The Ethical Complexities of Openness

PIL Unit's Network for the Exchange of Experience (PILSNER)

16th October 2017

Dr. Robert Farrow

Institute of Educational Technology

Learning and Teaching Innovation (LTI)

The Open University, UK

What will this presentation cover?

History and theory of openness in education

Understanding openness

Ethical problems and complexities related to open educational practices

Developing a framework for understanding ethical challenges of openness

Key themes emerging from Open Education 2017

History of open education

• Peters and Deimann (2013) have demonstrated that the history of openness can be understood to stretch back before the institutionalization of education, even if the language of open was not always used.

• Ancient knowledge transmission through apprenticeship

• Guttenberg printing press (1450s)

• Monastic tradition gave way to university institutions

• Emergence of the public sphere (Habermas, 1962) and public university systems

History of open educationBy the 1960s the open education movement had begun to coalesce around the idea of disestablishing cultural, economic and institutional barriers to formal education. The Open University in the UK was founded in 1969 to widen access to higher education by disregarding the need for prior academic qualification, and using the communication technologies of the time to ‘open up’ campus education though a “teaching system to suit an individual working in a lighthouse off the coast of Scotland” (Daniel et al., 2008).

htt

ps:

//u

plo

ad.w

ikim

edia

.org

/wik

iped

ia/c

om

mo

ns/

b/b

f/Lo

uis

bo

urg

_Lig

hth

ou

se.jp

g

The ethics of open education

“When educational materials can be electronically copied and

transferred around the world at almost no cost, we have a

greater ethical obligation than ever before to increase the

reach of opportunity. When people can connect with others

nearby or in distant lands at almost no cost to ask questions,

give answers, and exchange ideas, the moral imperative to

meaningfully enable these opportunities weighs profoundly.

We cannot in good conscience allow this poverty of

educational opportunity to continue when educational

provisions are so plentiful, and when their duplication and

distribution costs so little.” (Caswell, Henson, Jensen & Wiley,

2008)

History of open education

• Industrialisation brought the rise of popular literacy and establishment of public libraries

and distance education

• In the 20th century we have seen an extension of the belief that education is a right that

can be extended to all

• It is mistaken to see this as a linear historical progression: (Peters & Deimann, 2013:12)

observe that “historical forms of openness caution us against assuming that particular

configurations will prevail, or that social aspects should be assumed as desired by

default”.

The open paradigm in education

A range of cultures, behaviours, practices and technologies from educational contexts may

be described as ‘open’, including access to education or published research, policies,

teaching methods, software, data sets and other educational resources.

Over the last decade – primarily in the form of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC) and

Open Educational Resources (OER) – the open education movement has expanded

opportunities for education worldwide.

Yet as opportunities for accessing educational materials increases, so higher education (in

the West, at least) has increasingly seemed to be in a crisis of funding shortfalls, massive

student debt, and a lack of graduate employment. This has led some to ask whether open

education is the saviour of traditional education, or the herald of its demise.

“Open approaches are featured in the mainstream

media. Millions of people are enhancing their

learning through open resources and open courses.

Put bluntly, it looks as though openness has won.

And yet you would be hard pressed to find any signs

of celebration amongst those original advocates.

They are despondent about the reinterpretation of

openness to mean ‘free’ or ‘online’ without some of

the reuse liberties they had envisaged. Concerns

are expressed about the commercial interests that

are now using openness as a marketing tool.

Doubts are raised regarding the benefits of some

open models for developing nations or learners who

require support. At this very moment of victory it

seems that the narrative around openness is being

usurped by others, and the consequences of this

may not be very open at all.”

(Weller, 2014: 14)

A ‘deeper’ ethics of care?

As openness increasingly enters the mainstream there is concern that the more radical

ethical aspirations of the open movement are becoming secondary. Wiley (2015) for instance

argues for a ‘deeper’ understanding of open ethics as a form of being with an ethic of care

and sharing rather than a set of duties (such as a requirement to use open licensing)

Open education: the moral mission

Most people who advocate for open education believe it is the right thing to do

- Improving access to education as a moral mission

- Voluntarily investing time in promoting OER

- For many practitioners the ethical dimensions of open education are crucial

- Even if the goal is prudential/pragmatic (e.g. only to save institutional funds or improve grades) there remains

a normative dimension

Also grounded in international human rights legislation & agreements

- Paris Declaration on OER (2012)

- United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)

- The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (United Nations, 1966)

Open education: a force for exclusion?

