title: authorsbusiness-school.open.ac.uk/sites/business-school... · with an overview of oer,...
TRANSCRIPT
Title: Exploring Value and Values through Openness: Third Sector Partnerships
approach to free open online Education as a Public Good
Authors:
Ronald Macintyre, Open Educational Practices Scotland, the Open University in
Scotland; Open University Business School
Claire Hewitt, Parkinson’s UK
Abstract
This paper explores a partnership between a Scottish Government programme to raise
awareness and develop capacity in the creation and use of free open online education
materials (OER), Open Educational Practices Scotland (OEPS), and Parkinson’s UK
a Third Sector organisation which works to improve the lives of people with
Parkinson’s. The partnership has designed and produced a series of badged open
online courses aimed at Health and Social Care (HSC) staff. The paper focuses on
one created for front line staff, sharing what we learnt about what design based
approaches can contribute as explorers of “Public Value” (e.g. Moore 1995).
Those accessing OER tend to be the educational haves, in addressing this OEPS has
applied “what works” in Widening Participation (WP), seeking partnership with
organisations who are “trusted sources of support” with “shared values” to explore the
OER role in creating learning journeys for those distanced from education (Macintyre
and Cannell 2017). Parkinson’s UK have online and face to face programmes.
However, as demand outstripped capacity, they wanted to use OER as a way to
explore whether and how people would engage with open online learning. We suggest
the creation of OER to outside formal curriculum suggests an absence, structural holes
which are being filled by a values led organisation.
Influenced by work on participatory design, and design thinking approaches which
focus on value (Dorst 2011; Cross 2006) the partners treated these questions as a
complex adaptive problem. Through workshops we looked at the value we wanted to
create for the learners, for the people the learners cared for, and how this created
values of each partner. In the paper we look at what this meant on a practical level,
exploring the role of design based approaches in shaping our exploration of Public
Value. In particular, we reflect on the use of a Public Value models as heuristics
devices to frame messy real world problems. Suggesting this would provide a useful
avenue for future research.
Keywords: Third Sector, Open Education, Design Thinking, Public Value
1. Introduction
This paper explores a partnership between a Scottish Government programme to raise
awareness and develop capacity in the creation and use of free open online education
materials (OER), Open Educational Practices Scotland (OEPS) hosted by the OU in
Scotland, and Parkinson’s UK a Third Sector organisations which looks to improve the
lives of people with Parkinson’s. The partnership has designed and produced a series
of badged open online courses aimed at people with caring roles. The paper focuses
on one created for front line care staff. It reflects on the role of the Third Sector as
education provider filling “structural holes”, and on OER as a public good. Sharing
what we learnt about what design based approaches can contribute to an
understanding of “Public Value” (e.g. Moore 1995) by values based organisations.
Which we understand as how one crafts a position between what the public values
and what is valuable to the public (Bennington 2009), with all the ambiguity this implies.
These questions of Public Value and leadership are approached indirectly, through a
practice based approach to surfacing and addressing an issue, how to draw in those
distanced from education. It approaches them through acting in the world, treating it
as a design problem. Thus the paper begins with these issues, drawing out Public
Value and leadership based on the process and the outcomes of the process. It starts
with an overview of OER, exploring the challenges associated with developing free
open online materials and questions around to what degree they are a public good. It
then looks at design based approaches, and reflects on their use and usefulness in
structuring the search for Public Value for values based organisations. The paper then
looks specifically at our shared work created an OER on Parkinson’s care for front line
health and social care staff, looking at what this design approach meant in and for
practice. This paper attempts to capture the design process as it emerges through and
is developed in relation to practice.
