, and OER adaptation through content remixing — address the cultural dimension of social justice. Throughout, we will pay close attention to now the notion of pedagogical suitability can inflect the outcomes of these three types of OEP. Using OER “as is”: Reproducing Cultural Inequality? The use of an OER “as is”, without modification, is the quickest and easiest way to engage with OER pedagogically. In the Open Education cycle (Figure 1), this OEP use is referred to as “copying”. In some instances, such as when the OER is an image or short video that succinctly captures an intended educational lesson, then this copy-and-paste form of OEP makes sense. The unmodified OER would hopefully be the best possible example of the knowledge that the educator is hoping for the students to engage with. In the cross-regional study undertaken by de Oliveira Neto et al (2017), among 295 randomly selected educators at 28 higher education institutions in nine countries in the Global South, 51% of respondents reported that they had used OER at least once; 25% stated that they had never used OER; and 24% were uncertain whether they had used OER or not. Of the 4784 students surveyed in the same study, 39% said that they had used OER at least once; 26% reported that they had never before used OER; and 35% were unsure whether they had used OER or not (de Oliveira Neto & Cartmill, 2017). Some of the other qualitative ROER4D studies confirmed that copying originals seemed to be a common practice. In Mongolia, for example educators confirmed that they were more likely to use OER “as is”, if at all (Zagdragchaa & Trotter, 2017). As OER come in a variety of shapes and formats (courses, modules, lesson plans, etc.), the use of OER without alteration can be problematic if it ends up propagating hegemonic forms of knowledge and values, reinforcing the cultural power and prestige of the knowledge domain in which the OER was created rather than that in which it is used. This can reproduce a neo-colonial form of so-called “knowledge transfer”, privileging dominant discourses over local ones and external frames of reference over internally relevant ones. This is not to say that all such use of OER “as is” is necessarily culturally problematic but just that this particular type of OEP is often the least pedagogically critical as it relies heavily on the distant OER creator to develop the terms by which the knowledge embedded in the OER can be understood and applied locally.

      I like the term "least pedagogically critical"

    17. As OER are free for educators to source and use, whether partially or in their totality, they are potentially transformative financially and legally.

      This sounds strange to me. In terms of impact on the global South user, OER would seem neutral to me as much as copyrighted marerial available online... because they already didn't care about legal issues and probably their social environment never enforced copyright compliance.

    18. OER should not be viewed as culturally neutral materials that can be used without attendant cultural ramifications.

      Quotable :)

    19. valuing of a plurality of perspectives,

      One of my concerns with plurality as necessarily transformative is that presence of dominant alongside non-dominant equally does not result in equity. Also, when do we consider a plurality to cover everything from race to gender to cultural imperialism to sexuality, etc.? And every intersection in between? For example if an OER ends up involving local academics that is some parity of participation but if those academics are all men or all from elite institutions...what about involving the learners themselves, esp if learners are like k-12 teachers?

      I am also trying to find a place in this framework (may not be there) where it highlights how a practice intended to promote greater good can harm a group not considered a stakeholder and so overlooked from the consideration of parity of participation altogether...like adjuncts professors.

    20. Conceptualisation of Fraser’s Social Justice Framework

      Use this table in DecolonizeOER but also elsewhere and in decolonize article

    21. Who has the right to decide on what counts as worthwhile knowledge, who decides on school and university curricula and who publishes and disseminates textbooks, journals, etc.? An ameliorative response to political misframing is, according to Fraser, the provision of representation for under-represented people which creates the opportunity for participatory decision-making. However, as Luckett and Shay point out, this “affirmative approach works for justice within a given framing or ‘grammar’ - it accepts the social structures and institutions that have framed the social practices that need changing” (2017, p. 2). For a truly transformative response what is needed instead is a “reframing” so that people excluded from the authorised contexts are given a chance to “democratis[e] the process of frame-setting itself” (Luckett & Shay, 2017, p. 12). In other words, to have what Arendt refers to as the “right to have rights” (1951).

      Ah. I see how the cultural and political are split up here to address the point I made earlier about who sets quality standards and worthwhile goals

