 So I'm Preston Parker. I've been involved in open educational projects and things for 10 years now, 2001. So I got involved in open courseware kind of early on and got me interested in a few things about why faculty, why instructors would be interested in even doing this. At the very beginning I was helping Utah State University with their open courseware project and I had the wonderful responsibility of recruiting faculty because nobody knew about open courseware at the time. So I got to go around and be an evangelizer basically. I already believed in the premise behind open courseware and OERs even though they weren't really called that at the time. But this idea of open licensing, educational materials, get them out to the world, quality will go up and accessibility will increase and it's going to be a great thing, right? Well I soon found out that instructors did not have a clue what I was talking about to begin with. And not only that, the number one question I would get is, what's in it for me? They were all dialed in to WIFM. What's in it for me? And I had started thinking of answers to that question because to be able to have faculty that are going to contribute their materials to the USU Open Courseware project, we had to abide it. And that was one of my responsibilities. To sit down with faculty and talk them through the process and they all would say, well why would I want to do this? What's in it for me? And I would say, well you could get your material out there and people would discover you and maybe you would get increased networking opportunities or maybe you could collaborate with other people and you could get grants. And I found that I was just coming up with hypotheticals that there wasn't really any data to back up what I was saying. So I thought, well someone's got to do a study on this to figure out what are the real benefits and conversely the costs of contributing to Open Courseware. And that person turned out to be me. Nobody else was doing it. The reason was, excuse me, the reason was is a lot of people cared about at the time, the institution. So what does the institution get out of it? What does Massachusetts Institute of Technology get out of it? What does Utah State University get out of it? Why would they want to be involved in this giant project that's going to take millions of dollars to get it going? Why would the institution want to do this? And a lot of individuals were looking at the users saying, well what about those that are accessing the materials, the Open Courseware, the Open Educational Resources? What about the users? What are they benefiting? How does it benefit them? And what is the cost for them? But nobody was looking at the instructors. And to me, that was the most interesting because if the instructors weren't doing it, there wouldn't be any OERs in my opinion. They would have to see the costs and the benefits and the benefits outweigh the costs that they would contribute their materials in the form of lecture notes and PowerPoints and examples of student work and exams and all of that that we're familiar with now. But they had to see that the benefits outweigh the costs. And as I talked with some of the instructors at MIT, they would say things like, well, there's this that's good and this that's bad. I'm going to document this. This is getting really interesting. I'm going to document this. Well, it took until about 2005, 2006, and I did a pilot study with Utah State University, tested on my instruments and things. And then I was ready to put this study together to have MIT as my case. I'm a qualitative researcher now because I'm frightened of numbers. I have a math minor. I get it. But it's just not interesting to me. I think the stories and the quotes and sitting down with someone and interviewing them, that's just really interesting to me. That's what I wanted to capture. So I did a qualitative case study with MIT as the case. They were the oldest open course part and they're the ones that I wanted access to. So I went up to Cambridge and met with some faculty and kind of tested things out what I wanted to do. We decided, well, video would be enough or phone interviews would be enough. I wouldn't have to go face to face or go focus group or anything like that. Just do the interviews. Through working with the MIT team, I got access to the raw data and the reports for 2003, 2005, and 2009, which included surveys that they did and interviews that they did, which kind of formed the foundation of my study. And then I got access to thousands of online feedback comments, which was nice because they said, yeah, this is all qualitative and nobody's ever even looked at it really. We've picked out a few here and there, but we'd love for someone to go through all of them. So they just turned them all over in an Excel document to me from like 2003 on. So I had about five years worth of these online feedback comments of just people going to the MIT OCW site and submitting feedback. A lot of it had to do with students and I just threw that aside. But anything that was instructors, I identified that as instructors giving feedback. That's what I wanted to look at. And then I did the phone interviews. So the findings, there's seven benefits and six costs that I've identified and categorized them after going through and coding them. Number one benefit, they perceived that their reputation increased. Now, to be clear on