2. Open Educational Resources and Public Good
Open Educational Resources (OER) are free open online materials, typically they are
licensed under creative commons, and afford learners and educators a series of
freedoms, OEPS working definition of OER is:
“… is grounded in established notions of openly licensed content. We have a specific
focus on freedoms afforded by openly licensing content (allowing “The 5 Rs”: retain,
reuse, revise, remix, redistribute) and the degree to which design development and
distribution accounts for equity and openness.”1
The sense that OER has the potential to democratise access to Higher Education (HE)
level learning is in a constant state of becoming. For example reports like “the
Avalanche” is coming (Barber et.al 2013) suggesting that low cost MOOC models are
acting as a disruptive innovation within English HE has been just about to happen for
some time. Focussing on the technology obscures other more fundamental
challenges to HE in high fee jurisdictions. In particular for teaching led providers with
a background in drawing in those distanced from education. For example, the Open
1 From https://oepscotland.org/about/definitions/ last accessed 15th of March 2017
University who look to maintain their focus on those most distanced from education as
the political and economic support for those activities is withdrawn, and education is
becoming increasingly seen as a positional good.
It is easy to point at the failure of MOOCs to disrupt established models. However,
advocates of OER also need to look carefully at the promises this movement has
made, it is in danger of becoming and revolution that is always in a state of being, just
about to happen. While the promise of OER has been about broadening the socio-
economic base of those accessing HE level learning, the reality has been somewhat
different. Most of those accessing and using OER are the educational haves, people
with experience of HE (Cannell 2016), leading some prominent people in the field to
ask, if this is the answer, was the problem how can well educated middle class people
access free CPD (Laurillard 2014)? Thus, rather than disrupting and democratising
education OER often embed inequities, with MOOCs themselves as positional good
in CPD, and the dominant names in OER established education providers.
For many in the OER community this has become a hidden presence, and dissonance
between the promises and reality challenges individual and shared values. More
recently some within the OER community have come to question the focus on OER
as a technical question of how to enable things to be more open, and instead posed it
as a complex adaptive problem; what does openness enable? This “practice turn” has
seen a shift from the affordances of the digital objects to an emphasis on the
educational practices that inform design, production and use. OEPS has both emerged
from and driven this agenda.
The project was asked specifically by the Scottish Government to explore the skewed
socio-economic base of those using OER. It did this through applying approaches from
Widening Participation (WP) more generally, to the problem of access and
participation through open online courses. WP practitioners commonly draw a
distinction between access and participation. For example you can make education
more accessible by putting courses online or by creating more funded places, but in
practice this rarely does anything to broaden the participation from underrepresented
groups in society. WP practices are concerned with recognising the socio-economic
and structural inequalities that constrain the freedom to access and participate in
education, and developing practices to support people on their journeys (Cannell and
Macintyre 2017). Partnership is a key component in WP practice (Fuller et.al 2011),
working with those organisations within whom those distanced from learning have
existing relationships, and through this developing routes into learning. For OEPS
these partnerships, often with Third Sector organisations, became a key component
of how the project approached the question of WP and OER.
3. Third Sector Partners and Parkinson’s UK
In the UK the role of Third Sector organisations has changed significantly over the last
three decades, many have gone from being issue based advocacy organisations, to
delivering services. From campaigning on behalf of neglected groups, to delivering
services to them often on behalf of government. Much has been written about the
effect that this “contract culture” had on these organisations (Lyon and Fernandez
2012), from questions around the application of private sector business models, to
questions of leadership, founder effects and emerging scholarship on the role of them
in delivering Social or Public Value on behalf of the state (Lyon and Blundel 2012;
Lyon and Fernandez 2012; Gawell 2013). Many of these organisations have
highlighted and then become part of Governments approach to filling structural holes
in public service provision. These phenomena are particularly relevant in Health and
Social Care (HSC), where state and Third Sector actors and organisations often work
closely together to support each other and their clients. Parkinson’s UK’s vision is to
find a cure and improve life for everyone affected by Parkinson’s. In order to improve
life for everyone affected by Parkinson’s we need to influence and enable best practice
in health and social care. This is best achieved by providing tools, information and
education, most importantly open education.
Through their development of a Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) to support
Parkinson’s UK Excellence Network role in meeting the needs of practitioners
Parkinson’s UK had already been exploring online. They had shifted from a
“traditional” model of direct face to face training to a cascade model of training the
trainers and providing high quality materials to support individuals and groups.
