Open at the Margins: Critical Perspectives on Open Education is an open text that represents a starting point towards curating and centring marginal voices and non-dominant epistemic stances in open education, an attempt at critical pluriversalism. It is a curated collection of 38 blog posts, lectures, talks, articles, and other informal works contributed by 43 diverse authors/co-authors that offer a perspective on open education that can be considered marginal and that challenges the dominant hegemony.
In the introduction to Open at the Margins: Critical Perspectives on Open Education, the editors state:
“Open education agendas are not simply being “openwashed” as has been observed by many; our concern is that that they have become watered down. It is clear that questions about equity and social justice need to be reasserted at this time. It is also a moment to question power relations within broader open education networks…therefore, we are cautious about rhetoric concerning equity, diversity, and inclusion, asserting that these only have meaning when concomitant processes are genuinely embraced to avoid further marginalizing the marginalized. In this book, voices from the margins are made central, voices that ask important questions, such as…
- Is the open education movement even a single movement?
- If so, what binds it together?
- What does it mean for something to be open?
- Who gets to decide what is “open” enough?
- Or for whom it is open? Can one use closed means to achieve open ends?
- …and more.
For this assignment, please choose and read at least one essay/chapter from this text. As you read it, please reflect upon the following questions and add your thoughts below:
- Which chapter did you select? Who wrote it?
- What drew your attention to that specific essay?
- How does the essay critique open education?
- What are your thoughts on the essay or critique?
- How does the critique resonate with your own experiences or practices?
Complete this Activity
After you do this assignment, please share a brief reflection about what you read via a comment below it can appear with other responses. If your response exists at a public viewable URL, you can also add the information directly to this site.
Open at the Margins was edited by Maha Bali, Catherine Cronin, Laura Czerniewicz, Robin DeRosa, and Rajiv Jhangiani is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted. Text cover photo by Michele Caliani on Unsplash
The chapter that I selected is: Chapter 27 What Open Education Taught Me by Jaime Marsh
What drew my attention to this particular essay is obviously the relevant title, and I was enticed to read more! It is a reflection piece from an undergraduate student.
As I read through the essay, I could read the initial skepticism about taking an open education course, and how the author took it for granted without really understanding the advantages and benefits of OER. Through the progression of continuing her studies, she realizes that there are so many other methods of getting an education, without using the traditional approaches. The idea is to keep an open mind and keep expanding your knowledge. Also saving on textbooks and reading materials is a great benefit of OER.
What resonated with me is, “Open education comes down to one word: accountability”. .. “YOU choose what YOU want to learn, and how YOU want to do it, and when YOU want to do it…”
I am taking this course to learn and understand OER more, and the thoughts in the paper really made me want to dig deeper.
I chose to read the chapter ‘Open as in Dangerous’ by Chris Bourg, after having my attention thoroughly captured by the title. Bourg’s words about the “tension between the ethos of Open and the value of privacy” resonated with me, as I am very cognizant of the professional and personal dangers of existing on the internet, and of the ways in which we knowingly and unknowingly give up our privacy to do so. I also appreciated Bourg’s reflection on the danger of the loss of context due to Open (which brought to mind the rather more poetic, but still topical reflection by Timothy Kreider on his words becoming a meme; https://humanparts.medium.com/i-am-a-meme-now-and-so-are-you-3bae8ecf9971). I appreciate Bourg’s willingness to acknowledge the ways in which the internet and Open both support and complicate each other – I found myself wishing she had provided further solutions and steps forward by the end of the chapter, but I suppose her point was that the only concrete solution to this issue is continued dialogue and critical reflection on Open practices.
The chapter I selected is: Chapter 17 OPEN EDUCATION, OPEN QUESTIONS by Catherine Cronin.
What drew my attention is the interpretations of “open” between OER and OEP. The chapter expressed concerns of OEP, which resonates with my own concerns about OER and what goes beyond OEP. Just like the author said “the simple term open hides a great deal of complexity, much of which depends on the particular context within which open practice is considered.” The potential risk of online abuse could come with OEP, the balance between openness and privacy needs to be embedded in decision making by the educators.
