This document discusses arguments for a less selective approach to openly sharing and reporting on open educational resources (OER) activity and research findings. It notes that while creators may share 100% of their work internally, they become more selective in what they choose to share with broader audiences as proximity decreases. Common factors that influence selective sharing include showcasing high quality work, addressing topics of high demand, presenting oneself or one's work positively, and meeting requirements or incentives linked to sharing. However, over-selecting what is shared can lead to dissemination bias where important but less desirable findings are left unpublished. The document considers whether certain less polished or unsuccessful resources should also be openly shared to avoid this bias.

1. Sharing @ 100%? – arguments for a
less selective approach to reporting
OER activity
Chris Pegler, The Open University
Gema Santos-Hermosa, Open University of Catalonia
Anna Comas-Quinn, The Open University
Conference 26-27th March 2013 University of Nottingham, UK

2. Sharing and the ‘open landscape’
Made using Wordle – open licensed (thanks to Jonathan Feinberg who made it so)

3. Who are we ‘open’ with?
Zones of proximity
Pegler, 2011
We might share 100% of what we generate with ourselves
(even the unpublished stuff) but how about with others?
How selective do we become as proximity reduces?

4. Things we might select to share?
• Looks good or exceptional (showcase quality)
• Rare/unusual/topical topic/treatment (high demand)
• Makes you/yours look good (what works well here)
• What you have ready to share (quick and easy)
• Requirement or reward linked to sharing (funding)
• We want/need a wider response to it (community)
These factors appear to apply whether sharing
is of resources for education or research.

5. Resources we don’t select to share?
• Not usual/desired finish or quality (looks bad)
• Lots of similar items already available (derivative)
• It didn’t work as expected/planned (dirty linen)
• Not finished, still work-in-progress (stalled)
• No support or system to do this (costly)
• We’d prefer no-one else finds out about it (amnesia)
Could there be good reasons in terms of
education or research if openness is target?

6. Open knowledge exchange
Consider dissemination bias if we over-select:
In medicine it is increasingly recognised that outcomes
and data which projects choose not to formally publish
may have benefit. Song, et al., 2010 suggested there
may be dissemination bias in terms of what is
published and shared.
So only some medical trials were shared. Not those
with undesirable results or ones which were set aside.
Song F, Parekh S, Hooper L, Loke YK, Ryder J, Sutton AJ, Hing C, Kwok CS, Pang C, Harvey I, (2010).
Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases. In Health
Technology Assessment Feb;14(8):iii, ix-xi, 1-193.

7. Would you share openly resources which were:
1. Not the usual/desired finish or quality (look bad)
2. Similar to items already available (derivative)
3. Didn’t work as expected/planned (dirty linen)
4. Unfinished, still work-in-progress (stalled)
5. Without established support/system to do this
(extra time or resource)
6. Evidence of mistakes or dead ends/wrong turns
(revive bad memories)

8. 1. Adding yet more material to the mix (overload)
2. May be not rigorously tested (unreliable)
3. May be dead ends for good reason (waste time)
4. May be insufficient to be of use (incomplete)
5. Could damage image of provider (reputation)
6. Not enough time/resources to do this (reward)
7. How to curate this? How to search it? (systems)
8. ???