The Author & Licence

This blog, by Nouf Ali S. AlGazlan, a final-year PhD student and graduate teaching assistant at City, St George’s University of London, and a visiting lecturer at the University of Hertfordshire, is part of the final assignment for the EDM122 Digital Literacies and Open Practices. It is published under a CC BY (Creative Commons Attribution Licence). You are free to copy, redistribute, and adapt the material in any medium or format, even commercially (Creative Commons, n.d.; Cambridge, n.d.). The rationale behind this licence is that, because the course is on digital literacies and open practices, offering maximum flexibility and accessibility better aligns with those principles and encourages the sharing of open knowledge.

Introduction

A few years ago, I had a conversation with my PhD supervisor about Posner’s paper, The Decline of Law as an Autonomous Discipline (Posner, 1987). We explored Posner’s critique of the traditional view of law as a self-contained field, isolated from the influence of other disciplines. This perspective resonated with me again several months ago when I began taking EDM122 and learned about Open Practice. This piece aims to demonstrate how Posner’s perspective holds true by examining openness and its role in fostering cross-disciplinary learning and teaching in the field of Intellectual Property (IP).

I begin by explaining the relevance and significance of open practice to my role, looking at the literature on open practice, exploring what openness means, and focusing on open educational resources (OERs) and open educational practices (OEPs). I then explain how openness can aid in cross-disciplinary learning and teaching in IP law through two main examples: the MA Academic Practice programme and Institute for Creativity and AI (ICAI). Throughout this piece, I reflect on the role of openness in cross-disciplinary education and how it has influenced my future practice.

Open Practice & My Role

Teaching IP law at City St George’s takes an open approach. Lectures provide foundational knowledge (e.g., an introduction to patent law), while tutorials focus on advanced materials (e.g., the implications of patent law on Artificial Intelligence (AI)). Advanced materials are strategically chosen to reflect current legal debates. Previous topics have included Covid-19 vaccines and weapons relating to patent law, and the trademarking of fictional characters and celebrity names.

Although I try to find open resources to engage students, a key challenge is ensuring access to the most up-to-date materials. Many of these resources are not open access and require either a fee or institutional access. On Day 2 of EDM122, we examined the Jisc Digital Experience Survey which highlighted the impact of the cost of living on students: over 52% of students reported taking on paid work (Jisc, n.d.). While the survey did not explicitly address access to paid resources, it suggests that financial pressures may limit students’ ability to access materials that require payment. This issue must be addressed to ensure all students have equal access to resources. A practical approach is to leverage existing materials at City St George’s while exploring ways to expand open-access legal content. The next section will review relevant literature and practical examples.

What does openness mean?

As Cronin (2017) highlights, there are several interpretations of openness in education. Broadly speaking, openness can be identified as “open admission, open as free, OERs and OEPs” (Cronin, 2017, p.2).  In short, open admission refers to education policies that remove entry requirements for learning allowing learners to enroll without prior qualifications. Open as free refers to educational resources that can be used freely (e.g., YouTube videos and massive open online courses (MOOCs)) (Moe, 2015). OERs are teaching and openly licenced learning materials, meaning users can retain, reuse, revise, remix, and redistribute them, to promote adaptable education (Wiley et al., 2014). Finally, OEPs are about moving beyond a content-centred approach, changing the attention from resources to practices, with both learners and teachers collaborating in the creation of knowledge (Ehlers, 2011).

For this blog, OEPs and OERs are of primary importance. While OEPs lack a single, universally accepted definition, Open.Ed (n.d.) describes it as encompassing teaching methods and academic practices that leverage open technologies, pedagogies, or OERs to foster collaborative and flexible learning experiences. This includes but is not limited to, the co-creation of learning experiences by educators and learners, as well as the use or development of OERs.

The UNESCO definition of OERs demonstrates the significance of freely accessible educational materials in developing open education practices globally (Camilleri and UNESCO, 1970). This can be creating or reusing OERs (materials that are out of copyright or are licenced to allow reuse). Nevertheless, open education goes beyond such resources. It can involve practices such as involving open science in teaching and sharing educational strategies (UCL, n.d.).

