 All right, welcome everyone. As Will said, my name is James Rout. I myself am a settler here in Vancouver, having moved from Canberra, Alberta about seven years ago. My family originally hails from England and Ukraine. My ancestors moved to Canada in the early part of the 20th century. And so, as Will has said, I would like to note that this event is taking place on the unceded ancestral territorial lands of the Coast Salish Indigenous people, including the Muscovites, the Squamish and the Slewa Tooth. And I'm very honoured to welcome you here at BCIT's downtown campus. Thank you for joining me in the conversation tonight. I also would like to thank SFU, BCIT and UBC for planning and sponsoring this event. And I hope you'll join me in thanking Hope Power, Rebecca Dowson, Will Angle, Leonora Creama, Rosario Passos and Lynn Brandard for all of their work in organizing this. So, thank you all. So, this week there are events taking place all over the world to reflect on, advocate, share and celebrate Open Access Week. From Nazarbayev University in Kazakhstan to the University of Gujarat, from Botswana to Brazil, the open movement is global, it's far-reaching and it's transformative. And yet, as we're going to reflect on this evening, there remain many barriers and challenges to open scholarship. And we must accept that there are indeed tensions in open education that are as yet unresolved and in need of further dialogue. So, I think it's important to remember the roots of Open Access Week, which started with the National Day of Action for Open Access that was organized by student groups in the U.S. back in 2007. So, we all know the student voice is so important in this movement. I had a meeting just last week with some of our student association executives to discuss open education at BCIT. And, as you might imagine, the conversation really centered around the cost savings afforded to students using open resources. But we also talked about the educational value of open pedagogy. We also have to acknowledge the tension that exists between encouraging instructors to use open resources and to engage in open teaching methods, and their academic freedom to choose resources and strategies that they believe are the most effective materials for teaching and learning, whether open or otherwise. So, in my conversations with instructors, many have expressed their concern that by releasing their work under an open license, they're giving away their work, or they have concerns about how their value as instructors may be diminished. They have misconceptions about how Creative Commons licensing impacts their intellectual property rights. How can we advance the principles of the open movement over respecting the diversity and complexity of perspectives around these issues? At many academic institutions, the processes we've put in place for achieving tenure and promotion often serve to pressure scholars to hold on tightly to their work. In many ways, it remains a publisher-parish world in academia, and open scholarship practices like sharing software, data, or open resources are either actively discouraged or at best overlooked when considering faculty promotion or tenure, for example. So, on that note, it's really encouraging to see our institutions moving forward with open access policies, as universities can play a huge role in shaping the culture of openness and scholarship. We know that open education is not just about creating and sharing resources to improve education in local contexts, it's about much more than content. I see it as more of an opportunity to explore open pedagogy as we deepen and expand our shared understanding of learning, teaching, research, and scholarship. So, I'm very pleased that we're able to have these open conversations this evening. I think we can continue to reflect on advancing the principles of the open movement, to understand how we can reduce the barriers and challenges to equitable access to research and education, and to consider how we can empower our students, staff, and faculty to serve as ambassadors of the open movement. So, this evening we'll hear from a panel of speakers who will be addressing these and other risks, challenges, and barriers in open scholarship. So, we're joined by Amanda Coolidge for BC Campus, Sue Donner from Kamosa College, David Gartner from UBC, Jessica Gallinger from SFU Library, Christina Ilnitici from the Alma Mater Society at UBC, and Lisa Nathan from the School of Library, Archival and Information Studies at UBC. So, thank you all for taking the time to share your thoughts and expertise this evening, and thank you all for listening. Okay, thanks so much for being a part of this event tonight, and thank you to all the panelists. We're going to start just so you know, I'm Amanda Coolidge, I'll be doing the questions for tonight. So, I'm not going to be the answerer, I'll be putting everybody else on the spot. So, I have a series of questions to ask, and before we begin, I would like each person on the panel just to introduce themselves and briefly provide an explanation as to what brought you here tonight. Hi everyone, I'm Christina. I work for the Alma Mater Society at UBC. Specifically, I work in the academic office doing campaigns and outreach. Over the past three years, we've been doing the textbook broke BC campaign, which serves to engage students in the conversation about the affordability of textbooks and how educational resources can be a solution to this problem. Hi everyone, my name is Jessica Gallinger. I'm a research data management librarian at SFU Library. So, my perspective tonight is largely focused around open data and concerns are issues around secondary use of data, things like getting meaningful consent from participants, as well as stretching back further in time. In 2013, I was one of the organizers for the Stanford Science Rally in Toronto. So, I think that's really the origins of a lot of my interest in open data around kind of ideological framing of open data. For example, at that time by the Federal Conservative Government, who launched an open government initiative, an open data initiative, who put forward statements like open data is the natural resource of the 21st century. While at the same time, dramatically putting forward cuts to statistics Canada, eliminating the law of foreign sciences, muscling scientists, opposing federal science libraries. So, I think certainly there's a lot of ideology in open and it's not always as transparent as you might assume. My name is Dave Gueriner. I'm an instructor in the First Nations and Indigenous Studies program at UBC, where I specialize in digital media storytelling