Folks have asked for copies of my presentation at OpenEd19, so here goes.
- Viewable online from my Dropbox:
Does Open Drain the Pool?
- Download the Powerpoint file:
OpenEd19 oct 2019 Will Open Drain the Pool
Note: A couple of friends have asked why I say “A commons doesn’t scale, it scopes”. This is a relatively quick note to explain some thinking on why. It’s a topic I’m deep into researching now and developing my thinking as it applies to higher education as a commons, so with the caveat that I may alter some stuff later, here’s my thinking right now. This is part one of a two part answer. Typo in paragraph about Facebook now corrected.
I’ve been saying for awhile now in discussions of the commons, OER, and higher education that a “commons doesn’t scale, it scopes”. Before I explain why I think a commons doesn’t scale very well, I probably need to briefly clarify what’s meant by scale and scope. Like many terms in economics, they’re both commonly used terms in both business and everyday life, but in economics they may carry a subtly different, more precise, or richer meaning. Both terms refer to the production of an increasing volume of output of some kind. Enthusiasts of particular good(s), be they an entrepreneur producing the a product they hope will make them rich or an open educator advocating for more open licensed textbooks because it will improve education, generally want to see their ideas scale. And by scale, they generally mean “be produced in larger and larger volumes”. Larger volume of output, of course, brings a larger volume of benefits to more users. More output –> more users –> more benefits. But it’s the behavior of costs that really intrigues us when we think of “scaling” as a way to increase output. More benefits is nice, but if more benefits also means an equal increase in costs, then it’s not so attractive.
The era of mass production has brought a popular expectation that increased output should bring an increased total cost, yes, but with decreasing average costs. In other words, as you produce more it, the product (or service, or activity) becomes cheaper. This is what we call economies of scale and it’s why scale seems to be such an attractive idea for things we want more of. The idea of economies of scale goes back to Adam Smith.
But since at least the work of Panzar and Willig (see Wikipedia footnotes 3, 4 for links and full citation) around 40 years ago, economists have added a richer explanation. We (well not all economists, but IO and institutional types do) now distinguish between economies of scale and economies of scope.
Scale is to produce to the same thing in larger and larger volumes. It’s doing the same thing over and over again. A lot. There’s little variety, just volume. Scope on the other hand is a way to get to large volume by adding variety to the mix. Scope means doing a lot of things that are different by share some apects. The more aspects shared, either in final form or in production process, the closer you get to scale. The more variety you have, the more scope you have.
For some simple examples, think Ford Motor Company’s Model T. That’s scale in action. Enormous volumes of the same car – even down to the same color. Mass production generally involves scale. Standardization is a virtue in scale. Standardized inputs, processes, and outputs, all enable the great of economies or efficiencies we associate with scale. Massive scale can be managed within a hierarchical structure. The hierarchy adds costs, but it more than makes up for it by through an ability to control and standardize inputs, processes, and outputs. Hierarchical management achieves enough economies of scale to more than offset its added overhead costs.
Scope can bring economies, too. This was part of the Panzar and Willig contribution. Economies of scope are more difficult and complex than economies of scale. They’re less automatic and less obvious. Variety, whether it’s variety of location, product, inputs, processes, or outputs complicates things greatly. However, economies of scope are possible through shared services or other aspects. There are lots of examples of scope economies in the business world, although not so many in real life as business people imagine (I speak from experience). When you hear an executive make the case for merging two different businesses and say they’ll achieve cost savings through “synergies”, that’s economies of scope they’re chasing (and likely not getting, but the investors won’t know that until management has fled the scene). When a school district operates a multiple types of schools (pre-K, elementary, middle, high school, specialty) in multiple locations but insists on centralized purchasing and accounting, that’s an attempt at economies of scope.
When businesses, industries, or products first start to grow, they usually scale. But eventually there are limits to scale. When firms hit the limits of scale in growth, they begin to scope. They usually start with product differentiation and geographic expansion. Then comes segmentation of the market and multiple brands. Variety and variation bite back. Remember Henry Ford’s famous quote about “the customer can get it in any color they want as long as it’s black”? Economies of scale talking there. Unfortunately for Henry, his quote came just as Sloan and Durant at General Motors were pioneering ways of adding product differentiation and segmentation – variety.
When Facebook burst on the scene and seemingly everybody in America (and elsewhere) started signing up, that was scale. But when FB added What’s App and Instagram and Messenger to the corporate portfolio in order to keep the growth going, that was scope.
How does scale and scope apply in education? Scale seems to me to be the impossible dream. We’ve achieved very tiny little scale efforts. When a large flagship university (itself a shining example of wide scope) runs 600 seat lecture classes in principles of economics supplemented with smaller discussion/lab sessions taught by TA’s, that’s a scale effort. It’s tiny though. 600 is only 20x the size of the principles class I teach at the community college. In contrast, business world scale usually means thousands-times larger. We’ve tried to scale by producing textbooks and that has had some positive effect in that it enabled hiring more instructors (adjuncts in particular) at lower costs. But it’s limited too.
Society has for much of the past century been trying to “scale”. Society needs more college-educated people, yet, for many reasons, it is reluctant to pay more them. The idea of scaling education is tempting. If only we could scale up education like we did cars, or clothing, or beer, or music, then we could have more college educated folk and not have to pay the full costs. It hasn’t really happened.
