25.1 The role of university faculty in the oer world  (Page 6/6)

Anyway, happy to see some debate and thoughts here. Hope to see more of the same.

-Ahrash Bissell

5. patrick masson - may 13th, 2008 at 4:06 pm

After reading the posts to Terra Incognita I am most often left with little to say, other than, “yes, that’s it exactly, spot on, I couldn’t agree more.” The only reason to post is to affirm the author’s views or ask for an explanation of a new concept, term, technology or technique. Again I find myself in this position, but as Joel has taken the time to construct a framework for discussion, I’ll play.

Joel asks, “If the role of faculty is to produce knowledge, do faculty have a right to the protection of their intellectual property?”

If we protect what is valuable, by protecting IP I must conclude it is the IP (some specific bit of knowledge or innovative way of conveying it) that is most valuable. But perhaps it is the engine that produces the IP which is really of value: would you rather have a golden egg or the goose that produced it? If then, rather than protecting IP (the golden egg) we protect the faculty (goose) wouldn’t we then secure the real asset to the university, education and the development of knowledge? Perhaps this yet another reason to add to Joel’s reasons for tenure (although from the university’s perspective): a long term contract (tenure) ensures a valuable faculty member, who produces good work, stays with the institution.

Why has IP been seen valuable historically? Perhaps because the materials produced (a course, text, graphic, etc.) resulted in real costs, and those costs could only be recouped through selling access to those materials? Salaries for not only the faculty but the support staff within the department, research, publication and physical infrastructure costs all added up. The result is that a multimedia web site with dynamic content cost more than a xeroxed reader, thus sold for more, thus needed greater protection. Or, perhaps the hours of time invested in extensive research and development of a new teaching method proved more successful in courses and thus needed protection. Either way the production costs required a return and the best way to get that was to charge for access.

Today, however, I wonder if the traditional “production costs” associated with creating IP have been reduced or even eliminated? Publication and distribution costs are a couple of examples that come to mind quickly. I can publish and distribute anything online for zero dollars ( pmasson.wordpress.com ) Collaboration also comes to mind. I can point to a wiki ( (External Link) ) and invite all my collaborators, editors, reviewers, etc. to participate without travel, typing, mailing, etc.

So what is left in the IP production chain that is not easily acquired? I would suggest it’s the faculty, the intellect, who can actually produce the knowledge and/or materials. Just like paying for an application seems foolish to me when I know an open source version will soon become available, paying for content seems odd, when I know someone will soon post it to wikipedia (ok, that’s a bit simplistic but I think it makes the point).

When educational content was difficult to come by, access to it was a premium to be paid for, now with content so freely available, constructible and accessible I need someone to facilitate my education.

Coincidently Educause just published an article that those reading this thread might find of interest: “Open Source Software in Education” ( (External Link) ) It draws some interesting parallels between openness in both software and content development.