This spring I am taking a course entitled, “From Theory to Practice: Persuasion, Narrative & the Portfolio.”… In my class we are developing an online e-portfolio that is meant to clearly communicate to future potential employers the skills and experience that we’ve developed in our time at the CCT program. We are interviewing people in fields and organizations that we are interested in working in to learn a little more about some of the career choices they’ve made to get where they are now, as well as to become more informed on the organizations themselves.

1. Can you briefly describe some of the main elements of your duties as a communication coordinator at Creative Commons?

As the Communications Coordinator for Creative Commons, I help creators, companies, and institutions leverage Creative Commons licenses and CC-licensed content. A huge element in my day-to-day and ongoing communications with others are education around our licenses—this includes education about how CC licenses came into being, how the licenses work, and what CC licenses or CC licensed content may have to offer to different kinds of users. A lot of it is also clearing up misconceptions about what CC licenses mean and what they enable. Another main element is identifying opportunities for CC license integration, and connecting the right people and projects so that CC licenses are used appropriately and effectively. This can mean anything from having informal conversations to officially highlighting or interviewing projects that are innovating in the arts and education. Basically, I help to craft the message of CC and what it does so that it reaches different audiences, fulfilling diverse needs of the community.

2. Have you known for a long time that you were interested in working in the field of intellectual property reform and collaboration facilitation with Creative Commons, or was it something that you stumbled upon more recently? Can you think of any specific moments in your academic or professional career that pushed you into this field?

To put it simply, no. I stumbled upon it a couple of years ago when I was completely new to this space. It helps a lot though that I was in the other person’s shoes—what I call the average person who doesn’t know that much about copyright or copyright law. I can’t think of any specific moments other than the fact that I applied for this job, originally as a Research Assistant and specifically for the education piece of things (CC licensing for educational resources), but maybe my work with high school students had something to do with it. I used to work with first generation college bound youth, and I always thought the traditional education system was failing a lot of students. CC was doing something new in this field, that I could have possibly seen as an effort towards reform at the time, so I applied to become a part of it. For what it’s worth, I was also a Philosophy major as an undergrad, so I have always been interested in the big questions, and conceptually IP is very interesting.

3. How important for your job is it to keep up date with the issues that Creative Commons addresses?

Very important, if not essential. CC’s existence depends on the internet, and the internet is dynamic and always growing. So is IP law, as many lobby for tighter restrictions around the world. It’s important that I keep up with the latest issues so that CC stays relevant and continues to carry out its core mission.

4. It seems that CC has a very diverse staff, with people coming from a lot of different backgrounds. Do you think this makes for a more effective workplace?

I think so, as the entities who use our licenses come from diverse backgrounds. We need to be able to communicate with people in different contexts and also from different cultures where CC might be seen as too radical or too conservative. Diversity keeps us tolerant and neutral, and that’s the organization we are and aim to continue to be.

5. Has the proliferation of the Internet and digital technologies created more problems (i.e. illegal file sharing, remixing, copying and dissemination of copyrighted works) or opportunities overall for content creators?

I don’t know that it’s created more problems than what might have already existed in different and physically underground forms. I think it just brought it out into the open because the internet is accessible by everyone, whereas a bootlegging factory might not be. Certainly, these activities might be proliferated by digital technologies, but at the same time, opportunities for creators have arisen that never before existed. For the first time, creators don’t have to go through a middleman or distribution company anymore—they can connect directly with their audience and with each other. They can also explore new models of creating and sharing content. The possibilities have really become almost endless… and that is really exciting. At the same time, new possiblities exist for companies and institutions, too, to leverage the internet and open licenses to engage with their communities. So I think overall, new opportunities have arisen that haven’t been there before, and I think opportunities that were in the past only available to some are now available to all, whereas the problems that have arisen are ones that have kind of always existed in some form or another.

6. Do you find that the Internet is an increasingly important element of communicating with constituents and developing support networks? If so, do you think it has passed traditional forms of communicating in importance?

