Edited by Tabitha Naisiko, Wednesday, 30 Oct 2019, 14:27
In
this article, am obliged to critique the article of Veletsianos
& Kimmons(2012) on Assumptions and Challenges of Open
Scholarship. Based on Open Educational Practices
(OEP), Resources Open Educational Resources (OER) and Open Access (OA), the authors
claim that researchers, educators, policymakers, and other education
stakeholders hope and anticipate that openness and open scholarship will
generate positive outcomes for education and scholarship. Veletsianos and Kimmons parade some assumptions which I need to
critique based on the context of Uganda my country.
The assumptions
identified suggest that open scholarship:
-
is rooted in an ethical pursuit of democratization,
human rights, equality, and justice. The literature on the advantages of OER and OA
in International Commission on Financing Global
Education Opportunity (2016, p.11), World Bank Group (2017), Hoosen, &
Butcher, (2019) and Fengchun Miao, Sanjaya Mishra and Rory McGreal (2016)
affirm that open scholarship is aimed at the promotion of sustainable goal No. 4
which is aimed at promoting education for all. Here it goes beyond claims for
human rights as stated to provision of basic human needs. Based on the
multiplier impact of education in the realization of other basic needs and
elimination of other societal problems, I totally agree with the authors. However,
in practice, open scholarship does not entirely meet its purpose especially
when it comes to developing countries because it takes a generic approach and
does address specific problems that deal with basic human needs in given
contexts. Taking the assumptions of the pursuit of democracy and equality and
justice is proselytization of academics not actually open scholarship for it
would emphasize basic needs, not generic claims.
-
highlights the importance of digital participation.
I do agree with this assumption because open scholarship has indeed promoted
digital participation. It has to some extent leveled the world where
partially, a few keen individuals in the academic fraternity have benefited
from digital participation. However, as Veletsianos and Kimmons affirm, many scholars are benefiting from Web. 2.0
interactive technologies through open discussions, professional networks,
promoting their visibility. This semester, I have also integrated Web 2.0. in my
teaching approach. This is because I noticed that though we are predominantly
traditional in our approaches of teaching, I would see many students swiping their
smartphones during a face-to-face class. Nearly all the class of 60 students is
connected to WhatsApp, Facebook, and YouTube. For that matter, I chose to give
some assignments where they could use OERs and they appear comfortable with it.
However, this is possible because they are in an urban setting where they can
access power and internet easily. For those in the rural areas, given
challenges of accessibility, connectivity and socio-economic challenges, a limited percentage of the scholars in the south can participate in the digital
platforms.
-
is treated as co-evolutionary with technological
advances. I totally agree with this assumption because open scholarship has indeed
brought a new twist in education demand in terms of skills needed, approach, and
educational technologies. Right now, education without digital skills is obsolete.
The development of the time requires digital skills in medicine, agriculture,
transport, communication and education itself. Open scholarship together with
the technological advances has led to the collapse of ivory tower syndrome of powerful
universities. As Veletsianos and Kimmons, observe,
now OERs and MOOCs are becoming trendy and popular for they empower learners
with in-demand skills and make them more functional. In an evaluation study of
OERs (de
los Arcos & Farrow et al 2014, p.5) report an increase of many informal
learners. This is an implication that open scholarship together with technological
advances have brought about education evolution and has de-institutionalized
education.
-
is considered as an approach capable of achieving
socially valuable scholarly aims. Based on the objective of education aimed at enabling the cognitive, affective and physical development of learners in order
to make them responsible and productive citizens, I differ from this last assumption.
This is because open scholarship loses that aspect of face-to-face value where
the teacher and the learners interact and share from mentorship. It is possible
with open education that at the end of the course, the learner’s other aspect
beyond cognitive aspects may not develop appropriately to achieve the “socially
valuable scholarly aims” as claimed. Besides the too many networks and contacts, many bring confusion when scholars fail to manage information as Veletsianos and Kimmons observe. At the end of the course, or
interaction in open scholarship, it is possible that the scholar communities
may not be stably built and strengthened.
Based on the realities, challenges, and opportunities in open scholarship discussed above, just like Veletsianos and Kimmons I too concur
that open scholarship is not a magic bullet to solve international educational challenges
in the world. It may not be generalized to achieve education for all as
wished by the sustainable development goals. Besides, it seems the concepts of
OER or OEPs are hijacked by the consumerist group of the world. This could be the
reason why Veletsianos and Kimmons observe that entrepreneurs,
industrialists, and marketeers now work with universities to propose researches/innovations,
give internships in various educational technologies such as software are innovated
and sold at a faster rate than they are learned or used. In countries like Uganda,
before we learn of a software or an innovation, the newer version has come up. Eventually
what is being understood as open scholarship, to us in developing countries is academic
Proselytization; a campaign to buy and adapt numerous versions of academic
innovations. And since academics require concentration, the rapid drive to acquire,
learn and use/consume educational technologies has compromised the purpose of
education as problem-solving. Thus, what is termed as open scholarship starts
and ends up as a means and never as a service of education.