I’d argue it can’t. Scale economies require standardization from inputs to process to outputs. That’s not education. Every learner is different – that’s variety and scope there. What works for one doesn’t work for another. Processes are different. Despite all our efforts in recent decades to define “learning outcomes”, they still defy definition let alone control and standardization. Education requires scope.
There’s more to why a commons won’t scale, but that’s in part two.
It’s been a couple days after the fact, but I wanted to make a post to go with my presentation at OER19. Fortunately, thanks to the nice folks at ALT and the magic of Martin Hawksey, I don’t have to try to write a long post explaining what I said and you don’t have to look at slides that don’t have many words on them and try to guess what I said!
Now, if you weren’t there and haven’t seen it already, you can play along with the home game! Just point your browser to my wonderful page from the conference website. You can watch the whole thing!
Nonetheless, I will be doing some blogging based on the presentation. Instead of doing my usual “oh I’ll just include the slides and give a brief post” that ends up being 4000 words, I’m going to do it different this time. I’m planning to write a series of posts – a post for each slide or two. The feedback I got at the conference tells me not only that more but shorter posts is better, but more importantly, people want to hear more depth on some of the individual concepts on the posts. For example, judging by my discussions afterwards the one line I have in there about “a commons doesn’t scale, it scopes” is worthy of post all its own. So stay tuned.
Writing that series of posts should be useful for me too. I’m excited and gratified by the feedback I got at the conference that has encouraged me to research and write more about the academy-as-commons. I thought maybe I could bring some new perspective to the idea of commons since I’m not only an economist, but I’ve also had a whole other career in business strategy & consulting and I’ve been heavily involved in higher education governance & accreditation. The conference confirmed that. So I’m committing to writing this stuff and continuing the research and exploration. I know there’s a book somewhere here and who knows what else coming. I’m excited about it.
I’m also very interested in any thoughts you have on the topic feel free to comment or message me.
Finally, if you’re interested having the slides themselves, you can download my slide deck from my Dropbox.
Remember, #CommonsIsAVerb and let’s #ReclaimTheAcademy.
Note: This post is my reactions to the assigned readings in the LCC Literacy and Education Faculty Learning Community this week.
I’ve always felt myself a stranger in a strange land academically. I’ve been intimidated by the thought of academic writing. Writing is so, so central to academia and I’ve thought or seen myself as writer. I never had a college-level comp course unless you count “Business Writing”. I placed out of college comp and I largely skipped all my senior year English classes in high school. The Econ Masters thesis was 6 years in gestation. The dissertation? Started 3 of them and, well, we’re still waiting.
The irony is I have a BA in Speech & Rhetoric. I won a prize in grad school for best economic writing (yes, I realize that can be considered an oxymoron). The key here is that I wasn’t writing. Not in my mind. I was speaking. Years of college speech & debate and decades of presentations & meetings taught me to make speeches. My rhetoric studies were in a Speech department, not an English or Composition department. Everything I’ve written is largely a speech I hear myself making. It’s all oral rhetoric. I can talk. Podiums, meetings, seminars, and the TV camera are my comfort zone. Keyboard or pen? Not so much.
So when I saw that our first two readings in this “literacy” FLC were both about orality, I got excited – fist-pumping excited. Speaking. Listening. Oral. Now we’re talking. Literally.
Barton and Hamilton refer to the tyranny of writing over orality in the academy. They recount how the study of rhetoric, dating back to ancient Greece, started with the oral tradition but the necessity for written artifacts (texts) to facilitate the study of rhetorics led to a domination of the written text over the oral:
The impression grew that, apart from the oration (governed by written rhetorical rules), oral art forms were essentially unskillful and not worth serious study.
Reading this, I was reminded of the story of the growth and emergence of higher education I read earlier this summer. Lowe and Yasuhara document extensively how in multiple ancient civilizations, the library, a massive collection of written texts, was the seed around which centers of higher learning grew. These library collections of texts attracted scholars. The scholars taught and learned from each other using the texts. Eventually, centuries later these collections of scholars centered by the library of texts became universities and colleges.
I’ve presented and written about how this academic, scholarly tradition is effectively a commons. What’s relevant for this discussion about higher education as a commons is that the core activity of higher ed, teaching and learning, is primarily oral. We prefer oral. We teach face-to-face. Seminars and conferences are built on dialogue, the oral. Even when we teach online, we add video orality and discussion forums. As academics, we love the oral back-and-forth. We naturally gravitate to the oral tradition for teaching and learning.
Yet we also write and read. The necessity of producing the “artifacts” of learning, the texts, articles, and books that document our learning for future generations, perpetuates the “library”, the corpus of scholarly texts. There is, or should be, a virtuous spiral here. We engage the texts by discussing, talking, presenting, and arguing. Then we write what we learn, adding to the corpus for future learners. We pad the shoulders of giants with writings for future learners to see further.
