computacion en la Nube

The Tower
and
The Cloud

Higher Education
in the Age of
Cloud Computing

© 2008 EDUCAUSE
All rights reserved.

Authors retain the rights to their individual essays under a Creative
Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works
3.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0).
This book is available online in PDF and HTML formats on the
EDUCAUSE website (http://www.educause.edu/books/).

Printed in the United States of America on recycled paper.
ISBN 978-0-9672853-9-9

Cover and interior paintings by Elizabeth Black
Book design and production by Anita Kocourek

Illustrations:
Campanile, University of California, Berkeley, cover, p. iv
King’s College, Cambridge, p. xxii
Cairo University, p. 62
Trinity College, Dublin, p. 88
Rajabai Clock Tower, University of Mumbai, p. 106
University of Melbourne, p. 138
Cathedral of Learning, University of Pittsburgh, p.170

To Julia A. Rudy, extraordinary editor, colleague, and friend

Campanile, University of California, Berkeley

The Tower
and
The Cloud
Higher Education
in the Age of
Cloud Computing

Richard N. Katz
Editor

Table of Contents

Foreword Diana G. Oblinger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

Preface Richard N. Katz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

About the Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix

Higher Education and Information Technology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
The Gathering Cloud: Is This the End
of the Middle? Richard N. Katz 2
A Matter of Mission: Information Technology and
the Future of Higher Education Clifford A. Lynch 43
The University in the Networked Economy and Society:
Challenges and Opportunities Yochai Benkler 51

The Globalization of Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Growing in Esteem: Positioning the University of Melbourne in
the Global Knowledge Economy Glyn Davis, Linda O’Brien, and Pat McLean 64
Higher Education and the Future of U.S. Competitiveness David Attis 81

Accountability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
The Social Compact of Higher Education and Its Public Larry Faulkner 90
Accountability, Demands for Information, and the Role of the
Campus IT Organization Brian L. Hawkins 98

IT Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
E-Research Is a Fad: Scholarship 2.0, Cyberinfrastructure,
and IT Governance Brad Wheeler 108
Beyond the False Dichotomy of Centralized and Decentralized
IT Deployment Jim Davis 118
From Users to Choosers: The Cloud and the Changing Shape
of Enterprise Authority Ronald Yanosky 126

Open Information, Open Content, Open Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
Cultural and Organizational Drivers of Open Educational
Content Malcolm Read 140
Challenges and Opportunities of Open Source in Higher
Education Ira H. Fuchs 150
Who Puts the Education into Open Educational Content? Andy Lane 158

Scholarship in a Cloudy World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
The Tower, the Cloud, and Posterity
Richard N. Katz and Paul B. Gandel 172
From the Library to the Laboratory: A New Future for
the Science Librarian Mary Marlino and Tamara Sumner 190
Social Networking in Higher Education Bryan Alexander 197
Scholarship: The Wave of the Future in the Digital Age
Paul N. Courant 202
Where Is the New Learning? Kristina Woolsey 212
Teaching and Learning Unleashed with Web 2.0 and
Open Educational Resources Christine Geith 219
University 2.0 John Unsworth 227
The Tower, the Cloud, and the IT Leader and Workforce
Philip Goldstein 238

Afterword Andy Cooley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264

Foreword ix

Foreword
By now, we’ve all heard, read, or said enough about the rapid pace of
technological change for it to become cliché. We may have grown numb
to the recitation of Moore’s law and the sweeping social and economic
impact of technological advances. Continuous, rapid, technology-based
change, along with persistent, simultaneous efforts within the academy
to both embrace and combat it, has become an assumed feature of our
universelike the existence of the university.
However, in The Tower and the Cloud, Richard Katz and his fellow
authors remind us that the emergence of this technology “cloud” and its
ever-increasing impact on usindividually and collectivelyhas signif-
icant implications for higher education as we know it. Only by looking
past the cliché and carefully reflecting on the truth behind it can we
appreciate the potential shape and direction of the change colleges and
universities face. The Tower and the Cloud tackles questions such as “How
are ‘cloud’ technologies and applications already affecting us?” “What does
that say about how they are likely to evolve and impact us in the future?”
“What might colleges, universities, and higher education overall look like
as a result?”
The book explores a wide range of topics, beginning with the
interplay of history, tradition, and technology that defines the modern
academythe “tower.” Authors address what the academy must do to
maintain the coherence of its mission—if not necessarily all of the forms
through which it pursues that mission—as it moves forward. Given the
geographically unbounded nature of the cloud, the discussion turns to the
promise and challenge of the truly global higher education community—
and market—which the network increasingly makes possible.
In the face of these trends, institutions must also cope with rising
demands for accountability, even as the cloud affects the nature and
meaning of the relationships among institutions, faculty, students, alumni,
and government. The Tower and the Cloud looks at those issues in light
of institutional capacities and asks, “What role should technology play
in meeting these shifting demands?” It posits at least part of the answer
through essays that take a fresh look at institutional governance of IT and
encourage realignment of those structures with the reality of a networked
world (and institution).
The collection then turns to the heart of the academy—scholarship
and teaching, and the principle of openness that underlies them both. The
open source and open educational resources movements are examined to
illustrate how higher education’s core commitment to the free exchange

x The Tower and the Cloud

of ideas and information is finding renewed expression in the cloud
environment. By leveraging the ease of collaboration, publication, and
distribution that digital networks make possible, these movements are
allowing communities of scholars, technology professionals, and institutions
to come together to more effectively meet their needs and the needs of
their students while contributing to the greater good.
The concluding essays highlight a diverse array of ways in which
teaching, learning, and scholarship might evolve as a result of the cloud’s
impact. For example, digital media and broadband networks continue
to change the form and amount of knowledge institutions can store and
share, as well as who they can share them with.Yet the rapid evolution
of digital media raises concerns about sustaining access—and the cost of
doing so—over the long term. The cloud raises other questions, such as
what impact the breathtaking rise of online social networking will have
for building and sustaining community in higher education. As teaching,
learning, and scholarship come to increasingly rely on networked services
and resources beyond the institution’s physical (and virtual) walls, how
must IT leadership change to guide institutions through new realities while
safeguarding the community’s varied (and sometimes conflicting) interests?
These are just some of the major issues The Tower and the Cloud
addresses as it illustrates the promise, pitfalls, and potential evolution of the
academy in a network-based world. While not offering a crystal ball, it does
provide a series of reasoned, analytical perspectives on how current trends
may unfold, altering our institutions and the higher education landscape
in a future that may arrive faster than we expect. In reading it, we are all
challenged to move beyond acknowledging the pace of technological
change to envisioning all that the tower can be if we embrace the cloud.

Diana G. Oblinger
President, EDUCAUSE

Preface xi

Preface
As I approach my 30th year of employment in higher education, I
continue to feel as if I am in Wonderland. The life of the mind is, of course,
always filled with wonder, and higher education enjoys proximity to two
renewable sources of wonder: young people and a mission of discovery.
Immersion in higher education IT adds even more to the wonder: I
suspect that careers in IT in higher education leave many of us feeling
like we have tumbled down Alice’s tunnel to a pool of tears, the queen’s
croquet grounds, or a mad tea party.1
My fascination with technology was kindled as a graduate student by
a reading of Professor David Landes’s The Unbound Prometheus, a history of
technological change and industrial development in Western Europe from
1750. Landes described how changes in technology and in process occur
hand in hand, leading to new forms of industrial organization.2 Since that
reading, I have been consumed with the desire to understand the historical
and institutional context for IT—in higher education. More recently, my
understanding was deepened by Professor Martin Trow, who argued that:
IT is embedded in and used by institutions that have a
history. The historically shaped characteristics of colleges
and universities are highly relevant to the ways IT will be
used by (and over time transform) the existing structures
of higher education. It is also likely that IT will cut its
own channels, leading to the creation of institutions that
differ from those of today, institutions where the weight
of history does not condition and constrain IT’s use.3
Professor Trow was most certainly right. With respect to higher
education’s administrative and teaching activities, IT has perhaps not
fulfilled its promise to the extent witnessed in some other sectors of the
economy. Here, the handicraft traditions of teaching and learning in the
academy have, as Trow suggests, conditioned and constrained IT’s use.
Indeed, at some colleges and universities, good instructional technology
is viewed as a barrier—or even antithetical—to good instruction.
Change is slow.
In scientific research, however, and increasingly in social science
and humanities research, IT’s role has been transformational. Our
ability to simulate and model physical phenomena, living systems,
weather, traffic flows, and the economy through IT has placed IT on
the same footing as experimentation and theory, as one of the pillars
of research method. And Trow, too, was right about IT’s capacity to cut
its own channels. Today, so-called “open universities” serve hundreds

xii The Tower and the Cloud

of thousands of distant degree seekers worldwide through a variety of
technologies, and in the time since Trow’s essay was written, for-profit
postsecondary school revenues have grown at a nearly 19 percent
compound annual growth rate to nearly 6 percent of all postsecondary
education spending. These institutions, which are expected to comprise
nearly 8 percent of U.S. higher education by 2011, are certainly uncon-
strained by the weight of history.4
Lastly, teaching and learning are changing—albeit more slowly—
under the influence of IT. More and more courses offer hybrid forms of
instruction that are made possible by the networks and various computing
and communications platforms that are being placed at students’ disposal.
At the same time, more and more students are supplementing—or
replacing—lectures, seminars, and course materials with resources they
uncover on the web.
As we slide farther and farther down the rabbit hole, we stare at
or interact in wonder with grids, semantic webs, wikis, podcasts, open
education resources, social networks, and other destinations. IT leads
us not to a pool of tears, but to “peaks of inflated expectations” or to
“troughs of disillusionment.”5
Amidst our wonder is confusion. This volume is born of my
confusion over where IT is moving and what channels it may begin
to cut now in our historical institutions of higher education. This
volume, too, is born of the confusion of college and university IT
leaders throughout the world who need to make some sense of a
chaotic and fast-changing environment long enough to guide institu-
tional investments and to operate needed services for students, faculty,
staff, and others. The volume is, if you will, a periodic measurement.
It is an ice core from 2008; an assessment of where IT and social
behaviors related to IT appear to be headed and of channels they
may cut through our historical institutions. This volume is offered
as an opportunity for very busy people to reflect on and assimilate
the meaning of IT to higher education purposes and methods. The
contributors to this volume strive to separate those torrents that may
cut large and potentially disruptive channels in higher education from
those smaller channels that may beautify our institutions or simply
disappear without a trace. Creating this volume reflects the belief that
educators and technologists need context for our actions and that we
need to recalibrate this changing context more and more often. We
need to think visions, not vision. We need to think of possibilities,
predispositions, and probabilities, not of certainties. We need to think
of directions and not fixities.

Preface xiii

This volume—in my thinking—really represents the third volume
in a visioning and context-setting exercise that began with the writing in
1992 of Sustaining Excellence in the 21st Century and continued in 1999 with
Dancing with the Devil.6
Sustaining Excellence chronicled the emergence of the campus network
and its capacity to link what we then called the campus technology archi-
pelago. This report forecast the flattening of college and university organi-
zations as access to resources on the network made it possible for members
of the organizational community to make decisions without a dependence
on formal hierarchies. Sustaining Excellence forecast, as well, the federation
of central campus systems with local and personal systems, unified via a
network and a common user interface.
Dancing with the Devil looked outside the walls of the university as the
potential for the Internet and the new World Wide Web created simultane-
ously (1) the capacity to expand the college or university’s presence, (2)
unprecedented access to scholarly information resources, (3) the capacity
to deliver core academic services at a distance, and (4) the opportunity for
profit-oriented newcomers to enter higher education’s market. The notion
of empowerment permeates both of these volumes.

It Is Still about Empowerment
The theme of empowerment continues to pervade my thinking and
the thinking of many of my colleagues. Looking back, I am pleased that I
recognized this strand nearly 20 years ago, but I chuckle at my naïveté. In
1992, my colleagues and I at the University of California recognized that
the network would draw power from the center of the administration to
the myriad departments, schools, and colleges where the real mission of the
university is discharged. This group of gifted and visionary central adminis-
trators welcomed this new sharing of responsibility. But we all believed that
we could control the flow of power and that networks would foster shifts
of power—among organizations! We did not understand—like Martin
Trow—that IT was a force that would cut its own channels. Today, many
writers refer to this empowerment as “consumerization.”
Most futurists overstate the proximity of change and understate its
magnitude. The premise of this volume is that the spectacular success
of the network, the persistent interconnection of billions of people, the
emergence of English as the global language of commerce, and other
forces are empowering individuals. This empowerment has the potential
to cut imaginable channels in our existing institutions and to make room
for new institutions.

xiv The Tower and the Cloud

One colleague recently asked: Does the emergence of the network,
unimaginable resources, and of virtual worlds now make it possible to
liberate higher education from economics that are dominated by the cost
of maintaining physical environments? Can we provide meaningful and
cost-effective learning environments for 100 students? Can we imagine
a return to the School of Athens? One need not look far to uncover
the impact of IT on neighborhood banks, travel agencies, encyclopedias,
libraries, political campaigns, and other institutions. The question remains:
How can information technology change historical institutions of higher
education? Perhaps in 2008 the question is: What is the role of the insti-
tution in a world where individuals are empowered to seek solutions
anywhere in the network cloud?
To understand the possible impacts of IT on institutions, it makes
sense to separate the idea of the university from its corporeal form. Western
higher education traces its roots to Plato’s academy of skeptics nearly
2,500 years ago. This history is dominated by adaptability. Colleges and
universities rank among the world’s most persistent institutions. Many have
survived—in recognizable form—for more than a millennium, despite war,
regime charge, recession, revolution, and other upheavals.
Universities and colleges have themselves been empowered. Colleges
and universities were chartered originally by popes and kings as places
where elites and experts were sequestered. Over time, their governance
evolved and the dominion of priests and clerics, or that of government
ministers, yielded to shared governance by rectors and academics. Fueled
by the Renaissance, the invention of movable type, the Protestant refor-
mation, democratic egalitarianism, and the Industrial Revolution, colleges
and universities grew in number, size, and influence and were largely
empowered to govern themselves as perpetuities.
The themes that pervade this history until the 20th century are
skepticism, expertise, physicality, expansion, influence, resiliency, empow-
erment (self-governance), place, and craft. The history of the university
has also long been characterized by autonomy and by the separation of
utilitarian and nonutilitarian education.7 The metaphors of the ivory tower,
gated city, sheltered grove, and city-on-the-hill continue to find substance
in campus plans and architecture. Finally, and more recently, the university
mission and organization were enlarged to recognize the intimate and
complex interplay of instruction and research.
Along the way, higher education’s gates were swung wide open
as societies and individuals came to understand the importance of
knowledge in the production of national wealth and social mobility.
While the modern college and university retains certain medieval

Preface xv

Table 1. Kant’s Polarities Updated: New Conflicts
FROM TO
Elite Popular
Pure Applied
Not-for-Profit For-Profit
Education Marketplace
Ivory Tower Real World
Source: Reprinted with permission from Mark C. Taylor, “Useful Devils,” EDUCAUSE Review, July/August 2000, 44.

aspects and forms, its adaptability and persistence do not arise out
of inflexibility. Professor Mark C. Taylor traces higher education’s
evolution as shown in Table 1.
This evolutionary sweep is a work in process and today’s higher
education remains defined by the continued creative tension and
debate between utilitarian and nonutilitarian values. Increasingly,
I believe, the challenge for higher education is to understand how
technology and changing human behavior influence skepticism,
expertise, physicality, expansion, influence, resiliency, empowerment
(self-governance), place, and craft.

Issues Raised in This Volume
The essays in this volume span a wide variety of topics. The contrib-
uting authors are among the best thinkers and practitioners in their fields.
In the main, this volume examines issues such as the virtualization of
service delivery, the “opening” of software and academic course content,
and globalization through the lens of the empowered individual. The
contributors raise, but rarely answer, questions about the roles of place,
expertise, the library, and governance in the virtualized and distributed
world of the network cloud.
The elephant in the room is the question: If a 300-year-old institution
like Encyclopedia Brittanica can be threatened in five years by Wikipedia, can
other aggregators of expertise (aka colleges and universities) be similarly
challenged? Similarly, if knowledge and talent are now globally under-
stood to be the sine qua non of the Information Age, then can colleges and
universities lever their communities, reputations, credentials, and presence
globally? And, finally, how does the new channel cut by information
technology change scholarship? Does the existence or accessibility of new
tools, instruments, and resources change academic practice, and how do
changes—or constancies—get socialized?

xvi The Tower and the Cloud

Acknowledgments
This volume reflects a collaboration of many, many people. Brian
Hawkins, president emeritus of EDUCAUSE, initially encouraged me to
pursue this work. My colleagues Cynthia Golden, Mark Luker, and Diana
Oblinger have both been intellectually indispensable and kept me going
through their encouragement.The Fellows of the EDUCAUSE Center for
Applied Research (ECAR) are extraordinary.Whatever good there is in the
framing of the questions and the reasoning in this volume is their doing.
Here I specifically thank Robert Albrecht, Judy Caruso, Phil Goldstein, Jack
McCredie, Mark Nelson, Gail Salaway, Mark Sheehan,Toby Sitko, Don Spicer,
and Ron Yanosky, who participated in two of the most provocative and
forward-thinking meetings of my career.They are an extraordinary resource
for higher education. I also had the pleasure of traveling for eight months with
Ted Dodds, CIO of the University of British Columbia.Ted was a constant
source of ideas, an ardent supporter, and a gentle but effective critic.
I was also able to tap—perhaps to excess—the time, talent, and goodwill
of members of the EDUCAUSE Advisory Group on Enterprise Information
Systems and Services (AGEISS). Nadine Stern of The College of New
Jersey and Colin Currie of Princeton University chaired this group during
the past 18 months and deserve special thanks. Special thanks as well to
Roberta Ambur of the University of South Dakota, Mark Askren of UC
Irvine, Kathryn Gates of the University of Mississippi, Ron Kraemer of the
University of Wisconsin–Madison, Tracy Shroeder of the University of San
Francisco, Mary Stephens of CSU–Long Beach, Niran Subramaniam of the
University of Warwick, David Trevvett of the University of Chicago, Walter
Weir of the University of Nebraska, and Khalil Yazdi of the University of
Mary Washington.
If authors are the architects of books, then the editorial and production
staff are the engineers that render the words clear, usable, and maybe
occasionally inspiring. At EDUCAUSE we are actively trying to exper-
iment and model behaviors that promote openness and that is especially
important for a volume like this. This inclination means that we depend
on EDUCAUSE staff and contractors for a wide range of editorial, art
design, book design, layout, printing, and distribution services. Nancy Hays
of EDUCAUSE coordinated the efforts of a large cast of very talented
characters. Elizabeth Black, whose paintings I collect, was intrigued enough
to produce the towers and clouds that appear occasionally in the volume.
She is a gifted artist. Anita Kocourek has done graphic design, layout, presen-
tations, and all things graphic for me for nearly 20 years. She has that rare
ability to take my scribbles on napkins and render them into beautiful and
meaningful illustrations. Catherine Yang is a trusted and valued colleague

Preface xvii

who is one of the best strategic thinkers I know. She provided senior
leadership to the editorial, art, and production team. Her kindness and good
nature, too, always kept this project of many parts on track. Lorretta Palagi
provided expert editorial support.
This volume might not have come to fruition without the encour-
agement and financial support of my friends and colleagues at SunGard
Higher Education. It’s been my honor to work with the leadership of this
organization for more than a decade. They have been unstinting supporters
of EDUCAUSE and care deeply about higher education
Finally, and not at all least, Julia Rudy again worked as my editorial
alter ego. Julie began as my editor more than 15 years ago when I was
at the University of California and she was at CAUSE. She lured me to
CAUSE, then EDUCAUSE, and is not only the best editor I know, she is
a friend. Julie postponed retirement to have this last ride with me. It has
been a pleasure and honor to work with her and I dedicate this volume to
her, just as she dedicated her life to the higher education IT community.

Richard N. Katz
Boulder, Colorado

Endnotes
1. Lewis Carroll, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland (London: Macmillan
Publishers, 1865).

2. David S. Landes, The Unbound Prometheus (Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press, 1969).

3. Martin Trow, “The Development of Information Technology in U.S. Higher
Education,” Daedalus (Fall 1997): 294.

4. From Jeffrey M. Silber’s study, Education and Training, published by Equity
Research: BMO Capital Markets–U.S. (September 2007): 85–86.

5. From Gartner Hype Cycles, developed by Gartner, Inc., to represent the
maturity, adoption, and business application of specific technologies, http://
www.gartner.com/pages/story.php.id.8795.s.8.jsp.

xviii The Tower and the Cloud

6. R. N. Katz and R. P. West, Sustaining Excellence in the 21st Century: A Vision
and Strategies for University Administration (Boulder, CO: CAUSE, 1992); and
R. N. Katz and Associates, Dancing with the Devil: IT and Higher Education (San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1999).

7. See Mark C. Taylor’s summary of Immanuel Kant’s The Conflict of the
Faculties in “Useful Devils,” EDUCAUSE Review (July/August 2000): 42.

Bibliography
Carroll, Lewis. Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. London: Macmillan Publishers,
1865.

Katz, R. N., and R. P. West. Sustaining Excellence in the 21st Century: A Vision
and Strategies for University Administration. Boulder, CO: CAUSE, 1992.

Katz, R. N., and Associates. Dancing with the Devil: IT and Higher Education. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1999.

Landes, David S. The Unbound Prometheus. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press, 1969.

Silber, Jeffrey M. Education and Training. Equity Research: BMO Capital
Markets–U.S. (September 2007).

Taylor, Mark C. “Useful Devils.” EDUCAUSE Review (July/August 2000):
38–46.

Trow, Martin. “The Development of Information Technology in U.S. Higher
Education.” Daedalus (Fall 1997): 293–314.

About the Authors xix

About the Authors
BRYAN ALEXANDER is Director of Research for the National Institute
for Technology and Liberal Education. He was an English professor at
Centenary College of Louisiana.

DAVID A. ATTIS is a Senior Consultant in the higher education practice
at the Advisory Board Company. He was a senior policy consultant at the
Council on Competitiveness.

YOCHAI BENKLER is the Jack N. and Lillian R. Berkman Professor for
Entrepreneurial Legal Studies at Harvard Law School and the author of The
Wealth of Networks and the paper “Coase’s Penguin.” He is also Codirector
of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University.

ANDY COOLEY, senior vice president of marketing at SunGard
Higher Education, works with customers to help SunGard Higher
Education understand and respond to emerging technology trends and
institutional needs. He holds degrees from the University of Utah and
Harvard University.

PAUL N. COURANT is University Librarian and Dean of Libraries, the
Harold T. Shapiro Collegiate Professor of Public Policy, and the Arthur F.
Thurnau Professor of Economics and of Information at the University of
Michigan. He has also served as Provost and Executive Vice President for
Academic Affairs at Michigan.

JIM DAVIS is Associate Vice Chancellor and CIO and professor in the
Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering Department at UCLA. He insti-
tuted the first offices of the CIO at The Ohio State University and UCLA.

GLYN DAVIS is Vice-Chancellor and Chief Executive Officer of the
University of Melbourne, Australia. He is a professor of political science in
the university, fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia, and a
Companion in the Order of Australia.

LARRY R. FAULKNER is President of Houston Endowment Inc. and
President Emeritus of The University of Texas at Austin.

IRA FUCHS is Vice President of Research in Information Technology at
the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. He was Vice President for Computing
and IT at Princeton University. Fuchs was a founding director and chief
scientist of JSTOR and founded BITNET. He was President of the
Corporation for Research and Educational Networking for 25 years.

xx The Tower and the Cloud

PAUL B. GANDEL is the Vice President for Information Technology
and CIO at Syracuse University (SU). He also holds an appointment as
professor in the School of Information Studies at SU.

CHRISTINE GEITH is Executive Director of MSUglobal and Assistant
Provost at Michigan State University. She is a founding partner in several
entrepreneurial e-learning ventures including Learn2Grow.com, the Global
Community Security Institute, and AmericanCitizenPlanner.com.

PHIL GOLDSTEIN is the President of Goldstein & Associates, an
independent consulting firm specializing in higher education strategy,
management, and information technology, and a fellow with the
EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research. He was formerly a partner at
PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting.

BRIAN L. HAWKINS is President Emeritus of EDUCAUSE and was the
founding President and CEO of that organization. He was formerly Senior
Vice President of Brown University.

RICHARD N. KATZ is Vice President of EDUCAUSE and the coauthor
of Dancing with the Devil and six other books on information technology’s
role in higher education. He is founding director of the EDUCAUSE
Center for Applied Research.

ANDY LANE is Director of OpenLearn, an open educational resources
website for The Open University in the United Kingdom. He is a
professor in the university and an elected board member of the Open
Courseware Consortium.

CLIFFORD LYNCH is the Executive Director of the Coalition for
Networked Information and an adjunct professor at the School of
Information at the University of California, Berkeley.

MARY MARLINO is the Director of the National Center for
Atmospheric Research Library. She was also the principal investigator for
the Digital Library for Earth System Education and was one of the original
principal investigators for the National Science Digital Library.

PATRICIA MCLEAN is Director of Academic Enrichment Services at
the University of Melbourne, Australia. She was seconded to manage the
strategy office responsible for overseeing implementation of the university’s
Growing Esteem strategy.

About the Authors xxi

DIANA OBLINGER is President of EDUCAUSE. She served as Vice
President and CIO at the University of North Carolina system and in
faculty and administrative positions at Michigan State University and the
University of Missouri–Columbia. Oblinger was Director of the Institute
for Academic Technology for IBM and Executive Director of Higher
Education for Microsoft.

LINDA O’BRIEN is Vice Principal, Information, and CIO at the
University of Melbourne, Australia. She is responsible for the university’s
scholarly and corporate information strategy and the information services,
systems, and infrastructure that underpin this.

MALCOLM READ is the Executive Secretary of the Joint Information
Systems Committee of the United Kingdom, whose mission is to provide
world-class leadership in the innovative use of ICT to support education
and research.

TAMARA SUMNER is Executive Director of Digital Learning Sciences.
She is also an associate professor at the University of Colorado with a joint
appointment in computer and cognitive science.

JOHN UNSWORTH is Dean and professor at the Graduate School
of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois, Urbana–
Champaign. He chaired the American Council of Learned Societies’ recent
national commission on cyberinfrastructure for humanities and social
sciences, and he is currently coordinator of the I-Schools Caucus.

BRADLEY C. WHEELER is the Vice President of Information
Technology and CIO for Indiana University and co-founder of the Sakai
and Kuali Foundations. He is also a professor of information systems at the
Kelley School of Business.

KRISTINA WOOLSEY is a Learning Experience Designer at the
Exploratorium and chair of the Advisory Group of the Learning, Design
and Technology program at Stanford University. She was formerly the
director of the Apple Multimedia Lab.

RONALD YANOSKY is Deputy Director and Senior Fellow of the
EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research (ECAR). Before joining
ECAR,Yanosky was principal analyst at Gartner, Inc., and assistant
professor of history at Harvard University.

Higher Education
and
Information Technology

2 The Tower and the Cloud

The Gathering Cloud:
Is This the End of the Middle?
Richard N. Katz

“… it is clear that technology allows institutions to blur, if not erase,
institutional boundaries once clear and distinct.”

—Steven Crow, former president, Higher Learning Commission
of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools

H . G. Wells described human history as a race between education
and catastrophe. If this is so, higher education has played a
major role in safeguarding the world. In the West, educators
often trace their professional origins to Plato’s academy, where skeptics
reasoned and reflected on goodness and knowledge. Platonic education
was personal, eschewing even the written word. Socrates described
writing as an “invention [that] will produce forgetfulness in the souls of
those who have learned it.”1 In early modern Europe, itinerant educators
traveled to students who pooled resources to pay for their tuition.2
The 11th and 12th centuries represent a turning point in the history
of higher education, with the founding of the College de Sorbonne,
Oxford University, the University of Salamanca, the University of
Bologna, and the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia. Universities
in the West assumed the physical form that we recognize today and
operated under papal or royal charters. The Western form of universities
and colleges is resilient. Many institutions have served their societies
through natural disasters, times of war, revolution, economic turmoil, and
political upheaval. In many cases, our oldest universities have persisted
longer than the nation states, forms of government, and royal houses that
chartered them. They have grown in number, size, and influence, bearing
witness to Wells’s lament.”3

The End of the Middle? 3

Fiat Lux
Ten threads have influenced the makeup of Western higher education’s
tapestry in this millennium.
1. The academy is an artisan community. The Western university and
college is a clear outgrowth of medieval monastic and guild life. Like
guilds and monasteries, the modern academy consists of communities
that “comprise the enduring interpersonal relations that form around
shared practices.”4 Brown and Duguid argue that successful academic
communities are inhabited by people who share common tasks, obliga-
tions, and goals.5 As with medieval guilds, modern professors enculturate
their students to the language, syntax, methods, and resources of an
academic discipline as well as connect students with other scholars in the
community. Students (apprentices), like their medieval guild counterparts,
look to older students (journeymen) for instruction, to peers for edification
and affirmation of practice, and to professors (masters) for endorsement
and acceptance. The craft origins of higher education are evident in our
cottage-industry modes of research and instructional production. To a
very great extent, research funding flows to individual researchers from
sponsors outside the academy’s walls, and the key decisions about the
scope, methods, time frames, and goals of research are set and enforced
by individual investigators. In instruction, academic courses are typically
crafted by individual instructors and are rarely shared among other
academics who share similar—or even identical—responsibilities.
2. Academic practice is organized around scarcity. The modern Western
university and college evolved to a great extent from the libraries and
scriptoria of the 6th century, which served to select, collect, copy, preserve,
and protect the textual record of European life. The crafts of writing and
illuminating manuscripts and written materials themselves were rare, and
early academic institutions were designed to protect and preserve scarce
people and objects and to mediate access to scarce resources. Early insti-
tutions operated more as knowledge and learning filters than as pumps.
Books were chained and locked away in towers. Higher education’s
emphasis today on openness reflects both the growing abundance of
knowledge and knowledge work and a relatively recent understanding that
widespread education is an engine of progress and human development.
3. The academy is a place. Since the 12th century, higher education has
been a place. Students “go to college.” Scarcity drove the early need for
space and early colleges and universities were built as a means of attracting
scarce people of intellect to one another and to the scarce raw materials of
scholarship (books, laboratories, surgical theaters). These were not humble
beginnings. In keeping with their papal or royal charters, early univer-


sities were often beautiful places. The medieval idea of the university as
a majestic and cloistered place designed to foster fellowship, collegiality,
reflection, and independence is deep seated. It is reinforced in literary and
film treatments of higher education and has influenced generations of
architects and campus planners. Even campuses in virtual worlds such as
Second Life and elsewhere draw inspiration from the medieval idea of a city
of intellect featuring sacred gardens and other spaces to be secured by walls,
gates, and towers. Medieval universities—and many modern ones—were
designed to be places apart from the rude and cacophonous rabble, places
of quiet and beauty, ripe for reflection, discussion, inquiry, and discovery.
4. Academic governance has devolved. Before colleges and universities
were chartered by civil or ecclesiastical powers, students pooled their
financial resources to bring learned men to their cities and towns. By the
11th century, place-based institutions largely displaced these practices. The
power and influence of the student guild declined. Over time, authority
over many universities passed to local authorities, and ultimately univer-
sities became self-governing corporations. A unique aspect of university
self-governance is the division of responsibilities among administrators for
the material sustenance of the institution and among the academics for
the intellectual welfare of the academy and its citizens. Student opinion
continues to play a role in college and university decision making, but not
to the extent found before the construction of the great universities.
5. Academic activities are bundled. Colleges and universities approach
learning holistically. We speak of academic programs and of courses of
instruction. We distinguish an educational experience from a training
experience. Institutions strive not only to impart knowledge but to prepare
enlightened citizens, engage members of their communities in the “life of
the mind,” and enhance “every individual’s particular gifts, and voice, and
promise.”6 Thomas Jefferson argued that “light and liberty go together.”7
Colleges and universities issue credentials designed to signal others about
one’s standing as an educated apprentice, journeyman, or master in a
domain of knowledge and practice. The holistic approach to education is a
practical one. Modern academies seek wherever possible to leverage their
faculty, libraries, and other resources. Bundling academic offerings into
programs and courses of instruction enables (and masks) a complex system
of cross subsidies that make it possible for institutions to provide for study
in those disciplines that may be impractical or out of favor. This insulates
colleges and universities to an extent from pressures to be fashionable.
From a narrower consumer perspective, bundling allows these institutions
to offer—or even require students to take—instruction they have available
rather than instruction that students (or employers) may want.


6. The academic mission has three parts. From their inception, universities
and colleges have mixed three missions. Instruction, research, and service
have always been intertwined. Early academies featured surgical theaters,
translation centers, clinics, and astronomical observatories. These institu-
tions not only served the community of scholars but were important
in spreading knowledge, in food production, in nautical exploration, in
diplomacy, and in military applications such as ballistics. Research and
service to society and to the institution’s political patrons have always
been intertwined. Most academics believe that the elements that comprise
higher education’s mission mutually reinforce each other.8
7. The academy has become more accessible. Ideas about enlightenment
and citizenship fueled significant growth in colleges and universities in
the 18th century, and access widened even more in the 19th century as
the commercial application of scientific discoveries further enhanced the
standing of higher education. Thomas Jefferson reflected that an aristocracy
of virtue and talent would be essential to the functioning of a well ordered
republic.9 In the United States, secondary school enrollments rose from
297,894 to 824,447 between 1890 and 1906 as a reflection of the rise
in education’s perceived value.10 This expansion was echoed in higher
education as U.S. postsecondary enrollments rose from 200,000 at the
turn of the 20th century to more than 18 million today.11 As the wealth of
nations and citizen prosperity have become closely associated with higher
levels of educational attainment, many nations have opened higher educa-
tion’s gates wider. Women, long denied access, now outnumber men in
higher education throughout much of the developed world, and institu-
tions such as the Open University and the University of Phoenix enroll
more than 100,000 students, spanning multiple state and national jurisdic-
tions. Colleges and universities no longer serve only elite populations and
increasingly serve students of all ages and backgrounds.
8. Openness pervades academic inquiry. The history of Western higher
education is a history of increasingly open inquiry. Early universities
regulated as well as preserved knowledge. As colleges and universities won
self-governance, academic freedom and openness have become values that
are shared widely among members of the academy. Open inquiry is at the
heart of scientific method, which makes sense of the world by making
observations, forming and testing possible explanations of those obser-
vations, and repeating experiments over and over again. The process of
structured scientific inquiry depends on an open and increasingly public
iteration between observations and interpretations. Patterns of observations
are socialized by the academic community and can thus suggest possible
general principles that in turn are used to generate predictions about future


observations. Openness is central to others’ ability to reproduce experi-
mental results, and reproducibility is central to scientific research. To a great
extent, academic scholarship is less about finding “truth” than it is a process
of continual and open inquiry informed by curiosity, and skepticism.
9. The academy’s range is growing geographically. Colleges and universities
have extended their geographic presence, influence, and footprint. By 2007,
nearly 600,000 non-U.S. students enrolled in U.S. colleges and univer-
sities.12 U.S., British, and Australian universities have opened significant
academic operations in the Middle East, India, Singapore, and elsewhere.
A decade ago, Australia made exporting Australian higher education to
international students a cornerstone of its education and trade policy.
The importance of higher education has become widely understood
throughout the world.13 The emergence of robust networks, collaborative
tools, and rich digital stores of scholarly materials is making it possible to
extend higher education to more and more people. As Thomas Friedman
put it, “We are now in the process of connecting all the knowledge pools
in the world together ... anyone with smarts, access to Google, and a cheap
wireless laptop can join the innovation fray.”14
10. Scientific research is a catalyst of accelerating change. While the
academy’s instructional mission is discharged today in ways that can be
traced to medieval monastic or guild traditions, the organization and
conduct of research—particularly scientific research—can be barely
recognized from that of 100 years ago. Teams of researchers that extend
across domains of expertise and national borders organize experiments
using instruments of unimaginable size, power, and expense. The time
scale from problem conception to experimentation to commercialization
has collapsed. New fields of inquiry are born regularly, often requiring
the emergence of new methods, a new language of description, and new
conventions. Research output is breathtaking. In 2003 and 2004 there were
more than 7,500 scientific journals, and the number of articles appearing
in the top 16 of those journals alone in 2002 and 2003 was 6,911.15 Table
1 summarizes some of the key trends that can be traced in the history of
Western higher education.

The Gathering Cloud
While it took 1,000 years to raise the tower of higher education, it
has taken only 60 years to launch the digital computing and communica-
tions revolution. And while the history of computing and communications
is faster moving and more boisterous than the history of higher education,
it is less subtle and therefore easier to tell. At the most fundamental level,


Table 1. Key Trends in the History of Western Higher Education
FROM TO
Teaching is a small-scale craft and learning is Instruction is a scalable craft and can be standardized,
personalized. personalized, or self-guided.
The governing power of colleges and universities is Colleges and universities are largely self-governing.
derived from church or state.
The academy is isolated from society. The academy is enmeshed in communities served.
College or university education is accessible to an elite College or university education is accessible to all
student body. capable.
The college and university service base is local. The college or university service base can be local,
regional, national, or global.
The college or university is a place. The college or university is situated in a place and
virtually enhanced.
Scholars and academic resources are scarce and Scholars and academic resources are plentiful and
inaccessible. easily accessible.
Colleges and universities are purveyors and collectors Colleges and universities are creators of knowledge.
of knowledge.
Colleges and universities are local. Colleges and universities are increasingly global.

the story of information and communication technology is that of a quest
to put thinking and communicating power everywhere and in everything
and to connect it all. This is being accomplished by making computers
faster, cheaper, better, more reliable, smaller, and more personal; by making
communication ubiquitous and fast; and by making connections persistent.
The fuller story is a rich tale of five eras of innovation, economics
dominated by Moore’s law, and exponential improvements in performance.

Mainframe Computing
The mainframe era was launched in the 1940s with the appearance of
computing behemoths named Mark I, ENIAC, EDVAC, and Manchester’s
Baby. They were developed and housed in major research universities such
as MIT, Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of
Manchester. These machines were enormous, cumbersome, and specialized.
They were used chiefly for computationally intensive military applications
such as ballistics.
The replacement of vacuum tubes with transistors in 1947 and the
introduction of semiconductors in 1958 enabled cost-effective miniatur-
ization, the proliferation of devices, and decreases in cost. Third-generation
programming languages such as C, Basic, FORTRAN, ALGOL, and
COBOL made it possible for computers to support an increasingly wide
range of scientific and accounting functions. Large-scale computing
is inherently expensive and complex and tends toward centralized


management. Large computers, computer clusters, and associated storage
devices require power, space, cooling, scientific and technical expertise, and
physical security. Computation of this kind was expensive and therefore
tightly controlled. And, of course, the mainframe—and later the minicom-
puter—was an island. While multiple monitors were multiplexed to
mainframe computers in the 1950s, allowing more than one user to make
use of a mainframe, this practice did not become commonplace until time
sharing was successfully commercialized at Dartmouth in 1964.

Personal Computing
While the economics of semiconductors made it possible to
develop relatively inexpensive minicomputers such as Digital Equipment
Corporation’s PDP-8 (1965), the development of the home computer by
Apple in 1977 and the personal computer by IBM in 1981 ushered in a
new age of computing. These developments led Time Magazine to name
the computer as its “Man of the Year” in December 1982.
The shift from large-scale to personal computing was revolutionary. In
this era, Microsoft acquired QDOS and emerged as the dominant supplier
of operating systems for computers of this kind. Within a year, the text and
keyboard command-driven MS-DOS operating system were under pressure
from graphical user interfaces (GUI) such as those demonstrated on the
Apple Lisa. In 1983, Apple released the Macintosh along with the Orwellian
Super Bowl television commercial suggesting the coming of a new age
in computing. By late 1983, Microsoft announced Windows, an operating
system that featured GUI and a multitasking environment for the IBM PC.
In higher education, the PC and its evolving operating system
liberated computing from the data processing department in an unplanned
fashion. Decentralized grant funding, in particular, resulted in a prolif-
eration of personal computers throughout research universities and an
associated proliferation of software applications, support organizations, and
so forth. This unplanned technology archipelago gave rise to persistent
IT governance challenges, inefficiencies, and risks. Notwithstanding these
challenges, the personal computer put incredible capabilities into many
people’s hands. Computers became the defining medium of work. And
while early PCs were slow and cumbersome to use, they quickly became
faster, easier to use, and more standardized and enjoyed the emergence of
an extraordinary proliferation of software programs—many directed at
improving professional productivity. IT research firm Gartner, Inc., predicts
that there will be 2 billion computers in use worldwide by the year
2014—remarkable growth in less than 35 years.16


PCs in this era, like mainframes, were stand-alone devices, and early
personal computing suffered from local suboptimization from the institu-
tional perspective. Enterprise computing consisted of the financial system,
the student system, and the payroll/personnel system. Research computing
and most office work took place outside the gaze and purview of the
campus IT organization.

Physical Connectivity
By 1969, host computers at UCLA, UC Santa Barbara, Stanford
Research Institute, and the University of Utah were connected by a
network developed by the Department of Defense (DOD). Over the
next 15 years, ongoing innovations such as the development of Ethernet,
Transmission Control Protocol (TCP), packet switching, and others
resulted in the remarkable proliferation of networks and interconnection of
computers and other devices. By 1971, 23 host computers were connected
by networks, and by 1973, University College London became the first
international host to be connected to the DOD’s ARPAnet. By 1984,
the increasing adoption of Internet Protocol (IP) and other innovations
fueled the accelerating growth of the network. The number of network
host computers broke 1,000 that year. With the evolution of the domain
name system, e-mail, file transfer protocol, newsgroups, and other enabling
communication innovations, the computer became a communication
device. In 1986, the 56Kbs NSFnet succeeded the ARPAnet, fueling
greater demand for computer connections and paving the way for the
growth of supercomputer centers at Cornell, Pittsburgh, Princeton, San
Diego, and Urbana-Champaign. By 1987, the NSFnet was commercialized
and more than 10,000 host devices were connected. By 1989, more
than 100,000 host devices were connected to the NSFnet. Networks in
Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden were connected
to the U.S. network. By 1990, more than 1 million hosts were connected
to the network. The invention of the World Wide Web meant that digital
resources of many kinds could now be linked and displayed in common
and easy-to-use ways that were also graphically rich. This invention fueled
a rush to post and link an unprecedented volume of information online
that shows no signs of abating. Search engines emerged in 1995 to help
make it possible for people to gain unprecedented access to a wide variety
of information resources by using language that was natural to them. The
computer was now a communication device and the Internet and web, a
mass medium.


Logical Connectivity
The extraordinary proliferation of computers in the 50 years
between their invention and the middle of the 1990s, and the emergence
of a global data communication network linking hundreds of thousands
of users, created the possibility of doing things “anytime and anywhere.”
In the United States, the NASDAQ stock exchange began trading over
the Internet, lending legitimacy to business conducted over the network.
By 1997, new standards (802.11) for connecting devices and networks
wirelessly were approved and deployed over dedicated portions of the
U.S. spectrum. At the same time, second-generation mobile telephone
systems began to appear using TMDA and CMDA protocols. SMS
messaging also emerged during this period. The message was clear—
connectivity to networks was spreading like wildfire, and connectivity no
longer depended on physically linking devices through wires or cables.
These and subsequent innovations worked hand in hand with ongoing
efforts to make intelligent devices smaller and faster, resulting in an
explosion of intelligent and connected devices that were designed to
travel with their owners. Computers no longer filled entire rooms; they
fit inside pockets.
The connectivity associated with networks and the mobility associated
with modern computing and storage devices have made “being digital”
irresistible, and telephony, television, film, music, and video have raced to
become part of an interconnected digital landscape that could only be
characterized as a lifestyle. By 2000, wireless devices were in widespread use
in Fortune 500 companies, and by this writing there are 220,000 wireless
hot spots in the United States alone.17 The rapid deployment of new Wi-Fi
standards and the global adoption of third-generation standards for cellular
communications herald an age when it will be possible to remain persistently
and logically connected to the Internet anywhere in the world.

Embedded Connectivity
As video, voice, and text have become increasingly digital, the focus
of attention is on ubiquitous access and persistent connection. In such an
environment, everyone may be connected all the time to a network that
is linked essentially to everything. That day has not arrived, but as of 2007,
there were more than 1 billion people who used the Internet, and more
than 100 million websites. Radio frequency identification (RFID) chips
that communicate wirelessly are embedded routinely in everyday products.
Computers regulate the performance of automobiles and other devices and
track, transmit, and recount product history, performance, and anomalies to


networks of automotive dealers and others. Sensors can be found in seismi-
cally active areas or in tornados tracking the intensity, direction, and forces
associated with atmospheric, oceanic, or seismic movement. Intelligent
and communicating devices can be found in the backpacks or bracelets
that accompany Japanese children throughout their day, and they are now
frequently implanted in our pets.
Technology has become standardized, personalized, miniaturized,
economical, ubiquitous, and even friendly. Connection to the Internet is
becoming persistent. Many people now routinely carry a multiplicity of
devices whose power far outstrips that of ENIAC or Manchester’s Baby.
The evolution of context awareness, user interfaces (such as virtual worlds),
and natural language processing will continue to erode the boundaries that
separate our face-to-face presence from our presence in virtual spaces.
Finally, this period has seen the maturation of virtualization
technology.Virtualization refers to the abstraction of computing
resources and makes it possible to do things such as abstracting storage
from networked storage devices, or hosting computer applications on
alien hardware or software platforms.Virtualization makes it possible to
optimize underused computing resources independent of their location.
In the ideal, virtualization suggests the possibility of unifying a college
or university’s far-flung collection of networked devices for the purposes
of managing costs, conserving power consumption, applying security,
promoting sound information practices, and enforcing institutional
policies. These same capabilities, of course, will make it possible to recon-
sider the campus altogether as the locus of enterprise computing. Table
2 summarizes some of the key shifts in computing and communications
that have occurred in this period.

A Confusing Cusp
So what can we conclude is happening? Somewhere between the
stable, yet adaptable history of the tower and the boisterous and disruptive
history of information technology, things have become unclear. Why has
it become increasingly difficult to predict the channels that IT may cut
in higher education? Is IT a tool that we control or will information and
communications technologies profoundly influence and perhaps deeply
disrupt higher education?18 Have things become so murky that we can
only predict the present or have we arrived at a moment of history when
“change is so speeded up that we begin to see the present only when it is
already disappearing”?19


Table 2. Key Shifts in Computing and Communications
FROM TO
Computers are rare and expensive. Computers are affordable and are nearly every-
where.
Computers and computing are isolated. Computers are connected.
Computers are stationary. Computers are mobile.
Networked computing is an enterprise-scale profes- Networked computing is a widely held capability
sional endeavor. and activity that spans consumers of all ages and a
wide range of personal and professional roles.
Computing, network, and data storage capacity are Computing, network, and data storage capacity can
fixed and must be managed for growth. be virtualized, shared, and increased or decreased
on demand.
Information systems, resources, and services are orga- Information systems, resources, and services can be
nized, assembled, mediated by the enterprise. organized, assembled, mediated anywhere and by
anyone on the network.
Networked information resources are scarce. Networked information resources are abundant.
Finding networked information requires end-user Finding network information is relatively natural
education and skills. and easy.
Standards are evolving and impede progress. Many key standards are in place and standard-
setting processes have themselves become
standardized.
The physical form of information mediates access to Policy and law mediate access to information.
information.

We are in a time of emergence when the best advice is to observe and to
be sensitive to areas from which change is emerging. Periods of emergence are
characterized by hype, hope, rational and irrational exuberance, uncertainty,
promises, panaceas, hyperbole, fear, risks, and opportunities.
This volume was intended to define the perimeters of this fluid and
uncertain period. Not only is the rate of change accelerating, but the form
that change is assuming is becoming indistinct. The form that change is
assuming is that of a cloud. Cloudiness denotes heterogeneity, dynamism,
shape shifting, indistinctness, and the capacity for expansion and reorga-
nization. Cloudiness also denotes confusion and lack of clarity. We are at
change’s borders and we cannot fully envision the territory that lies ahead.
We are at a cusp—an interregnum that separates innovation and social-
ization. We are making the leap from one innovation curve to another. We
are changing regimes without really comprehending the new regime. We
are letting go of a known and trusted toehold in favor of an uncertain one.
Our uncertainty makes sense. Technological changes typically outpace
people’s ability to socialize those changes. While innovations like the
steam engine replaced the power of humans, animals, wind, or water with
mechanical power in the 18th century, the reorganization of work itself
changed very slowly and over a long period of time. Indeed, it was not


until the 1918 opening of Henry Ford’s Rouge River plant—the cathedral
for the Industrial Revolution—that industrial work finally and fully
embraced the capacity for change presented by the technologies of the
industrial age. The gap between innovation and full realization took more
than two centuries to disappear.
This interregnum, too, is unique. First, clouds do not get clearer as you
approach them. Second, the acceleration caused in fact by our intercon-
nectedness means that this interregnum will not take 200 years to play out.
The socialization of IT is a drama being enacted simultaneously by 1 billion
interconnected people, many of whom are adapting to change and assimi-
lating new behaviors in real time, all the time. Third, we are becoming cloudy.
Grant McCracken argues that like clouds, we are “an aggregation of interests,
connections, and contacts, tagged in several ways, linked in all directions,
changing in real time.” This characterization of the self, groups, networks, and
ideas stands in stark relief to Clifford Geertz’s concept of Western man as a
“bounded unique, more or less integrated … dynamic center of awareness,
emotion, judgment and action organized into a distinctive whole.” At its
most philosophical, this particular cusp causes us to ask the most uncom-
fortable questions about the nature of enterprise, the nature of work, the
nature of knowledge and ideas, and the nature of ourselves.20
The end of the middle, indeed.

Disruptions at the Cusp
So what is clear? It is clear that the history of higher education is one
of persistence and adaptability. It is increasingly clear that core competency
of universities “is not transferring knowledge, but developing it [through]
intricate and robust networks and communities.”21
It is reasonable to conclude that higher education’s history is a history
both of rising importance and accessibility and of continuity in instruc-
tional method. This history is partly defined by the tension between
the academy’s costly craft-based instructional preference—defined as
“quality”—and the drive to provide affordable higher education to more
and more people. Increasing access to higher education has for most come
with increasing costs and at the expense of personalized instruction. Few
educators can deliver personalized instruction affordably on a large scale,
without endowments or other subsidies. The history of higher education is
also a history of increasing openness. From the time of locked and guarded
scriptoria and of chained books to the proliferation today of open reposi-
tories, open content, open source software, and open inquiry, the vector of
change has been easy to discern.


