University of Vermont Dean of Arts and Sciences, quoted in Inside Higher Ed to justify the elimination of 12 “low-enrollment” majors:
“This decision has been extremely difficult […] It has been informed by data and guided by a strategy to focus on the future success of our college by consolidating our structure and terminating programs that can no longer be supported without jeopardizing programs with more robust enrollment.”
Seeing (and talking) like a GE middle manager.
“If it’s a $12-million hit, that’s huge,” he says. “We’ve had negative variances in the past, but never to that extreme.” In late March, the university got a sense that the pandemic could be long and damaging. “We started to alter our plans, because our fiscal year begins June 1. It allowed us to say, The world has changed. What can we impact right away?” The university eliminated salary increases, reduced pension contributions, and eliminated some positions.
Now the university is going through a longer and more difficult process of examining the enrollment, revenues, and costs of various academic programs, and analyzing which could be cut.
“It forced us to have conversations,” Steinmetz says, “which I think was a sea change for campuses like ours and a lot of academic leadership. They’re not used to those conversations.”
Steinmetz sounds suspiciously giddy that this crisis won’t go to waste.
Elizabeth Redden, writing for Inside Higher Ed:
An alliance of faculty, staff and graduate student unions; American Association of University Professor chapters; and student organizations has come together to support a new petition opposing “the rash of austerity-driven layoffs, firings and program eliminations occurring and under consideration by Jesuit institutions across the United States.”
The department gutting—often conducted under so-called “program prioritization” campaigns—is particularly egregious in light of the Jesuit tradition. If philosophy, religion and other core liberal arts programs are on the chopping block, why keep the lights on at all?
The fund is exclusively devoted to the support of non-profit and community-owned initiatives in the field of Open Access and Open Scholarship in general. It is not a library-supported APC fund, which all too often results in channeling money to traditional suppliers without solving any of the three issues raised above. Instead, it is our way of making sure that at least part of the available library budget is safeguarded to support alternatives, fostering diversity of business models in the market of academic publishing and helping those who are willing to try something new.
This is a great model, ripe for widespread emulation. Lots of libraries support community-owned, nonprofit initiatives, but most of the spending seems ad hoc. A formal fund structure, with some budget-percentage set-aside—2.5 percent is good target—would provide legitimacy and a measure of stability to the APC-resistant, community-led corner of nonprofit scholarly publishing.
In addition to employees, the college will ax majors in math, political science, history, philosophy, geology, economics, peace and conflict studies, chemistry, religious studies, physics, creative writing, sociology/anthropology, forensic biology, community and justice studies, and all modern languages.
What is left?
Early results from a DFG-funded study of diamond OA scholar-led journals in Germany: About 20 percent of the titles receive subsidies, mostly from university libraries. The authors aren’t sanguine about the other 80 percent:
All but a few key journals rely on unpaid labour and self-exploitation (e.g., by the editors, reviewers, designers). The journals do not point to a sustainable financing model.
Both Arizona and Purdue, with one move, have outwardly leapfrogged their competition and became major players in the online world with a much more diverse set of learners — working adults from underserved demographic groups. So it’s not hard to see why other universities are looking to follow their leads. When Purdue University Global was being approved by accreditors in 2018, there were already a dozen other nonprofit colleges exploring potential acquisitions of existing for-profit online universities. This appears to be an emerging, problematic trend. Call it the Instant Global Campus movement.
Hill’s main beef with the movement is that these insta-campuses are isolated from their co-branded brick-and-mortar universities. Fair enough. But the real problem is the stealth privatization of the public land-grant university:
Under the Purdue and Arizona arrangements, the parent for-profit companies, Kaplan Higher Education and Zovio, transition immediately from the perilous for-profit sector, with its shrinking enrollments and reputational baggage, into the lucrative and growing online-program-management market. The companies not only gain Purdue and Arizona as clients, each worth hundreds of millions of dollars per year in revenue, but also get a springboard to serve many other colleges with these services.
