Openness as social praxis

Abstract

Since the early 2000s, there has been an explosion in the usage of the term open, arguably stemming from the advent of networked technologies — including the Internet and mobile technologies. ‘Openness’ seems to be everywhere, and takes many forms: from open knowledge, open education, open data and open science, to open Internet, open medical records systems and open innovation. These applications of openness are having a profound, and sometimes transformative, effect on social, political and economic life.This explosion of the use of the term has led to multiple interpretations, ambiguities, and even misunderstandings, not to mention countless debates and disagreements over precise definitions. The paper “Fifty shades of open” by Pomerantz and Peek (2016) highlighted the increasing ambiguity and even confusion surrounding this term. This article builds on Pomerantz and Peek’s attempt to disambiguate the term by offering an alternative understanding to openness — that of social praxis. More specifically, our framing can be broken down into three social processes: open production, open distribution, and open consumption. Each process shares two traits that make them open: you don’t have to pay (free price), and anyone can participate (non-discrimination) in these processes.We argue that conceptualizing openness as social praxis offers several benefits. First, it provides a way out of a variety of problems that result from ambiguities and misunderstandings that emerge from the current multitude of uses of openness. Second, it provides a contextually sensitive understanding of openness that allows space for the many different ways openness is experienced — often very different from the way that more formal definitions conceptualize it. Third, it points us towards an approach to developing practice-specific theory that we believe helps us build generalizable knowledge on what works (or not), for whom, and in what contexts.

Open Source Projects as Incubators of Innovation: From Niche Phenomenon to Integral Part of the Software Industry

“…4 Furthermore, as vendor lock-in is still attractive to vendors, many IT companies are practicing one or another kind of "openwashing" for marketing purposes (Pomerantz & Peek 2016): "Openwashing describes situations where the term 'open' as a (generally positive) adjective actually obscures the fact that content, processes, platforms or institutions are in reality not 'open' or at least not in the ways others think they should be." (Smith & Seward 2017) …”

Differential OER Impacts of Formal and Informal ICTs: Employability of Female Migrant Workers

“…(Benkler, 2013). The field of ODL has the opportunity to form conceptual inter-disciplinary bridges by contributing to the discussion around what exactly is "open," be it the characteristics (Pomerantz & Peek, 2016), practices (Lane, 2009), and/or processes (Smith & Seward, 2017), particularly in evaluating the impact on the marginalized. We hope this article is a step in that direction.…”

A critical narrative approach to openness: The impact of open development on structural transformation

“…Yet a broader understanding of openness in, and across, these IS domains is still lacking. Smith and Seward () argued that there is much to be gained by viewing openness instead as social praxis, as it enables theorizing qualities that are unique to openness across the multiple domains of openness discussed in the literature. They defined openness as social praxis as consisting of one of three key open processes: open production, open distribution, and open consumption.…”

“…Yet a broader understanding of openness in, and across, these IS domains is still lacking. Smith and Seward (2017) argued that there is much to be gained by viewing openness instead as social praxis, as it enables theorizing qualities that are unique to openness across the multiple The characteristics and processes discourses suggest variously that openness supports structural change. First, these factors present a strong subversive force, enabled primarily by networked ICTs, that challenges the roles of traditional public and private institutions.…”

“…Thus, openness is an umbrella term that can be used to describe what makes open artefacts, such as open source software, open data, or open educational resources, both unique and comparable to each other (Pomerantz & Peek, ). Yet openness refers to both the social and technical structures involved in the productive, distributive, and consumptive activities that typically do not restrict who is involved or how such activities unfold by design (Smith & Seward, ). We depart from extant technocentric framings of the processes and practices of openness.…”