However, this model can’t reach all frontline health and social care staff due to its own
capacity limits and barriers constraints within organisations where learners work.
Having created a VLE Parkinson’s UK wanted to do more, they saw OER as a way
expand their reach beyond the formal VLE, and to learn from OEPS about the design
of online learning materials to inform practice on their own VLE. The initial pilot with
OEPS looked at how to develop a resource for front line staff, staff who are often poorly
paid, part time may be in insecure employment. OEPS experience of working with
those distanced from learning, suggested shared values, and shaped the partnership
and the approach, which we explore in more detail below.
4. Designing for Openness
Authors like Roger Martin and designers like Tim Brown from IDEO have done much
to popularise design approaches and “Design Thinking” within the business
community (see Brown and Martin 2015 in the HBR) and in public services (IDEO is
particularly focussed on this area). Their conception of design is as a balance between
what is feasible, acceptable and desirable, with the designers working to fulfil the
desires within what is politically, economically, socially, technically feasible and
acceptable. In some ways the pull of these aspects produces creative tension, and in
early iterations of our own approach (Macintyre 2015a; 2015b) we made the explicit
link to Grants (2010) work on Key Success Factors in the Resource Based View (RBV,
resources and capabilities, stakeholders, what it takes to succeed in the market) this
was seen as useful, in particular exploring how capabilities arise and how they change.
However, the approach described in this paper here draws on a slightly different
conception, drawn from the origins of Design Thinking in Scandinavian Participatory
Design movements.
Participatory movements in design are concerned with allowing people ownership of
process. The original work in Scandinavian was with Trade Unions, and looked at
involving workers in the design of processes, flows on the shop floor and products
(Gregory 2003). Later this spilled over into customer involvement in designing
products. It also shifted focus to communities and participation, how to design
participatory process (Bjongvinsson et.al 2012), and into work that reflected on
designerly ways of knowing (Cross 2006).Those ways of knowing are concerned with
process, issues are surfaced through iterations. The issues raised by focusing on the
needs of a target audience who are typically non-traditional learners meant adapting
process’s considerably through the partnership. Indeed the commonality between
questions of value in design and discourses on Public and Social value arose as it
became apparent the clumsy solutions and language we had arrived at to frame our
approach mirrored more formal discourses in the management literature. As in the
debates around social and public values, when something is made (in this instance a
course) it is tempting to simply evaluate or judge the outcome. However, design work
and research suggests outcomes are inscribed with the process, and dependent on
the care and attention taken to those outcomes during the process. In this sense it has
more in common with work on value and how we understand the value of things
explored in the craft literature (e.g. Gell 1992), where design is a not about following
prescribed steps to a known outcome, but about holding both the end and the means
together, and carefully examining then as you turn them over in your hand.
The focus on process has much in common with action research where the focus is
on practical problems solved through doing (Kemmis 2010). However, what design
emphasises is the unsteady nature of what is done, the need to frame and reframe in
relation to established and developing heuristics. It is concerned with making these
heuristics visible and reflecting on the application and types of reasoning used in
practice. For example, this focus on being a reflective practitioner, reflection in and
on practice (see Dewey 2012; Schon 1983), was common ground for partners. HSC
as a discipline is concerned with reflective practice, it is one of the stories it tells about
itself. The importance of these shared stories as ways of expressing identity and
values of organisations are concerned with “what we do around here”. This means
when design based approaches, with their necessary focus on process, are applied to
practical issues in organisations there is a need to attend to these narratives, as part
of your own role as a professional (Ramsey 2005a; 2005b), and as part of what it
means to research organisations (see Tsoukas and Hatch 2001). In addition,
designerly ways of approaching this provides an answer to questions around how to
structure to action research, and acknowledge the collaborative nature of inquiries
(Burns 2014), and the challenge of speaking about the everyday while surfacing the
taken for granted (Cuncliffe and Bell 2016).
Based on descriptive accounts of what designers do, and often informed by the need
to support design in formal and informal environments, Cross and Dorst (2001; also
Dorst 2011) have begun to create normative accounts of what designers should do.
