Hi Ken, Good questions.
I'd like to add into the mix Elinor Ostrom's 2X2 matrix classification between rivalrous versus nonrivalrous and excludable versus non excludable goods. (Frome Governing the Commons, 1990).
See for example:
Rivalrous versus non-rivalrous goods 1 and
Excludable versus non-excludable 2 goods.
The matrix then classifies for types of goods:
- Common-pool resource (i.e non-excludable and rivalrous - eg the classic tragedy of the grazing commons, and a hard copy library book. When one patron has the book, another patron cannot take the book out at the same time)
- private goods (i.e. excludable and rivalrous - eg commercially sold book)
- toll good (i.e. excludable and non-rivalrous - eg paid subscription to an online journal. Digital copies are infinitely accessible)
- public good (i.e. non-excludable and non-rivalrous eg knowledge or free content.)
The point being that content can assume different forms and depending on how the content is stored (hard copy versus digital) and the licensing that is used (excludable versus non-excludable) will determine whether the same content is for example a private good or public good.
Consequently I think we need to think about different resourcing models and a range of value propositions depending on where the content sits in this 2X2 matrix.
Without going into too much detail - I think that there are things we can do to think differently about resourcing content in education. For example, the most significant cost driver in developing high quality asynchronous learning materials is the academic authoring time. By sharing development cost over many institutions, the development of free content (public good resources) can lower the current costs of production for individual institutions. Savings in cost of production is a mechanism to resource more free content development.
- 1051 reads