and knowledge dissemination. And I think I just want to take up that point because I think thinking of open access as a natural resource when we're thinking of it within the context of critical Indigenous studies is intensely fraught. Because traditionally, natural resources and Indigenous knowledges have been seen as something that can be expropriated from communities and taken without any boundaries. And I think when we're thinking about open and those contexts and when the metaphors in which open access are framed and particularly metaphors like this can often contribute to ideologies of Terranelius, the doctrine of discovery, which can further work to displace Indigenous peoples and knowledges. So my stake in this conversation while I am a proponent of open access, I think for far too long knowledge dissemination has been unidirectional with Indigenous communities. It goes so far as that we have academics working in those communities to take data, but there is no reciprocity, there is no giving back. Part of what my work is involved in is thinking outside of the walls of the ivory tower and how we can get students using open to give back to communities and to speak to audiences beyond the walls of the academy. But I think open access is intensely problematic, particularly when we're thinking about open access on unceded territories and when we're talking about freedom of information in a place which is built and exists on the repression of information. Insofar as the repression of these facts, the fact that this is stolen territory and the genocide that the nation-state is built on, I think there's a pretty problematic issue and contradiction at stake in there. So unless we're willing to unpack what open means on unceded territories, I think to evoke the questions this panel is based on open for who and open for what. Hi, my name is Sue Donner and I'm an instructional designer now at Postal College in Victoria. I'm here as I have a deep and long interest in accessibility and universal design for learning. A few years ago I co-created with Amanda and Tara Robertson, the VC Open Textbook Accessibility Toolkit where I landed in open first. I don't feel that accessibility is necessarily maybe as fraught or controversial in this context but equally so I'd say that I'd like to see that open embraces opportunities versus say the status quo that we frequently see in higher ed now which is the default, the accommodation, the medical model of accommodating students who have disability etc. instead of the more proactive addressing of removing barriers before students arrive creating that welcoming. And I think open has a great potential to bridge that not least because I think there's so much opportunity for collaboration between different knowledge holders of accessibility and I also think that open, when we get into the open pedagogy side of things may serve as a great launch in place for helping students to develop their own literacy around making things accessible. So that's my stake here today. Thank you. My name is Lisa Nathan and I am an associate professor at the School of Library, archival and information studies at the University of British Columbia. I'm also the coordinator for our school's First Nations Cragoon Concentration. I'm a settler scholar here in Vancouver and I live and work on Musqueam traditional ancestral non-ceded land and many of those statements that have already been made and the reflections I would echo. I would also say that for me this is an ongoing point of tension when I teach at a school in the classes and the people that I work with and the colleagues that I have a pleasure working with spend a lot of time developing professional ethodes, professional norms that don't necessarily instill skills such as humility and the ability to listen. And I worry about things such as open access which I think has some really fantastic things to offer but when you're an opponent and you are advocating for something really strongly sometimes it's hard for you to listen and to hear those who may have questions and concerns that really are important to take into account while you are also working towards a hopefully a shared goal that you develop together. So that's my stake I guess. So I think that's really generally the same at mine. Thank you so much for those introductions. That was really fabulous. So based on what you introduced sort of your interest in and really a lot of the issues that we're seeing around the open movement I'm curious what ideologies and privileges do you see open supporting? Anybody who ever wants to go first and put anybody on the spot just yet? Just yet. Yeah. We'll let Dave go because he's reaching for it. Yeah, sure. Awkwardness of who's going to go next makes me nervous. So my propensity is to just build space which is not always the best I think. We're talking about listening. I think that again as a proponent of open and somebody who works with students to think about how they can respond to community and work in ways that gives back and extends beyond the boundaries of the university I think open can be a really useful tool. But I just want to read a quote from some research by Deirdre Brown and George Nicholas who highlights some of the costs of open access to indigenous communities. So they identify those costs including loss of access to ancestral knowledge loss of control over proper care of heritage diminished respect for the sacred commercialization of cultural distinctiveness uses of special or sacred symbols that may be dangerous to the uninitiated replacement of originally tribally produced work with reproductions threats to authenticity, loss of livelihood among other things. I think to speak to Lisa's point as well, open has become such a prevalent ideology and I think one, as somebody who identifies as being in that broad sense of the left becomes such a space of excitement that often it'll clue voices of dissent. And I think unless we're willing to listen to those voices and think about the ways in which open access can appropriate voice and reenact systems of settler colonialism that we need to be careful about we need to be more critical of the ideologies that may be carried in a system like that and really the intersectional critical thinkers might explore ways in which an ideology that has so much potential can actually cause a lot of harm. In particular I kind of wanted to take up on what Dave said regarding neocolonialism colonialism and I'm curious if Lisa you might follow up on that in terms of how might open be construed as neocolonial based on what David also said. I think that there's, it also goes back to