They suggest seeing design as an equation, an adapted version is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Value Design Equation (based on Dorst and Cross 2001 and Dorst 2011)
Designers should focus on what is to be transformed, how is it being transformed, and
the value they want to create. They employ this simple approach because they are
interested in the types of reasoning employed. Examples of the different forms of
reasoning based on what is known and unknown are shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Reasoning and Problem Solving in Design (based on Dorst and Cross 2001 and Dorst 2011)
For those developing open learning materials the question of what is known about the
learner is an important one. Learning is not a service or product in any conventional
sense, it is itself a transformation process, one that requires work from the learner,
and requires the learner to have the appropriate skills to perform the work (Macintyre
2016a). Thus how it is transformed is not simply a matter for the organisation and the
alignment of its resources and capabilities but also a question of the learner. In addition
Value(s)
[personal, professional,
organisational]
What is Transformed
[Learners]
How it is to be tranformed
[the learning journey]
the value of the learning experience only comes into being when enacted by the
learner. When it used in practice, for example to get or in the case of the course in
this paper to better at your role. The value for the learner is uncertain and dependent
on a series of unknowns.
The value for the organisation looking to deliver Public Value through learning journeys
inscribed with their values is unstable. There is the need to “know the learner”, but
there is also the complex landscape of other actors, these contextual factors and their
variations also create uncertainty. The uncertainty around how value is created in
ways that align with organisational values and promote social or public values means
there is a need to question assumptions. For example, the form of OERs tends to be
shaped by the individuals producing them and the organisational culture from which
they arise, work on Higher Education has found they tend to make openness in their
own image (Macintyre 2013). As a result embedded assumptions about what it means
to develop learning in the formal sector are imprinted in the informal sector. These
heuristics can act as hidden barriers for those distanced from education (Macintyre
2016a). These are simply questions about “how we do things around here”, what a
design approach provides is a structured approach to those inquiries. Cross and Dorst
(2001; also Dorst 2011) talk about the importance of framing, how our frame moves
across the series of known and unknowns, seeking to clarify elements, then working
from a known point framing it in different ways. In this section we have suggested
developing learning is not a simple matter of reasoning from a set of knowns, but
instead involves a complex set of process where the problem is framed in different
ways across a series of knowns and unknowns. In that sense how learning creates
value is a “Wicked Problem”, our solutions clumsy, and often involving the kind of
abductive reasoning found in complex adaptive problems (see Table 1, also
Buchannan 1992; Heifetz et.al 2009), the implications for leadership and considered
in the conclusion.
5. Reflections on our Practice
Parkinson’s UK aim to support people with Parkinson’s and they have a set of values
that underpin their mission, their contribution to Public Value is based on those values.
In order for them to align organisational values with the outcomes for people with
Parkinson’s the educational materials they create need to support learners to develop
them and put them into practice. The partnership focussed on creating a course for
from line HSC staff on “Parkinson’s Awareness”, a course that would explore the issue
they might encounter in their role and through exploring those issues improve the car
and support offered to people with Parkinson’s and their families2. For the materials
to inspire those values in learners the partners felt there was a need to go beyond
telling, beyond simply communicating what the organisation knew about Parkinson’s
care, to a focus on doing. This practical focus was part of the face to face programme,
the question was how to support this approach online and in the open.
2 The materials are hosted on the OU platform OpenLearnCreate, see here http://www.open.edu/openlearncreate/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=77560
Having framed the problem as one of practice with the value assessed in relation to
how well the open online journey supported and developed good practice. We had a
known point, a value, and the emergence of how to approach the journey. It needed
to be constructed in such a way that it supported practice. Front line staff in HSC are
familiar with the idea of keeping log books or records of patients, so this familiar
elements of work practice became a component of the course, developing a series of
structured inquiries and reflective practice exercises which asked them to reflect on
their practice in relation to the materials and record them in a reflective journal. As a
solution, how did it come to be selected, in part it became one of the ways we framed
how because it was also familiar to the partners. It is a common approach in HSC
(and indeed education) and part of these disciplines sense of who they are and the
values they support.