The history of information technology is similarly a history that can
be summarized by the increasing availability of IT, of IT-enabled services,
and of information itself. Unlike higher education, the history of IT is
one of increasing accessibility with increasing affordability and increasing
personalization. This is due largely to the breathtaking effects of Moore’s
law, to near ubiquitous network access, and to the adoption of standards.
And with IT, investment in personalization means ultimately that success
is defined by making operations and learning so transparent and easy as
to eliminate the need for human intervention. Most higher education
offerings are predicated on the desirability of human intervention.
While so-called cloud computing remains an emergent concept and
development and thus is subject to hype, definitional disputes, and inevitable
fits and starts, it is clear that (1) open information content, software, and
services, (2) service orientation and delivery, (3) server and storage virtual-
ization, and (4) standardization of computing across the Internet are leading
to what some describe as the democratization and industrialization of IT.22
Philosophizing about the cloud and the possible dematerialization
of things can lead one to end-of-time ideas about the “big switch,”
the “digital enterprise,” and the “end of corporate computing”23 or to
incapacitating confusion and inaction. This volume and essay are in fact
organized to accent an important portion of the trends so that the practi-
tioner can engage the institution in setting a broad agenda for action in
the coming years. While the prospect of “end-of-the-middle” possibilities
is quite real, there are more fascinating and more positive questions to
be asked. In particular, can enabling our IT infrastructures for industrial-
scale computing make it possible to defeat the historical tension between
access to and personalization of education? Can we extend the footprint
of our existing colleges and universities in ways that take advantage of scale
economics, while maximizing the degrees of operating freedom enjoyed by
our students, faculty, operating units, international affiliates, and so forth? In
short, is mass personalization of higher education possible?
To answer these questions, we need to understand the nature of the
disruptions that are likely to occur in the future. University of Virginia Vice
President James Hilton makes a compelling case that “four disruptive forces are
bearing down on higher education at this very moment: unbundling; demand-
pull; ubiquitous access; and the rise of the pure property view of ideas.”24

Unbundling
Unbundling, or disintermediation, makes it possible for the
consumer to acquire only the blurb rather than the book, the cut rather


than the album, or perhaps the course rather than the academic program.
It is now possible for traditional colleges and universities to offer
coursework in learning centers, on campuses, online, and in a variety
of hybrid forms. It is also increasingly possible for new colleges and
universities to do the same, and for institutions to sell unbundled educa-
tional offerings across traditional higher education jurisdictions. It is also
possible for other “knowledge” and expertise businesses, such as The
New York Times, to rebundle their human and information resources and
reinvent themselves as educational enterprises, and for others to explore
reconstructing the educational delivery model altogether. Just as one can
unbundle a course from a catalog, one can unbundle course delivery
from classrooms, and so forth.
Unbundling cuts both ways. Savvy education providers with strong
brands will be able to enlarge their institutional footprint by organizing
education and other institutional services for delivery to new students,
customers, patrons, and fans. For others, the virtualization of services and
the evolution of cloud-based services will likely add new competition for
the mix. For still others, the availability of virtualized services will make
it possible to rebundle elements of the educational infrastructure (tutors,
library materials, assessments, and so forth) in ways that are experientially
rich while being scalable and enjoying very different economics from their
place-based alternatives. In an era of increasing concern about an institu-
tion’s carbon footprint and energy costs, such virtualized service offerings
may become especially appealing.
Hilton also reveals another aspect of unbundling—the unbundling and
repackaging in the cloud that is embodied in the creed of ripping, mixing,
and burning. Not only does the cloud enable the unbundling of higher
education’s service offerings, it facilitates a world of “mashed up” IT appli-
cations, expression, ideas, and scholarship. Ideas move through the cloud at
the speed of light. They are mashed together with other ideas, commented
on, transmuted, embedded, enlivened, debased as they circle the globe.
Unbundling, in this regard, in its most positive light, presents the academic
with unprecedented access to other interested scholars—and amateurs. In
astronomy, for example, this is making it possible for theoretical astrophysi-
cists to accelerate the pace of observational confirmation (or disconfir-
mation) by tapping into networks of amateurs. Every home can become
part of a global observatory, meteorological data collection station, and
so forth. In this same positive light, harnessing the talent and effort of the
crowd can reduce the amount of time taken on an academic task and can
simultaneously increase an institution’s fee base while “maintaining links to
the sort of practical expertise they often lack.”25


Unbundling can disrupt an institution and industry so as to cause
fragmentation. The potential to unbundle, for example, the offerings of the
mainstream media has resulted in the likely permanent fragmentation of
the mediascape. On one hand, citizen journalism is putting more news into
more hands faster and faster without the overlay of corporate or govern-
mental editorial policy. On the other hand, advances in technology have
helped “turn each of us into producers, distributors, and editors of our
own media diet.”26 While this is liberating, Farhad Manjoo reminds us that
“while new technology eases connections between people, it also paradox-
ically facilitates a closeted view of the world, keeping us coiled tightly
with those who share our ideas. In a world that lacks real gatekeepers and
authority, and in which digital manipulation is so effortless, spin, conspiracy
theories, myths, and outright lies may get the better of many of us.”27
The vision of higher education splitting into niches of scholars, students,
amateurs, and others who are united by common biases and preexisting
beliefs is an unnerving one. However this aspect of unbundling plays out,
it is likely that unbundling and rebundling words from their authors repre-
sents what Professor Chris Dede calls “a seismic shift in epistemology.”28
More narrowly, unbundling has real disruptive consequences for those
of us who manage the institution’s information, information services, and
information resources. A great deal of the scholarly information resources
of the planet are being digitized at the same time that unprecedented
investments are being made in search engineering. These forces are unbun-
dling the collection from the library. Similarly, markets for delivering core
aspects of the IT infrastructure—compute cycles and data storage—are
emerging and will likely mature quickly.Virtualized IT infrastructure and
application services, such as mail, make it possible to increase or decrease
the institution’s IT consumption on demand, take better advantage of
scale, and in some cases take advantage of providers’ access to renewable
energy sources. Commercially provided cloud services, in the long run, are
also likely to feature better security and improved business availability. It is
increasingly likely over the long term that core higher education processes
will be available as cloud services.

Demand-Pull
If unbundling is a phenomenon that speaks to what producers do
(or what happens to them), then demand-pull relates to the capabilities,
preferences, and behaviors of consumers in a cloudy world. Just as the
cloud is making it possible for producers to deconstruct and re-source their
services, it is making it possible for consumers to assemble their world.


One student put it this way: “I don’t look at it as ‘getting on the Internet.’
The Internet is a part of life. It is a lifestyle.” Part of that lifestyle includes
RSS feeds, social networks, portals, and other tools that make it possible
for people to configure their social and informational worlds in cyberspace
precisely to suit their needs and tastes.
In the context of higher education generally, the emergence of a
robust tool set for configuring our world is enormously powerful and
beneficial. We are able to consume more relevant information, faster, and
share insights within purposeful communities more effectively than ever
before. Because developing and transferring knowledge within commu-
nities is a part of our educational mission, an infrastructure that empowers
us to configure and contextualize our world levers this mission. However,
as with unbundling, the sword cuts both ways. Our students and other
constituents, too, are using tools to arrange their worlds. Higher education,
like many industries, is organized today in a producercentric fashion. We
are supply-push–based institutions. We don’t offer a course on the history
of feudal Japan, but we have a raft of wonderful Byzantine history courses
you can take. In an unbundled cloud in which the consumer has been
fully empowered, we run the risk that students will lose confidence in our
ability to construct curricula that meet their needs. Like their medieval
counterparts, students will have the easy ability to use their social or
scholarly networks to source the academic programming they want. In the
extreme, faculty free agents—like the itinerant scholars before 1100—may
find interesting niche opportunities among such bands of students. This
massive customization or personalization of an education is no different
from how students today organize and consume their news or organize
their philanthropic or social agendas and communities.
Another interesting aspect of this potential disruption is the long-tail
phenomenon. Chris Anderson argues that “the future of business is
selling less of more. Infinite choice and lower costs to connect supply and
demand is changing the nature of the market and will transform entire
industries. Growth is in the long tail.”29 The long tail of demand may—in
concert with an institution’s course delivery system—provide ways for
comprehensive universities to continue to offer instruction in rare and
exotic fields while expanding student choice, either independently or at
smaller institutions. The long tail of demand may express itself in efforts
by smaller colleges to enlarge their footprints by importing parts of an
expanded curriculum. Or students may simply customize their courses of
instructions themselves.
For the college or university administrator and IT leader, the move to
a demand-pull economy is similarly disruptive. Faculty will be presented


with the opportunity to use cloud-based services to manage their grant
activity and to organize a personalized e-research infrastructure in the
cloud. Faculty will also be able to use their institutional platforms to
launch extramural consulting, teaching, and other ventures.
When the forces of unbundling and demand-pull combine, the results
are easy to visualize. The growing availability of low-cost, easy-to-use
devices and cloud services makes it possible for today’s student or new
faculty member to arrive on campus with an intelligent phone, portable
digital music player, laptop computer, router, social networks, e-mail
accounts, network data storage, RSS reader, and perhaps open source
office productivity tools and web development environment. The lament
of tomorrow’s IT provider could be: “There go my customers. And I must
hurry to follow them. For I am their provider.”30 As the explosion of
content continues along with the increasing maturity and availability of
web-based academic services and applications, tomorrow’s students will
arrive on campus with their own IT architectures and service arrange-
ments. These students—and tomorrow’s faculty—will have little use for or
patience with college or university offerings that underperform or force
them to lose precious connections to people and processes that they have
accumulated since childhood.

Ubiquitous Access
The first 50 years of the IT revolution were preparatory. In essence,
the race to miniaturize computers, put them on desktops, make them
portable, and connect them to networks met the preconditions for a
networked information economy. The invention of the World Wide
Web and the widespread adoption of search engines—and in particular
Google—have made the Internet a transformative medium. As James
Hilton puts it: “We are on the cusp of a world in which everyone will have
access not only to online information but also to information that tradi-
tionally was accessible only by going into a library … . Any information
that one could desire will be but a click away.”31
The importance of having more than 1 billion people and nearly all
published information online cannot be overstated. Such milestones suggest
the arrival at tipping points—in the roles played by traditional libraries and
in the roles played by academics. In the near term, this is all liberating. No
longer will information be rationed by the availability or scarcity of books,
serials, government publications, and so forth. No longer will students and
other researchers be constrained by search techniques that are confined to
the small number of subject descriptors supplied long ago by catalogers.


The capacity to create or follow hypertext links creates opportu-
nities to follow, develop, or abandon research trails at a rate that could
not be imagined 10 years ago. Google, for example, is working with
20 major research university libraries worldwide to make their collec-
tions available over the Internet. Columbia University Librarian James
Neal argues that “[Columbia’s] participation in the Google Book Search
Library Project will add significantly to the extensive digital resources
the Libraries already deliver. It will enable the Libraries to make available
more significant portions of its extraordinary archival and special collec-
tions to scholars and researchers worldwide in ways that will ultimately
change the nature of scholarship.”32
The nature of scholarship has changed and indeed must change in
light of ubiquitous access. The emergence of the networked information
economy has made information and knowledge central to human devel-
opment and progress. The premium on information and knowledge—and
on processes for creating and socializing this information and knowledge—
carries with it the potential for colleges and universities to occupy places
of increasing centrality. These vectors of change also create opportunities
for others. As Hilton concludes, the function that colleges and universities
have played as gateways to information will be gone: “If higher education
remains synonymous with access to information in the eyes of the public,
then it has a huge problem. There are many more efficient ways to get
information than attending classes for four years.”33

The Rise of the Pure Property View of Ideas
The very rich IT infrastructure that we have created has made it
possible to deliver everything in digital form and thereby to code it, tag it,
watermark it, track it, and extract rents from it. The long-standing calculus
of copyright law and patent law—which strives to balance the limited
rights of creators and inventors to enjoy compensation for their creative
contributions and effort with the overarching public right and need to
have, share, and develop ideas—is being revised in both directions.
On one hand, copyright and patent law “are moving aggressively in
the direction of protecting owners and away from protecting access and
learning. Even more important, our understanding of the nature of ideas is
shifting.”34 Students are asking professors to sign nondisclosures to protect
their rights to intellectual property in course assignments; the rights to
alleged prior art obtained in open community discourse is at the heart of
high-profile patent litigation and reexaminations; and so forth. The past
few decades have witnessed the extension of copyright protection to all


written works at the moment of their creation and this protection has been
extended in duration.
At the same time a vigorous, if struggling, movement has arisen to
liberate scholarly and other information from the strictures and constraints of
copyright and patent law. Open source and community source software have
become commonplace, if not clearly or comprehensively sustainable. Open
courseware initiatives of varying intensity are under way at many colleges
and universities. These efforts make available course content, instructional
frameworks, syllabi, and in some cases textbooks and even limited access to
instructors. These initiatives bear witness to three important observations.
The first is that for some learners and some learning purposes, disembodied
learning content that is well contextualized in a learning framework and
supported by indicators of progress and self-administered assessments can
be quite effective. The second is that some learners do not need mediation
of course materials by experts, guides, and peers. The third observation is
that giving away this wealth of material does not impoverish the donor.
Indeed, the reputation enhancement alone of providing open course content
suggests that these initiatives are net economic winners for their sponsors.
These economics were understood in 1813 by Thomas Jefferson35 and more
recently by John Perry Barlow. Barlow argues:
You take a piece of information and share it between two
people and that same piece of information becomes more
valuable, because it now has a context that automatically
makes it more complex than it was before you shared it. It
layers new forms of value onto itself with each iteration.
You get a deeper understanding, a better strategy, a more
finely tuned approach. This is a very different way of
looking at the economy than the one we have been using,
which is based on physical objects. Scarcity of physical
items increases their value, which is not necessarily true of
information. With information such as music or books, the
better something is known, the more valuable it becomes.
Most of the economic value now is coming out of the
informational world, not the physical.36
And finally, consumers in many cases are taking matters into their own
hands. The compelling and perhaps inexorable flow of information on the
Internet is the free flow of information. Outside the civilized, if passionate,
arguments for greater openness or more protection of rights, markets are
operating. Network babies who have grown to adulthood accustomed to
unimpeded movement across network environments are developing and
socializing their own ideas and morality around intellectual property rights.


Whether rights holders can educate or sanction young people into confor-
mance with the pure property views of information or Net Gen citizens
grow up to reflect their own ideas in the workplace and ballot box remains
to be seen. In any case, it is not hyperbole to suggest that as digital delivery
of protected textual becomes the norm, this issue will divide higher
education as perhaps no other.

Toward a Cloudy Academy
Former Wellesley College President Diana Chapman Walsh and her
commissioners at Wellesley College argue persuasively that colleges and
universities operate increasingly in a fluid and uncertain environment.
Higher education in the future will need to come to grips with global-
ization and will be subject to worldwide competition. Long-standing
demographic trends are playing themselves out in ways that will reshape
the world. The populations of many leading nations are expected to
collapse in size within two or three decades, and much of the developed
world will need to meet the demands of large numbers of older citizens.
The ascendance of knowledge work places a premium on education
and presents the possibility of a new centrality and vitality in the role
and place of the college and university in society. This possibility is also
presented to other potential educators, and it is likely that the ongoing
progress of virtualized services, web standards, open information, and other
developments will make it increasingly possible to unbundle parts of the
higher education mission and thus to invite new competitors and forms of
competition. And despite our nearly ubiquitous access to each other and
to an increasingly complete digital record of human activity, the threats of
fragmentation and polarization are higher than ever before.
Walsh and her colleagues point out that “the Internet has provided
everyone with a voice, and the cacophony of clashing worldviews and faith
systems [that are] overlaid with political and social agendas … .”37 They also
point out that another critical aspect of this uncertain environment is the
climate of ferment in higher education, a growing view that “the system [of
U.S. higher education] has serious enough deficiencies in access, quality, and
costs as to raise concern about the nation’s long term prospects of sustaining
its standard of living in a newly-competitive global economy.”38
The emergence of new technological capabilities, of the disruptive
socialization of these capabilities, and of this fluid and uncertain
environment suggests a plan of action and a set of priorities for colleges
and universities. In many ways, the emergence of the cloud presents yet


Figure 1. The Cloudy Academy?

Digital Spaces,
Institutional Environments
Compliance and Tools
and Control

Middleware
Institutional Information
Talent Management,
Management General Policies and
Library Counsel Practices

Audit
overna
Development
IT G

nce

Institutional
Intellectual CAO CBO Performance
Capital Management
Management Analytics and
Student Public
Affairs Reporting
Affairs

Institutional Digital
Identity Scholarship
IT Infrastructure
and
Architecture

another opportunity to visit what John Henry Newman called “the idea of
a university.”39 This essay and this volume suggest an agenda for discussion,
debate, and eventual decision as colleges and universities work toward a
cloudy academy. This agenda for action is described in Figure 1.

Develop a Cloud Strategy
Whether or not the cloud metaphor is right, it is clear that the
capacity to dial up IT infrastructure and to invoke services over the
network is evolving. This evolution presents enormous opportunity and
risk. We can leave our institution’s response to these new capabilities to
chance, we can confine our planning to the IT organization, or we can
engage our leadership in a discussion of near-term strategy. The strategic
discussion about the evolution of virtualization, services orientation and
delivery, open resources, web standards, and cloud computing is in fact
a conversation about what constitutes the institution as an enterprise and
about how the institution wishes to manifest its institutional presence in


cyberspace. Embedded in this strategic conversation is the issue of the
institution’s predispositions as a provider or consumer of network-based
services and whether these predispositions are outward facing or inward
facing. For example, the institution may choose—for this time—to be
dominantly a consumer of services externally and to not “cloudify” its
external services. At the same time, the central IT organization may opt
to virtualize elements of the institutional IT environment on behalf of
local campus units. Strategic alternatives range from doing nothing, to
becoming an aggressive integrator of infrastructure and services from the
cloud, to rationalizing IT resources internally, to enabling the institution
to become a supplier of services in this evolving fashion. Each option, of
course, suggests a different infrastructure and bears distinct investment and
operating costs.

Focus on IT Governance
Every IT leader understands the importance of governance in higher
education. The emergence of cloud computing and of the issues raised
in this essay suggests the need to redouble our efforts in this arena. If the
wellspring of higher education’s creative success and our organizational
inefficiency is the empowerment of students and faculty in the academic
enterprise, then the emergence of the cloud will amplify this empow-
erment. Just as PCs unleashed end-user creativity while proliferating copies
and versions of the institutional record, and just as the emergence of the
web and HTML have produced both a cornucopia of content and a multi-
plicity of front doors to our institutions, the next turn of the IT crank
will make it possible for every member of our community to become her
own IT provider. The potential both for unlocking human potential and
for further fragmentation is profound. This potential will affect the institu-
tion’s presence and reputation in cyberspace, our social compact with our
community, our business controls, costs, and risks, our ability to manage
risk and to comply with regulatory requirements, our competitive posture,
and other major issues.
These issues may first become visible to the IT leader, but they are
not IT issues. Therefore, it is essential that institutions begin to allocate
concerted and ongoing leadership attention to the questions and challenges
raised by IT in the years to come. IT governance will continue to focus on
the institution’s IT investment strategy and priorities but will increasingly
focus on how the institution wishes to manifest itself online. Failure to
govern will lead to accidental governance and to the future need to “rope
in those clouds.” As one imagines, clouds are hard to rope!


Focus on Information Management, Practices, and
Policy
This topic is pressing. It is deceptively labeled, since everything in the
Internet is information! How an institution manages its virtual presence
has become as important as how it manages its campus and physical
presence. Increasingly, these issues are merging as laboratory access, library
access, building access, and so forth become mediated by IT. The institu-
tion’s information system is increasingly the means by which the insti-
tution regulates the boundaries and conditions of its community, the rules
of community engagement, and the boundaries, scope, and nature of that
community’s access to scholarly resources. These are issues that are instan-
tiated in and enforced by IT but, again, they are not IT issues. Who are the
citizens of our institution? Do all citizens have full rights of citizenship?
What authorities do different citizens have? Who determines these author-
ities? Do citizens of allied institutions have rights at our institution (and
vice versa)? These are profound questions that are shaped in part by the
regulatory environment but even more by decades or centuries of campus
experience and policy making.
Ubiquitous access to people and resources through the network makes
the institution’s information system the nexus of enforcement of these
policies and practices. In many cases, this means that formal and informal
practices must be made explicit. As new technologies make it possible
to virtualize storage or to federate data, it will also become more critical
for institutions to craft information management policies and strategies.
Institutional information is increasingly subject to regulatory require-
ments related to access, privacy, confidentiality, discoverability, redactability,
retention, disclosure, and so forth.
At the heart of the information policy issue is Professor Yochai
Benkler’s concept of network permeability. Benkler argues that the way
information and knowledge are made available can either limit or enlarge
the ways people can create and express themselves.40 As well, institutions
need to devise policies and practices to ensure the authenticity of official
information and to preserve a record of the institution and its citizens for
cultural and historical purposes.
Finally, the need to reshape information management, policies, and
practices carries with it the need for institutions across higher education
to rethink their revenue models. The revolution in open source computing
is being fueled in part by competitive investments by some companies
against the entrenched monopolies of others. Or it is motivated by a shift
from product delivery to solutions. Open content strategies of search


engineering organizations or social network operators also have an
underlying revenue model—becoming the “library of the world” means
attracting visits and therefore advertising; that is, attracting crowds attracts
advertising revenues.
Higher education’s impulses toward openness are essential to diffuse
knowledge, build community, and stimulate innovation. Openness,
however, is not free, and therefore colleges and universities, like others, will
need to develop, evaluate, and eventually deploy new strategies for recov-
ering the costs of their investments in openness.

Focus on Key Technologies and Enterprise IT
Architecture
While the technologies themselves may be the least complex of the issues
associated with this transformation, they are not at all simple.The enterprise IT
leader will be charged with organizing the infrastructure and human capabil-
ities that will enforce the leadership’s views about the nature and privileges of
the community.While it may be axiomatic that the IT leader must track and
test virtualization technologies, web standards, cloud service offerings, and the
like, the IT leader must also rethink enterprise IT architecture.
It is increasingly understood that validating identity and administering
basic citizenship authorities can best be accomplished through middleware
that spans institutional academic and business applications. It is also increas-
ingly apparent that cross-cutting activities such as workflow management
can also be rendered in middleware. Ongoing attention should be allocated
to IT architecture and in particular to the tightness of how software
functions are integrated and to which software operations can be abstracted
from applications and embedded in middleware. IT leaders will have
to become adept at identifying risk in systems and services they do not
operate and will have to query cloud service providers deeply about policy
choices that may be embedded in their service offerings. For example,
some software capabilities may be enabled through information practices—
such as mining and profiling student information—that are incompatible
with laws such as FERPA.

Focus on Enterprise Compliance and Controls
The drive toward consumerization and unbundling is motivated by
service. TripAdvisor, for example, has unbundled the hotel industry by
aggregating room information and disconnecting this information from the
hotels themselves. For the consumer, it is more pleasant to shop price and


quality on one site than to call or surf dozens of hotel chains. Enterprise
systems exist to facilitate service but also to mitigate risks, minimize costs,
comply with regulations, safeguard privacy, protect reputations, and so
forth. The drives toward unbundling and consumerization pose a real
challenge to the enterprise, particularly to colleges and universities whose
leaders are loath to impose strict limitations on a highly creative (and
possibly tenured!) workforce.
Be warned: even the very idea of audit trail becomes difficult to
understand in the context of software-as-a-service and cloud computing.
The general counsel, auditor, business officer, and CIO, along with
academic leaders, must work together to determine how much authority
individuals and subunits have in the cloud. Just as institutions in the past
have regulated purchasing activity, prequalified vendors, or injected CIO
review into large-scale IT procurements, controls of some sort will be
needed to make sure that what people can do in the cloud is consistent
with what the institution wants them to do. This is very tricky. Colleges
and universities have been embarrassed by data spills resulting from the
theft of unauthorized copies of digital student or patient records. Imagine
the fallout from news of institutional data loss, misuse, or leaks from third-
party custodians whose very existence was unknown to institutional officials.
Cloud services will not be limited to infrastructure and in time it will be
relatively easy for well intended campus citizens to configure financial
transactions and so forth.
The need for compliance and control is often misunderstood in
the academy. Achieving control requires oversight, and in the context of
networked information oversight is often achieved by filtering, monitoring,
alerts, restrictions, and sanctions—activities that are unpopular in the
academic enterprise. Nevertheless, strategic choices will need to be made
regarding the institution’s approach to compliance and control. In general,
colleges and universities will have to choose control systems that constrain
employee action automatically (dollar limitations, preauthorizations, vendor
lists, and so forth) or control systems that maximize employee freedoms
but accomplish control through dollar limits (campus cards) or through
monitoring and posttransaction sanctions.
Taking increased advantage of cloud services will be neither easy
nor without risk. While cloud computing promises to eliminate software
upgrade cycles, free us from vendor lock-in, and so forth, this style of
organizing IT, too, will be very hard. Invoking services from the cloud is
unlikely to ever be analogous to plugging into the wall for electricity.
On February 15, 2008, Amazon’s Simple Storage System suffered a
massive outage. In a separate incident, thousands of early users of Apple’s


MobileMe mail synchronization and backup utility were left unable to
access their mail, and some witnessed the permanent loss of substantial
amounts of mail. In a third contemporaneous incident, an online storage
service called The Linkup shut down on August 8, 2008, after losing
unspecified amounts of customer data. Company responses to all of these
failures were reported in the press as being “substandard.”41
It will be wise to remember that any service will always have points
of failure and that institutions that depend on hosted services must take
care with language about risk levels in their contracts. Agreements will also
need to ensure that third parties implement reasonable safeguards when
they process, store, use, or transmit institutional assets.Vendor agreements
will need to ensure vendor compliance with Sarbanes-Oxley, FERPA,
HIPAA, and other key regulations, as well as with institutional policy
on confidentiality and security in electronic communications. Colleges
and universities will want to ensure that third parties do not monitor
the contents of electronic communications except to ensure the proper
functioning and security of electronic communications. Security incidents,
losses of data, and other issues must be handled in ways that meet the insti-
tution’s policy and regulatory requirements, and contracting institutions
should review the cloud suppliers’ professional guidance (SAS 70 Audit
Report) that documents and attests to the adequacy of the internal controls
for the service being contracted. And, of course, issues related to indemnifi-
cation and insurance need to be specified. This is not just like electricity.42

Manage the Institution’s Online Presence
Since the early days of personal computing and the early days of the web,
college and university leaders have realized that the willy-nilly proliferation
of PCs and of institutional web pages was suboptimal from an investment
viewpoint and presented the world with a fragmented and perhaps wrong-
headed impression of the institution.The realization of the networked infor-
mation economy suggests that over time, an organization’s presence online will
assume greater and greater gravitas with consumers, regulators, accreditors, and
others.This rising gravitas in concert with the unbundling tendencies inherent
in the evolution of the networked information economy suggests the need
to redouble efforts and investments to nurture the institution’s reputation
in cyberspace. Creating and enforcing standards and guidelines for subunits
regarding the use of the college or university name, its trademarks, message,
and so forth will be essential, as will inventorying and monitoring the presence
of institutional subunits and that of their partners in cyberspace.The reputa-
tions of enterprises in general will rise and fall increasingly as a result of actions,


images, and impressions made in cyberspace. Colleges and universities and their
faculty—like public officials, corporate executives, and movie stars—will need
to monitor blog sites, wikis, social networks, faculty rating sites, newsgroups,
and other social sites to inform efforts to maintain and elevate the institution’s
reputation.This will become even more the case as colleges and universities
move to immersive environments. As these environments become compelling
and popular, their impact on institutional reputation will become inseparable
from that of the physical campus.

Manage Digital Spaces, Environments, and Tools
As just mentioned, virtual and immersive college and university environ-
ments such as Second Life will deeply influence the image and reputation
of the institution.They will also become places of serious academic work
and commerce and therefore will demand the same quality attention that
is devoted to physical campus master planning, design, architecture, and
construction. Already a great many students and faculty interact in online
collaborative environments. Major research collaborations take place in
academic teams whose members may never have met face to face. Such
environments must be designed thoughtfully to both stimulate sound academic
practices and safeguard research results, as well as to reinforce the presence
of the institution in positive ways.The unbundling capacity of new cloud
capabilities will make it possible for academics to assemble just-in-time collab-
orative environments and to assemble an infrastructure and open source tools
that might be needed to facilitate a learning encounter or research effort.
College and university leaders should understand that to the extent that assem-
bling such environments is easy and effective, others will assemble them and
use them to potentially draw away increasingly talented faculty. Increasingly,
unaffiliated research institutes are attracting away political scientists and other
social scientists. Indeed, improved network capacity is now making it possible
for scientists in unaffiliated organizations such as the Space Science Institute
to conduct world-class research from home or otherwise away from colleges
and universities.This trend represents another form of unbundling and can be
countered in part by methodical and serious institutional investment in digital
learning and research environments and tools.

Focus on Scholarly Literacy
Ubiquitous access has disrupted the social landscape of higher
education in unexpected ways. Persistent networked access to countless
people and to mountains of digital resources, according to Professor Yochai


Benkler, go “to the very foundations of how liberal markets and liberal
democracies have co-evolved for almost two centuries.”43 In this new
environment, knowledge production has become an increasingly social
activity. Ideas about authorship, provenance, plagiarism, collaboration,
and ownership are all under experimentation in the wake of information
technologies that make it possible to rip, mix, and burn. Unlike infor-
mation in print, online digital information can be manipulated, extrapo-
lated, extended, connected, hyperlinked, and mashed up. This new freedom
“holds great practical promise: as a dimension of individual freedom; as a
platform for better democratic participation; as a medium to foster a more
critical and self-reflective culture; and, in an increasingly information-
dependent global economy, as a mechanism to achieve improvements in
human development everywhere.”44
This new freedom also challenges many of our traditional ideas about
scholarly quality, method, and literacy. Debates simmer about the usability
of Wikipedia as a scholarly resource because of its ephemeral nature and
because the academic bona fides of its contributors cannot easily be vetted.
Mashups obscure our understanding of authorship, and so forth. Seasoned
academics will need to debate and ultimately shape a new understanding
of scholarly method in light of these evolving practices, and students will
need to be taught how to sift and evaluate evidence in the context of
networked information.

Focus on the Institution’s Performance Management
System and Analytics
Colleges and universities operate today in an overall period of
educational ferment. Students and their parents describe feeling trapped
between pressures to gain higher education bona fides for the workplace
and the declining affordability of postsecondary education. This squeeze
plays out in a number of ways. As the cost of collegiate education rises
and as governments break with their long-standing commitments to
underwriting this cost as a public good, students and parents have increas-
ingly come to view the college or university offering as a consumer good.
The enlightened consumer is less likely to accept academic offerings
because such offerings are purported to be “for their own good.” Today’s
students and their parents will pressure colleges and universities to create
safe and fulfilling environments for study and personal growth, to foster
their admission prospects with graduate schools, and to offer curricula
that contribute to students’ long-term earning prospects. The continually
rising costs of collegiate education are also conspiring to focus parents’ and


regulators’ attention on perceived value, rankings, and other methods of
assessing the comparative performance of colleges and universities.
This political ferment and a host of structural factors—such as
demographic change—are conspiring to make the management and
reporting of institutional performance a matter of substantive and political
concern. The development of meaningful metrics, and the careful mining,
analysis, presentation, and reporting of performance information in ways
that both guide the institution and convey intentions and achievements
to stakeholders, is hard in the context of any set of information systems.
Accomplishing these objectives when information may reside in the cloud
or on infrastructures hosted by others will be even harder. In the years
ahead, the institution’s performance management system may become
one of the defining elements of the enterprise. Thinking through what a
distributed performance management system might look like should be a
part of the action agenda for today’s leaders in higher education.

Focus on Managing Talent and Intellectual Property
Colleges and universities, as mentioned earlier, are purposeful commu-
nities designed chiefly to develop and disseminate new knowledge. We
accomplish these purposes in complex but largely social ways. Former
Harvard University President James Bryant Conant perhaps said best how
this is done: “pick men (sic) of genius, back them heavily, and leave them
to direct themselves.”45 Three background forces are evident: (1) within the
next decade, more than half the professoriate and staff in higher education
will retire; (2) emerging nations will meet an increasing amount of their
citizens’ educational needs locally; and (3) all nations will seek to keep
talented people within their homelands, and many will engage in a global
hunt for talented people.
Colleges and universities in the West have long operated in an
environment of abundant talent. In many areas of academic endeavor—
particularly the humanities—the supply of talented instructors has far
exceeded our ability to employ them. This is, of course, not true across
the academic board. It seems clear that in an environment of extreme
competition for talent, colleges and universities will be well advised
to consider how the emergence of the cloud may make it possible to
compete and win talented students and faculty. Many of our institu-
tions are systematic, if antiquated, regarding the competition for students
of talent, but nearly all are ad hoc and antiquated when it comes to
developing the institutional workforce of the future. Commercial firms
understand the prospects of a looming talent war and are organizing


their federations, partnerships, relationships, databases, alert systems, and
relationship management infrastructures to discover, uncover, source,
evaluate, cultivate, develop, and retain people of talent—across the
globe. If President Conant is right, higher education’s stakes in talent
management are very high, and the current informal and cottage industry
approaches must likely give way. Talent development is an inherently
“cloudy” activity since much of the activity and information lies outside
the perimeter of the institution’s borders. It is perhaps an enticing area
for institutions to engage in early experimentation.
Consistent with President Conant’s exhortation, colleges and
universities must focus concerted effort on managing their intellectual
property. The postscript to his advice, of course, is: and we do this so
these bright people will produce great stuff! How institutions manage
the great stuff they collect and create will become increasingly complex
and consequential in the future. Today, the motion picture industry and
the recording industry are asserting unprecedented hegemony over film
and musical content. In the near future, the publishing industry will assert
the same hegemony over text and still images. Higher education’s historic
rights of fair use will come under increased scrutiny and challenge as it
becomes technically easier to monitor digital content flows at the level
of the snippet or the individual image. How an institution manages these
issues—as both a producer and consumer of digital information—will
deeply influence that institution’s implicit compact with students and
faculty, its costs, its capacity to innovate, and the nature and depth of its
external relationships.

Summary
During the past thousand years, Western colleges and universities
have pursued a mission of instruction, research, and services. The process
of research has changed dramatically while instruction continues to rely
on personalized interactions among students, journeymen, and masters. In
higher education, increasing demand for access abuts a delivery system that
depends on personalized instruction, making it difficult to contain costs.
In the past 60 years, a revolution in computing and communications
has occurred. Computers have become faster, smaller, and cheaper and
intelligence is now embedded widely in things of all kinds. Computers
have become connected and today more than 1 billion people regularly
access the Internet. New technologies and standards are making it possible
to virtualize computing power, network bandwidth, data storage, IT
security, and a host of services and processes.


The revolution in IT is making possible the emergence of a
networked information economy, one that is simultaneously centered on
information and on the existence of cheap computation and persistent
connection to a global network. Ubiquitous access to people and between
people and information resources and services is profoundly disrupting
institutions of all sorts. These disruptions include the massive empow-
erment of the individual consumer to do things and the ability of large-
scale service and infrastructure providers to sell interoperable personal
and enterprise capabilities over the network. These disruptions in turn are
leading to the evolution of new creative relationships among people, new
and beneficial cost structures for businesses, the unbundling of services,
and the globalization of talent and economic prosperity. They are also
contributing to increased fragmentation, balkanization, and politicization
of discourse and to the rise of new industries and approaches that will
threaten traditional ones. It is a fluid and uncertain environment.
Colleges and universities are institutions with long-standing reputa-
tions. In the United States and in much of the West, colleges and univer-
sities are intimately associated with the campuses. They bundle their
academic programs, selling degree programs and certificates in preference
to selling individual courses. This preference reflects both long-standing
beliefs about education and a desire to insulate themselves from the
full effects of economic markets. Bundling courses makes it possible for
popular courses to subsidize less popular programs. Society in general and
students in particular benefit from this academic diversity.
The emerging networked information economy creates unprece-
dented opportunities for colleges and universities to rationalize their highly
distributed IT resources and to extend their institutional footprint. This
economy also creates these opportunities for new producers, including
providers of related services such as newspapers, media conglomerates,
publishers, and others. For IT, the twin trends of consumerization and
industrialization of IT raise concerns about the “end of the middle,” that
is, the disappearance of the enterprise role in managing and mediating
information technology, resources, and services. Such concerns are articu-
lated in a literature with titles such as Does IT Matter?, The End of Corporate
Computing, and The Big Switch. It is important to note that the college
and university enterprise itself is a “middleman” interposed between the
teacher and learner. Consumerization and the industrialization of IT—in
extremis—could undermine some institutions as well.
The twin forces of consumerization and industrialization of IT
represent neither the end of enterprise IT nor the end of the enterprise
in higher education, but an opportunity for colleges and universities to


consider new ways of increasing access while remaining personal and
affordable. These forces are making it possible to realize MIT President
Emeritus Charles Vest’s vision of the metauniversity, a “transcendent, acces-
sible, empowering, dynamic, communally constructed framework of open
materials and platforms on which much of higher education worldwide
can be constructed or enhanced.”46 Virtualizing IT infrastructure and
services—over time—will benefit from economies of scale and of standard-
ization, enhanced power consumption, improved security, and so forth.
Improved resource sharing techniques will also optimize the use of these
resources, reducing again their cost. The ability to increase computing,
storage, and network bandwidth on demand will make it possible for insti-
tutions to contemplate new growth options by substituting large, fixed
capital costs in land acquisition and development with smaller variable
costs in digital delivery of services.
The tower’s place among the clouds will be a complex one. Rather
than disappearing, the role of enterprise IT will expand. IT will become
increasingly an activity that is strategic to the institution, and its conduct
will depend on the effective inclusion of key leaders of the institution.
K An institution’s effectiveness in the networked information
economy in general and on the cloud in particular will
depend on IT governance and on institutional strategy. It
will depend, too, on a fabric of rules that will shape how
people flow in and out of the campus community and how
access to the institution’s information, tools, services, and
other resources is mediated. Most important in this matrix
of decisions, institutions will need to develop points of view
about the openness of their research processes, course content,
publications, software, instruments, and information resources.
K Colleges and universities will need to understand what data
and information are the responsibility of the enterprise. We
will also need to grapple with how information can be stored
and protected—perhaps in perpetuity—either on enterprise
storage devices or “in the cloud.” We will need to understand
how an institution’s digital holdings influence its reputation
in the way that print library collections have.
K We will also need to develop shared views about the nature
of the evolving epistemology and how concepts such as
crowd sharing, mashups, and wikis interact with traditional
scholarly methods and beliefs. Our disciplinary leaders will
need to begin to articulate a new scholarly literacy to enable
students to understand the authorship, credibility, valence, and


provenance of the digital evidence they use. Academic leaders
will need to spread changing norms and values among their
campus colleagues.
K Maintaining and enhancing the institution’s identity in
cyberspace will demand more attention than ever. As new
technologies promote unbundling, there is a risk that many
institutional reputations will be leveled. Thoughtful attention
to an institution’s presence in cyberspace will be important as
well as attention to the use of its brand and trademarks.
K Increasingly, issues of institutional compliance and control
will be mediated through the information system and, by
some, through partners in the cloud. New skills in contract
administration will be critical, and issues such as indemnifi-
cation for service interruptions and data losses will be very
problematic.
K Colleges and universities will need to manage the look, feel,
and overall characteristics of virtual and online environments
with as much deliberation and care as we manage physical
space. This will become particularly true as immersive
environments such as Second Life become platforms for
the delivery of key institutional offerings and for academic
collaboration.
K If and as enterprise activities move to the cloud, advance
thought needs to be given to the institution’s performance
management systems and to how it wishes to use data and
information to support decision making, student success,
financial performance, and accountability.
K Colleges and universities are organizations that depend on
attracting, developing, and organizing human talent for the
purposes of creating and disseminating intellectual capital.
In the environment described we will need to pay close
attention to how IT extends the reach of the institution
through the cloud and how institutional property is to be
developed, disseminated, commercialized, and put to use.
Higher education will likely operate in a continually fluid and
uncertain environment. Amidst this fluidity it seems clear that being digital
is indeed a lifestyle and that all members of the academic community will
engage the networked information economy. It is also clear that computers
and networks will continue to become cheaper, better, and faster. Digital
information will become cheaper to store, more plentiful, and easier to
find. It is not clear whether information will become more openly acces-


sible or if rights owners will demand economic rents on smaller and
smaller snippets for longer periods of time.
What is certain is that the trend toward consumerization will continue.
Colleges and universities loath to take a stand may discover that they have
arrived at accidental cloudiness. Inaction may not be an option if institu-
tions wish to regulate their IT, service, control, and information environ-
ments at all. What is also certain is that the shift to cloud computing will
be hard—a “brutal slog” as one reporter calls it.47 For some colleges and
universities, engagement in the evolving networked information economy
will—at the enterprise level—remain a choice. Well endowed and highly
selective institutions will be able to choose whether, how, when, and
for what reason they become cloudy suppliers or consumers. Large and
highly decentralized universities will likely adopt cloud strategies inter-
nally to rationalize IT resources and will likely become selective suppliers
and consumers of cloud services. Institutions that are more resource
constrained will, as always, need to be more strategic about alternatives.
The end of the middle? Not likely. Exploiting the opportunity of
so-called industrial computing will demand care, time, thought, and
resources. The move to bring the tower to the cloud before the cloud
grows to envelop the tower will engage nearly every institutional leader
and challenge every institutional policy. The gathering cloud creates an
unprecedented opportunity for the prepared. We are talking no longer
about managing IT; we are managing the enterprise.

Endnotes
1. Plato, “Phaedrus,” 67–71, Socrates to Phaedrus, The Dialogues of Plato.

2. At the same time (830 AD), the House of Wisdom in Baghdad was the
first institution of higher learning in the Islamic world. This institution
functioned as an academy and was a center for translation and an important
library and observatory. By the 8th century BC, Chinese higher education
was already mature and institutionalized and more than 3,000 students
prepared for careers in the Chinese imperial bureaucracy at the Great
Academy. Unlike their medieval or Renaissance counterparts, which
encouraged disputation in the learning process, Chinese education focused
on students’ familiarity with “a general ethical outlook, and body of
knowledge, not with [the] growth of knowledge …” See John Merson, The
Genius That Was China: East and West in the Making of the Modern World (New
York: Overlook Press, 1990), 86.

3. See W. Warren Wagar, H. G.Wells:Traversing Time (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan
University Press, 2004), 162.


4. John Seely Brown and Paul Duguid, The Social Life of Information
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000), 11.
5. Ibid.
6. Diana Chapman Walsh, Envisioning the Future: Reflections from the 2015
Commission. Final Report (Wellesley, MA: Wellesley College, 2007), http://www
.wellesley.edu/PublicAffairs/President/DCW/Announcements/2015synopsis.
pdf.
7. Thomas Jefferson, letter to Tench Coxe, 1795. In Jeffersonian fashion,
Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart argued that “in the absence of
governmental checks and balances present in other areas of our national life,
the only effective restraint upon executive policy and power … may lie in an
enlightened citizenry,” in New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713.
8. Rudolf Stichweh argues that “in its ultimate realization, higher education at
a research university takes place as participation of the student in the research
process,” in Thomas Pfeffer, Virtualization of Research Universities: Raising the
Right Questions to Address Key Functions of the Institution, Paper CSHE6-03.
Berkeley, CA: Center for Studies in Higher Education, 2003, http://
repositories.cdlib.org/cshe/CSHE6-03.
9. Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, MW 1:54.
10. H. C. King, Education and the National Character (Chicago: The Religious
Education Association, 1908).
11. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, Enrollment
in Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2004; Graduation Rates, 1998 & 2001 Cohorts;
and Financial Statistics, Fiscal Year 2004 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 2006), http://nces.ed.gov//pubs2006/2006155.pdf.
12. Jeffrey Thomas, “First-Time International Student U.S. Enrollments
Up 10.2 Percent,” America.gov, http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-
english/2007/November/200711131634391CJsamohT0.5697748.html
(November 13, 2007).
13. See Education at a Glance, 2007, OECD Indicators (Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development, 2007), 57, http://www
.sourceoecd.org/upload/9607051e.pdf (data are from 2005). Across 24 OECD
countries, 36% of students have completed baccalaureate-level education. This
is an increase of 12 percentage points over the last decade. Graduation rates
have doubled or more during the past 10 years in Austria, Finland, Portugal,
the Slovak Republic, and Switzerland but have been stable in the United
States, which, along with New Zealand, had the highest rate in 1995.
14. Thomas L. Friedman, The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First
Century (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2005).


15. Richard Monastersky, “The Number That Is Devouring Science,” Chronicle
of Higher Education (October 14, 2005): A12, http://chronicle.com/free/v52/
i08/08a01201.htm.

16. Elsa Wenzel, “Number of PC’s in Use to Hit 2 Billion by 2014,”
SmartPlanet, posted June 24, 2008, http://www.smartplanet.com/news/
tech/10001448/number-of-pcs-in-use-to-hit-2-billion-by-2014.htm.

17. Robert H. Zakon, “Hobbes’ Internet Timeline V8.2,” http://www.zakon
.org/robert/internet/timeline. See also the Wikipedia description of “Wi-Fi”
at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi.

18. Martin Trow argues that “IT is embedded in, and used by, institutions that
have a history … . IT will cut its own channels, leading to the creation of
institutions that differ from those of today; institutions where the weight of
history does not condition and constrain IT’s use,” in “The Development of
Information Technology in American Higher Education,” Daedalus 126, no. 4
(Fall 1997): 294. Stanley Katz, on the other hand, exhorts us not to mistake IT
as a goal, rather than a tool. See Stanley N. Katz, “In Information Technology,
Don’t Mistake a Tool for a Goal,” Chronicle of Higher Education (June 15, 2001),
http://chronicle.com/free/v47/i40/40b00701.htm.

19. R. D. Laing, The Politics of Experience (New York: Pantheon Books, 1967).

20. Grant McCracken, “The Cloudy Self: Or What Has Technology Done
to Us,” posted to his blog, January 30, 2007, http://www.cultureby.com/
trilogy/2007/01/the_cloudy_self.html.

21. Brown and Duguid, 9.

22. On the democratization of IT, see Bruce Malloy, “‘Digital Natives’ Take
Charge; Get Ready for the Democratization of IT,” New Jersey Tech News
(June 2008): 12, http://www.connotate.com/news/NJTech_080601_Democ_
of_IT.pdf. On the industrialization of IT, see Nicholas Carr, The Big Switch:
Rewiring the World from Edison to Google (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2008).

23. See the work of Nicholas Carr, such as his Harvard Business Review article
“IT Doesn’t Matter,” The Digital Enterprise (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business
Press, 2001), The Big Switch, and others. Carr argues that as in the Industrial
Revolution, when we moved from factory generation of power to power grids,
so will we move from enterprise-based IT infrastructure to cloud-based IT
services and infrastructure.

24. James Hilton, “The Future for Higher Education: Sunrise or Perfect
Storm?,” EDUCAUSE Review (March/April 2006): 60, http://net.educause
.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0623.pdf.

25. Brown and Duguid, 15.


26. Farhad Manjoo, True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society
(Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2008), 16.

27. Ibid., 17–8.

28. Chris Dede, “A Seismic Shift in Epistemology,” EDUCAUSE Review
(May/June 2008): 80, http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0837.pdf.

29. Chris Anderson, The Long Tail (New York: Hyperion, 2006).

30. See B. G.Verghese, “Reflections on Gandhi,” Writings and Commentaries,
http://www.bgverghese.com/YouthCadres.htm.

31. Hilton, 64.

32. James Neal, quoted on Google Library Project website, http://books
.google.com/googlebooks/partners.html.

33. Hilton, 64.

34. Ibid., 66.

35. Thomas Jefferson, letter to Isaac McPherson, August 13, 1813.

36. John Gerstner, “Cyber Cowboy: Interview with John Perry Barlow,”
Communication World, November 2005, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/
mi_m4422/is_n10_v12/ai_17772838/pg_2?tag=artBody;col1.

37. Walsh, 31.

38. Ibid., 44.

39. John Henry Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated
(London: Longman’s, Green & Co., 1893). Derek Bok more recently proposed
eight purposes of college in Our Underachieving Colleges (Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 2006), 113–6.

40.Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of Networks (Cambridge, MA: Harvard

41. See Nicholas Carr, “Crash: Amazon’s S3 Utility Goes Down,” Rough Type,
February 15, 2008, http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2008/02/amazons_
s3_util.php. See also Jon Brodkin, “Loss of Customer Data Spurs Closure
of Online Storage Service ‘The Linkup,’” The Industry Standard, August
11, 2008, http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/08/11/loss-customer-
data-spurs-closure-linkup, and Peter Bright, “Storms in the Clouds Leave
Users Up Creek Without a Paddle,” Ars Technica, August 13, 2008, http://
arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080813-storms-in-the-clouds-leave-users-
up-creek-without-a-paddle.html.


42. Margaret P. Eisenhauer, “Protecting Personal Information in Third Party Hands:
An Overview of Legal Requirements,” PrivacyStudio.com, January 6, 2006.

43. Benkler, 1.

44. Benkler, 2.

45. James Bryant Conant, Letter to the New York Times, August 13, 1945.

46. Charles Vest, “Open Content and the Emerging Global Meta-University,”
EDUCAUSE Review (May/June 2006): 30, http://net.educause.edu/ir/
library/pdf/ERM0630.pdf.

47. Sarah Lacy, “On-Demand Computing: A Brutal Slog,” Business Week,
July 18, 2008, http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jul2008/
tc20080717_362776.htm.

Bibliography
Anderson, Chris. The Long Tail. New York: Hyperion, 2006.

Benkler,Yochai. The Wealth of Networks. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 2006.

Bok, Derek. Our Underachieving Colleges. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 2006.

Bright, Peter. “Storms in the Clouds Leave Users Up Creek Without a Paddle.”
Ars Technica, August 13, 2008. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080813-
storms-in-the-clouds-leave-users-up-creek-without-a-paddle.html.

Brodkin, Jon. “Loss of Customer Data Spurs Closure of Online Storage
Service ‘The Linkup.’” The Industry Standard, August 11, 2008. http://
www.thestandard.com/news/2008/08/11/loss-customer-data-spurs-
closure-linkup

Brown, John Seely, and Paul Duguid. The Social Life of Information. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 2000.

Bryant, James Conant. Letter to the New York Times, August 13, 1945.

Carr, Nicholas G. “Crash: Amazon’s S3 Utility Goes Down.” Rough Type,
February 15, 2008. http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2008/02/amazons_
s3_util.php.

Carr, Nicholas G. Does IT Matter? Information Technology and the Corrosion of
Competitive Advantage. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press, 2004.

Carr, Nicholas G. “IT Doesn’t Matter.” Harvard Business Review (May 2003).


Carr, Nicholas G. The Big Switch: Rewiring the World, from Edison to Google.
New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2008.

Carr, Nicholas G. The Digital Enterprise: How to Reshape Your Business for a
Connected World. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press, 2001.

Dede, Chris. “A Seismic Shift in Epistemology.” EDUCAUSE Review (May/
June 2008): 80–1. http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0837.pdf.

Education at a Glance, 2007, OECD Indicators. Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development, 2007. http://www.sourceoecd.org/
upload/9607051e.pdf.

Eisenhauer, Margaret P. “Protecting Personal Information in Third
Party Hands: An Overview of Legal Requirements.” PrivacyStudio.com,
January 6, 2006.

Friedman, Thomas L. The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First
Century. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2005.

Gerstner, John. “Cyber Cowboy: Interview with John Perry Barlow.”
Communication World, November 2005. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/
mi_m4422/is_n10_v12/ai_17772838/pg_2?tag=artBody;col1

Hilton, James. “The Future for Higher Education: Sunrise or Perfect Storm?”
EDUCAUSE Review (March/April 2006): 59–71. http://net.educause.edu/ir/

Jefferson, Thomas. Autobiography, MW 1:54.

Jefferson, Thomas. Letter to Isaac McPherson, August 13, 1813.

Jefferson, Thomas. Letter to Tench Coxe, 1795.

Katz, Stanley N. “In Information Technology, Don’t Mistake a Tool for a
Goal.” Chronicle of Higher Education (June 15, 2001): B7. http://chronicle
.com/free/v47/i40/40b00701.htm.

King, H. C. Education and the National Character. Chicago: The Religious
Education Association, 1908.

Lacy, Sarah. “On-Demand Computing: A Brutal Slog.” Business Week, July
18, 2008. http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jul2008/
tc20080717_362776.htm.

Laing, R. D. The Politics of Experience. New York: Pantheon Books, 1967.

Malloy, Bruce. “‘Digital Natives’ Take Charge; Get Ready for the
Democratization of IT.” New Jersey Tech News (June 2008): 12–3. http://www
.connotate.com/news/NJTech_080601_Democ_of_IT.pdf.


Manjoo, Farhad. True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society. Hoboken,
NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2008.

McCracken, Grant. “The Cloudy Self: Or What Has Technology Done
to Us.” Posted to his blog, January 30, 2007. http://www.cultureby.com/
trilogy/2007/01/the_cloudy_self.html.

Merson, John. The Genius That Was China: East and West in the Making of the
Modern World. New York: Overlook Press, 1990.

Monastersky, Richard. “The Number That Is Devouring Science.” Chronicle
of Higher Education (October 14, 2005). http://chronicle.com/free/v52/
i08/08a01201.htm.

Newman, John Henry. The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated. London:
Longman’s, Green & Co., 1893.

Pfeffer, Thomas. Virtualization of Research Universities: Raising the Right Questions
to Address Key Functions of the Institution. Paper CSHE6-03. Berkeley, CA:
Center for Studies in Higher Education, 2003. http://repositories.cdlib.org/
cshe/CSHE6-03.

Plato. “Phaedrus.” The Dialogues of Plato.

Thomas, Jeffrey. “First-Time International Student U.S. Enrollments Up 10.2
Percent.” America.gov, http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2007/
November/200711131634391CJsamohT0.5697748.html (November 13, 2007).

Trow, Martin. “The Development of Information Technology in American
Higher Education,” Daedalus 126, no. 4 (Fall 1997).

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Enrollment in
Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2004; Graduation Rates, 1998 & 2001 Cohorts; and
Financial Statistics, Fiscal Year 2004. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 2006. http://nces.ed.gov//pubs2006/2006155.pdf.

Verghese, B. G. “Reflections on Gandhi.” Writings and Commentaries. http://
www.bgverghese.com/YouthCadres.htm.

Vest, Charles. “Open Content and the Emerging Global Meta-University.”
EDUCAUSE Review (May/June 2006): 19–25. http://net.educause.edu/ir/

Wagar, W. Warren. H. G.Wells:Traversing Time. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan

Walsh, Diana Chapman. Envisioning the Future: Reflections from the 2015 Commission.
Final Report. Wellesley, MA: Wellesley College, 2007. http://www.wellesley
.edu/PublicAffairs/President/DCW/Announcements/2015synopsis.pdf.


Wenzel, Elsa. “Number of PC’s in Use to Hit 2 Billion by 2014.” SmartPlanet,
posted June 24, 2008. http://www.smartplanet.com/news/tech/10001448/
number-of-pcs-in-use-to-hit-2-billion-by-2014.htm.

Wikipedia, “Wi-Fi,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi.

