Open Education: Towards Epistemic Sustainability

Barbara Class

TECFA, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Geneva, Pont d’Arve 40, 1211 Geneva 4,

Switzerland

Keywords: Open Education, Epistemic Sustainability, Diverse Knowledge, Care, Knowledge Society, Lifecycle of a

Course.

Abstract: Conducted in a scholarship of teaching and learning approach (Boyer, 1990), this position paper shares a

scholar’s reflection on epistemic sustainability. Conceived as a philosophy for Humans living harmoniously

with the many ecosystems they are involved in, it is nurtured by values encountered in Open Education –

freedom, transparency, sharing, universal ownership. It aims at reconsidering knowledge so that each

individual can identify with it, resulting in a process of engaged learning and caring for knowledge

environment. It rests on the diversity of knowledge systems (UNESCO, 2021) and contributes to the growth

of the knowledge society. Discussed with the backdrop of a framework composed of social learning theories

(Wenger, 2018) and the sociology of absences and emersions (Santos, 2016), it offers two examples of

concrete changes in the praxis of scholars in computer-supported education. The first resides in programming

algorithms for AI considering the diversity of knowledge systems and Open Education values. The second

invites to reconsider the lifecycle of a course beyond academic borders.

1 INTRODUCTION

It is today agreed that Open Education (OE) is an

umbrella term (Jung, 2019; Otto & Kerres, 2022;

Weller, 2020) exactly as Open Science (Fecher &

Friesike, 2014) is. A variety of conceptions,

approaches and practices qualify as OE and this

wealth of understandings is one of its essential

intrinsic characteristics. With this position paper, we

discuss epistemic sustainability which considers the

diversity of knowledge systems (UNESCO, 2021) to

contribute to collective human intelligence (Farmer,

2019; Innerarity, 2015).

With regard to the richness of OE perspectives,

we will illustrate it with three non-exhaustive

examples: Weller’s, Baker’s and Otto & Kerres’. In

Weller (2020)’s perspective, three main components

of OE concentrate its fundamental features: MOOCs,

Open Universities and Open Educational Resources

(OERs). All three work towards removing barriers

and rendering quality education accessible to people

who are deprived of it for one reason or another.

Weller underlines that each of these OE initiatives

currently ignores the others, whereas each focuses on

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5461-2307

an interesting feature (e.g. sharing, access) and invites

for cross-fertilisation.

On his side, Baker (2017) tries to understand

underlying strategies adopted to define different

approaches to openness in education. First it is a

strategy of affiliating openness to historical periods

and movements characterised by openness like the

Middle Ages when knowledge went out of churches

(Poulter & Al, 2014 - to present; Raucent et al., 2019)

or the Open Source Software movement where code

source is openly shared and co-constructed (Ubuntu,

No date). Second, it is a strategy of granting openness

as a philosophical ideal underlying a given context,

like the common good for example. The third strategy

consists in negotiating openness at an operational

level to leverage possible affordances like the creative

commons licences. “Commonalities between all of

these efforts to define openness emphasize a variety

of constructs. These include the role of freedom,

justice, respect, openness as attitude or culture, the

absence of barriers, promotion of sharing,

accessibility, transparency, collaboration, agency,

self-direction, personalization, and ubiquitous

ownership” (Baker, 2017, p. 131).

646

Class, B.

Open Education: Towards Epistemic Sustainability.

DOI: 10.5220/0011096100003182

In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2022) - Volume 2, pages 646-653

ISBN: 978-989-758-562-3; ISSN: 2184-5026

Finally, Otto and Kerres (2022) highlight a

“normative paradox” (Deimann, 2019, p. 40, citing

Honneth, 2004) of the Humboldtian university. The

political agenda of opening up with the aim of

overcoming educational inequalities is conducted

within a system based on organising selection. In

other words, how can a university pretend to work

towards openness when the entire system works on an

opposite conception of education (i.e. financial

barrier, admission barrier, administrative barrier,

etc.)?

To what extent are these components, strategies

and paradox informative of societal changes towards

education? Universities usually have 3 missions –

research, education and service to the community.