Barton and Hamilton cast written literacy as a tyrant. Ong observes
socially powerful institutions, such as education, tend to support dominant literary practices. These dominant practices can be seen as part of …institutionalized configurations of power…
I see this happening in higher education today. The curriculum is no longer what is taught and learned, the course of learning. It is a document, a written text, a “master syllabus”, a set of standardized “learning outcomes” to be measured and recorded. The “course” is no longer what a professor does in class, or what students do, or what activities they perform. The “course” is now a set of files and documents contained in a “Learning Management System”. Pedagogy, of course, being the dialectic between teacher and student is primarily oral. The literacy practice of written curriculum and textbooks ascends and pedagogy recedes
This domination of the written in the curriculum serves the purposes of the capitalist and the market. The market and the capitalist in particular is the enemy of the commons. The logic of the market commoditizes and standardizes everything. It is about things, goods and resources, not doings, like people and activities. Texts can be commoditized. Oral tradition less so.
I am excited to see where this faculty learning community takes not only me, but us. After all, it’s all about the dialogue to me.
Barton, David and Mary Hamilton (2000). Chapter 1:Literacy Practices. In Situated Literacies: Reading and Writing in Context (pp 7-15) Available at: http://e503.weebly.com/uploads/8/6/2/3/8623935/situated_literacies_-_ch._1.pdf
Lowe, Roy and Yoshihito Yasuhara, (2017) The Origins of Higher Learning Routledge: Taylor and Francis. https://www.routledge.com/The-Origins-of-Higher-Learning-Knowledge-networks-and-the-early-development/Lowe-Yasuhara/p/book/9781138844834
Ong, W. J. (2002). Chapter 1: The Orality of Language. In Orality and literacy(pp. 5–15). Retrieved from https://lcc.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&db=lfh&AN=17442153&site=ehost-live
After spending the past year studying both the economics of a commons, as well as the history and evolution of higher education, it’s long past time to say something about what I’ve figured out. This is the first post along those lines and I hope it’s not the last. What follows here is a light introduction to a model I’ve developed about how higher education operates as a commons. I’ll also be talking and introducing the model this week on Thursday morning at the OpenEd 18 Conference in Niagara, NY. I hope you can you be there, but if not, you can follow along here with the home game.
In the past year or two, or maybe since this whole OER discussion began, several questions have frequently popped up in open education circles. I think the model I’ve developed might help us gain some insights on these questions. I know it is helping me. The model isn’t perfect. Right now it’s even primitive. I know I’ll make statements and warrants below that need to further exposition in future blog posts and papers. But I think the model’s got legs in helping generate insights.
Among the questions I keep hearing in open education circles include:
I hope the model can begin to help sort out these questions.
There are lots of flaws with Hardin’s characterization of a commons. I won’t go into detail about them here, I’ll just let my slide from the presentation summarize of few of them. Basically, what Hardin describes as a “commons” isn’t one. As Lin and Vince Ostrom spent their careers documenting, the commons does work. In fact, it often works so well that we are blinded to it’s existence. Before I leave a discussion of Hardin and the “tragedy” of the commons, I want to make a few points. There is a lesson to be learned from Hardin’s “tragedy”. Namely, if we allow conditions and norms to develop within the OER/open education efforts such that we mimic Hardin’s description, then it will lead to tragedy and failure. It will not be sustainable. Specifically, if we allow unrestricted free access and usage to anyone without regard to reciprocity or care for the commons, then OER is not sustainable. If we allow purely self-interested behavior by participants that emphasizes monetization and a purely transactional, consumer orientation regarding OER, tragedy will ensue. And, most important, if we continue to foster isolated users and isolated teaching while pushing for a commodification of “knowledge” into books and course materials, then our commons will fail. I don’t believe it must be that way.
Lin Ostrom wrote and researched extensively about what a commons is and how to govern a sustainable commons. Her greatest books, Understanding Institutional Diversity and Governing the Commons are admittedly a tough slog for the reader not well versed in game theory or institutional analysis. However, there are some clear conclusions that highly relevant to our open education discussions.
First, a commons is NOT about the resources. The commons is about the institutional structures and norms that people use to govern themselves in a productive situation that poses a social dilemma. Yes, there are often resources involved (duh, it’s “productive”). But the resources in question are what’s properly called a common pool resource (CPR) not “a commons”. Indeed, it’s not even any particular characteristics of the resources in the CPR that creates the commons. Resources just are. They’re resources. Things. Stuff people use to make to other things. It’s the institutional, social, economic, and technological structures and norms that people create that constititute the commons. They create a commons because they want to produce using an CPR. Although it’s true that resources which are rivalous (sometimes called “subtractive”) in nature often tend to be associated with a commons, it is not a necessary condition.
So what makes a commons and what is a commons? In simple terms, a commons is social-economic institution that conforms to neither the market-private property paradigm or the state-leviathan paradigm. The commons is rather stuck between the rock of private property, profit-seeking organizations in the market and the hard place of state organized and run public bureaucracy. In our modern world, particularly in the more developed, richer nations, we have lived under the domination of these two paradigms of socio-economic structures, market and state, for so long it’s often hard to imagine a commons. Yet over 2 billion of the 7 billion on the planet depend on the commons for their subsistence. And nearly all of us are dependent on the commons in one way or another for some significant aspects of our lives.