The author’s analogy of openness and critiques of benefit and risk are very insightful, I appreciate the author’s sharing with her concern and research.
I read A Critial Take on OER Practices: Interrogating Commercialization, Colonialism, and Content by Sarah Hare because I have been reading about colonialism in cultural institutions and thought this would be an interesting perspective.
This chapter critiques open education by pointing out that much of the research around open education centres developed Western nations and their systems of education and knowledge creation while praising open education as a way to provide knowledge easily to less developed, non-Western nations and communities.
I agreed with a lot of the points raised in this chapter, particular her point that “OER should not be presented as the answer to structural inequality or used to disregard or replace serious funding issues in other nations’ higher education systems.” She discusses how open education can be a way to facilitate knowledge exchange between diverse communities, instead of just pushed on information-poorer areas by large academic institutions from a vastly different cultural context. She also points out that we should be paying attention to who is doing the labour behind OER, and in what ways are they being compensated or recognized for that work.
I read chapter 7, “Open Pedagogy: A Response to David Wiley” by Suzan Koseoglu . I was drawn to this essay because of the reference to David Wiley. This essay critiques the definition of ‘open’ used by Wiley, arguing that there are broader ways to think about ‘open’ – as a pedagogy with an “ethos of sharing and social justice”. The essay also challenges the 5Rs as methods rather than a methodology. Overall I believe Koseoglu makes a short, but interesting argument.
I chose to look at Chapter 31: The Tyranny of “Clear” Thinking by Jess Mitchell, which speaks to our tendency as humans to oversimplify and seek out certainty. This results in scenarios where we value information and concrete data over knowledge and we prioritize measurable things over the ability to explore and wonder. But being data-oriented does not mean that all things are neutral. This has become especially clear through my graduate program, where we consider the false notions that algorithms are infallible, and software carries no bias. Mitchell suggests that we think in this way because of a fear of relativism. I agree in that we need to open ourselves up to diverse ideas and welcome unstructured thinking. This does not have to be mutually exclusive, as we can also hold onto our data which has a place in society.
I looked at “Chapter 14: Pedagogy and the Logic of Platforms” by Chris Gilliard. I was drawn to this one because it combines two of my interests: pedagogy/education studies and platformization/critical communication studies. The essay critiques Open Education through a discussion of digital redlining, or the digital version of the historical policy of redlining. While we may be promoting Open Education, often that may be through the use of free tools online which manipulate and exploit the data of both students and educators. The digital divide is felt not only through lack of access, but the information asymmetries between news and social media companies which profit off the data of users. The author makes clear that the platformed “surveillance capitalism” that makes up the internet must be contended with when considering open or digital pedagogies on the web.
Chapter six by Samantha Streamer Veneruso, “Reflections on Generosity of Spirit: Barriers to Working in the Open,” drew me in because of the word ‘barriers.’ I wanted to know about what barriers had already been identified in regards to open pedagogy. The title is very succinct as the piece is a reflection on identified barriers to faculty engaging with open pedagogy. The reflection names three barriers: perceptions of teaching and learning, fear, and the prestige economy. It also discusses what may contribute to these barriers. While I found myself agreeing with the assessment I did find that I had hoped there would have been some reflection on solutions as well. I understand however that the piece is not necessarily focused on that and exploring the subject can be a reflection on its own.
As a graduate with little professional experience in the wave of the pandemic I am still trying to develop my own thoughts on open education and this piece is one of those jumping off points for my own reflections.