Openness arrived from its main mission and is

changing the landscape of research with Open Access,

Open Research Data, and other open practices that

enables scholars to renew past practices (Langlais,

2015). Beyond questions of access to multiple

services – which is vital for participating, UNESCO

calls for a “dialogue between different knowledge

holders, that recognizes the richness of diverse

knowledge systems and epistemologies and diversity

of knowledge producers” (UNESCO, 2021, p. 15). In

a knowledge society, science and education can be

regarded as two sides of the same coin. Openness

achieved in research will sooner or later lead to

openness in education.

We will first explain concepts and present

underlying theories that frame this reflection. Then,

we will show through a historical overview of OE in

the Global North why the Covid 19 crisis contributes

to a new momentum for Open Education. Finally, we

will give two concrete examples on how to work

towards epistemic sustainability as computer

supported education scholars.

2 METHODOLOGY

The methodology developed within this position

paper is based on a Scholarship of Teaching and

Learning (SoTL) approach (Boyer, 1990). It shares a

reflection that stems from work conducted on OE

from different perspectives and with different

stakeholders in the recent past (e.g. Class, 2020;

Barbara Class et al., 2021; B Class et al., 2021).

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/epistemic

3 EPISTEMIC SUSTAINABILITY

Going back to basic definitions of concepts can be

helpful, especially when two of them pertaining to

different spheres are combined, which is the case in

this text. Epistemic “comes from epistēmē, Greek for

"knowledge", itself coming from the verb epistanai,

meaning "to know or understand," a word formed

from the prefix epi- (meaning "upon" or "attached

to") and histanai (meaning "to cause to stand")

”.

Sustainable refers to something “capable of being

sustained - maintained at length without interruption

or weakening”. It also refers to “using a resource so

that the resource is not depleted or permanently

damaged

”.

What we retain from both definitions is the simple

idea, related to transparency, of being aware of

processes behind the choice of labelling something as

knowledge. This awareness and transparency should

help to trace knowledge, understand its philosophical

orientation and its evolution throughout History.

Making this traceability easy should increase trust

and leverage sustainability mechanisms.

Santos (2021, Chapter 5) explains how, in his

interpretation, the discipline of sociology was born to

analyse the problems arising in Western societies at

the time of industrial revolution - which started

around 1760. The discipline has been founded

without considering previous scholars like Ibn

Khaldun and without acknowledging their

methodological contribution.

Some centuries later, after the second world war,

the concept of development has been disseminated as

one of the most important sociological concepts.

Development addresses several aspects of a society

and of an individual human being: the economic, the

social, the cultural, the religious and the political to

name the most obvious ones. The issue with this

concept is that it has been problematised by Western

actors who defined the line between what qualifies for

“developed” and what qualifies for “underdeveloped”.

It resulted in placing “the majority of countries on the

wrong side of history, the world of underdevelopment”

(p. 291).

Time has passed, scholars from these so-called

“underdeveloped countries” have studied in Western

universities, mobilities have contributed to

interacting, disentangling epistemic injustice and

calling for new avenues. Santos (2021) urges to

decolonise the social sciences in responsible and

sensitive ways. To do so, he invites to consider

knowledge originating from other time, space and

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sustainability

Open Education: Towards Epistemic Sustainability

647

contexts to understand our own time and take

informed decisions. For example, while current

research method epistemologies usually revolve

around post-positivist, constructivist, transformative

and pragmatic worldviews (e.g. Creswell, 2014),

what about opening up to African, Asian, South

American, Indigenous and other epistemologies?

In the domain of computer-supported education,

we find it particularly interesting that Ubuntu, an

African philosophy, is omnipresent through the

eponymous operating system. “Epistemology of

Ubuntu, translated as humanness, “suggests both a

condition of being and the state of becoming, of

openness or ceaseless unfolding” (Ramose, 2015, p.

69). Ubuntu considers “the universe as a complex

wholeness involving the multi-layered and incessant

interaction of all entities” (Ramose, 2015, p. 69) –

human beings, physical or objective nature. The three

driving insights of Ubuntu are: 1) constant motion of

“wholes” from generation to death to regeneration; 2)

human dignity; 3) mutual care and sharing between

human beings and physical nature (Ramose, 2015)”

(Class, 2021).