In short, Commons is A Verb. A commons is what people do and the institutional structures and norms they establish to accomplish their goals. Their goals do not necessarily have to be shared goals or priorities. What is is necessary is that the realities of production or achieving their goals causes some group of people to be inter-dependent upon each other for the outcomes. Yes, a limited, shared CPR that consists of rivalous, non-excludable goods such as fish in a particular fishing area will create the conditions. But the conditions/properties of the goods themselves do not dictate the existence of a commons. The commons is the response of a group of people to a shared social dilemma. In broad terms, a commons arises when people have individual choices to cooperate or not cooperate but the personal outcomes to them depend on both their own choices and the choices of others.
How is this relevant to OER and open education? OER is not what’s primary. Yes, OER consists of “educational resources” and we often think of OER as a common pool resource. It is in a way, but it’s not the primary resource and it shouldn’t be the focus of our attention on the commons. OER are “resources” and we use them to help produce more learning. They’re inputs into the learning process. But they’re not the only resource pool and they’re not the critical resource pool. If we consider that the pool of OER itself is replenished by the activities of scholars – faculty and students – we realize that OER is more of an output pool of artifacts of previous learning. Educational resources – books, etc – can be thought of as community produced capital goods. Educational resources might appear to us to be a scarce resource, but that’s only a side effect of the technology and organizations used to print and publish educational resources them. With recent revolutions in web technology and information publishing, we might to get past that scarcity. However, we still face some critical CPR’s and a need for a commons.
If we start with the idea that a commons is a verb. That is, it’s what people do, then we can better see the real commons in higher education. What we do is learning. We learn. Faculty and students alike learn. We’ve been enculturated as faculty in the last century to see teaching and research (or scholarly work) as somehow separate. They’re not. They’re both learning. In “research” we focus on ourselves as the learners. In teaching, we focus on the students as learners.
I suggest that the commons in higher education is a learning commons. Ostrom points out that a successful commons has clear boundaries as to who is in and who is out of the commons. I should probably be precise and say higher education consists of a “scholarly learning commons”, but for convenience I’ll stick with learning commons. I emphasize learning commons instead of “education commons” or “knowledge commons” since those alternate terms emphasize things which easily get confused for resources. They’re nouns. The commons is about the doing, the verb. We learn. We facilitate learning in others. And we learn from them.
An aside: I do find it inconvenient that college presidents throughout the country have jumped on a bandwagon to rename tutoring centers as “learning commons”. That’s not what I’m referring to. That’s just a buzzwordy renaming of an existing department.
There are alternative institutional arrangements for the activity we call higher education. Indeed some of those alternatives such as for-profit, corporate-like structures are attempts to rebuild higher education as a private property, market-oriented firm. Even some non-profits, such as Western Governors, are doing that in my opinion. But, if we think of higher education as a possible learning commons we can begin to see the connection between the learning commons and critical pedagogies. Paulo Friere, of course, in the Pedagogy of the Oppressed,emphasizes the roles of teacher-student and student-teacher and how both teachers and students learn from each other. This is consistent with concept of a learning commons. One feature of any commons that helps distinguish it from private property-market institutions is how members of a commons are simultaneously both producers and consumers. There may be exchange between them, but it’s secondary. Everybody acts as both creator/producer and user/consumer to some degree. Most importantly, the value created in the commons is not universally commodified and monetized. Market exchange is not central.
I think the real reason faculty and students join and engage in the learning commons is because they want to learn. It’s easier, faster, and more rewarding to learn socially. It’s certainly possible to learn more, faster with some instruction than it is by oneself. This is the core motivation. Certainly it’s the real reason faculty engage the learning commons for a lifetime. They love learning. It’s certainly not the money. The money has never been very good relatively speaking.
But, it does take money or some source of support to live. For that, civilized societies have throughout history (or at least the last 2-3 millenia) found it useful to support some of these specialized learners. There are broad positive externalities to society to having at least some very learned people focused on learning, so the society provides some pools of resources to support the learning commons. In return, the commoners, the scholars, return knowledge and external benefits to society. It’s actually very rational.
But what kinds of resources does society provide? Are they common pooled resources? I think there have historically been three major common pooled resources. First is that the learners themselves must be supported so that they can spend their time learning, studying, and teaching each other. Ultimately, this is the most critical common pooled resource we have: learner time and by learner, I mean both faculty and students.
The other two significant common pool resources are place and libraries/books. Of these, place has been historically one of the most critical since the learning commons is social. It has historically required a dedicated place where learners come together. Roy Lowe and Yoshihito Yasuhara explain very well in The Origins of Higher Learning how these two are closely linked. Dating back to the earliest civilizations, where states created libraries are where the great centers of higher learning emerged. They eventually became our colleges and universities. Libraries gave birth to higher learning.
Books, in fact, are the capital goods of higher learning. The process of learning itself – what the faculty and students are doing in the learning commons – often is best done by writing or creating artifacts. This creates a virtuous cycle. The act of learning is facilitated by writing. We write to learn. But by creating these artifacts, we are not only facilitating our own learning, we are creating the very capital goods – books, articles, notes, lesson plans, etc – that empower greater learning in the future. Libraries (and museums), of course, have been the main repositories of these artifacts of learning. The primary limiting factor on the creation of new education resources is the time of faculty and students to create them and the willingness of faculty and students to share them.