I selected the chapter 22. Breaking Open: Ethics, Epistemology, Equity, and Power by Maha Bali, Taskeen Adam, Catherine Cronin, Christian Friedrich, Sukaina Walji, and Christina Hendricks. I was drawn to this chapter because of the focus on ethics and epistemology and also because of the authors. I enjoyed the creative approach to writing in this chapter and the effectiveness of the dystopic picture presented at the beginning as a motivator for reading on. It made me ask right away “what is it we need to do to prevent open access turning into yet another technological means of maintaining or amplifying the status quo. Serious thinking. Like any technology, open access is not neutral and we always need to ask who is benefitting from this and who is paying the price.
I read Chapter 1: Inequitable Power Dynamics of Global Knowledge Production and Exchange Must be Confronted Head on by Laura Czerniewicz from the University of Cape Town. I was drawn to this chapter because I was just discussing knowledge validity and generalizability as it pertains to the West vs the rest earlier this week. This chapter touches on that and notes how Global South researchers, “are caught in a double bind.” I find this point interesting because this double bind derives from the diverged power dynamics and Western exceptionalism, as well who creates valid and useful knowledge- and where. While the US dominates in scholarly publishing in science journals, I’d like to see more about how Indigenous knowledge is considered, specifically on that land.
I read Chapter 27: What Open Education Taught Me as I was curious to hear about someone’s experience with OER. I thought it was interesting that they were hesitant at first but then fully embraced the experience. I’m sure I would have had the same feelings as I’m nervous about change, did not have particular trouble with more traditional teaching methods and would be very afraid of putting myself out there on the internet. However, I do suspect that the student has not thought of all the ramifications of OER that are discussed in other chapters of the book. So, while in certain circumstances, OER can be a great learning/teaching tool, it does need to be used with caution.
I read Chapter 22: “Breaking Open: Ethics, Epistemology, Equity, and Power.” Discussions about openness that go beyond whether or not we should open things like educational resources, textbooks or scientific articles are always important to improve the state of open scholarship. The authors have several valid points in their criticism of OER, including the fact that most OER are created in English.
I am from Latin America and when I was searching for OER in social sciences, I was shocked that there were very few OER in Spanish. This is even more shocking because this region has been a huge promoter of open access, but other forms of open scholarship are less common in Latin America, including OER creation and adaption. In non-English speaking countries, OER and MOOCs benefit the most people who were able to learn English as a second language, who are usually more privileged.
An additional challenge with MOOCs found on Coursera or Edx is that they do not allow derivatives in the way that OER do. Therefore, people cannot translate them to other languages or adapt them to a local context outside of English-speaking countries.
One last challenge regarding MOOCs and OER in the Global South is unequal access to the Internet and to a computer, since not all students have access to these, wider use of MOOCs and OER would risk excluding them. In discussions on open scholarship, access to the Internet is taken as a given, when in the Global South there are millions of people without this access. Discussions about equity and power in open education should also take this into account.
The chapter that I selected is: Chapter 2 From Open to Justice by Audrey Watters
What drew my attention to this Audrey’s essay was the intriguing title. It is a piece highlight that somewhat resonates with the experience from the global south open education dilemma; where the assumption (Open is all encompassing) delays opportunity to embrace and adopting. The chapter gives perspectives that are initially missed while been used for profit on the other end.
She buttresses how the definition and designation of “open” is fraught. Thus it is somewhat misunderstood, perhaps confusing. Her tweet about “openwashing” is telling because the products & services offered in education technology, indeed attached the word “open”; the reality though is another.
The different perspectives are valid and provoke further untangling to understand and appreciate. Open is versatile, and needs a thorough understanding to avoid pitfalls and unsuccessful projects before they start.
The chapter I chose was Ch. 21. “Queer Histories, Videotape, and the Ethics of Reuse” by Rachel Jurinich Mattson.
I was drawn to this chapter because it engages with the ethics of access to materials. I am always curious about situations where an “open” approach can actually be destructive rather than creative.
