At a recent GO-GN drop in webinar in which I had the opportunity to visit with others working toward their PhD, Martin Weller advised using blog posts to work through messy thoughts and unclog the writing pipeline. So, today's messy thought.
I am wondering if the diffusion pro-innovation bias might help make meaning of some of the challenges (opportunities?) which have arisen in the wake of OpenEd19. Rogers (2003) discusses a study published by Belasco in 1989 in which water practices for villagers in an Egyptian delta were explored. To clumsily summarize, the villagers either did not use or misused a government source of pure water which was provided as an alternative to canals filled with contaminated water. Many of the reasons Belasco found for the villagers' misuse or failure to take up the innovation had to do with their perception of the change (Rogers, 2003). Those implementing the technological innovation failed to take into account the fact that perceptions matter. Rogers' apt description of the work can be found on pages 107-109 of the book cited below.
My advisor was on the OpenEd19 planning committee, and was puzzled by the outcry regarding the proposed keynote panel including commercial publishers. He is a diffusion scholar, and has a well-informed multi-disciplinary perspective of open practices. I am a librarian, and have found myself in many conversations with students, instructors, and faculty regarding their experiences with commercial textbooks and their publishers. In addition, I am familiar with the role commercial publishers have played in helping construct the very challenging budget environment in which academic libraries function as they work to support the research and other creative endeavors of their communities. My advisor and I have had some interesting conversations this fall.
It seems fair to say introduction of commercial publishers as a keynote panel representing the future of publishing in open represented an innovation (whether technological or ideological) which failed to effectively diffuse into the OpenEd19 population. "Perceptions count" (Rogers, 2003, p. 109) and at least a portion of the OpenEd19 community perceived a low level of compatibility with open practices and commercial publishing practices. Why does continuing to ponder this even matter?
This matters because the community matters. Not just in a warm and fuzzy way, but also according to theory. Rogers (2003) uses the diffusion of prescription of an antibiotic as an example of the role interpersonal communication beyond the local network plays in diffusing innovations. Medical specialists who traveled to conferences were quicker to incorporate prescription of an innovative, effective antibiotic. The opportunity to personally interact with a community beyond the local network enhances the diffusion of innovations.
My advisor's opportunity for personal interaction beyond his local network will stay intact even without a large conference, in part because of the relationships he was able to build through the conference planning process. Mine will as well, to a degree, and hopefully I will use that access to broaden opportunities for others to join in that interpersonal communication. I am helping plan an OER conference scheduled to take place Fall 2020. Applying the lens of diffusion of innovations theory to make meaning of the events of OpenEd19 can inform choices we make in considering the perceptions of those collaborating in open as we plan.
Future messy thoughts will work through how to implement Belasco's findings and suggestions in how to incorporate this understanding that perceptions matter (it has to do with thought leaders) and the importance of interpersonal connection beyond the local network in identifying and establishing values guiding re-invention of the innovation as it diffuses beyond the local (this has to do with kindergarten!). But now I think I have gotten enough of the messy thought off my plate to go back to the important business of the day, which is getting some less messy thoughts on paper for my advisor. Thank you for listening! ~Kathy
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations, Fifth edition. New York: Free Press.
OSU Library Bootcamp: Maybe It's Maybelline by Kathy Essmiller is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at http://www.musicmatters405.com/conversations/osu-library-bootcamp.
In the OkState Emerging Technologies and Creativity Research Lab, we got to spend a lot of time interacting with emerging technologies and develop questions about how those technologies might help make people's lives better. One of the devices we were able to explore was the Microsoft Hololens. As we investigated the benefits of mixed reality as weighed against the human computer interactions present with the Hololens, we found ourselves continually saying it was really neat, but could it be useful on a larger scale or in the classroom? Below are the slides from my AERA19 presentation with Dr. Penny Thompson and Dr. Tutaleni Asino in which we ask that question. Fortunately, we asked that question with a room full of curious people who came up with even more focused ways to ask the question. Some included questions regarding motor skills mapping (I'm not sure I said that exactly right!), how we might encourage exploration of the potential from the perspective of producers rather than consumers, and the level of care taken to make sure we are not replicating inequalities present in the real world in our mixed reality experiences. One education researcher suggested sending the device out with a K12 teacher for awhile to see what uses could be discovered, and another suggested its application in a literature class. Lots of great ideas!
I have enjoyed a great day at the Arizona Open Educational Resources Conference exploring issues surrounding the values, mission, and sustainability of OER. So many great people, with so many great ideas, I just want to scoop them all up and share them with my faculty back home! For the most part, these resources are licensed CC-BY, a broad license welcoming modificaton and distribution with attribution describing changes made to the original work. In many cases, for a number of reasons, creators have chosen to include SA (Share-Alike), NC (No Commercial Use) and/or ND (No Publication of Derivative Works).
Understanding of how these licenses interact helps users honor creators' intent. Use the chart below to explore how these permissions interact. Find the licenses associated with the resources you will be combining--start with the license for your first resource as indicated in the far left column, and move right across the row to the box corresponding to the license of the other resource. Locate where on the chart they intersect. If that box has a green check mark, you're good to go. If it has an x mark, the licenses are not compatible for reuse.
Central to respectful use of these licenses is understanding of what constitutes a collection, a remix, an adaptation, and a derivative work. Use the slides below to begin exploring these definitions.
What a great opportunity to meet, learn from and collaborate with some great folks committed to the values and practice of Open Education and Open Educational Resources. The slides from my presentation are below. As the slide design is by the OSU Library Instructional Designer, the licensing is a bit complicated. Will post the formal licensing after bit, but the photos and information are CC-BY Kathy Essmiller. Other elements, including slide design and the OSU logo remain under full copyright.