 Okay, good morning everyone. We're going to start. My name is Brian Coll. I'm the chair for the session. I'm from IT Sligo. My colleague, Kevin Clinch, couldn't make it this morning so he apologizes. So if you actually just came here to see the chair you will be disappointed. So our first speaker this morning is Dave White from the University of the Arts London and he's going to talk about what it takes, as you can see there, to establish openness as an institutional value and his colleague Kate who is logging in online. Are we streaming? Maybe I shouldn't say. There was a visa issue but that hasn't happened yet so she couldn't make it today. So I'll hand back to Dave. Hi, thank you. Yes. So this follows on from Kate's keynote. So obviously, yeah, I'm Dave White from the University of the Arts London. Kate Lindsay from the University College of State Management couldn't be here today but this is very much this kind of co-production so I'm going to speak to her parts of it. If you're interested in those elements at all then do go to her blog and get in touch with her because she's doing great work there. This really kind of comes off the back of Kate's keynote. I'm going to do this a lot to keep the guy on the camera busy, okay? Hello people online. Because it was that idea of openness kind of revealing itself in our institutions and that's very much what this is about is how do we bring openness in from the peripheries, if you like, and that's the track that we're working in which is bringing open in from the periphery and whilst my institution and Kate's institution are very different, we're both trying to do that in slightly different ways, okay? Now what I'm going to ask you to do because this is like an open space session is I'm going to ask you to go to that link there tinyurl.com OER19 culture. It would have been OER19 but somebody had already taken that which wasn't a surprise really. There's a Google doc on the end of that and I'm going to ask you while I'm sort of talking to respond to this question in that document, okay? So I'm going to show you the question now. If somebody could tweet that URL, I'd be very grateful, okay? It will be on the next slide. Don't panic. See it's still there. It's just slightly less clear. So this is the question I'd like you to consider because in a way it's the question that myself and Kate are considering and are in the process of considering which is what are the key factors in moving your institution towards a culture of openness? And there are just some rules in terms of responding to that question not to make it difficult just to give it a kind of a frame. You can talk to important people. You are sat at the important people table. I thought it was really interesting Kate talking about the expanded university in the system. You know, the system is still people as well. So you're at that table, okay? If you want to be. You can make policy. You can change process. You can take risks, but you don't have magic money, okay? So the idea there is you're not expanding the expanded university even more. Your response to the question has to be ways of incorporating openness into existing practice if you like, okay? Certainly at my institution the answer to most things is we should get together and talk about this more. And that's expensive. And so I'm asking you to think about ways that it could come in from the periphery if you like. So I'm going to go to that Google Doc about halfway through the session for a discussion. So please do put something in it otherwise that will be awkward. I think you probably are, which is why everybody's super folk. That's good. I'm going to let you get on with that. Okay, so just some background. So myself and Kate have done quite a lot of open type stuff over the years. This is a good example from Kate where she ran this project that gathered, like if you like, primary and social documentation that people had in their attics and in bottom draws and stuff like that around World War One. And that was, they got 700,000 bits of stuff from people all over the UK, put that online, lots of creative commons licensing. So huge, open, very connected project. An example from me. I mean, a few years ago, I did Pi Day Live, which had, I think about 2,000 school children from 27 different countries all logging in at the same time. And then this project here, which I did recently with them, Bond Stewart, which was a series of completely open online seminars around the subject of teaching complexity. And this is one of the kind of live slides that's part of that. But I think what's interesting about both of those is whilst they're excellent projects, in some senses, they're on the periphery. Because certainly, I've never had anybody at my institution say, how come you aren't doing more open seminars? You know, if those projects hadn't existed, then there wouldn't necessarily have been anybody hunting us down to say, where's that project? If you see what I mean. So this is the University College of Estate Management. This is Kate's institution where she's a senior learning designer. And it's useful to know that they're fully online institution. They've obviously got a kind of industry focus because of the nature of the institution. A lot of part-time students working. They're very flexible in terms of who they accept. So they're open in that sense. And they're also flexible in terms of if people want to sort of back off from their education and then get back into it. Okay. And they, I think it's fair to say that up until now, they obviously they're online, but their model, if you like, their educational model was fairly correspondency in essence. And so Kate's looking to refresh that with an education, a new educational framework. So this obviously in a session that's half an hour long, I can't go through this in detail. So you can you can visit her blog to find out more about that. But I think it's an interesting situation because