In the three linked interviews with six participants we found the open online element
was grounded in the everyday by the familiarity of the reflective logs. The approach
seemed to speak directly to their personal and professional identities, The use of
“people like them” to show, rather than tell, about Parkinson’s care drew in question
of affect, with participants making a connection between the case studies and their
own personal and professional experiences. While this is of interest to designers of
online learning, for Parkinson’s UK “the test” is improving the care of people with
Parkinson's. In the evaluation of the small pilot participants did talk about “seeing” in
a different way, of feeling a sense of confidence, of being better advocates for the
people they support within broader care networks. It was these affective issues and
the fact that people were taking the materials to work with them that led us to change
the way we framed the activities, changing the course to emphasise the learning
community as one which reached out from the online into the physical spaces they
occupy. It was our sense the learners would cascade the learning through the
workplace through good practice, as this was what Parkinson’s UK evaluation of face
to face programmes suggested. In some ways this occurred. For example, one of the
interviewees did hold a senior post, the material led them to realise the local lacked
the differentiated professional roles and experts available to others. Their reflections
were pragmatic, given these constraints what can be done to build capacity in locale
and promote resilience. However, most other participants spoke about what their own
inability to enact change. Most were front line staff operating in and through a complex
assembly of public third and private operators, they felt their own ability to act was
constrained by their place within these networks. At the same time they recognised
they could be agents of change through their own practice, and being advocates of
change asking awkward questions, a model of change that seems more akin to
complex adaptive ones (see Heifetz et.al 2009).
It has been difficult to benchmark the course against other materials. We make no
claims for specific insights into design. However, when compared to courses of similar
length platforms offered by the OU, while the raw number are in the 100s rather than
1000’s, a greater proportion of learners work through the whole course and the
proportion completing assessments is far higher. Instead, there seems to a series of
factors, the applied discipline, the relevance of the knowledge to practice, the specific
nature of the learning materials, they are meeting a known need, and developed by
with organisations with reputations in the area, Parkinson’s UK (the subject) and the
OU (online learning) all come together. However, there is another less tidy narrative,
which we explore in more detail below.
6. Openness Technology and Change
This paper has teased out a series of thread, in some senses it represents our
reflections in action, surfacing connections and bodies of literature but not quite
integrating them into practice. In that sense the paper following Dewey (2012) tries to
be open about our movements to and from practice, and the uncertainty associated
with each shift. It attempts to represent the messy and overlapping process’s involved
in making something. The temptation could be to take this description and construct a
narrative around change, suggesting that the development of these practices and the
testing of these technologies in a pilot follows Christensen (et.al 2015) recent
suggestions around how to address his own identification of the sources of disruptive
innovation, simply disrupt yourself. However, to suggest this would be to imply
something deliberate. If this is strategy, it is emergent, like the design process itself,
framing and reframing, until we started to grasp that this approach to working in
partnership might be something other than a discrete set of activities involved in the
making of a single thing. For example, Parkinson’s UK began to see openness in
partnership with an academic partner as a way to colonise the online space, to become
a go to place for Parkinson’s. More than this they saw how openness and creating
relevant content in neglected areas could allow them to influence teaching practice in
formal learning. We are now working together to develop further resources in this area.
For the OU the lessons are less clear, while low cost content production and transfer
enabled by digital technology is a challenge for OU Fordist production models based
on assumptions about cost and speed of delivery that no longer hold (Macintyre
2016b). Digitisation is by no means the key thing disrupting its business model, it is
shifts in the political support for its mission. Public Values (as articulated through
government policy in England) no longer align with the OU mission to “promote social
justice”. While the OU looks to streamline operations and align its mission with political
discourses in England, there is a question here for the OU, and other values based
organisation who find themselves out of step with policy. The partnerships described
here is based on shared values, it has produced practice relevant content that could
appeal to formal learners. Should the values based organisations look to sway with
changes in Public Value as policies change, or should they hold to their values? For
HE providers, this raises a deeper question about the role of the academy as the
source and custodian of knowledge. While there is a great deal of rhetoric about
disaggregation or unbundling within HE, smaller amounts of credit, content separated
from credentials and so on3, and the role of private provider, the models tend to be
drawn from the private sector, and it is not clear how well they apply to social goods.