So where do printers and publishers fit in this model? This topic, what I think of as the “capital structure of learning”, is worthy of an extensive deep-dive, which I hope to write soon. Here, I’ll just highlight a few aspects. The invention of printing by the Chinese 1500 to 1800 years ago helped spread libraries and higher learning by making more copies available faster than was possible from hand-copying. The social accumulation and dissemination of capital (books) made it possible to locate higher learning in more places, making learning more accessible.
When Gutenberg invented moveable type and mechanized the printing press in the 16th century, the accumulation process took off. It really accelerated the collection and dissemination of the written artifacts of learning. Books spread and with them libraries spread. More colleges and universities became possible. The invention of printing made higher learning more accessible to a wider range of people in more locations. In effect, the printing press boosted and accelerated the capital accumulation process in higher learning. More books. More copies.
However, printing presses are themselves capital investments of a different kind. While printing presses could easily disseminate hundreds or thousands of copies of a book or pamphlet, they couldn’t easily print and disseminate all written material. The press, or access to the press, had to be rationed somehow. Thus began the process of “peer review” or vetting of materials to see if they were “worthy” of printing and dissemination. For several hundred years the primary effect of printing on our learning commons was to enable learning in more places and by more people. Colleges and universities began to grow and really thrive. Yes, there was an added cost and therefore an added drain on the gross resources devoted by society to higher education but it was easily offset by the expanded positive externalities to society of expanded access to higher education. So far. So good.
Eventually the industrial revolution hits and printing/publishing of educational materials becomes a capitalist for-profit enterprise itself. What started as a service provided to higher education by printers becomes a for-profit, investor-funded capitalist industry. Growth of the publishing enterprise and its profitability rather than the dissemination of learning becomes the overriding objective. There are some reliable and time-honored strategies for growing highly profitable industries in capitalism. Not all of them involve net gains for society. The publishing industry has pursued all of them:
I will leave it to another post to detail how the publishing industry has done this, but suffice to say here the fight over OER is a battle over these strategems. Copyright law has converted books and the information in them into private property. The educational publishers extract value from the same source of resources as all higher learning but the existence of profits (economic profit rates of return) means they remove more than they return – an unsustainable drain on the commons. The emphasis and shift to textbooks as opposed to treatises, simple books, or monographs has been as much an attempt to enclose and displace the faculty as it is a “quality enhancement” or time saver. The expansion of publishers into course platforms, online homework packages, and course-in-a-box represents more of the same expansion of the publisher’s realm. And with that expansion of the publishers role and realm is a shrinking role for the faculty. Faculty and students become consumers, not producing-using learners. They adopt and buy instead of creating and learning. The commons fails and is enclosed.
Lin Ostrom and others have talked about how to create a comedy of the commons, meaning the opposite of a tragedy. Fortunately, there are people doing that. I am encouraged, for example, by the Care Framework put forth in the spring of 2018. I wrote about that in a post earlier this year on OER, Care, Stewardship, and the Commons. There are many other noteworthy efforts. This post is already too long, so I’ll only list what I think are some of the key ways we need to change our focus so we can build a comedy of the learning commons.
We need a concerted effort to determine and enunciate what our community values and norms are. Ostrom also points out that a comedy of the commons actively monitors and enforces its norms. That needs to be part of the discussion. The Care Framework is a good first step. So are the many discussions happening at open education conferences and online about what does it mean to be open. But we need to expand these conversations. We need to involve questions of governance of our college, university, and learned society organizations. We need to involve as many of our colleagues as possible, not just the “open evangelists”.
Perhaps the CC-BY license isn’t the best for the learning commons. It’s not the only “open” license. There’s GPL. There’s Peer-Production License. There’s also CC-BY-SA and NC. Perhaps we need to write a new one that conforms to our needs and norms. Yes, CC-BY and CC0 are the “most free” licenses in the free culture sense. And yes, using those licenses constitutes commoning in the Creative “Commons” (remember it’s the actions, not resources that are the commons). But a successful commons is a layered, nested, polycentric thing. The most successful commons is a small one with personal communication and familiarity among the members. We need to do what is best for our learning commons. But we can only discover what that is by talking.
We need to emphasize fairness. The perception of fairness is critical. I encounter large numbers of faculty who are have created large amounts of educational resources themselves. I suspect everyone who has ever taught has a some files or papers they’ve created but not shared. It may be worksheets. It may test questions. Whatever. But they are isolated. They’re not shared. Why? They’re not shared partly because sharing is actually pretty hard or time consuming these days – and remember, our time is our most scarce resource! But increasingly I’m hearing and seeing people not sharing because they perceive unfairness. Others will “take” their work and not reciprocate. A perception of unfairness or lack of reciprocity by others will kill any commons. The current craze for “inclusive access” programs by publishers whereby faculty create OER but the access is monetized and sold to students rightly strikes many as unfair.
We need to recognize that higher learning itself is the commons and that our time as faculty, teachers, students, and librarian/archivists is the critical common pool resource. The books aren’t the CPR. We are.
We need to recognize that the creation of learning materials is the critical step. It is integral to learning. Instead of increasing the division of labor wherein a few publishers dictate who the few “creators” are and the rest of us become mere consumers or adopters, we need to focus on creation.
