Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory

Living Edition
| Editors: Michael A. Peters

Openness and Power

Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-532-7_222-1



Openness as a set of practices has received less attention from practitioners and researchers than the specifics of producing and distributing open educational resources (OERs) or engaging in open education through innovations like massive online open courses (MOOCs). As a result, openness as a philosophical position and its relationships to power inside and outside formal educational contexts has also remained relatively undeveloped to date. However, it is possible to identify key arguments that enable the relationship between openness and power to be framed.
  1. 1.

    Who defines openness, and what remains open or closed, inside and outside formal educational contexts? This includes the relations of power between transnational bodies, state agencies, education...


Social Justice Intellectual Capital Educational Context Open Education Education Provider 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access


  1. Anderson, V., McKenzie, M., Allan, S., Hill, T., McLean, S., Kayira, J., Knorr, M., Stone, J., Murphy, J., & Butcher, K. (2015). Participatory action research as pedagogy: Investigating social and ecological justice learning within a teacher education program. Teaching Education, 26(2), 179–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Edwards, R. (2015). Knowledge infrastructures and the inscrutability of openness in education. Learning, Media and Technology, 40(3), 251–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Eve, M. (2014). Open access and the humanities: Contexts, controversies and the future. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. FLOK Society. (2014). General framework document. (FLOK Society, 2014), http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/General_Framework_Document. Accessed 24 Sept 2015.
  5. Hall, R., Atkins, L., Fraser. J. (2014). Defining a self-evaluation digital literacy framework for secondary educators: The digiLit leicester project. Research in Learning Technology, 22. http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v22.21440. Accessed 24 Sept 2015.
  6. Johnson, J. A. (2013). From open data to information justice. Ethics and Information Technology, 16(4), 263–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. van Mourik Broekman, P., Hall, G., Byfield, T., Hides, S., & Worthington, S. (2014). Open education: A study in disruption. London: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  8. Watters, A. (2014). From “Open” to justice #OpenCon2014. (HackEducation, 2014). http://hackeducation.com/2014/11/16/from-open-to-justice/. Accessed 24 Sept 2015.
  9. Weems, L. (2013). Difference, power, and the limits of openness. In Urbana, Ill.: Philosophy of Education Society, (pp. 20–23).Google Scholar
  10. Winn, J. (2012). Open education: From the freedom of things to the freedom of people. In M. Neary, H. Stevenson, & L. Bell (Eds.), Towards teaching in public: Reshaping the modern university (pp. 133–147). London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Directorate of Library and Learning ServicesDe Montfort UniversityLeicesterUK