Encouraging OERs is crucial for both legal and educational institutions, particularly in the context of achieving Sustainable Development Goal 4, which aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote opportunities for lifelong learning (Moulitharun, 2024). For legal entities, such as governments, one way to encourage OER adoption is by having laws that require publicly funded educational resources to be freely available to the public. This ensures that educational content is open and accessible and that copyright laws are less of a barrier to sharing information.

For educational institutions, such as universities, it is important to integrate OERs into their policies and encourage the use of OERs in teaching (Moulitharun, 2024). One effective way to achieve this is through promoting cross-disciplinary learning, a practice that can greatly benefit legal education, particularly in areas like IP. In my view, OERs extend beyond access to resources; it is about exploring and engaging with other disciplines to foster a more inclusive approach to knowledge. This allows for cross-disciplinary teaching and learning, where collaboration between fields like technology, business, art, and law can be very important.

How can openness aid in cross-disciplinary learning and teaching in IP law?

There are countless examples of how openness can help cross-disciplinary learning and teaching in IP law. This blog will examine two in detail.

1. MA Academic Practice: Open Education Principles

The MA Academic Practice is a part-time postgraduate taught programme aimed at staff with an educating role with students in Higher Education (City, n.d.). Throughout my time in the course, I’ve had the opportunity to engage with staff from various disciplines including computer science, politics, health, and employability. As a result, my teaching of IP law was enriched in ways I had not initially anticipated. Such experience resonates with the broader principles of open education. As the Cape Town Open Education Declaration (2007) rightly asserts, open education is not limited to just open educational resources. It involves open technologies that aid collaborative, flexible learning and the open sharing of teaching practices, allowing educators to benefit from the best ideas of their colleagues. This vision aligns closely with my own experience in the MA programme, where collaboration across disciplines has been important in expanding my teaching approach.

For example, in one module, Student Support and Personal Tutoring, I collaborated with other staff members from Computer Science and Policy and Global Affairs to create a guide on the responsible use of AI for students. Not only did this project allow me to explore how AI can impact learning and provide valuable information on how to teach students to engage with AI responsibly, but it also has relevance in IP law education. One of the pressing challenges in IP law is ensuring that students understand the ethical considerations of their current and future practice. This goes beyond issues like plagiarism and copyright infringement to include growing challenges such as ownership of data. Dalton (2002) stated that one of higher education’s key tasks is to help students link intellectual and ethical development, preparing them to live lives of both achievement and responsibility (p. 1). This is especially crucial in teaching ethical decision-making in IP law, especially as technology introduces new ethical problems such as the potential for AI to infringe upon creative works.

Moreover, open education can expand to include new ways of assessments, accreditation, and collaborative learning, all of which mirror the European Commission’s definition of open education. According to the EU, open education is a method of carrying out education, usually using digital technologies, intending to widen access and participation (e.g., removing barriers, making learning accessible, etc) (EU Science Hub, European Commission, 2016; Jhangiani et al., 2024). It encourages multiple ways of teaching and learning, as well as building and sharing knowledge. These principles are reflected in the MA Academic Practice.

For instance, in the Curriculum Development and Evaluation module, peers reviewed video assessments, providing constructive feedback and learning from each other. Similarly, in Assessment Design and Feedback (EDM126), peers wrote formative feedback for assessment briefs, encouraging a collaborative learning environment. In Digital Literacies and Open Practices (EDM122), online forums were used as a discussion tool (e.g. on day 4, staff reflected on embedding digital literacies and open practice in the curriculum, answering questions such as whether it was useful and how to implement it in their own teaching). The use of digital tools within the MA course, such as online discussion forums and collaborative platforms, has allowed for flexible learning and easy access to materials tailored to individual needs.