A focus on creation means more and better tools. Some of this happening. Pressbooks is an example. But we need more. A lot more. We need and easier ways to share the pieces or components of educational resources so we can make or mix our own. We need a commons of our own in every college department for sharing assignments, images, questions, and chunks so we can roll-our-own quickly and easily. It’s our time, after all, that’s the scarce and subtractable resource. the critical CPR.
We need to go beyond permissions. Yes, permissions are necessary in a world of state-granted copyright monopolies and property rights. But we should not fool ourselves into thinking that assigning a CC license to a work alone is being a good commoner. The permission to revise or remix is meaningless if source code or source marked up texts or the original creation platform is not available. If it’s impossible or impractical to exercise the permissions, then they are useless virtue-signaling.
Finally, we need to pay attention to resource flows. I’m not opposed to private enterprises. Payment for services is a legitimate use of our scarce resources in higher education if we get good value. But investor-funded for-profit organizations are a risk. Their first objective must always be returns to the investors, not the health of the commons. Further, as the public in general comes to see higher education as just another capitalist industry feeding large publishers, they lose sight of the value to society of supporting higher education with public funds.
We need to add another R to David Wiley’s 5 R’s: Reciprocity.
My OpenEd18 presentation Powerpoint file on OpenEd18 oct 2018 Commons Tragedy Comedy is available for download here.
Note this is most of the abstract for today’s presentation at OER18 in Bristol, UK entitled “Commons of Our Own”. I’ve embedded the slides for the presentation at the end.
Disclaimer: This is the advance abstract written months before I created the slides. We’ll see what I actually say today. I’m kind of curious about that myself since my current thinking is a bit different from when I wrote the abstract. Time moves on. I plan to write and publish a longer form blog post with what I actually end up saying and explaining in more detail. With some luck that longer form post will happen this weekend. Stay tuned.
A college degree is more than the sum of its courses. Randy Bass and Bret
Eynon (2016) argue for the importance of engagement, community and
mentorship, and integration in liberal education. Claiming the digital
revolution has tended to unbundle higher education and reduce it to a
collection of online training courses, they argue for a new “learning-first”
digital ecosystem that is learner-centered, networked, integrative,
adaptive, and open. They provide many examples including OER and devote an
entire chapter to “Domains of One’s Own” (DoOO) projects.
Martha Burtis, Jim Groom, and Tim Owens pioneered the DoOO concept at
University of Mary Washington (Burtis, 2016). By 2016 over 40 schools,
mostly universities, had begun DoOO projects, but no community college had
attempted it. Lansing Community College became the first in January 2016. We
called it the Open Learn Lab.
We experimented for 1.5 years, creating nearly 300 blogs and sites. Users
were enthusiastic, evidencing success, but challenges remained. Many
faculty, students, and administrators struggled to understand open learning
or how it “fits” with the LMS, OER, and the school mission. The
challenge moving forward has been to “institutionalize”, scale, and
integrate with OER/other initiatives.
To help faculty/administrators conceive how “it fits” we frame open
learning as a digital Commons of Our Own (CoOO). Our concept of CoOO as
social system is informed by David Bollier and other economists (Bollier,
2014). The technology remains mostly WordPress sites, similar to DoOO.
Indeed, we use a DoOO VPS account with Reclaimhosting. Our CoOO uses a .net
domain distinct from the school’s .edu domain to emphasize the
The LMS provides a temporal digital “classroom” while CoOO provides a
stable, digital counterpart to the non-classroom campus. Historically, the
physical campus provided spaces for ambient learning, social connections,
and authentic learning experiences – opportunities to create, connect, and
share. Online, commuter, and part-time community college students tend to
miss these benefits of campus life. CoOO overcomes the physical limitations,
creating the digital eco-system Bass and Eynon envision.
To help people understand the diversity and roles of sites in our CoOO, we
created three clusters called Learn-Create-Connect. Learn sites are faculty
managed and often structured as program-department collaborations, including
our new Pressbooks OER publishing platform. Create/Voice sites are typically
student blog sites and course hubs which we see as “on ramps” to DoOO.
The Connect cluster are social- and outreach-oriented sites providing
engagement both within the campus community and the larger public community.
The CoOO framework links the LMS, classes, and public to students, faculty,
campus groups, and our OER publishing. The CoOO framing began this year with
the goal of accelerating adoption of OER, open learning practices, and
student blogs. Early indicators point to success.
Bass, R. & Eynon, B. (2016). Open and integrative: Designing liberal
education for the new digital ecosystem. Washington, D.C.: Association of
American Colleges & Universities.
Bollier, D. (2014) Think like a commoner, New Society Publishers.
Burtis, M. (2016) Keynote address to Digital Pedagogy Lab, audio and text at
Lisa Petrides, Douglas Levin, and C. Edward Watson recently released the CARE Framework, but apparently some people, David Wiley in particular, don’t care for the framework. Stephen Downes has already I think responded in two brief posts here and here. Stephen’s posts are brief and I think pretty spot-on. Nonetheless, I’ll soldier on and try to use a couple thousand words to say the same thing.
