We are proud to announce the publication of Are We Asking Too Much of OER? in the International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning.
https://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/7744/6179
In a nutshell: This paper examines a pervasive discourse of disruption in OER literature by recounting a facilitated conversation with open education leaders and OER advocates at 2023 Open Education Global conference held in Edmonton, AB. Chad Flinn and I employed Bacchi’s WPR approach (What is the Problem Represented to be?) because instead of asking how policy addresses problems, the WPR approach explores how policy constructs problems (sometimes, the very problems a policy sets out to address).
The genealogy of problem representation is an important part of the exploration. In 2007 Casserly asked, “Is OER a disruptive innovation in the education marketplace?” We sought to answer that question by illuminating the various aspirations of OER advocates, highlighting the need for OER to address issues beyond cost, such as relevance, voice and representation, adaptability, and using textbooks in pedagogically meaningful ways. A philosophical shift moved OER from alignment with the principles of open access to an exclusive emphasis on affordability, which is problematic.
Movements like OER may be accepted in the educational marketplace as long as they do not fundamentally disrupt established norms and power structures. The system tolerates OER and the radical message of openness as long as it does not actually disturb the system, so long as OER proliferation leaves the status quo intact, or insofar as OER can provide the illusion that grassroots movements can arise and change a system that is not, in fact, all that malleable. The discourse of disruption, then, allows for the appearance of competition and progress at the same time it neutralizes any real disruption. Applying this to OER implies that the educational superstructure may embrace OER only as long as it does not challenge the existing business model of education, which has to be paid for, one way or another.
The first wave OER adoption did disrupt the marketplace, but practitioners find themselves again in a familiar place of playing catchup to publishers of all-inclusive textbooks, who adapted quickly to this first phase of disruption. In answer to Casserly’s (2007) question, the generation of high-quality content that is freely available is not disruptive in and of itself, but fully compatible with the existing structures of higher education, and certain institutions may even gain prestige through OER adoption. The problem, then, is not just expensive textbooks but the disruptive discourse that OER can save the world. A maturing dialogue that critically reassesses the role and goal of OER would move away from disruption and account for the full cost of investing in and sustaining OER adoption and usage.