Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory

2017 Edition
| Editors: Michael A. Peters

Open Politics and Education

Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-588-4_221

Introduction

The educational dimensions of Openness elicit very strong and impassioned responses. On the one hand are Open activists and advocates, who see the promises of open, especially those arising with digital and distributed networked technologies, as the panacea to a lot of contemporary challenges at building just, fair, and safe educational platforms. Openness, for them, encompasses a wide spectrum of processes, values, and ideologies, ranging from calls for dismantling the classroom to the augmentation of existing pedagogic practices that would change the inequalities of power and inequities of ownership that are identified as key critiques of the modernist-capitalist university framework. On the other hand are the Open skeptics, who point out that the unbridled celebration of openness is both utopian and unsustainable. Eschewing the idea of the Open as an alternative, they are quick to point out that open is equally constructed by positions of power and can often be...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

References

  1. Chun, W. H. K. (2008). Control and freedom: Power and paranoia in the age of fibre-optics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Davidson, C., & Goldberg, D. T. (2010). The future of thinking: Learning institutions in a digital age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Giles, J. (2005). Special report internet encyclopaedias go head to head. Nature, 438, 900–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Irani, L., Vertesi, J., Dourish, P., Philip, K., & Grinter R. E. (2010). Postcolonial computing: A lens on design and development. In CHI’10 Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1311–1320). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  5. Luchs, I. (2016). Free basics by facebook – An interview with Nishant Shah. Spheres, 1, 3.Google Scholar
  6. Rajadhyaksha, A. (2011). The cultural last mile (pp. 136–163). Bangalore: Centre for Internet & Society.Google Scholar
  7. Swartz, A., et al. (2015). The boy who could change the world: The writings of Aaron Swartz (pp. 1–6). New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
  8. Vaidyanathan, S. (2011). The googlization of everything: And why we should worry. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  9. Worth, J., Doctrow, C., Watters, A., Shah, N., Gilmour, D., & Boser, U. (2015). Speaking openly. JonathanWorth.org. Retrieved from https://jonathanworth.org/speaking-openly/.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Culture and Aesthetic of New MediaLeuphana UniversityLüneburgGermany

Section editors and affiliations

  • Markus Deimann
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Digital LearningFachhochschule Lübeck University of Applied SciencesLübeckGermany