 For faculty, their perspective is really just on three things. The service they need to do, the teaching they need to do, and the scholarship they need to do. And I mean these are just like the articles of faith within the religion of academia, right? And these are how the promotion and tenure policies are written and we build to what is measured. So you'd think, however, that because of the emphasis on teaching and on scholarship that this should open a conversation to these two aspects of open access and open educational resources. And I know that librarians are very eager for doing outreach. They want to come and talk to teachers about finding and using resources for teaching and learning. Or how about using or creating open course where how about the archiving and licensing of teaching materials in the institutional repository? I get very excited by these ideas. And you might want to talk also as we have tried to do across our campus about what it means to publish open access with the open access journals or publishing open access within conventional journals. We want to talk about how to deposit one scholarship into a disciplinary or an institutional archive. We want to talk about rights management, don't we, Crow? Because as David pointed out, it is so, so critical and people need to understand what it's all about. But most faculty don't care. Those issues that are here are all corresponding to certain values that I would call in the open knowledge values. The programs would like to institute within open access and open educational resources all depend on these fundamental values. That scholars should be public intellectuals, that scholarships should be classroom friendly, that knowledge is a public good. That science and society profit when information freely circulates, that publicly funded research should be free to the public. That it's good to reach new diverse audiences and the scholarship actually gains value through use. Now when we look at any of these individually they just seem so obvious of course. The problem is that these open knowledge values are in stark contrast. They're really upside down from the dominant institutional values. If you look at what really matters in academia, these are ideological differences that go along with the institutionalization of the knowledge economy. What matters in academia right now is peer opinion, not public opinion. Scholars are not motivated to be public intellectuals, in fact they can be punished for being so. Scholarship is given priority over teaching and learning. Journal publication is almost fetishized as the only legitimate way for any knowledge to be authentic. Which is a very narrow perspective as we look at the world today, but institutionally this is what the values are still saying. Review is so important to academia of course, peer review, but we start looking closer at it and it's really blind single instance and controlled peer review. And so none of the principles of transparency or continuous ongoing review from people from multiple disciplines across time. No, they fight against those values. Knowledge has authority only as it's restricted and controlled and not as it's used. And the great effort of course to protect intellectual property, not to license it to the commons. And of course the genres of academic knowledge are very very locked in. Then we have articles and we have books and not things like developing the cyber infrastructure or creating open data that other scholars can build upon or archiving media that can be for both teaching and scholarly purposes etc etc. It's a much bigger world, but it's locked down right now in academia. So I think the problem is we're facing both an institutional and an ideological battle here. Well, what happens then is if you try to open the conversations as we have very earnestly across campus and we've had mixed results. But you try to talk to someone about publishing open access. And it's sort of what are you talking about? Because my first priority is simply publishing in high impact and high reputation journals. That's all that matters. And if you try to talk about managing rights, it's like why are you giving me something extra to do here? So journals and libraries take care of publications post publication. My only duty is to get published well. I talked to some people about curating their knowledge into the future and they just kind of look at me sideways like when I whistle at my dog. I curate my knowledge by publishing my next article is what they say. And if you try to talk to them about depositing their scholarship in the institutional repository, well you know they scratch their head and say look I get everything I want by getting my article accepted. I don't want to tinker with the system. I want to succeed in it. Slam. All right, so we go back to the faculty's focus and it will take some doing to retrain that focus on larger things. I like the ethical arguments that David's making. I think they should be more pronounced. I look at some of the institutions, yeah, the missions of universities. You look at those statements and they're very lofty. They often talk about spreading knowledge as broadly as possible. And then you look at the intense irony or not into hypocrisy of locking down knowledge even though you're saying that you want to spread it widely. What can you do? Here's my perspective. This is just a faculty member's perspective of what librarians could do. Three things. First of all, I don't think you should give up talking about open access or rights management or the institutional repositories. We need to find ways to let administrators understand better. We had some success talking to deans and to our academic vice president's counsel and so on. I think these are vital things. I don't mean to downplay these at all. I'm just trying to say that they're not in a language that is initially understandable to people. So I suggest these things. First of all, I think the emphasis needs to be on open educational resources over open access. What David was just talking about, all those great resources that he blitzed through, they need to be stopped and studied and thought through very carefully. Putting on layers of courseware on top of existing resources so you give people intelligible ways through the various things that are available. I think the librarians' role is to be a knowledge concierge, a kind of knowledge broker to help the faculty members figure out how to make use of these sources that are available and to articulate that with the given curricula or the institutional outcomes or learning outcomes of that particular discipline or place. The reason why I think that OER needs to be the focus over open access is openness gets traction better through aiding teaching than through changing publishing. Now this comes from my own experience. I've tried for, oh gee, going on a decade I think to try to get my department, the English department, to do more with open access and with digital scholarship. And I've really run up against a brick wall. But when I started talking to them about, hey, you know what? When I use Facebook in my British Literary History course, I meet my learning outcomes better with the class. And let me show you how to do it. Suddenly the chair says, why don't you talk to the whole faculty about that? So I am very encouraged by the fact that focusing on helping teaching and learning is a way that libraries can get their foot in the door on these digital issues. The other thing is I'd say work hard to cultivate faculty. When I say that, I don't mean the faculty at large. I mean you need to find the front runners. You need to find the people who can be the digital evangelists. You need to find people like me. I don't mean to be glib about that, but I've got a sense of vision about this. And I see that Randy does. We've hooked up with each other. I find people like David Wiley. Suddenly I don't feel like I'm a lone man in the wilderness. I'm really energized about this all over again. I started a blog called Academic Evolution and I put up this kind of manifesto about being an open scholar and a scientist up in Montreal thinks this is really cool. So he starts a Facebook page called The Open Scholar quoting from my blog. And now there's 100 members in the Open Scholar group. This thing takes fire if you let it. And I think what you have to do is pour gasoline on the sparks. And don't try to preach to those who are really just, well, they just need to retire and die off. And then I also think that student activism is really important here. And I really respect what's going on here with Spark and with the whole right to research movement. Are you familiar with this? It's an effort to, you know, it's more the grounds. Well, get the next generation to catch the vision of why open access is critical. I think that's a great idea. And they've got the Sparky Awards that are going on. So you tap into their creative interests and get them talking about things. I really think it is possible to get students to be activists and to get the attention of their teachers and of their institutions. That's what I think libraries can do to change the faculty focus.