    22. ISSN 2311-1550 Editor Emeritus: Alan Tait Chief Editor: Anne Gaskell Associate Editor: Sanjaya Mishra Book Review Editor: Romeela Mohee     Open Journal Systems Journal Help User Username Password Remember me Notifications View Subscribe Journal Content Search Search Scope All Authors Title Abstract Index terms Full Text Browse By Issue By Author By Title <!-- $(function(){ fontSize("#sizer", "body", 9, 16, 32, ""); // Initialize the font sizer }); // --> Font Size Make font size smaller Make font size default Make font size larger Information For Readers For Authors For Librarians Article Tools Abstract Print this article Indexing metadata How to cite item Supplementary files Email this article (Login required) Email the author (Login required) Home About Login Register Search Current Archives Announcements Home > Vol 5, No 3 (2018) > Hodgkinson-Williams Hodgkinson-Williams @import url("/http://jl4d.org/index.php/ejl4d/article/view/312/main.css"); body,td,th { color: #99000; text-align: left; } @import url("/http://jl4d.org/index.php/ejl4d/article/view/312/main.css"); .footnote { color: #990000; } A Social Justice Framework for Understanding Open Educational Resources and Practices in the Global South Cheryl Ann Hodgkinson-Williams and Henry Trotter VOL. 5, No. 3 Abstract: At the heart of the open educational resources (OER) movement is the intention to provide affordable access to culturally relevant education to all. This imperative could be described as a desire to provide education in a manner consistent with social justice which, according to Fraser (2005), is understood as “parity of participation”. Drawing on her concept of social justice, we suggest a slight modification of Fraser’s framework for critically analysing ways in which the adoption and impact of OER and their undergirding open educational practices (OEP) might be considered socially just. We then provide illustrative examples from the cross-regional Research on Open Educational Resources for Development (ROER4D) project (2014-2017) to show how this framework can assist in determining in what ways, if at all, the adoption of OER and enactment of OEP have responded to economic inequalities, cultural inequities and political exclusions in education. Furthermore, we employ Fraser’s (2005) concepts to identify whether these social changes are either “affirmative” (i.e., ameliorative) or “transformative” in their economic, cultural and political effects in the Global South education context. Keywords: Open Educational Resources, Open Educational Practices, social justice, Global South Introduction Many countries in the Global South face similar educational challenges, including but not limited to: “unequal access to education; variable quality of educational resources, teaching and performance; and increasing cost and concern about the sustainability of education (Arinto, Hodgkinson-Williams, King, Cartmill & Willmers, 2017, p. 6). The need for education in Global South countries is continuing to grow, propelled by high population growth (World Bank, 2017) and the burgeoning demand for post-secondary education. In some countries, such as South Africa, there are additional challenges, such as low participation and high attrition rates in higher education (Baijnath, 2018). The OER movement has been seen as a “means of contributing to the challenge of expansion of scale and opportunity and lowering cost in particular in post-secondary education” (Tait, 2018, p. 111). A few studies in countries in the Global South have indeed reported cost reductions as a result of OER adoption (Arumugam, 2016), including reduction of costs associated with course development (Pande, 2018). However, a recent study in the United States (US) raises a caution about the cost reduction argument for OER and suggests that “touting the financial value of an OER might not solely be a convincing argument for students or instructors independent of their educational use” (Abramovich & McBride, 2018, p. 37). A number of studies, mostly conducted in the Global North, have garnered evidence for cost savings of OER for students (Hilton, 2016; Pina & Moran, 2018), though some suggest that these student savings were not accompanied by any real change in their learning outcomes (Hendricks, Reinsberg & Riger, 2017) or student course satisfaction (Lawrence & Lester, 2018). Thus, the economic value proposition for OER may not be connected to any pedagogical, cultural, or political improvements, which would certainly be the hope for the OER community. Moreover, while OER are “often espoused as enabling educational equity, the reality is not always the case” (Willems & Bossu, 2012, p. 185). For example, in Kenyan schools, Orwenjo and Erastus (2018, p. 148) report that “poor infrastructure, negative attitudes, lack of ICT competencies, and other skill gaps among teachers and lack of administrative support are some of the implementation challenges that have continued to dog the implementation, adoption and use of OERs”. Crissinger (2015) suggests that the perceived relationship between openness and social justice be interrogated as, “in our excitement about the new opportunities afforded by open movements, we might overlook structural inequalities present within these movements”. These perceptions are in line with the findings by the Research on Open Educational Resources for Development (ROER4D) project which investigated the adoption and impact of OER in 21 countries in South America, Sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. ROER4D Project The ROER4D project, funded by Canada’s International Development Research Centre (IDRC), the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development (DFID) and the Open Society Foundations, commenced in 2013 and included 18 independent sub-projects. Hosted by the University of Cape Town, South Africa and Wawasan Open University, Malaysia, a total of 103 research team members from 19 countries worked on these sub-projects. In the ROER4D project OER was seen as a component of Open Education and referred to “teaching, learning and research resources that reside in the public domain or which have been released under an intellectual property licence that permits activities enabled by different degrees of openness” (Hodgkinson-Williams, Arinto, Cartmill & King, 2017, p. 31). The open educational practices (OEP) that undergird the OER referred to are: individual or collaborative conceptualisation; creation, curation (retention), circulation (distribution) of OER through practices such as open pedagogies; crowdsourcing; and open peer review using open technologies so that they can be easily located to encourage copying (re-use “as-is”), adaptation, re-curation and re-circulation. In other words, “for OER to exist, there must of necessity be prior OEP” (Hodgkinson-Williams et al., 2017, p. 31). In the ROER4D meta-synthesis, an “optimal” Open Education cycle (Figure 1) was used to identify the key OEP that underlie the phases of OER creation, use and adaptation (Hodgkinson-Williams et al., 2017, p. 32). Figure 1: An “optimal” Open Education cycle (Hodgkinson-Williams et al., 2017, p. 32). Image CC BY In the main output of the ROER4D project, an edited volume comprising 16 chapters (Hodgkinson-Williams & Arinto, 2017), there are two meta-synthesis chapters, Chapter 2 and Chapter 16. Chapter 2 (Hodgkinson-Williams, Arinto, Cartmill & King, 2017) adopts the key components of Archer’s (2003) social realist model of social change to identify the key factors influencing OEP and OER across the sub-projects. Chapter 16 (Arinto, Hodgkinson-Williams & Trotter, 2017) employs the social inclusion framework of Gidley, Hampson, Wheeler and Bereded-Samuel (2010) to uncover the factors that might account for the extent of OER use, adaptation and creation observed in the ROER4D studies to draw insights into how social inclusion through OER and OEP can be achieved in the Global South. In this paper, we endeavour to move beyond social change and social inclusion to develop a framework to make apparent the relationship between social justice and the adoption of OER and OEP. Drawing on examples from the ROER4D project, we propose a slightly adapted version of Fraser’s (2005) social justice framework as a way to map how and under what circumstances the adoption of OER and OEP by students and/or educators may counter economic inequalities, cultural inequities and political exclusions in education. In addition, we highlight the extent to which these resources and practices can be construed as being what Fraser (2005) terms affirmative or transformative interventions. Social Justice Following Rawls, Fraser endorses the notion that “justice is the first virtue in the following sense: it is only by overcoming institutionalized injustice that we can create the ground on which other virtues, both societal and individual, can flourish” (2012, p. 42). By extension Fraser conceives of social justice as “parity of participation” (2005, p. 73), as both an outcome where “all the relevant social actors […] participate as peers in social life” and a process in which procedural standards are followed “in fair and open processes of deliberation” (Fraser, 2005, p. 87). However, both these outcomes and processes can be socially unjust in three ways, which Fraser terms: (1) economic maldistribution; (2) cultural misrecognition; and (3) political misframing. In relation to economic injustice or maldistribution, Fraser explains that “people can be impeded from full participation by economic structures that deny them the resources they need in order to interact with others as peers” (2005, p. 73). With respect to OER and OEP, this implies that educators and students in the Global South may be impeded from full participation by the lack of access to necessary educational infrastructure and materials, such as adequate buildings for instruction, uninterrupted power supply, functional technological equipment, affordable and stable connectivity and access to requisite educational materials. Because of these challenges, they may then lack the digital literacy necessary for engaging with OER and OEP. These types of obstacles, following Fraser, indicate “distributive injustice or maldistribution” (2005, p. 73) and need to be addressed through economic redistribution or economic restructuring. Economic redistribution is what Fraser refers to as an “affirmative” change, where attention is paid to the inequitable outcomes by ameliorative adjustments. An example of OER as an affirmative response, or what we prefer to call an ameliorative intervention, would be direct cost savings for government for the schooling sector (Wiley, Hilton, Ellington & Hall, 2012), higher education students (Hilton, 2016; Pina & Moran, 2018), and educators and institutions (Arumugam, 2017). By contrast, economic restructuring is a “transformative” shift that addresses the root causes of the maldistribution. An example of OER as a “transformative remedy” (Nilsson, 2008, p. 35) would be a change in the manner in which educational materials such as textbooks and academic journals are created, adapted, used and disseminated and how their production is funded by governments, institutions, donors foundations, etc. With respect to cultural inequality, or “misrecognition”, Fraser points out that “people can also be prevented from interacting on terms of [participatory] parity by institutionalized hierarchies of cultural value that deny them the requisite standing” (2005, p. 73). In relation to OER and OEP this means that educators and students in the Global South may be deprived of participatory parity due to the current domination of Western-oriented epistemic perspectives and proliferation of hegemonic English-language OER, a condition that can only be countered through the creation, localisation and/or redistribution of OER in preferred languages and from alternative epistemic stances. Countering cultural inequality or misrecognition with ameliorative modifications or symbolic change would assist in valuing local languages and esteeming various cultural interpretations; the process and outcome that Fraser refers to as “recognition”. By contrast, a transformative advance would involve what we have termed “re-acculturation” (Fraser does not specify a particular term for a transformative response to misrecognition) which would respect alternative epistemic positions and acknowledge alternative authorities on what is considered to be worthwhile knowledge and dispositions. With respect to education transformation, and therefore directly to OER and OEP, Luckett and Shay suggest that a “transformative approach would involve dismantling the power relations, social hierarchies and cultural hegemonies that currently underpin the canons, the assumed norms and values of inherited curricula and setting up processes to reimagine more inclusive ways of participating in curriculum and pedagogic practices” (2017, p. 3).