Epistemic sustainability is conceived as a

philosophy, in the sense of “most basic beliefs,

concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group”

, for

Humans. Not Humans who dominate Nature as in the

modern perspective (Latour, 2006), but rather

Humans who live harmoniously and respectfully with

the many ecosystems they are involved in (Pelluchon,

2021). Nurtured by values encountered in Open

Education – i.e. freedom, transparency, justice,

respect, sharing, care, access, traceability, trust,

collaboration, agency, self-direction, personalization,

ubiquitous ownership, it aims at co-constructing

knowledge, finding consensus to decide what

qualifies as knowledge and work towards the building

of a collective human intelligence (Farmer, 2019;

Innerarity, 2015). To reach this goal, within a

collaborative effort, it invites to revisit, reconsider,

revise, review and more generally contribute to

knowledge conceived as a common good (Hess &

Ostrom, 2007). The outcome being that any human

being can identify with this knowledge, resulting in

engaged learning endeavours and caring for

knowledge environments (Funk, 2021).

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/philosophy

4 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The values of Open Education rest on two essential

features – freedom and transparency (Baker, 2017, p.

132), from which remaining values spread. We

choose the theory of social learning (Lave & Wenger,

1991; Wenger, 1998) and the sociology of absences

and emersions (Santos, 2016) to apprehend OE

because both go back to OE values.

With regard to social learning, necessary

components to turn social participation into a process

of learning, knowing and creating are meaning,

practice, community and identity. Meaning refers to

experience the world as meaningful, e.g. how to

design computer-supported learning environments

that promote diversity and critical thinking. Practice

refers to some grounding (Clark & Brennan, 1991) in

the praxis

(Freire, 1994) to provide sustained mutual

engagement in action, e.g. refer to the literature and

practices to experience innovative ways of teaching

and learning with ICT. Community refers to a social

configuration where participation is seen as

competence and/or expertise, e.g. share experiences

with colleagues at conferences. Identity refers to

changes operated by learning experiences and

informs about becoming in the future, e.g. changes in

the professional identity of the scholar committed to

computer-supported education (Wenger, 2018).

Value creation at different levels underlies any

learning enterprise conducted from a social

perspective (Wenger-Trayner & Wenger-Trayner,

2020).

The sociology of absences and emersions (Santos,

2016) is particularly adequate to discuss knowledge

in the rising knowledge society. As a reminder, a

knowledge society is a task to be accomplished. By

questioning norms and knowledge production

systems, it calls for genuine creativity. A knowledge

society is foremost a society of ignorance that

acknowledges it (Innerarity, 2015).

“Sociology of absences focuses on social

experiments to explore what exists of the South that

is independent from the North/South constructed

dichotomy. It is about researching, with non-modern

mindsets and epistemologies what exists beyond the

abyssal line (Santos, 2016, p. 251 and following).

Sociology of emersions aims to symbolically

increase the importance of knowledge, practices and

actors to identify future trends, on which it is possible

to increase the probability of hope against the

probability of frustration. It acts on possibilities

Praxis in the sense of deeply dependent discourse / theory

and practice / action.

CSEDU 2022 - 14th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

648

(potentials) and capacities (legitimate authority,

power) and focuses on care, without being

deterministic” (Class, Submitted).

Both movements – recognise what has been

deliberately considered as non-valid scientific

knowledge and offer a supportive ecosystem for it to

emerge – contribute to epistemic sustainability. The

first helps to restore damaged and depleted resources

and the second to support them in a strengthening

long-term movement. Combined with a social

learning perspective that reaches out to a variety of

stakeholders, e.g. involved communities, it provides

a robust theoretical framework to discuss OE.

5 OPEN EDUCATION: A NEW

MOMENTUM

Why is the context of post Covid 19 crisis a new

momentum for Open Education to thrive? In Greek,

the word "krisis", means "judgement" and "decision"

and thus implies discernment in the critical analysis

of the situation and choices that guide actions. In

Chinese, the word "crisis" describes a critical moment

or situation, but the threat is clearly combined with

the idea of openness and opportunity (Laulusa, 2009).

In our roles of scholars committed to computer

supported education, we agree that distance education

and emergency distance education are two different

things. While the first is a robust discipline that has

been investigated for several decades (e.g. Bishop et

al., 2020 and all previous editions, the first dating

back 1996; Hodges et al., 2020), the second has been

experienced recently worldwide with more or less

success.

