The question of openness within education and educational resources is a fickle beast at the best of times. The concept of openness is not an easy one to pin down as exemplified by Catherine Cronin in their article: Open Education, Open Questions. In the article, various definitions of openness and levels of sharing were put forward that eloquently highlight the open-ended nature of the answers put forward.
I approach this idea of open learning through the perspective of a content creator. I find myself in a semi-unique position of creating both academic content as well as visual content, and often the two merge into one. In fact, both forms of content creation, and any content creation actually share a lot of similarities. When we discuss the idea of open learning, we in essence discuss the idea of open content. In other words, content that is in some way, shape or form perceived to be free, or at least free from the traditional gatekeeping institutions of learning. It is on the latter that I wish to focus my reflections on this topic.
The idea of open learning, for me at least, indicates that the learning content can be easily accessed by anyone without the monetary or social currencies associated with the traditional gatekeepers of learning, namely Universities, Colleges, or other learning institutions of their ilk. The advent of the internet has decentralised the locus of learning and created a space where information can be shared and accessed from anywhere in the world (economic inequality aside for the moment). No longer is knowledge locked behind the physical gates of the universities that only open to the sound of tuition fees but behind your ISP.
When engaging with anything that is ladled open or free it should be examined closely. A content provider's job is to provide content. A researcher’s job is to search for new knowledge, and a lecturer’s job is to teach. These individuals get paid for their efforts. So, when dealing with the concept of open learning (as with most things) in a capitalist society we have to follow the money. To quote lyrics from the song Ain’t No Rest for the Wicked by Cage the Elephant:
“Money don't grow on trees
I got bills to pay, I got mouths to feed
There ain't nothing in this world for free”
When examining open/free learning materials it would be wise to see who the new custodians of the information are. Algorithms, advertisers, sponsors and even the viewers/learners ourselves shape the flow of information. Sponsors for, and advertisers on the content produced by content creators depend on the all-mighty views and likes, or at least the amount of engagement or followers of a content creator. Therefore, content creators are constantly chasing the algorithms in order to get their content to appeal to viewers/learners and inevitably pander to our likes and follows and thus curate the content towards those aims.
One also must take into account the advent of cancel culture and the ever-prevalent woke agenda. In efforts to remain socially and politically correct the information that gets disseminated may in fact be altered to suit the whims of the current climate. An interesting case study in this regard could be the recent Netflix debacle surrounding the casting of Cleopatra for their upcoming African Queens series. In its efforts towards fairness and inclusivity, a lot of Netflix productions boast a diverse racial and cultural cast. This in and off itself is admirable, however in the above-mentioned controversy the need for being socially and politically correct took president over the need for historical accuracy, up to the point where Egypt lawyers are suing Netflix for misrepresentation. Now I know that one would not classify Netflix as an open learning institution or service. It is a media entertainment service. Yet I beg the question; has information not become media entertainment? At least to some degree? If one looks at the YouTube channel True Facts by Ze Frank it provided engaging “lessons” or information about animals and natural phenomena, however, it is delivered in an entertaining and humorous way. So, the argument remains that if a massive media production house such as Netflix could fall prey to the social and political pressures exerted by the viewing audience then how much more are these pressures not felt by independent content creators?
Yet this does not mean that all free and open learning resources are bad, only that they are approached with caution and evaluated against the digital ecosystem in which it was created. In fact, as with the Coffee Houses of the early seventeenth century (KIRUTHIKARAGU 2020) where people would meet, discuss and debate diverse topics, in the digital age comment sections, discord channels, subreddits, blogs and web hosting have become the new ‘Penny Universities'. These are digital spaces where anybody can share and discuss information. However, these platforms’ greatest strength also becomes their greatest weakness. Much like the coffee houses of old, it allows anyone to be able to participate whether they are informed or educated or not. This is a double-edged sword. On one side it is a fantastic opportunity for gaining knowledge, and on the other side, it also could potentially hold the keys to disseminating misinformation. As with their coffee house predecessors, these platforms rely on the participation of learned individuals, most likely those who partook in traditional avenues of learning, and which they sought to usurp. Yet unlike their caffeinated precursors who ended up becoming elitist and exclusive, these platforms remain open and due to their digital origins, anyone with an internet connection can create or host such a platform for good or ill.
In the end, we have to look at ourselves and the society we built to see who the true gatekeepers of information are, and behind which gates we lock open and free learning. We shape our own learning as much as our learning shapes us.