I’m still learning what the Open Source movement means for software development. As you’ve seen recently, though, what really intrigues me is the implications that the movement holds for writing instruction, and for writing in general. Consider: Collin versus Blog has lately raised the questions of authenticity and originality in relation to making collaboration visible, and Derek at Earth Wide Moth has recently queried similar issues in regard to the question of plagiarism versus the internet’s realtime anxiety of influence. I might suggest that the questions both authors raise will generate a whole lot of controversy, and I’m not sure where I stand — but I do have a sense of where that controversy’s coming from.
That controversy comes from a nearly universal conception of what an author does, and the connection of that understanding to the singular (romantic?) individual. As Clancy has lately pointed out, Charlie Lowe is leading the way among folks in the field of technology and writing in considering the theoretical ramifications of open-source ideologies. So, too, many of us have followed on Kairosnews and elsewhere the applications of weblogs in the classroom.
But my question (which I hope might interest Chris Worth, and Clancy Ratliff, and Charlie Lowe, and Torill Mortensen, and Gerry Gleason, and others) would be: how do open-source standards change the way we teach writing? What does the open-source model do to our understandings of plagiarism? How might we productively re-imagine the ownership and circulation of writing in the academy? Ultimately, who owns the writing that students produce — and why?
And here’s my proposition: we know that the open-source model works with software development. But I don’t know of any writing teacher who’s used it as a model to give a syllabus a serious go, in a large-scale way. This may be because we haven’t quite gotten to the point of trying it out ourselves. So: what if there were a closed-end publication project, say with an end date of six months from now, in which an open group of writers collaborated on a reflexive essay to justify open-source pedagogical methods, in an essay to be submitted to a major peer-reviewed publication?
Can this be done? Can a group of peers write an essay like they can write Perl?
And are you interested?
Interested? Absolutely.
I think these questions are damnably hard to answer, because they’re outside the realm of my/our experience with teaching heretofore. On one hand, my syllabuses, handouts, etc. are considered (protected) work product (by most) no matter how I choose to publicize/circulate them.
I’d wager, (on the other hand) though, that we all, in adapting and refining materials from colleagues and mentors, have operated as though teaching materials are de facto open source.
Your last question? The students own the writing they produce. So does the institution as CVS repository; so too the community. Okay…I’m excited by this prospect. Sign me up.
Very interesting, but I think I come from such a different environment than the Americans that it will be hard to know what we are talking about.
What do you mean, open source? Isn’t it open source? Everything but what I produce for publication or my lectures – which have a quite different format than that of US lectures – is the result of cooperation. I can’t make a syllabus and claim it as mine, once it’s accepted it is part of the common property of the college and so of the Norwegian Educational Community. If somebody wants to, they can grab it and teach it, as is, somewhere else, now that there is no more state control of educational expansion in Norway. (there is on quality, but not on expansion).
As for students work: they come in different categories. Their exams are protected, some are not public, others are registered and treated as publications. Their work for the practical classes are partly open, partly the property of the businesses or charities they do work for.
This is the present. How it can change to be more open? It would be interesting to find out!
Open source (which loosely means access to the source code of a program) in the technology world is not purely about collaboration. In fact, one of the main purpose (that drives open source into the coporate world at least) is actually safety. Most companies couldnt care less about GPL, LGPL, BSD-type licence. A quick example will make this clear.
Assume that you wrote a book using a program X. Now 6 months later, you have some technical problem with X. You cant open your files. At the same time, the company that mades X has gone bankrupt or the comapny has moved on to another product and has stopped supporting X. Without access to the source code, you cant pay someone to fix the problem. You book becomes a bunch of electronic gibberish. What are you going to do?
Now think about how much data/records a company has. Without open source, companies will run the risk mentioned above, only with much dire results. (there are legal solutions to this but they are messy.) In fact, lots of company data today is still store in ascii (found when you write something in Microsoft notepad) because every program in to world can be modified to read ascii text.