      Would this imply that, not only would global South integrate epistemic perspectives from e.g. indigenous groups but also that Western scholarship would do so? So for example, not only would a journal have a good quantity of scholarship from global South, but that this scholarship would possibly have different standards of quality and be cited by Western scholarship in ways that challenge rather than complement Western canon? I am unsure this is clear here

    23. Economic redistribution is what Fraser refers to as an “affirmative” change, where attention is paid to the inequitable outcomes by ameliorative adjustments. An example of OER as an affirmative response, or what we prefer to call an ameliorative intervention, would be direct cost savings for government for the schooling sector (Wiley, Hilton, Ellington & Hall, 2012), higher education students (Hilton, 2016; Pina & Moran, 2018), and educators and institutions (Arumugam, 2017). By contrast, economic restructuring is a “transformative” shift that addresses the root causes of the maldistribution. An example of OER as a “transformative remedy” (Nilsson, 2008, p. 35) would be a change in the manner in which educational materials such as textbooks and academic journals are created, adapted, used and disseminated and how their production is funded by governments, institutions, donors foundations, etc

      Affirmative responses as ameliorative (treats symptom) vs transformative (addresses systemic issues in the root of the problem). I wonder if there is a third deeper layer over who defines what the problem is and what the goal we aspire to

    24. By extension Fraser conceives of social justice as “parity of participation” (2005, p. 73), as both an outcome where “all the relevant social actors […] participate as peers in social life” and a process in which procedural standards are followed “in fair and open processes of deliberation” (Fraser, 2005, p. 87). However, both these outcomes and processes can be socially unjust in three ways, which Fraser terms: (1) economic maldistribution; (2) cultural misrecognition; and (3) political misframing.