some of the things that Sue was raising in terms of the things that become taken for granted in the norms the mundane qualities and this is how you go about things when you were talking about how the dominant model now is that students come with some kind of accessibility letter and then you respond to that rather than at the forefront of the class in this case thinking of a course thinking about ways that you can make the materials all of the various ways accessible to a wide range of different physical abilities different learning styles and that being the point of starting and I think for the neocolonial I'm not so, I'm not in verse in that language of that even that there's a lot of labels and a lot of really powerful ways of structuring that and I appreciate that but what works better for me is thinking about that very simple, very simply in terms of who's benefiting and who's not and I think there are so many ways that even from the Creative Commons licensing and the dominant model which we're all working within a copyright regime here in Canada that has a clearly a colonial legacy that you need to go back to the statute of the end and where we're coming from with how we think about ownership of intellectual property as a fundamentally colonial idea an ideology so then the Creative Commons people will say well that's an alternative, it's not an alternative, it's just built on copyright it's the same thing like you're just using some of the flexibility within the licensing of the copyright regime so there are people such as Kim Christian at Washington State University and her colleagues who have come up with the recoup tubes system it's a way of managing information it's one type of tool but along with that they have developed these licenses, traditional knowledge licenses and labels so ways of trying to add information that there was a student that had the pleasure of working with a few years ago who was trying to work with the UBC Circle which is a digital repository where they place students work and their thesis is in other things as well most of what's there in the Circle right now is previous masters in PhD that were retroactively made open so people put things in there not knowing like decades ago but now it's all open so he was trying, a student was trying to add these traditional knowledge licenses and labels to this work so that there would be a way of acknowledging that although this might be open there may be reasons why people need to think about how they're using this so maybe the community where the knowledge comes from has particular concerns about that information and that wasn't built on the copyright regime or Creative Commons it's trying to think of alternative ways of letting people know that information that is open in the legal system might have other cultural ways of thinking about how to use and respect that information so thinking of alternatives is something that I think we need to do more of in terms of educating people using information that's been made open Thank you. I'd like to pick up on your point regarding inclusivity and diversity in particular thinking of those individuals who how do we develop materials for individuals who we do want to benefit the most so Sue I'm wondering if I could ask you to respond to this question is when we see that Hyderabad is creating materials and we know that in general Hyderabad is not particularly diverse we don't have a very diverse system in place it is definitely a privileged sector and I'm curious when you do look at open materials how inclusive and immersive do you see open materials and I guess the question on top of that would be what do we do about that how do we make the materials more inclusive and diverse for open I think I'd answer that by stepping back from just open because I think because we're all still in Hyred and within our towers of privilege we're still we're working within those even though we're working on open so we're functioning within an ecosystem that is set up a certain way I know of the different barriers even for developers as far as there's the old I mean it's the big time limitation that always comes into play so if you are developing something say and you're intending it to share it openly you're still bound by say some of those confines so I think one of the where open comes into it is working within the boundaries of our current ecosystem that maybe those who are practicing open need to pause and really reflect on do I know what privileges I have that I am that I'm bringing to this development and identify those first because I think it's when we make assumptions based on our own privileges that then we are creating materials or we're creating environments that may come with barriers for those who don't have that same privilege so I don't land it all on open but I think if open is really serious about being inclusive and beyond championing the financial aspects of that freedom and textbook broke etc. I think if we're really talking about inclusive there has to be a real a pause on what privileges we're bringing and I'll say ableist etc. and who is excluded through any choices that I make and I don't think you'll always identify those right away but the again the benefit of what I see the benefit of open is the responsiveness that once we have identified that something created a barrier that we have more of a mechanism for the collaboration the adopting the adopting to then spread the net further and like that we were including anybody else like to add on to the greater inclusive diversity I think from the student perspective being in the classroom having taken courses where open initiatives have you know taken place and pros are engaging students I think it's really wonderful to see how students feed back into that loop and how they're able to contribute I'm taking courses where predominantly like the classroom structure is that students can respond back to the lecture through tweets or through blogs and there's a reiterative process where the professor will go through their lecture and be disseminating knowledge but students can respond back to it and I think that's when the beauty I guess of open gets to be seen through that diversity of having more than one person disseminating that knowledge to be able to fill in gaps continuously to see students being able to contribute to the lectures aside from just listening but also be able to fill in the gaps be able to ask new questions that will hopefully like lead to more and more answers thank you so I'll follow up with that a little bit and ask to sort of take a critical lens at that look of having students be contributors and so