Peters et al. (2020) are very direct about the crisis

and how it has to be interpreted for the future of

education, taking the metaphor of a gateway between

two worlds, qualified in this position paper of modern

society on one hand and knowledge society on the

other. “We can choose to walk through it, dragging

the carcasses of our prejudice and hatred, our avarice,

our data banks and dead ideas, our dead rivers and

smoky skies behind us. Or we can walk through

lightly, with little luggage, ready to imagine another

world. And ready to fight for it” (Peters et al., 2020,

p. 1).

The crisis has offered unheard of opportunities of

learning that remind us of Freire’s and Blikstein’s

lessons of education (NORRAG, 2021). While people

from the “developed” part of the world, no matter

their geographical location, could work and learn on-

line, people from the “underdeveloped” part of the

world fought for daily survival. In the vein of the

sociology of emersions, how could the former learn

from the latter’s experiences?

While many reports indicate that students

suffered from isolation and lack of human interaction

during the peak of the crisis, these students'

"experience is one of intense engagement with the

existing resources and infrastructures of their

environments. They are engaged in informalised,

context-mitigating, and socially engaged processes of

learning to survive, and to keep body, mind and soul

together. They acquire contextually engaged critical

literacies that are vital for their survival and

adaptation. Their intellectual engagement and

practices of mitigation have foregrounded intensified

relational pedagogical engagement" (Peters et al.,

2020, p. 28). They have engaged in a "pedagogy of

care" that we can humbly acknowledge and that some

scholars have already put into practice.

Funk (2021) reports the restructuring of a

curriculum around new concepts in the academic

landscape: indigenous knowledge authority, consent,

collaboration, situated knowledge in communities of

practice, caring pedagogy and cognitive compassion.

She concludes, recommending several directions for

universities. One is about embedding cognitive

compassion for knowledge in a sustainable way

amongst the different stakeholders involved to install

care for knowledge authority and collaboration on

knowledge (and move away from a "competition-

centric mastery" approach to knowledge). Another is

about developing Open Pedagogical Practices and

convening many stakeholders to the design of

curriculum so that each stakeholder can retrieve his

or her reality and grounds collaboration and

consensus to actually face the "many forms of

distance" (Funk, 2021, p. 11) that have to be dealt

with on a daily basis.

This is only one example but others are

flourishing throughout the world (e.g. Chan et al.,

2020; Godrie et al., 2020).

6 OPEN EDUCATION HISTORY

Open Education has been conceptualised in the

Global North. It may exist in indigenous cultures

under a variation of forms but we are not aware of any

source that goes in that direction yet. Being in the

decade of indigenous languages, which slogan reads

“Nothing for us without us”, interesting knowledge in

this regard may emerge (UNESCO, 2020). At present,

we are restricted to Western-centred writings on OE

history. It is principally on the basis of three sources

Open Education: Towards Epistemic Sustainability

649

that we summarise the story of openness in education

from the Middle Ages to the present day, focusing on

values and not on enabling technologies (Baker,

2017; Peter & Deimann, 2013; Weller, 2014).

In 1373, as the population became more literate,

in Florence, people asked for public lectures on Dante.

The universities of Paris, Bologna, Oxford and

Cambridge thus emerged, shaped by their students

and their demands for lectures. At this time, openness

was driven by internationally mobile students and

scholars and was based on a growing curiosity and

awareness of the value of education. In addition, in

the years 1450, the book was socially perceived as a

way to bypass state and religious authority, which

allowed the printing press to develop rapidly.

By the late 1500s, access to knowledge and study

was quite different and restricted. The pope and the

king changed the nature of the university to a

controlled institution under their authority. A transfer

of power took place in addition to collecting fees from

students. Universities became increasingly tied to a

permanent location and a state, gradually losing their

international scholars and students.

In the 17th century, cafés were places where

knowledge was shared and discussions on science,

religion, economics and literature took place. In these

places, ideas related to the scientific revolution spread,

while universities continued to teach the old doctrines.

This discrepancy gave rise to a distrust in public

institutions.