Zakon, Robert H. “Hobbes’ Internet Timeline V8.2.” http://www.zakon.org/
robert/internet/timeline.

A Matter of Mission 43

A Matter of Mission: Information
Technology and the Future of
Higher Education
Clifford A. Lynch

I n late July 2007, Ithaka, a not-for-profit consulting organization, issued a
report titled University Publishing in a Digital Age,1 which received a good
deal of discussion in higher education circles.2 The primary focus of the
report was the failure of university presses in the United States to adapt to
the opportunities and needs involved in the steady move of scholarly work
to the digital environment. Notable in the report was the depiction of the
powerful disconnect developing between university presses on one side and
faculty and university leadership on the other—the sense that the press was
becoming increasingly tangential to the university’s work and mission, perhaps
even bordering on irrelevance. A consequence of this erosion of support was a
growing unwillingness to continue to subsidize the budget shortfalls generated
by almost all university presses, and certainly a strong unwillingness to very
substantially increase these subsidies, or to inject large amounts of institutional
“venture capital” into the presses. Finally, the report also described a number of
experimental new scholarly publishing ventures being carried out by university
libraries, often using various open-access economic models. Intriguingly, the
Ithaka report says little about the systemic level of real intellectual and policy
support these experiments are receiving from university leadership.
What I found most interesting upon reading the Ithaka report is that it
failed to start from, or return to, first principles and fundamental questions.
In particular: What is—and what should be—the university’s commitment
to the widespread dissemination of scholarship, particularly that created by
its own faculty? Note that I’ve chosen my words carefully, and neutrally, in
framing this question; I have not asked whether universities ought to be
hosting, operating, and/or subsidizing presses, with all of the tacit assump-
tions that burden this much more narrow query.
There is no question that information technology, networks, and the
onslaught of digital data are changing the way we can do teaching, learning,
and research in absolutely fundamental ways. This is well documented in
a long series of excellent reports,3 though I am perhaps more persuaded
that a persuasive and systematic case has been made concerning research


as opposed to teaching and learning. However, when I read many of these
reports and think about their implications for colleges and universities,
I’m struck by how often the discussion is about what these technological
developments are going to do to higher education, rather than about how
educational institutions might choose to employ the technologies to advance
their missions in previously unimaginable ways. And making these choices
at a policy level means some fresh and uninhibited consideration of mission
possibilities, alternatives, and expectations in the context of all of the social,
societal, economic, technological, and ethical or philosophical forces that
form the environment in which higher education functions.
The future of university presses is a classic case study; these were
developed a very long time ago, under radically different economic and
technical constraints. Presumably, they were established because their founding
universities felt the need to advance the dissemination (and perhaps, albeit
indirectly, preservation) of the scholarship that their faculty created.4 Talking
about the future relevance of university presses without really being clear about
the mission objectives that they are supposed to address today leads to a sort of
incremental organizational tinkering that seems to me to be incommensurate
with the magnitude of the opportunities that are now visible.
In the remainder of this very short essay, which is intended to be provocative
rather than comprehensive, I will look briefly at several dimensions of organi-
zational mission that I believe are in question today within U.S. higher education
(and indeed globally, though I will focus on the American situation).These are
high-stakes decisions, both at the institutional level and at the collective level of the
academy as a whole; they will help determine the role of universities in society in
the coming decades, and indeed perhaps shape the nature of our society itself.

The Rhetoric of Knowledge and Scholarship
There’s a strange rhetoric one encounters from time to time that speaks
of the academy and of research universities in particular as having a mission to
“create new knowledge”; from there we move to speaking about ways in which
they “own” this knowledge, how they may have responsibilities to “disseminate”
it, but also how they may have a mandate to “monetize” it.This is the language
of technology transfer offices; it is primarily relevant to advances in science and
technology, and perhaps in schools of professional practice.
No one university “owns” or “creates” the body of knowledge that
comprises any significant field of intellectual inquiry for any length of time; these
are built up out of the contributions of multiple scholars, at multiple univer-
sities (and sometimes at institutions beyond the academy). Further, the body
of knowledge in any discipline is constantly being reinterpreted, reintegrated,
reorganized, and reexpressed by the continuing efforts of scholars, and thus it
lives, evolves, and grows. Collectively, the faculty of our colleges and universities


represent very deep reservoirs of knowledge and scholarship across a tremendous
range of disciplines and fields of inquiry. It is this full body of knowledge and
scholarship, as expressed in the scholarly work of these faculty and their students,
that I am concerned with here, not simply the “new knowledge” being created
at a given time. And I want to stress that no single university or university system,
even one as large and prestigious as Harvard or the University of California
system, controls a critical mass within this body of scholarship, but that collec-
tively the (international) academy does control such a critical mass in many—
perhaps most—disciplines, at least prospectively. (The vast majority of the
literature documenting the last century of scholarly work is controlled outside
the academy, due to past practices of assigning copyright to publishers and the
unprecedented retrospective extensions of the term of copyright.)
This situation, where the body of scholarship is held by many institu-
tional participants, none of them enjoying dominant scale, helps to explain
the difficulties involved in changing the scholarly communications system
and the pragmatic difficulties of navigating such changes at the institutional
level. But it also underscores the need for each institution to behave respon-
sibly within the context of its mission and values and to recognize that its
contributions are vital, its responsibilities are real, and its choices will matter.

University Roles in the Dissemination of
Scholarship
Is the dissemination of scholarship, then, a fundamental part of the
mission of the university? To answer this question, or to understand how
institutions are currently answering it, we need to carefully examine what
is meant by “disseminate.”
In some parts of Europe, universities and even national university
systems are taking an aggressive, unambiguous, and expansive position that
says the dissemination of knowledge and scholarship is a central part of the
university mission. By this they mean that faculty works—in the broad sense
of scholarly and instructional materials—should be made public as soon and
as widely as possible, with as few barriers (technical, economic, and legal) as
possible; extensive use of information technology and the Internet make this
economically feasible. This path leads toward mandates for the support of
various forms of open-access strategies for faculty publications, for example,
and systematic investments in institutional or national repository systems.5
If you asked the leadership at various universities in the United States, I
believe that the responses to the question would be more variable, and perhaps
often more equivocal. Some—perhaps particularly (but certainly not exclu-
sively!), some of the public institutions of higher education—might argue for
a broad dissemination mission and are beginning to move into such a role


through the development and deployment of extensive public-access digital
collections and learning materials, the deployment of institutional repository
services, library- and/or university-press-based digital publishing efforts, and
other initiatives. A particularly interesting development is the movement to
make available large-scale collections of audio and video materials—mainly
courses and lectures—through mechanisms such as local hosting, collec-
tives like the Research Channel, or commercial media dissemination systems
like Apple’s iTunes or Google’s YouTube; only rarely is the library currently
involved in these efforts, and I do not know of any case of university press
involvement.These programs represent substantial investments, and while
extramural funding has helped with some of the early efforts, there’s great
concern about “sustainability” of these efforts—they either have to move, most
likely, to some kind of recharge basis, which will add a great deal of overhead,
impede access, and consequently reduce the contribution of the programs to
the university’s mission goals, or they simply have to be funded out of core
institutional budgets as part of the essential, mission-critical activities of the
institution.The choice of an aggressive interpretation of institutional mission to
disseminate scholarship will not be without substantial ongoing cost.
But other institutions would likely argue that while their university has
a dissemination mission, it is narrowly defined, and the advent of digital age
technology and economics changes little. For these institutions, “dissemi-
nation” is accomplished mainly through teaching, on one hand, and through
the broad mandate to faculty to publish their work on the other. Perhaps
they support a local university press through a modest budgetary subvention.
Access to the published record for people beyond their immediate insti-
tutional community is someone else’s problem. And of course there’s the
technology transfer program. For these institutions, because there is no real
mission mandate for broad dissemination, there’s no obligation to invest to
take advantage of the new opportunities to achieve such dissemination.
It is worth noting that what seems to be a growing number of faculty
are beginning to push for greater openness and dissemination of scholarship
and of the underlying evidence that supports scholarship. This can be seen in
the various movements toward open data, open-source software, open-access
publishing, open-notebook science, and similar activities. Also of importance
is a growing push from funding organizations—both governmental and
private—for greater access to both published results and underlying data.
The way in which this question about institutional mission plays
out will have a large effect on how accessible scholarly work will be in
our society broadly. I think it will make a difference in the rate at which
science and engineering, in particular, advance. It will influence the
ability of a larger number of universities to participate meaningfully in
the research enterprise. It will have implications for the future roles and,
indeed, even the continued viability of various players in the scholarly


communications system, including university presses, libraries, commercial
scholarly publishers, and scholarly societies.
Before moving on from the question of the mission to disseminate
scholarship, I want to note that there is a separate question facing many insti-
tutions of higher education—particularly those that are publicly funded—
about how to respond to demands to deliver higher education to an ever
growing number of students; this question, too, involves issues of potential
technologically enabled capabilities that might alter thinking about insti-
tutional mission. But making scholarship—including learning materials—
broadly available worldwide as part of a mission to disseminate is not the
same as undertaking (in the most extreme case) open-ended global teaching
obligations, a much more complex, difficult, and expensive undertaking.6
Disseminating scholarship is at best a beginning—a limited, but
substantial contribution toward addressing the enormous and growing
unmet demands for access to higher education nationally and worldwide.
It is important to keep the two potential mission questions separate, while
understanding that they are not entirely unrelated.

University Roles in the Stewardship of Scholarship
Some institution, or collection of institutions, needs to maintain the
record of scholarship as well as the collection of evidence that underpins
and supports scholarship past, present, and future. To what extent does this
fall within the mission of the university?
Historically, the stewardship of the scholarly record has fallen to the
research library system; while most research libraries in the United States are
part of major universities, the systems are not coterminous, as institutions
such as the Library of Congress, the National Libraries of Medicine and
Agriculture, and the New York and Boston Public Libraries (to name only
a few key players) are not part of universities. Responsibility for the broader
base of underpinning evidence is more widely scattered; while research
libraries play a major role, so do other cultural memory organizations such
as archives and museums; some of these are also part of universities, but
many exist outside the university system. Notable is the relatively recent
emergence of very large and very important data archives that are part of
various government agencies; in some cases the long-term stability of these
archives seems precarious. And there has always been a certain amount of
tension about the extent to which libraries, archives, and museums within
universities should focus narrowly on the needs of their parent institutions
as opposed to the extent to which they should serve the academy, or even
society more broadly, as a whole.
In the print era, primary stewardship of the record of scholarship and
shared stewardship of its underlying base of evidence wasn’t cheap, and it


was very closely tied operationally and economically to the dissemination
system (publishing).
The growth of new kinds of scholarly communication today, the move
to e-research, and the reliance of scholarly work on a tremendous proliferation
of data sets (some of them enormous) and of accompanying software systems
threaten to greatly increase the cost and complexity of the stewardship process
and to at least partially decouple it from (traditional) publishing. Libraries
need to reexamine and redefine their roles appropriately to address these new
scholarly works and this new body of evidence for scholarship. Commitments
to activities like data curation and management of faculty collections will
increasingly characterize research libraries as much as the comprehensive
collection and preservation policies for published literature and personal papers.
The cost of stewardship is, I believe, going to rise substantially.
Certainly, there will be some additional investments in national centers,
organized along disciplinary lines, to address data curation and digital preser-
vation needs; organizations such as the National Center for Biotechnology
Information at the National Library of Medicine are already vitally important
national (and indeed global) resources that are mainly funded external to
higher education, and their government support appears to be strong and
stable. But I believe that ultimate responsibility for stewardship in many disci-
plines, after all of the vagaries of government funding over time are considered,
will have to rest with higher education. And many disciplines will never be
served by national disciplinary centers.
There are only about 100 university-based research libraries in the United
States. Many additional colleges and universities will need to draw upon the
collections that are held by these research libraries. How will the economic
burden be shared? How can the many other institutions that rely upon the good
and responsible stewardship of the research libraries help to underwrite this
work? What expectations here will be built into institutional funding commit-
ments that support such stewardship among the leading research universities?
And, at the same time, there are certainly faculty at more than those 100
universities with research libraries who are producing digital materials that
will require stewardship by their institutional library; mission questions about
stewardship responsibility may extend much more broadly than the top 100
research universities.We do not yet understand the distribution of interde-
pendence, of distributed responsibility, or of needs and how these fit into the
context of stewardship as institutional mission. Nor do we understand at what
point the most effective tactics, after accepting instructional mission respon-
sibility, may be to outsource implementation to other peer institutions with
more cost-effective economies of scale and concentrations of expertise.


Conclusions
I have raised two simple questions about the mission of institutions of
higher education: the institutional responsibility for dissemination of schol-
arship, and the institutional responsibility for the stewardship of scholarship
(and supporting evidence). I believe that it’s time for institutional leadership
within the academy to explicitly consider both of these questions, particularly
in light of the changing practices of scholarship and scholarly communication,
and then to consider institutional responses to the opportunities offered by the
digital dissemination environment in the context of such mission mandates.
My personal view is that these are not missions that the leadership of higher
education institutions of the 21st century can abrogate, but I think that matters
become much more challenging when we consider the overall system of higher
education in relation to these missions, and when we think about which insti-
tutions must engage the missions and about how the broader higher education
community might be expected to support those institutions.

Endnotes
1. Laura Brown, Rebecca Griffiths, and Matthew Rascoff, University Publishing
in a Digital Age (New York: Ithaka, July 2007), http://www.ithaka.org/
publications/UniversityPublishingInADigitalAge.
2. See, for example, The Chronicle of Higher Education coverage at http://
chronicle.com/weekly/v53/i48/48a01401.htm and Inside Higher Ed coverage
at http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/07/26/ithaka and http://
www.insidehighered.com/views/2007/08/01/mclemee.
3. See, for example, Cyberinfrastructure Vision for 21st Century Discovery (Washington,
DC: National Science Foundation, March 2007), http://www.nsf.gov/od/oci/CI_
Vision_March07.pdf; Our Cultural Commonwealth:The Report of the American Council
of Learned Societies Commission on Cyberinfrastructure for the Humanities and Social Sciences
(New York: American Council of Learned Societies, December 2006), http://www
.acls.org/uploadedfiles/publications/programs/our_cultural_commonwealth
.pdf; Preparing for the Revolution: Information Technology and the Future of the University
(Washington, DC: National Research Council, 2002); James J. Duderstadt, Daniel
E. Atkins, and Douglas Van Houweling, Higher Education in the Digital Age:Technology
Issues and Strategies for American Colleges and Universities (Washington, DC: American
Council on Education, 2002).
4. An interesting case study of the complex and shifting motivations at Harvard
for the establishment and subsequent support of a university press can be found
in Max Hall, Harvard University Press: A History (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
5.The specifics of the situations in the various European universities and national
university systems are complex and fluid. An excellent source for tracking


developments is Peter Suber’s Open Access News blog at http://www.earlham
.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html. For a general introduction to open-access issues, see
John Willinsky, The Access Principle:The Case for Open Access to Research and Scholarship
(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005), and also Neil Jacobs, ed., Open Access: Key
Strategic,Technical and Economic Aspects (Oxford, UK: Chandos Publishing, 2006).
6. For some further discussion of this, see Clifford A. Lynch,“Digital Libraries,
Learning Communities and Open Education,” in Opening Up Education:The Collective
Advancement of Education through Open Technology, Open Content and Open Knowledge,
ed.Toru Iiyoshi and M. S.Vijay Kumar (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008).

Bibliography
American Council of Learned Societies. Our Cultural Commonwealth,The Report
of the American Council of Learned Societies Commission on Cyberinfrastructure for the
Humanities and Social Sciences. New York: ACLS, December 2006. http://www
.acls.org/uploadedfiles/publications/programs/our_cultural_commonwealth.pdf.

Brown, Laura, Rebecca Griffiths, and Matthew Rascoff. University Publishing
in a Digital Age. New York: Ithaka, July 2007. http://www.ithaka.org/
publications/UniversityPublishingInADigitalAge.

Duderstadt, James J., Daniel E. Atkins, and Douglas Van Houweling. Higher
Education in the Digital Age:Technology Issues and Strategies for American Colleges
and Universities. Washington, DC: American Council on Education, 2002.

Hall, Max. Harvard University Press: A History. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

Jacobs, Neil, ed. Open Access: Key Strategic,Technical and Economic Aspects. Oxford,
UK: Chandos Publishing, 2006.

Lynch, Clifford A. “Digital Libraries, Learning Communities and Open
Education.” In Opening Up Education:The Collective Advancement of Education
through Open Technology, Open Content and Open Knowledge, edited by Toru Iiyoshi
and M. S.Vijay Kumar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008.

National Research Council. Preparing for the Revolution: Information Technology and
the Future of the University. Washington, DC: National Research Council, 2002.

National Science Foundation Cyberinfrastructure Council. Cyberinfrastructure
Vision for 21st Century Discovery. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation,
March 2007, http://www.nsf.gov/od/oci/CI_Vision_March07.pdf.

Open Access News Blog. http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html.

Willinsky, John. The Access Principle:The Case for Open Access to Research and
Scholarship. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005.

The University in the Networked Economy and Society 51

The University in the Networked
Economy and Society:
Challenges and Opportunities
Yochai Benkler

T he networked information economy and society present a new
social, technical, and economic environment within which the
university functions. To understand the new challenges and
opportunities this environment presents, we need a usable character-
ization of the core new characteristics of both the environment and the
university as a system and how those characteristics interact to define
today’s challenges.

The Networked Information Economy
The critical characteristic of the networked economy is a radical
decentralization of physical capital necessary for the production,
storage, distribution, and processing of information, knowledge, and
culture. This decentralization has caused a radical distribution of the
practical capability to act in these areas, creating new levels of efficacy
for individuals, who increasingly shift from being consumers to being
users and producers. Individuals have now become capable of doing
much more for themselves and for others, both alone and in vastly more
effective loose collaborations with others.
In the industrial economy, hobbyists, no matter how committed,
could not come together on the weekend and compete with General
Motors. The degree of required concentrated physical capital made
their decentralized, social practices ineffective as an economic
production activity of any significant scale. Like GM, the industrial
information economy required models that were able to finance
large-grained capital investment: government, through taxes; business,
through market transactions; or organized nonprofits, through large-
scale and aggregated giving. News production bifurcated between
government ownership in many countries and advertising-based


mass media (with the exception of the BBC, hybrid model). Film
and music also split among these three, and, for purposes of higher
education, the role of the large, organized nonprofit was central, as
was the role of government funding.

Decentralized Ownership and Excess Capacity
The networked information economy has not decreased the total
capital intensity of information production, storage, processing, and
communication, but it has decentralized its ownership. About a billion
people on the planet today own the core physical means of producing
information, knowledge, and culture: they own machines that sense,
capture, store, process, and communicate their thoughts, observations,
manipulations, and expressions. These machines are, in turn, “shareable,”
by which I mean that, given their production technology and the distri-
bution of wealth in the populations that own the majority of them, they
are placed into operation by individuals and families for whom they have
excess capacity.
No one can, practically, buy only as much computation power as needed
at any given moment. No one buys storage or bandwidth purely to fulfill
that day’s needs. These goods are “lumpy” and, for most owners, have signif-
icant downtime and excess capacity. In front of these machines sit people
who themselves have a wide diversity of experience, wisdom, insight, and
creativity and who have a wide diversity of motivations and availability at
different stages of life and different moments of the day, week, or year.
The combination of distribution of physical capital and human capital
creates a new situation. For the first time since the industrial revolution,
the most important inputs into the core economic activities of the most
advanced economies are widely distributed in the population. Moreover,
there is a significant amount of excess capacity, both physical and human,
that is being poured relentlessly into new forms of information, knowledge,
and cultural production, as well as into provisioning of networking, storage,
and processing capabilities.
If hobbyists could never have competed with General Motors, the
same cannot be said for Microsoft or IBM. The rise of free and open
source software has created real challenges for mainstream software
publishers. Apache, in fact, has captured and held much of the market in
web server software, despite 13 years of efforts by Microsoft to take that
market. IBM has, on its software services side, adapted and adopted open
source software development as a core component of its development
ecology. But on the hardware side, IBM has a new primary competitor


for “fastest supercomputer in the world”—the distributed computation
projects, such as SETI@home or Einstein@Home.
Wikipedians compete with the commercial encyclopedias, citizen
journalists with mainstream media. P2P networks offer real alternatives
to proprietary networks as storage and distribution alternatives, as we see
in the case of the “domesticated” uses such as Skype and, increasingly,
BitTorrent. Mesh networks are beginning, more slowly than necessary
because of the legal constraints on wireless equipment deployment and
bloated security concerns, to develop a path toward user-owned, last-
100-meter networks. In all these cases we see what I have called peer
production (large-scale collaboration among individuals without price signals
or hierarchical commands), together with large-scale material sharing
of shareable goods, creating social alternatives to the traditional models
thought necessary in the industrial information economy.

Decentralized Capability and Authority to Act
The creativity and innovation that we see on the Internet today are
directly tied to the radical decentralization of the practical capability to act,
on the one hand, and of the authority to act, on the other. This is where a
combination of sensible social norms that diverge from the formal law—
self-conscious, commons-based practices—and simple disdain for the law
coalesce with the decentralization of capital. The technical/economic shift
that networks have created is the location of physical and human capability
to act in the hands of users. This technical capability to act, however,
requires authority to act in order to be effective.
A variety of laws, some concerned with morality and security
but mostly concerned with protecting incumbent business models
(such as the intellectual property industries), separate authority to act
on information and culture from the newly created capability to act.
These have had partial success in slowing down adoption of social
production of information and knowledge, but at the broad, macro
level of social practices they have failed. Millions of users are creating
videos on YouTube, sharing music and mixing it in ways that are
sensible but arguably illegal.
The critical policy questions of the networked environment revolve
around the battles between the progression of technology, which at the
moment (this is not a deterministic trend, it is merely a happenstance of
the fabrication technology of computers) is leading to decentralization
on the one hand and on the other to the push of policy to moderate that
decentralization by limiting the distribution of authority to act.


At one level, the effort to retain organization through assertion of
authority is happening through copyrights and paracopyrights as well as
patents. At another level, it is asserted through security concerns and the
idea of trusted computing. At yet a third level, it occurs around social
acceptance of new forms of authority: How do I know that a Wikipedia
entry is correct? How do I trust a blog story? Our old forms of assigning
credibility and authority to a claim were closely aligned with the institu-
tional origins of the claim. As information production becomes radically
decentralized, new models of authority are seeking similar recognition.

The University
The university predates the industrial information economy and has
retained much of its preindustrial guild model (not least visible on gradu-
ation days). Industrialization entered more heavily in the material sciences
and biomedical sciences, where large-scale capital investment was necessary
to perform the basic science. At first, this was more purely based on the
government-funding model of industrialization, and later it shifted to
include market funding, both around patents and more loosely around
research support and university–industry relations. Still, research is done by
relatively autonomous and small-scale units, and explicit reliance on market
signals is not the norm.
The humanities, in turn, are much lower cost and remain heavily
oriented toward a teaching-based, subsidy-for-research model, with
long apprenticeship periods for graduate students and junior faculty
until they are inducted to master status. Research in these areas often
continues to depend heavily on individuals working alone, subsidized
by their teaching, with fierce claims of autonomy and narrow claims of
unassailable authority.
As a subsystem within the knowledge production system of modern
society, the university has several characteristics that give it a distinct role.
The town–gown tension has long typified the relationship of the university
to the market and society as one of partial remove, that is, removed from
the pressures and enticements of the market and a dedication to internal
system values, usually embodied in the ideas of academic freedom, intel-
lectual discipline, and peer review. As many have shown, the history of
science has not, in fact, been quite as insulated as the self-conception
sometimes suggests. Nonetheless, the values, practices, and structures of the
university have allowed it as an institution to engage as a system that pulls
the knowledge production system away from the pursuits driven by market
signals, political signals, or popular cultural fad and toward directions


characterized by the relatively high intensity of communication within the
academic community, among people engaged in the practice of conver-
sation, writing, mutual commentary, and critique. These practices have, in
turn, fed into and been sustained by spatial removal.
The university campus has been a place for students to be immersed in
learning and find others like themselves. This is, of course, heavily mixed in
with late-teen/early-adult socialization, but it does offer a framework and
basis that orients this socialization, with wide-ranging degrees of seriousness,
around learning. Scholars do come together and exchange views, read,
and mutually reinforce their commitment, through repeat performance of
discourse, to the academic enterprise standing distinct from market, polity,
and society at large. Again, I do not want to sound starry-eyed; I hear there
is occasional backbiting, too. But that is not the point. It is, rather, that the
remove of the university—its relative coherence as a distinct subsystem—
tends to be based on repeat practices of structured conversation that
represent a certain set of values and commitments and, therefore, orient its
participants to a particular kind of conversation, inquiry, and output. These
practices make the university a discrete subsystem for knowledge production,
quite different from, say, industrial research and development.
As we shift to the networked information economy, the ability of
some parts of the university to skip over industrialization entirely, and the
potential for others to transition more gracefully than could some of the
actors in industry, creates new opportunities. For purposes of technical
architectural design of the university networks and information system, the
shift presents three core challenges:
1. how to manage increasingly permeable boundaries between
the university and the world, to enable the higher degree of
effective participation in the world that students and faculty
can have, while avoiding a fragmentation of the coherent
university system;
2. how to preserve the practical capability and authority to act
in the hands of students and faculty, in the face of pressures
to centrally control use in order to avoid “bad” uses, both
external (such as copyright violations or security threats)
and internal (such as destabilization of the traditional lines of
authority in the classroom); and
3. how to build platforms for cooperation that enhance the
central experience of the university—intense structured
discourse around a set of shared values and practices oriented
toward knowledge and education.


Permeable Boundaries
Many contributors to free and open source software projects, to
Wikipedia, or to the blogosphere are students and faculty. The relative
freedom of both groups from structuring constraints of job performance,
and the internal system values regarding their role as knowledge producers
and young people exploring the limits of their knowledge and creativity,
have made universities an important platform for the system of commons-
based social production. Like the university, this system stands apart from
market and state. Unlike the university, it is not based on formal accredi-
tation, hierarchy, and membership but on more fluid practices of contri-
bution and loose association. The university can offer its systems to support
social production of both its own internal workings and its members in
those of the outer world.
Examples of the kinds of contributions university systems can make to
the social production system beyond their boundaries include ibiblio, the
MIT OpenCourseWare initiative, COSL, and Connexions.
K ibiblio represents a contribution of resources and
expertise. It is an Internet library, archive, or depository
of materials that are freely available for reuse, which
can be contributed to by anyone and is usable by
anyone. ibiblio is a collaboration of the University of
North Carolina–Chapel Hill with the Center for the
Public Domain, itself a nonprofit created by and heavily
anchored in the Duke University faculty.
K The OpenCourseWare initiative is an effort to format
course materials created by faculty and make them
available on the Internet to anyone who wants to use
them—self-learners or educators outside MIT—as inputs
into their own learning. Here, the university platform
both serves a physical role in distributing the materials
and builds expertise in preparation and conversion from
the idiosyncratic forms used by individual teachers—
the vestige of the guildlike freedom individual teachers
have—and the needs of a platform of university-level
teaching materials available for universal use.
K COSL, the Center for Open and Sustainable Learning at
the Utah State University, and Connexions, a collaborative
platform for the creation and sharing of educational
materials founded at Rice University, offer yet another step
up in the level of contribution to capacity to act. Here,
the university-based organizations are building tools and


platforms and hosting them to pool contributions, not
only from within universities but also, more generally, from
the social production system, into a project central to the
role of the university—the creation and sharing of educa-
tional materials.
A different kind of permeability comes from the increasing capability
of researchers to collaborate in networks that ignore institutional bound-
aries. The Human Genome Project is one such example; the International
Haplotype Mapping (HapMap) project is even more so. Science today,
in many cases, requires thousands of collaborators and simply cannot be
managed within the old silo model. Here, the permeability required is
across distinct institutional boundaries.
Permeability allows faculty and students to engage with and in the
world. As such, it is an important new dimension of town–gown relations
at a time when the kinds of nonmarket, nonstate action that students
and faculty are so oriented toward by institutional habit and practice
have become so much more important a component of the infor-
mation production system generally.Yet, as we have noted, the geographic
separation, the distinctness of the campus, has also been central to defining
the university. There is a certain safety or trust, possible in the classroom, to
experiment with ideas, questions, and inquiry that performance on a more
public stage makes difficult. Identity is important to trust, and yet anonymity
is important to free engagement in the world outside. Managing the tension
between engaging the university in the world and preserving the internal
trust and structure of university discourse is important and not always easy.
Proprietary systems such as Blackboard seem optimized for allowing
teachers to control the discussion and the materials, replicating in many
senses the security of the traditional classroom while erecting barriers
to student contribution to the syllabus and to external participation in a
class. Open blogs and wikis, on the other hand, provide little or no safety
other than through obscurity, which at the moment seems enough for
those courses that use them. One goal of university platforms should be
to develop free platforms that would integrate the benefits of both, most
likely building on the increasing use of private wikis as a platform.

End-to-End Versus Centralization
The end-to-end principle, originally characterized by Saltzer, Clark,
and Reed as an Internet design principle, has now developed into a
broader architectural principle, for some even a political commitment.
At core, its argument is that functions should, to the extent possible, be


pushed to the edges of a network while keeping the core of the network
as simple as it can be. This, in turn, allows for innovation to come from
anywhere and to go anywhere, without requiring large systemic modifi-
cation in the network itself. As a broader architectural principle, it is
tied to building as little as possible of the functionality into the hard-to-
change elements of a system.
The end-to-end principle has come under significant pressure for
several years now, for a variety of good reasons. Usability, security, standard-
ization within an organization, pricing, and quality of service have all
been interjected as reasons to implement more significant elements of
services into the network itself, rather than leaving everything to the edges.
Universities have the opportunity to control their own networks and have
various reasons to do so. Be it managing P2P file sharing because of fear of
lawsuits, system burden, or malicious software, or the will to separate out
what is available to registered students and others, universities have strong
motivations to control their systems.
This is, I think, a mistake.
Most, if not all, of the best examples of collaboration online
where universities have played a role started with demonstration
projects and beyond, done by individual faculty members or students.
Innovation in institutional engagement, just like innovation in voice
over Internet protocol or instant messaging, comes from the edges,
not the core. Furthermore, precisely because the individual members
of university communities can play such an important role in the
social production system in general, university systems should resist
the urge to centralize. Instead, the emphasis should be on imple-
menting solutions to whatever concerns there are through (1) identi-
fying or developing solutions that can be implemented at the ends
of the network, preserving the autonomy of users, and (2) where the
practices are unacceptable to the university, solving them through the
university’s disciplinary system in a formal, transparent way, rather
than architecturally in ways that have negative spillover effects on
other, desirable uses.
It is important in this context to remember that people exist in
multiple systems of constraint and affordance. Technical systems are only
one kind of system, and different affordances and constraints for any
given individual or community can be implemented in one or more of
these systems. In the case of technical constraints on usage, the costs, in
terms of incapacitation, imposed by technical solutions seem larger than
the costs, in terms of imperfect enforcement, of using an institutional
disciplinary system.


The basic commitment of university system architecture needs to
ensure that each member of the community has the systems capability
to be an active contributor and participant in communication—both
internal to the university and external, to the networked world at large.
Authority and capacity to act on all things digital should be located at the
edges, rather than centralized in the university system. Solutions to what
are perceived as threats to that system should be designed not purely with
the technical system in mind but with the range of interlocking systems—
technical, organizational, cultural, and institutional—that the university is
made up of. These solutions should be implemented through the system
that will have the least negative impact on the capacity of the university to
function as a learning and research community and platform.

Building Platforms for Cooperation
The observable emergence of online cooperation coincides with
several academic trends in thinking about human cooperation. These
go beyond a selfish rational actor model, emphasizing a diverse set of
motivational profiles, not all selfish, and the centrality of communication
and human interaction to forming preferences for cooperation and the
commitment to ongoing cooperative processes. Where implemented,
cooperation-based systems seem primarily aimed to construct human
systems capable of observing a complex and rapidly changing environment,
learning about new conditions and practices within it, and pursuing them
in flexible, adaptive ways.
One anchor of these trends is the large literature in several disciplines on
the prevalence of observations of human cooperation inconsistent with the
predictions of the selfish, rational actor model. In experimental economics,
we see a line of work on human proclivity to cooperate in patterns that are
rational but inconsistent with uniformly selfish preferences.This work is
distinct from the mainstream concern of experimental economics—behavioral
deviations from rationality. From this literature we learn that somewhat more
than half the population predictably behaves as cooperators or reciprocators
in social dilemma and altruism-adducing games, while about one-third act as
selfish actors.Various manipulations are associated with decay of cooperation,
while others are associated with increasing cooperation.These findings suggest
that, under appropriate designs, cooperators cooperate, reciprocators cooperate
and invest in punishing defections by selfish agents, and selfish agents increase
cooperation over time to avoid that punishment. While the literature itself is
not oriented toward characterizing design levers for systems of cooperation, it
is possible to synthesize these out of it.


Parallel work in experiments and field studies has been done in
political science, in particular around governance of commons. There is also
crossover work in neuroeconomics to support some of the observations
of the experimental work. As to ultimate causes of cooperation, evolu-
tionary biology has seen a trajectory leading it from selfish gene theory of
the 1970s to increasing emphasis on cooperation, both through indirect
reciprocity and through multilevel selection. In anthropology, we see uses
of evolutionary dynamics to explain cultural practices of cooperation, on
much shorter timescales and with greater sensitivity to cultural variation,
destabilizing the gene–culture binary.
A second, distinct line is seen within organizational sociology.
Growing from the work on post-Fordism, trust, and increasing
knowledge intensity in firms, sociologists had observed increasing
adoption of networked organization models emerging within firms,
and in some cases across firms, in supply relationships. Globalization
and rapid technological change put organizations under increasing
pressure to innovate in their processes, adapt to changes, learn about a
rapidly changing environment and increasingly complex processes, and
implement learning continuously. Under a variety of monikers, such as
team production, quality circles, and so forth, a variety of business processes
have emerged that depend heavily on communication, on relatively
higher responsibility in the hands of employees, or on the emergence
of trust-based collaboration, replacing the traditional models of market
and hierarchies to govern internal relations within and between firms.
The two critical points, from the perspective of designing information
platforms, are that the turn to cooperative models and decentral-
ization of action is seen as driven by a need to improve the learning
and adaptation capabilities of organizations and interorganizational
networks, and that many of the characteristics of successful collabora-
tions fit those that one sees coming out of the experimental work.
A third line of work is the emergence, within software systems design,
of an effort to characterize “social software” as its design objective, that is,
designing software that is intended to be run for and by a group of people,
fostering their interaction, including its social dynamics. This literature at
the moment is in a heuristic stage and tends to characterize successful and
unsuccessful practices. Nonetheless, it offers a good basis for observing
cooperation in practice, running on a designed system with, therefore,
relatively easily characterizable design features.
These lines of work do not speak to each other, yet they all point to
the increasing importance of human cooperation across multiple domains,
arrived at from a wide-ranging and diverse set of approaches and methods.


They allow us to begin to characterize what design elements would be
necessary to foster cooperation and therefore allow us to design systems for
cooperation more systematically.
Going into the details of such systems here would be beyond the
goal of this discussion. To presage future work, I will simply note that
these design levers will include communication, as a central necessary
facility, as well as humanization, trust, clear norms, fairness, discipline and
punishment, transparency, self-selection, group identity, crowding out,
cost, and leadership. A major challenge of the next few years will be to
refine this literature into testable design levers, translate these into working
designs, and learn from experience about how best to build systems for the
diverse beings we in fact are.

Conclusion
Throughout the period of the industrial information economy,
the university maintained a stance apart from much of the rest of that
economy. As we move to a networked information economy, the distinct
values of the university—its relative freedom from the pressures of the
market, polity, and popular fashion—are a major source of strength.
Universities can become an even more significant force in the knowledge
production system, one that distinctly pulls in the direction of professional
values. Universities can provide an anchor “against” commercial incentives
and build a strong complementary system with the amateur commons–
based peer production system, as we have indeed seen in areas such as free
and open source software.
University networks and technical platforms will have to focus
on managing the increasingly permeable boundaries among univer-
sities, and between universities and the world outside them. University
platform design should be focused on ensuring that faculty and students
have the greatest degree possible of authority and capacity to act freely,
innovate internally, and participate externally. And university systems
should be attuned to the need to build platforms for cooperation, as the
new practices of cooperation and sharing become more prevalent and
more based in a broader shift from an image of hierarchical or market-
oriented systems to systems based on individuals collaborating with
each other in loose networks.

The Globalization of
Higher Education


Growing in Esteem: Positioning
the University of Melbourne in
the Global Knowledge Economy
Glyn Davis, Linda O’Brien, and Pat McLean

T he emerging global higher education market, facilitated by
advances in information and communication technologies,
challenges all universities to reconsider their mission and direction.
The University of Melbourne, one of Australia’s leading research univer-
sities,1 has undergone a fundamental reshaping to ensure its place in an
evolving global knowledge economy.
The result is a strategy called “Growing Esteem,”2 developed after
extensive consultation. Growing Esteem signals the university’s intention
to remain a leading education provider in the 21st century. The metaphor
of a triple helix defines the strategy’s character and purpose. Setting three
priorities for the university—research and research training, learning and
teaching, and knowledge transfer—the helix captures the complex and
shifting relations between three disparate spheres of activity that are tightly
bound, each reinforcing the other.
Central to the Growing Esteem strategy is the “Melbourne model” (a
term coined by Australian media), the most significant curriculum reform
in the university’s 154-year history. The Melbourne model is premised on
creation of a small number of broad undergraduate programs, followed by
intense professional training at a postgraduate level.
Integral to the achievement of the university’s vision will be the way
in which the university’s information services, systems, and technologies
come together to support the vision: to bind the strands of the helix to
achieve strategic outcomes, to underpin the educational model, to enhance
the quality of the student experience, and to provide the foundation for
strategic agility in a changing global environment.
This essay outlines the university’s 2015 vision, the steps taken to
“dream large,”3 and the way information services and technologies are
working toward the realization of the 2015 vision.

The University of Melbourne in the Global Knowledge Economy 65

The Context: A Rapidly Changing Higher
Education Sector
The higher education sector worldwide is responding to a raft of
global influences—an international market, the influence of the knowledge
economy on education, the influence of technology on learning and
teaching. Key drivers include the evolving needs of graduates and
employers, the increasing importance of international rankings, a continued
decline in public funding, and rapid technological change. When he visited
the University of Melbourne late in 2006, Professor James Wilkinson,
director of the Derek Bok Center for Teaching and Learning at Harvard
University, advised: “I don’t think Australian higher education has any
choice but to diversify and innovate now. There’s a long lead time in
education. It is not smart just to think that what worked well in the past
might work well in the future.”4

Expectations of University Graduates Are Changing
Australian students, like their international peers, are globally mobile.
The career trajectories of graduates in the 21st century will likely include
time spent overseas, working for international companies, or managing
multicultural environments. Graduates expect to be global citizens, carefully
attuned to cultural diversity and able to communicate across cultures.
In a global knowledge economy, what students learn today may be
outdated before they complete their degrees. Career pathways can be
expected to shift direction several times. Students expect transferable skills
such as learning how to learn, problem solve, analyze, and communicate
effectively across cultural and discipline boundaries. Discipline bound-
aries are shifting to accommodate new academic alliances in an effort to
comprehend complex systems, such as global warming.

Universities Must Compete in a Global Education
Market
Universities now compete for students—and quality staff—in a global
market. International research rankings, especially those based on research
indices, have become important. Just as good students prefer to study with
other good students, the best researchers want to work with the most
able and stimulating colleagues. Increasingly, international rankings are an
important factor as students and faculty alike make choices about which
university to select.


Melbourne has long been a leader in Australian indices of research
performance but performs less well by international measures. In the Times
Higher Education world rankings, Melbourne sits at 22 in the world, but in
the more rigorous, research performance–based Shanghai Jiao Tong index,
the university is number 79, one of only two Australian universities among
the top 100. North American universities count for 8 of the top 10 univer-
sities in the Shanghai Jiao Tong index.
While global competition has yet to impose a single model of
higher education, there are signs of convergence around the familiar
North American model of broadly based undergraduate degrees
followed by graduate entry professional degrees. While four-year
undergraduate degrees tend to be distinctly North American, the
Bologna approach adopted across Europe accepts the same archi-
tecture of foundation studies, followed by professional training, in an
undergraduate–masters sequence. The Bologna model incorporates
easily readable and comparable degrees, uniform degree structures, and
increased student and staff mobility. Adoption of the Bologna model
across Europe is influencing higher education worldwide as countries
that follow neither North American nor European degree programs
ponder how to compete globally.
A global market means not just some measure of standardization; it
also means competition from institutions that set up campuses outside
their home territory. In Australia, changes in the government protocols
and loans scheme have fueled the growth of private higher education
providers. In 2006, a campus of an American research university, Carnegie
Mellon University, opened in Adelaide, supported by funding from the
South Australian government. It may only be a matter of time until one
of the big and successful universities from the United States employing
online delivery with local tutorials—such as the University of Phoenix or
Kaplan University—begins to operate in this nation. In addition, Australia
can expect to experience increased competition for students, as English
program delivery at European Union and Asian institutions makes these
more attractive to students from the broader region.

Shifts in the Way Universities Are Funded
Pressure on national public funding for higher education in the
United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand has encouraged or
forced most institutions in these countries to seek additional income
from other sources. In Australia, universities have increased their
revenue from full-fee-paying international students from 5.8 percent


of university income in 1995 to 14.5 percent in 20045; federal funding
as a proportion of total higher education revenue dropped from 57
percent in 1996 to 41 percent in 2005.6
Recent trends in international student markets have highlighted the
unsustainability of continued dependence on revenue from international
students. While Australia has been a preferred destination for those in the
region seeking higher education, rapid growth in the overseas student
numbers has stalled—a situation that leaves chronically underfunded
Australian universities particularly vulnerable to global competition. In
addition, these trends raise questions about the traditional responsibilities
and roles of national governments in higher education. Simon Marginson
and Marijk van der Wende suggest that terms such as “public” education
and related notions of priority and accountability take on new meanings as
universities go beyond national borders.7

In a Global Knowledge Economy, Universities Are
Experiencing a Digital Revolution
Underlying these changes to the higher education sector has been a
fundamental transformation in the process of creating, synthesizing, and
disseminating knowledge through the advent of advanced information
and communication technologies. Initially, the digital revolution began
with dissemination of scholarly information and stand-alone e-learning
tools. With the advent of the Internet and growth in digital multimedia
capabilities, access to full-text scholarly information and more sophisticated
e-learning opportunities, which rely on communication and collaboration
tools, became a reality.
As the tools that generate research data increasingly provide digital output,
the Internet has provided the catalyst for distributing access to research data
and instruments, furthering research collaboration. No longer must a scientist
be located with the instrument to access, analyze, manipulate, and interpret
data.The capabilities for accessing research data and collections and collabor-
ative capabilities are also being exploited by the social sciences and humanities.
A threshold was crossed some time recently into a world in which all
academic pursuits now include at least some digital component. Indeed,
many research and teaching and learning activities use predominantly
digital information management and communication technologies. Hence,
information and communication technologies are not simply “utilities,”
like electricity or water, but a “rapidly evolving, mission critical resource.”8
This makes digital communication the backbone of a university’s
knowledge management capability.


A Strategic Imperative: The Interface between
Technology and Teaching and Learning
In the higher education sector, three key trends in the management
and use of information and technologies are transforming the academic
enterprise—the blurring of research, learning, and teaching boundaries; the
proliferation of technologically fueled new ways of communicating; and
recognition of an important trend toward standardization.

The Blurring of Research, Learning, and Teaching
Boundaries
Chris Dede has written:“Our ways of thinking and knowing, teaching and
learning are undergoing a sea change, and [that] what is emerging seems both
rich and strange.”9 The ease with which people can now publish to the Internet
allows anyone to contribute to the world’s store of knowledge—and others
to build on the foundation using collaboration and social networking tools.
Students can become creators of content in new ways, changing the relationship
between teacher and student. And as research increasingly becomes a digital
endeavor, everyone has the potential to become part of this research. Amateur
astronomers now easily contribute to the world’s astronomical research. Students
can become active participants in the research process in ways never thought
possible, changing the boundaries between research, learning, and teaching.

New Ways of Communicating
Today’s “new-generation” undergraduate students have grown up with
the Internet and use information and technology in ways quite different from
previous generations. The ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information
Technology, 2006 in the United States provides an excellent insight into students’
use of technology and their expectations.This study showed PC ownership
among undergraduate students to be 97.8 percent, with three-quarters owning
laptops and almost one in five owning a PDA.While the students were clearly
enthusiastic users of technology, only just over half wanted information
technology (IT) used in their courses. By far they saw convenience as the
single most important benefit of IT in their university experience, but most
also agreed that IT in courses improved their learning.10
Of course, such changes also have the potential to create a digital
divide, significantly disadvantaging those students with limited access to,
or experience of, the new technologies. Ways of defining and measuring
educational disadvantage must now also take into account IT disadvantage.


In many cases, university administrations are making (incorrect) assump-
tions about how the new technologies influence communication using the
outdated frameworks of “old-generation” teachers and administrators.

A Trend toward Standardization
Within the university sector, digital leaders realize that business agility
relies on standardization and integration of information systems and technol-
ogies.The corporate sector for some time has focused on automation of
transactional processes, IT consolidation, shared-service initiatives, and process
standards such as Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL) to drive
their IT effectiveness and efficiency. Research by authors such as Peter Weill,
Jeanne W. Ross, and David C. Robertson clearly demonstrates that increased
business success, greater agility, and innovation paradoxically require more
standardized, automated core processes.11 The foundations for business success
are the IT infrastructure and digitized business processes, which automate an
organization’s core capabilities. By standardizing and integrating these routine
processes so that they are reliable and predictable, the organization’s human
capability can be directed toward those activities that most add value.
Peter Weill and other colleagues found that “IT savvy” firms can
convert investment in IT infrastructure into business value within the
same year. IT savvy firms are those with committed senior management
who champion IT initiatives, higher firm-wide skills in effective use of IT,
more use of IT for internal and external communication, higher Internet
use, and more digitized transactions.12 Universities, given their propensity
to localize and distribute organizational authority, have been slower to
consider how to apply these concepts within their organizations. It seems
likely that increasing student expectations for IT-enabled convenience,
coupled with emerging opportunities for global collaborative research, will
impel universities to embed IT standards and automate core processes.

New Directions in Learning and Teaching
So what does global transformation mean for research-intensive
universities such as Melbourne?

Reforming the Curriculum, Reshaping Student
Service Delivery
Lord Broers, an alumnus of Melbourne, vice-chancellor of
Cambridge 1996–2003, and now president of the Royal British Academy


of Engineering, observed in a 2006 lecture to the Higher Education
Policy Institute:
What we need first and foremost from our universities
is the provision for young people of an adequately broad
knowledge base, together with modern analytical and
communication skills … many of our undergraduate
courses have become too narrow and overspecialized and
do not equip the young with flexible intellects that will
be able to adapt to changing circumstances.13
Under the direction of a 2006 Curriculum Commission chaired
by the university’s Deputy Vice Chancellor (Academic) Professor Peter
McPhee, the University of Melbourne undertook the most significant
reform since it was first established in 1853. The resulting Melbourne
model reflects the global trend toward broader undergraduate programs
followed by intense professional training at postgraduate level. In the
Australian context this gives students more time to consider career
choices. The new-generation degrees provide a multidisciplinary
curriculum with a strong international focus. Students will experience
discipline breadth as well as depth, with one-quarter of their study
coming from outside their core discipline. Choices include a raft of new
university breadth subjects such as Climate Change, The Internet: A
Society Transformed, and Critical Thinking with Statistics and Data.
The “Melbourne Experience” (discussed in more detail later) aims to
provide students with a cohort experience, building strong peer networks
and encouraging close links with academic units. Students will have oppor-
tunities to build interdisciplinary, cross-cultural, and technological awareness
and skills, with direct exposure to leading research and knowledge transfer
projects on campus, along with opportunities for off-campus experience
such as industry and community work placements and international study.
In parallel with curriculum reform, the university undertook a
major review of its administrative and student services. The quality of the
Melbourne student experience was a key focus of the reforms and has
involved a significant reshaping of the university’s services and adminis-
trative effort from a student-centric perspective. Under the Melbourne
model, the individual needs of students come first, from their first contact
with the university as prospective students to an ongoing relationship as
alumni. The student hubs, which will be developed under the Melbourne
model, will provide students with close links to their discipline areas. A
“one-stop-shop” approach to administration and academic support should
end students being sent from one corner of the university to another for
student cards, course information, language support, or career advice. There


are plans for the student centers to colocate with new learning hubs—
state-of-the-art information access located where students learn—within
their faculty or graduate school. The design allows for 24×7 access to
places where students want to congregate to learn with their peers.

A New Role for Information Services
A university is uniquely positioned to realize the emerging oppor-
tunities offered through information and communication technologies.
Within one division at Melbourne, Information Services, the university
brings together information professionals, librarians, archivists, multi-
media specialists, specialist academics, and information and communi-
cation technologists. The different expertise of these professional groups
can be combined and applied in ways that ensure that the university
realizes the potential of information and technologies. As the Growing
Esteem strategy notes: “Information technology is the backbone of the
university’s knowledge management capability, critical to developing closer
links between research and research training, learning and teaching, and
knowledge transfer.”14
The three trends outlined above—the blurring of research, learning,
and teaching boundaries, changing student expectations, and standard-
ization and integration of processes—are evident in the University of
Melbourne’s reshaping. The following section illustrates the tightly
integrated way in which the university’s strategic aims shape, and are
shaped by, its information and technology strategies.

A Triple Helix Strategy: Binding the Strands Together
The Melbourne vision of a fine university can be represented
as a triple helix in which sharply focused, well-supported research,
teaching, and knowledge transfer remain tightly bound, each shaping and
reinforcing the other. The academic mission of the university “sets prior-
ities, structures programs, designs enterprise systems, and deploys institu-
tional resources” to realize the talents and contributions of staff, students,
sponsors, and partners.15
To bind the strands of the helix through information services, the
concept of “e-scholarship” has been used to frame the approach. While
most universities have embraced e-learning and more recently many are
engaged in discussion around e-research, Melbourne’s unique concept of
the triple helix provides a framework for differentiation. By leveraging
the capacity of information and communication technologies to provide


access to scholarly data and research instruments, regardless of location,
and to the necessary know-how, collaborative tools, and infrastructure,
we provide the opportunity for our students and staff to be engaged in
learning, research, and knowledge transfer in an integrated way. Perhaps
this is best illustrated by an example.
Currently, the university’s Information Services division, through
its newly formed E-scholarship Research Centre, in partnership with
the Faculty of Arts, is imaging and generating XML transcripts of the
convict records of the Archives Office of Tasmania. It is one of the
world’s most comprehensive sets of records of people placed under
confinement. It is a collection of great complexity, comprising more
than 30,000 records that relate to 75,000 men, women, and children
transported to Australia during the first half of the 19th century. The
vigilance invested in controlling the penal colony was collected on
paper records covering all aspects of convict lives: behavior, character,
work, health, family life, and death. It is a collection requiring a high
level of historical skill to use without expert assistance, so the challenge
for the electronic archivist is to make this complex collection acces-
sible so that students, researchers, or genealogists can focus on an
individual convict in a wide range of collectivities (birthplace, crime,
religion, personality type, work, punishment, and so forth). This infor-
mation needs to be not only connected internally but also connected
to other data: genealogies, family, and criminal data in place of origin,
and family and public records data in the place of refuge after sentence.
The faculty will be using this collection as a rich research tool, often
working in partnership with other disciplines, such as population
health, to mine the data. The collection will serve as a teaching tool,
which provides potential opportunities for students to undertake their
own research. At the same time it creates a rich knowledge transfer tool
of international value.
Such a case exemplifies the opportunities to link the triple helix of
research, teaching and learning, and knowledge transfer through infor-
mation services, systems, and technologies. They bind the three core activ-
ities of the university in ways that enrich each of these activities.

The Role of E-Learning in the Melbourne
Experience
The Melbourne model fits well with the emergence of lifelong
learning and multiple careers in the changing workplaces of the 21st
century. Enhanced e-learning opportunities have a significant role to play


in the distinctive Melbourne Experience envisaged under the Melbourne
model, given the principles underpinning the use of technologies in the
new-generation curriculum. Thus, students will
K have a coordinated e-learning experience that increases in
sophistication and complexity based on year level across the
life of their program of study;
K develop an online portfolio to support personal and academic
development;
K use e-learning environments to link to and be engaged in
current research activities and programs;
K participate in e-learning experiences with diverse cohorts
of students in online communities of practice, social, and
learning networks; and
K use e-learning mechanisms to strategically complement,
enhance, and extend their opportunities for internationalizing
their learning experiences.

