OER - Philosophical background

Week three of the "Composing free and open online educational resources" class. Our challenge for the week: To examine the philosophical roots of the OER movement by examining Wikipedia articles on the Age of Enlightenment, Standing on the shoulders of giants, the origins of the public library as a social institution, popular education, folk high school and the free software movement.

I gather the intended lesson is that we can build new knowledge by continually evolving and improving what has come before, that we can build on the foundations laid by reason and can make public the results of these activities for all to enjoy. Themes of empowerment, access, societal (philosophical) evolution, decentralisation, individualisation, and political and philosophical determinism come to mind.

All great in theory... and certainly possible, up to a point. My big question is, what do we stand to lose in this open utopia? Can we realise this utopia by removing formal curricula and making all ideas open to all, for whatever purposes they wish? What assumptions underlie openness in terms of human nature, the development of citizens, a shared societal myth?

I certainly perceive that the future will be a more open place, thanks to what is already happening online. I prefer to think, though, that we might achieve this alongside our 'professional thinkers' with academic tenure and, dare I suggest it, the ivory tower perspective. I question the extent to which ideas are currently 'closed', as I am free to examine others' ideas now - I just need to be careful not to pass them off as my own, or to misrepresent them.

Good to have more questions than answers to some extent... I'm just itching in a place that the course is not so far scratching. In short, if openness is so great, why is it not yet ubiquitous? (Is the answer to this all some governmental, institutional or procedural conspiracy?) Is more openness the real solution? What is the problem? Does having some 'closed' systems add value to society and education as a whole?

Hmmm... seems to me that we cannot really understand the significance or even the purpose of the OER movement by examining simply what it does. Its significance lies in what it is trying to achieve. Openness is an admirable goal... I just don't trust it at face value. That's odd to admit; I am suspicious of what full openness might actually hide and what such freedom might actually cost.