this, they talked about the institution reputation increasing and maybe their college or school or department reputation increasing. But they were specific in pointing out that if that increased, they felt as individual instructors, their reputation increased as well. So that kind of got all categorized together. This was one of the quotes. Tremendous positive attention to MIT from all over the world and hence our reputation. So increased reputation was important to them and perceived as a benefit. Networking. Now this was something that I thought and I used when I was trying to recruit faculty and instructors to do Utah State University's open courseware. And I thought it would increase networking. I actually thought it would increase a little bit more than what MIT reported. Although they reported it, I thought it would be one of the bigger benefits. And it wasn't one of the bigger ones. Only a few faculty mentioned it here and there. But the ones that mentioned it, it was something important to them. This particular faculty, she said there's two or three emails a week from people who saw her materials on open courseware. This is an important part here is they would not have otherwise heard from these people. It was because of taking their materials, putting them in an open courseware environment that they were discovered. They wouldn't have met these people otherwise. Or maybe they would have met them at two or three years down the road or at a conference or something else. But this facilitated an earlier meeting networking opportunity. Supplementary opportunities. Now this could be book publishing. This could be the grant writing. These supplementary things that came about became a category. And this book was talking about a textbook. There were several quotes about textbooks, which has become one of the bigger topics in OERs we've seen in this conference, is textbooks. And how does that factor in all of this? But getting feedback from the masses and from publishers. They got copy editing feedback on their textbook that they put in MIT open courseware. They put it up there. Some of them contacted the publisher ahead of time and said, you know what? I know we've got a deal going on. Can I put this in an open environment? Now one of them said the publisher frowned on this. In fact, I had several quotes that said the publisher actually encouraged it, recognizing that if it was out there people would become more aware of it and they would still buy the book. That surprised me. I didn't think publishers would be okay with that. But some of those that responded said that they didn't have any problems with publishers. So I approved course content. Now this was one of the underlying concepts of open courseware. If you put it out there and it's public then the quality goes up for two specific reasons. One, you're going to have a lot of people looking at it and you want to put your best quality work up there so you spend a little extra time on it. And two, because there's a lot of people looking at it, they're giving you feedback, mistakes, suggestions, and then you improve it. You see periodic feedback, questions, suggestions for improvement. Pretty typical type of quote that I got on that. Benefit. And that's course content. Now course feedback, this is interesting. I didn't even think of this one. Students who had taken the face-to-face course would go into open courseware and offer feedback to the instructor on the course that they had just taken. Or that they had taken before. What I liked about your course was, directly to the instructor, they're offering this feedback on the course. Not the content, but the course experience. And so the instructor saw it as a benefit that, oh, I'm getting feedback on my course through open courseware. Interesting benefit. Students accessing the materials. Now you'll see, some of these have parallels in the costs. There's a benefit and a cost. And this is one of them, having the materials out there publicly. Students accessing the materials was nice because instructors, it's an open environment. So if students can access the materials, there's a lot of benefits that come out of this. One, for example, if after the course they want to get access to those materials, the instructor doesn't have to deal with, oh, I got an email from their former student that wants that handout that they lost, that I gave to them, that I do have on PDF that I have to go find in the folder and attach to the email and respond to it. Instead, if a student contacts them, they just say, oh, here's the link. It's in the open courseware site for that particular course. Just go get it yourself. Or the students already know that it's available in open courseware. They don't even have to contact the instructor. Another thing is it's a recruiting tool. The instructors mentioned that students found the materials online beforehand and then they would sign up for the course. A few instructors mentioned they saw an increase in their enrollments. And they felt it had something to do, not strong, but something to do with having their materials out there for students to see. And this is a benefit working with the MIT OCW team. Some of them thought it was a great thing. It was a nice experience to work with the team and to think about their materials and to get it put out. And I hadn't even thought of this as being a benefit ahead of time. It was a little surprise that