Moreover, Huitt and Monetti (2017) offer an insightful comparison between open education and traditional methods, particularly in the areas of assessment, teaching philosophy, and learning resources. Traditional assessments, such as standardised tests, are often artificial and focus solely on end results. In contrast, open education stresses that assessments should mirror real-world processes and encourage authentic learning (Jhangiani et al., 2024). This approach is exemplified in modules of the MA Academic Practice, such as creating a video in EDM122 or developing an assessment brief in EDM126. These methods not only align with the principles of open education but also contribute to a more inclusive and adaptable learning environment. In my future teaching of IP law, I plan to incorporate these principles, using authentic assessments, fostering collaborative learning, and using flexible digital tools to engage students and accommodate diverse learning styles.

2. Institute for Creativity and AI (ICAI): Open Access Research

Another example of how openness can help cross-disciplinary learning and teaching in IP law is through ICAI. Recently, City St George’s established the ICAI to explore the strategic impacts of creativity, creative work, and AI technologies (City, n.d.). This initiative brings together academics and students from various fields across the university, including law, business management, healthcare, journalism, and the arts, fostering an interdisciplinary approach to research and education. As Gamsby (2020) highlights, open access, that is, making research freely available to everyone, and interdisciplinarity, that is combining knowledge from different fields, are closely connected. While open access and interdisciplinarity may initially seem unrelated, Gamsby argues that these two concepts fundamentally support each other.

Thus, although the ICAI’s goals may not explicitly mention open access research, its interdisciplinary nature, which bridges various academic fields through research involving AI, aligns with the principles of open access. Sharing knowledge openly supports the core tenets of interdisciplinarity, such as fostering collaboration and breaking down barriers between disciplines. By publishing research findings and making them openly accessible, the ICAI has the potential to contribute significantly to open-access research. This, in turn, can provide valuable resources not only to City St George’s staff and students but also to the broader academic and professional community.

Finally, the ICAI could organise public events, such as workshops and conferences, focusing on the relationship between AI and IP law. For instance, when teaching IP law to second-year LLB students, a recurring theme is AI, particularly in copyright and patent law. It would be beneficial if experts from various disciplines participated in these events to share their insights. By making these events open and accessible to all, the ICAI would promote the open sharing of knowledge, ensuring that information is available to everyone without barriers, much like OERs have done for course materials.

Making these events open-access would allow both students and professionals to benefit from cross-disciplinary perspectives without financial barriers. This mirrors the impact of OERs, which provide affordable, accessible educational content and help alleviate the financial burdens faced by students. Over the past few decades, the rising costs of commercial textbooks have posed a significant barrier for many students (Jhangiani et al., 2024). This issue has been further exacerbated by the shift to digital learning, particularly after the COVID-19 pandemic (Lederman, 2022). In response, OERs have emerged as a solution, providing affordable and accessible course materials. These efforts align with the broader principles of open practice and open access, which seek to make educational content more widely available. Just as OERs ensure equity in learning, open-access events foster inclusivity and broaden participation, supporting both academic and professional communities.

Conclusion

Reflecting on Posner’s critique and the concepts of Open Practice from EDM122, I see how these ideas challenge traditional boundaries of law and knowledge. The MA Academic practice and the ICAI are prime examples of how openness fosters cross-disciplinary learning and teaching in IP law. Sustainability, art, and other areas offer further opportunities to explore these connections, which future blogs can explore.

Reference list:

