Group Admins
Description
Session Description
Four sets of ‘knowledge management’ resources present perspectives on openness in remote Australian Aboriginal contexts. These different forms of open ask:
‘For who are these open and in what ways are they successful?
Each case provides an opportunity to critically reflect on our expectations of open knowledge practices, how we value knowledge and how different knowledge systems might practice and experience openness.
The interdisciplinary setting for the cases positions this study of openness in a non-exclusively education one; one which embodies and expansive definition of OEP ( Cronin and MacLaren, 2018). Each set was a result of public policy participatory action research projects with local, federal, Aboriginal and scientific governing bodies and organisations.
They are :
PreVET : Openly available online resources showcasing Aboriginal role models describing their workplace competencies.
Djurrwirr: Traditional Ecological Knowledge on citizen science open platforms – implications for cultural risks and learning design.
Learner-Created OER with remote Aboriginal fisheries and aquaculture enterprise development from The East Arnhem Indigenous Fisheries Training Framework .
The Plant Biosecurity Cooperative Research Centre’s Indigenous Engagement Model; connecting remote Aboriginal Knowledge Authorities to federal and territory government and Agricultural scientists and plant health policy makers.
Since the last presentation of this research, the study has progressed to evaluate the development and performance of these cases and will describe the ways they manifest Openness; and how we could continue to improve design and practice of managing diverse knowledges.
Emergent findings from analysis point to practical principles for functional engagement in OEP for diverse knowledge cohorts. Findings also promote what ‘OPEN’ can mean and how it might be performed in different cultural contexts.
The ways in which the resources are open as knowledge practices, and whether this is ‘functionally open’ according to criteria measuring theoretical (Critical Social theory; Freire, Habermas), evaluation framework (Commonwealth of Learning, Fred Hollows Cultural Protocols, JISC OER Evaluation, OERHUB Ethics )and decolonising (Synthesized Criteria including Smith’s Decolonising Methodologies) elements of the resources are explored.
References
Selected References:
Funk, J. (forthcoming, 2019) Open for Who? Open Practices with Remote Indigenous Workforce Development. Submission of Doctoral Thesis by Publication at Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Australia.
Funk, J., Guthadjaka, K. & Kong, G. (2015). Posting Traditional Ecological Knowledge on Open Access Biodiversity Platforms: Implications for Learning Design. Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 44(02), 150-162.
Djurrwirr Page: http://www.bowerbird.org.au/projects/1153/sightings
Funk, J., Worthington, S., & Price-Wynter, L. (2016). Using evaluation and participatory action research methods to develop an eLearning resource. Sage Research Methods.doi: 10.4135/978144627305015595368
Funk, J. & Worthington, S. (2014). Collaborative Learning Pathways: Supporting Students Where they are in the PreVET Project. International Journal of Diversity in Education, 13(2),105-14.
PreVET Resources: http://prevet.net.au/
Indigenous Engagement Model: http://www.cdu.edu.au/northern-institute/building-resilience-aboriginal-indigenous-engagement-model
Stagg, A., Nguyen, L., Bossu, C., Funk, J., Partridge, H., & Judith, K. (2018). Open Educational Practices in Australia: A first-phase national audit of higher education. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning.
Wallace and Funk (2016) Development of the East Arnhem Fisheries Network Training Framework. Fisheries Research and Development Corporation.
Student Created OER: https://vimeo.com/album/4304396
Training Framework : https://indigenousfisheriestrainingframework.wordpress.com/