Enhancing the Cohort Experience
The cohort experience of students is strengthened through
programs such as AIRport (Academic Interactive Resources Portal) and
Postgraduate Essentials. Designed for undergraduate students, AIRport
provides a plethora of interactive quizzes and activities. Importantly,
though, it includes online language tutorials, designed either for
specific groups within particular courses or for students whose second
language is English. For many international students, online tutorial
participation is much valued, for it allows time to formulate a response.
As one second-year student commented, “In class, by the time I’ve
worked out what to say and how to say it the tutor has moved on … in
online tutes I find I have much more to say.” In Postgraduate Essentials,
research higher-degree students are able to ask questions of the online
tutor and their peers in ways not always possible for students who
spend long hours in labs or who may be based many kilometers from
campus. The first-year online journal or blog also provides a forum for
discussion for students new to university life.16

Managing Career Pathways
One key pedagogical driver of the Melbourne model was an under-
standing that for many students, direct entry from school to a professional
degree may be problematic. Advice from well-meaning teachers, friends, and


parents “not to waste a high ENTER”17 has meant many bright students
follow safe and prestigious, but personally unfulfilling, career choices. Under
the Melbourne model, career choices can be delayed until the end of under-
graduate education. On completing a new-generation bachelor degree, a
student will have the maturity and self-knowledge to make an informed
career choice. Some may go immediately to employment. Others will
choose to enroll in one of Melbourne’s new graduate schools and pursue a
professional qualification or undertake a research master’s or PhD.
Under the Melbourne model, course advice takes on a much greater
significance as students navigate pathways through to careers. Students will
be supported to build e-portfolios recording their skills development and
experience. A student may enroll in a bachelor of commerce degree program
with the intention of following a career in international business. An internship
with a human rights organization and success with breadth subjects in law
(and the online global opportunities subject, which links students in classrooms
across the world) may lead them to follow their new-generation BComm,
either immediately or some years later, with a juris doctor, facilitating a
pathway to a career as a lawyer specializing in human rights law.
The Melbourne model facilitates a career pathway many with
old-generation degrees will recognize. Few graduates work in the jobs they
anticipated when choosing subjects in year 10 with an eye to their chosen
career. Under the Melbourne model, career pathways are managed and
negotiated as students undertake a range of breadth studies and knowledge
transfer experiences. The Melbourne model framework and its e-campus
experience are made possible through the new information technologies.

The Need for Caution
Many undergraduate students have spent their entire lives surrounded
by information technologies, including the Internet.This has shaped what
students expect from universities, but it has also shaped assumptions we make
about how our students wish to use technologies. In 2006, a study of more
than 2,000 first-year students—students born after 1980—was undertaken at
the University of Melbourne. Referred to as the Kennedy study, it examined
students’ access to, use of, and proficiency with a wide range of information
and communication technologies and tools.18 (It in part mirrored ECAR
studies undertaken in the United States.) The Kennedy study found that
students were overwhelmingly positive about the use of information and
communication technologies to support their studies. More than 90 percent
use computers for general study and to search for information, and more
than 80 percent use the learning management system and use technology


for general course administration activities. Ninety percent of students had
unrestricted access to a desktop computer and more than 70 percent had
broadband Internet access.
Yet the Kennedy study also demonstrated distinct patterns of access
based on gender, background (for example, international students used
technologies more frequently), and discipline area. There was sufficient
evidence to negate the argument of a one-size-fits-all approach. Kennedy
notes that “we need to think carefully about how we can use particular ‘core’
and ‘emerging’ technologies to support learning in higher education, given
the known diversity of experiences, attitudes, and expectations of students.”19
Information and communication technologies are already used exten-
sively to enrich the on-campus student teaching and learning experience.The
study undertaken by Kennedy underlines the need to consider carefully how
best to enrich the teaching and learning experience through technologies.
These findings confirm those of the 2006 ECAR study that students
overwhelmingly wish to use technology to increase convenience. Nearly 84
percent want to use the web for student services such as to enroll, sign up
for classes, and pay fees, yet 80.9 percent also want to use the web to access
a learning portal. Given the desire of students to use technology to increase
convenience, the University of Melbourne, as part of its strategy to enhance
the quality of the student experience, plans to automate all student transac-
tional processes. Achieved over the next few years, such automation will ensure
consistent, integrated, convenient, and cost-effective service delivery.The
university will also seek to increase the use of information and technologies in
student enrichment.This approach not only enriches the quality of the student
experience but leads to standardization and automation of core business
processes, thus increasing the university’s ability to innovate and be agile.

Ensuring We Have the IT Infrastructure to
Support the Melbourne Model
Enhancing the expectations of the Melbourne Experience is a noble
goal, but it also carries risks. To succeed, the Melbourne model requires an
agile and responsive system. Standards and consistency in core processes are
an imperative, not an option. As Craig Barrett, CEO of Intel, notes: “When
you have common interfaces, common protocols, everyone can innovate
and everyone can interoperate. Companies can build their businesses,
consumers can expand their choices, the technology moves forward faster,
and users get more benefit.”20
Like many Australian higher education institutions, a long-established
distribution of decision-making authority at the University of Melbourne


reflects presumptions of academic autonomy and is reinforced by budget
practices. As a result, faculties and departments have adopted different and
sometimes incompatible systems and technologies for their research and
teaching. Such devolution of decision making and expenditure contributes
to inconsistency in quality and offerings of IT services to students and staff,
duplication and increased risk, poor value for the money invested, and an
inability to prioritize investment in IT to achieve the best outcomes. Despite
some significant local investment, the objective quality of user support remains
low.There had been a growing recognition of the importance of investing in
university core systems and infrastructure. Over the last five years the university
has replaced all of its core enterprise systems, with the final system, the student
management system project, due to be completed in mid-2008.
In recognition of benefits to be gained from a common IT infra-
structure and digitized business processes, the university embarked on
an IT shared-services project in 2006. This initiative acknowledged the
importance of taking a university-wide view of IT in order to balance
quality, cost, and risk for the university as a whole and balance the trade-off
between local agility and the consistency required for high-quality,
reasonable-cost services and to facilitate collaboration. Figure 1 illustrates
the thinking underpinning this approach.
Some progress has been made toward implementing common
systems and processes, largely through investment in common enterprise
systems on a project-by-project basis, coupled with implementation
of appropriate methodologies such as the ITIL and Prince2. However,
only limited progress has been made on business process integration and
standardization. In a highly devolved organization, technologies that
imply organizational change are particularly challenging.
As Indiana University CIO Brad Wheeler notes: “For many institu-

Figure 1. Toward a Strategically Unified Information Future

Current State Future State

Faculty 1 Faculty 2 Administration Teaching
and Research Knowledge Enabling
Learning Transfer
Goals Goals Goals
Services Services Services Goals
Information Information Information Services
Applications Applications Applications Information
Infrastructure Infrastructure Infrastructure Applications
Infrastructure
Devolved and Fragmented Strategically Uni ed


tions, this [shared services] is a chicken-and-egg situation where the money
to provide shared services is in the research projects and schools who may
prefer the use of university infrastructure, but can’t trust it until it exists. It
can’t exist if the money isn’t aggregated to fund it.”21
Over the coming years, the University of Melbourne will use the concepts
developed around the new student services model to continue its journey
toward being an IT savvy organization. By focusing on enhancing the quality of
the student experience, automating core processes, and enhancing enrichment
services through targeted use of information technologies, the university will
build critical IT foundations and business capability. Over time, this approach will
be applied to all university core processes, with the aim of being an exemplar in
interlocking its business and IT practices and competencies.

Summary
In many ways, the history of higher education in Australia has been
shaped by isolation from the rest of the world. Australia’s first univer-
sities were staffed by academics wooed from the mother country with
promises of opportunity—fueled by the discovery of gold. In architecture
(the “sandstones” of Australia’s Group of Eight) and curricula, the first
Australian universities followed the models of Oxford and Cambridge.
Thanks to IT, Australia is isolated no longer, and U.K. universities
no longer dominate world higher education rankings. If Melbourne is to
fulfill its aim to be one of the world’s finest universities, it must respond
to global educational challenges. Through its Growing Esteem strategy,
the University of Melbourne signals an intention to remain a leading
education provider in the 21st century. The Melbourne model brings
closer alignment to global changes in the sector while establishing a
pioneering higher education model for Australia. The strategy has received
bipartisan political support, with government and opposition alike recog-
nizing the need for domestic diversity if the sector is to compete globally.
Growing Esteem posits a university understood as three intertwined
activities—research and research training, teaching and learning, and
knowledge transfer. Each relies on IT, and the overall strategy requires
enterprise systems to bind together the strands. Like other universities,
Melbourne is part of an academic world with blurred boundaries around
the development of new knowledge, proliferation of technologically fueled,
new ways of communicating, and recognition that an agile institution
paradoxically needs standardized systems to enable collaboration. The
vision presented in Growing Esteem embraces information technologies as
the essential platform for a successful contemporary university.


Endnotes
1.The University of Melbourne is ranked number 1 in Australia for research income
(Australian Department of Education, Science and Training 2007) and is one of only
two Australian universities ranked in the top 100 in the international Shanghai Jiao
Tong index: University of Melbourne is ranked 79th, Australian National University
is ranked 57th. (The Department of Education, Science and Training is now the
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.)

2. The name Growing Esteem comes from the University’s motto, postera crescam
laude, from Horace’s famous ode. A common translation is “I shall grow in the
esteem of future generations.”

3.“Dreamlarge” is the campaign theme chosen to promote the university’s vision.

4. “HEd diversity offers choice—Harvard expert,” UniNews 15, no. 13 (2007),
http://uninews.unimelb.edu.au/articleid_3536.html.

5. Simon Marginson and Marijk van der Wende, Globalization and Higher
Education (Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development,
2007), http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/people/staff_pages/Marginson/
OECD-Globalisation&HigherEd.pdf.

6. Simon Marginson, “Global Setting, National Policy and Higher Education
in 2007” (paper presented at Education, Science and the Future of Australia, a
CSHE seminar series on policy, at the University of Melbourne, July 9, 2007).

7. Marginson and van der Wende, op. cit.

8. Brian L. Hawkins and Diana Oblinger, “IT Myths: The Myth about IT as a
Utility,” EDUCAUSE Review (July/August 2007): 11.

9. Chris Dede,“Introduction: A Sea Change in Thinking, Knowing, Learning, and
Teaching,” in The ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology,
2007 (Research Study,Vol. 6), Gail Salaway and Judith Borreson Caruso, with Mark
R. Nelson (Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, 2007), 25,
available from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ers0706/rs/ers07062.pdf.

10. Gail Salaway, Richard N. Katz, and Judith Borreson Caruso, with Robert
B. Kvavik and Mark R. Nelson, The ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and
Information Technology, 2006 (Research Study,Vol. 7) (Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE
Center for Applied Research, 2006), available from http://connect.educause
.edu/Library/ECAR/TheECARStudyofUndergradua/41172.

11. Jeanne W. Ross, Peter Weill, and David C. Robertson, Enterprise Architecture
as Strategy (Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press, 2006).

12. Peter Weill, Stephanie Woerner, Sinan Aral, and Anne Johnson, Becoming
More IT Savvy and Why It Matters (Research Briefing, No.VII–1D)


(Cambridge, MA: Center for Information Systems Research, MIT Sloan
School of Management, 2007).

13. Quoted in Growing Esteem:The 2007 University Plan (Victoria, Australia:
The University of Melbourne, 2007), 15, http://growingesteem.unimelb.edu
.au/2007universityplan/index.html.

14. Ibid, 23.

15. University of Melbourne, The University of Melbourne Plan: A Strategic
Overview (Victoria, Australia: The University of Melbourne, 2007), http://
www.unimelb.edu.au/publications/docs/2007UniPlan_StrategicOverview.pdf.

16. For more information about these programs, see https://airport.unimelb
.edu.au/ for AIRport; http://www.sgs.unimelb.edu.au/prog_services/
programs/pge/ for Postgraduate Essentials; and http://www.services.unimelb
.edu.au/transition/starting/blog.html for the first-year online journal or blog.

17. The Equivalent National Tertiary (Higher) Education Entrance Rank, or
ENTER, is the percentage score out of 100 awarded to students completing
high school study.

18. Gregor Kennedy, “Digital Natives + Others = First Year Student
Experience” (paper presented at EDUCAUSE Australasia 2007,
Melbourne, Australia, April 29–May 2, 2007), http://www.caudit.edu.au/
educauseaustralasia07/authors_papers/Kennedy.ppt.

19. Ibid., slide 24.

20. Quoted in An E-Research Strategic Framework: Interim Report of the e-Research
Coordinating Committee (Canberra, Australia: Australian Government, 2005), 20. For
the original interview, see http://www.intel.com/standards/execqa/qa0904.htm.

21. Brad Wheeler, “Leading Beyond the ICT Conundrums for Scholarship
2.0” (paper presented at EDUCAUSE Australasia 2007, Melbourne, Australia,
April 29–May 2, 2007), 4, http://www.caudit.edu.au/educasueaustralasia07/
authors_papers/Wheeler.ppt.

Bibliography
Dede, Chris. “Introduction: A Sea Change in Thinking, Knowing, Learning,
and Teaching.” In Gail Salaway and Judith Borreson Caruso, with Mark R.
Nelson, The ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology,
2007 (Research Study,Vol. 6). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied
Research, 2007, available from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/
ers0706/rs/ers07062.pdf.


E-Research Coordinating Committee. An E-Research Strategic Framework:
Interim Report of the E-Research Coordinating Committee. Canberra: Australian
Government, 2005.

Hawkins, Brian L., and Diana G. Oblinger. “IT Myths: The Myth about IT as a
Utility.” EDUCAUSE Review (July/August 2007): 11–12.

“HEd Diversity Offers Choice—Harvard Expert.” UniNews 15, no. 13 (July
24–August 7, 2007). http://uninews.unimelb.edu.au/articleid_3536.html.

Kennedy, Gregor. “Digital Natives + Others = First Year Student Experience.”
Paper presented at EDUCAUSE Australasia 2007, Melbourne, Australia, April
29–May 2, 2007. http://www.caudit.edu.au/educasueaustralasia07/authors_
papers/Kennedy.ppt.

Marginson, Simon. “Global Setting, National Policy and Higher Education
in 2007.” Paper presented at Education, Science and the Future of Australia, a
CSHE seminar series on policy, at the University of Melbourne, July 9, 2007.

Marginson, Simon, and Marijk van der Wende. Globalization and Higher
Education. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development,
2007. http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/people/staff_pages/Marginson/
OECD-Globalisation&HigherEd.pdf

Ross, Jeanne W., Peter Weill, and David C. Robertson. Enterprise Architecture as
Strategy. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press, 2006.

Salaway, Gail, Richard N. Katz, and Judith Borreson Caruso, with Robert
B. Kvavik and Mark R. Nelson. The ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students
and Information Technology, 2006 (Research Study,Vol. 7). Boulder, CO:
EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, 2006. http://connect.educause
.edu/Library/ECAR/TheECARStudyofUndergradua/41172.

University of Melbourne. Growing Esteem:The 2007 University Plan.Victoria,
Australia: The University of Melbourne, 2007. http://growingesteem.unimelb
.edu.au/2007universityplan/index.html.

University of Melbourne. The University of Melbourne Plan: A Strategic Overview.
Victoria, Australia: The University of Melbourne, 2007. http://www.unimelb
.edu.au/publications/docs/2007UniPlan_StrategicOverview.pdf.

Weill, Peter, Stephanie Woerner, Sinan Aral, and Anne Johnson. Becoming More IT
Savvy and Why It Matters (Research Briefing, No.VII–1D). Cambridge, MA: Center
for Information Systems Research, MIT Sloan School of Management, 2007.

Wheeler, Brad. “Leading Beyond the ICT Conundrums for Scholarship 2.0.”
Paper presented at EDUCAUSE Australasia 2007, Melbourne, Australia, April
29–May 2, 2007. http://www.caudit.edu.au/educasueaustralasia07/authors_
papers/Wheeler.ppt.

Higher Education and the Future of U.S. Competitiveness 81

Higher Education and the Future
of U.S. Competitiveness1
David Attis

C ompetitiveness has become a buzzword recently. Nearly every
day in the press we read accounts of “America’s competitiveness
crisis,” our “innovation shortfall,” or how the United States is
“losing its edge.” A growing number of Americans from all walks of life
and all political persuasions worry that the rise of emerging economies
threatens our continuing prosperity. These concerns have led to a flood of
reports during the past few years charting America’s putative decline and
proposing a range of solutions.
The need for action—and the recent sense of urgency—was neatly
crystallized by Thomas Friedman’s 2005 book The World Is Flat. As
incomes have stagnated, many have pointed the finger at offshoring,
seeing in the rapid rise of India and China the explanation for the
struggles of working Americans.

The Changing Competitive Environment
The global competitiveness environment has indeed changed
dramatically during the past decade. As the smoke from the Internet
boom cleared, Americans began to notice that other countries had made
tremendous gains in science and technology, dramatically narrowing
America’s historic lead. China has pulled ahead of the United States in
high-technology exports, and U.S. trade in advanced technology has
fallen into deficit. The European Union now generates more scien-
tific publications and graduates more PhDs in science than the United
States. China graduates nearly three times as many four-year degrees in
engineering, computer science, and IT and is projected to graduate more
PhDs in science and engineering by 2010.2
In many ways, this is simply the consequence of our own success.
Throughout the 1990s, other countries recognized and began to imitate
the U.S. model of economic growth—improving access to higher
education, increasing government investment in R&D, and lowering


barriers to trade and investment. At the same time, multinational corpora-
tions (often led by American companies) accelerated their globalization,
both to gain access to the enormous and rapidly growing consumer
markets in emerging economies and to tap into overseas talent pools. Not
only have call centers, accounting departments, and other back-office
functions been reorganized globally, but even R&D can now be performed
all over the world. America’s unique advantages are no longer so unique.
In an effort to address these concerns, political leaders in both
parties have taken up the banner of competitiveness. And these days,
competitiveness means science, technology, and innovation. In his 2006
State of the Union address, President Bush launched his American
Competitiveness Initiative, explaining, “By investing in research and
development, unleashing the innovative spirit of America’s entrepreneurs,
and making sure that our economy has workers highly skilled in math
and science, we will lay the foundation for lasting economic prosperity.”3
Legislation with these goals passed both houses of Congress with bipar-
tisan support in 2007.4
The Council on Competitiveness released Innovate America, the
report of our National Innovation Initiative, in December 2004. Our
report contained more than 80 recommendations, not just for the
federal government but also for companies, universities, and state and
local governments. It was designed to address the entire innovation
ecosystem. Recent legislative proposals, however, have focused on five
main areas: increased federal funding for basic research (especially in the
physical sciences), more support for K–12 science education (especially
teacher training), better incentives for graduate education in the sciences,
increased high-skills immigration, and making permanent the tax credit for
corporate investment in R&D.
While there is a pretty broad consensus that these are all good
things to do, on their own they are by no means sufficient to achieve the
results that policy makers desire. They are all based on the assumption
that increasing the inputs to innovation (R&D spending, scientists, and
engineers) will generate a corresponding increase in outputs. Higher
education—the performer of the vast majority of basic research and the
source of new scientists and engineers—plays a central but rarely explicit
role in the discussion. It is the black box that magically transforms federal
research dollars and high school seniors into U.S. prosperity. For this
reason, the next phase of the competitiveness debate must look inside the
black box and attempt to understand how our colleges and universities can
better promote innovation.


Enabling Innovation
While most people accept (and econometric evidence supports)
the contention that federal R&D funding contributes to U.S. economic
growth, in a global innovation environment it is no longer true that basic
research performed in the United States will necessarily benefit American
firms or American workers. Rather, the economic benefits depend on
the degree to which universities (together with entrepreneurs, venture
capitalists, and corporations) can translate the results of basic research into
marketable innovations. The benefits now also depend on how corpora-
tions choose to commercialize and produce those innovations through
global networks. Doing the research here no longer necessarily means that
the technologies, the factories, or the jobs will be created here.
This is not to say that federal R&D spending is a waste of money, but
it does force us to think about the mechanisms by which such funding
promotes innovation in the United States. If knowledge is universal, why
should it matter where it is produced? Geographical origin may not matter
from the perspective of a peer review panel, but a large amount of schol-
arship has shown that from the perspective of someone trying to commer-
cialize knowledge, place does matter.Venture capital, for example, is highly
localized, and innovative activity tends to “spill over” from universities to
the regions that surround them.
The main reason is that tacit knowledge—the kind of knowledge
that cannot be captured explicitly in publications or patents—is often
the most valuable kind of knowledge. Cutting-edge scientific and
technical knowledge is embodied in people more than in machines
or equations. And it flows through informal networks that tend to
be highly concentrated in specific locations. As regional economic
development expert Randall Kempner likes to say, “Innovation is a
contact sport.” And the lesson from economic geographers and regional
economic developers is that it is the personal connections between
academics, corporate researchers, entrepreneurs, and venture capitalists
that enable innovation. These networks are very difficult to copy and
can take decades to evolve.
What does this mean for higher education? It means that the degree
to which higher education contributes to innovation depends not just on
the level of inputs but perhaps even more strongly on how the people at
educational institutions engage with the outside world, particularly within
their region. This is an area in which government policies play very little
role and where individual institutions are struggling to find better ways to
encourage new forms of behavior. It requires a rethinking of how faculty
are rewarded and how students are educated.


More Than a Numbers Game
It has become an article of faith among CEOs that America
currently has a shortage of scientists and engineers. And many of
the recent policy proposals include mechanisms to encourage more
Americans to go into science and engineering. Proponents of this view
point to difficulties in filling technical positions (particularly those that
require American citizenship due to security restrictions), declining
enrollment in science and engineering programs, looming waves of
retirement among baby boomer scientists, and the fact that the entire
annual supply of H1-B visas (for highly skilled immigrants) is used on
the first day they become available.
The underlying assumption is that companies are desperate for people
with the type of clearly defined scientific knowledge and technical skills
indicated by a PhD, but at the same time, companies say that the skills
they find most valuable—collaboration, communication, creative problem
solving—are not typically found in science and engineering graduates.
While the public debate has focused on the need for technical skills, it is
the nontechnical skills that are often the hardest to find. (Increasingly so,
as the number of technical graduates around the world increases exponen-
tially.) Innovation, these companies realize, depends on more than science
and technology. It requires a hard-to-define, and perhaps even harder-
to-teach, ability to transform science and technology into products and
services that customers can use.
As countries around the world have improved science education,
increased their investment in R&D, and encouraged global corporations to
invest in high-technology manufacturing or research, an ever broader range
of science and technology capabilities have essentially become commod-
ities. High-tech manufacturing, qualified engineers, PhD researchers, and
advanced laboratory facilities are now widely available around the world.
On their own these factors no longer provide the competitive advantage
they once conferred. As a result, national governments now obsessively
pursue innovation and creativity in an attempt to define a new niche.
Yet the debate in the United States continues to focus on graduating
ever greater numbers of scientists and engineers as the key to increasing
U.S. competitiveness. While we must continue to improve standards and
encourage more students to study science and engineering, we need to
acknowledge that we will never win the race to produce the highest
test scores or the most engineers. Simple demographics dictates that we
will never outproduce China in engineers. But that does not mean that
America’s innovation capacity is doomed. The best test-takers do not
always make the best innovators, and a range of countries with high test


scores—such as Japan, Singapore, Korea, and China—are increasingly
worried that their educational systems stress conformity at the expense of
creativity. The challenge is not to train the most scientists and engineers
but to train the scientists and engineers (and artists and anthropologists and
managers) who are best able to work within the global innovation system
to create valuable new products and services.
Two examples illustrate the types of higher education challenges
that go beyond simply increasing funding or graduation rates for scien-
tists and engineers.
Like most institutions, Georgia Tech was facing declining enrollment
in computer science and its graduates were facing increasing compe-
tition from highly skilled and significantly cheaper graduates in emerging
economies. They were struggling to redefine the relevance of a computer
science degree. One employer remarked, “Don’t send me engineers who
can be duplicated by a computer. I am sending that work to India. Send
me engineers who are adaptable, who can think across disciplines.” Georgia
Tech remade their computer science curriculum using the concept
of “threads” (http://www.cc.gatech.edu/education/undergrad/bscs/
the-8-threads). A computer science major now consists of two threads
out of eight possible options—Foundations, Embodiment, Intelligence,
Computational Modeling, Platforms, Information Internetworking, People,
and Media. Each thread defines a problem—how can people interact with
machines, how can computers simulate natural phenomena—that provides
a context and a meaning for individual computer science courses as well as
courses from other departments such as anthropology or design. The goal is
both to keep students engaged and to help them develop the skills that will
enable them to solve real-world problems.
Another example is the Professional Science Master’s degree, a
two-year master’s degree that combines graduate-level courses in science
or mathematics with skills-based coursework in management, policy, law,
or other subjects (http://www.sciencemasters.com). Rather than training
academic researchers, the program is intended to cultivate practitioners with
advanced technical skills but also with communication, collaboration, and
leadership skills. Each degree program is focused on a specific niche—such as
applied genomics, computational chemistry, or food safety and toxicology—
developed with input from industry and typically tailored closely to the
needs of a local industry. The goal is to identify the skills demanded by
innovative companies rather than to simply turn out more PhDs.
The same forces that demand a rethinking of science and
engineering education are also reshaping the demand for skills from the
broader population. The global proliferation of information technology


has enabled a “trade in tasks” that opens more and more American
workers to potential foreign competition. But those pundits who focus
exclusively on offshoring often fail to recognize that its effects are
often dwarfed by the impact of automation. The American call center
worker is more likely to lose his or her job to IVR (interactive voice
response) technology than to an offshore call center. Both offshoring
and automation enable routine tasks to be performed at a lower cost,
reducing the value of jobs structured around routine tasks but increasing
the value of jobs that require more complex tasks that cannot easily be
automated or offshored. The salient distinction is not necessarily between
those with more or less education but between those whose work can
be replaced by a computer or someone far away using a computer versus
those whose productivity is enhanced by a computer.5
The irony is that our education policy emphasizes standardized testing
at precisely the moment when anything that can be standardized can be
done more efficiently by a computer or outside the United States. The
2006 Spellings Commission on the Future of Higher Education extended
this mass production metaphor to the world of colleges and universities.
Expanding access, increasing quality, and improving accountability are all
important—even essential—goals for higher education, but turning out a
larger number of graduates according to some minimum specification will
not address the most important challenges that we face as a nation.

Conclusion
If innovation were simply a numbers game, our future would indeed
be bleak, but the strength of U.S. higher education has always been more
than sheer numbers of graduates. America’s phenomenal economic success
has rested in large part on the dynamism of our economy, driven by the
creativity, innovativeness, and entrepreneurialism of our students and
faculty. That is our competitive advantage and it is our greatest hope in a
world of more nearly equal competitors.
Recent debates about America’s competitiveness have resulted in
some very insightful analysis and many useful proposals, but they tend
to rest on the mistaken assumption that we can spend ourselves out of
this problem. Asking how much the federal government should spend
on basic R&D or how many scientists and engineers we need are the
wrong questions. We should instead be asking how research can drive
regional and national competitiveness, what skills students need to
contribute to innovation and, ultimately, how higher education can
support American competitiveness.


Endnotes
1. This essay was developed as part of the Innovation Universities initiative of
the Council on Competitiveness. I would like to thank Deborah Wince-Smith,
Deborah Van Opstal, and Sam Leiken for their guidance and Maura Mondelli
for research support.

2. Council on Competitiveness, Competitiveness Index:Where America Stands
(February 2007), http://www.compete.org/publications/detail/357/
competitiveness-index-where-america-stands.

3. Domestic Policy Council, Office of Science and Technology Policy,
“American Competitiveness Initiative: Leading the World in Innovation,”
February 2006, http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2006/aci.

4. The America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence
in Technology, Education, and Science Act (COMPETES), H.R. 2272, was
signed into law by President Bush on August 9, 2007.

5. See Frank Levy and Richard J. Murnane, The New Division of Labor:
How Computers Are Creating the Next Job Market (Princeton, NJ: Princeton

Bibliography
Council on Competitiveness. Competitiveness Index:Where America Stands.
February 2007. http://www.compete.org/publications/detail/357/
competitiveness-index-where-america-stands.

Domestic Policy Council, Office of Science and Technology Policy. “American
Competitiveness Initiative: Leading the World in Innovation.” February 2006.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2006/aci.

Levy, Frank, and Richard J. Murnane. The New Division of Labor: How
Computers Are Creating the Next Job Market. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 2005.


The Social Compact of Higher
Education and Its Public 1

Larry Faulkner

A compact is such a civilized idea. It evokes an atmosphere of
amicability and trust—the community interest placed foremost,
everyone honorable, no accountability needed. The idea of a
compact creates a far different image from a treaty, or even a contract.
Indeed, most of us like to think of the time when there was a social
compact concerning higher education. The real questions for today
are whether one ever existed, whether “compact” is just a label for our
wistfulness for a simpler era, whether anything like a compact can be
fashioned in our time.
There is not much doubt that wishful nostalgia is involved. The
turbulence of our times makes it natural for us to desire escape from
the daily pressures of striving to deliver on higher education’s promise
in a contentious, ever questioning world. It is also easy to imagine that
a compact existed during simpler, better times—probably in the 1960s,
before things got too complicated. And there is not much doubt that we
are being poetic when we speak of a compact. In given local settings,
there might have been brief, fairly formal understandings about how
higher education would conduct its business and how it would be
supported, but we are not really speaking of a relationship in which the
responsibilities were delineated in a specific way.
But recognizing all of these limits, something does seem to have
been lost. Somewhere in our recent past, there was an atmosphere
of amicability and trust. The community interest was generally
placed foremost. The players were mostly honorable. And by today’s
standards, elaborate accountability was not needed. What was the
“something”? It was a broadly shared frame for doing business, a
persistent cultural environment in which advances could be made.
Let’s call it a social compact, for short.
The roots of this social compact are easily found in American history.

The Social Compact of Higher Education and Its Public 91

Origins of the Compact
Clark Kerr argued that two forces molded the modern American
university system and made it distinctive: the land grant movement and
federal support of scientific research during World War II and afterward.2 I
would add a third: the GI Bill.
The Morrill Act of 1862 does merit placement as the centerpiece,
because it changed the stage on which American universities, both public
and private, would develop over the next hundred years. Central to the
impact of this law were its immense scale and its inherently egalitarian,
populist nature. Over time, these qualities drove American society to
redefine the goal of higher education, which became, in Kerr’s words,
“to serve less the perpetuation of an elite class and more the creation of
a relatively classless society, with the doors of opportunity open to all
through education.”3
The Morrill Act also made universities responsible for the creation of
new knowledge in service to the larger society and established a basis for
a new habit of extending knowledge-based support into the daily work
and life of the society. Through the Morrill Act, research became a mission
of public universities—and, essentially simultaneously, a mission of private
institutions, as well. Thus, 1862 dates the partnership between universities
and the federal government to establish the platform for fundamental
and applied research in the United States. The act also defined a role for
universities in public service. As Kerr notes, the act “created a new social
force in world history. Nowhere before had universities been so closely
linked with the daily life of so much of their societies.”4
The Second World War modified the social contract and sowed
the seeds for its eventual failure. The urgency and technological
nature of the war created a need for tremendous expansion of the
national research capacity, setting the stage for research to play a
much larger part in the higher education mission. Research would
become linked in the public mind with national and local economic
viability. In addition, the GI Bill aggressively encouraged a generation
of young people to build a future through college education. They
took up the opportunity in droves and became the well-educated,
pragmatic, innovative workforce that powered America to global
leadership in so many spheres during their working years. The GI Bill
changed the nation’s view of what a college education could mean
and dramatically increased the share of families who defined a colle-
giate experience as essential for their children.
Out of these roots grew a uniquely American concept of how higher
education should operate and how it should be financed:


K Essentially, all high school graduates should have broad access
to local and flagship public institutions, as well as to private
institutions of varying character. Elite, selective private institu-
tions could be exceptions.
K Tuition and fees for undergraduate education at local and
flagship public institutions should be so low that a student
working a half-time job could pay them while also handling
living costs.
K The states would finance the institutions’ educational
programs sufficiently to generate needed capacity and to keep
tuition and fees to negligible levels.
K Private donors would help independent institutions keep
their tuition and fees within an affordable range.
K The national universities would recruit faculties capable of
forming the core research base for the nation.
K Research would be financed by the federal government,
private foundations, and interested corporations, while
state government would provide infrastructure, particularly
physical facilities.
K Graduate programs would be sustained by using students as
apprentices in research and in the teaching of undergraduates.
K Outreach would be financed in ways particular to the nature
of the endeavor: cooperative extension in a federal–state
partnership; off-campus instruction by the states or through
tuition and fees; other efforts piggybacked on mainstream
teaching and research programs.

The Demise of the Compact
What has become of the compact? Our very success has upset
it. Nowadays, higher education is perceived by nearly everyone to
be essential for individual economic viability, and its institutions are
centerpieces for the national research effort and for national and
local economic and social renewal. Our universities have become
taproots of vitality, and the public knows it. Just as war is too
important to be left to the generals, the work of universities has
become far too important to be left to those who make the univer-
sities work daily. And the stakes have made us rougher players, too.
The loss of amicability is not just a phenomenon of the outside. The
compact failed because it could not be sustained in changed times.
Here are some of the reasons:


K Under the press of eligible students, many institutions
had to restrict admissions, so they were no longer broadly
accessible to high school graduates. As public institutions
become more selective, the public sees them as less relevant
to their family interests.
K State government, faced with demands to address crime,
health care, and other immediate social needs, began to
recognize the private benefit of a collegiate education and
began to back away from full subsidy.
K The demands of the research enterprise began to raise the
cost of faculty talent and alter the economics of teaching. In
addition, the rapid expansion of research as a fraction of overall
effort taxed the capital capacity of institutions and states.
K The old funding patterns gave way as the federal government
took a role in financing undergraduate education, as the state
governments became more aggressive about research, and as
private support began to be sought and received by public
institutions. As responsibilities have blurred, distinctions have
become less compelling.
K Regulatory requirements became enormous.
K The general erosion of public confidence in institutions, beginning
in the 1960s, finally reached higher education with full impact.
The symptoms of an unsustainable public environment for higher
education lie before us. They are obvious and fearsome:
K For two decades or more, we have experienced a steady, global
erosion of appropriated state support. In the 1970s, state general
revenue appropriations covered 85% of the core academic costs
(faculty salaries, operating costs of academic units, core adminis-
tration).Today, they cover about a third, and the share falls every year.
K There have been huge rises in tuition and fees, with no
moderation in sight.
K Mean-spirited remarks by officeholders, once rare, have
become common.
K There seems also to be a loss of trust cutting two ways. Many
public officials and segments of the general public doubt that
university leaders and university faculty really are interested
in students, parents, and the health of their society. Folks
close to educational institutions, including their large body of
close supporters, question whether legislators and other state
leaders have any commitment to educational quality or to the
future beyond the next election.


Establishing a New Compact
Can we revive the compact? No, we can’t. Not the old one. It was
rooted in a simpler, less plural America, one with fewer voices, fewer
challengers, fewer urgencies, fewer hopes. It was also based on the fact that
higher education, while important, was not too important.
So the old compact is gone, just as are other things from a bygone
era. Does it matter, really? Is it worthwhile to spend time talking more
about this? I think it is, precisely because the universities and their work
are so important to the health of our nation. We need rules that create
a healthier environment for the public business of higher education. We
need a new compact.
Establishing one is much easier said than done, not least because there
is no one to define the public side of the compact. And because that is true,
the responsibility for changing the environment rests with the leadership
of American higher education. A new compact depends, I think, on an
ambitious five-point agenda.
First, we must work to rebuild a broad understanding in the larger
society and its leadership of what our institutions do and how they
establish—through their several missions—public benefits for a healthier
present and future. To a remarkable extent, folks see only one mission
when they look at us. To a very great fraction of the public, we are strictly
about undergraduate education. To other stakeholders, we are about
research and occasionally about graduate education. To others, our mission
may be athletics, the arts, agricultural extension, regional economic devel-
opment, libraries, or cultural preservation. The power of America’s institu-
tions of higher education lies in the total of what we do and how our parts
fit together. Because the public and public leadership are not grasping that
reality, they become frustrated by our segmented financial picture—about
“why resources over there can’t be used for my concern”—and they see us
as afflicted by a foolish lack of focus. Related is the loss of recognition for
higher education’s contribution to the common good. Over the past three
decades, our work has been largely redefined in the public mind as yielding
mainly private benefits, in the form of undergraduate and professional
degrees having personal economic value. This one misconception is central
to the erosion of support from state legislatures across the nation.
Second, we must work to restore trust that we are genuinely
committed to serving our students and our larger society and that we
work daily with competence and quality. With public leaders and elected
officials, we have to do a better job of establishing regular contacts,
engaging in honest, mutual development of long-term and short-term
goals, frankly discussing financial trade-offs, and reinforcing the balance


of missions that we must undertake. Greater texture is needed in the
relationships, especially with key leaders. We must at the same time
recognize that public leaders have many mouths to feed. To build trust
with the public at large, we need to sponsor accountability, not just accept
it grudgingly. We ought to help to define indices of performance that
make sense, and we should help to found a credible reporting center. We
need to be forthright about shortcomings, and we ought to embrace a
culture of continuous improvement.
Third, we must work with public leaders and among ourselves
to establish sound, credible mechanisms for continuing the national
tradition of ready financial access to higher education by middle-class
students. This is a serious problem, and it needs attention now. I believe
that a solution can be achieved. That solution could also become the
central point on which a new social compact is founded. The key is to
strive for a consensus among public leaders and the leaders of higher
education concerning a target for the out-of-pocket academic cost of
attendance at public institutions of various kinds as a fraction of median
family income. This is what matters to people, and this is what will
determine the evolution of public policy concerning higher education.
Note the focus here. The conversation should be about what people
actually have to pay to go to school. It should not be conflated with
the student’s living costs, which can be addressed in various ways and
may not be limiting to opportunity. If there are scholarship or grant
programs, or if tax benefits exist, or if there are habits of discounting,
these factors should be reflected in the out-of-pocket academic cost.
If consensus on the target can be achieved, the annual discussion with
all participants—administrations, students, parents, governing boards,
and government officials—can be consistently pointed toward realizing
it through actions that are much more thoughtful and concerted than
today’s. In the United States, the states will continue to have the defin-
itive role in this regard. A stable, healthy pattern can be achieved only
if legislatures and governors make a sustained commitment to afford-
ability with quality.
The fourth imperative is to find a way to make a college education
seem essential and more reachable to the parents of the most talented
students from lower-income families. Too many of our students leave high
school prematurely, do not grasp the value of a college education to their
future, and do not believe us when we say that we can make college finan-
cially possible. We in higher education must develop a more coordinated,
more effective strategy to reach talented students from lower-income
families. Here are two critical points:


1. Families have to be recruited as well as students. The attitude
of impossibility runs deeper than the student. In particular, we
need to help families understand how the financial demands
of a higher education can be addressed. We need to simplify
the packaging of the finances. They are typically much too
complex now to inspire confidence from these families, who
are mistrustful of promises and debt.
2. Educators need to identify strong talent earlier in the
education process. Research shows that decisions about
going to college are generally made before high school or
early in high school.
Finally, we must address costs. More specifically, we must mount serious,
effective efforts to limit the rate of growth in the educational cost per
student. It is in the range of 4.5 percent per year, a substantially inflationary
figure, but more important, a figure significantly larger than the long-term
growth rate of the economy. It is very likely that a growth rate of 4.5 percent
cannot be sustained indefinitely. While we can reduce the growth rate of
costs by degrading quality, that is not the answer. We need to look for ways
to take that growth rate down while sustaining quality so that whatever
advances are made along that line can become broadly shared among us. This
is a hard task, but it is important for stability of our mission and our work. It
merits serious initiative, both collaborative and local.

Conclusion
At the establishment of the Republic of Texas, Mirabeau B. Lamar,
the Republic’s second president, proposed the creation of two univer-
sities. He declared these institutions to be foundations for the future. And
people followed him. The Congress dedicated public land for the vision.
Lawmakers of that time were looking far beyond the unrelieved crudeness
of their immediate world, not just to a more pleasant, more prosperous
home, but literally to the vision of a fresh, vigorous civilization. And that
required the resources of universities. They believed that a university would
become a social engine of great common value. That view took root and
grew strongly for another 150 years. They were asking, “How can we
create institutions of higher learning that will educate and transform our
state?” and not “How can I get my niece on the short list for admission?”
Sometime in the past two or three decades, the emphasis has shifted from
the common good to individual benefit. There is nothing inherently
wrong with self-interest, of course, but it cannot be the foundation of what
higher education is about.


Is anyone looking out for the common good? Those of us in the
academy are, and we need to tell that story. Our continuing obligation is to
give this and future generations the discipline to take a longer, fuller view.
Surely such a wish is not quixotic, because we know from our own history
that such discipline existed and was sustained in public life in America and
is increasingly being sustained throughout the world.

Endnotes
1. Adapted from Larry R. Faulkner, “The Changing Relationship between
Higher Education and the States” (The 2005 Robert H. Atwell Distinguished
Lecture, delivered at the 87th Annual Meeting of the American Council on
Education, Washington, DC, 2005), http://www.utexas.edu/president/past/
faulkner/speeches/ace_021305.html.

2. Clark Kerr, The Uses of the University (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1963).

3. Clark Kerr, The Uses of the University, 3rd ed. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1982), 47.

4. Ibid., 47.

Bibliography
Faulkner, Larry R. “The Changing Relationship between Higher Education
and the States.” The 2005 Robert H. Atwell Distinguished Lecture, delivered at
the 87th Annual Meeting of the American Council on Education, Washington,
DC, 2005. http://www.utexas.edu/president/past/faulkner/speeches/ace_
021305.html.

Kerr, Clark. The Uses of the University. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1963 and 1982.


Accountability, Demands for
Information, and the Role of the
Campus IT Organization
Brian L. Hawkins

H igher education is encountering unprecedented pressure for
accountability from both internal and external constituencies.
Frank Rhodes, the former president of Cornell University, has
stated: “Accountability…is the newest buzzword for all institutions. It is
an important—indeed, a vital—obligation, but it means very different
things to different people.”1 These constituencies include legislators,
the families of prospective students, accreditors, trustees, current
students, faculty, and administrators—each wanting something quite
different from the institution and each wanting the information for
varying reasons and purposes. This pressure for accountability in higher
education is actually nothing new; it has been a top concern for nearly
15 years. Today, however, the rising price of tuition is exacerbating the
call for colleges and universities to demonstrate their effectiveness and
to become more transparent about how resources are used.
Higher education, meanwhile, has been extremely reluctant to
step up to the challenge of measuring the outcomes of its teaching,
learning, and research. Ironically, researchers can measure the movement
of subatomic particles and the radiation and other effects of unseen
nebulae, but when it comes to measuring and assessing the impact and
effectiveness of teaching, learning, and research on campus, we all too
often hear that such an effort is too difficult. Whether the difficulty is
because we have not yet learned how to do this effectively or because
we have merely avoided the task is irrelevant. Society is becoming
increasingly intolerant of such responses, and political pressures
are mounting for campuses to deal with these issues or to have the
government do it for—and undoubtedly to—higher education.

Accountability, Demands for Information, and the IT Organization 99

Demands for Information: The Spellings
Commission
In 2005–2006, a national committee was established by Secretary of
Education Margaret Spellings to carefully examine and make recommenda-
tions about higher education in the United States. The committee report, A
Test of Leadership: Charting the Future of U.S. Higher Education, came with a
wide variety of recommendations, largely focusing on accountability, afford-
ability, and access. Many of these recommendations directly related to the
information needs of higher education. The report stated:
Our complex, decentralized postsecondary education
system has no comprehensive strategy, particularly for
undergraduate programs, to provide either adequate
internal accountability systems or effective public
information. Too many decisions about higher
education—from those made by policy makers to
those made by students and families—rely heavily on
reputation and rankings derived to a large extent from
inputs such as financial resources rather than outcomes.…
… Parents and students have no solid evidence,
comparable across institutions, of how much students
learn in colleges or whether they learn more at one
college than another. Similarly, policy makers need more
comprehensive data to help them decide whether the
national investment in higher education is paying off and
how taxpayer dollars could be used more effectively.2
One of the foci of the Department of Education for the past several
years has been on developing a unit record system that will track every
student, at every higher education institution, for every quarter or
semester—in order to develop a longitudinal data collection of students’
progress over the years, at all institutions attended. The purpose of this
extraordinarily complex (as well as expensive and intrusive) system is to
provide information to policy makers and consumers alike about two
primary variables: graduation rates and the net price of higher education.
Although the Spellings Commission report calls only for a pilot of this
system, the intent is to create more information and to focus on account-
ability and also on transparency within higher education.Yet accountability
and transparency are different concepts calling for different information
elements: one is for policy makers and the other is for consumers.Viewing
these two concepts as two sides of the same coin has led to the mistaken
conclusion (by the Department of Education) that the unit record system


will play a critical role in providing the data for transparency and hence the
basis for accountability. While the rhetoric talks about accountability (in
terms of the assignment of federal aid and funding of higher education),
the focus narrows in on transparency, which is really about consumer
information rather than the information that drives informed policy. The
metrics of graduation rates and net price may have policy implications,
but the clear focus of the proposed unit record system is on providing
consumers with information that will allow them to compare and contrast
colleges and universities, as if they were purchasing an automobile.
Higher education must avoid falling into this one-size-fits-all
mentality. Although this approach is officially disclaimed by Secretary
Spellings and her colleagues, there is a strong push to have “comparability
across institutions.” Higher education leaders all live, breathe, and believe
the mantra that the greatness of U.S. higher education lies in its diversity
and that it is up to them to provide a means of demonstrating account-
ability so that this diversity can emerge and be seen. The notion of trans-
parency highlights differences as well as what we have in common—a
point that the Spellings report completely misses. All institutions desire and
strive to be different in some way, segmenting themselves in a competitive
environment. Education is not a commodity that can be bought like
an automobile or a box of tissues. Across institutions, there are certainly
common aspects that may be compared, but there are also factors that are
intangible, hard to measure, or pertinent only to some segments of the
community and to some institutional missions. Institutions must continue
to focus on their uniqueness and their noncomparability. The higher
education community could develop a list of data elements that are appro-
priate and desirable for consumer information, but it must also consider
ways to demonstrate and highlight institutions’ unique aspects.
There is a substantial difference between the kinds of metrics and
indicators that are meant to measure students’ and consumers’ information
needs and those that are meant to measure institutional accountability and
public policy needs. When we talk about net price and graduation rates, we
are not focusing on the more deeply rooted issues of learning and outcomes
and how they affect our society, communities, workforce, economy, and
quality of life. We need to segment the discussion. Although some of the
policy-related metrics might be of consumer interest, the inverse is not
necessarily true—except to supply uninformed sound bites in what should
be a serious discussion of higher education and its directions.
This distinction between information for consumers and information
for policy makers is vitally important, because what we measure will shape
behavior and define results. For example, focusing on “time to degree”


suggests that it is a good thing to get a degree faster—perhaps at the expense
of more important accomplishments such as learning, developing self-confi-
dence, attaining knowledge, and finding what makes one tick. Asking for
something like graduation rates by institution, as a measure of accountability,
will reveal and drive behavior across the educational system in ways we
cannot fully know or predict at this point. If higher graduation rates are the
goal, then students—following an institution’s counseling—might take more
coursework to complete their associate degree to show degree attainment,
and yet the transfer process won’t recognize their additional credits, thus
creating a greater total price for a student’s degree. Alternatively, schools
might simply change the type of students they admit, and this too could have
significant social impact. Although our institutions wouldn’t deliberately lead
students down these paths, we should be concerned about the unintended
consequences that might result from adopting arbitrarily defined metrics.
Another example of a deceptive measure is net price. As most higher
education insiders know, the problem is that the net price an institution
charges a student to enroll depends on the family income of the student,
the number of siblings simultaneously enrolled in college, and other factors.
Just as virtually all passengers on board an airplane pay different prices
for the plane tickets, so do students at higher education institutions pay
different prices for tuition. So how can we provide reasonably accurate
price information to the public? The answer is not by simply calculating
the sticker price less the various sources of aid, since that will not be the
price for the most economically disadvantaged students or for the richest
students. Such an average will only add more confusion.
Institutions need to work on a national basis to determine what data
are really needed, to define the level of granularity for such data, and to
provide a template for these variables. This effort could best be led by the
key higher education associations in Washington, D.C. It requires coordi-
nation across all segments of higher education; it is not something that can
be dealt with effectively on a campus-by-campus basis. However, that leads
to the logical question: What role can and should the campus information
technology leader play in this new world of accountability?

The Role of Information Technology and the
Campus CIO
Clearly, the public demand for transparency of information, account-
ability, and outcomes has implications for the role of the CIO (chief infor-
mation officer). In an EDUCAUSE Review article, Casey Green highlights
a new role for information technologists—a role brought to the fore by


the Spellings Commission report. He argues that information technology
(IT) has a unique opportunity to help institutions address the increasing
demand for more and better institutional data:
Information technology now offers viable methodologies
to address the mandates for outcomes assessment.
The question here no longer concerns if information
technology has a role to play in the campus conversations
and public discussions about assessment and outcomes.
Rather, the issue before us in the wake of the Spellings
Commission report concerns when college and university
IT leaders will assume an active role, a leadership role,
in these discussions, bringing their IT resources and
expertise—bringing data, information, and insight—to the
critical planning and policy discussions about institutional
assessment and outcomes that affect all sectors of U.S.
higher education.3
Today, we have information of all kinds: student information, financial
information, research data, transactional records, donor records, medical
images, climatological data, and so on. And to manage information
technology on our campuses, we have CIOs.Yet though the term “CIO” has
been adopted to describe the head of a campus technology group, CIOs
now wrestle with more than technology challenges. They increasingly
wrestle with how to make the information that they have at their disposal
useful to the campus in addressing these accountability issues. Even though
this is a responsibility of all senior campus administrators, the CIO may
lead the discussion, explaining the value of information technology, identi-
fying useful data sources, and clarifying why it is important that IT be a
partner with other units in addressing these needs.
The CIO has a great deal of data that can be combined and used to
understand the accomplishments of the students at the college or university.
Data from learning management systems and student record systems could
be combined and mined to help the institution better understand the
dynamics that lead to—or prevent—various learning outcomes. Using the
powerful technological and statistical tools that are available and drawing
on new sources of information are the elements of the emerging field of
analytics in higher education. As stated by Mark Milliron in a recent article:
Technology is neither good nor bad. It is our use of
technology tools—within our contexts and toward
specific ends—that can make a difference. This idea is the
foundation on which today’s insight initiatives are built.
Insight initiatives are known by other names in other


sectors: business intelligence, in the corporate world;
evidence-based medicine, in healthcare. These efforts, which
combine explorations of information from the past
(hindsight) with looks to the future (foresight), come
together in a moment of insight to power decisions that
make a positive difference. These initiatives leverage
technology, planning, research, strategy, and a host of
other key elements to truly realize the treasure of student
and institutional data at our fingertips.4
We do not currently have meaningful outcome data with which to
refute the various attacks on higher education. Analytics potentially provides
a useful methodology for exploring available data and for developing signif-
icant models that could serve this purpose. What factors lead to greater time
to complete a degree? How can the institution mitigate these factors? What
costs can be reduced or eliminated by business process evaluation? These are
the kinds of questions institutions must address in the years to come. To help
institutions in this effort, the EDUCAUSE “Grand Challenges” initiatives—
originally conceived in 2005—include a major focus on analytics.

Summary
The pressure for greater accountability has been coming from both
Republicans and Democrats, from corporate America, from accreditors, from
trustees, and from other stakeholders.This is not a partisan issue, and it will not
be going away.Trying to identify learning outcomes and to measure whether a
college or university is fulfilling its mission is not easy, but that difficulty is not an
excuse to avoid the issue, as higher education has tended to do for all too long.
Higher education has never before encountered the current level of
pressure to change and to modify its methods. The effective use of infor-
mation within our systems is a change method that should be explored and
capitalized on, but the impetus for change must come from the leadership
of our institutions. Campuses cannot continue to use the slow, “bottom-
up” change methods of the past. The pressures are too great. In addition,
for the most part those at “the bottom”—the faculty and the participants
within the institutions—are not directly feeling the pressures. And those
who are aware have been resistant to change.
The times are different today. Bold leadership from our presidents and
chancellors is called for. Higher education needs to act directly and quickly
to prevent Draconian solutions from being imposed by legislators and others
who are demanding greater accountability and transparency on campus.


Endnotes
1. Frank H. T. Rhodes, The Creation of the Future:The Role of the American
University (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2001), 242.

2. U.S. Department of Education, A Test of Leadership: Charting the Future of
U.S. Higher Education, a Report of the Commission Appointed by Secretary
of Education Margaret Spellings (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Education, 2006), 14, http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/
reports/final-report.pdf.

3. Kenneth C. Green, “Bring Data: A New Role for Information Technology
after the Spellings Commission,” EDUCAUSE Review (November/December
2006): 46, http://www.educause.edu/er/erm06/erm0661.asp.

