New framework for open - CARE

I've been caught up in a conversation - well, as digital conversations go - about a framework for stewardship of open educational resources (OER). This started with a tweet from Jim Luke (@econproph) that was retweeted by Robin DeRosa (@actualham). The blog post Jim wrote [OER, CARE, Stewardship, and the Commons] caught my attention since I knew nothing about the framework being described. I noticed that Jim will be speaking at both the OER18 and OEGlobal conferences coming up in April.

So I began to read and dig a little deeper.

The framework comes from Lisa Petrides, Douglas Levin and C. Edward Watson - Toward a sustainable OER ecosystem: The case for OER stewardship. It proposes the following:

"The purpose of the CARE Framework is to articulate a set of shared values 

and a collective vision for the future of education and learning enabled 

by the widespread adoption and use of OER. It aims to address

the question of how an individual, institution, or organization 

seeking to be a 

good steward can contribute to the growth 

and sustainability of the 

OER movement 

consistent with the community’s values."

The article continues to expand on the role of stewards to contribute, attribute, release and empower.  These roles are described as a 'duty of care to the broader OER movement'.

The framework is discussed by David Wiley in a blog post [The CARE Framework] where he makes several interesting points. His followup post [The CARE Framework, Take 2] continues the discussion. I appreciate Wiley's belief to 'release early & release often' since it brings attention to a topic worthy of examination. I'm not sure I would have found this without the various tweets referencing this topic. Wiley begins by clarifying his stance - he likes the framework.

Ah, to be a fly on the wall when Jim Luke meets up with David Wiley at OER18!

Stephen Downes weighs in on the discussion with two blog posts - The CARE Framework, and Schrodinger's OER - both being a brief response to David Wiley's blog post. He states that OER can be destroyed without stewardship that will respect, protect and not destroy it. He points out the threat of 'conversion' which impacts OER and OEM. This led me to a post by Stephen about defining OER - Open educational resources: A definition. This one I'll keep for future reference.

My take on the CARE framework - its an interesting addition to the conversation and puts the responsibility squarely on the individuals and organizations in the movement. If thinking about stewardship is the right focus, then there is lots that can be shaped by other stewardship movements such as global climate change and the environmental movement.

References

Downes, S. (2018, March 15). Schrodinger's OER. [Weblog post]. Retrieved from http://www.downes.ca/cgi-bin/page.cgi?post=67896

Downes, S. (2018, March 15). The CARE framework. [Weblog post]. Retrieved from http://www.downes.ca/cgi-bin/page.cgi?post=67893

Downes, S. (2011, Jul 14). Open educational resources: A definition. [Weblog post]. Retrieved from http://www.downes.ca/post/57915 

Luke, J. (2018, March 17). OER, CARE, stewardship, and the commons. [blog post] Retrieved from https://econproph.com/2018/03/17/oer-care-stewardship-and-the-commons/

Petrides, L., Levin, D., & Watson, C. E. (2018, March 4). Toward a sustainable OER ecosystem: The case for OER stewardship. [blog post] Retrieved from https://careframework.org/

Wiley, D. (2017, March 19). The CARE framework, take 2 [Weblog post]. Retrieved from https://opencontent.org/blog/archives/5528

Wiley, D. (2017, March 9). The CARE framework. [Weblog post]. Retrieved from https://opencontent.org/blog/archives/5487