International Journal of Open Educational Resources Volume 2, Issue 1, Fall 2019/Winter 2020 | Page 62

International Journal of Open Educational Resources
40). In order for the widespread adoption
of OER to take place, there needs to
be both diffusion through social channels
and a supportive external environment.
For example, as individual faculty
members adopt and recommend OER
to their peers, the use of OER will likely
gain greater acceptance on campus.
Likewise, as institutional resources are
allocated to OER programs, faculty and
support staff will be better positioned to
advance OER adoption.
In their influential article on innovation
in higher education, Christensen
and Eyring (2012) described
the disruption of digital learning innovations
in traditional classroom university
instruction. While they do not
address OER specifically in their article,
they highlight the necessity of cultivating
an environment to incentivize
and support faculty in adopting innovative
teaching and scholarship practices.
They state that “no meaningful
discussion of change can be undertaken
without assurances ... of supportive success
measures” (Christensen & Eyring,
2012, p. 52). In other words, in order for
large-scale change to take place, there
needs to be a support network in place
to minimize risks and to lead the way in
a substantial change. In the case of OER
adoption, having a team in place to support
the selection, revision, adoption,
and assessment of OER efforts can help
ameliorate anxieties stemming from
changes that innovation brings.
Strategic planning and OER
As documented in discussions of
change management, institutional commitment
to OER adoption takes time
and a significant amount of resources.
Because OER intersects with many
departments and centers on campus,
stakeholders can include faculty, staff,
and administrators from the Library, IT
Services, Teaching and Learning Center,
campus bookstore, Academic Success
Center, Provost and Dean’s offices,
Faculty Senate, the Office of Institutional
Advancement, and other campus
centers (Cummings-Sauls, Ruen, Beaubien,
& Smith, 2018; Doan, 2017; Ivie &
Ellis, 2018; Reed & Jahre, 2019). In addition,
campus attitudes towards OER
may vary greatly from institution to institution
depending on whether there is
top-down support for OER, or whether
interest is initiated from a grassroots
campaign (Amaral, 2018; Dean, 2018;
Hanley & Bonilla, 2016; Rolfe & Fowler,
2012; Stagg et al., 2018). How can strategic
planning help account for these
variables and advance the work of local
OER initiatives?
While not as extensive as scholarship
on OER perceptions and implementation,
the literature on OER
strategic planning and leadership
practices offers valuable direction for
those launching a new OER initiative
and for those seeking greater structure
and vision (Judith & Bull, 2016; Jung,
Bauer, & Heaps, 2017b; Reed & Jahre,
2019; Role & Fowler, 2012; Shu-Hsiang,
Jaitip, & Ana, 2015; Walz, 2015). In
their discussion of OER implementation,
Judith and Bull (2016) presented
four different models along a continuum
of scale, including 1) individual, 2)
programmatic, 3) institutional, and 4)
networks. They emphasize how risks
54