4. Mark Milliron, “Insight Initiatives,” EDUCAUSE Review (March/April
2007): 68, http://www.educause.edu/er/erm07/erm0727.asp.

Bibliography
Green, Kenneth C. “Bring Data: A New Role for Information Technology
after the Spellings Commission.” EDUCAUSE Review (November/December
2006): 30–47. http://www.educause.edu/er/erm06/erm0661.asp.

Milliron, Mark. “Insight Initiatives.” EDUCAUSE Review (March/April 2007):
68–69. http://www.educause.edu/er/erm07/erm0727.asp.

Rhodes, Frank H. T. The Creation of the Future:The Role of the American
University. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2001.

U.S. Department of Education. A Test of Leadership: Charting the Future of U.S.
Higher Education, a Report of the Commission Appointed by Secretary of
Education Margaret Spellings, Washington, D.C., 2006. http://www.ed.gov/
about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/final-report.pdf.

Rajabai Clock Tower, University of Mumbai


E-Research Is a Fad: Scholarship
2.0, Cyberinfrastructure, and
IT Governance
Brad Wheeler

I ’ve seen this movie before, though it was cast in a different setting. When
I was an assistant professor of information systems in the business school,
the mid to late 1990s seemingly declared that all things that could be
digital would be digital. “E-commerce” was the rage, and I taught my first
MBA e-commerce course in 1995. It was soon supplanted by a more proper
e-business moniker a few years later, and companies everywhere started e-
business projects or “e” divisions. eBay, Amazon, and Yahoo were start-ups
(as were flameouts WebVan, Boo.com, and eToys), and Bill Gates abruptly
rechartered Microsoft’s entire strategy to embrace this new Internet.
Astute observers of commerce at the time, however, had it right
in seeing e-business more clearly. E-business was best understood and
pronounced as “business,” where the “e” is silent. While speculative
equity money hastened the dizzying pace and the Internet provided
instant access to the marketplace at scale, the phenomenon was nothing
more than pedestrian Schumpeterian creative destruction at work.
By 2007, efficient digital connections in the supply chain and with
customers became a common and somewhat invisible element of
effective commerce.
E-science, e-research, and e-scholarship can expect the same.They are best
understood as “e-research,” where the “e” will eventually be silent. Scholars in
the sciences, humanities, and arts will identify those digital tools that advance
their endeavors, that maintain and even enhance rigor and quality, and embed
those tools and practices in their daily work. National funding agencies are
providing the venture capital to hasten the pace of this evolution, and scholarly
conferences and some leading projects already demonstrate efficacy in digital
scholarship. “Data-driven science” is debated as a fourth paradigm alongside
classic theory, experiment, and computational science.
What then is the role for college and university CIOs and their
leadership teams as this e-research movie plays out? Is there a strategic

Scholarship 2.0, Cyberinfrastructure, and IT Governance 109

agenda where attention, advocacy, and action can be effective? In this short
essay, I contend that understanding Scholarship 2.0, developing scalable
campus cyberinfrastructure, and seriously assessing governance of research
IT are essential for great 21st century universities.

Twenty-First Century Scholarship
In 1945, James Bryant Conant, Harvard president, made three asser-
tions regarding the elements for advancing pure and applied science:
There is only one proved method of assisting the
advancement of pure science—that of picking men of
genius, backing them heavily, and leaving them to direct
themselves. There is only one proved method of getting
results in applied science—picking men of genius, backing
them heavily, and keeping their aim on the target chosen.1
While Conant wrote of science, with some liberty, let me extend
these assertions to the humanities, arts, and all areas of scholarly inquiry.
The thesis is that real advancements in knowledge and human creativity
come from exceptional minds that have all the tools and resources they
need. In the 20th century, this was the great scientific lab working in
some isolation at a single university or institute. The enormous expense of
the best research tools, however, rationed their scarcity to elite labs with
(presumably) the best minds to leverage the investment.
Now seems a prudent time, in this first decade of the 21st century,
to question if and how Conant’s assertions should steer research invest-
ments for this century. We already observe several important trends:
First, we have many more faculty—both men and women of genius—
at research-intensive institutions worldwide. Their scholarly work
products are increasingly multiauthored, and often with scholars from
two or more institutions and multiple disciplines. Second, the Internet
has hastened the informal and formal communication of scholarly
results, and the research process is increasingly a process of contributing
to community data repositories and conducting further research from
community data. The Human Genome Project, NEESGrid, and the
National Virtual Observatory are early exemplars, and the new Large
Hadron Collider ($8 billion) with more than 2,000 collaborating physi-
cists from 34 countries shows community and leveraged investment at
scale. Finally, these connectionist endeavors are not only with a research
community, but many advances in human knowledge rely on deep
interdependencies between disciplines (for example, metabolomics’ use
of biology and chemistry).


Who, then, is the 21st century “them” in Conant’s “back them
heavily”? Increasingly, we see that cross-institutional research communities,
operating at scale and pace and making use of common and specialized
facilities, are becoming an essential means of advancing modern schol-
arship. Numerous reports from the National Science Foundation, the
American Council of Learned Societies, and others call for investments
in cyberinfrastructure to support these communities.2 Charles Vest uses
the term meta-university to describe these connectionist trends among
universities for research, teaching, and learning: “ … we are seeing the
early emergence of a meta-university—a transcendent, accessible, empow-
ering, dynamic, communally constructed framework of open materials
and platforms on which much of higher education worldwide can be
constructed or enhanced.”3

Scholarship 2.0
In the business world, Tim O’Reilly coined the term Web 2.0 as
a revolution that argued for “harnessing collective intelligence” via the
Internet as platform and for developing applications that harness network
effects through communities, social networking sites, wikis, folksonomies,
and other collectivist tools.4 Arguably, we can apply the term Scholarship
2.0 to label a similar adaptation of IT tools as a platform and distributed
communities to harness collective intelligence of scholars: “Scholarship
2.0: The rise of IT, digital repositories, and electronic collaboration in
achieving and improving the quality of the scholarly endeavors of research,
teaching and learning, and service.”5
The form of Scholarship 2.0 and its pace of adoption differ among
disciplinary scholarly communities. For example, some scholarly commu-
nities have already transitioned the scholarly record to bypass traditional
journal publishers and embrace open access and rapid publication. Other
disciplines have not yet chosen or found a way to do so. At Indiana
University (IU), research in ethnomusicology is leading the way with
sophisticated video markup, annotation, and indexing as a form of digital
scholarship in the humanities, but many other humanist fields have only
modest experience with (or perceived need for) new digital tools. Many
medical sciences are now moving rapidly from research paradigms of
laboratory experimentation to extensive data modeling and simulation for
understanding disease and potential treatment.


Institutional Cyberinfrastructure
It is tempting to look at national and international endeavors for
cyberinfrastructure development as the province of national funding
agencies. Not so. Each institution—especially the research university—is
a microcosm of the cyberinfrastructure challenge, and there is a need for
alignment of local cyberinfrastructure investments with national and disci-
plinary investments.
Figure 1, drawing on the notion of the software stack from
computing, illustrates a conceptual relationship of disciplinary
research stacks and institutional cyberinfrastructure. Each research
discipline varies in its need for components of cyberinfrastructure
(a nonexhaustive list). Some research disciplines may need dedicated
lambdas of optical networking for moving massive quantities of data.
Others need lots of high-performance computation cycles or massive
storage. Others may need only trivial uses of networks and storage
but have extensive needs for sophisticated metadata consultation or
specialized visualization devices. The blend of these needs changes
over time as a discipline evolves in its use of Scholarship 2.0 practices.
For example, while simulation researchers have long been voracious
consumers of computational cycles, they have now turned their
appetites to storage and networks. One researcher recently told me

Scholarly Infrastructure
Figure 1. Scholarly Infrastructure

Particle Physics

Domain Specific Chemistry
Anthropology
Discovery & Innovation, Innovation
Teaching & Learning Innovation
Innovation, Business
Publication
Visualization
Innovation
Visualization Visualization
Computation
Shared Cyberinfrastructure Line Here? Models Searching & Retrieval &
Retrieving Analysis Models
Metadata
Metadata Metadata Metadata

Curation
Curation Curation
Shared Cyberinfrastructure Line Here? Distributed
Storage
Computation,
Storage
Storage Storage
Networks
Networks
Networks Primary
Necessary Networks
Storage
Infrastructure
Leveraged Discipline Research Stacks


he had to dumb-down the data rate of his simulations as the network
and storage were incapable of handling the volume.
Left to their own devices and with sufficient funding, researchers
would rightly seek to solve their IT needs by purchasing and providing
services for their projects or academic departments—Conant’s “leave
them to direct themselves.” The proliferation of small (and growing)
computing clusters is one example of this, and costs for electricity, cooling,
and equipment life cycle funding are often overlooked until they become
problematic. Likewise, the human staffing for system administration or
metadata development often falls between the cracks. In many cases, these
critical roles become filled by doctoral students, postdocs, or even faculty,
and this is, at best, a misallocation of skills and time.
Figure 1 asserts that there are favorable economies of leverage—
getting more for less—in the lower parts of the research stack
(networks, computation, and so forth), where economies of scale, scope
(serving multiple disciplines), and career path development can retain
the best technical talent. The effort of scholars is best applied at the top
of the stack—the edge—where their creativity and innovation are the
very basis of research. Thus, using doctoral students for advanced server
administration and security patching does not advance scholarship and
may, in fact, leave a project’s IT investments vulnerable to an ever-
growing array of security threats.
The critical question for CIOs and research leaders is to begin
thinking of disciplinary IT needs as shared cyberinfrastructure investments
that can be leveraged across the scholarly endeavors of an institution.6 Such
thinking should go beyond the obvious boxes and wires of IT to include
help and consulting for effective IT use, security and system adminis-
tration, and other hidden but very real needs and costs. For example, IU
has decided that extensive data storage is common cyberinfrastructure. IU’s
Massive Data Storage System, which provisions more than 4 petabytes of
storage and is automatically replicated at two sites for continuous backup,
is available to any graduate student or faculty member without chargeback.
Thus, digital texts for the humanities sit alongside financial databases and
genomics data as a leveraged service to all disciplines. The service has full
help desk and consultant support.
Figure 1 also illustrates the institutional cyberinfrastructure question
by asking where the line is drawn for common resources. Drawing the
line lower, near networks, leaves the remainder of the research stacks to
the individual scholars or their academic unit. Drawing the conceptual
line higher means that more capabilities are provided in some shared-
services model but at the risk of possibly impeding disciplinary creativity.


It is important to note that not all of the shared services should come
from an IT organization. Cyberinfrastructure thinking enlightens many
opportunities for partnerships with university libraries or academic
units (a school or department), or even for leverage via interinstitutional
consortia.
While Figure 1 presents some conceptual elegance to the notion of
leverage (that is, that it costs considerably less to provide 2 petabytes of
fully supported storage than to provide four 500-terabyte systems), there
is often less elegance in funding models. For many institutions, this is a
chicken-and-egg situation, where the money needed to provide quality,
shared services is fragmented in the research projects and academic units.
Even if the scholars actually would prefer to use common institutional
infrastructure, they can’t trust it until it exists and has proved itself. It can’t
exist until sufficient money is aggregated to fund it and competently
manage it to demonstrate service quality.7
This may seem a typical university turf and funding battle, but that
simplistic view fails to understand the opportunities and challenges of
interconnected, 21st century scholarship. Even rich institutions with
seemingly unlimited resources to support scholars and projects may find
their efficacy in 21st century communities held back by 20th century
thinking veiled by largesse of purse.

IT Governance for Institutional
Cyberinfrastructure
For many institutions, progress on an institutional cyberinfrastructure
strategy can be meaningfully advanced only as part of a holistic and
rigorous discussion of IT governance. Though the term governance is often
used loosely with many implied meanings, Peter Weill and Jeanne W. Ross
define IT governance as “specifying the decision rights and accountability
framework to encourage desirable behavior in using IT,” and much of this
section is adapted from their book, IT Governance.8
All institutions have IT governance, but some have much more
effective IT governance than others—anarchy is also a form of IT gover-
nance. Five types of IT decisions are presented in sequence as part of estab-
lishing effective IT governance for research IT:
Decision 1: IT principles—clarifying the institutional role of IT
Decision 2: IT architecture—defining integration and standard-
ization requirements (if any)
Decision 3: IT infrastructure—determining common, shared,
and leveraged services


Decision 4: Disciplinary application needs—specifying the disci-
plinary need for IT applications (either purchased
or internally developed)
Decision 5: IT investment and prioritization—choosing which
initiatives to fund and how much to spend
In this brief essay, I’ll address only decisions 1, 3, and 5, without
reference to who makes these decisions, as that will vary greatly with
local context. Ideally, IT principles should flow from institutional strategy,
with a clear linkage between the two. Practically, one of the first explicit
decisions should be a philosophy for research technologies. Examples of IT
principles include the following:
Principle 1: Each research project should bear its own full costs.
Principle 2: Technology resources for research are efficiently
matched to projects through user chargeback. (User
fees fund research technologies.)
Principle 3: Research technologies are provided in abundance
and with few limitations to encourage use in all
forms of scholarship. (Research technologies are
centrally funded or via broad-based tax.)
Principle 4: Academic units and projects are responsible for all
specialized technology needs beyond basic networks,
computation, and modest storage. (Research
technologies have a blended funding model.)
IT principles, whether established through explicit process or tacit
neglect, establish much of the domain for decision 3 of IT infrastructure
(that is, the shared cyberinfrastructure line in Figure 1). Principle 1 above
would effectively limit the creation of common infrastructure as rich
projects and disciplines as they would likely do their own thing. Likewise,
principle 2 would make it difficult for less well funded disciplines or
graduate students to have access to advanced research technologies.
Principle 3 overtly endorses cross subsidization for the breadth of the
institution. Principle 4 invokes ongoing turf and service coordination
challenges among units over what is common infrastructure or disci-
plinary applications.
Finally, the IT principles also substantially shape decision 5 regarding
IT investment priorities and how much to spend. IT principle 3, a
philosophy of abundance, necessitates substantial IT expenditures with
coordination of timing, policy, and support.


CIO Engagement and Advocacy
University CIOs have an opportunity and responsibility to help
university leaders frame cyberinfrastructure investment philosophies and
decisions. For some, the opportunity arises through the pain of no space
for fragmented research computing clusters or the tragedy of a research
data security breech. Others may be able to frame the discussion as part
of a strategic plan that looks to the essential elements of leading 21st
century institutions.
Whatever the impetus for local action, there is no doubt that
Scholarship 2.0 practices and needs for leveraged cyberinfrastructure will
continue to advance for the foreseeable future. CIOs should engage in
relationship building, educational efforts with administrative colleagues, and
extensive data gathering to understand the current expenditures, value, and
challenges that researchers have with IT. For many institutions, a compre-
hensive review of funding may reveal that the institution does not have
a funding problem for research technologies; rather, there is a complex
coordination problem of where funding goes and where it is needed for
leveraged cyberinfrastructure.
There are also considerable time lags and path dependencies in developing
leveraged shared services, effective partnerships with other administrative units
(for example, libraries), and skilled staff with disciplinary expertise.

Conclusion
This essay argues that notions of e-research and e-science are transient
ideas as scholars embrace and mainstream a range of digital tools for their
work. The practice of digital scholarship may be labeled as Scholarship
2.0 to reinforce that it is first and foremost the classic and rigorous form
of scholarship, but it now further harnesses distributed intelligence of
global scholarly communities via new collaborative tools. Conant’s wise
advice to advance pure science by engaging scholars of genius and leaving
them to direct themselves remains unchanged. The “back them heavily”
admonition, however, has in part shifted to multi-institutional scholarly
communities that make extensive use of local, national, and international
cyberinfrastructure. A portion of that financial backing—especially to
advance the whole of a university—must now be targeted at leveraged
cyberinfrastructure investments. Effective and purposeful IT governance is
an essential tool for framing discussions of institutional cyberinfrastructure.


Endnotes
1. James Bryant Conant, “Letter to the Editor,” New York Times, August 13,
1945, 18.

2. Anthony J. G. Hey and A. E. Trefethen, “The Data Deluge: An e-Science
Perspective,” in Grid Computing: Making the Global Infrastructure a Reality, eds. Fran
Berman, Geoffrey Fox, and Anthony J. G. Hey (New York: John Wiley and Sons,
2003), 809–24; Revolutionizing Science and Engineering Through Cyberinfrastructure:
Report of the National Science Foundation Blue-Ribbon Advisory Panel on
Cyberinfrastructure (Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, January 2003),
http://www.nsf.gov/cise/sci/reports/atkins.pdf; Our Cultural Commonwealth:The
Report of the American Council of Learned Societies Commission on Cyberinfrastructure
for the Humanities and Social Sciences (New York: American Council of Learned
Societies, December 2006), http://www.acls.org/uploadedfiles/publications/
programs/our_cultural_commonwealth.pdf; and Cyberinfrastructure Vision for 21st
Century Discovery (Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, March 2007),
http://www.nsf.gov/od/oci/CI_Vision_March07.pdf.

3. Charles Vest, “Content and the Emerging Global Meta-University,”
EDUCAUSE Review (May/June 2006): 30, http://www.educause.edu/ir/

4. Tim O’Reilly, “Web 2.0 Compact Definition: Trying Again,” O’Reilly Radar
(December 10, 2006), http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/12/web_20_
compact.html.

5. Brad Wheeler, “Open Source 2010: Reflections on 2007,” EDUCAUSE
Review (January/February 2007), 67, http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/
ERM0712.pdf.

6. Bradley C. Wheeler and Michael McRobbie, Final Report of the Indiana
University Cyberinfrastructure Research Taskforce (Bloomington, IN: The Trustees
of Indiana University, 2005), http://hdl.handle.net/2022/469; Thomas J.
Hacker and Bradley C. Wheeler, “Making Research Cyberinfrastructure a
Strategic Choice,” EDUCAUSE Quarterly 31, no. 1 (2007): 21–29, http://
www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/EQM0713.pdf.

7. Brad Wheeler, “Research Technologies: Edge, Leverage, and Trust,” in “The
Organization of the Organization: CIOs’ Views on the Role of Central IT,”
EDUCAUSE Review (November/December 2007): 44, http://net.educause
.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0761.pdf.

8. Peter Weill and Jeanne W. Ross, IT Governance: How Top Performers Manage IT
Decision Rights for Superior Results (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2005);
see also Peter Weill and Jeanne Ross, “A Matrixed Approach to Designing IT
Governance,” Sloan Management Review 46, no. 2 (Winter 2005): 26–34.


Bibliography
Conant, James Bryant. “Letter to the Editor.” New York Times, August 13, 1945, 18.

Cyberinfrastructure Vision for 21st Century Discovery. Washington, DC: National
Science Foundation, March 2007. http://www.nsf.gov/od/oci/CI_Vision_
March07.pdf.

Hacker, Thomas J., and Bradley C. Wheeler. “Making Research
Cyberinfrastructure a Strategic Choice.” EDUCAUSE Quarterly 31, no. 1
(2007): 21–29. http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/EQM0713.pdf.

Hey, Anthony J. G., and A. E. Trefethen. “The Data Deluge: An e-Science
Perspective.” In Grid Computing: Making the Global Infrastructure a Reality, edited
by Fran Berman, Geoffrey Fox, and Anthony J. G. Hey, 809–24. New York:
John Wiley and Sons, 2003.

O’Reilly, Tim. “Web 2.0 Compact Definition: Trying Again.” O’Reilly Radar,
December 10, 2006. http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/12/web_20_
compact.html.

Our Cultural Commonwealth:The Report of the American Council of Learned
Societies Commission on Cyberinfrastructure for the Humanities and Social Sciences.
New York: American Council of Learned Societies, December 2006.
http://www.acls.org/uploadedfiles/publications/programs/our_cultural_
commonwealth.pdf.

Revolutionizing Science and Engineering Through Cyberinfrastructure: Report of the
National Science Foundation Blue-Ribbon Advisory Panel on Cyberinfrastructure.
Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, January 2003. http://www.nsf
.gov/cise/sci/reports/atkins.pdf.

Vest, Charles. “Open Content and the Emerging Global Meta-University.”
EDUCAUSE Review (May/June 2006): 18–30. http://www.educause.edu/ir/

Weill, Peter, and Jeanne Ross. “A Matrixed Approach to Designing IT
Governance.” Sloan Management Review 46, no. 2 (Winter 2005): 26–34.

Weill, Peter, and Jeanne W. Ross. IT Governance: How Top Performers Manage IT
Decision Rights for Superior Results. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2005.

Wheeler, Brad. “Open Source 2010: Reflections on 2007.” EDUCAUSE
Review (January/February 2007): 48–67. http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/
pdf/ERM0712.pdf.

Wheeler, Bradley, and Michael McRobbie. Final Report of the Indiana University
Cyberinfrastructure Research Taskforce. Bloomington, IN: The Trustees of Indiana
University, 2005. http://hdl.handle.net/2022/469.


Beyond the False Dichotomy of
Centralized and Decentralized
IT Deployment
Jim Davis

A s we consider IT deployment in higher education, we must take
into account factors that include growing expectations when
it comes to access and functionality, the integrative effects of a
“network economy,” and the movement toward data as an institutional
resource. IT is also playing an increasingly important role in research and
education, compelling institutional IT to become more deeply involved
with individual academic units. The university’s teaching and research
economies are becoming more interlinked while simultaneously regulatory
and security requirements escalate rapidly and accountability broadens.
It’s true that one of the challenges to operating in this complicated
environment has to do with the technology itself—the sheer complexity
of technology deployment is increasing and technology requirements
continue to change.
But our long-standing IT deployment practices are also breaking down.
As universities struggle with how to piece together centralized and decen-
tralized models in a way that will meet the needs of both the institution as
a whole and the individual units it comprises, powerful forces are pushing
these models toward failure. The centralized-versus-decentralized approach
no longer aligns well with the programmatic objectives and regulatory
requirements of the university. Hierarchical IT organizations and empow-
erment through budget and reporting lines are faltering and the organi-
zational chart is failing to describe the real practice of IT. Institutional and
departmental IT units can no longer compartmentalize their services and are
forced to wrestle with their respective roles, turf, and accountability about
services that are inherently integrated. Too often, we refer to IT services
provided by a central organization versus those provided by individual units
or departments. This has become a false dichotomy, creating an unproductive
kind of competition among IT operations and preventing our common goal
of a seamless, responsive, end-user IT environment.

The False Dichotomy of Centralized and Decentralized IT Deployment 119

In this essay, I argue that we need to actively move toward a new
model, which I call service layering, and away from strictly centralized-
versus-decentralized approaches. Even though the technology supports
layering, such a move is not likely to happen naturally. It requires definition
and practice with new accountability structures, significantly strengthened
governance over shared environments, and forms of empowerment that go
beyond reporting lines and budgets.

Embracing Local Autonomy and Institutional
Involvement
Any consideration of what is needed from an IT deployment model
must begin with two value propositions: (1) there is great value in IT
deployment autonomy, especially at the school or department levels; and
(2) there is equally great value in schools, departments, and individuals
operating in a connected environment that supports sharing. In combi-
nation, these values become significant forces driving a need for IT
deployment responsibility and accountability to be jointly held by insti-
tutional and local service units—a sea change in deployment context.
Today’s technology is not the problem; rather, the problem is that siloed,
centralized, and decentralized IT service models fail to adequately address
this changing landscape.
The solution lies in a hybrid model. To be sure, certain administrative
and business systems must remain institutionally provisioned (centralized)
to the end user without the involvement of local IT, while those that
pertain solely to one unit require no institutional involvement and should
remain decentralized. But many IT services, especially those needed at the
“front lines” of research, education, and the academic environment, should
be “horizontally layered” as locally managed service components on top
of institutional service components to form complete services. Horizontal
service layering creates the potential for a “sweet spot” that encompasses
the advantages of both institutional and local service delivery.
To better understand the need for horizontal service layering to
meet the goals of both the institution and its individual parts—the values
outlined above of both autonomy and shared responsibility and account-
ability for IT services—it is useful to think of the university as a global
corporation. In this analogy, each frontline unit has its own unique
interests, competing among state, national, and/or international peers much
like a line of business (education and research) using human resources
(faculty, students, and staff) to generate product (intellectual capital,
students ready to enter a profession, successful faculty, social and economic


impact, and a recognized institution). The competition is for students,
funding, resources, rankings, visibility, and prestige. Line-of-business success
contributes to overall school and university success, making improve-
ments in the flexibility and autonomy of the line of business—where
it contributes to these objectives—far more valuable than institutional
operating economies.
At the same time, the academic structure is increasing in complexity.
Academic disciplines continue to be the predominant front lines of the
academic enterprise. While this organizational form has its advantages
from the perspective of program quality assurance, other trends such as
problem-based research, student educational expectations, and the fusion
of research and education are demanding interdisciplinary and connect-
edness approaches. The marriage of these disciplinary and interdisci-
plinary forces produces an overlay structure on the more slowly changing
disciplinary foundation. Academic competitiveness among institutions of
higher education is played out along disciplinary lines; thus, the education
and research “revenue side” of the university benefits when autonomy is
combined with institutional involvement to accommodate interdisciplinary
and interinstitutional demands.
Finally, the computational research and education enterprise is
growing dramatically in scale and complexity such that high-perfor-
mance computation, database management, visualization, data center, and
backup, storage, and preservation of data demand institutional facilities and
investment. If each research group is responsible for establishing its own
facilities, research autonomy actually becomes more difficult and in some
cases infeasible. And yet, the vastly different computational research and
education taking place in the humanities from that of the physical sciences,
for example, demands variability and autonomy. This is another argument
for the layered approach—local management of services on shared, co-
owned facilities.
In federating the research and education IT enterprise in support of
autonomy, our job is to build a robust and responsive environment heavily
defined by each line of business. This notion is reinforced in a December
2004 META Group article suggesting that the complexity of IT needs, the
diversity of business drivers and risks, and the need for responsiveness and
business-specific expertise among lines of business cannot be adequately
served with only a centralized IT delivery model; local autonomy also
must be embraced.1 At the same time, it is understood that there is need
for “corporate” IT structures to coordinate the relationships among the
lines of business and leverage the benefits of being local within the shared
economy of the whole.


The Layered Model in Practice
Moving to a layered IT deployment model requires a new account-
ability structure that embraces the marriage of autonomy and connectedness,
enabling local and institutional IT to operate jointly in an environment of
shared responsibility and coordinated accountability. Autonomy is valued
within an institutional structure designed to facilitate interaction, integration,
and harmonization. In establishing a vocabulary for this model, we use the
terms coordinated autonomy2 to refer to the deployment context; layered services
to map the system of operations, support, and accountability; and sweet spot to
describe the specific point where layered service delivery, responsibility, and
accountability resonate between the local and institutional needs.
The layered model has proved beneficial in the service arena at UCLA
even for something as commonly used as enterprise exchange services.
For example, because of significant value placed on the ability to locally
filter different file types and spam as well as on personalized responsiveness
for more general purpose functions (such as managing guest accounts),
the careful development of management tools that allow for local action
and accountability has proved useful. Institutional accountability rests
with high availability provisioning of the exchange services and the tools
for local management. Local units are accountable to local variations in
needs. Institutional and local units take joint responsibility for defining and
maintaining the service portfolio sweet spot. Autonomy is embraced and
institutional responsibility is preserved. The total service is neither decen-
tralized nor centralized; it combines the advantages of each.
UCLA research faculty have become much more responsive to insti-
tutional cluster hosting, storage, and data center services as a result of “grid
appliances” deployed as part of a layered services model. Simultaneously,
the institution is benefiting from broader access to computational resources,
greater standardization, and the avoidance of replicated facilities and
operating costs. The grid appliance permits individual owners to locally
manage the resource and retain direct authority over how the physical or
virtual cluster, paid for by their grant, is used and who can use it. The quid
pro quo is to participate in a shared, standardized resource that can provide
the owners and others greater capability than the locally owned resource
and can broaden secure access of unused cycles to others.
Institutionally, the appliance–resource combinations enable secure
access to a range of computational resources, offer geographically
distributed researchers ready access, and provide sophisticated tools to
view resources, manipulate input files, and submit jobs. Institutional IT
is accountable for network, data center hosting services, and the secure
operation of the grid and the grid appliances. The Institute for Digital


Figure 1. Illustrating the Layered IT Service Deployment Model

Central IT Institutional/Shared Local IT End
Services IT Services Services User

MES User

User

Student CCLE
System
User

Data RC
Center User

MES = Microsoft Exchange Services (enterprise messaging)
CCLE = Common Collaboration and Learning Environment
RC = Research Cyberinfrastructure (shared cluster operations)

Research and Education (IDRE), representing the cohort of researchers
and institutes that wish to take advantage of an institutional infrastructure,
is accountable for the governance of the grid services and cluster hosting
services (research cyberinfrastructure). The owner is accountable for the
cost, management, and research production of the cluster. There is now
high faculty demand for institutional IT hosting and shared services.
UCLA has also applied the layered model to a campus-wide desktop/
server purchase contract, a software license for Microsoft products
(Microsoft Exchange Services), and security policy. Most recently,
the model has formed the deployment basis for UCLA’s Common
Collaboration and Learning Environment (CCLE) in Moodle. Figure 1
illustrates the layering approach.

Making It Work: Changes in Staffing,
Governance, and OIT
Moving toward an IT deployment model that both embraces
autonomy and extends accountability to increase institutional effectiveness
is not easy. To engineer a successful transition, campus-wide and local IT
units must construct a plan that identifies and takes into account critical
elements of autonomy and accountability. Support staff must establish
shared management structures and shared service agreements and put into
place a process for resolving conflict. Moreover, strong campus IT gover-
nance, as opposed to “decisions by committee,” is vital.


Peter Weill and Jeanne W. Ross are often referenced in the context
of IT governance and decision making and indeed provide essential
constructs.3 I argue that the Weill and Ross approach in practice requires:
(1) formal acceptance of the governance organization and processes by the
campus administration and the academic senate; (2) executive sponsors with
functional and funding authority to champion initiatives; (3) structures and
processes ensuring that decisions are ultimately made on functional rather
than technological grounds, but with significant technology input; (4) a
strategic decision-making and policy body that combines the academic
senate and executive administration; (5) integration of IT governance into
the campus planning and budget processes; and (6) willingness to invest in
the management and administration of a governance structure and process
that is comparable to a board of trustees. The single most important campus
agreement in the governance process is formal acceptance of a decision
matrix that defines which body has responsibility for which decision and
what kind of decision. The process of reaching a goal of decision acceptance
is long and arduous, but without acceptance there is no governance and
decision making, only committee input.
In coordinating this approach, the institutional office of information
technology (OIT) must be more than a university services provider and
cost center. Such an institutional OIT should manage the IT governance
and institutional planning processes, have authoritative involvement
in campus IT investment decisions, and have oversight of the campus
IT portfolio, architecture, and services infrastructure. It is particularly
important to conduct these processes from a position of credibility and
neutrality rather than from the “authority” of organizational budget
and number of reporting lines. If it is to help foster a layered services
environment, the OIT needs to shift from client to board relationships,
from budget competitor to co-investor, and from an operational to a
balanced integrative focus that accounts for the full breadth of local and
institutional objectives. In this way, empowerment stems more from the
ability to engage the broadest expanse of line-of-business drivers, priorities,
and needs.
The OIT can “see” IT on the campus in ways that no other organi-
zation can, and it can translate that view into operational impact. Impact
comes first with the capacity for institutional planning and analysis,
management oversight of the governance process, responsibility for IT
policy, joint decision-making authority on campus IT investments (that is,
the decision matrix), and campus “ownership” of architecture. Operational
impact follows and depends on the operating deployment structure on
campus. This form of empowerment is supported by the analysis of Joseph


Nye, who has observed that this form is likely to be more important than the
command-and-control form when campus IT is dispersed (federated).4 For
this to occur, the institution must be receptive to this role—not an easy task.

Summary
I have argued in this essay that the deployment model is as important,
if not more so, than the technology itself for a university seeking to
maximize its IT potential. I have further argued that long-standing IT
deployment models, which tend to cobble together centralized and decen-
tralized approaches, are no longer working in higher education. I have
suggested the need to move toward a hybrid deployment model that
continues to provide only local or only institutional control where it makes
sense to do so but that also incorporates the layered approach, in which
autonomy is valued and responsibility and accountability are shared by
institutional and local service units.
I believe that line-of-business autonomy as I have described it is
a significant value worth pursuing in a time of powerful trends that
also demand institutional solutions: interdisciplinary interactions, inter-
linking information, and powerful computation facilities for research and
education. UCLA’s experiences with layering services, building relevant
governance, and working in different accountability structures have been
very positive—more than sufficient to keep us pressing ahead with the
layered deployment model. But we also understand that it is early in a long
process of change. Discussion and consideration of the issues raised by this
new IT deployment model will help us to move beyond long-standing
practices that no longer serve our needs.

Endnotes
1. Brian Burke, Federating the IT Organization: Enterprise Planning and Architecture
Strategies, META Group Practice 2301, December 31, 2004.

2. Jim Davis, “Coordinated Autonomy,” EDUCAUSE Review (November/
December 2001): 86–87, http://connect.educause.edu/Library/
EDUCAUSE+Review/CoordinatedAutonomy/40298.

3. Peter Weill and Jeanne W. Ross, IT Governance: How Top Performers Manage
IT Decision Rights for Superior Results (Boston: Harvard Business School Press,
2005).

4. Joseph S. Nye, Jr., “The Benefits of Soft Power,” Harvard Business School Working
Knowledge (August 2, 2004), http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/4290.html.


Bibliography
Burke, Brian. Federating the IT Organization: Enterprise Planning and Architecture
Strategies. META Group Practice 2301. December 31, 2004.

Davis, Jim. “Coordinated Autonomy.” EDUCAUSE Review (November/
December 2001): 86–87, http://connect.educause.edu/Library/
EDUCAUSE+Review/CoordinatedAutonomy/40298.

Nye, Joseph S., Jr. “The Benefits of Soft Power.” Harvard Business School
Working Knowledge (August 2, 2004). http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/4290
.html.

Weill, Peter, and Jeanne W. Ross. IT Governance: How Top Performers Manage IT
Decision Rights for Superior Results. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2005.


From Users to Choosers:
The Cloud and the Changing
Shape of Enterprise Authority
Ronald Yanosky

F or a long time, people working in IT have been accustomed to
describing those they serve as users. It’s an unsentimental term
that suggests a division between those who merely use computers
and those who make the magic happen—the ones who are really in
control. The term is a lingering reminder of the days when computers
were rare, housed in glorious isolation, and tended by professional staffs
whose main focus was keeping the machine running, preferably at a
healthy distance from the users. And keeping it running was critical:
The organization that owned the machine often owned the institution’s
whole computing environment.
Granted, it’s been a long time since that state of affairs prevailed.
But even though the central IT organization’s monopoly on computing
resources has dissolved into messy complexity, a potent legacy remains:
what might be called central IT’s “enterprise authority,” that is, the respon-
sibility (and often, at least, the power) to define computing norms that
protect the interests of the enterprise, and thus the interests of the user
community as a whole.
The origins of this authority lie in the era of technological scarcity.
When higher education IT administrators controlled most or all of the
cycles and programming skills available, they effectively had the power
to allocate computing itself. Computing at higher education institutions
might be divided between administrative and academic units, each with
its own mainframe, but each of these served large and diverse commu-
nities that crossed departmental boundaries. Over time, IT administrators
had to develop new skills beyond the care and feeding of the technology:
understanding the requirements of users who often could not articulate
their own technical needs; determining priorities, allocations, and funding
models; and, critically, arbitrating among departments that competed for IT
resources but rarely communicated with each other.

The Cloud and the Changing Shape of Enterprise Authority 127

This king-of-the-hill position made IT units uniquely conscious of how
different uses of computing were related. Their domination of programming
skill also gave IT units growing influence over business and academic opera-
tions on campus. Business rules and enterprise controls were increasingly
embedded in the applications that IT developers built, and because they had
to make different applications work together, the developers often came to
understand overarching enterprise issues better than the functional depart-
ments themselves. This, in turn, gave them a degree of ownership over enter-
prise controls. All this, of course, was deeply disturbing to users who were
accustomed to a high degree of operational autonomy.
Minicomputers, PCs, and the Internet eroded IT’s direct control over
cycles and programming skills, yet at the same time they fed the need
for an ever more refined and complex exercise of enterprise authority.
Users exulting in their liberation from the cycle gatekeepers in IT soon
discovered that they had inherited system administration tasks that either
sent them back to the IT organization asking for support or forced them
to develop their own IT skills and sensibilities. And as soon as they tried
to connect their departmental and personal machines to resources outside
their immediate domain, the newly empowered users found themselves
dependent on a central IT connectivity monopoly and tangled up in inter-
departmental politics in which central IT played the role of arbiter.

The Federal Model
By the time of the client-server era, this mix of new capabilities and
new dependencies had shaped higher education’s user–IT relations into a
roughly “federal” model. Users had, in fact, broken free from many of the
constraints of the data processing era. PCs put computing power on the
desktop, and the new platforms and applications on them had helped create
a popular user group culture in which participants could sharpen their
skills and discover their common interests. Increasingly, even people who
weren’t technically adept began to identify themselves by their technol-
ogies of choice. The user group culture often had a libertarian ideology
that prefigured later web-based cyberculture, yet its anti-institutional
impulses were to some degree curbed by user reliance on departmental,
school, and enterprise resources.
Above the “citizen” layer of individual users stood the “local” and
“state” layers of the federal IT hierarchy. At large institutions, depart-
ments and schools began to develop their own IT organizations, ranging
from small local-area networks (LANs) in offices or labs to big, ambitious
data centers in computing intensive areas. Likewise, more and more of


the functional work of administrative (and some academic) departments
migrated from manual to automated systems. In contrast to the more
freewheeling nature of the popular user groups, these users came together
along organizational lines, some concerned with specialized or cross-
cutting computing needs, such as research support, and others representing
slices of enterprise functions, such as the line business units and the regis-
trar’s office. As these users became more numerous, savvy, and familiar with
technology, their political influence grew correspondingly.
Yet central IT was not completely shut out from the big decisions
affecting these constituents. A degree of technical dependence remained,
increasingly focused on network and support issues, but central IT’s enter-
prise authority was the really dynamic element in preserving its influence
in user relations. Central IT’s administrative applications development skills
remained important, and with the advent of integrated enterprise resource
planning (ERP) systems, IT shifted from being an automater of business
systems to an integrator and process designer, accentuating its pan-institu-
tional profile. After some painful lessons, central IT units learned to shun
the perception that they “owned” ERP projects.Yet even as they shared
power with user departments, they remained a sort of first among equals,
and often the most energetic advocates of business process change, in the
project and IT steering committees that oversaw these initiatives.
Furthermore, central IT remained in the driver’s seat of the revolu-
tionary new network technologies and other crucial aspects of the
computing infrastructure. It controlled the increasingly essential network
backbone and negotiated most of the wide-area network (WAN), telecom-
munications, and Internet connectivity contracts that governed the insti-
tutional network environment. It also operated the “big iron” servers that
increasingly absorbed old mainframe workloads, and had backup and
disaster recovery capabilities unmatched elsewhere on campus.
These powers reinforced central IT’s role managing the growing
interconnections that now typified campus computing. Executive leaders
reflexively looked to their CIOs for solutions and policy recommendations
for any problem remotely connected to technology, from implementing
telecommuting programs to disciplining students who sent malicious
e-mails, and this growing executive concern gave the CIO’s office political
weight. Central IT was far from a technology autocracy, but it had a
set of carrots and sticks at hand that no other technology unit enjoyed,
including the supreme sanctions of refusing support for shadow systems or
(something like the IT death penalty of the early Internet era) cutting off
network connectivity. All of these powers placed central IT at the top or
“national” level of the federal pyramid of user relations.


If the first decade of mass Internet usage didn’t quite break the federal
model of user relations, it put tremendous and distorting stresses on it. At
the root of the problem was the geometrically expanding complexity of
both enterprise architectures and user demands. Users found new avenues
to unmediated expression through technology, first in websites and later
through blogs, wikis, and other emerging tools. Self-service via the web
made enterprise systems far more visible, changing them from staff-facing
systems used during working hours to constituent-facing systems with
implied 24 × 7 availability. E-learning introduced major new enterprise
applications that served new and increasingly self-aware faculty and student
constituencies. Most painfully, the new Internet-based environment
brought exotic new forms of malware, enhanced hacking opportunities,
and a legal morass surrounding filesharing. Increasingly, the Internet
became a vehicle for expressing lifestyles and a battleground for freedom
of expression, and the boundary lines between personal, professional, and
enterprise concerns became fuzzier still. Demands for support and for
computing independence both grew explosively.
IT federalism got more complex but managed to stay functional
through all this. At many institutions, the newly conceived role of chief
information officer (CIO) put a leadership layer above stovepiped adminis-
trative and academic computing divisions. Central IT took on new respon-
sibilities and got new powers, especially in the regulation of security and
privacy, which built on its ownership of the network backbone and the
major enterprise systems. At the same time, institutions began to formalize
IT governance and open it up to a wider range of inputs, recognizing
that IT had become a resource relied on by the entire community. Even
so, highly autonomous and well-funded local IT units and research labs
often found it desirable and feasible to circumvent central IT’s systems and
policies, while the technology itself—increasingly powerful, inexpensive,
portable, networked, and ready to deliver sensitive information—conspired
against effective control over the much-enlarged user community. CIOs
began to complain that their jobs had become more political and more
concerned with risk management than ever and that their practical ability
to exercise enterprise authority was diminishing.

The Impact of Cloud Computing
Cloud computing can help address some of the problems that came
with the early Internet era. The cloud’s democratization of access to
computing power is, as we’ve seen, nothing new; what is new is that cloud
resources can at least potentially come with the professional system admin-


istration that personally administered PCs and servers often lack. A user
who can fulfill his needs from the cloud will be less tempted to set up the
unpatched, insecure, backup-free, under-the-desk rogue server that lies at
the center of so many higher education IT tales of woe. Making it easier
for users to acquire and maintain the technology they need will reduce
certain of the functional/technical demands they place on IT units, and
could mitigate at least some of the complexity and exposure that now
characterize enterprise IT environments.
But it also seems likely that new complications will attend new
simplifications. To a greater degree than ever before, the cloud will make
users into choosers who are able to make technology choices without
mediation from other parts of the institution. User liberation in the PC
and Internet revolutions came with attached strings of dependence that led
naturally upward to departmental, school, or central IT units, giving federal
relationships some measure of hierarchical coherence. Central IT acted
as an intermediary between users and enterprise vendors, which allowed
the institution to conduct its relationship with each vendor on a one-to-
one basis while extending one-to-many support services to users. This
created some valuable symmetries in IT administration: manageability in
vendor relationships balanced with scalability in user support and a service
provider role balanced with the role of enterprise authority. Users who
depended on central IT for connectivity, enterprise agreements, systems
administration, and other services knew that their ability to get what they
wanted depended (within bounds) on paying attention to what central IT
told them to do.
Cloud computing creates new strings of user dependence that lead
outward rather than upward, upsetting the balances in institutional and
especially central IT authority. Where users directly employ a service from
the cloud, they disintermediate institutional IT as a service provider. But
that doesn’t necessarily mean they eliminate IT as a support provider.
Like Wall Street’s financiers, users may well be attracted to the chance to
privatize reward and socialize risk. There is a danger of cloud relationships
that begin as a two-way user-to-vendor interaction turning “triangular”
when unhappy cloud users draw IT in for support.
The nightmare scenario for central IT arises when multiple users who
have independently drawn collections of cloud providers into institutional
business plead ex post facto for help to sort out multiparty, multiproduct
support issues. Central IT will be tempted to refuse, yet a long history of
past efforts to do just that with “unsupported” platforms and applications
suggests it will not be an option, at least above a certain threshold. Sooner
or later cloud dependencies will create institutional exposures, and the


institution’s first reflex will be to turn to IT to address the problem.
This breakdown of symmetry between central IT’s ability to shape
product choices and its responsibility for user support is only one example
of how the cloud can pull mutually reinforcing IT roles apart. Another
is the looming disconnect between central IT’s service provider role and
its responsibilities as enterprise authority. In the early Internet era, CIOs
could say to users, “You must use certain precautions and behave in certain
ways because if you don’t you’ll compromise our network and we’ll be
forced to kick you off.” In the cloudy environment, central IT no longer
enjoys monopolies on connectivity or access to applications, nor does it
have the same ability to define safe harbors and auditable systems. The
concerns of enterprise authority—from system and data security to process
efficiency and online behavior—will continue to be critically important,
perhaps more than ever.Yet they will increasingly be disembodied from the
“plumbing” that central IT has historically overseen. Who, then, will speak
for the enterprise? And in what tone of voice?

Enterprise Authority in a Cloudy Academy
To some extent, the user community itself will fill the vacuums in
support and enterprise authority. Cloud users freed from dependence on
the IT bureaucracy may be more conscious of their mutual interests and
their ability to self-organize, and the same grassroots self-help impulses that
one now sees in open source and Web 2.0 communities could become
generalized. Support blogs, wikis, and other collaborative forums will
spring up around many cloud resources to supplement vendor support
tools.Virtualization and commoditization could also reduce the technical
idiosyncrasies users have to grapple with, making it easier for functional
user communities to rely on internal support competencies. Nor should
we dismiss the possibility that users may develop a more sophisticated
and effective sense of enterprise responsibility as they venture into cloud
environments. As critics of the idea that every commons ends in tragedy
point out, local self-regulation among those most affected by the quality of
common resources can be an effective way to protect them.1
Yet every shift in computing paradigms has brought its disap-
pointed utopian hopes, and the cloud will be no exception. Computing
may, indeed, look simpler to users in a mature cloud environment than
it does in today’s messy world where desktop, departmental, enterprise,
and Internet resources constantly clash; but this, at least, is the devil that
institutions know. Besides exposing themselves (and the institution) to
the unknown reliability and viability of cloud service providers, users


are bound to discover more subtle limits on the integratability of cloud
resources, especially as they begin to mix and match them to support
complex processes. These issues will often arise from specific local needs
whose unique and possibly confidential nature works against the open
source premise that “given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.” More
broadly, we need to consider the fact that decades of deploring and fighting
institutional stovepiping has resulted in only modest progress toward true
enterprise information systems. The centripetal forces that have made
enterprise sensibility a constant struggle aren’t going to go away.
How, then, should IT administrators handle a new profusion of
outward-leading attachments that bypass the internal controls IT has
historically provided? One logical option that will have its adherents is
pure laissez-faire—neither regulating what users do nor providing institu-
tional support if they get into trouble. But as we’ve already seen, institu-
tional dynamics will likely make this option untenable. Too often in higher
education, individual actions lead to institutional sanctions. Institutions
can’t simply relinquish due diligence on the grounds of individual choice,
and users are certain to run into issues that they can’t address on their own.

A Locked-Down Cloud
On the other end of the spectrum one might envision a locked-down
enterprise environment carved out of the cloud. In this model, web traffic
entering and leaving the institution would pass through an institutionally
managed intermediary that dynamically applies rules about what users
can and can’t do. An aggressive implementation might not only block
undesired sites in the manner of today’s URL filters but set many terms
of use: how long users can remain on a site, what they can download or
upload, even what sort of language is allowed when posting to a blog or
social networking site. It could also generate a highly detailed record of
usage. Institutions would not necessarily have to set every parameter in
granular detail; already emerging cloud security vendors such as ZScaler
and Purewire promise heuristics-based technologies that assess websites and
even personal reputations dynamically.
An environment like this could help institutions contain support
demands, reduce assorted kinds of exposure, and keep an eye on process
efficiency and staff productivity.Yet it’s hard to imagine successfully imple-
menting this regime in a higher education environment. Even putting
aside nontrivial issues relating to user evasion and induced latency, a highly
regulated enterprise cloud would be sure to arouse passionate objections
on the grounds of academic freedom, personal privacy, organizational unit


autonomy, and incompatibility with modern methods of teaching and
research. To put it in the language of civil liberties, a locked-down cloud
would constitute “prior restraint,” perhaps justifiable in some settings but
completely unacceptable to the sensibilities of an academic community.

Certification-Based Cloud Computing
A much more acceptable way to shape user activity would be to certify
rather than dictate good behavior.To borrow a line from pedagogy, central IT
might manage a cloudy environment as “the guide by the user’s side,” rather
than “the sage on the IT stage.”Web resources could be certified on the basis
of good security and enterprise practices, such as use of open standards, robust
identity management, encryption and other data management protections,
auditability, and business continuity practices. Likewise, certification might
address contractual issues such as indemnification, liability, and escrow arrange-
ments in the event of vendor failure or takeover. Users would be encouraged
to use certified resources (which would be easily identified as such), warned of
the dangers of uncertified ones, and held accountable if they got into trouble
straying into uncertified territory.
Certification-based institutional cloud computing would have many
of the advantages of a locked-down cloud, such as rationalizing support
needs and articulating enterprise requirements, but would be more open
and politically sustainable and would better leverage the advantages of
the cloud. Presumably, certification would be a collaborative process
involving multiple concentric rings of participation. At the core, a basic
set of enterprise certification guidelines could specify institution-wide
practices, drawing on input from surrounding rings of school, depart-
mental, and user-group entities and deferring to them on matters of local
scope. Surrounding these would be additional rings representing external
communities of practice, standards bodies, product user groups, and other
entities with relevant expertise.
While it’s likely to be a better fit both with the spirit of cloud
computing and with the culture of higher education, a certification
approach has its problems. It obviously places a great deal of hope on the
slender reed of standards and certification assessments. Standards processes
are notoriously slow and prone to the disproportionate influence of inter-
ested parties; they are subject to interpretation; and they can be either too
general to be meaningful or so detailed as to be impossible to implement.
Even when standards are clear and up to date, deciding whether a
particular resource meets a given standard requires investigation and
judgment. Nor is it entirely clear what kinds of standards cloud computing


might call for. Moving toward a trustworthy cloud computing resource
“seal of approval” requires a leap of faith that global and local computing
communities can create all the necessary processes.
Even if that faith proves well founded, a certification approach to
cloud computing will require some potentially disruptive changes in
relations between IT units and users. The most obvious one is deciding
who does the certifying and through what process. Users who have
discovered a cloud resource that seems to meet their needs perfectly
may well resent a third party’s refusal to certify it. At the innermost level
of certification guidelines, central IT is probably the best candidate for
overseeing the process, in part because it is the entity with the best ability
to provide support to users of certified resources, and in part because of
its enterprise experience. Both the realities of higher education culture
and the logic of the cloud, however, would demand that certification be
an open and inclusive process. In parallel with the certification process,
both central and local IT units could also help users assess vendor certi-
fication claims and sort out the institutional implications of what might
be a confusing tangle of competing standards. Influence of this kind
could enormously reduce institutional exposure and improve the cloud
computing experience for all users.
A second issue raised by a certification approach is how to enforce user
accountability. Even in a fairly open “use what you want but be accountable”
environment, enterprise considerations will demand some degree of user
monitoring (such as usage logs and audit trails), particularly because in a
cloudy environment fewer resources have the implicit controls that come
with institutional ownership and physical control. Who will be in charge of
monitoring the trails users leave in this environment, and who will deliver
sanctions when they step out of bounds? Central IT can best influence
accountability indirectly, for example, by building appropriate auditability
into its resource certification processes. But enforcement responsibility and
the setting of sanctions in this exceedingly sensitive area ought to lie with
the authorities users are most likely to consider legitimate: themselves, their
managers, and the executive hierarchies they fall under.

IT’s Changing Responsibilities
It seems clear that the cloud’s transformation of users into choosers
will cause some power to flow “downward” in the IT federal hierarchy.
Probably the greatest beneficiaries will be at the middle levels of the
hierarchy, among business and academic units that gain not only IT
independence but perhaps also budget dollars that are reallocated when


central IT-delivered services become, in effect, business services contracted
from cloud providers. Researchers, already the most independent of insti-
tutional users, will have still more opportunities to break from institutional
constraints. Individual staff and student users might see radical or limited
changes, depending on their needs and their willingness to venture beyond
the realm of certified, supported computing.
Yet as some of the IT organization’s responsibilities fade, others will
remain and new ones will emerge that have no obvious “owner” other than
a central IT unit. “Chooser” support is one of these, and it implies a more or
less formal process of cloud resource certification that can become a potent,
though indirect, protection for the enterprise. That in turn leads to perhaps
the most important central IT role that will carry over into the cloud era:
definition and management of institutional IT governance. The cloud’s liber-
ation of unit-level and individual users is an inherently politicizing trend that
will feed demands on governance, because it means that enterprise policies
once implicitly embedded in institutional service delivery will have to be
negotiated (or mandated) explicitly. No one has the experience that central
IT does in dealing with such enterprise IT politics. As a recent ECAR study
of IT governance found, responsibility for IT governance is overwhelmingly
in the hands of CIOs, and they tend to run inclusive and, by their assessment,
effective governance structures.2 IT leaders who wearily describe their role
as “herding cats” may well be identifying just the sort of experience and skill
that will keep central IT strategic in the age of the cloud. Likewise, today’s
focus on risk management and legal issues is a likely harbinger of the central
IT skill set of the cloud era.
As the example of IT governance suggests, declining IT unit control
over hard resources will make the ability to exercise “soft power” more
and more central to the unit’s existence. Additional responsibilities in this
vein may include monitoring cloud resource usage across the institution,
assessing the efficiency of processes that cross departmental domains,
contributing to institutional information architecture and strategy, and
architecting the local infrastructure (especially identity management) to
permit seamless and secure access to the cloud. The common thread in
these tasks will be the need to meet enterprise responsibilities through
influence, negotiation, and informed risk management rather than through
official enterprise authority.

