What’s Really Going on in the Latest “Openness” Discussion?

Reading through the original post by George Siemens (“Open isn’t so open anymore”), the long comment thread that has ensued, and the many fine follow-ups (see: David Wiley’s response and response to responses, Martin Weller, Brian Lamb, Pontydysgu, Always Cool Alan, Jim Groom’s response and a response to the response to his response, Graham Atwell, etc) and I’m left wondering what’s really going on here?

Is there more than just a little bit of mixing the message and the messenger? I like George. He’s a friendly (and dare I say open?) guy who has continually done hard, influential, thinking in areas important to everyone participating in these discussions. But I also recognize that George is, in a genial way, a provocateur and a self-promoter. George demands attention and isn’t afraid to be the contrarian. I find his manner of doing so mostly productive though—quite unlike some others (paging Gary Stager).

I find it hard to believe—interpreting George’s original post through my own selfish lens—that there’d be quite such an uproar if just about anyone else who’s been involved in the conversation had essentially made the same claims:

• We need more sharp, radical thinking about a concept that clearly (and I submit as evidence this discussion itself) isn’t simple or characterized by mutual understanding of terms that those who promote open education.
• Open teaching & learning, and openness as a posture, and etc etc etc are in danger of seeing what is most important to us co-opted and ultimately retarded by commercial entities for whom openness isn’t a way of acting, teaching or living, but a means for increasing profits.

The implicit binary conception of philosophy and pragmatism in some of the responses is questionable—even disturbing. I’ve come to accept the healthy position of being disinterested in one or the other—Alan Levine’s usual take for example—but that’s very different from maintaining that either philosophical investigation or pragmatic work are unnecessary. Aren’t many of the most influential agents in the area of open education people who consistently engage in both? Who has done more to advance both the philosophy and practical work of Open Education than people like David Wiley, Stephen Downes, Jim Groom, Brian Lamb, Scott Leslie, and so many others? Even if you are one who isn’t (or is less) interested in the abstracted aspects of the discussion– variously characterized as philosophical, ideological, or academic, depending on if one intends to support or disparage them—that work is important because its product filters through the network/ecosystem/rhizome, into your work in open education. One way or another, whether you like and want it to or not. There are many jobs, roles and activities I find uninteresting, distasteful, or frustrating while recognizing their importance to my life and livelihood… why the need here to pummel those who wish to engage in them? Why the need to stamp our feet and cry “just do it!” when, in fact, they are in most cases crying out to/at those who are already doing it?

The issue of co-option and institutionalization is complicated and confusing. If we were gambling with one-sided coins in a zero-sum game, I’d go with pragmatics and simply let the philosophy evolve as a byproduct (what a meager way to live!). But I agree with what I take to be George’s position here: if we don’t advance the thinking in our own field, then we unnecessarily leave our fate to the will of others. I’m not suggesting that institutions—be they Blackboard or Facebook or Universities—are spending time cornering the market on the philosophy and ideology of openness and thus we better get rolling before they use up all the paper and bits we need to do so ourselves. But ignoring those activities and hoping that pragmatism will rule the day, that openness will prevail solely through each admirable educator lighting their own little open candle and letting it shine, and that this is sufficient for a productive and lasting conception to emerge isn’t supported by the history of education nor the history of the culture in which it’s embedded (in the West anyway). Driven by profit and a desire for increased reach, institutions will fill up the empty spaces, influence the minds of the important mass of those who engage with the concepts casually and/or incidentally, and smother what could well be seen a decade from now as just one of dozens of other fads that will have passed their expiration dates and disappeared. I can think of no better way to help make that happen than to ignore either the theoretical investigation or the practical engagement. And I fail to see how more thinking about openness must somehow result in less being done as part of it. Why is a call for deeper exploration into a relatively young—and potentially revolutionary—kind of cultural engagement perceived as a slight against—or a theft from—those who prefer to prioritize praxis?

And make no mistake: there are no guarantees that open education and open teaching & learning will take significant root. It’s mindboggling to me that—assuming one has taken a cursory glance at the history of revolution and reform in education—there are people maintaining that the important work is done, that openness has “happened” or that it is on an inevitable path to becoming an intrinsic part of educational practice. Open education is a tiny niche activity and body of practice residing within an only slightly bigger group of enthusiastic educators. It’s barely a blip on the horizon outside our tiny communities, and where it is noticed that notice tends to come for the wrong reasons.

Even if academicization (oh baby) and institutionalization of “openness” involves a large group of people not really getting it the way we, the real open education people do, it’s better that they have a shallow understanding and misguided sense of purpose that stems from—or involves—our deepening conception of what open education and open culture means than leaving it to the forces of the marketplace. Most of the administrators in my own institution have little idea what open education is about… but the same could (and in many cases still can) be said about their understanding of social media and networks, to name just one important area of educational theory and practice. But the work that so many have done to both think through the theory of—and practice within—these complex areas has had a generally positive effect, allowing for a trust that even if they don’t delve deeply themselves, there’s something useful and worthwhile there that goes beyond the profit-motives of the companies that are (or claim to be) engaged in the same area. The result? I (and my colleagues) are in more cases able to move forward in our practical, everyday work and in more positive ways.

Tagged as: open education, open teaching, openness, pedagogy, practice, theory