it was mentioned, but there it is. Then the costs. As I said, there's parallels. Some instructors mentioned that they felt their reputation was damaged by having their materials out there. A lot of this had to do with not being able to update the materials easily because a lot of them are PDFs. And MIT's philosophy is we do an instance. So that's Spring 2005, the instance of that course. If you want to do an update, well, then we'll do another instance. We'll do a Spring 2006 version of that course. Going back and updating the materials was not part of the philosophy. And that was the choice MIT OCW made. And instructors had a hard time with that because then their materials got out of date over a period of time and they felt their reputation was damaged because they had out-of-date materials there. Or fair use concerns, which is the materials had to be cleared for IP. This is open licensed materials. So if they include an educational fair use image or text or something, they couldn't have it here because it's not a password protected environment. So if you take that out and you take what's left, it's a skeleton of what they felt their materials really were. They felt that their reputation was damaged because you had to replace that image with another image that is available or IP cleared or they had to recreate the image and the instructors had to go through the process of approving that, recreated image, things like that. Philosophy of which for property rights. A few instructors mentioned that they found their materials being used improperly outside of the open license and they'd have to monitor this and police this. They didn't like that. It felt like they were losing some of their rights to duplicate and distribute and make alterations and exhibit their materials that copy rights. They didn't like the extra resources, mostly time that it took to clear things like fair use, to communicate with the MIT OCW team. This is instructor mentioned it's a hassle in vetting the OCW substitutes. That's the images that replace the fair use. It just took extra time. This is why I hadn't thought of before this study is there were faculty that felt pressured, mostly by their department administrators, department head, etc. They felt pressured that they had to do this initiative They didn't like that. It's a cost. They had to realign their goals with what the department saw as being important. This individual. I'm only involved because I was harassed endlessly. Early on he mentioned that it was the department that harassed endlessly by the department. Enough trouble getting students to come to class without lectures online. Another concern is, and this actually folds into the next one, is the materials are public. I had enough trouble getting my students to come to class without the materials being online. They can see the materials, so now they don't feel like they need to come to class. So my enrollments might be up a little bit, but the attendance is actually down a little bit because the materials are out there. Okay. Oh, another thing about public materials, and that's what the second quote is here, it has made me reluctant to put information that might be questioned by a colleague on a handout. Specifically speaking about a handout that this instructor is putting in MIT OCW. I was like, if it's going to be questioned, I'd rather just not put it there. So it actually caused quality to go down a little bit because you're hesitant in putting something out there that you don't feel is completely whatever, completely legit, completely honest, completely factual, completely fitting in with the lesson materials because you're going to be challenged by colleagues. Okay. So benefit and a cost, having it out there to be challenged to find mistakes and things. Some see it as a benefit, the content goes up, some see it as a negative, a cost, because they're being challenged and they don't like it. Okay. And then the last cost, which is parallel to the benefit of working with the MIT OCW team, a representative quote, I've got emails, interactions with the OCW folks, somewhat offensive. And there were some times, some friction would exist between the MIT OCW team and the instructors that were working with putting in materials on MIT OCW. All right. So what? And my interest in this all along from the beginning is a much bigger picture, much, much bigger outlook on things which is if content creators see a benefit for putting open licensing on their content, they'll adopt the open licenses and then as at least the American copyright law says, it will make progress in useful arts and sciences. We're not protecting the copyright holders, that's not the point of copyright law, the point of copyright law is the progress of useful arts and sciences because if we can put open licensing on it and we see the benefit for in essence giving our materials away, then things can progress. Quality can go up, accessibility can go up. So quite frankly, if you take this to the logical end, what you come up with is if the product can be duplicated digitally, the business models of making money directly from selling it are disappearing. My opinion is they're not going to be around long at all. Business models of selling anything that can be duplicated digitally will disappear. You've got to find a way of making money of having a business model around the digital content that doesn't involve selling