      What parity of participation entails and how it can still be socially unjust

  5. Oct 2018
    1. English

      I understand this is an English edu journal but see no reason to specify them as the ones who need to take this on. All of us need to take it on. It fits more clearly with social sciences and humanities, of course, but people have emotions and deal with trauma regardless of which classes they walk into.

    2. not prepared to address the intersections of healing, politics, and emotion in classrooms.

      This seems like an overseen dimension of teacher prep, right? As if teaching can occur in a vacuum and emotions need not be addressed or recognized in the classroom, let alone be brought in explicitly and handled with sensitivity.

  6. Jul 2018
    1. Further, many institutions do not recognize OEP in promotion and tenure policies.

      Glad this one was mentioned. The other one not mentioned is what it means to require student labor to be licensed openly without their full awareness of whether this is something they wish to do - do they realize, for example,that doing something CC-BY means some publisher could take it and monetize it?

    2. Who’s doing it?

      Really? Only North American examples? Not even a UK or European example? I'm really disappointed :((

    3. potential inherent in OER

      again, it takes OER as the basis of OEP... this makes me really uncomfortable

    4. and

      I would be more comfortable if this "and" was "and/or" or just "or". Again so that OER not be central to what OEP means.

    5. leverage OER

      This right here is problematic. Why does open education practice necessarily involve "leveraging OER". It need not be centered around OER...

    6. bruzzi regularly fields requests to present about his experiences with OEP at professional conferences. Through contacts he has made at such meetings, including some in other countries, he is now sharing techniques, tools, and experiences with a growing community of OEP practitioners. On his home campus, Abruzzi was instrumental in helping the provost craft new policies for ten-ure and promotion that take into account work in OEP

      I like about this that it includes the open practice beyond his institution and within it... BUT it does not at all show there are challenges to doing it in the institution. It makes it seem "easy" - that others at his institution were naturally interested, that his provost embraced it easily... that...getting these things to count for tenure and promotion??? It's usually NOT easy at all

    7. When colleagues ex-pressed interest in what he was doing, Abruzzi helped a biologist and a social psychologist adopt OEP in their courses

      I like this part because it shows how Open advocates are also open in their attitude of wanting to support others embrace and apply open practices

    1. real and significant learning, and continues beyond the course itself. 

      So essential but so often overlooked

    2. figures out both what they are trying to learn and how they learn b

      And why?

    3. foundational

      The issue for me here is that sequencing of Content does not help promote a scientific mindset because if we want to build people who BECOME scientists, they need to know how to construct knowledge and discover and experiment in non-linear ways too

  7. May 2018
    1. , the University, subject to the terms of any applicable agreements with third parties under which the work was created, will accommodate such wishes as long as it determines that the benefits to the public of making such works freely available outweigh any advantages that might be derived from commercialization. The University, through the Intellectual Property Committee, will act as expeditiously as reasonably possible in making such determination

      so this is needed if someone wants to make a work OER for example. So would Chelsea's OER be CC-BY AUC or CC-BY AUC, Chelsea Green or CC-BY AUC-CLT and Chelsea Green?

    2. Works by Non-Employees

      what about Edraak? Where does that go?

    3. may not commercialize course content or courseware created or taught at AU

      does this include using the same content to teach at a different institution (while employed at AUC)

    4. Outside Interests and Activities

      where is this?

    5. A faculty member may not teach any course or create any course or courseware for an outside commercial enterprise without the approval of the appropriate department chair, dean and the Provost.

      so even creating something new (e.g. MOOC, but also other stuff? Does that include a small workshop or just larger courses? What are the boundaries of what counts here?)

    6. OURSE CONTENT AND COURSEWARE

      this is most specific to eLearning and MOOCs materials

    7. retain

      Does a faculty member working with CLT to produce an OER need to get university approval to have an open license on their work? Does a university professor doing open source software have to get AUC approval to make their software open source?

    8. enter for Learning and Teaching support, se

      consultative support but not "creating products" support. What about STA support vs multimedia officer support? What about video editing support?

    9. created with significant use of University resources, financial support or non-faculty University personnel beyond the usual level of common resources provided to similarly-situated affiliated individuals; (ii) created or commissioned for use by the University; or (iii) created under the terms of a sponsored project where the terms of the sponsored project require that copyright be in the name of the University

      are these conditions "and" or "or"??? If only one is fulfilled, is that it? for MOOCs and eLearning, they definitely use significant AUC resources and are often commissioned by AUC with some sponsorship of some kind sometimes

    10. University recognizes faculty and student ownership of copyright in traditional works of authorship such as textbooks, other works of nonfiction and novels, articles, or other creative works, such aspoems, musical compositions and visual works of art, whether such works are disseminated in print or electronically.

      so AUC does not interfere with these, even if they are created with AUC resources?

