The Open Education Consortium: A Review of the Literature

What this review can and cannot do

This article is a guide to the published material about the Open Education Consortium, written with restraint. It does not cite individual papers, quote authors or give statistics, because doing so accurately requires checking the originals, and inventing detail would be worse than saying less. What it offers instead is a description of what the organization is generally understood to be, the kinds of sources that exist about it, and how to read them.

This site is independent and not affiliated with the Consortium or any other organization. Anything you plan to rely on, such as membership terms or current activities, should be confirmed from the organization’s own current materials.

What it is generally understood to be

The Open Education Consortium is described as an international membership network connected with open education. Its roots are generally traced to the OpenCourseWare Consortium, a group of institutions and organizations that published course materials openly, which was formed in the mid-2000s. Over time the scope widened from open courseware to open educational resources, open teaching practices and related policy discussion. The organization has also operated under related names, and the date and nature of name changes are worth confirming in its own records.

Members have typically included universities, colleges, libraries, associations and other bodies, along with individuals, across several regions. The network is generally described as supporting its members through events, communication, shared projects and a community of people working on open education. Exact membership numbers, fees, structure and activities have changed over time and should be taken from a dated, authoritative source.

The kinds of sources that exist

Material about a membership network of this kind tends to fall into a few types. Knowing which type you are reading matters, since each answers different questions.

Organisational publications. Websites, annual reports, newsletters, conference programs and press statements come from the organization itself. They are useful for stated aims, activities and events. They are not independent evaluations, and they naturally present the organization favorably.

Conference and workshop papers. Presentations at events about open education often describe projects by members. They can give a useful sense of what the community is working on, though quality varies and not all are peer reviewed.

Academic articles. Researchers study open education in journals, and the Consortium may appear as context, as a site of research, or occasionally as the main subject. The strength of such work depends on its methods: how data was collected, how many people were involved, and whether claims go beyond what the data shows.

Policy and agency reports. International and national bodies discuss open education in reports that sometimes mention networks like this one as part of the landscape. These are useful for context but usually not focused on any one organization.

News and commentary. Blog posts, opinion pieces and press coverage can be informative but are often brief and sometimes repeat claims without checking them.

What sources can reasonably support

Taking these together, the following kinds of statement are usually well supported by public sources: that the network exists and has members; roughly what it says its goals are; that it holds meetings and publishes material; and that it grew from open courseware work. These are descriptive claims about structure and intent.

Several other kinds of statement are harder to support, and a careful reader should be wary of them:

• Impact claims. Statements that the network increased access, saved students money or improved outcomes require evidence that can separate the network’s effect from many other factors. Networks coordinate and communicate; direct effects on learners are difficult to attribute and are rarely measured cleanly.
• Size claims. Counts of members, resources or users depend on definitions and dates, and often come from the organization itself.
• Comparative claims. Saying it is the largest or most influential of its kind requires a defined comparison and independent data.
• Causal histories. Statements that the network caused a particular policy or the adoption of a license need documentary evidence, not just proximity in time.

Questions to ask of any source

1. Who wrote it, and what is their relationship to the organization?
2. When was it published, and is the information still current?
3. Is the claim descriptive, such as what the network does, or evaluative, such as how well it works?
4. If numbers are given, what do they count, and where do they come from?
5. Is there independent confirmation from a source with no stake in the answer?
6. Does the source distinguish plans and aspirations from achievements?

Applying these questions often shows how much of what is written about an organization rests on its own statements. That is not a fault, but it should be recognized.

Gaps in the literature

For networks like this one, a few gaps are common. Independent evaluations are fewer than descriptions. Studies of what members actually gain are sparse. Long-term records are patchy, since websites change and older material disappears. And much of the writing is in English, which may under-represent activity elsewhere.

These gaps are normal for organizations whose main work is connecting people, and they do not mean the network is ineffective. They mean that confident claims about its effect should be treated as unproven unless backed by solid data.

Using this when you write or research

If you need to cite or describe the Consortium, a safe approach is to state what it says about itself, attribute that to its own materials, give dates, and avoid claims about impact unless you have a source that supports them. Where the organization is mentioned in academic work, read the method section to see how much weight the finding can bear. And remember that membership networks change, so anything you read should be checked against the current position before you rely on it.