I'm curious what do you think would be the risk to students when we ask students to participate in open pedagogy or being participants in that so when I think of this I think of it in two parts I guess the first part is the professor I think when open gets talked about in classrooms the reason why we're doing it often gets overlooked and under explained especially when students don't understand the reason behind open and why it's happening in the classroom I think taking that first step to understand like I guess the explanation to why open can contribute to the classroom but also when you're looking at risks how students give that consent to be a part of that open process to have their information and their knowledge be on display online and people critiquing that information how through the remixing process that information gets used further on especially when credit is due will the student get their name on that information how will that credit be taken through the process when someone remixes it and reuses that information thank you anybody else like to follow up on that in terms of risks to students I may be able to take a step back even since we're taking open kind of broadly here and talking about open education seems to mean that open textbooks are a progressive movement on a linear path which is a model education where the smart people I guess decide you know what the curriculum is going to be and every student has to learn it and to me that's not really a model of open education that's I think education at its best is about dialogue it's a way of learning deeply it's about learning how to think critically form your own serious questions learn how to search the literature to see what other scholars have had to say about the subject being able to evaluate that information and then come to your own conclusion about what that means that's what education is I believe so when we're talking about risks to students with open and we're thinking of open more broadly as I kind of try to articulate my response would be what's the risk of it staying closed where we maintain the system of education where it's largely kind of at its most cynical maybe perspective kind of a consumption process this is the information you need to know memorize it and be able to perform it on the examination so I think there's a lot of risk in maintaining that status quo and I think education at its best is when you have those opportunities to become to step more deeply into learning and as an aside that's part of why I like being a member because we have a collection and I feel like what we do is we help students formulate those serious questions learn how to search the literature and evaluate it for themselves so certainly I advise but when I think about open education I think about centering it on those values and trying to build a model that looks more like that I have a question it's not about script so and it's for Lisa and you had talked about I just want to go back to your point about listening and I'm really intrigued about that because I do think that there is sort of this there is a lack of listening happening and I guess I'm curious if you could just sort of describe a bit more about that in terms of where are you seeing open advocates not listening and where are you seeing the open movement kind of just pushing forward without really taking a pause to reflect and consider others I'm not like super up on the open literature scholarship I have read some of it but I'm sure there's so I don't want to make a sweet thing that everyone is doing this but I do find some of the assumptions and some of the things that I would read with my class a core class that I would teach for incoming master of library and information studies courses that would be talking about open access and it would frame things in terms of how faculty would you know educators would participate in open access journals and this idea that if they didn't if they weren't putting their work into open access journals it was because they were too lazy like they would actually be saying making these clients as though it was because the faculty were not educating themselves in open access or were too lazy to try something new or you know all of these kinds of things and as a faculty member I would be like this is these are some interesting claims to be made when you look at before the opening remarks talking about the infrastructure of the university and the systems that are in place such as tenure and promotion so that not everyone knows this but there is this thing within academia called for faculty called tenure and promotion and if you don't make tenure you lose your job so it's a pretty big deal it's kind of huge as someone who has recently gone through it because you lose your job in your home and all of those sorts of things and the way that you are evaluated is on the level of the places the prestige of where you publish your work so if your feel is one that doesn't have strong open access journals yet you are told do not publish there because you will not get tenure so it has nothing to do with someone how hard someone is working or how much they might even want their work to be out there because the research suggests that if it's open you'll get cited more and who doesn't want to be cited more but they're told that if you want to succeed and keep your job don't publish in those you need to do that and then maybe in the future those options will come open so I think when you read or go here open access advocates making disparaging comments about why people aren't doing aren't following what we're doing that is an example to me of someone who's potentially not listening very well they're not paying attention to what's actually going on generally people in academia are there because they really love it and they are really hooked and nerdy on learning and things like that they're not generally very lazy people or they really care about their work and they want others to join it so potentially there's something else going on if they're not participating in open access or open movements so that would be one example of a potential place for listening might not be happening or more listening might benefit. Sorry just to add to that from a student perspective I've been on the other side of that having conversations with professors and other faculty about open education it's been a very difficult conversation to get from the affordability aspect to the open educational resources and open scholarship aspect I think the dialogue that tends to happen especially with textbook broken the past the campaign is very much centered on the affordability