    11. ghts given to authors for their literary and artistic works. The kinds of work covered by copyright include literary works, such as novels, poems, plays, reference works, newspapers, computer programs, databases, films, musical compositions and choreography, artistic works such as paintings, drawings, photographs and sculpture, architectural works, advertisements, maps and technical drawings.

      not clear where a course or materials for courses would fit into this

    1. Open Infrastructure.

      What about #SelfOER behaviors such as narrating our processes publicly (which Remi absolutely does) and making ourselves vulnerable when it's reasonable to do so? This is an openness beyond the technical architecture but contributes just the same

    2. advocacy for “having faith in uncertainty, finding pleasure in mystery, and learning to cultivate doubt” suggests, to me, that educators can also appreciate the unexpected and recognize their own biases and limits.

      Love this!

    3. educators build with ignorance,

      Omigosh i love this idea of building with ignorance!

    4. Constructing learning

      And just like that I realize that constructivist learning theory again uses language of building! It seems like a stupid aha moment but what it does it remind us of how the learner is building her own... And in social constructivism learners are building together so it's not the educator pre-building, but the process of building together in a learning space, that matters and not just the end result of a built thing.

    5. how might new designs for educator learning connect to

      When we focus a lot on design and architecture, I worry about rigidity in our expectations about how designs influence outcomes, without necessarily accounting for serendipity or unexpected behaviors and responses. I think that there are ways in which designs can reproduce inequality and such, but also that no design is foolproof... That intentional design for equity is worthwhile but that a constant checking of practice is a completely separate thing from design. That a good design should not be something to celebrate and relax about. We need to enact our values on top of whatever designs we work with (our own or others', because we don't always have the agency or power to make our own designs, but we have some agency at least in how we behave and enact our values on any design - where ever we find ourselves

    6. surveying linkages between building and learnin

      Makes me think of German word Bildung. Always to me seemed like a merger between edu and building or edu AS building

    7. at a time when the inequalities of educational systems appear more intentional than accidental, is it not my responsibility to build toward more equitable student learning opportunities and experiences?

      Love this question and U wonder 2hy fewer people ask it

  8. Apr 2018
    1. One exampleis the difficulties of discussing gender oppression when the teacher is a woman with institutional power but societal disadvantage compared to White male students, and the dynamics are more complex for male/female students of color

      a reference to intersectionality, which I did not know as a term when I was reading Ellsworth's article or writing this one at the time.

    2. within each of these sub-groups, there existedfurther divisions of privilege related to gender and social class.

      clearly, I was not yet using the term "intersectionality"

    3. Ellsworth's (1989)

      One of my favorite articles of all time

  9. Mar 2018
    1. can become a source of epistemic alienation and neocolonialism in the South”

      Another term that's staying with me.

    2. cognitive justice

      This term. So good. I had not heard it before in any postcolonial writing, or it never stuck if it was there. But it's so powerful

    1. Qazeefeh became shell. Msalaheen became militiamen, gunmen. Hajez became checkpoint. Malja’ became shelter. But the new words were strangely light.

      Can you think of other words in Arabic that have a different impact when translated to English? Vice versa? What does it mean that certain words don't exist at all in one language or another, or have a different strength in one vs another?

    2. To witness, however, feels too passive a word. It is an action that is at its heart, inaction.

      what does it mean when we witness and do nothing but witness?

    3. Who is the reader I’m addressing when I am writing in English? It is not my mother tongue, though I feel almost at home in it, though I love it as if it were my own. Like any language, I know it is a tool, as available to raw beauty as it is to hegemonic violence. And I know the only way to redeem it for all of us who it marginalizes is to fight our way out of those margins and insist on being part of the text. But my English is a war wound. It is a result of the roughshod amputation of my mother tongue. Because we were forced, or rather, allowed the privilege to flee at an age when I was first learning to use my voice on the page.

      this quote resonates very strongly with me... love/hate relationship with the English language and what my fluency in it means vs my native language... "amputation of my mother tongue"

    1. We are in the midst of a pricing crisis for scholarly journals. For four decades, subscription prices have risen significantly faster than inflation and significantly faster than library budgets.

      and this is particularly crazy and difficult to understand since journals don't pay authors or peer reviewers, and lots of their copies are now digital (marginal cost of zero to reproduce)

  10. Sep 2017
    1. To everyone who shapes technology today

      what about those who don't have the capacity to be shaping technology today? what is their role? where is their voice? (no document can include EVERYbody, but it's worth noting who is not being addressed or included in this document)

    2. We must seek to design with those for whom we are designing.

      but this entails recognizing the power those who are able to "design" have (because of their technical competence, social clout, financial ability, or time availability), and perhaps questioning how inclusive our design practices are. Just because one person feels the design is good for others doesn't mean it is... how much participation in design decisions is there?

    3. Let us move from human-centered design to humanity-centered design.

      I love this statement. It made me reflect on the difference between human and humanity, and whether they mean thinking about the social/collective rather than the individual, and how the word "humanity" implies a value orientation, whereas "human" seems to be value-neutral.