In answer to the first question–basically, yes. I think it’s unavoidably the primary medium of communication now for a lot of people, especially the younger generations, and that it will only become more so. In answer to the second, it depends on what you mean by importance—because of course there is a texture to face-to-face communication that cannot (at least currently) be replaced by technologies, no matter how advanced. I think it is a valuable alternative, however, especially in fields such as education where not everyone can afford to attend an institution due to money or time. I think it has surpassed traditional forms in the sense that it has brought another layer to the way we communicate. If you take social media–Twitter, for instance, one of the reasons it is so successful is because it allows for more different layers of interaction than Facebook. Facebook interaction is one-to-one, you can only be friends with someone if they are friends with you. On Twitter, however, you can follow someone without them following you, they can follow you without you following them, or you can both follow each other. I kind of see the internet as the Twitter of the communication medium in general… what used to be limited to one-to-one (the phone) or one-to-many (broadcast media) now allows for many-to-many, many-to-one, etc. I don’t know if the analogy itself perfectly aligns, but you get the picture.

7. Is social networking media an important part of CC’s communication and networking strategies? If so, do you see it having an even more important role in the future and the country becomes increasingly connected?

We use what’s out there currently, yes. We have accounts on FB, microblogging services, internal microblogging services (status.net), etc. I think it’s definitely how we reach most of our users, and we will continue to evolve in how we communicate to our users as social media evolves.

8. Creative Commons’ partnering with Nike and other companies to release the online intellectual property marketplace GreenXchange recently is really interesting to me. Do you think that they are forecasting a new, more efficient development of sustainability business models for the future? The collaborative nature of GX is questioned by some who subscribe to the traditional business models of trade secrets and proprietary trademarks, but do you think that they can set an example for future collaborators and change the paradigm model?

So I am not familiar with the in’s and out’s of the GreenXchange as Science Commons—the science program at CC—have been the ones working with them. The big picture is that Science Commons is exploring patent licenses, as CC licenses only apply to copyrighted works and patents are a whole other story. The GreenXchange is a prototype of this first exploration into patent licensing, and Creative Commons (through SC) is serving as a sort of consultant to the project.

Personally, I think there might be a future in the open innovation models that are sprouting up within companies or collaborations between companies, as limited patent licenses may allow exchange and innovation since they are similar in concept to the “some-rights-reserved” model for content. I don’t know of the collaborative nature of GX being questioned, but I do know that it’s about trying to find sustainability that works, and innovation that leads to helping the environment or society is a good thing in my book. If they are successful, then I think it would be evidence that open innovation can work. I don’t know about changing the “paradigm” model–I think it is the default model right now because it’s what we are used to. But we were used to broadcast media and that has changed, too. I really don’t know too much about all this however, so you should check out http://sciencecommons.org/projects/patent-licenses/.

9. Is there any advice that you would give to someone who was looking to work in the field of intellectual property reform and advocacy?

I would say come up with a plan for what you are specifically interested in that field, such as a problem you’d like to see solved and possible ways for solving it—or at least what people/projects you think would need to be involved to solve it. I would talk to people in the space, attend some conferences, read up a lot. See what it requires for you to really dive into that problem. Are you more interested in the legal side of things? Then maybe law school is necessary, but at a place where things in IP are happening. I mean essentially the question is, why is this field compelling to you and what will you specifically do to make it better? You can contribute from many different angles—whether legal, technical, scientific, educational, etc.

So what does health care have to do with “open”? Much more than you might at first think. Let me illustrate a few of the ways…

• Innovation requires risk. Intellectual risk, for sure, but perhaps more importantly, risk to your finances, to your family, to your future. To do something new and innovative, and especially to go against the grain, as so much of open science, open education, and other similarly motivated ideas run, is to take on significant personal and professional risk. In America, that risk to individuals is unacceptably high, given that it often includes foregoing such basic guarantees as health care. Health care reform means that we have lowered the threshold for action by the innovators of tomorrow. Don’t be afraid to take a chance, we’ve got your back.