The 18th century was characterised by men’s

increasing literacy. Among the lower social classes,

mutual education was established, which gave rise to

self-learning associations. It is in this social context

that in 1836 the University of London opened its

courses to all social classes, without distinction, to

disseminate liberal education. From the end of the

19th century until the end of the Second World War,

miners established “workmen’s institutes” (Peter &

Deimann, 2013, p. 10) in each village, with a library

as central place. And “the 20th century continued to

see education “open” as the belief in the people’s

right to access society’s knowledge grew” (Peter &

Deimann, 2013, p. 10).

In the late 1960s, the concept of Open Education

surfaced strongly in the United States. Openness and

freedom guided discussions about the role of

education in society because public school was seen

as oppressive and perpetuating racism, elitism and

other authoritarian social norms. In the 1960s and

1970s, the classroom was a place under the authority

of the teacher who had full power. An open society

was called for in which all cultures would be nurtured.

The mainstream approach is that learners learn in

interaction with others and their environment. In

addition, learners' interests should dictate their own

education and they should be trusted and encouraged

to think by themselves. By the mid-1970s, the open

movement had lost momentum for a number of

reasons – e.g. confusion about the approach,

unaligned research results, scholars promising results

beyond reality.

In the 1980s, technology starts to override values.

It is in those years that an acceleration of change has

been observed, driven in particular by technological

developments. In various reports of leading

organisations, e.g. World Bank, OECD, WEF,

changes are systematically presented primarily as the

product of digital technology and capitalist economy.

This agenda is today reinterpreted as the one of a

small group installing “digital feudalism” (Morozov,

2016 quoted by Deimann, 2020).

Throughout these 700 years, we can see periods

of freedom and transparency in the dissemination of

knowledge animated by empowered learners

alternating with periods of public and/or ecclesiastic

control on knowledge. Technology, e.g. print, railway,

computers, internet, played a role in both movements

– freedom and control.

In education, the media debate (Clark, 1994;

Kozma, 1994) remains significant with regard to

technology. This debate was initiated by the famous

"the medium is the message" buzz phrase by

McLuhan (1964). In his visionary work with regard

to technology and humans, McLuhan conceives of

each medium as an extension of the human being,

thereby introducing a new scale into human affairs.

He contrasts the divisive activity of industrial

mechanics, i.e. Fordism with human activity which is

essentially integrative. This debate remained

significant for the crystallised positions of Clark and

Kozma, one arguing that technology is a mere conduit

and that pedagogy must take precedence, and the

other insisting on the pedagogical affordance of

technology and therefore the need to choose it

carefully.

7 HOW TO CONTRIBUTE TO

EPISTEMIC

SUSTAINABILITY?

Refocusing on values and looking for enabling

technologies to empower humans and their

ecosystems in sustainable ways seems timely. To

make this discussion concrete, we will give two

examples of changes in the praxis of scholars that can

CSEDU 2022 - 14th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

650

contribute to epistemic sustainability. The first refers

to AI and the second to the lifecycle of a course.

As scholars, when programming algorithms on

which AI relies, make sure to acknowledge the

diversity of knowledge systems should become best

practice. This would help to avoid excesses as

reported in the Coded Bias film (Kantayya, 2020) and

somehow echoes the oppressive days of the 1960s in

US public schools. Acknowledging, translating and

localising the diversity of knowledge systems in

algorithms can be reached through collaborative and

consensus processes such as those Funk (2021)

explicates. In addition, generalising open-source

computing and open-source praxis will enhance

transparency, traceability, contribution, trust and

freedom. Overall, AI should be considered an ally,

advising and supporting human beings 24/7

(Murgatroyd, 2021) in their quest for openness.

Have you ever reflected on the lifecycle of a

course you teach and the academic culture it vehicles?

What if the beginning of a course would come from

the call of students / communities / citizens to learn

more about a given topic (as in the early Middle

Ages)? Elaborating on this idea, different parties

involved would co-create the course, define its

learning outcomes and how to reach them. During the

course, through renewable assignments (Wiley,

2016), they would work on tangible artefacts to learn

through social approaches

(Wenger, 2018). They

could value the learning experience and contribute to

the re-evaluation of knowledge in the perspective of

the sociology of absences and emersions (Santos,

2016). Created knowledge and artefacts would be

available for future elaboration, in a sustainable

fashion (Schneider et al., 2019), and by a wide range

of stakeholders. In fact, the slogan of the decade of

indigenous languages, “Nothing for us without us” is

inspiring for current educational contexts and

nurturing societal aspirations.

