Prepare for the Long Run Strategies for Affecting Governmental OER Policy Developments by International Organisations

For more than two decades, International Organisations (IOs), such as UNESCO, Commonwealth of Learning, European Commission and OECD, have played a prominent role in the Open Educational Resources (OER) movement, setting international OER policy agendas and advocating for and supporting the development of governmental OER policies.
However, the body of empirical evidence on how IOs have been attempting to influence governmental OER policy processes, the impact of their actions, on the development of governmental OER policies or the effectiveness of their actions in general is limited. Most previous research studies focused on documenting the growth of governmental OER policies, but did not investigate the role of IOs in the development of the identified governmental OER policies. The published information on this topic is limited to several studies or reports examining the effects of some OER policy instruments, such as technical assistance or discursive dissemination, of IGOs such as UNESCO, COL or EC, on the development of governmental OER or Open Education policies in a specific country or a group of countries in a particular geographical region.
This thesis addresses the identified research gap by providing empirical evidence on how different IOs have been influencing the development of governmental OER policies from 2002 until 2019 and the perceived effectiveness of their actions, termed as OER policy instruments for this research, by governmental policy makers, advisors and experts in selected countries, states and provinces. We conducted a literature review, developed conceptual frameworks of IOs OER policy instruments and Public OER policy instruments and performed a desktop research of documents to identify and document relevant examples of IOs OER policy instruments and governmental OER policies. Furthermore, we carried out 15 semi-structured interviews with representatives from 8 IOs to identify relevant OER policy instruments used by the selected IOs, and explore their perceived effectiveness on governmental OER policy processes. We interviewed 35 governmental policymakers, experts and advisors in 33 countries, states and provinces to identify relevant governmental OER policies developed and implemented in the selected countries, states and provinces. We explored the perceived impact of IOs OER policy instruments on the identified governmental OER policies, the perceived effectiveness of IOs OER policy instruments in general and recommendations on how IOs could support governmental OER policy processes more effectively from respondents’ viewpoints.
The findings from interviews with IOs show that the activities of the selected IOs ranged from constructing and diffusing ideas about OER and related policies to providing funding and technical assistance with developing or implementing governmental OER policies and adopting standard-setting instruments. The applied OER policy instruments were part of their direct strategies (addressing and engaging governments) and indirect strategies (working vis-à-vis other IOs and HEIs). For the selected IOs, we reviewed 2,223 documents through desktop research and recorded 164 examples of OER policy instruments applied by the respective IOs The lists of relevant OER policy instruments examples were primarily informed by desktop research but also by interviews with representatives from IOs. The perceived successes of the applied IOs OER policy instruments are related to setting international OER policy agendas and influencing public OER policy processes such as agenda setting, policy development or implementation processes. The identified perceived challenges that affect the intentions of IOs to influence the development of governmental OER policies include (i), their respective organisational mandates, (ii), limited resources, (iii), changing priorities or new developments in the field, (iv), lack of evidence about the OER uptake, (v), uneven OER developments in different countries, (vi), changes in governments or bureaucracy, (vii), misconceptions about OER and copyright, (viii), lobbying activities by the publishing industry and (ix), availability of OER champions driving OER policy developments in different countries.
The findings from interviews with governmental policymakers, advisors and experts reveal that the selected countries, states or provinces applied a range of different governmental OER policy instruments during the period from 2009 until 2019 with some countries using a combination of all different types of governmental OER policy instruments (e.g., regulation, financial and information instruments) and some other countries applying a combination of OER funding (direct or indirect) and information OER policy instruments. For the selected countries, states and provinces, we documented 134 examples of governmental OER policy instruments across the three main categories of instruments - regulation, funding and information instruments. Furthermore, the findings regarding the perceived influence of IOs on the identified governmental OER policy instruments developed or implemented in selected countries, states and provinces, reveal that IOs have directly or indirectly influenced agenda setting, policy development and, in some instances, implementation processes. IGOs were the most frequently cited examples of IOs followed by INGOs and Foundations. In addition to IOs numerous other organisations and stakeholders were identified that had contributed to the selected governmental OER policy instruments. Such organisations or stakeholders typically involve local OER or Open Education coalitions and networks, individual OER champions, student associations or NGOs that carry out OER policy advocacy and drive policy-level developments in selected countries, states or provinces. In considering which IOs OER policy instruments are perceived as the most effective by governmental policymakers, advisors and experts, the findings point to those that have the potential to set policy agenda, provide legitimacy, framework or tools for driving local policy initiatives, raise awareness and facilitate knowledge exchanges, policy learnings, build communities and connections between policymakers and practitioners, support evidence-informed policymaking and contextualisation of international commitments and recommendations into local policy contexts and provide financial support for local OER policy initiatives and policy advocacy efforts. Finally, important findings emerged related to the identified governmental OER policy adoption and implementation challenges and the corresponding recommendations on how IOs could support such processes more effectively. These recommendations include strategies that focus on (i), policy implementation support, (ii), building or strengthening of local expertise and capacity, (iii), identifying and supporting local OER champions/policy entrepreneurs, (iv), alignment of IOs OER policy instruments with governmental priorities and local social, cultural and political contexts, (v), generation of an evidence base to support evidence-informed policy making processes, (vi), provision of funding, (vii), strengthening of global and regional cooperation mechanisms amongst diverse institutions and stakeholders and (viii), advocacy strategies that move beyond advocating for OER as an isolated goal and focus on its potential to address broader governmental education strategies, goals or challenges.
The concluding thesis chapter highlights and discusses the main findings that emerged from the research process, articulates limitations and provides recommendations for further research.