  11. Jul 2017
    1. In a deterministic system, like that of a computer, a single input leads to a single output: cause leads to effect.

      not so for neural network type algorithms, which control much of the internet (or some of it, anyway) today

    2. This pilot program has worked with faculty who teach core courses, ranging from composition to calculus, to build digital literacy skills into their classes

      YES! Exactly what we need to do - a program for helping faculty integrate digital literacy into their curricula (esp core curriculum faculty)

    3. Obtain

      needs a stronger word, along the lines of "evaluate" or "vet" or "informed selection and use" or such. Obtain sounds like being able to download or buy something!

    4. Learn software quickly.

      Yes but where is the part about choosing which software to use when and how, and recognizing risks and benefits and such?

    5. what is truly needed in higher education today is integration of digital literacy throughout the curriculum,

      Agree completely. It needs to be integrated and infused throughout the curriculum where appropriate

    6. earning to form computational structures and to think digitally are requisites not only for employment but also for intellectual independence

      I like this statement as it touches upon personal empowerment...

  12. Apr 2017
    1. transformed

      I love this because it's not an assumption that digital is open by default but that opening it is a transformation

  13. Mar 2017
    1. For-profit schools are multiplying at an incredible rate and being funded by money machines … to sell dreams to people, young and old. The problem is those dreams don’t exist. These schools are churning out thousands of graduates to an industry without jobs. The only selection process at these types of schools is can you pay or can you sign this student loan from the government.  Your aptitude and your potential talent is never evaluated. Guidance counselors (sic) never reveal the reality of the industry you’re getting into or your odds. In most cases these diploma mill types of schools teach very little of value and even those that do now have cranked out so many others it doesn’t matter. (Squires, 2013)

      should this be an indented quote? it seems like the entire paragraph is a quote...

    2. Taking a cue from the Occupy movement, as does Giroux, the project occupies the space of the existing University – and in this sense is unrepresentable. Such a project can have no architecture, no totalising vision.

      very interesting idea - the project, and how it is unrepresentable because it occupies the space of the traditional institution even while challenging it

    3. signally

      Never seen this word before

    4. my

      Small point. Rose et al's italics or yours, Adam? If Adam then you should claim that after the citation, i think

    1. Everyone, if they wish, produce and not just consume.

      Do people know the pathway to production not just consumption?

    1. Protip: because each Hypothesis user’s annotations are streamed on their public “My Annotations” page, teachers can monitor and assess student work there rather than on individual texts if so desired

      So useful for assessment!

    1. It’s hard to generalize about OA journals beyond saying that they have all the advantages of being OA and all the disadvantages of being new.3

      This seems obvious to those of us in the Open community but not so much for those who are unfamiliar with it - they make other generalizations that are unfair and unfounded

    2. The OA movement focuses on research articles precisely because they don’t pay royalties

      Yes but so why would I pay for gold OA (APCs) when it's your own copyright to begin with (as author). The argument that publishers gain from the free labor of authors, reviewers and editors is exacerbated by APCs! This way,the journal STILL charges libraries for the closed-access AND it charges the authors/institutions for the OPEN access. Win-win for the institution.

    3. Authors who make their work OA are always serving others but not always acting from altruism.

      That's a good point. So before reading this book, I had thought that OA that doesn't come from altrusim isn't a good thing. Now I feel that OA that's self-interested is more sustainable for more people.

    4. academics have salaries from universities, freeing them to dive deeply into their research topics and publish special-ized articles without market appeal.

      This is contestable, isn't it? Only full-timers have salaries and only tenure-track academics get rewarded for their research (in the US or US-like systems). And again, money for research comes from funders and is therefore value-laden.

    5. At the same time it frees them to microspecialize and defend ideas of immediate interest to just a handful people in the world, which are essential to pushing the frontiers of knowledge

      hmm but the option of "getting paid" for non-peer-reviewed publications, then, means that academics who write for public audiences ARE influenced by those things that free the peer-reviewed. Also, there is an assumption here that peer-reviewed journals are value-neutral, which is not really true; they are interested often in preserving conventional ways of doing research and such. This is not an OA vs non-OA thing, but just a point to make about the "liberty" of the researcher. Also, researchers at institutions are often influenced by funders - they may have to modify their research focus depending on what is more likely to get funding.

    1. This

      Thus?

    2. As C. Wright Mills (1959, p. 15) aptly observes: As images of ‘human nature’ become more problematic, an increasing need is felt to pay closer yet more imaginative attention to the social routines and catastrophes which reveal (and which shape) man’s nature in this time of civil unrest and ideological conflict.

      I'm unsure why you are ending with this quote, sorry if I'm dense and missing the connection?