that digital content directly. It's too hard to police the copyright for one. For two users don't want to have to deal with content they don't have to worry about copyright. They just want to be able to copy it down. Don't worry about the Department of Justice coming after them for five years in prison and $250,000 fines per infringement. They don't have to worry about that. They want open content. I was explaining this to my students as we were at a conference last week at Universal Studios. The conference was actually in Orlando but we took a little leadership excursion to Universal Studios. Quite frankly, it was a great team-building session. As we're walking along some of them are saying what's your research and what do you think about? Open licensing. I think about it every day. Where we're headed and what does that mean? I'm explaining it to them. These are undergraduate students in mass communications. I said we're at Universal Studios. Look around. There's Jurassic Parkland and there's Dr. Seussland and there's Harry Potter World. This is what I'm talking about. Right here. You give your movie away, so Paramount and Universal and whoever else. Fox. The studios don't make money on selling anything that can be digitized. They make money on people going out to the movie theater sitting down with popcorn with a room full of people that have never seen the movie before and it's an experience that can't be duplicated digitally. And I hadn't thought of it before but walking around Universal Studios my student says, well then this is what you're talking about. It's having like a theme park and you make money at the theme park. You can't duplicate this digitally. I said exactly. If you walk around with a camera and you're going to upload this to YouTube someone watching that does not get the experience of being at Universal Studios. They need to go there and pay that $80 ticket plus $15 in parking which blew me away that that's how much it was to go to Universal Studios to experience this and they want to and the studios make money off of that experience that can't be duplicated digitally and sell t-shirts and hats and all the supplementary goods and services that go with it. The thing is the quality of the movie will actually have to increase for people to want to go to a theme park or word of mouth to get people to go to the theater. Most movies make all their money back in the first or second weekend beyond that if they haven't made their money they're probably not going to. So word of mouth on that second weekend is important but it takes a good movie to do that. Right? Harry Potter World wouldn't exist if the movies were really bad and to be good movies although JK Rowling was pretty good author and the books were alright. Second experience on Joey. Long story short I ended up at an after-show party of the band Bon Jovi. I've been a fan since I was a kid. I had tickets in 1993 in fact at Park West which if you know the history of here, the canyons it used to be called Park West and I showed up on this hill out here with all these buildings in heaven built used to be an outside amphitheater type thing and they told me that John Bon Jovi has learned jazz and they couldn't do the concert. I was distraught a few years later just in March and I got to finally go to a John Bon Jovi concert and I go to this thing I invited to the after-show party or get together what I want to call a pizza and drinks is what I managed to do and my wife and I are sitting there our pizza and our drinks and the bassist Hugh McDonald comes in like oh it's the bassist of Bon Jovi right there and he comes up and sits down next to me like oh well this is going to get really interesting right because what am I thinking about? I've been licensing and what's the logical end and oh my gosh it's the bassist of Bon Jovi right here I'm going to be asking him his opinion about giving away digital content so I turned to him and said hi Hugh how are you doing I'm President Berger Professor at Utah State University I've got a question for you how do you feel about people pirating your music how do you feel about people holding up their cell phones and recording your concert and uploading it to YouTube it's breaking the law not just federal law but international copyright law they can't do that and he was looking at me with a stunned face like I was speaking some foreign language like he had never considered this before and he says you're acting like we expect to make money by selling our music well that's what all the labels say that the artist will be starving and not get any money by the CDs and pay for the MP3s I didn't say that but I thought it it's like yeah right and he says we don't expect to make any money at all selling our digital music or MP3s we don't even plan on that we make money at our concerts you coming to the concert is what we make money on and our t-shirts and our hats and he's basically saying exactly what I wanted him to say like I was feeding him but he's saying it directly from the basis of Bon Jovi I'm telling you they don't plan on making money by selling the digital content they make money by you coming to the concert he even told me he says right now and keep in mind this is like an hour after the show right now the entire concert that you just went to is online somewhere in Facebook videos, YouTube videos the whole thing is like that's all you wanted was to experience