Conclusion
There are, of course, many considerations that could prevent the full
logic of the cloud from being realized. The cloud has not yet proved its


ability to deliver cheap, scalable, virtualized computing power; still less
its potential for loosely coupled integration; and least of all its radical
promise of modular applications built from mix-and-match services. The
decisive failure of cloud services could reinvigorate “classic” centralized
enterprise computing, and even if the cloud is successful, the transition
from locally hosted to cloud resources is likely to be gradual and bumpy.
But in proportion to the degree that the cloud achieves its promises, it
will shift power downward in the IT hierarchy, atomize enterprise IT
authority, and reshape central IT’s role from service provider to certifier,
consultant, and arbitrator. Central IT will need to better master the
arts of soft power to continue to play its vital role of articulating and
protecting enterprise interests.

Endnotes
1. Garret Hardin, “The Tragedy of the Commons,” Science 162 (1968); Elinor
Ostrum, Governing the Commons:The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action
(Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990).

2. Ronald Yanosky with Jack McCredie, Process and Politics: IT Governance in
Higher Education (Research Study,Vol. 5) (Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center
for Applied Research, 2008), http://connect.educause.edu/Library/ECAR/
ProcessandPoliticsITGover/47101.

Bibliography
Hardin, Garret. “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Science 162 (1968): 1243–48.

Ostrum, Elinor. Governing the Commons:The Evolution of Institutions for Collective
Action. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

Yanosky, Ronald, with Jack McCredie. Process and Politics: IT Governance in
Higher Education (Research Study,Vol. 5). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center
for Applied Research, 2008. http://connect.educause.edu/Library/ECAR/
ProcessandPoliticsITGover/47101.

Open Information, Open
Content, Open Source


Cultural and Organizational
Drivers of Open
Educational Content
Malcolm Read

T he purpose of this essay is to consider the cultural and organi-
zational issues behind the creation of open educational content.
In it I argue that there are many benefits to the individual, to
the educational institution, and to society at large from open educa-
tional content and, further, that such educational content has to be part
of a wider context of open resources across the research, education, and
cultural domains.

The Open Context
The word open is much used as a prefix to describe an
environment or process that is owned by an often diverse community
of creators but available to all, usually for free. These days the concept
thrives because the Internet provides an invaluable vehicle for the
ready distribution of information and knowledge and the tools to
manage and exploit that information. The Internet is a prime example
of public benefaction; it greatly enhances the reach of information to
all levels of society and countries of the world. It is not new, however;
the public library movement of the 19th century was based on the
“open” ethos, as were various open universities and, arguably, state-
provided education, whether for children or adults. In all cases there
was seen to be a clear benefit to society through ready access to
educational and cultural resources.
Open educational content can help maintain a long tradition facili-
tated initially by public libraries and benefactors and now by the Internet
and the World Wide Web. Lecturers and teachers and, indeed, anyone
with expert knowledge and the skills and willingness to pass on that
knowledge can now do so. The Wikipedia is a prime example of such
open educational content albeit one where the quality of the content is

Cultural and Organizational Drivers of Open Educational Content 141

variable. But first, what do we mean by open educational content? And how
does it relate to the plethora of other open-prefixed terms such as open
source software, open standards, open access, and open science?

Open Source Software
Open source software is probably the most well established of these
concepts; the term shareware is sometimes used to describe some examples of
open source software. Open source software is software that is made available
by the authors freely, or at a very modest cost, to anyone. The software may
be small, specialist applications or software tools, or large and significant
products such as the Linux operating system or the Moodle learning
management system. Open source software seldom comes with much
support, although this is sometimes available from third-party providers, and
the potential user will need adequate expertise and other resources to deploy
and customize the software to meet their particular needs.
To those with the expertise, open source software can often form
the basis of a bespoke solution because the source code is available in a
way that the code for third-party software often is not. It may be the only
affordable solution to small organizations. Thus smaller colleges and schools
will often deploy mature open source software offerings where commercial
solutions are too expensive. Open source software, therefore, complements
commercially provided software by widening choice. Few would doubt
that open source software, intelligently chosen and deployed, offers real
benefits to education and society at large.

Open Standards
Open standards tend to be less visible to the practitioner. Within the
world of information technology (IT), these are openly available, published
standards, usually technical, for defining and managing processes and, of
most interest where information is concerned, ways of exchanging data
and information. Such standards can also cover operational and managerial
procedures. Although some commercial software vendors would prefer a
world where the user is “locked into” a particular system, open standards
do provide an environment in which both open source and commercial
software can prosper.
Open standards are, of course, absolutely essential in the real, not
just the virtual, world; they define everything from railroad gauges (why
4' 8½"?) to electricity plugs, often at the national level. It is frequently
quipped that the good things about standards is that there are so many


to choose from. Defining, agreeing to, and establishing open standards
is often a slow process. Nonetheless, the world would be a less conve-
nient place without them. And in the IT world, few would doubt the
benefit of open standards and, indeed, their use and development is
often strongly encouraged and insisted upon by funding bodies in the
education and research environment.

Open Access
Open access is a movement that started in the research area largely
predicated on the argument that the outputs of publicly funded research
(usually papers in scholarly journals) should be publicly (and usually freely)
available.1 The open access debate is mired in disputes with the scholarly
publishing industry. The arguments for and against are not straightforward,
largely due to the reward and recognition of research being heavily
based on publications in prestigious journals. However, it is the research
community and individual researchers who produce the research/outputs,
and they should be less willing to hand over to publishers their rights to
such a valuable resource when there is seldom a direct financial reward.
Proponents of open access make many, to my mind, powerful
arguments in support of making their research outputs (in papers) available
on the Internet, either on the web or in a repository, and either as the sole
copy or more usually as a copy of the version published in a journal. Their
papers are therefore more widely available to fellow researchers and, of
particular importance to many, this is probably the only way the general
public and much of the developing world can access them. There is also
value in researchers making their peer reviews available. Further, in fast
moving disciplines, such as particle physics where open access publishing
is well established, the scholarly publishing process is far too slow to be an
effective method of distribution.
The open access concept for research outputs is now being applied
to research data, the argument being that better access to properly
managed and preserved data will greatly enhance the research process.
In some disciplines, such as the social sciences, this is long accepted; for
example, access to population (census) data over a long time period is
essential. But many disciplines can benefit from open data. However, the
costs of storing data and describing the data in such a way that they can
be found and used easily (known as metadata) can be considerable.2 And
while the benefit to a research discipline could also be considerable, the
benefit to individual researchers is often less obvious; they are not usually
rewarded for their data contributions.


Open Science
A final, even more ambitious, concept is open science. Under this
model, researchers share their research findings while actually carrying out
the research. Thus, they are in effect exposing their experiment or other
research activity to review and comment and advice from their peers in
real time. This could prove to be a very effective and efficient process but
requires considerable intellectual bravery. The Internet makes open science
possible, and this is an extension of a growing trend for collaborative
research described by terms such as virtual organizations, collaboratories, and
virtual research environments.

Open Educational Content
It is within this context of growing openness, particularly of
online data and information, that the learning and teaching community
should consider open educational content. The resources I have in
mind are handouts and course notes that are produced primarily for
use by a class; these are resources of little commercial value, compared
to textbooks or more sophisticated learning materials, which can be
expected to generate income. It follows, therefore, that any teachers
considering making their materials readily available in an open access
manner will have already determined that they have little economic
value, either to themselves or their employer. This raises two consid-
erations: Do universities and colleges regard such learning materials as
conferring some competitive advantage? And, similarly, do individual
teachers regard their course material as needing to be protected as a
resource unique to them and as constituting a significant advantage in
pursuit of their career aspirations?
There will be examples where such teaching materials do confer
advantage to teacher or institution, but I would argue this is not normally
the case. Such material is designed to support a particular course at a
particular institution but seldom contains content that is not readily
available already on the web, and few potential students will consider the
quality of such course material an important criterion in deciding which
university or college to attend (indeed they cannot, as such material is not
usually available to them).
A number of political and policy drivers could encourage a culture
of open access for learning resources. Making such resources openly
available can be an important marketing tool and helps inform potential
students about the quality of the academic experience they can expect
from that institution.


The employing institution may have a policy to encourage or even
mandate open access for such material. This will not usually be a compre-
hensive policy, but some universities do expect a significant proportion
of handouts and course notes to be made available on the web. The MIT
OpenCourseWare initiative is an obvious example, and more recently
the UK Open University has built a similar library of resources called
OpenLearn (see the essay by Professor Andy Lane in this volume). Even
when the institution as a whole does not adopt an open access policy,
many individual departments or faculties do so. Another significant driver
for many teachers is the altruistic desire to share their knowledge with
society, which can now be very effectively met through posting material
on the web (either their own website or their employer’s site), blogs, wikis,
and other Web 2.0 technologies.
It is also possible to provide links between such content and online
textbooks, journals, and other reading list materials. Such links are greatly
facilitated in an open content environment and can provide considerable
convenience for the student over current, largely library-based practice.
However, even when teachers or institutions accept that there is little
or no commercial value in such resources, it does not follow that they
will wish to make them openly available. It requires a great deal of work
to prepare the content in such a way that it will be useful outside the
class and that it will reflect well on the author and, where appropriate, the
employing or hosting institution.

Issues for Universities and Colleges
These different drivers lead to different approaches and hence
different “collections” of materials for users to enjoy: an institutional library
or repository or a less structured and controlled user-owned Web 2.0
environment. Both are to be welcomed in that they provide free scholarly
and academic material to students, potential students, lifelong learners, and
society at large. This is particularly valuable to those who, for whatever
reason, cannot easily benefit from higher education, especially those in the
developing world. On the other hand, we must not forget that this widens
the digital divide.
There are a number of reasons why a university or college may wish
to make some of their learning resources openly available. Their mission
may include a public-good responsibility to help educate the community
other than through formal learning: many institutions regard this as a
valid and useful objective within a wider role of knowledge transfer and
community engagement. They may see open access to learning resources as


a valuable “shop window” for attracting students and to help them under-
stand the nature of the learning experience in higher (postcompulsory)
education. It may simply be a natural extension of their open access policy
for research outputs, or a relatively easy way of further exploiting their
existing repository.
Many institutions will not yet be considering open access. There
is an important role for policy makers and strategic thinkers in higher
education to encourage this debate and help bring the issue to the
attention of senior institutional management. Even if the reasons above
do not motivate them, they will wish to consider where they stand in
relation to other institutions locally, nationally, and internationally. They
will wish to consider whether they are fully exploiting their investment
in their institutional repository, and if they do not have a repository,
whether they need one; they may also need to develop a policy on who
owns the course material and who (the author or the employer) holds
the rights to exploit and disseminate such resources. The benefits of open
access can be gained regardless of who owns and exploits the rights, but
in many institutions there is no clear policy. For institutions, having a
clear and unambiguous policy concerning rights is more important than
the specifics of the actual approach that they adopt.
Institutions must also consider the business case. Although the
marginal costs of mounting learning resources may be small in terms
of hardware and software, these costs will increase over time and could
become significant. The major costs, however, fall to the teacher in
producing high-quality material. There are also costs in quality control:
poorly produced or inaccurate material will reflect badly on the institution.
And in many subjects the material will need to be kept up to date.

Issues for the Teacher and Author
A lot of existing course material, perhaps the majority, is not in a
suitable form for making it openly available. It was written, often in a
hurry, for internal consumption only. Few teachers would wish to expose
such material to their peers, let alone make it more widely available.
Most handouts and similar courseware also contain some third-party
materials taken from publications or other copyrighted resources.3 To
make it publicly available would require obtaining permission from the
rights holder, time consuming at best and sometimes impossible, either
because it is not possible to discover who the owners are (these are known
as orphan works) or how to contact them, or because they will not reply. In
some cases the author will seek financial compensation and this may well


preclude the possibility of making the resource openly available. Clearing
third-party rights for text materials can be expensive and time consuming;
it becomes even more so for nontext materials such as photographs,
moving images, and sound and can be prohibitive where performing rights
(plays, dance, and so forth) are concerned.

Issues for Policy Makers Worldwide
Despite these difficulties, there is a growing interest in many
countries, from national education policy and funding bodies, to
encourage and facilitate the creation of an open layer of scholarly and
academic content made up of research outputs and data and learning
and teaching materials. This is increasingly seen more in terms of
encouraging universities and colleges to build and populate reposi-
tories, and less in terms of building large central libraries of learning
materials. The challenge now is to join these institutional repositories
not just within a country but internationally.
Such a layer of organized and quality-assured content has enormous
value: it can be reused (or repurposed, in the jargon) by other teachers; it
supplements and complements the more formal material provided to
students; it provides students with resources to enable them to learn at their
own pace with some freedom from time and place; it lifts the knowledge
base of society as a whole. As such, it is a vision worth striving for and it
helps maintain the relevance of formal education in the modern Internet age.
But it is not the only model.
Web 2.0 technologies provide a more organic, and many would
argue more exciting, environment for learning.. The content can be,
and often is, made open to all, including students and the general
public. It is not mediated by an educational organization and, in many
case, is not mediated at all. This clearly places an onus on the readers
to apply critical reasoning to what they read, but that is an increasingly
necessary skill in using the web.
The other significant sources of open educational content on the
Internet are websites (whether designed with a pedagogic intention or
otherwise) and Web 2.0 technologies such as wikis, blogs, and shared
multimedia resources (Flickr,YouTube, and so forth) While these are not
unstructured, they are not designed or populated with education as the
sole, or even main, driver, and, as a rule, they are not quality controlled.
However, Web 2.0 offers a dynamic, organic, and exciting environment
that empowers both teachers and learners, whether undertaking formal
education or not, to contribute educationally valuable, and equally educa-


tionally misleading, content in the open domain. As such it is a valid, and
on the whole valuable, part of the open content spectrum.
Although much of the content under the heading of Web 2.0 technol-
ogies, or the simple deposit of web pages, happens outside the control of
formal learning, it should not be assumed that there is not a role here for
the educational institution, and certainly not that the teacher is a passive
contributor. Universities and colleges can, and do, embrace Web 2.0 technol-
ogies as an essential part of the learner support infrastructure; it is a powerful
communication tool for peer-to-peer and student-to-teacher interaction.
It is less common, however, for the institution or teacher to manage, in the
sense of organize or preserve, this material. It thus can only be found, if made
openly available at all, through generic search engines such as Google.
We thus have, potentially, two equally useful open content environ-
ments—one well managed and structured with quality control but
expensive to create and maintain, the other more random in the reach
of the content but almost free. These approaches should be thought of as
complementary but obviously require different actions from institutions
and teachers in order to be exploited.

Summary
There are a number of reasons why teachers and their universities or
colleges might wish to add to the corpus of open content that will eventually
contribute to a worldwide layer of scholarly and educational content:
K It is a marketing opportunity to attract students and to
provide potential students with some insight into the higher
(that is, postcompulsory) education experience, thus helping
to widen access, improve retention, and reduce dropout rates.
K It adds to the body of reusable content to support the
curriculum, particularly helpful for foundation courses (and
remedial training).
K It provides a mechanism for recognizing one aspect of good
teaching and potentially rewarding good teaching.
K It acts as a “shop window” and will be perceived, rightly in
my view, as an indicator of the quality of education, not just
at the individual institution but in the country as a whole; as
such, it encourages more overseas students.
K In many cases it will support the ethos and mission of the
institution, particularly if reaching educationally disadvan-
taged students and promoting distance and flexible learning
are important.


K Finally, by being free to all and empowering students, it
provides an enormous benefit to society at large, whether
regional, national, or worldwide.
Building open educational content is not, however, without
significant cost:
K It is expensive and time consuming to prepare good-quality,
open access content and requires different skills from
preparing normal text-based, printed handouts and course
notes.
K It is usually necessary to prepare the resource for online
dissemination and then, if required, make it available in print
form (perhaps as a book); this is easier than doing it vice
versa.
K The content must be designed to support a suitable
pedagogic approach, which may be and almost certainly is
very different from a traditional teaching methodology.
K Third-party rights must be cleared; this is often difficult and
seldom speedy.
K In effect, the teacher and the institution become a “publisher,”
and they may not have these skills.
K Describing and cataloging (usually through appropriate
metadata) are also not easy and can require specialist skills
(often, but not exclusively, held by librarians); without this,
the material can be hard to find. And if it cannot be found,
then what is the point of making it open?
K A platform for storing and delivering the content is required:
perhaps a repository or perhaps a leaning management system.
K Finally, in addition to the problems of cost and the
requirement of different skills for participants, there remains
the challenge of finding a sustainable business model and
sustaining the necessary culture change by recognizing and
rewarding high-quality and valuable (not synonymous with
well-used) content.4

Endnotes
1. Neil Jacobs (Ed.), Open Access: Key Strategic,Technical and Economic Aspects
(Oxford: Chandos Publishing, 2007). See also Open Access, a Joint Information
Systems Committee (JISC) briefing paper, September 1, 2006, which also
has a valuable bibliography, http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/publications/
pub_openaccess_v2.aspx.


2. Neil Beagrie, Julia Chruszcz, and Brian Lavoie, Keeping Research Data Safe,
a Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) report, May 12, 2008, http://
www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/publications/keepingresearchdatasafe.aspx.

3. Carol Fripp and Dennis Macnamara, “Copyright Management in the
World of Learning Objects,” a paper presented at EDUCAUSE in Australasia,
Sydney, Australia, 2003, http://www.aesharenet.com.au/aesharenet/
pdf/147educausepdf.pdf.

4. Further information and analyses of open educational content issues can be
found in Guntram Geser, “Open Educational Practices and Resources: The
OLCOS Roadmap 2012,” Revista de Universidad y Sociedad del Conocimiento 4,
no. 1, 2007, http://www.uoc.edu/rusc/4/1/dt/eng/geser.pdf, and in Andrew
Charlesworth, Nicky Ferguson, Seb Schmoller, Neil Smith, and Rob Tice,
Sharing eLearning Content: A Synthesis and Commentary, Final Report, a Joint
Information Systems Committee (JISC) project report, September 2007,
http://ie-repository.jisc.ac.uk/46.

Bibliography
Beagrie, Neil, Julia Chruszcz, and Brian Lavoie, Keeping Research Data Safe, a
Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) report, May 12, 2008. http://
www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/publications/keepingresearchdatasafe.aspx.

Charlesworth, Andrew, Nicky Ferguson, Seb Schmoller, Neil Smith, and Rob
Tice. Sharing eLearning Content: A Synthesis and Commentary, Final Report, a
Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) project report, September 2007.
http://ie-repository.jisc.ac.uk/46.

Fripp, Carol, and Dennis Macnamara. “Copyright Management in the World
of Learning Objects,” a paper presented at EDUCAUSE in Australasia,
Sydney, Australia, 2003. http://www.aesharenet.com.au/aesharenet/
pdf/147educausepdf.pdf.

Geser, Guntram. “Open Educational Practices and Resources: The OLCOS
Roadmap 2012.” Revista de Universidad y Sociedad del Conocimiento 4, no. 1
(2007). http://www.uoc.edu/rusc/4/1/dt/eng/geser.pdf.

Jacobs, Neil (Ed.). Open Access: Key Strategic,Technical and Economic Aspects.
Oxford: Chandos Publishing, 2007.

Joint Information Systems Committee. Open Access, a JISC briefing paper,
September 1, 2006. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/publications/
pub_openaccess_v2.aspx.


Challenges and Opportunities
of Open Source in Higher
Education
Ira H. Fuchs

T he combination of expanding demand for IT services on college
and university campuses, coupled with flat or declining budgets
at many institutions, is arguably the greatest systematic challenge
facing higher education IT during the next several years. It puts pressure on
IT organizations to juggle “keeping the lights on” with the need to provide
innovative technology platforms that support new levels of collaboration and
promote strategic agility for institutions as well as their faculty and students.
The pressures will only be exacerbated, for many institutions, by the
arrival of federally funded, next-generation “cyberinfrastructure” that will
require installation, adaptation, training, local administration, and support. If
institutions do not have in place an IT infrastructure that can support these
new arrivals efficiently, the cumulative burden on IT staff and budgets
could be formidable, even unsustainable. Moreover, even if these cyberin-
frastructure platforms are integrated, institutions face significant challenges
in diffusing their islands of expertise broadly to the campus community.
One interesting potential strategy for dealing with these problems
is the model of “community-source” software (CSS) production.
Another is the move to a services-oriented architecture (SOA). Both
strategies show significant promise, but it remains an open question as
to how much of that promise can actually be achieved. The next few
years will be crucial for both.

Community-Source Software (CSS)
During the last eight years, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation’s
Research in Information Technology program (Mellon/RIT) has made
significant investments in CSS projects to build open source IT infra-
structure, particularly learning management (http://www.sakaiproject.
org) and enterprise resource planning (http://www.kuali.org) systems.

Open Source Software in Higher Education 151

These efforts are continuing: The Kuali project released the first version
of its Kuali Financial System (KFS) this year; KFS has just recently
gone into production at its first nonfounder institution; and the Kuali
community is organizing to deliver a student information system as
well. Moreover, community source initiatives have now been initiated
in the academic library IT community (http://oleproject.org) and for
the support, via shared technology services, of scholarship in the arts and
humanities (http://www.projectbamboo.org). The premise behind these
projects is that community-source approaches result in better quality,
better fitted, more sustainable, and mission-critical software for higher
education. Mellon/RIT and others have made the case for CSS as an
alternative to proprietary commercial or home-built software in many
places during the last several years. I will not repeat it here, but interested
readers are invited to explore further.1
In a community-source project, a consortium of colleges and univer-
sities comes together to build software needed by each of them, contrib-
uting resources to a virtual organization that serves as a software devel-
opment shop. As both designers and customers, they build software tailored
to their own needs; the involvement of multiple, diverse institutions
ensures that the product is usable by many other institutions as well, and
Mellon provides support to offset the costs of collaboration and general-
ization. After the product is first delivered, control and governance over the
project are released to the higher education community on an open source,
participatory basis: Institutions contribute human and capital resources to
maintain and enhance the software and govern the intellectual property
of the project via participatory mechanisms. The open source nature of
the project is critical: It protects institutions against vendor lock-in, allows
them to share the costs of maintenance and enhancement widely, and
permits widespread innovation at minimal cost.
Because CSS is designed and built by and for higher education, the
“adaptation gap” between community-source software and a particular
institution should be much smaller than that between commercial software
(which is typically designed for the vendor’s much larger, for-profit
markets) and higher education. The result should be software that is
cheaper to install and customize and that, because it is open source, is also
far cheaper over time to maintain and enhance. Those savings may occur
immediately, but it is more likely that they will only occur over time,
as the software matures. Potentially even more important, the resulting
software should be better fitted to the needs of higher education than its
commercial competitors, both because it is newer (a transient advantage)
and because it is built for and by its own customers (a durable advantage).


However, community-source software is still new, so the question
of whether it is truly cheaper and/or better fitted to the needs of
higher education institutions is still open. The next several years will
tell if the promise can be realized—but it would be to the advantage
of higher education to move up this timetable as much as possible. If
CSS delivers on its promise of substantial savings and/or improved
outcomes, then the sooner institutions are made aware of that fact,
the more resources higher education as a whole can save; if it does
not deliver those benefits, then the sooner the participating institu-
tions know, the sooner they can either correct the problem or seek
an alternative, better strategy. In either case, large sums of money can
be saved, across all of higher education, by quicker, better answers
to the core questions surrounding CSS. A quicker answer would
require a concerted effort by an objective party to bring together the
higher education community to conduct a formative and summative
assessment of one or more CSS projects.
Next, assuming that CSS proves to be advantageous for at least some
purposes and institutions, there is a need for some coordinating entity to
assist them with the next stages of growth. CSS projects require a variety
of logistical assistance, from conference planning to legal consultation on
matters of tax status and intellectual property licensing. Many of these
needs were detailed in the Mellon-funded EDUCORE/OOSS study
(http://www.ithaka.org/strategic-services/oss/OOSS_Report_FINAL.
pdf). If CSS realizes its promise, the number of CSS projects is likely to
grow to the point where the proliferation of CSS governance organizations
could itself become burdensome to higher education. Collecting these
entities under one umbrella would make possible substantial efficiencies in
service delivery; doing so proactively would further increase savings and
provide other potential synergies as well.

Services-Oriented Architecture (SOA)
Many higher education institutions are excited about the promise of
services-oriented architectures for increasing flexibility and cutting costs.
The opportunities are real, but there are significant challenges as well.
One significant opportunity is the chance to reduce the increasing burden
resulting from the steadily growing number of “siloed” applications that
a campus must support. Reconfiguring these applications into services
running in a common environment can drastically reduce the amount of
redundant software code that institutions must support, cutting costs and
improving the ease of collaboration.


Another opportunity is the chance to accommodate newly arriving
cyberinfrastructure in a way that is affordable and sustainable. Without
SOA, each cyberinfrastructure project would need to be treated as its
own silo and adapted to the campus (and to all other cyberinfrastructure
projects) individually; with SOA, one can hope to integrate each new
project more painlessly into the common enterprise architecture. The
cost difference between the two approaches may make the difference
between unsustainable and sustainable cyberinfrastructure for many higher
education institutions.
Yet another opportunity is the promise SOA holds for reducing
boundaries between higher education campuses. In an increasingly global
higher education community, technology is too often a barrier to collabo-
ration and the exchange of ideas. SOA holds some promise of lowering
those campus boundaries.
However, even SOA enthusiasts only claim that SOA makes possible
the benefits they enumerate; few would claim that SOA makes such
benefits inevitable. Pursued with insufficient forethought, or even just
campus by campus, SOA is less likely to deliver on its promised benefits.
SOA is as much an organizational as a technological innovation and, as
such, careful design, training, governance, and support are all crucial to its
success. In particular, campuses that do not understand their own business
models are at a significant disadvantage when implementing SOA. Without
careful forethought, applying SOA locally to a single application or a single
campus may simply copy the problems of the current IT infrastructure
into the SOA design. Even with such forethought, SOA designed and built
campus by campus is far more likely to replicate today’s campus boundaries
in tomorrow’s technology than is SOA designed and built by institutions
working together. If SOA is to provide the multi-institutional collaborative
support that higher education users are demanding, it will need to be built
by higher education acting as a whole. Even if individual campus efforts
could be coordinated retroactively to achieve nearly the same collaborative
result—which is by no means certain—that path would require resources
and time that higher education can ill afford.
These opportunities and challenges suggest a role for a coordinating
and educational entity around the issue of SOA in higher education.
Such an entity could make it a priority to help higher education institu-
tions equip themselves with the knowledge and skills required to make
a successful transition to SOA. A combination of training and consulting
services could help IT leaders with process and project management
skills, as well as providing materials to educate key campus stakeholders
in the costs, benefits, and skills required to make the SOA transition.


At a deeper level of engagement, the entity could assist in coordi-
nating SOA design exercises among many higher education institutions.
These exercises could be modeled on the design workshops developed
by the CSS community (http://educationcommons.org/projects/
display/CSSSS/Home) and could bring together diverse institutions to
analyze their respective business processes and develop specifications
for SOA-based higher education enterprise IT environments that could
meet the needs of institutions of every size and type. Moreover, the entity
could provide coordination and support for consortia and virtual organi-
zations working to build the software according to the workshop designs.
This role is also anticipated in the EDUCORE/OOSS study; it suggests
that a single entity might be able to fulfill the mentoring and steering
role for both CSS and SOA, going forward.

Diffusing Cyberinfrastructure
The challenge posed to campuses by incoming cyberinfrastructure is a
variant of an old campus problem: how does an institution take the techno-
logical expertise concentrated in relatively small islands on campus—histori-
cally, the computer science department and perhaps one or two others—and
diffuse it broadly, to provide equal support to, say, faculty and students in the
arts and humanities? As one wag put it, getting technology delivered to the
arts and humanities in higher education today is a little like trying to get a
pizza delivered to a house in the suburbs … in 1927.
Because of Mellon’s long-standing commitment to the arts and
humanities, we consider this a particularly important question. Our best
current answer has two parts: Infrastructure is essential, and it must be
designed for the recipients, not the donors, of the expertise. One cannot
deliver technology ad hoc, to unsophisticated users, and expect much
sustained benefit. Even if one deploys the training and support resources
required to make that piece of technology a success, users wishing to grow
beyond that project will still have nowhere to go. For sustainability, such
projects must be embedded in an infrastructure that reduces the cost of
generalizing expertise gleaned in one project for use in other projects—
and that reduces the costs of mounting those other projects so that each
one need not require extraordinary effort.
All this will still not be enough if the infrastructure provided does
not accommodate the actual users. For example, most NSF-funded
cyberinfrastructure projects are built by and for scientists. They assume
a level of technical competence and programming sophistication that
does not exist in arts and humanities disciplines; in some cases, even


the metaphors that underlie the user interface are scientific and, as
such, foreign to humanists. Even if one could strip out the scientific
content of such a project and replace it with humanistic content, those
platforms could never serve as an adequate infrastructure for humanists
today. Consequently, Mellon/RIT is supporting initiatives to build infra-
structure by and for the arts and humanities. One such project is SEASR,
the Software Environment for the Advancement of Scholarly Research
(http://seasr.org), which is currently in beta release. SEASR provides an
analytics platform that is as capable as many of the cyberinfrastructure
platforms in the physical and biological sciences but differs in two key
respects: (1) It is optimized for the analysis of unstructured data (text and
rich media), rather than the structured data of scientific projects, and (2)
it is intended to have a humanist-friendly user interface—one that uses
language, images, and metaphors that are familiar and intuitive to people
with no mathematical or programming backgrounds.
SEASR is one step in a planned series of initiatives culminating in
the development of a comprehensive technology platform for the arts
and humanities. This platform will support the management of scholarly
content and collaboration throughout the scholarly life cycle—from
creation, to collaboration, to review, to publishing. Experience suggests that
such a platform, if built for the least technologically sophisticated disci-
plines, will be just as useful and easily adopted/adapted by more sophisti-
cated disciplines—where the reverse is far from true. That is a lesson that
any higher education institution wishing to ensure parity of technology
support among all its faculty would do well to remember.

CSS and SOA Together
One can use CSS models to build SOA projects; in fact, several
initiatives are under way now to develop the necessary infrastructure to
support SOA-based CSS projects. Mellon/RIT has funded the Kuali
Student project (http://student.kuali.org/) as a “pure” SOA-based, next-
generation student information system. As part of its work, Kuali Student
will deliver the essential infrastructure required for an enterprise-quality,
higher education–specific SOA environment. Also, the Kuali Rice
initiative (http://rice.kuali.org/) is extracting essential shared technologies
(including messaging, event notification, workflow, and a service bus) from
the existing Kuali projects so that they can be used even by institutions that
have not installed the Kuali applications; the Kuali Enterprise Workflow
tool, in particular, has already achieved independent adoption in several
other administrative capacities.


The SEASR project, already mentioned, is using SOA to support
humanities computing projects such as MONK (text mining; http://
www.monkproject.org/) and NEMA (music information retrieval;
http://nema.lis.uiuc.edu/). Mellon/RIT also funds a user interface layer
(http://www.fluidproject.org) and supports a data management infra-
structure (for example, http://www.fedora.info, http://wiki.fluidproject.
org/display/collectionspace/, http://oleproject.org). Other key pieces of
SOA-based, CSS-built infrastructure, such as event and resource calen-
daring software, are planned. Each project uses open standards–based
interfaces to permit it to be used integrally with the others—or with
whatever mix of commercial and open source alternatives a particular
institution might wish to employ.
One key objective of the projects that utilize a service-oriented archi-
tecture is to allow institutions maximal freedom to tailor an enterprise
infrastructure that both serves their distinctive institutional needs and
supports easy, standards-based collaboration within and across institutional
borders. A second major objective is to provide an environment in which
new demands on IT can be accommodated as they arise, in the most
affordable, efficient way possible.

Conclusion: CSS and Coordination
Building a multiproject CSS environment introduces organizational
and coordination challenges that are greater than those associated with
any single project. The various projects must remain coordinated over time
because they must continue to work together effectively. Their licensing
and other requirements must be congruent, so that institutions are not
caught between warring policies. Perhaps most important, their adminis-
trative overhead must be managed in such a way that it does not become
burdensome to institutions to support the entire environment. Given the
significant overlap among these initiatives, the current practice of creating
a new organizational entity to oversee each project is a form of local
optimization that may prove to be very inefficient in the long run. Worse
yet, too many supporting organizations may impede the coordination that
is needed if we are to realize a whole that is substantially greater than the
sum of its parts.
If a single entity were already aiding CSS projects with coordination,
these challenges would all be more manageable. If that same entity were
also helping to educate the higher education community about SOA,
then it would be ideally positioned to make intelligent decisions about
how best to advance projects like MESA. The Sakai Foundation and the


Kuali Foundation are both doing an excellent job of orchestrating their
respective projects (indeed, Kuali is already the home for several related
efforts); however, both are also constructed by charter with missions that
are domain specific rather than focused on the needs of higher education
broadly. It may be time to step back and look at the bigger picture, to see
if higher education can simultaneously improve efficiency while creating
a new technology infrastructure that will serve our needs now and well
into the future.

Endnote
1. See, for example, Bradley C. Wheeler, “Open Source 2010: Reflections on
2007,” EDUCAUSE Review (January/February 2007): 48–67, or Christopher
J. Mackie, “Open Source in Open Education: Promises and Challenges,” in
Opening Up Education:The Collective Advancement of Education Through Open
Technology, Open Content, and Open Knowledge, ed. Toru Iiyoshi and Vijay Singh
(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, forthcoming).


Who Puts the Education into
Open Educational Content?
Andy Lane

T he concept of open content was first mooted by David Wiley in
1998.1 Although he was referring to all types of content, he was
mainly thinking of educational content because of his interest in
enabling easier construction of educational materials from a repository of
learning objects. When MIT decided in 2001 to make freely available on
the web, under an open license, much of the content used or produced by
its faculty to support their teaching, it chose the term OpenCourseWare
for that content (see http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Global/AboutOCW/
our-story.htm). In 2002, the term open educational resources (OER) was
adopted at a UNESCO forum2 and is becoming the term used most often
for this phenomenon.

What Is Open Educational Content?
Whatever term may be applied to this phenomenon, open content is
largely digital stuff (music, images, words, animations) created by somebody
who has attached an open license to it. (I recognize that analogue versions
of open content can exist and be used by people but the reuse of such
content under the open license is extremely curtailed by their analogue
format.) In other words, the content is openly available (it can readily be
found or discovered), is openly accessible (it is in a form in which others
can take it away), and is openly reusable (the user can easily modify it and
is allowed under the license to do certain things with it without having
to ask the creator’s permission first). This is in contrast to full-rights-
reserved copyright, where reuse is always closed to users unless they seek
and are granted permission, and where rights holders normally restrict the
content’s availability and accessibility in many different ways to avoid illegal
use of the material. That is almost all I will say on the rights issues around
open content because I am more interested here in exploring the condi-
tions under which any content, open or closed, may be educational, before
looking at the additional implications of open content.

Who Puts the Education into Open Educational Content? 159

Who Creates Educational Content?
The creators of any digital stuff (my wider term for content)
will have had in mind at least two purposes for the stuff: what
they expect users of the stuff will use it for (entertainment, infor-
mation, education, and so forth) and what they themselves want to
achieve through creating it (personal fulfillment, reputation, income,
influence, and so forth).
The users of the stuff also have at least two purposes for it: what
they personally want to gain from it as it stands (entertainment, infor-
mation, education, and so forth) and what else they might want to do
with it for themselves or to share with others (which may be the same
set of purposes that the primary creator had in mind). While this same
argument applies to closed, or fully copyrighted, stuff, the effect of an
open license is that users are not just primary consumers of the stuff,
they are also enabled to use the stuff as feedstock for creating their own
stuff (as secondary creators) without seeking the direct permission of
the primary creator.
This principle of a community of users, all creators and consumers at
different times, underlies the whole philosophy of the creative commons,
where everyone (in theory) can build upon the work of others for the
greater benefit of all by creating more stuff that helps the wider economy
and is not locked away or underexploited.
It follows that open content becomes an open educational
resource for which the creator, most likely a teacher in some form, had
education as a major purpose or intent for that open content. It also
follows that users of open content, learners or teachers, can declare it
to be an open educational resource if they also are primarily using it
for educational purposes, even if the primary creator did not have that
in mind. In principle, all stuff can be given an educational purpose.
So, what makes it effective at educating or enabling someone to learn
from it as it stands—whether as a learner, to learn the subject matter,
or as a teacher, to learn how that subject matter has been structured or
presented as educational material?
To explore this further I will use the simple idea that content is a
mediating object between a teacher and a learner, with each interacting
separately with it. In many open or distance learning situations, and
especially with OER, all the mediation occurs through the content as
object. In face-to-face or computer-mediated-conferencing teaching and
learning situations, there is the added benefit of interactions between the
teacher and the learners and between fellow learners around that content
as a mediating object.


Teacher–Content Interaction
The first aspect to consider is the degree of meaning associated with
the content. Thus, content can be primarily concerned with simple data
or information (for example, that dogs have fur), through more complex
information or knowledge (for example, why dogs have fur and why
different dogs have different types and amounts of fur), to the drawing
out of generalizations from the particular (for example, the conceptual
reasons why all mammals have fur and the general models or hypotheses
that enable predictions to be made for new examples of mammals). This
external knowledge, where information and experience taken from the
world have already been transformed, analyzed, tested, evaluated, and stored
in some form, is the basis of education.
An educational resource is one in which the creators have made
sense of the existing public information and experiences of others to
create something that embodies their own interpretation of that infor-
mation and experiences in a structured way. An effective educational
resource is one in which the structure or design of the resource is aimed
at increasing the chances that inexperienced or less knowledgeable
learners can both internalize that external knowledge and be able to
demonstrate their own interpretation of that knowledge (I deal further
with the learner’s capabilities below).
The second aspect is the degree of engagement and interaction
that learners are encouraged to have with the structured digital content
(detailed reviews of interaction in online learning or computer-mediated
higher education are given by Wallace3 and Godwin4). This engagement
and interaction can be achieved by the creator’s inclusion of specified
learning outcomes (that is, statements that set out what the creator
is expecting the learner to learn from engaging with the educational
resource) as well as inclusion of activities within the resource that are
aimed at getting the learners to demonstrate (to themselves at least) that
they have probably learned what was expected of them. This is a basic
tenet of learning design that has been well explicated by Dyke and his
colleagues,5 but it is important to recognize how limited are the opportu-
nities for creator-designed learning activities if the interaction is solely by
the learner with the content, and not also by the learner with a teacher and
the learner with other learners, as explained by Moore.6 Of course, more
knowledgeable and sophisticated learners are able to instantiate their own
“learning activities” by which they internalize new (to them) knowledge.
The major limitation for learning activities that a teacher embeds
within educational resources is that any feedback to the responses that
learners make to an activity has to be either predetermined or left to the


learners to judge for themselves. This is even the case with many “intel-
ligent” computer-based systems, because such sophisticated feedback
systems are still based on predetermined responses to the learner’s behavior,
albeit a greater range and more styles of responses. In this sense there are
no direct opportunities for the learners to use dialogue with someone else
to help recommunicate or negotiate their own interpretation of what they
have learned. This can hinder less confident and inexperienced learners
who have yet to develop their metalevel skills in learning to learn and
managing their own knowledge in a specified field.
This distinction in the way educational content is structured
for different purposes can be clearly seen in the differences between
OpenCourseWare in the style provided by MIT (http://ocw.mit.edu/
index.html), consisting largely of educational resources without pedagogic
structure or learning design that require sophistication in the user (which can
be expected in other educators and graduate-level students, who are their
primary targets) as compared to many of the open, distance, and e-learning
style resources seen on OpenLearn (http://www.open.ac.uk/openlearn)
from the UK Open University (UKOU), where the resources are designed
to help less sophisticated learners readily engage with them (which matches
the UKOU’s aims to widen participation in higher education).
The majority of OER developed so far have been of the MIT
OpenCourseWare (OCW) type. These are basically resources derived from
and supporting a classroom-based approach to teaching, where there is a
single teacher or tutor involved in teaching a course. This approach (which
I have called OER 1.0) has many entailments.
First, it is interesting to other teachers and lecturers because it relates
closely to what they have to do, providing lesson plans, reading lists, and so
forth from acknowledged leaders in their field.
Second, it is of interest to current MIT undergraduate students
choosing their next course, prospective undergraduate students who can
more clearly see what they will be signing up for, and students from other
higher education institutions who can compare these resources with what
their institution provides.
Third, however, OCW is not as readily accessible and understandable
by those lacking confidence and formal qualifications and is not ideal
for self-study unless you are a skilled self-studier or independent learner.
OCW constitutes a set of resources, not pedagogically designed open
learning materials.
Fourth, while OCW is translated, used, and adapted by others, it is
largely on a bilateral basis between individuals and the originating institu-
tions and between two institutions. The software support environment


does not easily facilitate the collaborative development of OER because
each wants to have a highly localized version rather than work on a single
common version. In a similar vein, there is no supporting environment for
learners to engage with each other over the study of these resources.
The second major approach to OER (OER 2.0) is that of creating
self-study materials whereby the content has been designed to be more
accessible to study without significant prior educational experience
or qualifications in that subject and has been placed in a learning
environment that does encourage some learner–learner interaction and
possibly learner–teacher interaction, thus adding to the range of activities
and tasks that can support learning. This approach brings in additional
entailments that I deal with below.

Learner–Content Interaction
The abilities and motivations of learners are much influenced by
their previous educational experiences, often measured by their success in
gaining educational qualifications, the value placed on learning by their
families and social/cultural group, and the amount of time and space
that can be afforded to learning within their work and home commit-
ments. Further, there is the distinction between formal learning, where
achievement is recognized through assessment practices and has value in
the labor market, and nonformal learning, where self-assessment is a bigger
feature and provides self-gratification but where it is harder to demon-
strate that “success” to others, particularly employers. All these features can
influence how much time an individual learner will take to achieve the
given or self-set learning goals.
With educational materials, the presumed level of understanding
involved in terms of the complexity and sophistication of the ideas
presented and need for prerequisite knowledge is mixed up with the form
in which such material is presented to the learner, in particular the levels
of interactivity and integration.7 To some degree, where there are stated
learning outcomes, these provide another measure of knowing when
learning has been achieved; where there are not learning outcomes, the
task becomes more open ended. Even so, different media influence the
style and amount of information that can be absorbed and then processed
by the learner.8
Learning can arise from the interaction between the learner and the
content and is a property of the learner, a change in their “knowing” about
the world as they interpret it. Whether the content is static (for example,
text) or dynamic (for example, animation), is linear (for example, audio) or


nonlinear (for example, a concept map), it becomes interactive only when
a learner engages with it. It is through interaction that learners make sense
of what they are interacting with, reconfiguring their mental map of how
things fit together and the nature of the links between them.
The degree of sense making resulting from these interactions, whether
it is surface learning or deep learning, depends on the abilities and capabil-
ities of the learner. With content that is designed for educational purposes,
then, the creator has already provided a sense making structure to the
material and learners are either accepting this given sense making structure
or adding new sense making structures of their own, that is, providing a
new interpretation or formulation, either internally as part of their mental
map or externally in the form of a new piece of content (most obviously
as their own notes or as the product of a given assignment).

Teacher–Learner and Learner–Learner
Interactions
It is this testing or assessment element that can most enhance the
educational effectiveness of content, because it is the testing of the
meaning of new knowledge against existing knowledge within a learner’s
mental map that is a key aspect of learning. That is why assessment activ-
ities (show me what you know and can do) need to be tied to learning
outcomes (what I want you to know and do) and often why less experi-
enced learners benefit a lot from discussion with teachers or other learners,
as they test their understanding of new knowledge against the under-
standing of the teacher and other learners. Until recently, open educa-
tional materials tended to be print based, but the essence of digital OER
is that computer- and web-based technologies provide greater scope for
learners to be able to interact with more than just the content if they are
informal distance learners and not part of a structured, taught course. There
is a greater opportunity to shift from informal learning being a private,
individual activity to a public, more social activity. Thus, a key feature of
open educational resources is that they have the capability to be dynamic
rather than passive in nature, are supportive of communication between
users rather than simply information sharing, and move away from just
individual interaction with the content to more social engagement with a
shared discourse.9
A consequence of the increased opportunities for sharing and
creating new content, whether that is new versions of existing content
or new material supplementing or augmenting the existing content, is
not only that the creators (teachers) need to think carefully about the


learning design of their materials but also that users (learners) need to
think about or be helped to understand their own learning processes as
well as collaborate or cooperate in that learning design. In effect, both
creators and learners need to realize that content is merely a mediating
object between all those involved in education and is not itself the
repository of learning. Individual learning lies in the minds of people
and is demonstrated in the sense making that lies within the content they
produce by themselves, but social learning10 can be expressed through
the collective, additional sense making that user-generated content by a
community of practice enables.11

Ensuring Quality of Open Educational
Content
I have articulated some basic design principles that teachers can use
for creating effective educational content, but how do I know it is good
quality teaching material as a (naïve) learner (or even teacher)? Building
upon what I have said already, there are three main features of quality that
need to be considered when answering this question:
1. Is the material academically sound in that it appropriately
covers the body of knowledge and meaning for that topic?
2. Is it pedagogically robust in that the way the material has
been structured matches a stated pedagogical model and sets
out appropriate learning outcomes and ways of assessing
those outcomes?
3. Is the way the material is presented through the chosen media
helpful in enabling learners to meet the learning outcomes?
For many OER the quality assurance is carried out by the originating
institution since the materials are derived from mainstream teaching activ-
ities that are already subject to quality assurance processes. Some aspects,
such as academic and presentational quality, may be left to other authorities
to manage, for example, publishers of textbooks. In essence, the overall
quality of OER sourced from universities comes from existing procedures
of small-scale peer review within the university community and the insti-
tution acting as a gatekeeper.
This is different from those OER that are derived from the efforts
of either individuals (as in the Connexions site) or a broader community
(as in Wikiversity), where the overall quality of such OER is judged using
open peer-rating or -reviewing mechanisms. In some cases the nature and
form of the authoring and publishing environment means that the presen-
tational quality and some parts of the pedagogic quality can be reasonably


assured. It is the academic quality that has to be earned, either through
the existing authority of the originator or by proving oneself to be an
authority by the ratings of this broader peer community.

What Makes Open Educational Content
Effective (Again)?
I have argued above that the effectiveness of open educational
material is usually improved where there is a clear sense making
structure, a narrative that relates to explicit learning outcomes. It
also helps to have formal or informal assessment tasks or learning
activities linked to those learning outcomes. A single image or video
clip will usually lack an explicit narrative or learning outcome and
therefore places much greater demands on the users to construct
their own narratives and implicit learning outcomes without the
help of a mediator (teacher). Ideally, OER should be presented in
an environment that allows different users (learners and creators) to
communicate with each other, to develop a discourse that adds another
sense making layer to that present in the original material.
Evaluating the effectiveness of just the assets cannot be done without
taking into account the context in which they are used. First, OER can be
a replacement for closed educational resources, that is, ones developed by
teachers for their own use. Second, they can also be a supplement where
educational resources are scarce.
In both cases they can make a difference to teachers because in
principle, institutionally quality-assured and/or collectively developed
resources should be much better than those individuals can develop on
their own (the wisdom of the crowd). This will free the teacher from
being a major developer of resources (teacher-centered) to devoting more
time to being a supporter of learning (learner-centered). This may lead
to greater levels of achievement by the learners, but a more significant
measure will be teacher and student satisfaction levels with both the
learning resources and the teacher support. The happier they are, the more
conducive will be the learning environment.
Some learners can still achieve whatever the environment, but others
need support. Open educational resources do not ensure that overall
standards will be higher, that a greater proportion of students will achieve
the highest grades, but they can increase the absolute numbers of people
participating and provide a greater range of ways for people to learn, to
give them more control of when and how they learn rather than having to
fit in with selective, predetermined opportunities.


So who puts the education into open educational content? At the
moment the teachers do most of this, but they also need the learners
to play their part. And if we accept that there is a large informal and
nonformal side to education that can be nurtured by OER, then in theory,
and hopefully in practice, everyone can be a teacher as well as a learner and
put the education into their own open educational content.

Endnotes
1. David Wiley, “The Current State of Open Educational Resources,” Open
Content Blog, posted February 3, 2006, http://opencontent.org/blog/
archives/247.

2. UNESCO, Final Report, from the Forum on the Impact of
OpenCourseWare for Higher Education in Developing Countries, Paris, July
1–3, 2002, http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001285/128515e.pdf.

3. Raven Wallace, “Online Learning in Higher Education: A Review
of Research on Interactions among Teachers and Students,” Education,
Communication and Information 3, no. 2 (2003): 241–80.

4. Steve Godwin, A Preliminary Evaluation of the Concepts of Interaction and
Interactivity in Computer Mediated Learning Environments, The Impact of
Interaction and Integration in Computer Mediated Higher Education
(ICHE) Project Report 1, 2005, http://kn.open.ac.uk/public/document
.cfm?docid=6083.

5. Martin Dyke, Grainne Conole, Andrew Ravenscroft, and Sara de Freitas,
“Learning Theory and Its Application to E-Learning,” in Contemporary Perspectives
in E-Learning Research:Themes, Methods, and Impact on Practice, ed. Grainne Conole
and Martin Oliver (Oxford, UK: Routledge-Falmer, 2007), 82–97.

6. Michael G. Moore, “Editorial: Three Types of Interaction,” The American
Journal of Distance Education 3, no. 2 (1989): 1–6, http://www.ajde.com/
Contents/vol3_2.htm.

7. Mary Thorpe, Interaction and Integration in Computer-Mediated Teaching in
Higher Education: Researching the Combined Impact of Pedagogy and Technology,
The Impact of Interaction and Integration in Computer-Mediated Education
(ICHE) Project Report 2, 2005, http://kn.open.ac.uk/public/document.
cfm?docid=6084.

8. Mary Thorpe and Steve Godwin, The Study Workload Implications of
Computer-Mediated Interaction, The Impact of Interaction and Integration in
Computer-Mediated Education (ICHE) Project Report 4, 2006, http://
kn.open.ac.uk/public/document.cfm?docid=7857.


9. Grainne Conole, “Activity Based Learning: Making the Right Choices
for Successful Learning Design,” invited keynote address at the Center for
Learning Technology Sixth Annual E-Learning Conference, Trinity College,
Dublin, May 2006, streaming video available at http://www.tcd.ie/CAPSL/
clt/index.php?page=events.

10. Etienne Wenger, Communities of Practice, Learning, Meaning, and Identity (New
York: Cambridge University Press, 1998).

11. Simon Buckingham-Shum, “From Open Content Repositories to Open
Sense-Making Communities,” in Proceedings of OpenEd 2005: Advancing the
Effectiveness and Sustainability of Open Education Conference, 24–28 (Logan, UT:
Center for Open Sustainable Learning, 2005), http://cosl.usu.edu/events/
opened2005/docs/opened2005-proceedings.pdf.

Bibliography
Buckingham-Shum, S. “From Open Content Repositories to Open
Sense-Making Communities.” In Proceedings of OpenEd 2005: Advancing the
Effectiveness and Sustainability of Open Education Conference, 24–28. Logan, UT:
Center for Open Sustainable Learning, 2005. http://cosl.usu.edu/events/
opened2005/docs/opened2005-proceedings.pdf.

Conole, Grainne. “Activity Based Learning: Making the Right Choices
for Successful Learning Design.” Invited keynote address at the Center for
Learning Technology Sixth Annual E-Learning Conference, Trinity College,
Dublin, May 2006. Streaming video available at http://www.tcd.ie/CAPSL/
clt/index.php?page=events.

Dyke, Martin, Grainne Conole, Andrew Ravenscroft, and Sara de Freitas.
“Learning Theory and Its Application to E-Learning.” In Contemporary Perspectives
in E-Learning Research:Themes, Methods, and Impact on Practice, edited by Grainne
Conole and Martin Oliver, 82–97. Oxford, UK: Routledge-Falmer, 2007.

Godwin, Simon J. A Preliminary Evaluation of the Concepts of Interaction and
Interactivity in Computer Mediated Learning Environments, ICHE Project Report
1, 2005. http://kn.open.ac.uk/document.cfm?docid=6083.

Moore, Michael. “Editorial: Three Types of Interaction.” The American Journal of
Distance Education 3, no. 2 (1989): 1–6.

Open Content Blog. http://opencontent.org.

Thorpe, Mary. Interaction and Integration in Computer Mediated Teaching in Higher
Education: Researching the Combined Impact of Pedagogy and Technology. ICHE
Project Report 2, 2005. http://kn.open.ac.uk/document.cfm?docid=6084.