An interesting tidbit, buried in a Scholarly Kitchen post on the implications of COVID for professional associations:
At the [American Mathetical Society], our approach is to look to Diamond OA for a new broad-based math journal, Communications of the AMS, launching in 2021 and funded by an AMS donor, but we realize that this is not an option open to all society publishers.
‘Without stronger academic governance, Covid-19 will concentrate the corporate control of academic publishing’
If things were tough already for small, not-for-profit, and university press publishers, they are going to get worse during the downturn. Higher education is predicted to be badly hit by the crisis and this will have a knock-on effect on purchasing decisions, university press subsidies and overall budget availability.
[University of Michigan Press director Charles Watkinson] is absolutely correct that larger commercial publishers – the oligopoly – will be well positioned to take advantage of new economic conditions and will probably even further consolidate their market power. In controlling the majority of academic journals, these companies will be able to price journal packages in a way that makes them attractive to cash-strapped institutions, giving them a competitive advantage over the smaller publishers, not-for-profits, monograph publishers, and so on. Where open access is concerned, this will mean banging to the beat of the oligopoly’s drum, likely through increased transformative agreements, APC publishing and infrastructures that track researchers and monetise their data.
It is also worth remembering that open access is now key to the business strategies of large commercial publishers who have figured out how to monetise subscription content, open access content and data analytics.
So, Covid-19 does not ‘kill’ the for-profit business model [and] in fact might strengthen profiteering through the ability of the publishing oligopoly to weather the financial downturn and dictate the future of open access according to their conditions. While this might increase the amount of open access research available, it will be at the expense of the loss of control by the research community and the continued dominance of a handful of players. Such is the problem of a move to open access that is not emancipatory from capital, or at least antagonistic towards it.
Jonathan Gray, announcing his new collection, co-edited with Martin Eve:
MIT Press have recently published a new book on Reassembling Scholarly Communications: Histories, Infrastructures, and Global Politics of Open Access edited by Martin Eve and myself. […] My chapter, “Infrastructural Experiments and the Politics of Open Access” examines how scholarly communication infrastructures may be taken as both an object of research and a site of experimentation to explore questions of who has access, what counts, what matters, and how relations are organised.
I can’t wait to dig into the whole book, which is (of course) available OA.
From the press release on the just-released SPARC Europe report copyright and licensing policy [pdf]:
Clear from this study: the majority of publishers have yet to embark on a more OA friendly policy journey, though some are making preparations. “If these publishers choose to continue on their current course, their authors will continue to find complying with OA policy requirements problematic — unless funders change their grant conditions and/or institutions/authors retain their rights,” wrote the authors.
The whole report is worth reading, but of special interest are the recommendations, which lay out best practices for foot-dragging publishers (and other stakeholders). Still, SPARC Europe’s fixation on CC BY—part of a wider CC BY fetishism in segments of the OA world—is frustrating. There are good reasons to encourage non-commercial OA licenses like CC BY-NC: to block commercial exploitation and to encourage a nonprofit scholarly communication ecosystem.
A deeply cynical Forbes piece by Kaplan’s Brandon Busteed:
The current narrative about the edtech industry is that it’s driven by innovative disrupters from outside of education – the proverbial Silicon Valley story of tech entrepreneurs finding solutions to all our most vexing problems. This disrupter story gets even more pronounced in higher education by the contrasting view of colleges and universities as institutions beholden to tradition, held back by faculty who are reticent to change. But that narrative is going to shift.
Faculty, Busteed writes, are responsible for MOOCs and have founded a bevy of startups. So the campaign to remake higher ed in the image of venture capital is, his reasoning goes, organic after all.