    3. will discontinue.

      yay :) that is a relief

    4. ‘When Google… releases a Beta, it’s saying this product is imperfect, it is unfinished, help us finish it. It is necessarily a call to collaboration. And what is education but a constant process of living in the Beta and understanding how to benefit from that… and how to make mistakes part of your process. We don’t do that in education.’

      great quote, actually

    5. Emma’s blog also re-connected me to my own research experiences not least in the challenges of conducting authentic PAR. During my doctoral journey I used a similar method of self-reflexive write-ups, and whilst not in the form of a blog, they were shared openly with my supervisory team and participants. As a valid form of ‘data,’ these entries were used alongside the practitioners’ narratives, and analyzed as part of ‘first person action research practice’ as discussed by Heron and Reason (2001)[4], as part of fostering an inquiring approach, acting with awareness, and carefully considering the effects of action. This emphasis on the researcher playing a committed part within the inquiry process, and not taking an outsider researcher role, can only help to portray the layers of complexity involved in research inquiry and to question established theories, to situations as they arise, to acknowledge that people think differently from one another, and importantly that one does not always know what is best.

      you may want to indent this quote so it's clear?

  14. docs.google.com docs.google.com
    1. 1492

      Frances and Catherine

    2. 1545 | 1547 | 1499

      Presentatons by Rajiv , Bea and (move to other room for last 20 mins for #1513)

    3. 1513

      Creative Commons: Hack the Credentials

    4. 1456 | 1467 | 1494 | 1524

      presentations by Fabio/Javiera, Muireanne O'Keefe and Kate Green (+ Kelly Terrell)

    5. Discussion155

      Brexit panel by Jim Luke, me and others

    6. Panel1531

      panel by Frances et al

    7. 1460 | 1489 | 1520 | 1557

      VC session followed by Rob Farrow, Tanya Dorey-Elias and Lucy Compton-Reid (all relevant sessions on equity/inclusivity)

  15. docs.google.com docs.google.com
    1. Kate Green

      interesting and just before closing keynote on day 1

    2. Muireann O'Keeffe

      interesting session; in the group just before closing keynote on day 1

    3. Critical Pedagogy and Open Data as Means for Educating to Social Cohesion as an answer to

      interesting one - right before closing keynote day 1

    4. Perspectives on Open Education in a World of Brexit & Trump

      after keynote break Lewis Suite

    5. 1531Staying open: sustaining critical open educational practice in a time of walls and bordersParticipation & social equalityWorkshops and panelsSheila MacNeill, Frances Bell, Vivien Rolfe, Catherine Cronin, Josie Fraser, Kate Bowle

      Day 1 right after lunch, room Seminar 2

    6. Breaking the physical presence barrier: Virtually Connecting as an approach to open, inclusive conferencesParticipation & social equalityPresentationsMaha Bali, Martin Weller, Sue Beckingham, Mia Zamora, Rebecca Hogue, Autumm Cain

      After lunch, seminar 6

    1. complicity

      This is VERY important. To not forget we are often complicit in some way

    2. right

      Missing a "

    3. Klan’s endorsement of Trump’s campaign

      Much as I hate both of them, and much as I believe both are obviously oppressive of others, I don't believe the endorsement is the fault of the recipient of endorsement in and of itself, unless they publicly show pleasure at the endorsement. So while in this case I think there has been mutual support, in some way, that's not what the article just named. Endorsement alone is irrelevant. Or not sufficiently indicative imho

  16. Feb 2017
    1. even people in the know make mistakes, and because people in the know may have reasons for not telling the truth.

      Right on! And this matters so much!

    1. you

      This part is making me emotional and I love how you told it. The sense of a person wanting to support you that way, yet your doubts from the minority who doubted you and reminded you of the critiques of the panel. Does it make a difference who supported and who didn't? Are some of them more qualified? Because a no by a senior person you admire or respect or who has experience or power is v different in impact from 10 yes votes from friends...

    2. European referendum

      No idea what that is. Link? Relevance?

    3. Workshop

      Ok this just came out of nowhere for me. I can sort of figure it out from context but I should not have to. Please explain what this is and why it is here

    4. criterion

      Criteria :)

    5. Partiality, reflexivity, and citationality as

      U may need to actually explain all this. Maybe it is under the table? I would put it before

    6. criteria, criterion

      You're using criterion/criteria flipped. See earlier comment

    7. criterion

      One criterion. Several criteria

    8. defining

      I really feel like you may want to compare w other definitions. I also have no idea what your research was about and I have read much farther than this point. It would help to demystify this earlier. Even if the article is about Methodology not the actual research

    9. the researcher j

      Style-wise, it reads a little awkwardly to refer to yourself as "the researcher". I would expect you to use "I" only

    10. demystify

      Yes! And this work MATTERS

    11. space to reconcile some of my own divorced perceptions

      Love this, how you explicate your blog as third space for you.

    12. everyone

      Who's everyone?

    13. knowledge

      Is biography merely involved as biographical knowledge, or is it more than that, with physical, emotional, spiritual, attitudinal dimensions

    14. pulse

      Wow. Pulse is such a powerful, dynamic word. Great word choice

    15. formulating my own situated definition of autoethnography

      Love love love this

    16. definition

      Ok so you do mention defining Autoethnography and i like how you're describing the feeling and process (sort of) but I really want at this point to see some of what you found and how different they are from each other. I don't remember suffering too much while trying to find references on it, so I am surprised to be honest

    17. autoethnography

      Would you like here or earlier to explain what Autoethnography means? Maybe as early as when you mention biography. It's really helpful to distinguish it from biography

    18. palpable objectification to the edit room floor

      So far, i like the quotes you have brought in but don't understand this sentence. Also, is emphasis in the Denzin quote yours or in the original?