aspect for students and we do that because we're looking for buy-in we're looking for students to understand why and how open can benefit them but we've often got to critique that the financial aspect of it is not something that we should be focusing on because there's so much more to open pedagogy past that and I think like having that conversation is difficult and we're trying to constantly change how we're having those conversations between students and professors to be able to better understand like how can students be a part of this process creating more resources more open resources in conjunction with professors being able to be a part of open scholarship with professors and not imposing that it's all about the financial aspect and professors are not adopting and it's a problem for students it's trying to figure out new ways to approach this topic and create these conversations I guess I just would like to put a plug in would start to get into the open pedagogy side of things and I know there's lots of excitement and interest in looking at the non-disposable assignment type of thing and the adding real value and giving students a real opportunity and I think that's all great it's important for this movement to also acknowledge that one size doesn't fit all and that there may still very well be students who are reluctant to say share something out of the open and I think there always needs to be the same way that when we talk about fundamental accessibility materials that you need to proactively ensure that it's available in different modes etc. I think there needs to be a little flag as far as what could be a great open opportunity for some maybe just terrifying for others and just sidebar tangentially I think we all are aware and increased calls on services and supports at our institutions related to mental health issues and it's like serious anxiety and serious real things that demand our attention and so I just would like to make sure there's a little footnote in the notion of open pedagogy and practices that we don't discard opportunities for people to continue to operate privately if that is an option At least I want to add that so I don't want to go too far but I can't resist because as we're talking about open pedagogies and students who might be hesitant one thing that I try hard to do in my classes is to have opportunities for students that they're highly interactive and engaging where I try not to be the one speaking all the time and because we have 35, 40 people in the room let's hear from them we have the luxury we don't have hundreds of people in these classes we have enough where we can hear from people break into small groups but I do not use or advocate using and have written against using things like Twitter and Facebook and these open platforms where the student data is being mined for other purposes for that reason and I think that students should have a safe place to develop their ideas and develop what then try out new ideas and say things that might in a couple of months they might not want to say anymore you know that's okay we all put our foot in it so to speak as I'm doing right now anyway but what really concerns me right now is how some of our learning management systems which I would like to trust and use for students to do that are also being mined for student data and I really think there needs to be more conversations around how the data that we're putting into these systems is being used and who has been giving meaningful informed consent on that I think just building up that as well is the point in thinking about the fact that open spaces are not utopic and the fact that women, people of color, indigenous folks who step into open spaces are often attacked and they can be spaces of violence Lucas and I were talking about this earlier about how the Trump era has shaped knowledge dissemination spaces as well and Twitter is a great example about how people in precarious positions who put opinions on Twitter can be doxxed, they can be attacked online verbally and it is a mental physical stress so just to say that me as a white man can walk into Twitter and say whatever I want I'm going to have a much different experience in an open space than a person of color or woman than a differently abled person might have so I think really being critical of what it means and coming from indigenous studies you only need to go to the comment section at the bottom of a national post article on an article about indigenous issues to understand the kind of vitriol hate that is spat at indigenous peoples who want to engage in an open space so unless we're really to consider the danger we're asking students if we're using Twitter as a platform to say let's talk about indigenous issues unless we're having a rigorous conversation about what that might mean and just to say well that only happens if it exists online it's not a real thing it's about the violence of those spaces and the real lived effects it has on students and I have plenty of examples of horrific stuff where students have tried to engage the public opinion in an open space and been damaged because of it so I think that is a real concern we have to think about when we're engaging in open pedagogy. I know I'm sort of becoming a disappointment when people say well that's not real it's online so it really is online not real anymore the IRL, UR and the economy doesn't exist so I also want to tap into this idea of ownership and particularly regarding data that Lisa was leading to and so just looking at you about data so what I want to know is and I wanted to speak I want to get your opinion about consent and conversations and data and I think consent really is we're talking across the panel about this as well so I have two questions the first is who gets to decide if data should be open or not and then the second follow up is what consent or conversations do participants from whom or where that data is generated need to be involved in opening data so I'm going to pass my card to you I'm trying to remember those questions so who gets to decide if data should be open who gets to decide data should be open well this is a good question and if we look at, we step outside of the university there are laws that govern there's legislation that governs information and data that has personal information in it can be removed from a data file for example and then at that point there's no personal information in the file that's been de-identified and there's no longer a legislative governance of that so for example I was in the US recently taking some de-advocation training and almost everyone there was from the medical