In addition, little attention has been paid to the types of knowledge and understanding
being privileged, or the potential for partnerships between HE and Third Sector
providers. We would suggest this is a fruitful area of research and practice.
3 For example, the Economic and Social Research Council has provided some funding to support research in this area, see here http://unbundleduni.com/
7. Reflections on Value(s)
As practitioners we appear to be less concerned with the theoretical debates around
the tryptic style models cited in this work, (Moore’s Strategic Triangle, Grant and the
RBV, Martin and Browns approach to design thinking) these heuristics have shaped
our understanding of practice. Thus we have not allocated space to reflections on
whether these Moore’s work is descriptive, normative or both (Alford and O’Flynn
2009), but instead used discussions on the creation of Public Value practically and
symbolically as a way to frame issues as they arise. However, through these use of
these models and the shifting frames we have arrived at some sense of how they work
as heuristic devices to shape practice. For example, we found rather than the carefully
formed case studies used to teach Public Value which has been effective in
transmitting the idea to practitioners (Alford et.al 2016), as others have noted (e.g.
Hartley et.al 2016 on teaching cases), real world examples are less neatly defined.
Through this we have developed some insights into the operation of these models that
might be relevant to their development.
The focus has of this paper has been Third Sector actors, these actors are increasingly
important in delivering Public Value, as the state uses them to deliver services.
However, these groups are more than service providers on behalf of the state, they
have their own sets of values, and they look to articulate those values through
advocacy, lobbying of government and practice. This is the part of the creation of
publicness, real and imagined, and the role these organisations play what Bennington
called the Public Sphere (2009) is important. It is outside the scope of the paper to
explore the role in detail. However, are interested in the debate around publicness and
which organisations are relevant and legitimate actors in the public realm and who are
not. If one reads Parkinson’s UK and OEPS as legitimate actors in this space
delivering Public Value through the creation of learning materials to support public,
private and third sector organisations, then they must be filling a structural hole. Our
presence in this space indicates an absence, or perhaps to frame it in the language of
Bozeman’s (2002; see also the recent expansion of the criteria in Bozeman and
Johnson 2015) articulation of Public Value, it suggest a failure by state actors to deliver
Public Value. In this sense, Bozeman’s Public Value Failure (PVF) approach to
defining a thing by what it is not, is a useful empirical tool, as it allows us to identify
spaces of interest, not just through the absence of Public Value, but through the
engagement in non-state actors in a space. The question of whether and who is
allowed to deliver value on behalf of “the public” is outside the scope of this, but our
sense is that Bozeman’s deductive approach to identifying failings might be applied as
a heuristic device to explore more complex assemblages of organisations, rather than
deducing failure, reading Public Value through formal and informal assemblies of
individuals and organisations working on those inbetween spaces.
The limits of our approach are also apparent when considered in relation to these
inbetween spaces. One of the issues with the participatory approach is that pushing
towards meeting the needs of the people you wish to support can pull the organisation
into developing unfamiliar or even uncomfortable places. For example, OEPS early
work in this area found organisations might lack the resources and capabilities to
operate in the world envisaged by this focus on client needs, and the space between
seemed too far. In opening up the discussion and creating a pressure to change we
had neither moderating the pain (Heifetz et.al 2009), neither did we provide
appropriate support to bridge between the present structures and some future
alignment. While the RBV and work on dynamic capabilities suggests a way forward
we have observed an added consideration for values based organisation. For these
providers, the configuration of resources and capabilities is often seen as a
manifestation of their values. Surfacing issues around how these might be
reconfigured can be seen as a direct challenge to the organisations sense of self. In
particular, when those values are often seen as a bulwark, a way to protect the most
vulnerable in society. Therefore, while RBV is a useful heuristic, asking organisations
to reflect on the alignment of resources and capabilities to their values, and asking
them to reflect on the values they want to create in society. Pushing this too far,
towards Key Success Factors (KSF) and approaches developed to create shareholder
value, are not always appropriate for values based organisations.