Since this problem doesnt happen in writing, the only driving force is collaboration. This happens in software as well. However, successful open source software usually solve some common problem. Thus collaboration occurs in software to leverage each others experience and skills.
This parallel doesnt occur in writing. There isnt a “common problem” (unless one is writing an encyclopedia) which any one piece of writing hopes to solve. We read another persons work to learn from their style or benefit from their ideas. Due to a lack of a common problem, collaboration on a single piece of writing doesnt seem as fruitful as reading and incorporating themes, ideas, etc into our own. People already share ideas in say a sequel to Gone with the Wind or something based on Tom Sawyer. Doubtful we will have anyone adding 3 additional chapters to Gone with the Wind anytime soon.
I’d like to take part in a project like the one you’ve described, Mike. “Open source” is a phrase that I’ve been throwing around more and more, especially as I understand it (loosely, of course) to refer to material content with a complicated, unprotected, origin–“complicated” in the sense that the tidy, one-author dynamic does not apply, as it can be endlessly revised. I think I understand how the term has been used for some time in relation to programming code; effectively, it protects the code as a commodity, ensuring access and alteration, underscoring ownership and the rights that come with controlling private property. In textual terms, it is insurance against the “Death of the Author,” insomuch as fiddling with the author’s design is necessary down the line, post-production. For co-dependent software makers, this is a “safety,” as p-through says. It renders the roots visible, malleable, and wards off the evil spirits of financial woe–collapse brought about by protected, closed code. For writing in the academy, the phrase “open source” applies a bit differently, I think, which is why I’m trying, here, to work through my understanding of the terms.
How might we productively re-imagine the ownership and circulation of writing in the academy?
The re-imagining of curriculum-sharing–team teaching where we’re all on the team (even though we haven’t met, in a traditional sense)–and new visions for large-scale collaborative research efforts are already taking shape, and it’s an exciting, provocative transformation, which is exactly why it ought to be talked about, studied, written about. Mike’s question, here italicized, reminded me of Andrea Lunsford’s essay on “Refiguring the PhD in English (PDF),” (available from OSU’s web site or at the Carnegie Foundation site, with others) in which she issues a clear, compelling suggestion for working together to undertake that which we cannot do alone. Electronic media have enabled us to peel away the insulation, even if felt only at certain times (30R in my windowless work-space, thicker than in the attic at home). Another example of re-imagining-in-action is Palimpsest, George Williams’ (et. al.) site for sharing teaching resources. Don’t know if it’s large-scale yet, but it is evidence of the shift many of us are feeling.
When I was adviser to our student newspaper, I had the editorial board write a holiday editorial by assigning a paragraph to each member of the board. The final result required very little editing. In other classes, we produce the collaborative sonnet. So I know this can work. There’s a deeper coherence in discourse than we usually recognize because most of us have been imbued with the romanticism of “I”.
Here’s my take on applying the open source concept to the work of composition teaching, one that might fit Mike’s proposed project. In theory, the first course in college composition is universal, interchangeable, and comparable. Most of us teach it now or have taught it. The course transfers from institution to institution as soon as it’s recognized as “first course, first-year comp”. So could a group of us create a common syllabus for that course, one we could each teach at our own institutions and one which we would each regard as meeting disciplinary and personal standards? I’d be interested in a project like that. How close is that to your idea, Mike?
Hey, there is at least one somewhat collaborative syllabus that I know of. You might have known about that one but just not considered it to be large-scale.
Sure, I’ll consider the collaboration. I’d definitely like to hear more about the idea.
Clancy, John, Derek, Torill, Chris: thanks very much for the feedback. My extended response is here.
We recently got a new interim director of first-year comp at the University of South Florida and he is trying to encourage faculty and TAs to work on a syllabus for first year comp in a wiki space. The idea being that it would be a large collaborative space. I think I’m going to encourage him to consider feedback from first year students as well. I like the idea of an open-source collaborative syllabus.
Pingback:sources