obviously if you've got a fully online institution, then you can sort of control or frame the way that curriculum is designed. And in terms of bringing openness in from the periphery and establishing it as an institutional value, this bit of the diagram here, that sort of area there is where there are going to be sort of open or learning designs that have inherent open practice in them. So that's one way that's that's the kind of one way that you can start to bring it in in terms of curriculum design. Now, for me, that's a bit tricky, because I come from a big arts university 20,000 students. And I can't control how curriculum is designed, not to that extent, if you like. So talking with Catherine Cronin about this, actually, I was encouraged to go in the direction of trying to establish some open, I don't know if you'd call them principles or if you'd call them values at the center of the university, if you like. And so ran a couple of workshops with staff to develop these values and to really kind of condense them down. So you can see in terms of openness, we're talking about things that sort of go beyond the making making content open. This is this is this is more fundamental than that in some senses. And the reason that I wanted to do this was because it struck me that the staff at the university, they didn't know what the university thought about open practice, if I can use that frame, that sort of phrasing. And so I wanted to kind of reveal, or at least maybe nudge the university in a certain direction and say, Well, actually, no, we think openness is good. And we think it looks like this. Okay. And that might lead to two things. One would be that the people that are already working in open ways, would actually reveal that they were working in open ways. One of the ironies I find about this form of practice is that the teaching practitioners who work in open in the character of open, if you like, quite often try and do it under the radar, because they're worried that the institution will say that they're not allowed to do it. Okay. So I'm trying to create a space where they could say, Oh, actually, I'm already doing some of this. Let's talk about it. And then the other thing is that it would encourage people to head in this direction. So that's that's where we've got to with those. I can't say I've been incredibly successful with that. At up to this point, I talked about it as part of a committee paper. And it wasn't universally well received. And I can totally see why I think one of the reasons was because of the way I presented it, which wasn't excellent. I think people were like, Well, we've got to do all of this and we've got to be open. It's like, it just seemed like another thing to have to do, which is in a way was part of the genesis of this session, which is how do you make it part of the fabric of the institution rather than yet another thing that you have to do on top of everything else. So I just want to focus on the connects to diversity of voices just for a second. And then we'll come back around to that document and have a bit of a discussion. I hope this was the the trickiest one. And the most interesting one that phrasing was going to be facilitates or invites at one point. And I ended up with connects for this reason. Okay. And I think that it, you know, this has come up, but it's really important to me that openness doesn't become, Hey, we're going to invite you into our club. But actually, openness is more about connecting different voices and the university kind of being a site of exchange for those voices along these lines here. And I like the idea of complexity. I'm not sure to what extent the students like the idea of complexity, but I think that's an interesting discussion. Okay. So what suddenly began to intrigue me about this and discussing this with Kate to put the session together is that I realized that what that one of the main motivations for one of the main institutional motivations to support open practice, you know, directly was as a kind of performance of surplus. Right. So this is a really useful blog post from Richard Hall, where he's describing what what I mean, it's a useful quote in terms of what I'm saying surplus is Richard puts it much better. And it reminded me of this. Has anybody ever seen this documentary from 1974? I think in the UK, it used to be part of a schools thing. The undergraduate degree that I used that I did that I used to do that I did when I was an undergraduate was had an anthropology aspect to it. And we watched this documentary, which was about uncle's big mocker. And it just it suddenly reminded me or at least it it resonated with me in terms of how institutions sometimes respond to openness in slightly dangerous ways, which is look at us. We're so we've got the capacity and the confidence and the and the power and the wealth that allows us to give you this open stuff. Okay. So instead of it being about connecting a diversity of voices, that's not that's not the intention. That's the problem is, perhaps the intention comes as a kind of performance of surplus or of power, if you like. And what happens in uncle's big mocker, I'm not using this. I'm using this in a sort of Claude levee Strausway, which is sometimes it's useful to look at other cultures, because they hold up a mirror to your own. So when thinking about this, I was thinking about our culture as institutions, rather than this directly. But a mocker is, is this form of exchange in Papua New Guinea, whereby big men give gifts, give bunches of gifts to each other. And you have to you have to give back the same amount of gifts to repay the debt. But if you want to look like a really big man, you give significantly more than what you've been given, because that confers status on you. Okay. And so this sentence, now that I've given you all these things, I've won, I've knocked you down by giving so much, I started to worry that that was an institutional motivation for