Reflective Summary: Topic 5

Researching and blogging for this topic has been a real eyeopener.

Having chosen to take a slightly alternative approach from the ideas presented, by focussing on the online press as opposed to academic research, I think I shed a new light on the issue. That isn’t to say, however, that similar issues did not arise.

Olivia, in her blog post, brought up the innovative concept of OERs, which offer the amazing opportunity for people in third world countries to have free education via the Internet.

But she concluded that the future of this concept is at risk due to research costs, stating, quite rightly, that ‘academics need to make a living’. Can the quality and quantity of research be maintained if people aren’t paid for licensing it? Perhaps not.

My own research suggests that online press is facing a very similar problem. While in the first few years of the Internet newspapers were very keen to get their content up online, they are now struggling with the lack of profit from free online content, which has already led to some publications generating paywalls.

But paywalls come with problems. It means not only less readers but also only a select type of reader. Indeed, a paper behind a paywall is not reaching to the masses, which is what journalism should be doing.

Paszcza then came up with a concept I hadn’t been aware of- crowdfunding journalism. He suggested that, in the same way that the music industry has adapted to the situation through Spotify, the problem of free access to online press could be solved by giving its paying customers an opportunity to co-create articles and have influence on the website.

This, I believe, could be the way forward, and could equally be a solution to Olivia’s dilemma with OERs, with a system whereby people pay a sum of money and in turn can have a say in what is taught.

I’m not saying this would work perfectly. There are risks that the publication or OER site could become too manipulated by paying customers, and of course the risk that they wouldn’t get enough backers.

However, if carried out correctly, the concept certainly has potential.

As Sarah communicated in her blog post, academics- along with journalists and musicians- ultimately want their content read and heard. They don’t want to lose out on exposure because people have to pay.

But the bottom line is, everyone needs to make a living, and to claim that we must get everything for free online, just like that, would be very naïve.

Nonetheless I am optimistic that, with a little innovation and entrepreneurial skill, we will find a solution to the problem.

#OpenAccess