Thorpe, Mary, and Simon Godwin. The Study Workload Implications of Computer-
Mediated Interaction. ICHE Project Report 4, 2006. http://kn.open.ac.uk/
document.cfm?docid=7857.

UNESCO. Final Report. Forum on the Impact of Open CourseWare for
Higher Education in Developing Countries, Paris, July 1–3, 2002. http://
unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001285/128515e.pdf.

Wallace, Raven M. “Online Learning in Higher Education: A Review
of Research on Interactions among Teachers and Students.” Education,
Communication and Information 3, no. 2 (2003): 241–280.

Wenger, Etienne. Communities of Practice, Learning, Meaning, and Identity. New
York: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Cathedral of Learning, University of Pittsburgh

Scholarship in a
Cloudy World


The Tower, the Cloud,
and Posterity
Richard N. Katz and Paul B. Gandel

T he essays in this volume have dealt in a variety of ways with the
possible impacts of ubiquitous networks, virtualization, open
educational resources, open source software, social networks,
and the evolving cloud of network-mediated services on the tower—the
mission, programs, and services of the college and university. This essay
focuses on the impact of the cloud on one critical aspect of the college or
university mission—the identification and preservation of the spoken or
written record of human activity.
Among other things, colleges and universities are storehouses. Gates and
towers—in architecture and in metaphor—have served not only to isolate
the life of the mind from the hubbub of the marketplace, but to preserve
and protect scarce and sacred knowledge artifacts.1 This is among our oldest
and most precious charges. Like the monasteries and scriptoria that preceded
Western universities, the modern college and university is an arbiter, trans-
mitter, and guardian of culture and of the recorded record that comprises a
great deal of humankind’s shared memory. The question that arises, therefore,
in the context of this volume is, Whither posterity? That is, how does the
emergence of the cloud affect both the identification and preservation of
society’s “shared memories” and the role of the college and university in
identifying and preserving this material?
This question, to a great extent, has defined the roles of college and
university archivists, librarians, curators, and others for centuries.The authors
believe that not only is this question of great import to the future of these noble
professions, but the identification and preservation of shared memory is in fact
the glue that holds culture together. Harvard University professor Chris Dede
makes the case that the tacit epistemologies that underlie the technologies
and behaviors characterized collectively as Web 2.0 “differ dramatically from
[what Dede calls] the ‘classical’ perspective—the historic views of knowledge,
expertise, and learning on which formal education is based.” At stake, according
to Dede, is a likely rethinking of the classical view of knowledge as consisting “of
accurate interrelationships among facts, based on unbiased research that produces

The Tower,The Cloud, and Posterity 173

compelling evidence about systemic causes.”2 In our view, humankind’s assump-
tions about the nature of collections—what to collect and what to preserve—are
rooted in what Dede calls classical epistemology.

Record Keeping and Human Memory
Sharing
To parse and address the issues of identifying and preserving shared memory
that are raised by the cloud, it may be helpful to think of record keeping and
human memory sharing in broad sweeps or epochs. Each epoch is defined to a
very great extent by a new and disruptive technology or family of technologies.3

Archivy 1.0
The selection and preservation of knowledge for the purpose of
creating shared memories is not only a precondition for the development
of culture but a survival skill. Preliterate humans survived by documenting,
on rocks and in caves, the existence and location of watering holes,
dangers, religious places and objects, and hunts.
As well, many early human groups engaged in a specialized and
purposeful form of storytelling. Oral speech was in many preliterate cultures
the dominant instrument for preserving and sharing human memory.
This memorized form “was not the vernacular of casual conversation but
an artificially managed language with special rules for memorization, one
of which was rhythm.”4 In the oral tradition, selecting knowledge for
preservation was frequently a responsibility of a tribe or clan’s religious or
secular leadership. The preservation of this knowledge involved an amazing,
complex, and evolving web of social relationships and responsibilities ranging
from inheritance of responsibility for storytelling from father to son, to the
emergence of the epic tradition in poetry in ancient Greece and elsewhere.
Even after the introduction of writing, vestiges of this oral tradition persist.
Official transmitters included the ancient Greek heralds, Roman stento-
rians, and medieval jongleurs and town criers who traveled the European
countryside and cities. Even contemporary religious sermonizers or present-
day political campaigners might be included.5 Officially sanctioned speakers
have long been employed to entertain, transmit news, or generate sanctions
for contemporary and historical events.
As a process for creating shared knowledge or wisdom and of preserving
this wisdom, the oral tradition was highly effective and represents an important
layer of the foundation on which much prehistoric civilization was built.The
“recorded” oral knowledge was remarkably durable. Individuals who were


charged with transmitting socially constructed knowledge were taught things
verbatim, and it was typically a responsibility that was only passed on to genetic
heirs or to people who merited trust. Deviating from a script or improvi-
sation was prohibited. Unless carriers of this knowledge died unexpectedly, the
knowledge was reasonably secure and credible. Moreover, the source (prove-
nance) of the information was also very clear.The village voice was always a
designated person who was trained by his father, who had in turn been trained
by his father, who had been trained by his father, and so on.The community
could be really sure “where this information came from.”
The durability of knowledge preserved in this fashion, however,
was eroded by the emergence of writing. Some of the old stories were
recorded and preserved, some morphed into folklore and legend, and some
disappeared altogether as oral traditions fell into disuse in the wake of an
emergent written tradition.

Archivy 2.0
If humankind’s first efforts to create and preserve shared memory
consisted of chiseling an historical or mythological record in pictures
in stone or transmitting spoken words to transmit culture, survival skills,
and values, then the invention and adoption of writing—alphabetic
knowledge—can be thought of as Archivy 2.0.
The creation of written language can be thought of in this context
as the substitution of (1) one set of symbolic representations for another
(written words for painted or etched pictures) and (2) one storage medium
for another (animal skins, vellum, papyrus for cave walls, memory cells, air).
The invention of writing and of storage media outside the human brain was
revolutionary. The capacity to store shared memories increased immeasurably.
Archivist Oliver W Holmes describes this as permitting the “beginning of a
.
passive reservoir of knowledge.”6 With this expanded capacity came (1) the need
to systematize both shared memories and the physical artifacts that contained
them and (2) the need to create a cadre of people skilled in the creation and
interpretation of recorded knowledge. As well, shared memory now had physical
mass and thus could not be carried from village to city in the minds of story-
tellers, elders, or other icons of the oral tradition.The challenge of these new
realities gave rise to the emergence of libraries, like that in Alexandria, and of
bibliophylakes, a special and influential class of officials charged with the creation,
collection, care, protection, and interpretation of this precious reservoir. Central
to the stature of bibliophylakes and their various successors such as librarians,
archivists, clerks and others was trust.The oral tradition was rooted in the notion
of verbatim transmission of information.While there were, no doubt, lapses of


accuracy, the oral tradition depended to a very great extent on the shared belief
that knowledge that was officially transmitted was accurate.The emergence of
writing and the limited spread of literacy meant that social trust needed to be
spread farther than ever and that the risk of inaccuracy would also rise.Those
charged with creating, collecting, and preserving the human record occupied
high positions of trust, and writing—as a representation of reality— became
subject to the corruptions of memory lapse, linguistic nuance, legibility, omission,
miscopying, and fraud.The rarity of human written recordings and their vulner-
ability to a variety of threats makes scarcity the defining characteristic of shared
memory in this epoch. Other terms that characterize the period (ending around
the invention of movable type) might include durable (but vulnerable), instrumental
(serving largely the power elites), and tightly controlled.

Archivy 3.0
Archivy 2.0 centers on mediating human communications and recording
knowledge through writing on portable media.The central features of Archivy
3.0 are our efforts to (1) produce repeatable verisimilitude in the printed word
and images through mechanical means, (2) enlarge shared memory by prolifer-
ating recorded knowledge, and (3) expand the reach and influence of human
activity through the spoken and written record.These shifts were tectonic in
magnitude and shook the foundations of both how societies think about shared
knowledge and how they determine what knowledge is to be preserved.
The cause of faithfulness in recorded information was aided by the
emergence of the craft of printing. And, of course, the politics of information
are continually changing in the face of (1) the increasing abundance of printed
materials, (2) ever-expanding rates of literacy throughout the world, and (3) the
emergence of English as the global language of business.The impact of printing
and in particular of Gutenberg’s movable type and the commercialization of
abundant paper are well documented.These tectonic shifts resulted in a shift
in record-keeping priorities and skills from a primary concern over protecting
scarce texts to the concerns surrounding knowledge management—finding and
evaluating information of value amidst an increasingly abundant documentary
record.Two later technologies added to the disruptions that define this third
epoch—photography and xerography. And, of course, this epoch witnessed the
emergence of television and radio, whose impact on human communications
cannot be minimized but which will not be examined in this essay.
In 1872, Leland Stanford hired the photographer Edward Muybridge
to settle a bet about whether there was a point in a horse’s gallop when all
four hooves leave the ground. Four years later, Muybridge succeeded in
capturing a horse in motion using a series of 50 cameras. The photographs


were published in a series called The Horse in Motion and show quite clearly
that, contrary to popular belief, a horse did indeed lift all four hooves off the
ground. Muybridge continued to perfect his method of freezing motion into
smaller and smaller pieces of time. He produced hundreds of thousands of
frozen images of motion of people and animals, including himself.
Photography revolutionized the way we thought about the world and our
notions about what we could capture and keep. Photographs rendered their
subjects more faithfully than words and drawings and could be reproduced
faithfully. Photographers traveled the globe capturing, and thus preserving,
monuments and artifacts from faraway lands for people who would never be
able to witness these scenes firsthand. And for those who did venture far from
home, photography made it possible to take family and home with you in the
form of the family picture album. Moreover, as Muybridge first demonstrated,
photography made it possible to capture that which was seemingly invisible,
such as an instant in a horse’s gallop, the microscopic world, and distant galaxies.
Photography unleashed a revolution and passion for capturing the world
around us. It was, perhaps, an innovation that was perfectly suited to Western
society that had embraced empiricism, positivism, and scientific method.
The picture, it seemed, was worth a thousand words.
Sixty-five years after Muybridge captured the collective imagi-
nation with his photographs of horses in motion (1937), American law
student Chester Carlson invented “a copying process based on electrostatic
energy.”7 Carlson’s electrostatic process faithfully reproduced words on a
page in minutes. The importance of this innovation cannot be understated.
This invention simultaneously gave scaling and verisimilitude huge shots
in the arm and changed fundamentally the very nature of the “posterity
problem.” As David Owen put it, “It gave people an extraordinary means
of preserving and sharing information, and it placed the rapid exchange
of complicated ideas within the reach of everyone, becoming the biggest
breakthrough in written communications since Gutenberg.”8
Photography and xerography made it possible for an enormous number
of people to share identical knowledge in different places at roughly the
same time. For those charged with preserving a meaningful record of shared
memory and human experience, these innovations represented a shift from an
era of scarcity to one of abundance.This shift demanded fundamental shifts
in the philosophy and craft of the archivist.With the proliferation of records
came attendant needs to focus on the arrangement of records and on their
provenance. As well, this proliferation fostered a growing need for people and
for methods that could be trusted to facilitate the appraisal of newly abundant
resources and selection of those few records that would faithfully serve the
need for shared memory and historical documentation.


Is the Past, Prologue?
The essence of the history of record keeping over the millennia to this
point can be reduced to a series of broad concerns:
K Can esteemed and valuable information be collected?
K Can we select from among records collected those that will
create meaningful and unbiased documentary record?
◊ Who selects what becomes “shared memory”?
K Can this information be protected and preserved?
K Once collected and appraised for value, can information be found?
K Who has access to the information?
◊ Under what conditions?
◊ Who controls this access?
◊ How easy or affordable is it to gain access?
K Can the information be trusted?
◊ Is it credible?
◊ Is it authentic?
◊ Can we certify its authenticity?
◊ Can we ascertain its provenance?
The shifts that we have described are truly tectonic in magnitude.
They can be summarized in part as seen in Table 1.
The shifts from Archivy 1.0 to Archivy 2.0 set humankind on a
fundamentally new path, and in many ways humanity’s past did not in
fact prepare us well for the future. The shift from information scarcity to
information abundance cannot be understated in either importance or
extent. And study of the history of ideas tells us that the democratization
of information must be viewed as a change of enormous magnitude whose
far-reaching impacts would have been hard to predict.

Table 1. From Archivy 1.0 to Archivy 2.0
FROM TO
Human record is oral. Human record is written.
Knowledge is scarce. Records are abundant.
Archivists are scarce. Archivists are scarce.
Recorded knowledge is durable. Recorded knowledge is durable.
Recording of knowledge is representational Recording of knowledge is literal or facsimile
(reasonably credible). (highly credible).
Preoccupation with preservation. Preoccupation with selection and appraisal.
Information is accessible by elites. Information is accessible by many.
Information is easy to find (if extant). Information is difficult to find.
Information is tightly controlled. Control of information is distributed.
Provenance is clear. Provenance is often traceable.


Archivy 4.0: The Digital Revolution
The shift from Archivy 3.0 to Archivy 4.0 is likely to be similarly
potent. This is the shift to digital record keeping. While it has been only
60 years since the first electronic computers appeared in the 1940s, today
virtually all information is created on computers and stored on optical,
magnetic, or flash memory, tape, or other media. Digitization changes
things profoundly.

New Economics
The economics of digital record keeping derive not from the ever-
increasing costs associated with labor, harvesting trees and refining paper, devel-
oping dyes for ink, labor, recycling expended materials, transporting logs, pulp
and paper, and so forth but from the economics of innovation we call Moore’s
law.The cost of computing, storing, and transmitting digital information
has declined by about 50 percent each passing 18-month period since the
invention of the semiconductor. Using this rule of thumb it is likely that in less
than 10 years it will be possible to store the complete collection of the Library
of Congress on one’s personal storage device.Within 18 years, we will be able
to store the Library of Congress holdings on a key fob–sized memory device.9

Information Is Superabundant
In 2007 computer industry analyst IDC reported that the world
produced 281 exabytes of data that year.10 This amounts to nearly 30,000
times the holdings of the Library of Congress. The amount of infor-
mation published each year continues to grow. Nearly 300,000 books were
published in 2006 alone, an increase of 0.5 percent from 2005 figures.11 On
July 31, 2006, Technorati tracked its 50 millionth blog and about 175,000
new blogs are created each day.12 Podcasts, videos, blogs, wikis, and digital
archives further expand our information sources, and 2.7 billion Google
searches are performed each month. Despite the changing economics,
the cost of storing all information created was estimated by one writer to
approach $7 trillion annually.13

Everything Is Connected
Information stored digitally can be viewed or otherwise shared simul-
taneously by anyone with a computer, compatible software, a web browser,
a digital display, and a network connection. The cost of transporting infor-


mation has dropped to nearly nothing. Digital information can be copied
infinitely, stored inexpensively, viewed at virtually no cost, and disseminated
for pennies. The interconnection of everyone to everything at photonic
speeds shortens the latency time needed to create shared memory and
changes the behavior of those using information. These changes, of course,
make other changes likely, but unpredictable.
Scientific research has already been profoundly changed by the inter-
connection of resources of all kinds on the network. The scale of scientific
research has grown thanks to these interconnections. It is now possible
to leverage the cost of enormous scientific instruments such as telescopes
and particle accelerators over global scientific communities and to provide
simultaneous access to primary research data anywhere on earth.
The role of place in the interconnection of people and information stores
is changing and, in fact, diminishing in importance. Notwithstanding the
changing role of place, the global network is overall increasing the capacity of
repositories to make their collections and data available and to provide great
remote support for researchers, seamless access controls, libraries of software
tools, and sophisticated data management (storage, metadata, and ontology).
The capacity to deliver world class remote services virtually will likely
determine the fate of the modern repository in the future.

Everything Can Be Found
In the era of Archivy 2.0, recorded information was scarce and collec-
tions were precious and professionally managed. In the era of Archivy
3.0, paper-based information became abundant and the tools that were
developed to produce a coherent collection and to extract value for posterity
included records disposition, archival appraisal, arrangement of collections,
and the production of finding aids. The outputs of these activities include
magnificent collections, acres of distilled knowledge, epic backlogs of unpro-
cessed collections acquired for preservation’s sake, and finding aids that often
provided detail only at the collection or record series level.
In Archivy 4.0, digitization, the emergence of the Internet and web, social
tagging, and the unimaginable investment in search technology are making it
possible to search at the document level or finer level of detail.These capabil-
ities are a source of enormous private capital, lifting all boats, including that of
the historical researcher.These capabilities call into question the meaning of
document arrangement (for example, contextualization) in a digital context and
the value of the archival appraisal function.They also raise profound questions
of public policy as the dependence for discovering archival materials shifts from
largely public to largely private (Google, Microsoft, and so forth) providers.


Digital Media Are Ephemeral
Until the 20th century, paper was a remarkably durable storage
medium for critical information. As the records of government and
business exploded in quantity, durable high-quality paper was replaced
by acidic, inexpensive paper. Notwithstanding the special and very real
challenges posed by the introduction and widespread use of nondurable
paper stock, it is important to understand the profoundly ephemeral nature
of digital media in the effort to preserve shared memory and the historical
record. Digital collections can be destroyed with a keystroke and can be
altered easily without a trace. The ephemerality of digital media reverses
the trend toward verisimilitude enabled by photography and xerography,
and efforts to lock down digital content via electronic date stamps, water-
marks, and other measures are meeting only partial success. At risk is the
evidentiary value in records inherent in photographs, photocopies, and
other fixed, faithful-and-hard-to-tamper-with media. The ephemeral
nature of digital media is also enabling changes in the very nature of the
record, the nature of authorship, and the nature of provenance.

The Social Life of Information Is Undergoing
Significant Change14
If Web 1.0 was chiefly about the posting of a great deal of the world’s
current information on the web, Web 2.0 refers to changes in how web
developers and users use the web. Increasingly the web is shifting from a
place of document discovery or a place for self-expression to a place for
social interaction, including collaboration. New collaborative tools such
as blogs and wikis are making it possible for people to convene around
common interests and purposes. Importantly, these tools, along with open
source software and open educational resources, are leveling the playing
field. From an educational perspective, the web is emerging as perhaps
our most open university: a virtual place where people can gather around
common interests, review supporting textual resources, and engage in
common cause—social, learning, commercial, or otherwise.
The unique qualities of digital media, though, are making it possible
for informal groups—often characterized as “crowds”—to engage in work
that had been previously individual or institutional in nature. Wikipedia is
perhaps the most noteworthy example. Content cocreation is perhaps one
of the most important concepts and social behaviors to emerge in Web
2.0 and a development that has the potential to rock the very foundation
of archival thinking about authorship and provenance. Similarly, Web 2.0


social behaviors, such as social tagging, will also challenge longstanding
professional ideas about the roles and nature of authority control in facili-
tating access to information.
Finally, we will need to grapple with the concept of Internet time.
The rise of the collective makes it possible to witness the rapid emergence
of more and more versions of information on the web. Establishing
provenance is a quixotic task. Even more important will be developing
and socializing methods of asserting or otherwise establishing the credi-
bility, validity, standing, and reliability of information produced often by
anonymous crowds in the “fullness” of Internet time. As Farhad Manjoo
put it, “The limitless choice we now enjoy over the information we get
about our world has loosened our grip on what is—and isn’t—true.”15

Establishing Identity Is Hard
Just as it is becoming increasingly difficult to establish the credibility,
validity, standing, and reliability of information, it is increasingly difficult
to establish the identity and bona fides of those seeking to use digital ideas
and documents. Colleges, universities, and their archives have long tradi-
tions of standing apart from the bazaar, in part to place scholarly coaching
and personal reflection in the service of truth seeking. The Internet and
the web, however, inherently erode boundaries. The institution’s ability to
provide its community members with broad access rights—while at the
same time mediating others’ access to institutional information resources
and collaborative spaces—will demand greater care and investment
over time. The new media and the ease of movement across Internet
territories is necessitating a rethinking of what constitutes community
membership and of the rights and authorities of those who are members of
a community, those who are interested stakeholders in the community, and
those who are not.

Everyone Is an Archivist
As mentioned, information is now superabundant and the capacity to
store it and connect to it is now widespread and inexpensive. Social forms
are emerging that engage interested amateurs and professionals in tagging
information to facilitate its eventual retrieval. Everyone can be a journalist,
commentator, expert, and even video star on the Internet. Mundane
aspects of life appear every day on sites like YouTube and Facebook, taking
so-called “reality TV” to a whole new level. And take the case of George
Bell, a research scientist for Microsoft, who has taken Muybridge’s notion


of easily recording the moment one step further—he is recording his entire
life. Bell carries miniature cameras and recorders at all times to record
everything he sees and hears. The sensors he carries even record changes
in light and temperature. Bell, now 71, began storing his life digitally as an
experiment to push the boundaries of information technology. He began
by scanning books and important papers he wanted to keep. The project
then mushroomed into his recording of all the details of his life, from
conversations with plumbers to the scholarly papers he writes. Bell’s digital
database is known as “MyLifeBits” and presents an interesting challenge in
determining how to manage information over a human lifetime. Perhaps
even more amazing than Bell recording almost every moment of a lifetime
is the fact that he is also personally storing the 1,300 videos, 5,067 sound
files, 42,000 digital pictures, 100,000 e-mail messages, and 67,000 web
pages that make up “MyLifeBits.” The creation of such personal digital
repositories is now technologically possible and Microsoft researchers
believe that anticipated advances will enable most individuals to store the
complete digital record of their lives.

Will the Cloud Block the Sun?
The introduction of the digital record, and the emergence of richly
interconnected data communication networks, low-cost digital storage
devices, search engines, and a common user interface (web), are changing
how people create, retain, dispose of, value, and use information. These
technical changes and these shifts in the patterns of information use may
disrupt the longstanding archival community with possible serious conse-
quences to human shared memory and to scholarship. These changes can
be partly summarized as shown in Table 2. The implications of these shifts
are potent and really must challenge us to ask whether knowing the past
truly prepares us for the future.
There is little doubt that the digital revolution on balance is contrib-
uting in magnificent ways to world literacy, to research, and to the democ-
ratization of knowledge. There is no doubt that technologies will cut their
own channels in most of our institutions, including colleges, universities,
libraries, museums, archives, and others. It is hard to imagine the implica-
tions of a single scientific instrument such as the Large Hadron Collider
producing nearly 100 million channels of data streaming from each of the
two largest detectors and filling 100,000 CDs every second. These CDs
would produce a stack to the moon in six months.16 Or try to imagine the
digital artifacts and ephemera of George Bell and the implications of the
remorseless recording and storage of unedited human experience.


Table 2. From Archivy 3.0 to the Digital Revolution
FROM TO
Information is abundant. Information is superabundant.
Recorded knowledge is durable. Recorded knowledge is ephemeral.
Information discovery is a public service. Information discovery is a privately financed search engine.
Finding information is hard. Everything can be found.
Repository is a place. Repository is a network address.
Collections are disconnected. Everything is connected to the network.
Archivists are scarce. Everyone is an archivist.
Access to information is mediated by Access to information varies widely.
institutions.
Document authorship is knowable. Document authorship cannot be easily known or reconstructed.
Archival appraisal is an art. Archival appraisal may be an algorithm based largely on
popularity.

Notwithstanding the daunting nature of the challenge, those of us
charged with the collection and preservation of the human record must
abide. More than this, we must advocate in the name of shared memory
and assert standards for the selection and valuation of the evolving
historical record. As University of Manitoba Professor Terry Cook put
it, “If there is no such place in society where knowledge and meaning
can be discerned, where things can be true or not true, where account-
ability through transparent evidence of actions and ideas by those in
power can be readily achieved through good record keeping, where the
records themselves in transient digital formats can be certified and locked
as authentic and reliable, not tampered with, created when, where, and by
whom so asserted, and trusted, then we will enter a new dark age.”17 As we
all, like George Bell, create our own “presidential libraries,” how many of
us will withstand the temptation to “tweak” our autobiographic record so
that our shared memory can be a bit rosier or more flattering? Not only
do the archival and scholarly communities need to advocate for scholarly
rigor and for standards, we must strive to popularize these qualities, imbed
them throughout the education system, and instantiate them in search
engines and throughout our presence on the Internet.
What may be the emergence of a new and superior epistemology as
suggested by Professor Dede could become what Alexis de Tocqueville
feared as the tyranny of the majority.18 Will our capacity to be arbiters of
our cultures be enhanced or endangered by subjecting all matters great
and small to wiki-ization or to a vote? Will the “American idolization”
of facts, trends, taste, and truth crush independence of thought? Will
we, as Cook wonders, abandon existing professional standards or fail to
construct new ones, leaving a human record possessed of “too much


scrambled, meaningless trivia of information where discerning anything
of value or having context-rich value statements at all becomes impos-
sible.” This state of being is guided by what philosopher Alasdair
MacIntyre labeled as emotivism, a doctrine holding that all evalu-
ative judgments, especially moral judgments, are merely expressions
of preference, attitude, or feeling.19 It is ironic that just as we became
awash in information and wealthy in the tools of discovery, mining, and
analysis, the term truthiness was coined.20 Is it possible that as information
becomes so voluminous, the standards of selection become so pluralistic,
and the content of information becomes so nuanced, feeling will replace
analysis as the social barometer of truth?
Perhaps, then, the past is prologue. Cook observes that it is possible
that the cloud will envelop and overwhelm the tower, returning us to a
dark age. Medieval Europe’s scarcity of information and literate souls left
many people in the dark. Today’s superabundant but decontextualized,
filtered, mashed up, Photoshopped, crowd-sourced, and opaque infor-
mation environment also contains the potential for leaving people in the
dark. The filtering of politically unacceptable search results by Google’s
China search engine is only one example of what may be possible.

What Is to Be Done?
The stakes in the game of how the tower and the cloud interact in
the context of the identification and protection of the human historical
record are high. Too, the issues regarding the future of those modern day
bibliophylakes are similarly momentous. How the game will play out is
completely unclear.
What is clear is that the stewards of the historical record in the past
must now give voice to this great debate. We must present ourselves neither
as uncritical enthusiasts of everything shiny and new nor as change-averse
curmudgeons protecting a declining turf.
It seems clear, too, that the turf of the modern day bibliophylake is not
shrinking but changing. To remain relevant and to continue to serve our
great purpose, we must separate those principles that will guide our future
actions from the methods and structures that have served these principles
in the past. Some of the methods and structures will survive; many will not.
We must conceive of a new professional ecosystem and of our place
in such a new tangle of relationships. In Archivy 2.0, the bibliophylake was
likely a member of the religious order and a spiritual brother or sister of
the scholar–scribe. In the xerographic era, records managers and archivists
were linked. The new media are rendering old social and professional


relations ineffectual and are opening the doors for new relations. This new
ecosystem needs to be described and new professional communities and
networks need to be formed.
The ephemeral nature of digital media is a vexing problem from a
preservation viewpoint. Digital technologies create masses of information
and conflicting goals for selection and preservation. A key question is, who
determines value and for what purposes? Is it the crowd in the cloud?
Furthermore, most digital media are themselves subject to easy alteration
(that is part of their virtue) and are not durable. And if the storage media
are durable, digital data must be readable by software to be useable. The
issue of preserving digital data in forms that can be retrieved and read over
centuries is enormously problematic, particularly in the sciences, where
files of petabyte size are being produced and captured at the expense of
billions of dollars. This is a problem of epic size that demands the attention
not only of the archival community but of foundations and governments.
One of the major issues associated with preserving shared memories
is the identity management issue. Substantial progress is being made in
constructing a layer of middleware tools and federation practices that will
help ensure that record users are who they claim to be and are authorized
to do what they assert they are authorized to do. As well, this middleware
infrastructure goes far in protecting the traditional privacy of the
researcher. Institutions associated with preserving information need to be
engaged in this work and must adapt these tools to the archival context.
Archivists will also face especially complex challenges as regards the
protection of privacy. Learning management systems, for example, now
make it possible to capture and preserve the classroom contributions of
tomorrow’s Albert Einstein or George W. Bush. Many faculty members and
students might be very uncomfortable if their conversations and interac-
tions in an online class were preserved indefinitely by their institutions.
Classrooms are traditional bastions of free speech and for the testing of
ideas. “Half-baked thoughts” are encouraged as part of the learning process.
Knowing your every thought or proposition might be preserved forever
would certainly inhibit the free-wheeling conversations associated with
university and college classrooms. Similarly, health records are another area
of potential conflict between archival preservation and individual privacy. It
is clear that the broad standardization and sharing of digital medical records
can have some significant benefits. However, this capability also raises some
controversial issues about privacy and ownership, especially with regard
to who can keep and use medical records of deceased individuals, which
could prove to be valuable historical and medical research resources. New
community standards, policies, and laws will need to be considered as social


conduct in the digital context changes. The archivist needs to be engaged
in this public policy debate. Otherwise, we run the risk of violating public
trust or, worse, we begin to censor our history to the point where valuable
records are destroyed through self-censorship in the fear that they may be
used inappropriately.
And we must move closer to where history is being made. This
is a reintegration, for the librarian and archivist have long been
associated with those creating the shared memories. In many ways the
history of archivy and librarianship is a history of shifting attention
from the creators of knowledge to the artifacts themselves and to the
great halls we build to house them. In a world of scarcity, those who
seek knowledge must travel to the sources of knowledge. In an era
of superabundance, those who wish to preserve the knowledge must
now return to the wellsprings. The bibliophylake cannot likely remain a
creature exclusively of the tower. The values we share and the standards
that we must promote must be instantiated when and where the future
historical record is being created and in the culture of those technology
providers whose products are reshaping the landscape of shared human
memory. The librarian and archivist must not simply be part of this new
“cloud” of digital information artifacts. They must take a leadership
role in guiding its policies and practices.
We need nothing less than a new literacy to guide ourselves and our
students through the exciting and sometimes frightening new terrain. Perhaps
this is the new epistemology referred to by Professor Dede and perhaps it is the
scholarly literacy described by Professor Paul Courant in this volume.
Going digital may be the most significant inflection point in the
history of human record keeping. Never before has so much information
been available to so many people. The implications of having more
than a billion people with persistent connections to the Internet and
exabytes of information freely and openly available cannot be overstated.
With every significant innovation comes unintended consequences
and amidst the plentitude that we now enjoy in this arena are found a
host of new cautions, threats, and risks. We would never turn back. The
cautions, threats, risks, and other unintended consequences of going
digital together comprise the challenge for the modern bibliophylakes.
Our ancestors and we have protected the record of human achievement
through wars, revolutions, fire, and flood. Our charge remains the same;
the stakes remain monumentally high.


Endnotes
1. Nancy Cantor and Steven Schomberg, “Poised between Two Worlds: The
University as Monastery and Marketplace,” EDUCAUSE Review (March/April
2003), http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0320.pdf.

2. Chris Dede, “A Seismic Shift in Epistemology,” EDUCAUSE Review (May/
June 2008), 80, http://connect.educause.edu/Library/EDUCAUSE+Review/
ASeismicShiftinEpistemolo/46613.

3. The authors use the term disruptive as used by Clayton Christensen to
describe a new, low-cost, often simpler technology that displaces an existing,
sustaining technology. See Clayton M. Christensen, The Innovator’s Dilemma
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997).

4. Eric A. Havelock, “The Alphabetic Mind: A Gift of Ancient Greece to the
Modern World,” Oral Tradition 1, no. 1 (1986): 134.

5. Joseph J. Duggan, “The Social Function of the Medieval Epic in the
Romance Literatures,” Oral Tradition 1, no. 3 (1986): 728.

6. Oliver W. Holmes, “History and Theory of Archival Practice,” in
University Archives: Papers Presented at an Institute Conducted by the University
of Illinois Graduate School of Library Science, November 1–4, 1964, ed.
Rolland E. Stevens. Champaign, IL: Board of Trustees of the University
of Illinois, 1965, http://www.archive.org/stream/universityarchivalstev/
universityarchivalstev_djvu.txt.

7. Mary Bellis, “The History of Xerox: Xerox Photocopiers and Chester
Carlson,” About.com: Inventors, http://inventors.about.com/od/
xyzstartinventions/a/xerox.htm.

8. David Owen, Copies in Seconds (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2004), 12.

9. Thom Hickey, “Entire Library of Congress,” Outgoing: Library Metatdata
Techniques and Trends by Thom Hickey, http://outgoing.typepad.com/
outgoing/2005/06/entire_library_.html.

10. Lucas Mearian, “Study: Digital Universe and Its Impact Bigger Than We
Thought,” Computerworld, March 2008, http://www.computerworld.com/
action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9067639.

11. “Bowker Says Title Output Close to 300,000,” Publishers Weekly, May 31,
2007, http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6448228.html.

12. “How Many Blogs Are There? 50 Million and Counting,” CyberJournalist.
net, posted August 7, 2006, http://www.cyberjournalist.net/news/003674.php.


13. David Rosenthal, “Petabyte for a Century,” DSHR’s Blog, posted July 17,
2007, http://blog.dshr.org/2007/07/update-to-petabyte-for-century.html

14. The term social life of information was coined by John Seeley Brown and Paul
Duguid in their book, The Social Life of Information (Cambridge, MA: Harvard

15. Farhad Manjoo, True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society
(Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2008), 4.

16. Graham P. Collins, “The Large Hadron Collider: The Discovery Machine,”
Scientific American, January 2008, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-
discovery-machine-hadron-collider&page=2.

17. Terry Cook, letter to Richard Katz, July 3, 2008.

18. Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (1835), Chapter XV.

19. “Political Philosophy of Alasdair MacIntyre,” The Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy, http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/p-macint.htm#H5.

20. Dick Meyer, “The Truth of Truthiness,” CBS News, December 12, 2006.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/12/opinion/meyer/main2250923.
shtml. Truthiness is the term coined by comedian Steven Colbert in 2006 to
describe things “that a person claims to know intuitively or ‘from the gut’
without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.”

Bibliography
Bellis, Mary. “The History of Xerox: Xerox Photocopiers and Chester
Carlson.” About.com: Inventors. http://inventors.about.com/od/
xyzstartinventions/a/xerox.htm.

“Bowker Says Title Output Close to 300,000.” Publishers Weekly, May 31, 2007.
http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6448228.html.

Brown, John Seeley, and Paul Duguid. The Social Life of Information. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 2000.

Cantor, Nancy, and Steven Schomberg.“Poised between Two Worlds:The University
as Monastery and Marketplace.” EDUCAUSE Review (March/April 2003). http://
net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0320.pdf.

Christensen, Clayton M. The Innovator’s Dilemma. Cambridge: Harvard Business
School Press, 1997.


Collins, Graham P. “The Large Hadron Collider: The Discovery Machine.”
Scientific American, January 2008. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-
discovery-machine-hadron-collider&page=2.

Cook, Terry. Letter to Richard Katz, July 3, 2008.

de Tocqueville, Alexis. Democracy in America, 1835.

Dede, Chris. “A Seismic Shift in Epistemology.” EDUCAUSE Review (May/
June 2008), http://connect.educause.edu/Library/EDUCAUSE+Review/
ASeismicShiftinEpistemolo/46613.

DSHR’s Blog. http://blog.dshr.org.

Duggan, Joseph J. “The Social Function of the Medieval Epic in the Romance
Literatures.” Oral Tradition 1, no. 3 (1986): 728–766.

Havelock, Eric A. “The Alphabetic Mind: A Gift of Ancient Greece to the
Modern World.” Oral Tradition 1, no, 1 (1986): 134.

Hickey, Thom. “Entire Library of Congress.” Outgoing: Library Metatdata
Techniques and Trends by Thom Hickey. http://outgoing.typepad.com/
outgoing/2005/06/entire_library_.html.

Holmes, Oliver W. “History and Theory of Archival Practice.” In University
Archives; Papers Presented at an Institute Conducted by the University of Illinois
Graduate School of Library Science, November 1–4, 1964, edited by Rolland E.
Stevens. Champaign, IL: Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, 1965.
http://www.archive.org/stream/universityarchivalstev/universityarchivalstev_
djvu.txt.

“How Many Blogs Are There? 50 Million and Counting.” CyberJournalist.net.
http://www.cyberjournalist.net/news/003674.php.

Manjoo, Farhad. True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society. Hoboken,
NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2008.

Mearian, Lucas. “Study: Digital Universe and Its Impact Bigger Than We
Thought.“ Computerworld, March 2008. http://www.computerworld.com/
action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9067639.

Meyer, Dick. “The Truth of Truthiness.” CBS News, December 12, 2006.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/12/opinion/meyer/main2250923
.shtml.

Owen, David. Copies in Seconds. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2004.

“Political Philosophy of Alasdair MacIntyre.” The Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/p-macint.htm#H5.


From the Library to the
Laboratory: A New Future for
the Science Librarian?
Mary Marlino and Tamara Sumner

T he mission of academic libraries is to support research, education,
and scholarship. Historically, libraries have supported this mission
by organizing and providing access to information, curating and
preserving special collections, and creating physical spaces for collaboration
and scholarship. While the broad mission of academic libraries is largely
unchanged, transformations in technology, media, and culture are driving
fundamental changes in the production and consumption of information
and the practice of scholarship. As a result, academic libraries are rethinking
their strategies and services to meet the challenges of the digital world and
the demands of the “born digital” generation.
Science libraries, in particular, are confronting these challenges as
the nature of scientific practice is being dramatically transformed by
information technologies.1 These technologies enable scientific data to
be collected, distributed, and archived on an unprecedented scale. The
challenge of collecting, managing, and providing access to information
not traditionally curated by libraries is compounded by the sheer
volume of data, issues of interoperability, documentation, acknowl-
edgment, and authentication.
The term e-science is often used to describe new forms of data-
driven science enabled by information technologies. Data-driven
science is characterized by the analyses of increasingly large quantities
of data from distributed sources. E-science methodologies include the
identification and visualization of patterns, anomalies, and trends from
the mining and analysis of data, coupled with the ability to share the
results of analysis processes through the immediacy of the Internet.
Within the United States, the term cyberinfrastructure is often used inter-
changeably with e-science.
Currently, e-science is often associated with “big science,” that
is, large national or international projects such as the Terragrid, the

A New Future for the Science Librarian 191

Biomedical Informatics Research Network (BIRN), or the Linked
Environments for Atmospheric Discovery (LEAD) project. These
projects are developing sophisticated, distributed technical infrastruc-
tures, often based on “grid” technologies, which support domain-
specific tools and services facilitating data acquisition, data analysis, and
data management. This infrastructure is often housed at major research
facilities or national laboratories, and user access to these advanced
research services is managed by these groups and made available to
individual researchers through the project portal.
For example, in the LEAD project, a scientist can examine different
conditions that trigger tornados by bringing together observed weather
data from various ground stations and radars. These data must be merged
into a uniform data collection that is then fed into a model that simulates
the atmosphere. Each time an experiment is conducted, all of the adjust-
ments to the initialization data or model are recorded, resulting in a set
of experiments that are available to be shared, rerun, and reanalyzed by
others. The LEAD environment is thus making explicit and exposing what
has been the more informal, intermediate stages of the scholarly lifecycle:
stages that in the past may have been cryptically noted in a lab book with
only the results related to a final scholarly article being documented. When
the scientist publishes the final report, the primary data sources and these
intermediate results can be tied to the final publication to create a richer
knowledge product with the capability to be reanalyzed and replicated.
Data-driven science, however, is not confined exclusively to these
large disciplinary efforts. A closer look at what is happening on university
campuses and in small research labs today reveals that e-science practices
are increasingly common and being applied to a wide range of scholarly
endeavors in the sciences, social sciences, and humanities.2 For instance,
a master’s thesis in urban planning examining the correlation between
indigenous plants, property prices, and neighborhood activism may
draw on diverse data sources—such as the university’s special herbarium
collection, the county property tax records and land use data, and records
of local voting behaviors—to create an innovative geographic information
visualization that can be used by policy makers debating future planning
scenarios. In this case, the student is not using custom, discipline-specific
e-science tools but is leveraging increasingly available Web 2.0 capabilities;
that is, many organizations are now routinely exposing data through
public APIs and web services. Tim O’Reilly highlights this “innovation by
assembly” phenomenon as a key Web 2.0 principle, commenting that “…
when commodity components are abundant, you can create value simply
by assembling them in novel or effective ways.”3


Promises and Challenges for Science Libraries
The examples above illustrate both the promises and the challenges
facing e-science and libraries. The promises include the following: the
potential for new scientific discoveries that are possible only through large-
scale, computational analyses; a new era of transparency and replicability in
scientific methods and results; and the potential for widespread democra-
tization of scientific research, given the increasing ubiquity of open access
data sources and protocols. However, hidden in these examples are several
challenges for universities and their libraries.
K The first challenge concerns the sheer volume of scientific
data. In the LEAD example, how does our scientist locate the
required data from the various ground stations and radars?
In the master’s thesis example, how does the student locate
the multiple data sets distributed across local government and
university servers?
K The second challenge concerns data interoperability. In the
LEAD example, merging data from different sources into
a uniform data collection requires significant, specialized
expertise in all the different data formats and a small army
of graduate students. The thesis example, on the other hand,
illustrates a new form of scholarly literacy: namely, students
need “lightweight” programming skills to combine and remix
data from multiple sources.
K The third challenge relates to preserving and documenting
the intermediate products. Whose task is it to save these
intermediate products for posterity and to document them so
that others can find and reuse them? In the LEAD example,
what is the university library’s role in selecting and preserving
original and derivative data sets for future reanalysis? In the
thesis example, the student has created a richly annotated
version of the library’s special herbarium collection, adding
new information about the geographic locations of particular
species. How does the library incorporate this user-generated
content back into its carefully managed special collection?
K Finally, the demands of digital scholarship are requiring new
levels of documentation, acknowledgement, and authenti-
cation that are often beyond the immediate capabilities or
interests of faculty or students. In the LEAD example, when
the researcher’s final report and associated data and artifacts
are put into the university’s institutional repository, who will
be responsible for ensuring that the university has the appro-


priate intellectual property rights to post and disseminate
this information? In the thesis example, the student’s thesis
consists of written documentation, software codes for the
visualization, and several public data sets. Many campus
libraries are tasked with preserving and archiving student
theses and dissertations. Again, as in the LEAD case, the
library will be challenged to develop stewardship policies and
procedures to support the archival and preservation demands
of multimedia forms of scholarship.
The implicit fifth challenge is the ability to address these issues at scale:
in a large university setting, there could be literally hundreds of projects,
theses, and dissertations that embody these characteristics at any given time.
How can university libraries prepare to respond to and support these new
forms of data-driven scholarship?

New Roles for University Libraries
As a first step, libraries should prioritize making the collections that
they manage available to library users through open and documented web
service protocols supporting programmatic access to both primary content
and metadata. Currently, most libraries support individual users to access
collections only through manual, query-driven interfaces. For instance,
access to the herbarium collection used in the master’s thesis is probably
available only through a special web interface enabling users to search the
metadata records using keywords and other criteria to generate a fairly
traditional list of search results. However, for data-driven science, students
and faculty need to be able to run computations over the entire collection
and not just access individual records. The visualization created as part of
the master’s thesis is a relatively simple, yet still challenging, example. In
this case, the student wants to construct a visualization that enables users to
select a geographic area and view all of the different kinds of plant species
located in that area; that is, the visualization needs to dynamically query
the library’s collection and repackage this information as appropriate for
this special application. Today, many of the systems that libraries have put in
place to enable access to collections are simply not architected to support
programmatic access of any kind, thus severely limiting the usefulness of
library collections for these new forms of scholarship.
Libraries are increasingly being asked to play a leadership role in
helping universities capture and organize their intellectual assets, such as
faculty publications, student dissertations, project reports, and scientific data
sets. As illustrated in our examples, the library is often called on at the end


of the scholarly process: the researcher needs to include the final report in
the institutional repository, or the student has graduated and the disser-
tation needs to be archived. At this point in the cycle, it takes a significant
amount of time, effort, and expense to examine each multimedia scholarly
artifact, parse out the constituent components, and decide which of these
should be preserved. Too often, libraries are called upon to make these
decisions on a case-by-case basis.
Clearly, this approach will not scale to support hundreds or
thousands of cases. How and when is it appropriate for the library to
become involved? In the LEAD example, is it the scientist’s responsibility
to ensure that the intermediate products that underpin the final report
are included in the institutional repository? Is it the library’s responsi-
bility to store the data sets that this work depends on, or is it the respon-
sibility of e-science projects such as LEAD to provide this service to
their disciplinary communities? Should university libraries partner with
federally funded facilities such as the National Center for Atmospheric
Research or San Diego Supercomputing Center to provide these archival
services? In the case of the master’s thesis, should the library wait until
the student defends his or her dissertation and then try to acquire the
software codes from the student’s laptop? Or, does the library partner
with academic computing to provide students with the facilities to create
multimedia artifacts on campus infrastructure and develop processes for
archiving these artifacts as appropriate?
E-science and Web 2.0 technologies are promoting and enabling
scholars to create new works that build on data from multiple sources. As
described in our examples, viewing these works and archiving these works
can potentially infringe on the intellectual property rights of the creators of
the original data sets. As libraries take on responsibilities for hosting and/or
archiving these new works, they will also need to take on new responsibil-
ities for rights management. Specifically, library staff must develop expertise
in tracing intellectual property rights, negotiating clearances as appropriate,
and communicating the rights and terms of use of digital artifacts to library
users. Traditionally, these activities have been the purview of legal depart-
ments. However, as new forms of scholarship proliferate, relying on the
university’s legal counsel will not scale and will be very expensive.
Libraries already spend a significant amount of time and energy on
patron education. In a university setting, this typically means library staff
answering individual reference questions, giving presentations in depart-
ments and classes, and offering seminars to students on how to search
library collections. If libraries succeed in a making their collections
programmatically available through web service protocols, who is going


to help faculty and students to effectively use these new capabilities?
Promoting the tools and methodologies of e-science and other new forms
of scholarship presents a major opportunity for libraries to play a proactive
role in training the next generation of scholars.
Another important area for patron education is intellectual property
rights. As more faculty and students create innovative forms of scholarship
and publish these artifacts in nontraditional venues, it will become increas-
ingly important that these artifacts are made available under appropriate
licensing schemes. In short, library staff can help faculty and students
to navigate the complexities of Creative Commons and other licensing
schemes to make sure that scholarly work is as open as possible while
balancing the rights and ownership needs of the creator and the university.

Conclusion
The discussions above illustrate many of the major challenges on the
horizon for academic libraries in the years ahead. Libraries have an oppor-
tunity to build on their significant collections and content, their expertise
in information management, and their historical role in supporting schol-
arship to become essential players in e-science in the academic enterprise.
Barriers along the way include lack of leadership and vision, the more
pedestrian issues of lack of technical expertise and money, the strategic
pitfalls of inadequate long-term planning, and the all-too-human tendency
to keep doing what you know how to do and not acknowledge that the
world has changed.
The stakes for libraries are high: the last ten years have been very
difficult as libraries’ preeminence in supporting information seeking has
been challenged by ubiquitous information on the web made easily acces-
sible by commercial search engines. Our two scenarios illustrate the impor-
tance of data acquisition, data analysis, and data management skills for
new forms of scholarship. Will librarians be able to insert themselves into
the emerging processes of e-science, or will scientists and students bypass
librarians and their potentially valuable services and go it alone?
It is our belief that the ramifications of “going it alone” are not in the
long-term interests of either universities or science. For universities, this
strategy only increases the costs and complexities of managing the institu-
tion’s intellectual assets. For science, the absence of a strong partnership
with libraries will hamper communication and dissemination efforts and,
ultimately, scientific discovery and progress. For both universities and
science, the time to lay the groundwork for this new era of collaboration
and partnerships is now.


Endnotes
1. Michael Wright, Tamara Sumner, Reagan Moore, and Traugott Koch,
“Connecting Digital Libraries to eScience: The Future of Scientific
Scholarship,” International Journal on Digital Libraries 7 (October 2, 2007): 1–4.

2. Gregory Crane, Alison Babeu, and David Bamman, “eScience and the
Humanities,” International Journal on Digital Libraries 7 (October 2, 2007):
117–22; Brian Lamb, “Dr. Mashup; or, Why Educators Should Learn to Stop
Worrying and Love the Remix,” EDUCAUSE Review (July/August 2007):
12–25, http://connect.educause.edu/Library/EDUCAUSE+Review/DrMash
uporWhyEducatorsSho/44592.

3. Tim O’Reilly, “What Is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models
for the Next Generation of Software,” O’Reilly (September 30, 2005),
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/
what-is-web-20.html.

Bibliography
Crane, Gregory, Alison Babeu, and David Bamman. “eScience and the
Humanities.” International Journal on Digital Libraries 7 (October 2, 2007):
117–22.

Lamb, Brian. “Dr. Mashup; or, Why Educators Should Learn to Stop Worrying
and Love the Remix.” EDUCAUSE Review (July/August 2007): 12–25.

O’Reilly, Tim. “What Is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the
Next Generation of Software.” O’Reilly (September 30, 2005). http://www.
oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html.

Wright, Michael, Tamara Sumner, Reagan Moore, and Traugott Koch.
“Connecting Digital Libraries to eScience: The Future of Scientific
Scholarship.” International Journal on Digital Libraries 7 (October 2, 2007): 1–4.

Social Networking in Higher Education 197

Social Networking in Higher
Education
Bryan Alexander

T he many projects and services under the Web 2.0 umbrella are
now a fact of the global information world. Technorati last tracked
70 million updated blogs, a number that continues to grow.1
Wikipedia, having outpaced Encyclopedia Britannica in number of articles
and word count, has become the most famous and at the same time most
disparaged encyclopedia in centuries.
Social networking services routinely enroll millions. Social music-
sharing services continue to grow, as Last.fm continues to build a user base
and Apple’s iTunes now maintains a social function, My iTunes (http://
www.apple.com/itunes/myitunes). It is no longer shocking to realize that
photos are largely digital, rather than analog; it is also not surprising that they
are published in active social networks, such as Flickr and Picasa. RSS feeds
appear not only on most blogs and news sites, but on campus home pages
and corporate intranets. Folksonomic tagging, briefly controversial, now
appears in the most widely used platforms, like Amazon.com and YouTube.
Such a list can go on, but students are sometimes better positioned
than older campus staff members to enumerate it. Teenagers might blog
at the moment, or have either a MySpace or Facebook account, then
shift to another platform as it emerges. They might not maintain wikis,
but Wikipedia is both useful to them and perhaps slightly exciting as its
notoriety grows. To post to a forum, add to a friend’s wall, check out an
attractive person’s photos, or follow a sports figure via YouTube clips is
generally unremarkable. And these are teenagers; younger children did
not experience Web 1.0. These kids might play with Webkinz or Neopets
(http://www.webkinz.com, http://www.neopets.com), creatures with
elaborate social lives in Web browsers. Perhaps they played with other
children as pirates (Puzzle Pirates, http://www.puzzlepirates.com), or
fellows in Disney theme parks (Virtual Magic Kingdom, http://vmk.
disney.go.com), or playful flightless waterfowl (Club Penguin, http://www
.clubpenguin.com). Not yet in middle school, future college students are
already participating in online social networks, consuming digital media


there, and starting to create digital content. Web 2.0 is not remarkable; it
describes simply the background structure of media and socialization.
How can colleges and universities respond to this world, which
has erected itself around us in a very few years? As we nurture campus
networks, support users in their engagement with the entire digital cosmos,
how do we respond to this subtle transformation in the environment? And
as we continue our investment in licensed content, licensed applications,
locally accessible databases, and password-protected courseware, how do we
experience this parallel universe of sometimes breathtaking openness and
sociability? Several avenues are open to us and have already been trodden
by some institutions: learning from successful architecture, following new
and emerging technologies that are changing learning (what some call
Learning 2.0), and rethinking literacy.

Identifying Successful Architecture
To begin with, we can examine what works in Web 2.0. That is,
without revisiting the endlessly vexed question of defining the term, we
can identify the information architecture components that have enabled
the movement’s quantitative success. One of those pieces is microcontent.
To create a blog post, one only need write a paragraph, without using (or
knowing) HTML. To create a blog from scratch, the user simply fills out a
form, which is about as challenging as buying a DVD from Amazon: No
knowledge of graphic design, style sheets, FTP, or web-server protocol is
needed. To edit a wiki requires even less time. Adding a URL to
del.icio.us means a click and a few fields. This lowering of the bar for
digital publishing explains the Web 2.0 content boom.
We are already familiar with microcontent publishing in higher
education. What else is uploading a syllabus to one’s Moodle course or
forwarding a document to be turned into an e-reserve? Higher education
has also experienced a gold rush in microcontent via course management
systems, with enormous amounts of class materials uploaded by faculty
who would certainly “web up” less if forced to use an HTML editor and
FTP client. Perhaps focusing on this homegrown microcontent process,
making it easier and more visible, will grow digital teaching still further.
What our course management systems and databases do not generally
offer, however, which Web 2.0 does, is the social factor. The history of
social software’s popularity proves that people very much want to commu-
nicate with others online. We love reading other writers, listening and
commenting on their podcasts, checking their daily lives via Twitter,
laughing at photos on MySpace. The two-way nature of social software,


its role in the read/write web, makes this function self-reinforcing, as my
comment on your blog entices a third person to comment, which grows
your blog’s total content still further, and so on. The openness and search-
ability of such content to the entire web-accessing world means content
can find consumers no matter the niche, in classic long-tail fashion.
A virtual learning environment consisting solely of students and
instructor, in contrast, cannot partake of these network effects. One way
forward for higher education is to nudge more digital content into the
open web, combining our honed wariness about privacy and security with
our awareness of the full-blown social web.