sector so people who put medical implants, hospitals, that kind of thing because that data has a lot of commercial value and once it's been de-identified it's no longer regulated by HIPAA and so it can be sold and I was thinking about it on the way here actually that we have to pan on I was thinking about it in the statistics Canada and in fact I don't remember giving consent for my data to be shared from the census maybe well you can't believe it, I mean the census is not accurate but we have public use micro data files of the census we have aggregate statistics back at share, same thing with other statistics Canada products, I don't think that really we have consent for secondary uses, just assume that once the data has been de-identified it can be shared and so I think this is the kind of dominant model outside of universities however in universities and in post-secondary education we tend to value consent more or maybe we have it's that we have a history of depending on the consent for participation in research projects so might be the case in a lot of research ethics boards that if you want to share your data for secondary use, your research data for secondary use, you need to get consent for your participants first and I think this is kind of maybe a status quo in general, I think a lot of research ethics boards are still figuring it out but that seems to be kind of the normative way of thinking about it right now, however to me I would challenge that because I mean I have not seen and I have limited experience but how can you tell what the secondary use of that data is going to be how can you know who's going to use the data for what purpose how can you build that to your consent form, maybe someone wants to use it after your studies and they've found their article, they found their data and if consent can't be specific, is it really meaningful can you give meaningful and informed consent to all secondary use of data for a research project, I would say maybe not or if you're giving consent it's just something a little bit different so I think right now we're kind of in a mind or a situation where there's a lot of complexity that we have to absorb it out in terms of consent and consent for secondary use of data I think that perhaps a model could be something more like what is done in the UK where you have an evaluation board set up to look at projects that want to use data, academic research data and then grant or deny access to that project, so I think consent is I think it's fundamentally problematic when you think about secondary use of data I don't have a really good mechanism to kind of build consent in I have a follow-up question to that and the question is if instructors have access to student data, can students have access to instructor data to make informed choices this is a case that some institutions do that, so I used to be a student at the University of Toronto and Arts and Science Students Union I believe published something called an anti-calendar where they kind of collected student responses about how they felt versus a faculty and the faculty instructing them how they perceived it went so they published it and this was very contentious, not everybody liked it so sometimes students will take that initiative, I would say the way that the question is framed is kind of asking for kind of reciprocity so instructors have access to student information so students should have access to instructor information but in a classroom there is a power dynamic, it's asymmetrical this instructor has authority and there are some good reasons why instructors should have access to student information so I mean perhaps students should have access to teaching or sorry data about their courses and the instructors but I guess framing that around being an equal relationship I think is flawed because it's not equal and kind of imagining it that way is not a very useful way to make a person's thought and if that would suggest I don't know I've been having this conversation a lot lately actually about what data students can use themselves from what they're contributing and not just instructor data but how they can use their own data and it's been very contentious in asking how will that data be used once it's given to students especially in terms of learning analytics and what we can get out of it so I don't have an answer for this but it's an ongoing process Thank you so one of the things striking thinking about data and you were talking about sort of this model equity I guess between the faculty and students and one of the things regarding access that I'd like to bring up is that often it is predicated upon technology so the idea is that well it's open and you can download it in any format and you can get it online in pdf and epa and I'm curious how does that actually create new barriers to access It's a new barrier but one thing I think about is ebooks and you know increasingly relying on ebooks to build our library collections and the ebook platforms that are most common are not always necessarily accessible so overall making our collections more or less accessible by depending more on digital formats The first thing that comes to mind is the digital talking about communities, a lot of indigenous communities that are working off dialogue or satellite feeds I have an animator friend who does animation workshops in remote communities and the second thing that comes to mind is getting the software to those communities so taking computers on a fair into the mainland so she can use the wi-fi to download the software that bring the computers back to the community the footprint surrounding that kind of thing is massive and when we're working with the digital divide that despite the Canadian government's promise to shrink that divide since I think the last report was released in 2005 so nothing has been done to address that if we're going to continue to premise open on technology without considering the fact that plenty of communities do not have access to that technology what's the point if it's not accessible then it's not right the digital divide is something we need to continue to consider I have full agreement and I guess I have to add I know when we talk about financial being of students who can't afford to keep internet so that whole aspect of fundamental daily practice that interferes I guess the accessibility point of view it speaks even further to why we need to have multi-modal types of access but that's a real barrier we're talking about people who have access who can afford to have technology at home who have the skills even for sure that's a definite tension I'm not sure what