• The grand challenges we face as a society – climate change, public health, energy security, to name a few – these problems are big. They are burly. They resist simple reduction into a controlled study here, an opinion poll there. To get a handle on these issues, we need data – lots of data. And we need collaboration – massive, distributed collaboration. And we need cooperation, even among competing interests, where the system positively reinforces activities the reduce the risks to society even as it improves the bottom lines of the businesses involved. Health care reform holds the potential to shift the focus from profit to care, from rendering tests to preventing disease, all of which requires greater openness, and greater sharing. Look for a revolution in public health research and outcomes in the years to come.

• Health education is desperately needed around the globe. Many institutions are trying to share their medical education materials more broadly, but the costs are high, and there are thorny thickets of laws regarding health records, medical images, and other patient-oriented data which impede sharing. People are rightly reluctant to provide personal health information publicly for fear that the insurance companies can use it against them. Health care reform eliminates this fear, thereby opening the floodgates for public health data and associated educational materials to be shared, adapted, and localized the world over. The era of educational opportunities, personal genomics, and patient empowerment is here, and openness is a big part of the picture.

There will be people who will try to stop all progress. There will be those who will try to exploit the complexities in the system and throw obstacles in our way. But we have to seize this chance to catalyze a more open and effective society, in education, in science, in everything. Our health care “system” is so broken, it’s hard to believe there any defenders left. But as with our education “system,” which is similarly dysfunctional, change has proven more difficult to implement than it is to talk about. How refreshing to see action in Congress instead of so many words. Yes, there is still room for vast improvement, but enough dithering. The future awaits, and it looks more open than ever.

A subset of that movement has been focused on getting openly licensed textbooks into classrooms. Flat World Knowledge is often cited as being a leader in the commercial distribution of open content, relying on supplemental materials for sustainability. But until just recently, the concept of open (not just “free” or “digital”) textbooks hadn’t begun to creep into education policy discussions. But now it has, and as usual those organizations in a position to embrace and benefit from change make it their business to oppose it. Just as the music and movie trade associations went after innovative technology, textbook publishers are fighting innovation and change in their industry.

The Association of American Publishers (and its School Division in particular) are quickly becoming one of the main barriers to the adoption of open educational content in K12 and higher education. When the U.S. Dept. of Education wanted to require that any educational materials developed with Race to the Top funding (a $4.35 billion dollar state education grant competition) be made “freely available”, the School Division submitted comments opposing the requirements saying it would “compromise the intellectual property rights of third-party providers.” Basically, the AAP didn’t like that public money would fund public, rather than proprietary, content. And at least according to the AAP, the rule has been changed to allow for Race to the Top funding to go towards proprietary content.

But the AAP doesn’t limit itself to influencing policy at a high-level. They’re movings towards co-opting a desire for textbook reform at the grassroots level.

Take a look at this flier for an upcoming AAP briefing at Southern Illinois University on “New Textbook Technologies”. From the flier:

The goal for the Cost Effective Solutions for Student Success program is to begin a broader and more informed discussion between members of the academy, policy makers and publishers about course materials and the benefits they offer for:

• Improving students’ grades, pass rates and retention;
• Lowering students’ costs for course materials;
• Providing flexibility and efficiencies for instructors; and
• Lowering the postsecondary institutions’ cost per pupil for instruction.

The AAP frames their briefing at Southern Illinois University as an attempt to begin a “broader and more informed discussion” about textbooks. Apparently members of the academy, policy makers, and publishers (students notably absent) had been having a less than optimally informed discussion about course materials. But what we don’t know based on this flier is what kinds of information they will be providing.