This is hogwash, of course: The fact that a growing number of aca-entrepreneurs betray their own values to enrich themselves doesn’t mean that the decades-old commercialization trend is faculty-led. Busteed, anyway, doesn’t really believe his own thesis. The reason to prime this narrative pump, he admits, is widespread faculty opposition. If only those pesky academics could be convinced that their peers were leading the charge, perhaps they’d stand down:
Any time “disruption” or “reform” is brought up in education circles, it typically raises the hackles of teachers and faculty. But when a new initiative or disruption is led by a faculty member, it certainly changes the tone and considerably lessens potential negativity and resistance. This is not to say that all faculty innovations prove successful, nor that outsiders can’t build incredibly successful initiatives. But holding the idea constant, one initiated by faculty – by insiders – has an ‘acceptance’ advantage over something developed outside the academy. In short, there’s inherent credibility in faculty-generated innovations and we would all be wise to pay closer attention to faculty-driven innovation, to proactively seek it out and to embrace it when it happens.
Busteed wants to bring about the misleading narrative he purports, in the piece‘s headline and opening grafs, to merely describe. As pro-corporate propaganda.
It’s been a big year for online learning companies — and it sounds like Thinkific is no exception. The Vancouver-based startup is announcing that it has raised $22 million in new funding.
Thinkific is different from businesses such as MasterClass (which raised $100 million this year) and Skillshare (which raised $66 million) because it doesn’t create, distribute or monetize online classes itself. Instead, it’s built a platform where anyone can create their own courses, then sell them on their own websites.
From the main VC:
“Working with Thinkific over the past four years has been nothing short of exceptional,” said Rhino Managing Partner Fraser Hall in a statement. “It’s no secret that its business model, user numbers, and ~ 150% year-over-year revenue growth, is tracking, by stage, very closely to Shopify which is now Canada’s most valuable public company … It’s a model that is undoubtedly shaping a new world of knowledge entrepreneurship and one that’s accessible to any individual or organization that wants to add education as a new revenue channel.”
The gold rush continues.
From an NSF-funded, cross-university campaign to oil the gears of faculty profiteering:
In order to gain broad support for the recognition of [Innovation & Entrepreneurship] within [Promotion and Tenure] guidelines and processes, it is critical that I&E supporters on university campuses use language and terminology which is relatable across their institution. For example, PTIE organizers and many others have found that use of the “societal” or “public” phraseology (e.g. societal / public impact, societal need, Public Impact Research) to be an effective mechanism to inclusively engage with faculty around the topics of I&E.
Translation: Bathe the proposal to promote profiteering in the misleading language of “public impact.” As if the point isn’t clear—don’t dare call the proposal for what it is—the statement continues:
Use of alternate terms such as “economic impact” or “market impact” can create a misperception of an overweighting of importance on the financial aspects of the faculty member’s work in I&E. Additionally, not all I&E-related impact has an immediate and/or overt linkage to a financial transaction. This approach allows the topic to be viewed more broadly across campus and support a wider cross-section of faculty.
If these are indeed “recommendations”, the main one is to lie to fellow faculty.
From the Open Library of Humanities blog:
The Open Library of Humanities today celebrates its 5th anniversary since we launched our platform on 28th September 2015 with only 7 journals and 99 supporting institutions. Five years on, our sustainable business model has attracted nearly 300 supporting institutions, proving the success of its pioneering non-classical economic model, and enabling us to establish a thriving platform of 28 peer-reviewed journals.
“Innovators,” the Inside Higher Ed headline has it, “see Zoom University 2.0.” By “innovation,” though, Inside Higher Ed seems to mean “venture-backed profit-seeking.” Here’s the latest entrant in the “space”:
Developed in just a few months, Hall and her team have been furiously coding to create a beta version of InSpace that Champlain College and several other institutions will try in the coming weeks. The university recently awarded InSpace $50,000 to run a pilot program and cover its cloud computing expenses.
The VC-backed ed-tech gold rush continues. The stakes shouldn’t need restating: Will our teaching infrastructure get handed over to for-profit corporations?
