H818 Activity 2.2: Researching Openness
Two aspects of openness to research:
Clickolage appears to be an interesting approach to collaborative and community learning through the use of social media to share learning experiences which then “become texts to be incorporated into future learning.” (Pearce,2012)
What is most interesting to me is that social media is high profile and has a range of tools that are actively used within my industry and this could potentially be used as one way in which to engagement industry workers with learning, especially lifelong learning in a more ‘immersive’ way.
Nick Pearce is the main spokesperson for this approach (Twitter; Pearce (2014)), although active discussion and engagement with it on social media does seem limited (Topsy). Searching on the Open University library also brings up very limited results for this term.
Clickolage is the digital extension of bricolage which encourages an inquisitiveness to learningand also empowers the learner. (Altglas, 2014)
Social media can have positive influences on learning, especially collaboration and sharing of experiences(Gonzalez & Young, 2015). With the pervasive nature of social media, the content created by it and context in which it can be applied there is a strong argument to explore how this can be embedded into a self-determined learning approach to better engage and encourage learners.
Whilst the use of Facebook, for example, has been shown to encourage collaboration and engagement in learning, the open nature of the medium also exposes it to unacceptable behaviour, not so much from those within a group of learners but those from without(Alexander & Sapra, 2013). There are therefore significant challenges which must be addressed if an open and empathetic learning experience is to be achieved.
Whether clickolage becomes part of the accepted mainstream teaching and learning process will depend on many factors, but it is certainly an open approach that has much to commend it for further investigation.
Alexander, S, &Sapra, S (2013), ‘”Post It on the Wall!”: Using Facebook to Complement Student Learning in Gender and Women’s Studies Courses’, Feminist Teacher, 23, 2, pp. 142-157, Education Research Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 10 October 2015.
Gonzales, L. &Young, C. (2015). “Can social media impact learning?” Technology & Learning Mar. 2015: 36. Computer Database.Web.(viewed 10 October 2015)
Pearce, Nick (2012) ‘Clickolage : encouraging the student bricoleur through social media.’, Teaching anthropology., 2 (1). pp. 14-21. http://www.teachinganthropology.org/index.php/teach_anth/article/view/284/470 (last accessed 9 October 2015)
Pearce, N (2014) ‘Clickolage the movie’, 4 October [online] Available at https://digitalscholar.wordpress.com/2014/10/04/clickolage-the-movie/ (last accessed 10 October 2015)
Topsy, clickolage [online], Available at http://topsy.com/s?q=clickolage&window=a&type=tweet&sort=date, (last accessed 8 October 2015)
Twitter, #clickolage, [online], Available at https://twitter.com/hashtag/clickolage, (last accessed 8 October 2015)
VéroniqueAltglas (2014) ‘Bricolage’: reclaiming a conceptual tool, Cultureand Religion, 15:4, 474-493, DOI: 10.1080/14755610.2014.984235(viewed 10 October 2015)
Open access publishing
The focus of this is on getting just a flavour for attitudestowards open access (OA) publishing, of which there is much research, so this is a very brief perspective. What is most interesting to me is that OA publishing offers a potential opportunity to not only increase the dissemination of industry relevant scholarship and but it may also act as a catalyst or incentive to engage more industry scholarship to take place.
There can be a tension between creators of papers and publishers in making some funded research open access, primarily because publishers argue the need to protect their income (subscription) stream (Sweeney, 2014).
Publishing in an OA journal is not necessarily free as shown by Manista (2012) “open don’t mean free. For example, to publish something in an OA journal often requires the author to pay up front—in some instances of up to £1000.” This has changed my own understanding of OA, which I thought was free to both the author and the reader.
Whilst there has been a continual increase in the number of papers published in open access journals (17% of all papers published in 2011), “Many faculty still equate OA’s free access with little or no quality control measures and thus believe open access means lower quality” (Rodriguez, 2014).
Weller (2011) highlights benefits of OA publishing as being a driver for innovation, reducing barriers to accessibility and also reducing financial impacts as peer reviewed articles incur significant overheads, when compared with non-OA journals.
Increasing the potential for citations and therefore wider circulation and awareness of scholarly articles, which in turn can increase the “visibility, profitability, and attractiveness to future authors” is another identified benefit of OA publishing (Berbusse, 2013).
Challenges to OA publishing have, by contrast, been argued as less citations than non-open-access articles; limited, if any copy-editing of any article, increasing the potential for errors and publishers whose business model “creates a conflict of interest to publish more papers at the expense of rigorous evaluation.”(Agrawal, 2014).
There are opportunities for questionable practices to occur from scholarly open access publishers who are not as trustworthy as may first appear, so authors who engage with OA publishing, like with many dealings in society, need to be sensible and research the publisher before agreeing to have their work published (Butler, 2013).
There does seem to be varying opinions on the benefits and challenges to OA publishing, possibly influenced by the perspective of the article originator and this seems to be a debate that will continue to evolve over time.
Agrawal, A.A.(2014), ‘Four more reasons to be skeptical of open-access publishing’, Trends in Plant Science, Volume 19, Issue 3, March 2014, Page 133, ISSN 1360-1385, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2014.01.005. (viewed 10 October 2015) (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136013851400020X)
Berbusse, M. (2013), ‘What Is “Open Access” Publishing, Anyway?’,
Aesthetic Surgery Journal Feb 2013, 33 (2) 290-292; (viewed 10 October 2015). DOI: 10.1177/1090820X12473267
Butler, D. (2013), ‘Investigating journals: The dark side of publishing’, Nature, 495, 7442, pp. 433-435, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 10 October 2015.
Manista, FC (2012), ‘”Open Don’t Mean Free”: A Reflection on the Potential Advantages and Disadvantages of Publishing Research via Open Access’, Journal Of Librarianship & Scholarly Communication, 1, 2, pp. 1-3, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 10 October 2015.
Rodriguez, J.E. (2014) ‘Awareness and Attitudes about Open Access Publishing: A Glance at Generational Differences’, The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Volume 40, Issue 6, November 2014, Pages 604-610, ISSN 0099-1333, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2014.07.013.(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0099133314001852) (viewed 10 October 2015)
Sweeney, D.(2014), ‘Working together more constructively towards open access’, Information Services & Use, 34, 3/4, pp. 181-184, Education Research Complete, EBSCOhost, (viewed 10 October 2015).
Weller, M. (2011).Publishing. In The Digital Scholar: How Technology Is Transforming Scholarly Practice (pp. 141–153). London: Bloomsbury Academic. Retrieved October 10, 2015, from http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781849666275.ch-012