A review of 68 empirical studies, systematic reviews and reports on MOOC (Rolfe, 2015)

suggests there is “a paucity of literature” addressing the socio-ethical dimensions, noting that

despite the rhetoric of improving access “we are at a point where social inclusion is polarised

toward the more privileged” (Rolfe, 2015, p. 65)

Unequal access to communications technology, unequal distribution of basic study skills, and

unavailability of resources in certain languages mean that open approaches can act as a force

for exclusion rather than inclusion (Emmanuel, 2013; Laurillard, 2014; Perryman, 2013)

World Development Report 2016: Digital Dividends

htt

p:/

/ww

w-

wd

s.w

orl

db

ank.

org

/ext

ern

al/d

efau

lt/W

DSC

on

ten

tSer

ver/

WD

SP/I

B/2

01

6/0

1/1

3/0

90

22

4b

08

40

5b

9fa

/1_0

/Ren

der

ed/P

DF/

Wo

rld

0d

evel

op

m0

l0d

ivid

en

ds0

ove

rvie

w.p

df

Image:

https:/

/i.y

tim

g.c

om

/vi/f6

9bbN

LsK

uo/m

axre

sdefa

ult.jpg

“[T]he information society has been brought about

by the fastest growing technology in history […]

No previous generation has ever been exposed to

such an extraordinary acceleration of technical

power over reality, with corresponding social

changes and ethical responsibilities”

Prof. Luciano Floridi(Professor of Philosophy and Ethics of Information at the

University of Oxford)

• Contextualist, not essentialist – there is no such thing as ‘open’

• Defines itself against a status quo that restricts some activity: open lets you do X by removing a barrier to X

• Fundamentally oriented towards freedom

• But what kind of freedom?

Negative Liberty: the absence of

(external) restrictions on activity; freedom

from interference

Positive Liberty: the capacity to act on

the basis of one’s free will; implies rational

agency, autonomy, active choice

Distinction made by Fromm (1941)

and Berlin (1958)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Statue_of_Liberty_from_ferry.JPG

Characteristics of Constellation Method

• Always reconstructive and historical

• Begins with actually existing examples of practice

• Intimately related to how language is used

• Move beyond binary judgements (e.g. open or not?)

• Anti-essentialist: “the constellation of moments is not to be reduced to a singular essence; what is inherent in that constellation is not an essence.” (Adorno, 1973:104)

• Recognises historical contingency without over-simplification or relativism

• Constellation does not prohibit possibility of other constellations, nor future re-interpretation

• Reflective open practice

11.F

arr

ow

, R

.(2

016).

“Conste

llations o

f O

penness”

in

Deim

an

n,

M.

and P

ete

rs,

M. A

. (e

ds.)

The P

hilo

sophy o

f

Open L

earn

ing:

Peer

Learn

ing a

nd t

he I

nte

llectu

al

Com

mons.

New

York

: P

ete

r Lang.

Open Education and Critical Pedagogy

Farrow, R. (2017). Open Education and Critical Pedagogy.

Learning, Media and Technology 42(2).

Image:

https:/

/ww

w.flic

kr.com

/photo

s/lem

asne

y/5

211610431/

Research beyond the institution

In open contexts, teaching and research are increasingly taking place outside institutions

Novel use of open, publicly available datasets

Application of new methods to legacy data

Use of online mechanisms for dissemination (social media, etc.)