openness. Okay, okay, let's go back, let's go back to the document. Little bit of juggling. Oh, there's tons in there. Right, that's a good thing. I sounded like that was a bad thing. But I was just suddenly mildly daunted because it's like a half an hour session. And oh, that's good. We're halfway through. Excellent. So I like the way that there's a lot of other thoughts in there. I think that I think that's very promising. Would anybody like to speak to any of the points that they put in? Anybody like to explain what they put in somebody brave? Yeah, be brave, mine. I put the link into things that matters to the system, but I'm not sure about this. Okay, I think it links something that capes and in her presentation about kind of academic labor and things. I think in some ways, in order for things to count, we have to count them. But then once you start counting things, you pretty much kill any joy or niceness about them, you know, so do you fight the counting? So do you kind of play the game and say like, point of openness is that, you know, you can make a good case in the rare field and creature citations. It's a good way to instute and boost your retention or it's a, it's a marketing factor. You can play the game, the kind of, for one of a better phrase, the neoliberal game, you know, but is that a good thing to do? Or is that a bad thing? Should you be setting up an alternative narrative style? And I don't have an answer to that. But I think if you just want to kind of make it work in an institution, then selling it to them on the things that matter to them is one way to do that. But then there's a bad thing to do. Yeah, I know exactly what you're talking about. And I found myself when trying to promote openness in principle, using some of that language. And so I think you, I think it's important. I personally don't have a problem using that language knowingly, if you like, and using it as a kind of shell to kind of to bring some healthy practices in. But it's a dangerous, that's definitely a dangerous business. And for me, there's this interesting tension between network and hierarchy. So you know, institutions are hierarchical, and they measure things in those, in that sense. But actually, most open practices distinctly kind of networked in character. And so bringing in network practices from the periphery into the institution, which is hierarchical, do they, is that inevitably going to kill them on the way in? Yeah. So I do, yeah, I genuinely think that's a difficult question. For me, it's about trying to reframe what we think value is, if you like. But that's a really big question. Anybody else want to speak to, to the document? Yeah. Can you, can you do some? I could run with the mic. But I feel I have to stay on. Hopefully, if you're watching on the live stream, then you've also had a chance to contribute to the document. What I'm going to do is I'm going to look through this and have a good old think about it, probably post about it afterwards. So all of this work will go somewhere. Yeah. Yeah. So what I put in, in the global south, they still lack of, they still lack of, you know, some sort of awareness. And they are still need to be increased in investment in ICT infrastructures. So these are to be in place for the culture of open to be, you know, for most institutions in the global south to be really engaged in the culture of open. Okay. Yeah. That's a really good point. And to be honest, it wasn't that what you've made me realize a bunch of assumptions I made there, which is I think that for, for example, in my institution, all of that info infrastructure is there. So that gives me the opportunity to talk about values. But I think that's a point well made that actually, there are other locations whereby things just haven't quite been plugged in yet. And that and that infrastructure isn't there. And perhaps that perhaps that amplifies the danger of that openness is a performance of surplus problem. You know, that actually being structurally in a position where you can be open is actually a privileged position. And that was that that was something that I wanted to say about myself and Kate's roles as well is that, you know, I'm in a permanent contract. And the only reason I could run those teaching complexity seminar series is one, because I'm in a permanent contract and two, because I don't have full teaching load. So actually, I can, you know, I can be, I can do open things in a very nice way, because I'm, but in a way, that's just emblematic of my privileged position. Okay. So it's it. Thank you for that. That's that's a useful reminder to me of some assumptions I've made about where I started with that should take another one. Yeah. Yeah. Hi, thanks, Dave. Can I give a plug for our panel at five o'clock this afternoon? Go on, why not? Those things. Yeah, we're talking about Jane Secker's module on digital literacies and open practice, but it made me think. So I'm Chris Morrison at the University of Kent. I put down asking enterprise team, those responsible for exploiting IP to create open resources and consider their own practice. And again, this may be something I'm trying to do at Kent, talk to the people who own the intellectual property policy, who say the university owns everything and are very concerned about not opening the floodgates. So I'm trying to engage them in that conversation because teachers will come to me and say, or lecturers, can we make open stuff? And I can say, well, I could say, yes, I think it's a good idea, but we don't have a policy and we don't have a position on it. And I think we're quite a conservative, traditional, hierarchical institution. So it's just trying, I don't know if it's going to work to have that networked idea within the institution to try to create those connections that somehow might help influence that kind of on override the hierarchy that wants to own and control things and come up with something. I don't know whether you