In this sense our observation is sympathetic to critics of Public Value, who question
whether it is always appropriate to apply models developed to deliver value to
customers and shareholders at a practical and theoretical level to questions of how to
create Public Value. For Third Sector organisations, the question is not just one of the
creation of shareholder value, or the allocation of public resources, they operate in a
different economic space. They are values based organisations, for these
organisations the values are not always a reflection the public values, and considers
what is valuable to the public is highly contested. They often exist to resist dominant
ideas, and are based on their own sense of what is of value to the public. At this point
Moore’s neatly defined consensus model appears to break down, one can see its
potential to, at best homogenise, and at worst silence dissenting voices, depoliticising
how Public Value is created, obscuring question of by whom and for whom. Dahl and
Soss (2014) have suggested the focus on enabling Public Value through partnership’s
has obscured the role governments play in countering the power of private capital. It
is our sense there is a need to recognise publicness as contested, and the key role
Third Sector organisations play in contesting notions of public value that embed
inequalities.
In conclusion, we have found the practice of creating Public Value much messier than
academic debates on Public Value might suggest. Though we make no claims for any
special insight we have found design based approaches a useful way to explore these
messes and recognise the centrality of practice in Public Value research (Bryson et.al
2016). In our work on value and values we have found it useful to turn look at what is
being transformed and how it is being transformed and the creation of value from the
perspective of the organisation, the individual and in relation to broader questions of
Public Value. Shifting these framing devices over the different components of value
creation and use value from these different perspectives. It is our sense that while
these designerly ways of knowing arose out of a specific social context, and are in no
way a formulae, as a process or craft they might be usefully applied to broader
questions around Public Value.
8. References
Alford, J., & O’Flynn, J. (2009). Making Sense of Public Value: Concepts, Critiques
and Emergent Meanings. International Journal of Public Administration, 32(3–4), 171–
191.
Alford, J., Douglas, S., Geuijen, K., & ‘t Hart, P. (2016). Ventures in public value management: introduction to the symposium. Public Management Review, 0(0), 1–16.
Barber, M.; Donnelly, K.; Rizvi, S. (2013) An Avalanche is Coming, Institute for Public
Policy Research: London.
Benington, J. (2009). Creating the Public In Order To Create Public Value?
International Journal of Public Administration, 32(3–4), 232–249.
Bjongvinsson E. Ehn P. Hilgren P. (2012). Design Things and Design Thinking:
Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges, Design Issues, 29(3), pp101-116
Bozeman, B. (2002). Public-Value Failure: When Efficient Markets May Not Do. Public
Administration Review, 62(2), pp. 145–161.
Bozeman, B., & Johnson, J. (2015). The Political Economy of Public Values: A Case
for the Public Sphere and Progressive Opportunity. The American Review of Public
Administration, 45(1), pp. 61–85.
Brown T. Martin R. (2015). Design for Action: How to use design thinking to make
great things actually happen. Harvard Business Review, September 2015, pp56-64
Bryson, J., Sancino, A., Benington, J., & Sørensen, E. (2016). Towards a multi-actor
theory of public value co-creation. Public Management Review, 0(0), 1–15.
Buchanan, R. (1992) Wicked Problems in Design Thinking, Design Issues, 8, (2), pp.
5-21
Burns, D. (2013). Systemic action research: Changing system dynamics to support
sustainable change. Action Research, 12(1), pp3–18.
Cannell, P. (2016). Lifelong learning and partnerships: rethinking the boundaries of
the university in the digital age. Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning, 18(1)
pp. 61–73.