Weller (2013) terms this ‘guerrilla research’ – no collection of primary data; further permissions are not required

Examples include:

Research beyond the institution

http://www.katyjordan.com/MOOCproject.html

http://blog.ouseful.info/2009/04/02/visualising-mps-expenses-using-scatter-plots-charts-and-maps/

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2009/apr/03/mps-expenses-houseofcommons

Coal Run (Ohio) Map Mashup

Mapping mash-up overlaid city

boundaries, water supply lines,

and house occupancy by race

Showed almost all the white

households in Coal Run have

water service, while all but a few

black homes do not

$11m in damages from the city of

Zanesville and Muskingum

County (2008)

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2014/02/16/bittersweet-water.html

htt

p://w

ww

.th

ea

tla

ntic.c

om

/tech

nolo

gy/a

rch

ive

/201

6/0

4/h

ow

-big

-data

-ha

rms-p

oo

r-

com

munitie

s/4

77423/

To find out whether the psychological states of its users

can be manipulated Facebook ran a study which involved

showing users either only ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ status

updates and seeing whether this would affect their mood (it

did).

Expert opinion is divided over the acceptability of

Facebook’s actions.

• What are our expectations of use of online information?

• Can we reasonably consent to our own harm?

• What role is technology playing in the pedagogical situation; of what should we be aware?

• Mirror with ethical responsibilities around distance learning

Facebook: ‘Emotional Contagion’ Study

Panama Papers!

Image: https://pixabay.com/static/uploads/photo/2016/04/05/07/41/panama-1308874_960_720.jpg

Framework for an Ethics of Open Education

Openness always increases complexity and reduces predictability

Though we have some expectations of behaviour, we aren’t yet at a point where we could

professionalize an ethics for open education

It is not possible to prescribe guidance for the multitude of scenarios where openness might

make an ethical difference

We lack adequate terminology for describing and assessing the ethical significance of

openness

The framework is developed in order to facilitate identifying and reflecting on normative

elements of open interventions in teaching and research

Constructing the framework

The study examines ethical guidance for research from the British Educational Research

Association (BERA), the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC); and the British

Psychological Society (BPS)

Not a systematic review & the choice of sources is somewhat arbitrary – although the full

paper explains the genealogy (Nuremburg Code, Belmont Report) shared by other guidance

(e.g. National Institutes of Health)

Textual analysis identifies the following shared principles:

Respect for autonomy

Avoid harm / minimize risk

Full disclosure

Privacy & Data Security

Integrity

Independence

Informed Consent

Principles of ethical intervention

Respect for participant autonomy (fair treatment; recognizes human dignity)

Avoid harm / minimize risk

Full disclosure (interventions should be understood by those affected)

Privacy & data security (respect for confidentiality)

Integrity (meeting recognized professional standards)

Independence (objectivity)

Informed consent

Resources from philosophical ethics

Normative Theory Definition of ‘Good’ Focus

Deontological Fulfilment or discharge of moral obligations

Responsibility, intention & duty

Consequentialist Acting to promote best outcomes

Consequences and outcomes

Virtue Ethics Flourishing (eudemonia) Individual character and ‘well-being’

Developing practical wisdom (phronêsis)

The framework

The framework is intended to complement existing institutional processes for ethical approval

For ‘guerrilla’ researchers the framework can encourage focus on professional standards

Even where institutional guidance is available it may not reflect what is possible with open technologies

Ultimately, practitioners to continue to reflect on issues themselves and practice their own autonomy and phronêsis as researchers and educators

phronēsis

phronēsis

aristotle

ethical, practical reason developed through reflective experience

Farrow, R. (2016). A

Framework for the Ethics of

Open Education. Open Praxis,

8(2).

http://dx.doi.org/10.5944/openpr

axis.8.2.291

Destroying Open Educationhttps://tinyurl.com/destroyopeneducation

OpenEd17: The 14th Annual Open Education Conference

htt

ps:/

/im

gu

r.co

m/g

alle

ry/4

e7E

H

Equity

Social Justice

How can we destroy open education?https://tinyurl.com/destroyopeneducation

Walled gardens / working in silos

Being dogmatic about what qualifies as ‘open’ – or insufficiently strict

Forgetting the human element; concentrating too much on ‘systems’

Defund important initiatives; fail to expand funding base

Writing policies without understanding the ethos of open

Failure to protect net neturality

Territorialization of open education

Ignore issues of collection, ownership and processing of data

Pay lip service to diversity while failing to hear all voices

‘Forced’ openness which is mandated or imposed

oerhub.net

@oer_hub

philosopher1978.wordpress.com

@philosopher1978

Thanks for listening!