have experience of that actually having worked anyway, or whether that sounds a bit like a pipe dream. No, I mean, I'm not sure that I can respond to that directly. But I think what you're talking about, I think there's a thing, I mean, maybe this comes back to Martin's point as well, is that what you can do with institutional structures is use them to create a space for certain types of practice, which is why I'm interested in those sort of open values. So whilst the culture of the institution might not really understand openness, and what its benefits are, and whilst you probably don't want to go down the route, as Martin says, of describing the benefits in a way that perpetuates the system that you're trying to do something about, I do think that you can do things like have policies around IP and policies that perhaps support community practice type structures that aren't directly, they're not directly supporting openness, but what they're doing is they're cutting a space in the institution for that practice to then emerge, and certainly for the practice to be acknowledged as a thing. Because I think that's sometimes the starting point is what does it take to help my institution acknowledge that openness is a valid practice, even if what makes it valid doesn't directly play to the value structures of the institution directly, if you like. It's a bit of a knotty response, but. Okay, I'm going to, yeah, yeah. Just as you were talking here, I think again, for me, in terms of open practice, just thinking about privilege and position, but actually one of the things that I found about doing things openly, just doing something openly is actually almost a way to subvert the system as well, and I think you sometimes need that ground up kind of approach as well to get that by, because I know in my own institution, although we've got policies and we do have things that sometimes you just have to keep doing things to remind people, so again, just wanted to throw that in. Yeah, I think that's a really good point. And in a way, I think you need both. I mean, one of the reasons we put on the teaching complexity was because it was like a show, not tell. It's actually openness is a really difficult thing to describe, but it's a relatively easy thing to show people. So finding elegant ways of communicating something that you've actually done in the language of the institution is quite useful. Otherwise, it becomes very hypothetical, doesn't it? Okay, I'm going to move on just because of time. I say just because of time, obviously time's quite a fundamental thing for all of us. But as I say, thank you for engaging in the Google Doc. Myself and Kate will look at all of that and respond to it. I like fighting its neoliberal agenda exclamation mark, by the way, that's nice and crisp. So, oh, I can't move on in a PowerPoint unless I've actually got it up on screen. So let's do that. Okay, so in terms of Myself and Kate, five minutes. That's about right. I love it when that happens. Okay, so these are some of our responses to that question, if you like. UAL, University Arts London, we're going to put together some signature digital learning designs and some of those will inherently have open practice in them. And what's important about those is we're going to ask undergraduate courses to incorporate them into their curriculum, but not as a bolt-on as switching out practice that they're doing now, if you like. So really, a really simple example, you do five lectures as part of your course. Why not do two of them online in something like Blackboard Collaborate or something along those lines? So actually really quite straightforward things, but the important thing for me is that they're not additional practice. Okay, and also just a debate around openness. I realized when I was talking about the open values at the committee I was at that it is actually still quite new to some people as an idea is a principle. So I've got the the director of libraries and student services, the Dean of Students and Widening Participation and the director of knowledge exchange. We're all going to get together and put together a kind of convene and institutional debate just to raise the profile and visibility of it. That's kind of breaking my question a little bit because that is sort of additional. And as I say, Kate's got this new educational framework which has, which is going to be kind of woven into the institution and also it responds to some new graduate attributes that they've got. And the graduate attributes obviously have things like you're going to be an authentic practitioner in your field and stuff about being connected and networked. So you can respond to that as well as a way of making sure that openness isn't peripheral. So I just want to end on this thought really just to try and bring it together and this comes off the back of the sort of Onka's Big Mokka documentary and that principle of openness or trying to avoid the institutional response to openness being a demonstration of surplus is to, and to me it came down to this which is a very kind of anthropological sort of statement is to try and ensure as we bring openness in from the periphery that it's based on reciprocity and not redistribution. I think that works as an idea. So that's where that value that I had in the list you know connects the diversity of voices. That's kind of what that means is that it becomes more about a kind of, more about gifts, more about connection and less about let's marketize openness. Which in some ways I think was how do we avoid doing that was the heart of our discussion we just had. So that's just what I want to leave you with. Openness is reciprocity not redistribution. Thank you. Thank you Dave. I think we have a lot of minutes for any final questions before we go on to the next part. Did I actually finish before the end? That's incredible. No, that's good. That's because it was so perfectly format. Yeah. Excellent. Well done.