This essay is more of a critique of broader concepts of Open Access than Open Education specifically, but it does relate to education, as educators have the same responsibility as archivists to be conscientious about what is appropriate to share and when permission is required. Mattson describes the dilemma faced by a media archivist when they came across a VHS recording of a public access television program created and hosted by a transgender African-American woman in the late 90s. A program which was clearly never intended to be saved and distributed. As the author puts it, it was “a show that was originally designed to be seen only by a few living souls on a specific date and time in a specific location.” Although this video would be extremely valuable to researchers, it would not be ethical to digitize and freely distribute the program when this was not the intent of the creator.
The author gives many more examples of media that was created with a specific audience in mind that can now be digitized and distributed on a scale that the creator would likely never have imagined. Where this has the most potential for harm is when the work of marginalized groups is taken from their control in the name of Open Access. I find the idea that “some archival materials should remain hard to find” both counter-intuitive and useful.
The many repercussions of digitization, let alone distribution, are huge. In my work, permission from the copyright holder is paramount, but in some cases there are ethical considerations that go beyond the legal obligations of copyright. If someone has agreed to participate in a pre-internet project, with an awareness of who it will likely reach, they have not necessarily agreed to have it preserved digitally indefinitely. While the goals of education (much like research) may be noble and for the greater good, this does not override the necessity to respect the intent of the creator and be mindful of doing harm.
I read Queer Histories, Videotape, and the Ethics of Reuse by Rachel Jurinich Mattson. This essay made me consider when exactly a duplication or copy of something makes it an entirely new thing, and the role that audience and reach plays in this transformation. The essay also provoked me to reflect on the role of care in librarianship and how this pertains to matters of openness and open access.
I read chapter 18, which was written by Tara Robertson. I chose the chapter because the title, “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion in Open Research and Education” sounded like it would be very relevant in my work. This essay spoke about how we need to be intentional about who we include in the work that we do in the world of open education. Tara asked us to think about who is missing, who isn’t at the table, and who is sitting at the margins in conversations about open education.
I appreciated hearing specifically about her work with students with disabilities, which led to the creation of the BC Open Textbook Accessibility Toolkit. It sounded like people in the project truly embraced inclusion by inviting students with disabilities (and paying them for their work!) to help design this toolkit. I also appreciated her critique about how not everything that can be open, should be open. There are marginalized folks who have a lot to lose by their their works truly open, and thus, public. I think consent is especially important when sharing works by marginalized folks. Like Tara stated, they have a lot more to lose by publicly sharing their work. As a woman of colour, I can attest to how much scarier it is for me to publicly share my work versus someone with more privilege than me.
For this activity I read chapter 21, “Queer Histories, Videotape, and the Ethics of Reuse”, by Rachel Jurinich Mattson. I was drawn to this essay because of my combined interests in queer film and archival practices, and this essay title seemed to promise a novel perspective on both of these topics. The essay did not disappoint, and gave me a lot to think about in regards to privacy and ethics around openly archiving content–particularly that created by marginalized voices.
The main point of critique in this essay is the problem of making content open without the consent of the original creators, particularly creators who may be negatively impacted by having past work made widely accessible. The main case study in the essay is a recording of a public access television show hosted by a black trans woman; the recording was found by accident, and has clear value to researchers interested in queer media history, but the show was not created with the intention of being re-watched past the original broadcast and the host has not provided clear consent on having the recording published online. The researcher who found the recording is currently choosing to keep it private in case making the recording openly accessible could have negative consequences for the host–for example, if she said or did anything during the recording that she would not have done if she knew the show was going to be widely accessible later on.
This essay usefully touched upon some ethical dilemmas I have been wrestling with in my own research. I am very interested in social media engagement with film and television, particularly the use and distribution of memes, and the ethics of using these artifacts for research is a major grey area: while memes are published publicly, the nature of social media is that they disappear into the internet void at a rapid rate, and creators may not be comfortable with having their images made permanently, openly available. This places me in the same dilemma as the researcher in this essay. While I still do not have a definitive answer for what the right thing to do in these situations is, I appreciated the validation that this is an open access problem facing a wide range of researchers, and that we are all ‘in this together’.