1. Camilleri, A. & UNESCO (1970). ‘Open educational resources’. UNESCO. Available at: https://www.unesco.org/en/open-educational-resources [Accessed: 1 January 2025].
2. Cape Town Open Education Declaration (2007). Cape Town Open Education Declaration. Available at: http://www.capetowndeclaration.org/ [Accessed: 3 February 2025].
3. City (no date b). Ma Academic Practice – Master’s Degree, City, University of London. Available at: https://www.city.ac.uk/prospective-students/courses/postgraduate/academic-practice [Accessed: 3 February 2025].
4. City, University of London (no date). The Institute for Creativity and AI. Available at: https://www.city.ac.uk/research/centres/the-institute-for-creativity-and-ai [Accessed: 13 January 2025].
5. Creative Commons (n.d.). ‘About the licenses’. Available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ [Accessed: 13 January 2025].
6. Creative Commons (no date). Deed – Attribution 4.0 International – Creative Commons. Available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ [Accessed: 3 February 2025].
7. Creative Commons Licenses (no date). Cambridge Core. Available at: https://www.cambridge.org/core/open-research/creative-commons-licenses [Accessed: 3 February 2025].
8. Cronin, C. (2017). ‘Openness and Praxis: Exploring the Use of Open Educational Practices in Higher Education’. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(5). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i5.3096.
9. Dalton, J.C. (2002). ‘Debunking the campus culture of detachment’. Journal of College & Character: What They’re Reading!. Available at: www.collegevalues.org/ethics.cfm?id=683&a=1 [Accessed: 3 February 2025].
10. Digital Experience Insights (no date). Jisc. Available at: https://www.jisc.ac.uk/digital-experience-insights [Accessed: 1 February 2025].
11. Ehlers, U.-D. (2011). ‘Extending the territory: From open educational resources to open educational practices’. Journal of Open, Flexible and Distance Learning, 15(2). Available at: http://www.editlib.org/p/147891/ [Accessed: 3 February 2025].
12. EU Science Hub (2016). ‘What is open education?’ EU Science Hub. Available at: https://joint-researchcentre.ec.europa.eu/what-open-education_en [Accessed: 3 February 2025].
13. Gamsby, P. (2020). ‘The common ground of open access and interdisciplinarity’. Publications, 8(1), p. 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications8010001 [Accessed: 13 January 2025].
14. Huitt, W. & Monetti, D. (2017). ‘Openness and the transformation of education and schooling’. In: R. Jhangiani & R. Biswas-Diener, eds., Open: The philosophy and practices that are revolutionizing education and science. London: Ubiquity Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5334/bbc.d [Accessed 3 February 2025].
15. Jhangiani, R., Farrelly, T., Ó Súilleabháin, G. & Coakley, D. (2024). ‘Open education practices in higher education: Focusing on responsiveness, innovation & inclusivity’. N-TUTORR Stream 3, May 2024. Available at: https://www.transforminglearning.ie/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Open-Educational-Practices_green-paper1405.pdf [Accessed: 3 February 2025].
16. Lederman, D. (2022). ‘Turnover, burnout and demoralization in higher ed’. Inside Higher Ed. Available at: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2022/05/04/turnover-burnout-and-demoralizationhigher-ed [Accessed 3 February 2025].
17. Moe, R. (2015). ‘The brief and expansive history (and future) of the MOOC: Why two divergent models share the same name’. Current Issues in Emerging eLearning, 2(1). Available at: http://scholarworks.umb.edu/ciee/vol2/iss1/2 [Accessed: 1 January 2025].
18. MOULITHARUN, S. (2024). ‘Unlocking knowledge: The intersection of open educational resources (OER) and copyright in achieving Sustainable Development Goal 4’. Articles. Available at: https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/UNLOCKING-KNOWLEDGE-THE-INTERSECTION-OF-OPEN-EDUCATIONAL-RESOURCES-OER-AND-COPYRIGHT-IN-ACHIEVING-SUSTAINABLE-DEVELOPMENT-GOAL-4?utm_source=chatgpt.com [Accessed: 13 January 2025].
19. Posner, R. (1987). ‘The decline of law as an autonomous discipline: 1962-1987’. Harvard Law Review, 100, pp. 761-779.
20. UCL (no date). ‘Open educational resources and copyright: What do you need to consider?’. OpenUCL Blog. Available at: https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/open-access/2024/11/07/open-educational-resources-and-copyright-what-do-you-need-to-consider/ [Accessed: 1 January 2025].
21. What is open education practice? (no date). Open.Ed, University of Edinburgh. Available at: https://open.ed.ac.uk/what-is-open-education-practice/ [Accessed: 1 January 2025].
22. Wiley, D., Bliss, T.J. & McEwen, M. (2014). ‘Open educational resources: A review of the literature’. In: Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. New York: Springer.