else to say other than if things are available in an old analog format to some extent that creates a bit of a bridge thank you one of the areas just recently at the open education conference in California the theme was equity, inclusiveness, and diversity and one of the keynote speakers was speaking really about the divide between the global south and the global north so this idea that oftentimes it's a global north that is sending content to the global south without much input in terms of localizing content, understanding the diverse communities involved and it made me start thinking very much about the way in which we in Canada also create material so that being from sort of a colonial perspective, settler's perspective, versus becoming very inclusive with the indigenous communities and offering and bringing their voice as well to curriculum materials and I'm curious both from Lisa and Dave could you just talk about that a bit, maybe how to be inclusive and respectful of indigenous communities in the open environment and I think you sort of spoke about this in the beginning a little bit but I'd like to bring it back a bit more to that non-indigenous person and to preface everything I'm going to say based on that so I don't think I'm really the person to answer that question other than to say conversations so there's so many conversations with communities urban indigenous communities all with different epistemologies, ways of being in the world there's not going to be a single solution or a single way forward not that there's a, that you're asking for a solution fantastic relationships and ideas to be had and some incredible potential but I think first it needs to recognize that any kind of conversations along those lines are going to be taking people's time away from pressing issues, let's say that David was already alluded to where you're working on just getting water the basic needs met so maybe open access is not quite the top priority right now but maybe in the future or maybe there's some things that can be helped along the way to make that a higher priority within the community and to be really clear on just having that as a conversation before going and saying this is what we want to do, we've got this new project and the conversation is done yeah I think that is a really important point that I think we're at this point right now in open access where it is I might even say fashionable to include indigenous voices or people of color in the conversation and to do so in the last stage of that conversation because it's a checkbox, something to check off so then inviting people who have had no stakes in the beginning of that conversation which is frankly bullshit and also to invite those people with nothing to give back so to invite people and not to offer actual recompense, to not have something that benefits that community but is solely benefiting your short grant or your tenure application without considering what that community gets out of it, quite often open access projects and academic projects frankly work under systems of anonymity so you're working with indigenous communities and that person isn't even cited in your research project it becomes just data, it's another, it's a dehumanization so I think that is a massive part of thinking about where the conversation is beginning asking community to start to start the conversation, what this community need I think for me another big part is just assuming again and again and this is a colonial ideology that indigenous people need help with this that we are going to be saviors and bring this technology and the fact of the matter is you can look there is like Marissa Elena Dorade has just written a fantastic book on network sovereignty where she's talking about how indigenous communities by themselves have created internet infrastructure on reservations where settler infrastructure refuses to go so these communities do not need us to swoop in and save them I think the savior ideology is often embedded in a way and that there is those practices are in place already and if we can find ways to filter support there to stop centering settler perspectives and send that push support towards indigenous initiatives that are already happening because there are lots of them and they're fantastic I think there needs to be a shift where the resources are going and who we need to push forward Thank you so we're going to first up I just want to say thank you so much to each one of you and I was thinking while you were all speaking that you know sometimes somebody asked you that question you could have which celebrity would you invite to your dinner table for dinner one night and I'm thinking I would not have a celebrity I would actually love to go out for dinner with each one of you because I feel like I could have this conversation through into the evening so I really appreciate all of the insights and the discussions and critical reflection I feel like I'm speaking with a couple people before tonight and you said that I really believe that in British Columbia we are at the stage where we do need to be having these critical conversations about open access and open data and open education and we're there and so I feel like this is just the start so thank you so much I'm going to pass it over to Hope Power who's going to lead us into the next section of the evening which is the provocative question tables what we're going to do next is to open up this discussion a little bit further by breaking into some small rooms and we're going to invite our speakers to you'll see there are four tables in this room each with a different colored tablecloth which we'll matter in a moment and we're going to be inviting our speakers to each move to one of these tables some of our tables will end up with two speakers and then if you look at the front seat of your chair you should see the colored dot and this dot will let you know which table you should move to so you can take a chair and once you've found the color of the dot on your chair you'll be moving to a table and we'll be at these tables for the next half an hour and make sure to have some time at the end where we can report back on the discussions there we'll mention at the beginning of the night as well that it is a collaborative shared space set up where groups are welcome to add notes and capture ideas there or you're welcome just to report back early at the end as well and the URL for that shared space is up on the whiteboard there so let's give this a try so let's move to our tables and follow up with some discussion there thank you so each group will have at least a few minutes here to share any