Open Scholarship or Academic Proselytization?
In this article, am obliged to critique the article of Veletsianos & Kimmons (2012) on Assumptions and Challenges of Open Scholarship. Based on Open Educational Practices (OEP), Resources Open Educational Resources (OER) and Open Access (OA), the authors claim that researchers, educators, policymakers, and other education stakeholders hope and anticipate that openness and open scholarship will generate positive outcomes for education and scholarship. Veletsianos and Kimmons parade some assumptions which I need to critique based on the context of Uganda my country.
The assumptions identified suggest that open scholarship:
- is rooted in an ethical pursuit of democratization, human rights, equality, and justice. The literature on the advantages of OER and OA in International Commission on Financing Global Education Opportunity (2016, p.11), World Bank Group (2017), Hoosen, & Butcher, (2019) and Fengchun Miao, Sanjaya Mishra and Rory McGreal (2016) affirm that open scholarship is aimed at the promotion of sustainable goal No. 4 which is aimed at promoting education for all. Here it goes beyond claims for human rights as stated to provision of basic human needs. Based on the multiplier impact of education in the realization of other basic needs and elimination of other societal problems, I totally agree with the authors. However, in practice, open scholarship does not entirely meet its purpose especially when it comes to developing countries because it takes a generic approach and does address specific problems that deal with basic human needs in given contexts. Taking the assumptions of the pursuit of democracy and equality and justice is proselytization of academics not actually open scholarship for it would emphasize basic needs, not generic claims.
- highlights the importance of digital participation. I do agree with this assumption because open scholarship has indeed promoted digital participation. It has to some extent leveled the world where partially, a few keen individuals in the academic fraternity have benefited from digital participation. However, as Veletsianos and Kimmons affirm, many scholars are benefiting from Web. 2.0 interactive technologies through open discussions, professional networks, promoting their visibility. This semester, I have also integrated Web 2.0. in my teaching approach. This is because I noticed that though we are predominantly traditional in our approaches of teaching, I would see many students swiping their smartphones during a face-to-face class. Nearly all the class of 60 students is connected to WhatsApp, Facebook, and YouTube. For that matter, I chose to give some assignments where they could use OERs and they appear comfortable with it. However, this is possible because they are in an urban setting where they can access power and internet easily. For those in the rural areas, given challenges of accessibility, connectivity and socio-economic challenges, a limited percentage of the scholars in the south can participate in the digital platforms.
- is treated as co-evolutionary with technological advances. I totally agree with this assumption because open scholarship has indeed brought a new twist in education demand in terms of skills needed, approach, and educational technologies. Right now, education without digital skills is obsolete. The development of the time requires digital skills in medicine, agriculture, transport, communication and education itself. Open scholarship together with the technological advances has led to the collapse of ivory tower syndrome of powerful universities. As Veletsianos and Kimmons, observe, now OERs and MOOCs are becoming trendy and popular for they empower learners with in-demand skills and make them more functional. In an evaluation study of OERs (de los Arcos & Farrow et al 2014, p.5) report an increase of many informal learners. This is an implication that open scholarship together with technological advances have brought about education evolution and has de-institutionalized education.
- is considered as an approach capable of achieving socially valuable scholarly aims. Based on the objective of education aimed at enabling the cognitive, affective and physical development of learners in order to make them responsible and productive citizens, I differ from this last assumption. This is because open scholarship loses that aspect of face-to-face value where the teacher and the learners interact and share from mentorship. It is possible with open education that at the end of the course, the learner’s other aspect beyond cognitive aspects may not develop appropriately to achieve the “socially valuable scholarly aims” as claimed. Besides the too many networks and contacts, many bring confusion when scholars fail to manage information as Veletsianos and Kimmons observe. At the end of the course, or interaction in open scholarship, it is possible that the scholar communities may not be stably built and strengthened.
Based on the realities, challenges, and opportunities in open scholarship discussed above, just like Veletsianos and Kimmons I too concur that open scholarship is not a magic bullet to solve international educational challenges in the world. It may not be generalized to achieve education for all as wished by the sustainable development goals. Besides, it seems the concepts of OER or OEPs are hijacked by the consumerist group of the world. This could be the reason why Veletsianos and Kimmons observe that entrepreneurs, industrialists, and marketeers now work with universities to propose researches/innovations, give internships in various educational technologies such as software are innovated and sold at a faster rate than they are learned or used. In countries like Uganda, before we learn of a software or an innovation, the newer version has come up. Eventually what is being understood as open scholarship, to us in developing countries is academic Proselytization; a campaign to buy and adapt numerous versions of academic innovations. And since academics require concentration, the rapid drive to acquire, learn and use/consume educational technologies has compromised the purpose of education as problem-solving. Thus, what is termed as open scholarship starts and ends up as a means and never as a service of education.