Page - 68 - in Radical Solutions and Open Science - An Open Approach to Boost Higher Education

72 T.Amiel et al. 5.2 TheBattle forOpen The construction of the public sphere in the second half of the twentieth century was based on technology, in particular on the new promises of Information and CommunicationTechnology (ICT), thatwould enable the free expressionof ideas. Thisprojectwasseenin the lightof liberal ideals,beingasortofvaccineagainst the emergenceoftheerosionofdemocracyandauthoritarianpower.ThinkerslikePopper (2002) and Kuhn (2012) constructed models of the advancement of science that pointed toequalityofaccess toknowledgeand the tools foracquiring it asessential tools for liberty. But this kind of discourse, structured around ideals of equality and openness can bemisleadingwhen the political and economic assumptions of “open”projectsmustbegivenconcretemeaning,whenactorshavetomakesenseof conflictinggoals,meansand results (Hansen&Reich,2015). Weller (2015) suggests that there’s a (metaphorical) battle beingwaged on the meaning of the word “open”, when it comes to the internet and cyberculture in general. As certain interpretations gain hold, actors with countervailing interests try to modify and bend these meanings toward their own ends. One example is “openwashing”2: the use of the expression “open” by actors, generally corporate market participantsworkingwith aprofitmotive, thatwish to associate themselves with thepositiveconnotationsof theconceptbutwithoutadopting thecollaborative and transparent practices that are also typically associated with it. One example wouldbeorganizations that advertise open courseswithout permitting the reuseof coursematerials, oronlyas samplesofcommercialmaterials. At stake in the battle for themeaning of “open” is the conception ofwhat is a common good andwho the commons serves. One answer to the phenomenon of openwashing is creating bright-line, rigid definitions that separate open fromnon- open.3 A legalistic approach certainly gives clarity to the actors involved and aids policymaking. But these definitions are inevitably made in certain situated, local and political contexts, for certain ends. Being rigid, these rulesmay not attend to the needs of other communities at different times and contexts. And, as we shall see, evenrigid rulescan’t always impede thesubversionof thecommonsbyoutside interests. Although there is abattle for itsmeaning, theadjective “open” in technical con- textsstill refersmostly to thecollaborativeorcollectiveaspectsof theproductionof digitalgoods.Oneof themost influentialanalysesof thesociotechnicalpossibilities of digital and internet technologies is thebookThe Wealth of NetworksbyBenkler (2006), inwhichhecoined theexpressioncommons-basedpeerproduction.Among 2Anexpression thatderives fromgreenwashing isused todescribepractices that look like theyare ecological andsustainablebut in realityarenot. 3See, forexample, thedefinitionofopenathttp://opendefinition.org,or, forOER, the“5R”criteria thatwascreatedbyoneofthepioneersoftheOERmovementtopreciselyopencontent(http://www. opencontent.org/definition/). Some even identify openwith the use of particular Creative Com- mons license such as CC-BY: https://open.bccampus.ca/2016/11/04/open-textbook-community- advocates-cc-by-license-for-open-textbooks/.