Luckily for us, on the AAP-operated site TextBookFacts.org, they have a handy FAQ which hopefully will start this more informed dialogue. From the FAQ:

The cost of developing a new textbook and the accompanying materials can exceed $1 million. Most of this cost is attributable to paying for the work and original ideas of authors, experts, editors, researchers, reviewers and designers. Many other factors also contribute to the final retail price of textbooks, such as:

• Inflation, which accounts for the lion’s share of most years’ annual increases in textbook prices.
• Freight and transportation, which are driven by rising fuel costs
• Bookstore mark-ups, which are determined by bookstores and affected by a number of factors – such as staff and operational costs – that vary from store to store
• Paper, which is driven by the cost of raw materials
• Layout, typesetting and printing, which are driven by time-intensive labor costs
• Taxes by federal, state and local governments

The AAP falsely claims that inflation is a main factor in the rise of textbook costs. In fact, according to the Government Accountability Office, the costs of textbooks have increased by twice the rate of inflation.

They also misrepresent the costs associated with textbook development. According to a 2007 University of Wisconsin budget review (citing a 2006 College Store Industry Financial Report by the National Association of College Stores), 77.8% of the cost of a textbook goes to the publisher. Of that 77.8%, the break down is roughly:

Only 33.5% of the cost is due to the physical production and shipment of the book. The rest is marketing, profit, overhead, and unnecessary expenses avoidable through different models of knowledge production and dissemination (but more on that in a bit).

They continue:

Student Monitor, an independent student research service, found that the average four-year undergraduate spends approximately $650 a year on textbooks. That’s less than five percent of an average student’s total direct higher education expenses.

Not true. Even back in 2007 the Congressional Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance found that “Annual per student expenditures on textbooks can easily approach $700 to $1,000 today.” (Source: Turn the Page: Making College Textbooks More Affordable, A Report of the Advisory Committee On Student Financial Assistance, 2007) Today the cost is likely to be higher.

And even $700-1000 a year seems inexpensive to you, “affordability cannot be assessed by examining the absolute level of total expenses alone. It depends on how much expenses have risen over time, what share of family income they represent, and whether they are typically covered by grant aid for students from low- and moderate income families.” (Same source as above) That is, it isn’t the number that’s important in evaluating costs, it’s the percentage of overall budget and income, taking financial and sociological contexts into account. And the AAP doesn’t really take into account the financial contexts of students… or at least not in the way you might expect. Continue reading their FAQ:

What do college students buy? LOTS! But only a small percentage of these expenditures go towards important learning tools such as textbooks. [...]

This semester (Spring 2009) the average student bought 5.3 textbooks (2.2 new and 3.1 used) spending an average of $333 for both new and used textbooks. (Source: Student Monitor 2009)

Retail spending on new college textbooks last year was about $4.7 billion — significantly less than what college students spend on clothes and accessories and less than half of what they spend on electronic products such as iPods, laptops, video games, stereos and televisions. (Source: Association of American Publishers and the National Retail Federation)

Yes, you read the AAP right! Students are too busy buying iPods, shoes, and concert tickets to notice the high cost of textbooks. Just another drop in the bucket, right?

The AAP implies that college students spend so much on electronics, clothes, and accessories that their textbooks should be considered cheap. So what exactly are students and faculty getting for that low low price of $1,000 a year (roughly the equivalent of buying a high-end laptop a year)?

What is the role publishers play with students and faculty? Publishers serve the needs of students and faculty

Publishers’ primary focus is on meeting the needs of students. Today, a wider range of instructional supplements enable faculty to teach more students and empower students to achieve better results.

Colleges are being asked to serve students with diverse learning styles and a wider range of preparedness and skills. At least 50 percent of students who enter 2- and 4-year colleges drop out in their first year and never return

Only 54 percent of students who remain in college graduate in 4 – 6 years, increasing costs and debts for students and straining campus assets.

So publishers serve needs, help schools to pack diverse groups of students into classrooms, annnnd… not sure what those last two mean. Publishers cause students to drop out and increase cost and debt and strain campus assets?

Maybe the AAP is struggling with this question because they have no good answer. Of course publishers should be responding to the needs of students and teachers. But when it comes to spelling out the details of what those needs are, big publishers in the AAP fail on all counts:

What are the demands that students and faculty place on textbooks?

