Course Ownership in a New Technological Context

Abstract

The Dynamics of Problem Definition Background Intellectual property is a hot topic in higher education these days. Evidence of the prevalence of the debate on intellectual property is found in a variety of higher education publications, including The Chronicle of Higher Education (Guernsey & Young, 1988) and Academe. These publications describe both the need to revisit intellectual property policies and the conflict it generates between the rights of faculty and the desire of some administrators to control certain forms of intellectual property on behalf of colleges and universities. A recent issue of Academe describes intellectual property policies as a ticking time bomb in higher education (Gorman, 1998; Scott, 1998). The ownership of intellectual property is among the widely debated issues on university campuses today, and these debates go far beyond the distance learning issue itself.... As the potential value of copyrighted material escalates, particularly with the advent of multimedia software, and as financial resources diminish, many universities are revisiting who owns the intellectual property created by faculty. (American Association of University Professors, 1998, p. 34) Another source of evidence of increased attention to intellectual property policies are the number of discipline-based conferences and journals that are devoted to the ownership, control, and compensation issues that arise as (1) technology innovation and transfer become the goals of sponsored research activities and (2) as the electronic mediation of knowledge becomes a vehicle for the delivery of courses and programs (Allen & Boelzner, 1995; Shade, 1995; Spearitt & Julian, 1996). The sources and consequences of the reexamination of academic intellectual property are varied and complex. However, the rapid infusion of advanced communications technologies into instructional processes in recent years has clearly prompted a widespread interest in rethinking the meanings, expressions, and rights to intellectual property in higher education. A major point of contention is over who retains ownership or copyright over technology-based course materials created by faculty when these require the use of institutional resources, are commissioned by the institution, or are believed to have considerable market value (Hawkins, 1999; Thompson, 1999). A recent issue of Cause/Effect suggests that the basic questions driven by the digital revolution are: If higher education institutions expand their roles as producers and distributors of information, will they expect more control of faculty-produced material? If so, will they be in direct conflict with faculty who expect to profit from their own intellectual property? With regard to developing course material electronically, what model of ownership should be followed? Should the traditional textbook model be used, or should different models of ownership, such as the patent model, be developed? (Cause Issues Committee, 1997-1998, p. 5) Or, as Dennis Thompson (1999) argues, perhaps neither form of intellectual property is appropriate for the types of technology-based course materials that are being developed today for delivery through the World Wide Web. Regardless, intellectual property policy is a critical issue in higher education because most campuses have not defined adequate policies and developed clear understandings about these issues of intellectual property, conflict of interest, and revenue sharing (Hawkins, 1999, p. 15). The AAUP statement on intellectual property and technology (1998) is correct in suggesting that the issue goes beyond distance education, in part, because many faculty are developing digital documents and interactive experiences for their students that are delivered through the Web to supplement their face-to-face instruction. There is a broad and rich array of research literature on intellectual property in higher education. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 12 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.