the music or to watch the concert you can do that right now from your computer you can just watch it it's like no we want you to come to the concert because you can feel the music and the smells and the excitement of everyone sewing up their cell phones and what's weird now is people holding up their iPads alright but he just explained that that's the way they think like that is awesome so I can share that at a conference like the open ed conference so with that any questions, thoughts contributions, questions I already said though, donations discussion, go ahead so like what about an industry where it's hard to find like that complimentary good because to me it seems like university studios all their dealings are getting away something free so they can sell a complimentary good they can be a marketing tool and I thought about that as an aspect what about someone who just wants to sit at home and write their poetry or their book or their music or go to concerts and they don't want their logo and they don't even have a logo what about them well at first they're going to have to give away some content for free just to even get recognized at first and then as people recognize wow that person does good work then if they don't want to do the concerts then it's a paper release kind of a thing it's like you know what I'll write another song and perform another song but I'm going to need in advance to do it I'm willing to pay it to pay the advance now they're going to make as much money if they did concerts at no but they can still make a living at doing it if they're good if they're good and that's what open licensing helps is identifying the cream of the cream rises to the top the better the best get recognized other questions? I did them between 2008 and 2010 I did the film interviews the surveys were down before that 2003, 2005 yep, let's go up here I appreciate your qualitative approach but I would like to know a little bit more about answers from the MRT staff how many people would support those type of answers if I were to interview is it just a few of them recording that or was it a general approach oh, okay you're not talking about the staff of the MCW you're talking about the instructors who contributed I categorized all the qualitative data I got which I would say if there was nothing like no response to the surveys then it didn't get categorized and there was quite frankly a lot of no responses to the surveys there's nothing like I responded with some of these quotes I could use then I coded it so I would say that's representative of maybe if you took out the no responses I'd say 90% there'd be no response they just didn't answer the question 90 so this would be 10% of those who answered the question and then I follow up with the interviews the phone interviews because I had to work with the MIT OCW evaluation team I couldn't contact them directly I agreed to that ahead of time and IRB approved it so I worked with the MIT OCW evaluation team they contacted the instructors directly and then I did the phone interview with one of the evaluation team members on the line so that they not really vetting but so that they could know that I wasn't doing anything that they wouldn't agree to it ended up being fine there was no problems but I did have to work with the evaluation team to get access to the instructors and they had their reasons they're very valid reasons for that there's seven benefits they suggest oh it is yes they're a priority yeah so they're working with the MIT OCW team benefit and cost was the lowest what time are we looking at it's time so let's go one more and then we'll wrap this isn't the last one we want to hit around the top I'm okay haven't the UK a lot of what you're saying here there's aspects that we're finding there as well one of the things though that you didn't mention you mentioned it as an advantage a disadvantage is the fan mail is the fan mail fan mail for instance you talk about it as networking it's positive but it's not only the kind of people who you want to engage in emails with there's a sort of pressure building with some of the ITU stars but they're getting so much so many queries they feel like they have to spend a lot of time did that come out at all you don't understand that's an interesting point and I hadn't really come up with an answer to that other than I would say this is MIT OCW the first one they were early and I got a cross section I did a third and a third was it in the middle two years those were the kind of within the last two years so I had a cross section of early adopters versus later adopters but no they didn't mention a fan mail phenomenon I'm getting contacted by a bunch of people that I don't want to be contacted and that's a fair that's a fair point we are nice to people who love that they absolutely love that if you have more such a thing you probably shouldn't put your materials out there and there were some interesting points from the different perspectives of those that were advanced in their careers the ones that were new in their careers wanted to be discovered the ones that were advanced wanted to leave a legacy I spent 30-40 years doing this I just wanted to leave a legacy but they all recognized that by doing this is my opinion here they all recognized that by doing it they were putting themselves out there and that might be a result although that specific thing wasn't mentioned thank you