I find the Framework both exciting and timely. As I’ve mentioned before, I’ve been making up for lost time studying the economics of the commons. In particular, I’ve been deep into Elinor and Vince Ostrom’s work, as well as David Bollier’s work. The Framework doesn’t explicitly state that it is about a “commons” but that’s what they are describing. A commons. A true commons as Elinor and Vince Ostrom would describe it.
People serving as OER stewards pursue a wide variety of strategies and tactics relevant to their specific context to improve access to education and opportunity over time. Yet, what all good OER stewards should have in common is a commitment to practices that serve to demonstrate their duty of care to the broader OER movement.
The Framework is a great start towards a community definition of our own Open Education Commons. I hope to make more contributions along these lines this year. It’s part of what I will talk about at OER18 and OE Global18, and it’s what I’m drafting papers and posts about.
The CARE Framework emphasizes “membership” and “stewardship”. It uses words like contribute, attribute, release, and empower. These are verbs. The commons is a verb. A commons is all about governance, behavior, social norms, production, and usage. It is a social-economic system. It is not a pool of objects or nouns that a bunch of people share.
Wiley dismisses this. He makes a nod towards Elinor Ostrom and tries to cite her work on the commons as supporting his. He misses. It may be a compliment to Ostrom.
The CARE Framework attempt to define membership boundaries in what I’ll call the open education commons (I have good reason to say OE commons, not OER commons – bear with me). Wiley admits that defining group boundaries is Ostrom’s first principle of managing a commons. But he dismisses the Framework and any effort to define group membership, and thereby any behavioral norms, by denying that we should even consider OER as a commons. It’s here where he abandons Ostrom and returns to the old “tragedy of the commons” analogy. He invokes the idea that commons thinking and commons ideas only apply if we’re discussing physical, natural common pool resources. He asserts that rivalrous goods are necessary for such common pool resources and then asserts OER are not rivalrous goods.
Indeed, he sets up a straw man using the old Garrett Hardin story of the tragedy of the commons wherein a “commons” is defined to be = open, unlimited access to a scarce, limited natural resource. The analysis is static and he gets lost in the terminology.
The first problem is that common pool resource(s) are not the same as a commons. That’s Ostrom 101. It’s difficult to read Ostrom or listen to her (fortunately there are many extant videos online of her lectures) and not discover the fatal flaw in Hardin’s “tragedy of the commons” story of over-grazing (or over-fishing or over-hunting). Hardin’s “tragedy” describes a common pool resource where there was no commons structure or social norms governing behavior. It did not describe real-life commons scenarios. Ostrom studied real-life cases. In the Hardin “tragedy” it’s unlimited access by strictly self-interested, socially-detached, profit-maximizing individuals that did not practice stewardship. Interestingly, Wiley denies there’s any possibility of “tragedy” of OER commons while he advocates for OER precisely the hypothetical regime of Hardin’s “tragedy”: unlimited use of CC licensed educational materials without consideration for community norms or commons governance or stewardship or recognition of being in a “community”.
The second problem is Wiley’s assertion that OER materials are “non-rivalrous”. Wiley supposes lack of rivalry in OER goods inoculates OER from any of the risks of unsustainabilty or failure of what I’ll call the OE commons. Here we’ve got three sub-issues: Are non-rivalrous goods exempt from concerns of sustainability? Are OER non-rivalrous and cost-free to reproduce? And finally, just what is the scarce resource jeapardizing sustainability?
Wiley is dead wrong in his assertion that non-rivalrous goods are the only subjects of common pool resource concerns or commons concerns. He implies that Ostrom and her work on the commons only applies to rivalrous goods like natural resources (even here, not all natural resources are rivalrous. Rivalry in goods is contextual and depends on demand, supply, and property regimes). It is true that knowledge and ideas are non-rivalrous. But even non-rivalrous goods can be managed quite successfully as a commons and can also face challenges of sustainability and governance. Ostrom co-authored and co-edited Understanding Knowledge as a Commons. Her work inspired the Workshop on Governing Knowledge Commons. It’s a gross misrepresentation to suggest that Ostrom’s work on commons governance and membership applies only to natural resource pools that are rivalrous. Even non-rivalrous goods face challenges of sustainability that need to be addressed by commons stewardship.
But let’s look at Wiley’s assertion that OER materials are non-rivalrous. His evidence for this is based on the tired canard that making digital copies is virtually free and we can make unlimited copies. But even in an all digital document file world (and not all OER are digital document files) the cost of copying is not zero. Disks, networks, computers, software all have costs of both acquisition and maintenance. They also bring questions of privilege and access. The marginal cost of copying may be very, very small. But marginal cost isn’t the end all of the analysis as any good economist knows. OER reproduction is not cost-free. To have a very, very low marginal cost still requires substantial investment in infrastructure, fixed costs, and sunk costs. Further, just how does one costlessly copy a digital OER resource and avail themselves of all the 5 R’s when the source code files for the website aren’t provided or come in such a format that discourages it. Ask the many faculty who have tried to download, edit, and remix some OpenStax texts. Time is a cost too. Wiley himself sees this when elsewhere he argues that very few have the resources or luxury to contribute to the “hard, frequently painful, and seldom recognized work associated with stewardship.” Clearly OER materials are not cost-less to reproduce and that alone means we must be concerned with sustainability and behavioral norms of stewardship.
