Identifying Tensions in the Use of Open Licenses in OER Repositories

Abstract

We present an analysis of 50 repositories for educational content conducted through an "audit system" that helped us classify these repositories, their software systems, promoters, and how they communicated their licensing practices. We randomly accessed five resources from each repository to investigate the alignment of licensing information between the resources themselves, metadata pages and overall site policies. We identified a high level of incongruity that could lead to a limited impact in OER use and reuse. We discuss the lack of guidance in implementation of such repositories, particularly to those who do not have wide institutional support to implement such systems. We finalize with a critical discussion on the emphasis given to licensing in the OER movement, and how it may be an evidence of a clash between the social and legal commons.

Repositories of Open Educational Resources: An Assessment of Reuse and Educational Aspects

“…However, in a significant number of ROERs (14.5%), the platform was not identified, as it was not mentioned in their policies or anywhere else. This result coincides with that of OpenDOAR and Bueno-de-la-Fuente (2009), although recent studies (Amiel & Soares, 2016) have indicated a tendency to adopt CMS in the ROER scene. Table 9 Software Platform Metadata standards.…”

“…In some studies, 76% of ROER had copyright policies (Tzikopoulos et al, 2007) and 52.5% (Atenas & Havemann, 2013) or 22% (Amiel & Soares, 2016) had CC licenses. Our results were more positive, since they showed an increase in openness of ROER and in the use of CC.…”

Becoming an open educator: towards an open threshold framework

“…The possibility for learning and teaching to be repositioned as a social commons that facilitates the public good rather than as intellectual property in a competitive marketplace (Amiel and Soares 2016) has been enhanced by the widening availability of digital technologies that facilitate the exchange of ideas within and beyond the boundaries of formal educational spaces, although this represents a new iteration in the history of educational openness rather than a complete break from the past (Peter and Deimann 2015). However, the fact that this narrative is now frequently experienced as counter-traditional is perhaps why OE is frequently understood as a revolutionary social movement rather than simply a pedagogic or technical strategy.…”

The Infrastructure of Openness: Results from a Multi-Institutional Survey on OER Platforms

“…Cohen, Omolla, and Malick (2014) While the aforementioned research looked at the architecture of OER platforms in individual contexts, only one study examined the use of OER platforms across multiple contexts. Amiel and Soares (2016) conducted a survey of OER leaders in Latin America countries, asking them what the most important OER repositories were in their country. Once repository information had been collected, the authors did a content analysis of the repositories to examine the infrastructure used for the repository and how well licensing information was displayed within the repository.…”

“…Albeit limited in scope, Amiel and Soares' (2016) research nonetheless represents an important effort in critically examining the technology that institutions are using to deliver OER. Importantly, their research points out misalignment between the goals of OER (as easy to find and use) and technology used to deliver it.…”