Techcrunch on a new VC-backed startup, ClassEDU, and its first product, Class for Zoom:
Today, Class for Zoom announced that it has raised a $16 million seed round, pre-launch, co-led by Deborah Quazzo of GSV Ventures and Santi Subotovsky of Emergence Capital and a current Zoom board member. Other investors includee Jim Scheinman of Maven Ventures, an early investor in Zoom and the person who is credited with naming Zoom; Bill Tai, who is Zoom’s first committed backer; Steve Case, co-founder of AOL and CEO of Revolution.
At the schoolhouse intersection of surveillance and profit:
Less popular, [CEO] Chasen jokes, is Class for Zoom’s ability to give teachers intel on if a student has Zoom as the primary app in use on their screen. The attention-tracking feature is not new, but it is oversight some people might not be okay with. Students can disable the ability to track focus, but administrators can make it mandatory. The platform also allows teachers to monitor a student’s desktop during an exam to limit cheating.
Class for Zoom’s access to a student’s personal computer could make some users uncomfortable. Zoom has been banned from some school districts due to security concerns, and a wave of Zoombombing attacks, where an unwanted participant hacks into a call and streams inappropriate or offensive content. In response, the video conferencing company has put in security measures, such as verification tools and waiting rooms.
‘COVID-19 has profoundly changed the way we conduct and share research. Let’s not return to business as usual when the pandemic is over!’
COVID-19 has provided us with a relevant and practical example of the benefits of open science. The current moment should act as a catalyst for transforming the current flawed system of research communications into a global knowledge commons; a commons that is more efficient, inclusive, and governed by the scholarly community; a commons with no barriers to access or to publish research.
The short piece nicely summarizes the problems with our existing system and its root cause:
Despite widespread recognition of these problems, they have endured for many years, in large part because research communications has been predominantly outsourced to profit-driven commercial entities, whose missions do not align with those of the research community or the public at large.
The authors’ point is to seize the pandemic window of opportunity—the momentary suspension of business as usual even among the Springers of the world. The crux is an academy-owned “commons” infrastructure, and they propose (as one major component) merging their own repository system with a review-and-curation overlay.
Maria Bustillos, in an excellent Nation piece on the publisher lawsuit against the Internet Archive:
Penguin Random House, together with fellow megapublishers Hachette, HarperCollins, and Wiley, filed a lawsuit against the Internet Archive alleging “mass copyright infringement.” The Internet Archive closed the National Emergency Library on June 16, citing the lawsuit and calling for the publishers to stand down. But the plaintiffs are continuing to press their claims, and are now seeking to close the whole Open Library permanently.
Publishers approve of libraries paying for e-book licenses because they’re temporary, just like your right to watch a movie on Netflix is temporary and can evaporate at any moment. In the same way, publishers would like to see libraries obliged to license, not to own, books—that is, continue to pay for the same book again and again. That’s what this lawsuit is really about. It’s impossible to avoid the conclusion that publishers took advantage of the pandemic to achieve what they had not been able to achieve previously: to turn the library system into a “reading as a service” operation from which they can squeeze profits forever.
Mark Bilby, back in June when the lawsuit was filed, called for libraries to boycott the publishers. They should, but here’s another boycott: Wiley. Among the big houses that’s suing Internet Archive, Wiley is the one with the giant scholarly-publishing footprint. In recognition of the Internet Archive’s crucial role for scholarship, we should all stop submitting and reviewing for Wiley journals until they drop the lawsuit.
Since its founding in 1964, Demography has mirrored the vitality, diversity, high intellectual standard, and wide impact of population studies. Published bimonthly, the journal presents high-quality original research by scholars in a wide range of disciplines, encompassing a variety of methodological approaches to population research. It maintains a global geographic focus and a broad temporal scope. Demography is the most cited journal in its field and reaches the membership of one of the largest professional demographic associations in the world.
Library subsidies: This is the path forward.