One of the most meaningful challenges I experience in teaching and educational development is the tension between being open and protecting my work and identity. I am very interested in the principles of openness: sharing knowledge freely, inviting collaboration, and contributing to the wider educational community. To me, openness feels ethically right. Education, at its core, should be about breaking down barriers, not building them. When knowledge is shared openly, it becomes a public good rather than a private possession, and that resonates with how I want to teach and learn. I also see openness as connected to social justice, because it challenges existing inequalities in access to knowledge and learning opportunities. As Bali, Cronin, and Jhangiani (2020) argue, open educational practices have the potential to make education more inclusive and equitable by reducing structural barriers and amplifying diverse voices that are often left out of traditional academic systems.
However, I often find myself in a difficult position. The more open I become, the more vulnerable I feel, both professionally and personally. Sharing materials or ideas publicly can mean losing control over how they are used or interpreted. I have had experiences where people reused my work without acknowledgment or adapted it in ways that I did not intend. This kind of free riding makes openness feel one-sided at times. I give freely, but not everyone gives back or even respects the basic norms of attribution. This tension makes me question where the boundary between generosity and exploitation lies.
This dilemma mirrors what Cronin (2017) described as a constant balancing act between privacy and openness. In her study, participants also struggled to maintain boundaries between their personal and professional identities online. Many wanted to be open and networked educators, but they also needed to protect aspects of their personal lives and professional integrity. The study showed how digital spaces blur these boundaries and how easily the personal and professional, or the teacher and the learner, can overlap in ways that feel uncomfortable. Like the participants in Cronin’s work, I also try to manage these boundaries by being deliberate about where and how I engage. For instance, I might use certain platforms, such as institutional learning environments or professional networks, for open sharing, while keeping my personal spaces private.
In a sense, this dilemma is not only about technology or copyright; it is about trust and values. Openness depends on a shared understanding of respect, reciprocity, and ethical use. When that understanding is missing, openness can quickly become risky or discouraging. Yet, I still believe that the answer is not to close off, but to be more intentional about how I practice openness. Creative Commons licensing helps to some extent, as it communicates the conditions of sharing clearly, but the social norms around open practice need to grow alongside the technical tools.
Ultimately, I am learning that being open does not mean being unguarded. It means finding a thoughtful balance: sharing knowledge generously while setting boundaries that protect both privacy and authorship. My ongoing challenge is to cultivate this balance in a way that keeps openness ethical, sustainable, and emotionally safe for everyone involved.
References:
Bali, M., Cronin, C., & Jhangiani, R. S. (2020). Framing Open Educational Practices from a Social Justice Perspective. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2020(1), 10.
Cronin, C. (2017). Openness and Praxis: Exploring the Use of Open Educational Practices in Higher Education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(5), 15–34.
Image source: Pexels.com