If we are to encourage self-directed learning having open and unrestrained access to information and learning resources would go along way in empowering the learner to achieve his or her goal. This sharing and freedom of information would allow our society (and the individuals that make up this society) an opportunity to build upon work developed by great minds. I, as a learner enjoy access to the already limitless amounts of information available on the Internet.
As you read on you will find that I have begun to share my thoughts on the Budapest Open Access Initiative and The Cape Town Open Education Declaration.
In reflecting on the meaning of “open access” I conclude that I would be ethically at peace to sign these declarations, as they do not aggressively impose their ideas, they merely share a thought, a hope and a dream. Perhaps this is a vision to be respected.
Some key observations: included in the Budapest Open Access Initiative is the following statement: “The only constraint on reproduction and distribution, and the only role for copyright in this domain, should be to give authors control over the integrity of their work and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited.” This, in my opinion is the least of what should be afforded an author who has invested time and effort in the development of what could be his or her own personal masterpiece.
How should an author be compensated for his or her effort? The Budapest Open Access Initiative offers suggestions on other streams of funding and the development of “new cost recovery models and financing mechanisms.”
The “open access” initiative or movement still puzzles me though. The first part of this puzzle is that by it calling for free access to resources (of many varieties) I find it to seemingly impose on how writers, researchers or other related professions should market or distribute their work. This is in marginal disagreement of what I imagine the virtues of “open access” to be.
The Cape Town Open Education Declaration promotes the ability of learners to “create, shape and evolve knowledge” but does not in anyway consider the fact that an author may desire to leave a legacy other than that of contributing to what could become a nameless network of information (learning resources).
How can this declaration appeal or cater to the individual(s) need (or desire) to be remembered? In my opinion, it does not, and as such posses a weaker argument, less likely to garner support, than the Budapest Open Access Initiative, spoken of in earlier paragraphs.
I find this to be the differentiating factor between these two initiatives. The Cape Town Open Education Declaration does not cater to humankind’s personality. People have often been found to take credit for a novel idea and then share it, at a cost, with other members of our society. I am also conditioned to believe that they would not take kindly to someone taking their idea and then recreating or renaming it as their own.
Perhaps new declarations will come that take into account what I find to be necessary components for consideration. The benefits of these initiatives are widely known and while I consider elements of these ideals to be flawed the “dream” undoubtedly lives on, gains momentum and garners increasing support.
The first part of this puzzle is that by it calling for free access to resources (of many varieties) I find it to seemingly impose on how writers, researchers or other related professions should market or distribute their work.
ReplyDeleteThese declarartions are assuming all writers just want to give this work away. thye may be visions, but I thnk they are so far left they have fallen off the flat earth.
Skip Ward, Hays, Kansas
I have to admit that the options for licensing, distribution of OER are a bit vague to me yet. The Budapest Initiative pertains to scholarly work and your comment about how authors should be compensated sums things up nicely for me.
ReplyDeleteYour comment about the need for people to be recognized for their work and be "remembered" is intriguing. The traditional publishing options available to most authors remain an option for a relatively small number of people. In the end there work has to be selected or approved before a company will choose to publish it. In the OER world there are far more options to "publish" and with it a much higher chance for many more people to be remembered for their work. I do agree that an author's work also stands a significant chance of being lost n the plethora of freely available resources. Perhaps the incentive is then to produce something that stands out.
Stu