Today’s students and faculty demand choices

Students and faculty have become smarter, more demanding consumers, who value options.

In today’s challenging environment publishers are offering a broader range of textbooks and instructional materials at a wide range of prices.

Options available today include low-cost editions, one- or two-color editions, loose-leaf editions, split editions, black-and-white editions, custom books, books by the chapter, abbreviated editions, and electronic books.

College instructors adopt the textbooks and supplemental instructional materials that they believe best meet their students’ needs. They want their students to succeed by having the latest information and the most up-to-date learning tools.

Students and faculty want choice, customizibility, low cost, up-to-date, and optionally digital textbooks. Sounds exactly like what OER provide! Not only do you have the legal right to modify and redistribute OER, they are usually digitally provided free of charge. And given the completely public availability of Creative Commons licenses, there is little barrier to any individual, academic, or organization developing and distributing their own textbook at a small fraction of the cost that the AAP claims is required to develop a textbook.

The high-level message the AAP tries to convey is “we spend a lot of money on producing textbooks, but they’re actually cheap and students buy so much crap anyways they can afford it”. And to top it all off, they argue for innovative digital solutions that their own IP-centric business models discourage.

In the end, the AAP gets its numbers wrong, implies students are materialistic spend-heavies who care more about iPods and concert tickets than education, and makes a compelling argument against their own product.

Imagine that! Now, I’m all for people being able to pursue abstract, theoretical constructs and even to pursue careers along those lines. But the educational burden on people trying to do innovative work is unsustainable – the article mentions that the average age for first-time recipients of federal (NIH) funding is 42. Such funding is essentially a requirement for people trying to achieve tenure in the sciences, meaning that many smart people will train until they are nearly 50 years old before they either find out that they can make a career of their specialized knowledge and skills, or need to start over doing something new.

I suspect we will start to see more and more institutions like BGI. Indeed, I suspect that this trend towards more relevant and practical education will be accelerated by open education, which will eventually come to encompass not just the resources (OER) but also the support structures, mentors, and pathways to competency and accreditation. And I believe that these changes will save the liberal arts institutions, despite their best efforts to destroy themselves. Perhaps I will even see the day when our academic institutions return to their roots: encouraging education for education’s sake, supporting basic research and humanist inquiry, and catalyzing innovation and change not to support institutional aims, but to support the betterment of humanity.

However, one of the classic divides has bucked this trend. In a recent contribution to the Open Forum of the San Francisco Chronicle, Stanford University neurology professor Robert M. Sapolsky tells us that the data have come in, and it turns out that “Girls are good at math too.” In short, he cites several longitudinal studies, often backed up with impressively large sample sizes, which have shown that the historical gap in math performance between the sexes has now disappeared. The lack of differentiation on this metric is closely associated with cultural gender equity, as you might expect.

This is a fantastic endorsement of conscious and widespread application of gender-neutral policies, pedagogies, and learning paths, at least where the historical differences have no obvious biological basis. People have come up with myriad pseudo-biological explanations for so many stereotypical differences among the sexes – it can be quite a challenge to separate the fluff from the substance. In some things, such as weight-lifting potential, the differences are real and really well understood. But when it comes to mental processes and capacity, there is simply no good biological basis for believing that sexes differ in any meaningful way. As developed societies slowly adapt and reorganize themselves around these simple principles of fairness, we will see more and more evidence of how similarly gifted, or not, the sexes are in most intellectual domains.

What does all of this have to do with “open.” One of the core principles for open education and associated materials is the inherent capacity for “differentiated instruction,” or basically the ability of learners and their mentors to adapt materials and learning processes to suit their individual needs and interests. There is every reason to think that OER will accelerate the trend of eliminating artificial capacity divides among the sexes, much of which is intentionally and unintentionally embedded in the instructional materials and pedagogies in use all over this country and the world.

We should all be striving to reach a point where every student is encouraged and evaluated as an individual, according to his or her needs, interests, abilities, and aspirations. Certainly embracing OER won’t be enough, but it’s a good start.