    19. phenomena

      Phenomenon?

    20. reflexive

      Love this. I think all PhD students could benefit from this kind of reflexivity

    21. Moll

      It's unclear whether you're citing Moll for what is before or after thi bracket

    22. subjectivity because I believe insinuates (through language alone) bias and represents something to be cautious of, a weakness to be mistrusted, as lacking rigor and/ or quality.

      This is really where I feel some grounding in philosophical underpinnings of research methodology would help. I haven't read all your writing yet...but I have an article called Embracing Subjectivity and I think interpretive researchers are very explicit about this being not only a good thing, but necessarily inevitable. Gadamer says that "all understanding is always already interpretation". But for now, I will go with your lead of choosing to use biographical info...that is a fair starting point. It's usually what I might call positionality, but maybe you're not going that far with it. I will see. I am commenting as I go, so i may feel differently as i read more..

    23. Out

      My first reaction is: why would you want to takw it out? Or is this a pun on "auto" as "automatic" instead of "self"? It makes me curious but makes me start with a heavy heart...as if someone is taking your voice away from you. Maybe that's how you feel. My PhD was ethnographic with LOADS of positionality and personal reflections wirhin it. It doesn't need to be fully autoethnographic to have those things..

  17. Jan 2017
    1. other way around.

      That might be because they're born in age of interrnet where they ASSUME nothing is copyrighted.

    2. Reference

      Might be useful to share Flickr CC attribution helper by cogdog :) helps a lot

    1. enabling openness is therefore itself socially beneficial

      this feels like a really dangerous assertion that's repeated here and not qualified AT ALL. imho. Openness enabling innovation does not automatically lead to social good

    2. Creative Commons has very effectively lowered the bar to participation in the open source community

      Not really. It's still quite confusing and even people deep into the community get confused

    3. But chief among these is the fact that there is a finite number of developers in the world with the skillset to contribute to such projects. Open source may mean the freedom to change the software, but this is only true in theory; in practice, the bar to participating in the open source community is high, as one needs a high level of programming skill to meaningfully contribute.

      exactly... as is the case with much openness

    4. Open source democracy

      so maybe the term open source gets reappropriated when what we really mean is that we need "open process" or "open design"

    5. information about what the government is doing is meaningless without the ability for citizens to then act on that information to exert influence on the government. This, of course, is almost a definition of participatory democracy.

      nice

    6. aking his cue from Popper, George Soros in 1993 founded the Open Society Institute

      wait if Popper is in 2013, how could Soros take his cue and do something 1993???

    7. As the OU’s mission statement makes clear, the underlying philosophy of open education equates access to educational opportunity with social justice.

      I'm assuming here they mean that even though it equates access with social justice, access does not automatically create social justice and equity, right?

    1. Thus, whether they want to or not, whether the movement likes it or not, women of public note are put in the role of spokespeople by default.

      .also relevant to social media and conferences

    2. Elites are not conspiracies. Very seldom does a small group of people get together and deliberately try to take over a larger group for its own ends. Elites are nothing more, and nothing less, than groups of friends who also happen to participate in the same political activities. They would probably maintain their friendship whether or not they were involved in political activities; they would probably be involved in political activities whether or not they maintained their friendships. It is the coincidence of these two phenomena which creates elites in any group and makes them so difficult to break.

      Another useful point. Relevant for vconnecting and cmoocs and open ed in general

    3. For everyone to have the opportunity to be involved in a given group and to participate in its activities the structure must be explicit, not implicit. The rules of decision-making must be open and available to everyone, and this can happen only if they are formalized. This is not to say that formalization of a structure of a group will destroy the informal structure. It usually doesn't. But it does hinder the informal structure from having predominant control and make available some means of attacking it if the people involved are not at least responsible to the needs of the group at large

      Useful point

    4. Thus structurelessness becomes a way of masking power, and within the women's movement is usually most strongly advocated by those who are the most powerful (whether they are conscious of their power or not). As long as the structure of the group is informal, the rules of how decisions are made are known only to a few and awareness of power is limited to those who know the rules. Those who do not know the rules and are not chosen for initiation must remain in confusion, or suffer from paranoid delusions that something is happening of which they are not quite aware.

      Precisely!

    5. means that to strive for a structureless group is as useful, and as deceptive, as to aim at an "objective" news story, "value-free" social science, or a "free" economy. A "laissez faire" group is about as realistic as a "laissez faire" society; the idea becomes a smokescreen for the strong or the lucky to establish unquestioned hegemony over others. This hegemony can be so easily established because the idea of "structurelessness" does not prevent the formation of informal structures, only formal ones

      Great analogies

    6. Any group of people of whatever nature that comes together for any length of time for any purpose will inevitably structure itself in some fashion. The structure may be flexible; it may vary over time; it may evenly or unevenly distribute tasks, power and resources over the members of the group. But it will be formed regardless of the abilities, personalities, or intentions of the people involved. The very fact that we are individuals, with different talents, predispositions, and backgrounds makes this inevitable

      Exactly

    7. People would try to use the "structureless" group and the informal conference for purposes for which they were unsuitable out of a blind belief that no other means could possibly be anything but oppressive.

      Yes!