8 CONCLUSION

The crisis has shown that the modern society can no

longer exist. It lacks sustainability at all levels. For

instance, dichotomising nature and culture does not

make sense in a knowledge society where each

artefact is in its essence a continuity of nature, culture

and technology. It is widely known that any digital

Here are some examples from personal teaching

experiences: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5810448 ;

https://edutechwiki.unige.ch/fr/Catégories_et_codes_dan

s_l'analyse_qualitative

device has some extract of gem stone in it. It is also

widely known that our digital consumption is being

pointed out for drastic revision because of its impact

on the planet (e.g. Ghernaouti, 2021).

The etymology of the concept of university -

“from the Latin universitas (“body, company,

corporation, college, association”) as an abbreviation

of the medieval universitas magistrorum et scolarum

(association/body of teachers and students)

” is full of

insights. It represents a first step to reconsider our

praxis as scholars in an associative perspective to

contribute to knowledge as a common good.

Guided by UNESCO’s (2021) recommendations

for Open Science and overall sustainability

approaches, values of Open Education can contribute

to change our relationship to knowledge.

Rehabilitating, revisiting, questioning, welcoming

any type of knowledge, with care, to understand the

challenges of our time appears as a promising move

forward. In addition, connecting OE with other open

movements, i.e. Open Science, Open Galleries,

Libraries, Archives, and Museums, Open Institutions,

etc. (Stacey, 2018), all based on essential values of

freedom, transparency and justice, can try to repair

what the concept of development has damaged.

As scholars, it is up to each of us to leave our

comfort zone, seize this opportunity for change, take

risk and engage in new praxis. This will not always

lead to successful outcomes but can be turned into

productive failure (Kapur, 2015) from which we can

learn. Supporting open praxis initiatives with design

based research approaches (McKenney & Reeves,

2019) for example can contribute to the building of a

sustainable, collective human intelligence.

REFERENCES

Baker, F. W. (2017). An Alternative Approach: Openness

in Education Over the Last 100 Years. TechTrends,

61(2), 130-140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-

0095-7

Bishop, M. J., Boling, E., Elen, J., & Svihla, V. (Eds.).

(2020). Handbook of Research in Educational

Communications and Technology. Springer.

Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of

the Professoriate. The Carnegie Foundation for the

Advancement of Teaching.

Chan, L., Hall, B., Piron, F., Tandon, R., & Williams, L.

(2020). La science ouverte au-delà du libre accès : Pour

https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/universit%C3%A9

Open Education: Towards Epistemic Sustainability

651

et avec les communautés. Un pas vers la décolonisation

des savoirs. Préparé pour la Commission canadienne

pour l’UNESCO. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.39

47013

Clark, H., & Brennan, S. (1991). Grounding in

Communication. In L. Resnick, J. Levine, & S. Teasley

(Eds.), Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition.

APA Science Volume Series.

Clark, R. (1994). Media will never influence learning.

Educational Technology Research and Development,

42(2), 21-29.

Class, B. (2020). Features for an International Learning

Environment in Research Education. International

Conference on Computer Supported Education, On-

line.

Class, B. (2021). Open Education.

https://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/Open_Education

Class, B. (Submitted). Open Educational Practices for

Research Method Education in the Social Sciences.

Frontiers in Education, Open Education for

Sustainable Development: Contributions from

Emerging Technologies and Educational Innovation.

Class, B., de Bruyne, M., Wuillemin, C., Donzé, D., &

Claivaz, J.-B. (2021). Towards Open Science for the

Qualitative Researcher: From a Positivist to an Open

Interpretation. International Journal of Qualitative

Methods, 20. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211034

641

Class, B., Soulikhan, F., Favre, S., & Cheikhrouhou, N.

(2021). A Framework for an Open Education Supply

Chain Network. Conference on Computer Supported

Education, Prague (on-line).