A great deal of confusion in thinking about OER sustainability – or what I prefer to think of as sustainability of the OE commons – comes from confusion in terms. In particular we’re confused about “resources”. We use the word resource in OER and then we encounter research about the commons and CPR’s, common pool resources, and confusion ensues. Economically, a resource is something that is necessary for the production of other more economically valued goods or experiences. Resources do not have to be physical objects. The traditional taxonomy is land, labor, and capital, although I think most economists today would not object to adding knowledge in some form to that mix. In economic terms, what we call OER’s are resources used as part of the teaching process that produces some learning.
Note: Please bear with me, my critical pedagogy folk. I’m applying economics to teaching here at a very abstract, general level. I am not embracing learning outcomes, learning analytics, or engineered corporate “learning” experiences. Teachers who engage pedagogies and activities that result in student agency or transformation can still be viewed as a production process in the abstract even if it’s artisanal, unpredictable, and unmeasurable.
Yes, teaching materials such as textbooks, quizzes, images, and software are resources in the teaching or educational process. They are one of the resources. If those materials are free to access, to use, to revise, to adapt, etc, then we call them OER. The use of the word “resource” is legit in this context. However, are these resources fit for purpose? And by fit for purpose, I mean are do they synergistically amplify the most critical resource of the process, the labor and knowledge of the teacher? To make them truly fit for purpose requires engaging the 5 R’s. We must remix, revise, redistribute, and edit. It is not enough to have or use an OER with permissions for 5 R’s if we do not or cannot actually do them. I may have the right or permission to vote, but if I do not actually vote that right is meaningless. To actually revise, remix, redistribute, or edit OER’s requires additional resources.
The critical resources necessary for OER are people’s time and expertise. This is true for both the creation of those mass distribution OER’s such as general ed course textbooks and the materials as used in each class. I think of the textbooks as wholesale or bulk OER’s that need further processing and supplementation to be most effective in any particular course. And who provides these critical resources of time and expertise for creation, editing, remixing, revising, and redistribution? The most critical source is faculty. Is faculty time non-rivalrous? Hardly.
Accepting the economics definition of scarcity as “unlimited wants and limited resources”, we must conclude faculty time is scarce. It is valuable. Faculty make choices of how to use their time. They can choose to spend time creating, editing, revising, remixing, and sharing OER materials, or they can spend their time in a myriad of other ways.
While OER materials are indeed resources in the context of teaching, in the context of our discussions of sustainability, they are not. OER materials are not resources and not the commons or the CPR itself. OER are the fruits of the an open education commons that utilizes a common pool resource of faculty time and expertise to produce them. If we think of it this way, we see why stewardship, the CARE Framework, and Ostrom’s principles are so important.
OER materials are not some static, ever growing pool of materials that can endlessly and costlessly be copied, reproduced, and used. That OER textbook written two years ago? It might be out of date now. Who is going to edit and update it? Who cares if I can copy that text from a decade ago? Maybe OER’s cannot be over-used as David Wiley states, but they can certainly be under-produced. Under-production will lead to tragedy of the open education commons as surely as over-grazing might lead to failure of a pasture commons.
Why would faculty devote their scarce time to OER? Why should they take time to attribute (and trust me attribution takes time)? Is it only because of threats of legal action should they not comply with copyright licenses? Hardly. That’s never stopped faculty before. It’s because they are convinced that they are part of a community, a commons, wherein this is the norm. Attribution is what good people do. As Downes put it, they want to respect, protect, and further the collective enterprise in which they are a part.
Why would faculty devote scarce time to sharing and contributing their content or materials? All teachers have materials they’ve created for classes. Not all OER’s must be 300 page textbooks. There’s a wealth of unshared teaching materials sitting in faculty drawers in the form of handouts. Only a small portion get shared or contributed to others, partly because sharing and making available to others is not always easy. Time. Resources. Scarcity. Again, they share when it’s part of the social norm.
What might discourage faculty from attributing or contributing? Faculty will not share, will not contribute, and will not attribute when they see that their efforts and time get abused by others who don’t adhere to the social norms.
It’s not just over-use that can doom a commons. Enclosure and extraction can destroy a commons just as well.
Another Ostrom principle of commons management is fairness. Faculty and all members of the open education commons need to perceive that fairness reigns. There’s been a steady drumbeat that says CC-BY license is the “most free” (how is it more free than CC0, I wonder?). But when I’ve worked with faculty to help them create, share, publish, revise, or remix their OER materials, their gut preference is typically for CC-NC, CC-SA, or CC-NC-SA. Why? Because they perceive those licenses as more fair. The NC and SA licenses make statements about “I’m contributing to the OER community. I expect fair reciprocity. I expect you to be a good steward too.” Faculty react quite negatively to organizations who charge for access to CC-BY materials. Faculty perceive those organizations as using legal technicalities to abuse the good faith efforts of the community.
I haven’t yet presented the CARE Framework to faculty. My expectation is it will be warmly accepted and greeted with a kind of “well, of course”. I thank Petrides, Levin, and Watson for their work on it. While in many ways the framework simply captures what I think most faculty think and feel already, making the framework and its emphasis on stewardship explicit is a major step forward for the open education commons.