volunteers thank you so we were sort of posed with a provocative question at our table and that question had to do with the reuse of data I guess and whether or not you could have consent for recent data built into the original I guess gathering of the data and so we actually had quite a few well we had a lot of different perspectives at our table we all came from different I would say backgrounds coming to this question some of the things that we talked about were reproducibility in data and that's important that if you cut out some of the implied consent how does that have an impact on being able to reuse data to reproduce science which is obviously something that's really relevant and important right now we also talked about we did talk about the copyright I raised the issue of one of the side effects of true openness is you relinquish your baby, your work into the world and you don't always get to control what becomes of it after that and I know for myself I have often advocated for for example CEC-0 or public domain license and people don't always understand that that means that people can then commercialize your work on your behalf against your wishes so you relinquish that to tell people what they can and can't do with your work sometimes that can come back to potentially right in the butt when you didn't think that your work was going to be used so again these are questions that we don't always think about in the beginning and sometimes we are quick to want to support openness and we need to listen more as Lisa said which I think is really important where is Lisa? and so we talked a bit about that too about listing and how this is a good opportunity to think about what we're advocating for and how it can have effects on people that aren't coming from the same perspective as we are. Does that summarize the conversation? Thanks so much. Who might be the next pretty volunteering one to share? That's why I volunteered is true so the question that was posed was more about what we were thinking about or pondering about after the panel or what we wish had been touched on and so we talked actually quite a bit. We have someone at the table who's new to Vancouver and so we talked a lot about just the the presence of and recognition of and dialogue around the Indigenous land that we're on respect for information governance in Indigenous contexts and how it seems to be story very much at a present on the panel this evening and sort of around some of the dialogue we were having and one of the points that we kind of discussed as well is that this is something you need to Vancouver and part of that is because we are on a stated territory. We also chanted a little bit about the auditing culture of student data so this idea that we always have to have these metrics and demonstrating value and what impacts have been made and so this sort of extraction culture around data and around information resources and that tied back into the Indigenous discussions we were having that Indigenous communities aren't unfamiliar with this because it's been happening for a long time in scholarship and so there's perhaps a greater awareness that communities may have that is sort of infiltrate society more at large and sort of penetrate conversations a little bit more than where it has been present in community. Also we had a really interesting conversation just about student versus patient. There was a lot of pleasure but there was a student on the panel sitting awesome, an awesome panel member and sort of discussion around involving students in decision making and that whole open educational resource discussion and is that actually happening? Are they part of the decision making or is it sort of that horse and pony show where they're just trying out and visible but not actually participating? So I think that presence of students in decision making came across as a really integral part of moving though. So we talked a lot about the irony of open pedagogy and kind of our experiences about some of us have engaged with open some of us have engaged with digital kind of literacy but behind kind of a password and how that's the intention of engaging in the open pedagogy is still somehow closed because we are concerned about possible abuse, security or safety of the learning environment and perhaps the quality of the responses that will be contributed. And we talked a lot about kind of the risks around what data, like the blind spots that we have as end users trying to engage with open. It's an easy place to share but what are we giving up, what are the compromises that we may not be aware of and there are some, it's one of the, or just to share that there is institutions that the risk management is by observing and not doing anything until someone else figures it out before they jump on board and I guess this is our initiative in trying to make it to try to figure out solutions and try to have that conversation. Is there anything? So I think the majority of our conversation focused on how to work with communities and what openness means to, I guess communities traditionally outside of the academy. We talked a little bit about some projects that the Learning Exchange ABC is doing in terms of knowledge translation and questions of openness per se is not necessarily going to lead to the ability to access this information and I'm sorry I don't remember your name, but we discussed the idea of openness as a continuum and that we often conflate openness with freedom and that's not always the case either, that freedom to choose is not available to many so I think that's a good idea. And considering the idea of the opposite of openness and closeness and what can we learn from closure and I think Dave said something I really enjoyed which was considering how closure can lead to access and we also talked a little bit about how licenses which are the idea or the intent is to provide protection sometimes fails in those protections. How can we explore that a little bit more to make sure that's if there are terms of licenses that maybe they have more teeth. We discussed Twitter and Shane. As the teeth. The current teeth is how sometimes people who don't have other ways to enact those protections can take to consider it was a far-reaching conversation. It was really in depth. Thank you so much to all of our volunteers. I'm really excited to hear about all of these thoughtful conversations happening around tension and risk in this area. I know that we're getting close to the end of our time this evening so I just wanted to turn things over now to my colleague Rebecca for her smile comments. I just wanted to see the end too. Thank you.