3.3 OER and Commercial Publishers

Introduction

While the focus of this certificate is on OER, librarians are often interested and instrumental in promoting other affordable coursework options for students. Sometimes this means working with traditional publishers to provide lower-cost access to course materials or connecting faculty with library-licensed material. It can also mean navigating the newly emerging commercial options for finding and using classroom materials that are open or affordable.

OER discussions often will invoke questions about traditional publisher material and its role in reducing student costs. It can be helpful for librarians to know about other options that are available to students and faculty so they can field these questions and provide alternatives for those who are uninterested in or unable to use OER. 

'Openwashing,' 'Openwrapping,' and 'Fauxpen'

As OER gain traction on campuses and attention from the media and government, various products and platforms have emerged that could be considered "open adjacent." Some of these products provide the ancillary materials for open textbooks, some provide an easily searchable platform for faculty to find and use open materials, and some provide lower cost course materials labelled as "inclusive access" or even "open" materials. These products often involve a cost and restricted access to content. It can be challenging to navigate this territory and answer questions your faculty may have about the companies that offer these products.

Audrey Watters Links to an external site. describes openwashing as "having an appearance of open-source and open-licensing for marketing purposes, while continuing proprietary practices." In the open education community, the term is used to describe the use of the word "open" for a product or platform that does not match the definition of open adopted by the open education community (free of cost and openly licensed). Another term used to describe this phenomenon is fauxpen, a term borrowed from the open source community. A similar tactic, called openwrapping, occurs when publishers provide open material along with proprietary content (ancillary materials, data analytics, customer support, etc.) surrounding it. These scenarios are complicated by the fact that the word "open" can be misunderstood or used to mean other things. In some cases, however, publishers may decide to use the language of the open education community to promote their own agenda. Skim through Is This an OER? Addressing the Complex Relationship Between Open and Affordable Course Materials1 Links to an external site. for more thoughtful discussions on what is and is not OER and the differences to be considered and explained. 

It's important for librarians to avoid demonizing campus bookstores and publishers when discussing OER with faculty. Faculty often have relationships with publishers and may have published textbooks themselves with traditional publishers. At the same time, librarians can help faculty avoid unintentionally agreeing to use a product that is misleading or doesn't meet their needs by being aware of these new "open adjacent" efforts, coordinating an institutional response, and being open to a variety of affordability solutions.

One tool some open education advocates have developed for evaluating how well new products or producers of OER are staying true to the perceived values of the open education community is called the CARE Framework Links to an external site.. The framework (Contribute, Attribute, Release, and Empower) provides reminders of what we prioritize in making content open and can therefore be useful, but it's also relatively new and still being evaluated by the OER community. Some have pointed out flaws in its approach (see this blog post by David Wiley Links to an external site.).

Inclusive Access & Subscriptions

One affordability effort gaining traction at many colleges and universities is a publisher program called inclusive access (IA). While they are sometimes called something else (e.g., Digital Direct Access, AutoAccess, Instant Access, etc.), all IA programs allow students to receive digital access to course materials through their course management system on the first day of class. Students can opt out of the program, but if they don't, they're automatically charged for the content, sometimes in the form of a course fee. Because most students don't opt out of IA (and because course materials are only offered in digital format), publishers can charge less for the materials (some tout savings up to 50%-70% off the cost of a new, print textbook).

As the IA model rapidly expands nationwide, student advocates have voiced concerns. And in January 2020, independent bookstores filed a class-action lawsuit2 Links to an external site. against IA publishers Cengage, McGraw-Hill, and Pearson as well as retailers Follett and Barnes & Noble, accusing them of "lining their pockets at the expense of financially-vulnerable college students and the Plaintiff Retailers ... and use of monopoly power to irreparably harm the higher education course materials market by eliminating competition and thereby eliminating any consumer choice."1 For a broader look at the potential pros and cons of IA, also read Inclusive Access: Who, What, When, Where, How, and Why? by Cheryl (Cuillier) Casey. As mentioned in Module 2, SPARC's Landscape Analysis3 and their website devoted to Inclusive Access, InclusiveAccess.org4 (Links to an external site.), also address the risks of inclusive access programs.

Another model to be aware of is Equitable Access Links to an external site., first piloted at the University of California Davis in Fall 2020. UC Davis Stores tell students it's "like Spotify for textbooks." This model charges students a flat fee of $199 per quarter for all textbooks and courseware. Students can opt out. UC Davis Stores say Equitable Access is designed to "reduce inequity among students by eliminating course material access issues, while ensuring that costs are predictable and equal for all undergraduate students." In reality, some students end up paying more than they normally would, while some students pay less (since STEM textbooks tend to cost more than humanities textbooks). UC Davis leverages OER and library-licensed ebooks to lower their costs for Equitable Access. When negotiating with publishers, they tout the benefits of higher sell-through rates, less piracy, and fewer used print books in the market (since digital is the default).

Course material subscriptions are another option being pitched to faculty and administrators. For example, Cengage Unlimited Links to an external site. currently offers students access to its library of online textbooks, homework platforms, and study tools for $119.99 for four months. An institutional plan Links to an external site. is aimed at colleges and universities. These plans raise questions about academic freedom and whether faculty will face pressure to select a certain publisher's course materials.

Is This an OER? Addressing the Complex Relationship Between Open and Affordable Course Materials.

Optional Readings

Footnotes

1. "Is This an OER?" Addressing the Complex Relationship Between Open and Affordable Course Materials Links to an external site.. https://isthisoer.pubpub.org/

2.  Shaak, E. (2020, Jan. 27). Class action says textbook publishers' 'inclusive access' product harms independent booksellers, raises prices for students. ClassAction.org Links to an external site.. https://www.classaction.org/blog/class-action-says-textbook-publishers-inclusive-access-product-harms-independent-booksellers-raises-prices-for-students Links to an external site.

3. "SPARC Landscape Analysis Links to an external site." by Claudio Aspesi et al. is licensed under CC BY 4.0 Links to an external site..

4. "InclusiveAccess.org Links to an external site." is licensed under CC BY 4.0 Links to an external site..

Next

Now that you've learned about OER and commercial publishers, go on to test your understanding with a self test by selecting the Next button below.