The immense value of NOT “achieving a useful consensus” around what we mean by “open” and staying in that deeply interesting conversation is precisely because when we foreclose it, when we leave it, we miss out on new understandings for ourselves, and close them down for others. It’s no surprise that some women with very different global perspectives, like Maha and Sarah Lambert (whose paper “Changing our (Dis)Course: A Distinctive Social Justice Aligned Definition of Open Education” inspired Maha to write today) would remind me why we need to keep definitions of open, open.
This paragraph is a core part of the main point I was trying to convey in this post. I was trying to celebrate respect for/comfort with/the value of ambiguity/messiness/"the other" in the term "open pedagogy" that the closed term "OER-enabled pedagogy" wasn't invented to support. As Maha Bali put it differently (better?) in part of a tweet about how truly open discourse might have: "Respect for the 'other' ... that does not reciprocate that respect. Comfort with ambiguity and messiness the 'other' does not have."