Open Learning – Sharing and Openness

Topic 2 was all about what do we think about openness.

Openness is defined by The City University of New York as “the principle of freedom of access by all interested persons to the underlying data, to the processes, and to the final results” (https://www.cuny.edu/research/research-compliance/sponsored/guidance/post-award/openness/)

And then, Bronwyn Hegarty in their paper on Attributes of Open Pedagogy: A Model for Using Open Educational Resources; we can find 8 different characteristics of openness:

Furthermore, ONL has its own definition of open resources:

But at the end, there is not an agreed definition on what openness is, at least not in my opinion. For some people, open is sharing (for this course, sharing material and resources), but for others, open is about sharing and let the others modify the material for their own needs.

In my opinion, to be open is to be able to share knowledge in all the forms. To agree on the fact that the material will be altered and used in a different way, and that I won’t be recognised for my work. I believe that this is truly openness, to understand that you are giving the resources for the common good and not for a personal recognition.

On the other hand, am I willing to be that open?

Most of us, that we are willing to take part on this kind of trainings such as ONL, are in the starting point of our careers. At this stage, it is not only if we ‘want’ to be recognised, it is that we ‘need’ to be recognised. Our future depends on that. But at the same time, in this stage is when we found the open resources the most useful for our development. From increasing our knowledge to preparing classes/resources to share this knowledge.

So then, are we being hypocrites about not willing to be open, in order to be able to gain recognition, and at the same time, using the open resources as a tool to gain this recognition?

Is there a way to find a balance?