Cannell P. Macintyre R. (2017) Free open online resources in workplace and
community settings – a case study in overcoming barriers, Widening Participation and
Lifelong Learning, 19(1), pp.111-122
Christensen C. M., Raynor M. McDonald R. (2015) What is Disruptive Innovation,
Harvard Business Review, December 2014, pp44-53
Cross, N. (2006). Designerly Ways of Knowing. Springer-Verlag: London
Cuncliffe A. Bell E. (2016) Management Learning: Legacies and Future Possibilities,
Management Learning, 47(2), 113-116
Dahl, A., & Soss, J. (2014). Neoliberalism for the common good? Public value governance and the downsizing of democracy. Public Administration Review, 74(4), pp. 496–504.
Dorst, K. (2011). The core of “design thinking” and its application. Design Studies, 32(6), pp.521–532.
Dorst, K. and Cross, N., (2001). Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution. Design Studies, 22(5), pp.425–437.
Dewey J. (2012) How We Think, Martino Publishing Mansfield Centre, USA
Lyon F. and Fernandez. H. (2012). Strategies for scaling up social enterprise: lessons from early years. Social Enterprise Journal, 8(1), 63–77. http://doi.org/10.1108/17508611211226593
Fuller A. Heath S. Johnston B. (2011). Rethinking Widening Participation in Higher Education: The Role of Social Networks, Routledge: London
Gawell, M. (2013). Social entrepreneurship – innovative challengers or adjustable followers? Social Enterprise Journal, 9(2), 203–220.
Gergory J. (2003) Scandanvian Approaches to Participatory Design, International Journal of Engineeering Education, 19, (1), 62-74
Hartley, J., Alford, J., Knies, E., & Douglas, S. (2016). Towards an empirical research agenda for public value theory. Public Management Review, (September), 1–16.
Laurillard D (2014) Which problems could MOOCs solve, and how? In MOOCs -Which
way Now? ALT MOOC SIG, University College London, 27th of June 2014
Lyon, F., & Blundel, R. (2012). The long view: applying historically informed approaches to study the growth of social ventures. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/40765/
Gell, A. (1992).The technology of enchantment and the enchantment of technology. In Anthropology, art and aesthetics. Jeremy Coote and Anthony Shelton (Ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp40-63.
Grant, R. M. (2010) Contemporary Strategy Analysis, 7th edn, Oxford, Blackwell
Publishing.
Heifetz R., Grashow A., Linsky M. (2009) The Practice of Adaptive Leadership,
Harvard Business Press, Boston Massachusetts
Kemmis, S. (2010). Research for praxis: Knowing doing. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 18(1), pp. 9-27.
Macintyre, R., (2013). Open Educational Partnerships and Collective Learning.
Journal of Interactive Media in Education. 2013(3), DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/2013-
20
- (2015a) Designing Open Learning Journeys http://www.oeps.ac.uk/create-your-own/designing-open-learning-journeys Date accessed: 9 November 2015.
- (2015b) The Open Learning Design Workshop Structure,
http://www.oeps.ac.uk/create-your-own/open-learning-design-workshops-structure
Date Accessed: 17th of January 2016.
-(2016a). Open Education and the Hidden Tariff. In: OEGlobal 2016: Convergence
through Collaboration, 12th-14th of April, Krakow, Poland.
http://oro.open.ac.uk/46044/ Date accessed: 22nd of June 2016
-(2016b). Open Education as Disruption: Lessons for Open and Distance Learning
from Open Educational Practice. In: EDEN 25: Re-imagining Learning Environments,
14th-17th of June, Budapest. http://oro.open.ac.uk/46658/ Date accessed: 22nd of
June 2016
Moore M. H. (1995) Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government,
Harvard University Press: London
Ramsey, C. (2005a). Narrating development: Professional practice emerging within stories. Action Research, 3(3), pp. 279–295.
Ramsey, C. (2005b). Narrative: From Learning in Reflection to Learning in Performance. Management Learning, 36(2), pp. 219–235.
Schon D. A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action,
Basic Books, US
Tsoukas, H., Hatch, M.J. (2001) Complex thinking, complex practice: The case for a narrative approach to organizational complexity, Human Relations, 54(8), pp. 979