Creswell, J. (2014). Research design: Qualitative,

quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.).

Sage Publications, Inc.

Deimann, M. (2019). Openness. In I. Jung (Ed.), Open and

Distance Education Theory Revisited: Implications for

the Digital Era (pp. 39-46). Springer Singapore.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7740-2_5

Deimann, M. (2020). The (Post-)Digital University. In D.

Feldner (Ed.), Redesigning Organizations: Concepts

for the Connected Society (pp. 357-364). Springer

International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-

3-030-27957-8_27

Farmer, L. (2019). Cross-Cultural Aspects of Collective

Intelligence Online. In J. Keengwe & K. Kungu (Eds.),

Handbook of Research on Cross-Cultural Online

Learning in Higher Education.

Fecher, B., & Friesike, S. (2014). Open Science: One Term,

Five Schools of Thought. In S. Bartling & S. Friesike

(Eds.), Opening Science: The Evolving Guide on How

the Internet is Changing Research, Collaboration and

Scholarly Publishing (pp. 17-47). Springer

International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-

3-319-00026-8_2

Freire, P. (1994). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum.

Funk, J. (2021). Caring in Practice, Caring for Knowledge.

Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 11(1).

https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.648

Ghernaouti, S. (2021). Le numérique doit réduire son

empreinte environnementale. Bulletin SAGW.

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4604918

Godrie, B., Boucher, M., Bissonnette, S., Chaput, P.,

Flores, J., Dupéré, S., Gélineau, L., Piron, F., &

Bandini, A. (2020). Epistemic injustices and

participatory research: A research agenda at the

crossroads of university and community. Gateways:

International Journal of Community Research and

Engagement, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.5130/ijcre.v13

i1.6703

Hess, C., & Ostrom, E. (Eds.). (2007). Understanding

Knowledge as a Commons - From Theory to Practice.

Cambridge

Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A.

(2020). The Difference Between Emergency Remote

Teaching and Online Learning. Educause Review.

https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-

between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-

learning

Honneth, A. (2004). Organized Self-Realization:Some

Paradoxes of Individualization. European Journal of

Social Theory, 7(4), 463-478. https://doi.org/10.1177/

1368431004046703

Innerarity, D. (2015). Chapitre 3. La société de la

connaissance et l’ignorance. In Démocratie et société

de la connaissance (pp. 47-65). Presses universitaires

de Grenoble. https://www.cairn.info/democratie-et-

societe-de-la-connaissance--9782706122729-page-

47.htm

Jung, I. (2019). Conclusion: Linking Theory, Research and

Practice in Open and Distance Education. In I. Jung

(Ed.), Open and Distance Education Theory Revisited:

Implications for the Digital Era (pp. 115-122). Springer

Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7740-

2_13

Kantayya, S. (2020). Coded Bias. https://www.coded

bias.com/

Kapur, M. (2015). Learning from productive failure.

Learning: Research and practice, 1(1), 51–65.

Kozma, R. (1994). Will media influence learning?

Reframing the debate. Educational Technology

Research and Development, 42(2), 7-19.

Langlais, P.-C. (2015). Quand les articles scientifiques ont-

ils cessé d’être des communs ? Sciences Communes.

https://scoms.hypotheses.org/409

Latour, B. (2006). Nous n'avons jamais été modernes: Essai

d'anthropologie symétrique. La Découverte.

Laulusa, L. (2009). Un détour par la Chine pour penser

autrement. L'Expansion Management Review, 133(2),

62-67. https://doi.org/10.3917/emr.133.0062

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning.

Legitimate peripheral participation. University of

Cambridge Press.

McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. (2019). Conducting

Educational Design Research (2nd ed.). Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315105642

McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding Media: The

Extensions of Man. The MIT Press.

CSEDU 2022 - 14th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

652

Murgatroyd, S. (2021). Insight: A Cancelled Future. What’s

Next for Universities and Colleges? In D. Burgos, A.

Tlili, & A. Tabacco (Eds.), Radical Solutions for

Education in a Crisis Context: COVID-19 as an

Opportunity for Global Learning (pp. 307-323).

Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-

15-7869-4_22

NORRAG. (2021). The Geneva Paulo Freire Centenary.

https://www.norrag.org/18-november-2021-the-

geneva-paulo-freire-centenary/

Otto, D., & Kerres, M. (2022). Deconstructing the Virtues

of Openness and its Contribution to Bildung in the

Digital Age. In D. Kergel, M. Paulsen, J. Garsdal, & B.

Heidkamp-Kergel (Eds.), Bildung in the Digital Age:

Exploring Bildung through Digital Media in Education.

Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003158851

Pelluchon, C. (2021). Les Lumières à l'âge du vivant Seuil.

Peter, S., & Deimann, M. (2013). On the role of openness

in education: A historical reconstruction. Open Praxis,

5(1), 7-14.

Peters, M. A., Rizvi, F., McCulloch, G., Gibbs, P., Gorur,

R., Hong, M., Hwang, Y., Zipin, L., Brennan, M.,

Robertson, S., Quay, J., Malbon, J., Taglietti, D.,

Barnett, R., Chengbing, W., McLaren, P., Apple, R.,

Papastephanou, M., Burbules, N., Jackson, L., Jalote,

P., Kalantzis, M., Cope, B., Fataar, A., Conroy, J.,

Misiaszek, G., Biesta, G., Jandrić, P., Choo, S. S.,

Apple, M., Stone, L., Tierney, R., Tesar, M., Besley, T.,

& Misiaszek, L. (2020). Reimagining the new

pedagogical possibilities for universities post-Covid-

19. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 1-44.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1777655

Poulter, M., & Al. (2014 - to present). Open Education

Handbook. Wikibooks. https://en.wikibooks.org/w/

index.php?title=Open_Education_Handbook&oldid=3

468927

Ramose, M. (2015). Ecology through Ubuntu. In R.

Meinhold (Ed.), Environmental Values. Emerging from

Cultures and Religions of the ASEAN Region (pp. 69-

76). Konrad Adenauer Stiftung. http://www.gcrc.au.

edu/pdf/meinhold--2015--environmental_values.pdf

Raucent, B., Mathelart, C., Deville, Y., Docq, F., Jacqmot,

C., & Wouters, P. (2019). Open Education. Quelques

clés pour s’en emparer. Presses universitaires de

Louvain.

Santos, B. d. S. (2016). Epistémologies du Sud :

mouvements citoyens et polémique sur la science.

Desclée de Brouwer.

Santos, B. d. S. (2021). Decolonising the University : the

Challenge of Deep Cognitive Justice. Cambridge

Scholars Publishing.

Schneider, D., Szilas, N., Da Costa, J., Class, B., & Wang

Szilas, J. (2019). Towards a circular economy of

learning environments. EdMedia + Innovate Learning,

Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Stacey, P. (2018). Starting Anew in the Landscape of Open.

https://edtechfrontier.com/2018/02/08/starting-anew-

in-the-landscape-of-open/

Ubuntu. (No date). What is open source?

https://ubuntu.com/community/mission

UNESCO. (2020). Upcoming Decade of Indigenous

Languages (2022 – 2032) to focus on Indigenous

language users’ human rights. https://en.unesco.org/

news/upcoming-decade-indigenous-languages-2022-

2032-focus-indigenous-language-users-human-rights

UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on Open Science.

https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379949.l

ocale=en

Weller, M. (2014). The Battle for Open: How Openness

Won and Why it Doesn’t Feel Like Victory. Ubiquity

Press. https://doi.org/10.5334/bam

Weller, M. (2020). Open and Free Access to Education for

All. In D. Burgos (Ed.), Radical Solutions and Open

Science: An Open Approach to Boost Higher Education

(pp. 1-15). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/

978-981-15-4276-3_1

Wenger-Trayner, E., & Wenger-Trayner, B. (2020).

Learning to Make a Difference: Value Creation in

Social Learning Spaces. Cambridge University Press.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108677431

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning,

Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge University Press.

Wenger, E. (2018). A social theory of learning. In K. Illeris

(Ed.), Contemporary theories of learning. Learning

theorists... In their own words (2nd ed., pp. 219-228).

Routledge.

Wiley, D. (2016). Toward Renewable Assessments.

https://opencontent.org/blog/archives/4691

Open Education: Towards Epistemic Sustainability

653