Learning from Learning 2.0
Another way forward is to learn more about those who have already
leaped into the web to teach, and to follow the emerging Learning 2.0. Higher
education faculty have been quietly blogging for some time, and in various
formats. Professors “web up” course syllabi, blog about their research interests,
advocate for their field in the public sphere (as public intellectuals), require
students to blog, and hold professional seminars in distributed inter-blog
conversations.While Wikipedia takes the lion’s (or vulture’s) share of educational
attention, faculty and their students have been creating wikis for Latin literature
and Romantic poetry, spectroscopy and Karl Marx, taking advantage of what
may be the world’s most collaborative writing platform. Professors podcast
lectures and course notes, while some students podcast right back (Swarthmore’s
War News Radio, for example). And those faculty have used Web 2.0 to record,
share, and reflect on their experiences, participating in, while taking advantage
of, the “small pieces loosely joined” style of social media conversation. One may
easily read or listen to edu-bloggers, and find articles, notes, and an increasing
number of print books on Web 2.0. A large body of such knowledge based on
reflected practice now exists; we can draw on it to ease the way for campus
explorers after such pioneers have publicly blazed sociable trails.
Pointing to such trailheads might mean not supporting Web 2.0
technologies, but getting out of the way of users. An increasing number of
colleges and universities have paid Apple for iTunes U or installed blog and
wiki platforms. A large number have not, or at least not at the enterprise
level, for reasons ranging from LDAP integration to open source worries.
Given the extensive rise in off-campus platforms, which range in cost from
free to inexpensive, at times it might be a better use of staff resources to
point faculty off-site, outsourcing that support. Faculty increasingly arrive
on campus with off-site dependencies, which taken together constitute
what a recent CIO.com article calls “the shadow IT department.”2


Downsides can include, besides the usual outsourcing difficulties, a loss of
campus branding without a negotiated host and the expending of some
research time to select appropriate third parties. But as Web 2.0 continues
to expand and campus IT budgets do not swell at that rate, recognizing the
already existing off-campus support might be practical.
As the world becomes increasingly shaped by Web 2.0 practices, our
collective experience of information is transformed. Citizens increasingly
contribute content to global conversations, from pedestrians publishing
mobile phone photos on the BBC site to South Korea’s OhmyNews,
leading to a rebirth in citizen journalism.3 Our perceptions of YouTube
videos, blog posts, and even books at Amazon.com’s site are shaped by
popular interventions, rankings, and responses.

Rethinking Literacy and Thinking Critically
Two responses appear to be incumbent on higher education. The first
involves rethinking literacy, as colleges have taught a variety of literacies
for decades (speech, writing, media). If we want our students to engage
the world as critical, informed people, then we need to reshape our plans
as that world changes. To an extent, teaching students to use IP-restricted
databases is to prepare them for rare experiences. Universities can also draw
on more than a decade of work by librarians on information literacy or
information fluency.4 Second, to the extent campus populations already
contribute to Web 2.0 projects, higher education can become more delib-
erate in those interventions. For example, while many students arrive on
campus with some degree of technological fluency, they may lack the
intellectual tools to think critically about much of their experience.
Discussions of privacy and copyright, and questions about creativity
and appropriation, citizenship, and governance can become grounded
in years of social media experience. Such instruction and conversation
is well suited to the first-year seminar and responds well to interdisci-
plinarity. IT professionals, librarians, faculty, and students can contribute
from their specialties, traditions, and experience. Consider the case of
Wikipedia. It cuts across disciplines, from faculty in computer science
to political science to sociology. Librarians bring to bear more than a
century of information retrieval and current professional discussion. IT
staff can explain IP tracking, wiki structures, and markup. How much
better than simply avoiding Wikipedia would such an intellectual and
professional engagement be!


Summary
For each of the approaches suggested in this essay, intercampus
collaboration is more necessary than ever. Web 2.0 projects develop
with a speed considered fast even for the digital world, rippling across
computing categories while developing new ones. (Just what is Twitter;
microblogging? Then what is Pownce?) Sharing experiences and lessons
learned with these many platforms is powerful and benefits from a large
field of case studies. Approaches beyond the three outlined in this brief
discussion should surface and be discussed in the best traditions of the
open source world and of academe. Only then can we begin to prepare …
for Web 3.0.

Endnotes
1. David Sifry, “The State of Technorati, April 2007,” Sifry’s Alerts (posted April
3, 2007), http://www.sifry.com/alerts/archives/000492.html.
2. Ben Worthen, “User Management: Users Who Know Too Much and the CIOs
Who Fear Them,” CIO (February 15, 2007), http://www.cio.com/article/28821.
3. Dan Gillmor, We the Media: Grassroots Journalism by the People, for the People
(Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media, Inc., 2004).
4. See Association of College and Research Libraries, Presidential Committee on
Information Literacy: Final Report (Washington, DC: ACRL, 1989), http://www
.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlpubs/whitepapers/presidential.cfm, as well as the ACRL’s
website, Information Literacy, http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlissues/acrlinfolit/
informationliteracy.cfm.

Bibliography
Association of College and Research Libraries. Information Literacy website.
http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlissues/acrlinfolit/informationliteracy.cfm.
Association of College and Research Libraries. Presidential Committee on
Information Literacy: Final Report. Washington, DC: ACRL, 1989. http://www
.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlpubs/whitepapers/presidential.cfm.
Gillmor, Dan. We the Media: Grassroots Journalism by the People, for the People.
Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media, Inc., 2004.
Sifry, David. “The State of Technorati, April 2007.” Sifry’s Alerts (posted April 3,
2007). http://www.sifry.com/alerts/archives/000492.html.
Worthen, Ben. “User Management: Users Who Know Too Much and the CIOs
Who Fear Them.” CIO (February 15, 2007). http://www.cio.com/article/28821.


Scholarship: The Wave of the
Future in the Digital Age 1

Paul N. Courant

I ’ve been asked to write about pretty much anything I want to in the
broad area of information technology (IT), the research university,
and the university library. In brief, it seems to me that the most inter-
esting and important questions center on the ways in which advances in
IT change (and, equally important, don’t change) what universities do and
how they do it. To get to the punch line, I will argue that the defining
characteristic of good universities—the production of careful scholarship
in service of the creation of knowledge and understanding—is and ought
to be unchanged by changes in IT. At the same time, new technologies
have been disruptive and productive with regard to important aspects
of the way in which scholarship is produced, made public, taught, and
learned, and there is (and should be) more disruption yet to come. Thus, I
take the position (as I have done before) that the response of the academy
to changes in IT rightly includes both conservative and revolutionary
elements—conservative in terms of mission and revolutionary in terms of
how the mission is attained.2

The Importance of Scholarly Literacy
Research universities and liberal arts colleges have always spent a
good deal of effort conveying the value of scholarly method to their
students, including the great majority who will lead most of their lives
outside the academy. Scholarly methods are valuable for practical work, in
both the learned and less learned professions, and they are essential to the
great pleasure that can be taken in understanding the world and oneself,
in leading an examined life, and in being an effective member of society.
Ubiquitous access to information poses a risk that the special character of
scholarly work and understanding can often be skipped altogether, because
it is now easy to obtain answers to questions that are “good enough,” via
any number of tools that are immediately, freely, and conveniently available
on the web. Equally important, the process of digging through sources,

Scholarship:The Wave of the Future in the Digital Age 203

grappling with ambiguity, getting confused, and finding a way out can
often be avoided when one can easily find the “good enough.”
Partly in response to these concerns, there has been much talk about
the importance of developing “information literacy.” I will argue here
that our most important audience is already information literate and then
some.3 Our interest should be in ensuring the production of something
that we might call “scholarly literacy,” by which I mean the understanding
of sources, methods, and their use that is at the heart of knowing what one
knows and does not know. The problem is that the remarkable growth of
information literacy has both enhanced our technical ability to produce
scholarly literacy, by greatly increasing access to resources, while at the
same time reducing the imperative to engage in sound scholarly practice,
by making it so much easer to do work that is “good enough.” The
challenge that we face will not and should not be that of turning back
the clock; our task is to take ubiquitous information literacy and exploit
it as an asset for the development of scholarly literacy. (There would be
a high payoff, by the way, to generating a phrase that is jazzier and more
marketable than “scholarly literacy.”)
Changes in IT—particularly the digitization of information—affect
academic work of all kinds. It is important to remember that (like all
technologies) IT is instrumental, rather than a goal in itself. The impor-
tance and value of IT arise from the ways it affects the use of information
in the service of activities that we find to be valuable—solving partial
differential equations, searching bibliographical data, enabling collaborative
learning and teaching, making objects of scholarly interest available in
many places at the same time, bringing music and images to consumers’
homes and laptops, and, of course, many more. In the current context, what
is important is how IT affects how we learn (I include research within
learning) and teach.
It seems to me that the radical changes in the practice of scholarship
(and many other activities) that derive from IT take place principally via
two mechanisms—networking and copying. It used to be expensive to
get information from one place to another, and very expensive to do so
quickly. It’s now cheap, indeed approximately costless at the margin, given
the requisite hardware and fiber. It used to be expensive to make copies
of text, images, and sound. It’s now cheap, also essentially costless at the
margin. (None of these activities is as inexpensive as they look to the end
user, and the question of how the relevant infrastructures are to be paid
for is important. But the point here is that from the perspective of literally
billions of people, copying and shipping information around is essentially
costless.) What is not cheap, as Joseph Esposito and others have pointed out


repeatedly, is to figure out what is important and valuable in the stream of
information that is now so easy to produce and make publicly available.4
Nor is it likely to become so. In a world where there is more information
than anyone can process, the traditions and methods of scholarship (which,
at their best, turn information into knowledge and sometimes even into
wisdom) and academic libraries should be especially useful. And new IT
can help to ameliorate the problem that it has created, in that many of the
tools that have been developed can be used to focus the range of material
to be searched.
Fundamentally, scholarship is about learning, describing, and
explaining what one has learned and how one has learned it. From the
most reductionist science to the most interpretive work in the humanities,
to practice the scholar’s trade it is essential that we be able to provide our
readers (or viewers) with accurate and reliable guides to the sources of our
knowledge and understanding. Weeks, months, years, or decades from the
time that a scholarly work is made public, a user of that work must be able
to follow the chain of interpretation employed by the original scholar. If
we are to stand on the shoulders of giants, we need to know exactly whose
shoulders they are and where they can be found. Thus, when I cite a paper
by Paul Samuelson5 in my own work, a subsequent reader can reliably and
accurately find Samuelson’s paper, determine the accuracy of my citation,
and dispute (or not) my interpretation. If things are working well, the
dispute can be limited to interpretation, because we will have good biblio-
graphic control over the sources themselves. The ability to replicate sources
and methods (and thus to understand both insights and errors) across long
periods of time is essential for the practice of scholarship. Without it we
cannot know what our predecessors knew or thought that they knew, and
hence we cannot make reliable use of their work. Put simply, it is essential
that we be able to answer the question “what were they thinking,” in order
to make sense of what they said and did, whoever “they” may be.
In the good old days, when print was the only practical medium for
communication of most scholarship, and when printing and distributing
print was expensive, bibliographic control was relatively straightforward.
An edition of a scholarly work (or pretty much any published work) could
be well and compactly described with metadata that was natural for the
publisher to produce and the librarian to collect. The second printing
of the third edition of a particular book would be (almost) identical and
(almost) identically described pretty much wherever it might be kept.
Precision and reliability were even better for academic journals. (My
colleagues who are in cataloging can go on forever, with some justice,
about how it was never as good or as simple as I am making it out to be.


But I claim that for almost all scholarship, almost all of the time, the quality
of bibliographic control was good enough and then some.)
The academic library, of course, has always been the keeper of the keys
to this magical kingdom of reliable citation and provenance, greatly aided
by the system of scholarly publishing and publishing more generally. It
continues to fall to the academic library to ensure the reliable availability of
scholarly works and other source material used by scholars, but this task is
made much more difficult in a world where revision, copying, and making
work public is trivially available to almost everyone, with no requirement
for metadata or provenance and no presumption that a work with a title
and URL that is available today will be available with the same title and
location tomorrow, much less 40 or 100 years from now.
Scholarly work itself still comes with good metadata, and a great deal
of effort has gone into ensuring that scholarly work, even when produced
and distributed in digital form, can be reliably archived indefinitely. (This
effort is not trivial, and it is to the credit of research libraries, scholarly
publishers, and the good offices of the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation,
among others, that we can reasonably expect that current and future
scholarly work will be available on the terms that scholarship requires.)
But we face more serious problems, which can be well summarized by a
symptom: it is much easier to search on the web, using Google or other search
engines, than it is to do “proper” search and exploration of the scholarly liter-
ature on a subject.Thus, for many users, especially young people not schooled
in the joys of serious bibliographic work, “good enough” threatens to replace
“good.”6 There are at least three things going on here:
1. Internet-based search engines are powerful and easy to
use, whereas the search tools available for the rich collec-
tions held and licensed by academic libraries are powerful
only in the hands of users who are expert in both specific
library resources and fairly arcane subject areas. The typical
undergraduate—indeed, the typical academic working
outside her own field—is likely to have much the better
experience starting with Google than with federated
search on library databases.7
2. An enormous amount of scholarly literature and other
printed material is simply not findable through any electronic
means, as it does not exist in digital form.
3. Even where the material is digitized and indexed, as in the case
of works found in Google Book Search, material currently
under copyright cannot be read online except as short snippets,
and even this level of access is threatened by lawsuit.


The consequence is that scholarly method is simply not available on
terms where it has any chance of competing with Internet search engines.
It follows that we have a great deal to overcome if we are to ensure that
our students develop scholarly literacy. Even in the best of cases, of course,
good scholarly practice is far more demanding than practice that is not so
good. Indeed, this was true in the days when everything was in print, and
the difference was that between work that got an A and work that got a B,
C, or even a D. The problem we face today is that if one is willing to settle
for performance that is “good enough,” it is often possible to deliver at that
level without engaging in scholarly practice at all. In other words, students
may get good grades for research papers that are superficially persuasive
but do not embody any serious scholarship. As a result, students may never
learn the difference between excellence and mere adequacy in scholarship,
as they may never have attended at all to the sources and methods that
scholarship requires.
I want to reemphasize here that my interest in students’ learning of
scholarly method does not derive from hope or expectation that more
than a tiny fraction of them will become scholars. Rather, I believe that an
appreciation of evidence, an ability to distinguish between persuasive and
unpersuasive argument, an ability to seek and to find authoritative sources
(skeptically, always skeptically), and a recognition that it is important to
know “what they were thinking” will provide great benefit to our students
and the societies that they comprise.
No one should be able to get away with argument by vigorous
assertion backed by convenient sources. Experience of the value of
scholarly method is the best defense we have against lies, laziness, and
foolish ideas in essentially all domains of life where ideas and under-
standing matter. Further, there is no knowledge-based process in which
looking things up, knowing what one has looked up, and under-
standing others’ reasoning are not essential. Law, medicine, engineering,
construction, agriculture, cooking, and pretty much everything else require
careful records of processes and methods both for ongoing activities and
for reliable innovation.

What Must the Academy Do?
In all of this, IT should be our friend. IT can and should be of
enormous help in bringing ideas, evidence, and a diversity of relevant
expertise to the problem at hand, whatever that problem may be.
Furthermore, IT should increase accessibility to and the process of tracking
the ideas that underlie attempts to solve those problems. It is the job of the


education system at all levels to deliver on this promise. Doing so in higher
education will require material changes within the university, in the system
of scholarly publishing, and in the broader system of intellectual property
and copyright. Within the academy we must do two things.

Require the Serious Practice of Scholarship
The first thing we must do is to insist that a substantial fraction of
our undergraduate courses require the serious practice of scholarship. It
is not sufficient to teach a course in the library on information literacy
or scholarly literacy. It is probably not even useful to teach such a
course if its emphasis is on teaching students to navigate the impossible
maze of databases and search tools that come with the enormous power
and complexity of digital resources in research libraries. [Trust me, after
it is explained that one can look at only eight databases at a time in
federated search,8 and that determining which eight are best depends
on the problem at hand—and oh, by the way, there are half a dozen
(or is it a dozen?) broad rubrics of search and there are a thousand or
more electronic resources in total in the library—the student’s eyes
glaze over. Indeed, the glazing starts fairly early in this process.] Rather,
teaching the importance of scholarly method must be done within the
context of specific learning—usually an assignment within a course—in
which documenting reliable sources matters for understanding and
for getting a good grade. Many faculty require such work, and many
students get the benefit of doing it, but especially in big universities it
is entirely possible for both faculty and students to succeed without this
vital interaction. The academic library can be of enormous help here, in
part by making it easy for faculty to require genuinely scholarly work
via the mechanism of helping students to find good sources and cite
them well and further by providing expertise both in the processes and
mechanisms of good scholarship.
So far, all I have done is propose that we do what good liberal
education has always done, recognizing that in the digital age it may take
extra work on the part of the faculty (hence requiring extra help on the
part of the library) to get the job done. That won’t be enough.

Exploit IT to Facilitate Scholarly Work
The second thing that should be done within the academy is to
exploit the ability of IT to facilitate collaborative work, by using the
techniques of social networking (Web 2.0) to allow students to teach


and learn from one other. Again, some of this goes on already, but
in combination with the requirement of scholarly practice, it can be
enormously valuable.
Within a few years, essentially all of the material in many academic
libraries will be available in digital form. Once it is in that form (and
relevant rights issues are resolved), we will be able to employ the tools of
Web 2.0 in the library in support of scholarship and learning. Students can
annotate and can “mashup” pretty much everything. The library becomes
the bin for the mashups, with care taken to preserve both the original
sources and the annotations along with the replicability and authenticity
that are essential for scholarship and progress.9
Thus, we can use IT and the traditions of scholarship to create
an environment where students get to use the academy’s methods and
materials to teach. We all know that teaching is the best way to learn. We
can now develop a library that has digital access to an enormous amount
of material and the expertise on how to find it and use it across disciplines
and generations. If we can persuade our students to use the academic
library, we can employ the tools of IT to learn from them (and from
each other) how it can be used in the context of much broader (and less
controlled) vocabularies than were imagined by the original catalogers.
This is all to the good, and has the promise of improving both academic
work itself and the application of scholarly method outside the academy.
Moreover, enlisting the considerable intelligence and energy of our
students in teaching in these ways may improve both the efficiency and
efficacy of undergraduate education itself.10

The Rights Environment: Work to Be Done
There is one missing piece, and that is a rights environment that
permits sharing and use of published work—scholarly, artistic, and
more—in digital form.11 Under current law, it is perfectly OK for
a student to go into the library and read a book that is still under
copyright, but it is generally not legal for the student to access a digital
copy of that book via the library’s web page, even in the vast majority of
cases where the copyrighted book is long out of print and the publisher
or author’s only way of finding a copy is to go to the library. Most out-
of-print works, of course, have very little street value, but in aggregate
they are enormously valuable, because they constitute (with the relatively
few works that are in print) the scholarly and cultural record that is
essential to the academy’s work of learning and teaching. These works
must be available in digital and findable form. Unless the works can be


easily discovered by electronic means, they simply will not be found
at all.12 Thus, the utopian vision that I have laid out here requires the
widespread availability of essentially the entire corpus of published work,
on reasonable terms, in the academic library.
On this last point, I am optimistic. Authors and artists care deeply about
their work having an impact, and old works that are not available digitally will
have almost no chance of further impact. It is plausible, both via the “long tail”
logic and through increased use in college courses and elsewhere, that a modest
revenue stream from out-of-print works can be generated for those who hold
copyright in such works. Colleges and universities and their libraries have spent
billions of dollars over the years preserving these works and will (if necessary)
be willing to pay somewhat more in order to make them more usable to their
communities, although it may stick in our craws to do so.To the extent that
digital copies can be used for preservation, or even as the principal means of
local access, libraries can save on the considerable costs of storing all of their
print collections securely and accessibly. In other words, there is room to strike
a deal, or set of deals, and the deal can facilitate improvement in the quality of
education and the quality of discourse.
There is plenty of work to do, but the work is exactly the sort of thing
that the academy ought to do well. Learning and teaching matter more
than ever, in large part because in the digital age, scholarly literacy is not
just for scholars.

Endnotes
1. I am grateful to Matthew Nielsen for valuable discussions and superb
research assistance.

2. Paul N. Courant, “Scholarship and Academic Libraries (and Their Kin) in the
World of Google,” First Monday 11, no. 8 (2006), http://www.firstmonday.dk/
issues/issue11_8/courant/index.html.

3. As Stanley Wilder has noted, “Any educational philosophy is doomed to
failure if it views students as information seekers in need of information-
seeking training.” From Stanley Wilder, “Information Literacy Makes All the
Wrong Assumptions,” The Chronicle of Higher Education (January 7, 2005): B13.

4. See, for example, Joe Esposito, “Does More Mean More?” Liblicense:
Licensing Digital Information (listserv with a searchable archive at Yale
University), thread posted January 22, 2006, http://www.library.yale.edu/
~llicense/ListArchives/0601/msg00066.html.

5. The particular paper I have in mind is Paul A. Samuelson’s work, “The Pure
Theory of Public Expenditure,” The Review of Economics and Statistics 36, no. 4


(November 1954): 387–89. This paper provides the formalism that allows us to
make economic sense of information and libraries, among other things.

6.Thomas Mann points out that good work requires tracking down the references
to see if they really say what the author says that they did. One cannot automate
this aspect of scholarship, and a long list of relevant citations does not substitute for
engagement with the works cited. See Thomas Mann, “The Peloponnesian War
and the Future of Reference, Cataloging, and Scholarship in Research Libraries”
(paper prepared for the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal
Employees 2910, Library of Congress Professional Guild, June 13, 2007), http://
guild2910.org/Peloponnesian%20War%20June%2013%202007.pdf.

7. Wilder notes that “if [a typical freshman] were to use her library’s website,
with its dozens of user interfaces, search protocols, and limitations, she might
with some justification conclude that it is the library, not her, that needs help
to understand the nature of electronic information retrieval.” Op. cit., B13.

8. This is a characteristic particular to the University of Michigan’s federated
search beast, but all such systems share a large set of problems in addition to
having a few issues peculiar to each of them.

9. Note that the one important aspect of the current rights environment
is that it may have a chilling effect on students’ willingness to use existing
works. The Recording Industry Association of America’s (RIAA’s) practice of
suing its customers will surely lead at least some students to abjure entirely
legitimate fair uses.

10. The terms Library 2.0 and Teaching 2.0 are already taken. A somewhat
infelicitous coinage for what I have in mind would be Learning-and-
Teaching-in-the-Library 2.0.

11. In an environment where the RIAA sues its own customers, students may
be rightfully wary about even legitimate fair uses of existing works.

12. By reducing archiving costs, digitization also helps libraries to avoid being
the arbiters of value for future generations. Historians and scholars have found
great value in items considered useless in their day, just as they will of many
of our artifacts today. We can potentially save much of this ephemera at much
lower cost than before, providing of course that we can perfect the process of
archiving the often transient content of the digital world.

Bibliography
Courant, Paul N. “Scholarship and Academic Libraries (and Their Kin) in the
World of Google.” First Monday 11, no. 8 (August 7, 2006). http://www
.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue11_8/courant/index.html.


Mann, Thomas. “The Peloponnesian War and the Future of Reference,
Cataloging, and Scholarship in Research Libraries.” Paper prepared for the
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)
2910, Library of Congress Professional Guild, June 13, 2007. http://guild2910
.org/Peloponnesian%20War%20June%2013%202007.pdf.

Samuelson, Paul A. “The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure.” The Review of
Economics and Statistics, 36, no. 4 (November 1954): 387–89.

Wilder, Stanley. “Information Literacy Makes All the Wrong Assumptions.” The
Chronicle of Higher Education (January 7, 2005): B13.


Where Is the New Learning?
Kristina Woolsey

I n the past 20 years, the expenditures on university campuses for digital
technologies have mushroomed, from millions to billions of dollars,
from hundreds to thousands of support staff and system designers. At
the same time, digital technologies have witnessed exponential growths
themselves—in processor speeds, in transmission rates, in memory,
in bandwidth. Goodwilled and generous investments in information
technology units on campus have created sophisticated digital infrastruc-
tures that were hardly imagined a few decades ago.
Yet of the billions of dollars now spent on technology at univer-
sities across the country, I suggest that only a very small percentage of
this resource is directed at enhancing teaching and learning. Certainly
there is general technical support for teaching and learning—including
administrative support, network administration, and general computer
support for word processing, PowerPoint slides, and web access—but
there is little specific investment in teaching and learning that attempts
to take full advantage of digital opportunities in enhancing this domain.
Administrative infrastructures are hungry for resources, security is critical,
basic operations require attention, and professors are busy. There are
few resources and little time available to focus on teaching and learning
broadly defined. This means that while we may have new media, we
don’t necessarily have new learning.

A Little History
More than 20 years ago, in 1987, Apple Computer, Inc., intro-
duced HyperCard to the marketplace, including it on all new Macintosh
computers. It was a new kind of technology product, one that brought
many ideas from research labs into the mainstream. Developed almost
single-handedly by Bill Atkinson, the author of MacPaint, the basic model
of HyperCard was the linking of static cards. These cards had texts or
images on them that could be linked to other cards (in “stacks”) with
simple clicks. Clicks on texts or images could also initiate a movie, initially
shown on a second screen (remember, video was an analog signal) though

Where Is the New Learning? 213

eventually moved onto the computer screen with the use of digitizing
boards. HyperCard stacks were created using a new language, called
HyperTalk, which was readily accessible to nonprogrammers.
In addition to providing a new model for off-the-shelf computing
that included hyperlinked multisensory user-programmable attributes
(arguably the key elements even today of new media), HyperCard
introduced an even more profound capability to the mainstream
computational realm—a focus on content, not calculation or analysis.
And content didn’t mean simple listings of texts or even images; it
included experiences in pursuing ideas, doing things, and relating
concepts. In a computational sense, HyperCard was rather unsubstantial.
On the other hand, it provided innovative ways to present hyperlinked
content materials that could be explored interactively, materials that
included speeches and movies and images as well as text. It extended
the palette for learning experience design.
For a number of years after the release of HyperCard, substantial
activity in learning enterprises—including universities—was aimed at
developing examples of new learning opportunities with HyperCard. I still
remember my excitement in seeing Professor Larry Friedlander’s project
at Stanford—From Page to Stage—which showed a number of different
performances of the same text from Shakespeare and which provided
exercises in blocking out scenes in a variety of ways. Not only did my
understanding and appreciation of Shakespeare increase in this viewing, I
also had the intuition that I could now begin to understand and appreciate
all performance arts in ways I had not before. I have similar memories of
watching Professor Robert Winter of UCLA demonstrate his analyses of
Beethoven’s music, providing commentary on both the technical aspects of
symphonies and a sense of their aesthetics as well as providing exercises for
the viewer to enhance the understanding of these elements.
At the time, I directed the Apple Multimedia Lab, where our charter
was to explore the implications and opportunities for HyperCard to
enhance learning. Our method of exploring was to make examples of
electronic environments that provided significant learning opportu-
nities for students. We spoke of this new media-rich capability as the
“new printing press.” In thinking about this, we came to more explicitly
appreciate the attributes of the printing press—including its abilities to
create multiple copies of materials and its methodology, which focused
on moving ideas beyond geographic, temporal, and personal boundaries.
We imagined how excited Gutenberg would have been if he had had the
capability to add sounds, pictures, movies, and interlinkages, nonlinearity,
and make-your-own capabilities to his products.


We considered the opportunities to reform all of education—from
kindergarten to graduate school—engaging these new capabilities, and
we were very optimistic. As part of this activity, we looked to univer-
sities for collaboration in a number of contexts. One example was the
establishment of the New Media Centers (NMC, now titled the New
Media Consortium, given a change in concept). Acknowledging that
most faculty did not have the instincts or talents to engage electronic
environments for learning, we partnered with Adobe and Macromedia to
support a number of centers on university campuses that would provide
support to interested faculty in creating electronic learning environments
for students and suggest examples of new media opportunities in the
faculty member’s area of interest.
We also partnered with Kinko’s to provide publishing mechanisms so
that materials created on one campus could be available more generally, so
that faculty could move beyond their face-to-face traditions and extend
their expertise to students who weren’t in their classes. Our intention was
to seed a new “media-rich learning enterprise”; we would provide the
technical tools and universities would create new media genres for learning
that would reveal new opportunities for our tool development.

Fast Forward to 2008
It has now been more than 20 years since HyperCard was intro-
duced, and approximately 10 years since the Internet has been engaged
broadly to add the powerful notion of interconnectivity to the learning
experience design palette (thus enabling all sorts of revolutionary
social networks and distribution opportunities). Yet I do not think that
universities have contributed very much to the exploration of new
media learning opportunities during these years, most certainly not in
ways that go beyond local geographies, times, and individuals in the
spirit of the printing press.
Those innovations that have been made have been typically limited
to individual campus contexts, and often to a handful of professors.
Most of the new media genres—wikis, blogs, and podcasts, IM and
Facebook, virtual realities and gaming—have emerged from the popular
culture, not the university culture. University publishers remain focused
on research publications, not teaching materials, and these typically
remain print- and paper-centric.
There have been few substantial electronic treatises developed at
major universities to provide systematic understanding of new materials
or to extend the reach of single-university professors. Textbooks and


readers and original source materials are still the major sources of direct
information for students (including Internet versions of these); face-
to-face lectures are still the central methods for conveying content
(although they might include PowerPoint slides); and text is still the
coin of the realm. The medieval models of university education are alive
and well, even as texts are now transmitted electronically instead of in
conversation or on paper. Even attempts at scaling a good university
experience, through distance education of a range of types, do not
typically go very far beyond reenactment of lectures over distances or
wider distribution of print materials.

New Media Can Support New Learning
One could logically argue that this situation has emerged because new
media do not offer anything for learning, that their capabilities are funda-
mentally suited for pop culture and commercial enterprises, that they have
no relevance to the serious abstract theoretical thoughtful domain of the
university.Yet, although it is the case that some of the uses of new media
are mindless, this position is countered by countless examples of situations
where new media have been shown to provide important insights and
significant learning:
K Simulations and games can provide high levels of engagement,
providing opportunities for what-if reasoning explorations as
well as direct experience over extended periods of time for
direct interactions with phenomena.
K Movies and stills of historic interviews or events and of
historical artifacts and reconstructions provide original
evidence as well as elements for research explanations.
K Media-rich field observations of biological phenomena
can provide important materials for later analysis, as well as
powerful elements for encouraging conversations.
K Connections between experts spread around the world and
aggregations of data gathered from sensors also spread globally
can enhance collaborations and explanations.
K Distributed blogs can provide multiple interpretations of
events that are not possible with a limited number of profes-
sional media outlets.
And, contrary to 20 years ago, most of us have had direct experience
with a number of examples like these.
In addition, a number of arguments for these new media representa-
tions have been set forth in the past two decades to encourage the serious


consideration of their incorporation in learning. Many arguments focus
on learning style; these arguments suggest that new media representations
are very important to certain learners, such as visual and acoustic learners
and others who struggle with texts. Other arguments are based on repre-
sentational appropriateness; these arguments suggest that certain materials
require new media for their core development, be it the interlinking of
original source materials in the humanities or the economic simulations of
large data sets or the acoustic readings of poetry to lend focus to the sound
of the poetry. There is also a popular set of “fashion” arguments emerging;
these suggest that this is the way the world is going, hence it is important
for students to gain currency in this world.
At first glance this last argument might be considered faddish, and in
some sense it is. Just because everyone is doing it, why should new media
be incorporated into the university learning enterprise? However, this
argument becomes very powerful once one acknowledges that the youth
of today are being brought up in a world that is densely packed with new
media experiences; interactions with television, video games, and the
computer take up a substantial amount of a youth’s life by the time he or
she enters the university. It seems quite reasonable to take advantage of
the perspectives and skills developed by these individuals, and it becomes
important to acknowledge their backgrounds as one designs learning
environments for these digital youth, providing them with knowledge and
experiences to allow them to move from their status of digital natives to
responsible digital citizens.
Yet, few universities have developed sustained programs to investigate
new media opportunities systematically, to identify where they are effective
and where they are not. Nor have faculty broadly embraced new media
opportunities in extending new learning opportunities for their students.
There are few university groups that address the interdisciplinary field of
new media learning, and no emergent “new media rhetoric” departments
to investigate opportunities in this arena.

Obstacles to New Learning
There does not seem to be any strong intellectual argument about this,
but instead the inertia to stay with the familiar is routinely overcoming the
instinct to try to improve, in a system that has few established metrics that
might identify a need for improvement in the learning enterprise. There
are frequent blips in the learning landscape, as something exciting emerges,
but then, unfortunately, the promising developments typically disappear or
are replaced by something even more exciting for the moment.


Administrative organizational structures, even those initiated to
support learning, tend to focus on meeting the insatiable demands of the
changing technologies, and the invention of new learning approaches (or
the sustenance of approaches that were new 5 years ago) is put aside. Brave
faculty who embrace the new media opportunities typically burn out after
a couple of years of experimentation, or they come to their senses and
focus on their research and the demands of their institutions for promotion.
Some argue that the reason faculty cannot create great learning
experiences for their students is that they don’t have the financial resources
that commercial enterprises have.Video games require millions of dollars
to create, for example, establishing quite a high bar for visual design and
interactivity that seems by many to be impossible to match. Of course,
the reason video game companies can invest this much in their games is
that they plan to sell the games and recoup their investments (and more).
And yet universities, which are themselves multimillion-dollar businesses
receiving direct payment from their “customers” for “learning services” (for
example, tuition), have not organized themselves to invest directly in the
development of new learning materials and environments.
The core investment that universities do make in the learning enter-
prise is to hire great faculty, and then give them almost complete freedom
and autonomy in carrying out their teaching responsibilities. Great faculty
are obviously central to great universities and can be very important
for student learning, but, almost by definition in most academic fields,
these great faculty are extremely immersed in print representations of
their expertise. Few university faculty claim to be expert in nontextual,
nonlinear distributed explanations, and if they do, they are not typically
provided stimulating environments in which they can extend their
expertise with colleagues.
The new media resource groups that have emerged on campuses
struggle to collaborate with faculty. The hierarchies that divide faculty
and staff prevent equal collaborations between form and content, and so
the assistance that staff can provide faculty is typically limited to technical
assistance rather than to significant experimentation and imaginative
explorations of explanations and learning activities in a content domain.
Collaborations between faculty and new media experts and craftsmen
more often than not disintegrate, as an equal footing for “form and
content” in a design activity is very difficult to maintain.
Outside of the university there are few economic drivers for the
exploration and development of new media learning opportunities,
especially to pursue implementation at scale after an initial idea has been
articulated and demonstrated. Resources on the Internet are expected to


be available at no cost (except for the viewing of some distracting adver-
tisements) and the technical updating of electronic products has proved
too expensive for most publishers. No new publishers have emerged to
support the “new media textbook” (acknowledging that both the words
text and book are metaphoric), so there are not even the traditional venues
for the development of teaching materials in collaboration with an outside
publisher available for new media materials.
Without university support or organization or outside resources,
faculty are then very unlikely to commit substantial resources to develop
new media environments for their students. Many media support facil-
ities then go ahead and develop new media materials without faculty
involvement; yet without faculty participation in creation and a broad
faculty commitment to use, the impact on the students and the institutions
is typically not very significant or long lasting.

Summary
At the end of the day, we are committing billions of dollars to digital
technologies on our campuses, and we are not impacting the funda-
mental competencies of the academy as a place of learning. Research has
advanced significantly in its engagement of new technologies—to model
new phenomena, to gather new data, to visualize new results in ways not
possible without the technologies—but the general mission of learning at
universities has not typically followed this successful model.
We are supporting lots of computers and many tools for individual
expression and information gathering. We are extending infrastructures to
support the newest digital technologies that are introduced by industry.
However, at the core, we are not focused on learning with technologies.
We are supporting students with computers so that they can better take
advantage of an educational system that is at its heart still an idiosyncratic
face-to-face, text-based enterprise. All the exponential trends we are riding
in technology development and computer use simply do not add up to
significant advances in new learning paradigms.
Oh, well. Many students at great universities are doing just fine. The
revolution is still just around the next corner.

Teaching and Learning Unleashed 219

Teaching and Learning
Unleashed with Web 2.0 and
Open Educational Resources
Christine Geith

A t a meeting of the OpenCourseWare Consortium, Dr.
Richard Rowe, former president of the One Laptop per Child
Foundation and founding partner of the Open Learning
Exchange, challenged us to change the frame through which we view
the world: to perceive our world based on abundance and not on
scarcity.1 Looking at education, how can we create abundance, and
what would it look like? Though Rowe was focusing on education in
developing countries, his frame is also useful for viewing education
systems for formal and informal learning in developed countries.
Taking up Rowe’s challenge, this essay examines how the latest web
capabilities (Web 2.0), in combination with open educational resources
(OER), are creating abundance for teaching and learning.2 Let’s consider
this abundance by looking at Gwyn’s story and exploring what this might
mean for formal education.

Gwyn’s Story
Meet Gwyn, a typical adult in her early 30s in the United States.
She is involved in one of the nation’s leading hobbies and shares many
of the characteristics of web users described by the Pew Internet and
American Life research.3
Gwyn is passionate about horses—she rides a friend’s horse every
weekend, has been taking riding lessons for two years, and attends many
local horse shows with the dream of being a competitor herself. She is
planning to buy two horses of her own. Gwyn owns a house and enough
land for horses, but needs to build the horse barn and set up her pasture
before her dream of being a horse owner can become a reality.


Gwyn’s Network Activities
Gwyn shares the progress on her plans for setting up her horse farm
on her blog, where she regularly gets advice and feedback from other horse
lovers. Some of the feedback is from people she knows, including friends,
new acquaintances from horse shows, a local riding instructor, and a
growing number of like-minded people who are either looking to do what
she’s doing or have already done it and are giving advice.
She says that writing in her blog helps her pull her ideas together
and that when she gets comments back, it really makes her feel as though
she’s getting it and that she can really do what she plans. She also talks
about how people in online groups have helped her decide what kind of
equipment to look for when she sets up her barn and have her thinking
about using wind energy to power her farm. She’s starting to gather
resources and make contact with people on that topic in order to incor-
porate it into her planning. At least two of the groups she’s found in her
social network applications are sharing helpful resources, and she plans to
attend some of their local events.
Gwyn is continuously trying to learn all she can about what horse to
buy. She reads online articles on horses and has downloaded many educa-
tional horse posters on topics such as horse breeds and colors. She also
found a free and open horse breeding textbook online. She seeks advice
from horse professionals using an online ask-the-expert service and in the
leading discussion forum for horse breeders.
Gwyn stays up to the minute on the latest happenings in the horse
world with the custom page she set up for horses. Right now it displays
horse news from the leading publishers, horse photos, the latest postings
from her two online groups, the latest links in her social bookmark site,
and the latest feeds from the 50 horse blogs she subscribes to. She checks
her site every time she’s at her computer throughout the day. She also has
daily photos and blog headlines sent to her PDA.
She’s starting to use her PDA to send short video blog posts when
she rides on weekends. It’s show season now, so she’s been getting lots of
photos and text messages from friends about what they are wearing and
who is winning at the shows. She likes to take lots of photos, too, which
she shares online, and has had a few used by others on their sites, which
makes her want to take even more and better pictures.
When asked how she’s figuring out how to set up her farm, Gwyn
says she seeks advice mostly from her friend who shares her horse and
some of the people she’s gotten to know from riding, such as her riding
instructor. She says she’s been able to go deeper into details and options
through what she’s learned on the web and that her website and social


bookmark site have really helped her organize her resources and even find
a lot more.
Gwyn reports that some of the free web tools she’s found have really
helped her plan. She found a landscape planning tool she’s used to diagram
her farm and share it in her blog; she’s used the map coupled with site data
to prepare her land use permit; and she found a pasture management calcu-
lator and a nutrition calculator.
Gwyn also found a number of online courses that could help
her; some were free and some were not. She went through a free
OpenCourseWare (OCW) university course on pasture management
that she said helped her a great deal, even without the instructor. Since it
was licensed using Creative Commons, she copied parts of it, combined
it with her photos, and shared it on her blog. Other open educational
resources have provided her with valuable information about caring for
and managing horses. Next, she’s planning to enroll in a noncredit online
course in horse management offered by Michigan State University’s My
Horse University (http://www.myhorseuniversity.com). She’d like to
make sure she knows what she’s doing for her new horse and she trusts the
university will have the best research-based information.
Next month, Gwyn breaks ground on her farm. Then, she’ll update
her goals on 43 Things (http://www.43things.com) and start working on
her next goal.

Gwyn’s Personal Learning Environment
Gwyn’s story describes today’s web-enabled environment for informal,
personalized learning. Let’s look at the kinds of learning activities in which
Gwyn is engaged.
Gwyn is discovering, selecting, and assembling resources; doing
analysis and data visualization; engaging in both local and global commu-
nities of novices and experts; creating and publishing content; writing
to reflect, synthesize, and apply; receiving feedback on her progress from
experienced peers; and setting and publicly stating learning and perfor-
mance goals for herself. Gwyn is also engaged in formal learning with a
trusted, reliable source to achieve a particular level of expertise.
The breadth, depth, and volume of resources on the topic, the high
level of engagement with a global community of interest, and the ability to
create and publish resources as part of the community set this experience
apart from any other form of informal learning prior to Web 2.0. The
speed, scope, scale, and personal control of what Gwyn is able to do in this
environment is unlike anything that has existed before for individuals. With


the growing number of open educational resources and tools, personal
learning environments are growing faster, richer, more individualized, and
even more socially connected and complex.

Teaching and Learning Unleashed
Fortunately, networked environments thrive on abundance and
complexity. The more people use them, tag them, mash them up, and remix
them, the more useful they become. In many ways this is the opposite
of what happens in institutional environments trying to manage scarce
resources. For example, lectures enable one expert to teach many; office
hours schedule scarce faculty time; curriculum and course syllabi standardize
content; class schedules pace interactions; and credit hours standardize
outcomes. OER and Web 2.0 are creating an abundance of what has been
scarce in the past while enabling us to manage the growing complexity.

Open Educational Resources
What happens when universities make their structured educational
content available via the web? It leads to even more resources and increases
our chances of finding things that are useful, or can be made useful, in our
own context. From MIT’s pioneering OCW project (http://ocw.mit.edu)
to the United Kingdom Open University’s OpenLearn project (http://
www.open.ac.uk/openlearn/home.php) to the more than 120 univer-
sities worldwide that are publishing open resources through the OCW
Consortium, the OER Commons site (http://oercommons.org) shows
24,000 such resources, and there are thousands more in other portal and
repository sites. From computer literacy to irrigation to biotechnology,
resources range from course presentations and readings to videos and anima-
tions. Moreover, there are hundreds of schools and organizations around
the world translating materials into multiple languages and making them
available as open resources (for an example, see http://oops.editme.com).
A growing number of these resources use licensing such as the Creative
Commons license (see http://creativecommons.org) that enables free use
and reuse of the resources. The increasing recognition of this license around
the world is one of the enablers of the rapid growth in OER.
Anything can be used as a resource for learning, but an “educational”
resource is intended to facilitate learning. The OCW Consortium defines
it as having a planned structure to achieve defined learning outcomes.
Jon Dron defines it, from the learner’s perspective, as being “… sufficient
to encapsulate a learning need that may be experienced as a choice in a


learning trajectory.”4 As educational resources become open and available,
learners have the freedom to utilize the information they need to construct
their own learning as well as create new resources that may be useful to
others. Open educational resources take knowledge out of the hands of
few into the minds of many.

Abundance of Active, Constructive, Collaborative
Interaction
Making resources available is only the beginning. As resources prolif-
erate, more tools are emerging to find them, remix them, mash them
up, and cocreate them in social networks. Finding educational resources
is being made easier by the ccLearn project of Creative Commons
(http://learn.creativecommons.org). Tools such as wikis enable people
to contribute, edit, and discuss resources in an environment of shared
creation. Wikiversity (http://en.wikiversity.org), WikiEducator (http://
wikieducator.org), and Curriki (http://www.curriki.org) are examples
of open educational resource wikis for teaching and learning. Remix
and mashup tools include Rice University Connexions (http://cnx.org),
which enables custom textbooks. If you have access to the software that
created the original resources, and if they are licensed in a way that enables
derivative works, you can download and edit resource files such as those on
Teachers’ Domain (http://www.teachersdomain.org). For this reason, open
file formats, such as OpenOffice (http://www.openoffice.org) and Kaltura
(http://www.kaltura.com) are used to enable global access.

Freedom of Time and Place
One of the important legacies of distance and online learning is
growing acceptance that learning online can be as good as, and even
better than, learning face to face. The No Significant Difference research
phenomenon (http://www.nosignificantdifference.org) has matured to the
extent that the majority of academic officers in U.S. institutions agree that
online is as good as face to face and getting better. Online learning is offered
by more than two-thirds of U.S. higher education institutions and the rate
of compound annual growth in online enrollment has been 21.5 percent
during the past five years.5 Clearly, we know how to create effective learning
experiences that are available anytime, all the time, and anywhere.


Access to Expertise
While it is still not easy to fill faculty positions in institutions, the web
is making it easier to tap into a range of people from novice to expert.
Self-publishing in blogs, podcasts, video, and image archives does not make
anyone an expert, but reputation systems certainly start to provide infor-
mation useful in making judgments about someone’s level of expertise.
Finding peers, mentors, coaches, and experts—people who play key roles
in learning experiences—is enabled by services such as Tutor.com (http://
www.tutor.com) and social learning sites such as Livemocha (http://
www.livemocha.com), eHow (http://www.ehow.com), and LearnHub
(http://learnhub.com). Gwyn, for example, could have asked questions of
university equine experts at Extension.com (see http://www.extension.
org/expert/ask_an_expert) or of peers at EquiSearch.com’s community
site (http://forum.equisearch.com). She also could have used ChaCha
(http://www.chacha.com) for quick answers to her horse questions on her
mobile phone.

Additional Credentialing
One of the constraints in the new environment is a lack of creden-
tialing mechanisms. Curriculum standards, unit skill standards, and
knowledge and skill competency definitions are growing open resources.
Open self-diagnostic tests and the ability for learners to organize their
e-portfolios around standards are here now.Yet measuring, valuing, and
recognizing learner performance remains an exclusive function inside
formal education systems.
Quality is traditionally tied closely to the brand of the institution. The
brand has many factors that influence its perceived value, including price
and exclusiveness, alumni network, job placement rate, and much more.
Another view of quality comes from a focus on the performance of the
learner. Direct-assessment universities such as Western Governors and a
number of adult competency–based institutions place the assessment of
learning outcomes at the center of their quality brands.
It is possible that we’ll see growth in credentialing bodies such
as formal organizations, institutions, and communities of practice that
will endorse various assessments and value them within their commu-
nities. We may see the emergence of performance records aggregated
and maintained by individuals independent of their service providers.
Today’s search tools enable an informal record of contributions to
communities—blog posts, the contribution of resources, and the partic-
ipation in communities—which are all means of creating a reputation,


a measure of expertise in context. It has yet to be seen if, or in what
ways, Web 2.0 and OER will trigger the emergence of an abundance
of credentialing options focused on the performance of the learner
outside the walls of formal education.

Conclusion
Gwyn’s story illustrates how Web 2.0 and OER are creating an
abundance of resources and emergent structures that enable a rich
environment to support individual, personalized learning:
K an environment organized by the learner to define and
achieve their learning goals;
K learning where “learners” and “teachers” are freed from
constraints imposed by a scarcity of expertise and a scarcity of
learning resources; and
K learning where learners choose and cocreate their resources
and support services.
This gives us a glimpse into what is becoming possible using an ever-
growing abundance of digital, socially networked resources and systems that
thrive on complexity and self-organization.There is still a long way to go, and
critical issues to be worked out, from these pioneering efforts to widespread
adoption.Yet, it is already becoming clear that Web 2.0, OER, and the legacy
of online learning hold the potential to help us create education systems that
thrive on large-scale abundance to enable individual performance.

Endnotes
1. For information about the OpenCourseWare Consortium, see http://www
.ocwconsortium.org; for the One Laptop per Child Foundation, see http://
laptopfoundation.org; for the Open Learning Exchange, see http://ole.org;
for the agenda of the OCW Consortium Santander 2007 meeting, see http://
ohana.mit.edu/ocwc/display/Meetings/Santander+07+Agenda.

2. Open educational resources (OER) is a global social movement to provide
free-to-use and reuse teaching and learning resources— from K–12 lesson
plans to college courseware—for anyone to use, reuse, tag, rate, and review. For
examples, see http://www.oercommons.org. Also see the OECD 2007 report,
Giving Knowledge for Free:The Emergence of Open Educational Resources, at http://
www.oecd.org/dataoecd/35/7/38654317.pdf.

3. Pew Internet and American Life Project, “Hobbyists Online,” September 19,
2007, http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Hobbies_2007.pdf.


4. Jon Dron, Control and Constraint in E-Learning: Choosing When to Choose
(Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing, 2007), 134.

5. I. Elaine Allen and Jeff Seaman, Online Nation: Five Years of Growth in Online
Learning (Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium, 2007), 5, http://www.sloan-c
.org/publications/survey/pdf/online_nation.pdf.

Bibliography
Allen, I. Elaine, and Jeff Seaman. Online Nation: Five Years of Growth in Online
Learning. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium, 2007. http://www.sloan-c.org/
publications/survey/pdf/online_nation.pdf.

Dron, Jon. Control and Constraint in E-Learning: Choosing When to Choose.
Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing, 2007.

Pew Internet and American Life Project. “Hobbyists Online.” September 19,
2007. http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Hobbies_2007.pdf.

University 2.0 227

University 2.0
John Unsworth

O ne of the major challenges facing universities in the next
decade is to reinvent themselves as information organiza-
tions. Universities are, at their core, organizations that cultivate
knowledge, seeking both to create new knowledge and to preserve
and convey existing knowledge, but they are remarkably inefficient
and therefore ineffective in the way that they leverage their own infor-
mation resources to advance that core activity. In what follows, I will
explore some of the ways that the university could learn from what is
now widely called “Web 2.0”—a term that is meant to identify a shift
in emphasis from the computer as platform to the network as platform,
from hardware to data, from the wisdom of the expert to the wisdom of
crowds, and from fixity to remixability.

The Information Railroad
In approaching this topic, I would like to begin with a summary of
a very interesting article on what will seem like a very different topic:
“The Transportation Revolution and Antebellum Book Distribution
Reconsidered,” by Ronald J. Zboray. This article was published back in the
spring of 1986, well before Web 1.0.1
As is customary in academic writing, Zboray begins by recapitulating
the accepted understanding that his article is meant to modify. He writes,
The transportation revolution has generally been
credited with nationalizing—some may even say
homogenizing—literary life in the antebellum
United States. Prior to improvements in modes of
transport, book production was highly decentralized,
with numerous secondary cities supplying reading
matter to their immediate hinterlands. The
regional orientation of production inspired by this
decentralization was, according to the traditional
view, disrupted early in the nineteenth century by
the first wave of the transportation revolution. A truly


national reading public came into being and with it,
presumably, a truly American literature.2
Zboray’s second paragraph then summarizes the modification he
proposes to that view:
While this view certainly does hold a great deal of
truth it contains much oversimplification as well.
The broad concept of the “transportation revolution”
obscures the special role the railroad played in changing
patterns of literary dissemination in antebellum America.
The improvements in road and water transport that
characterized the early transportation revolution did little
to facilitate the circulation of literature on a national
scale. Books continued to move along many of the
same avenues and in the same tenuous, seasonal manner
as they had in the days of the colonial book peddlers.
But it was the railroad that improved the regularity of
communications upon which the emergent discount/
commission relationship between central publisher and
local bookseller depended. Also, the year-round regularity
of rail communication permitted a national periodical
literature in which publishers could advertise their books.3
So, while the railroad was important in moving books more easily, it
was (Zboray argues) at least as important as a communications technology
that lowered what we would now call the transaction costs of publishing,
and that allowed advance marketing to reach a broad audience. Moving
the stuff, moving the money, moving the marketing: each of these was
made easier by a single technology—the railroad. But if we assume that
railroad service was the same in all parts of the country, then our railroad-
based understanding of the changes in publishing would fail by assuming
homogeneity instead of understanding heterogeneity and its effects. On
that last point, Zboray says:
… the regional orientation of book dissemination did
not diminish as much as the traditional view would
have it. Instead, the coming of rail transformed the
regional orientation of literature, so that it conformed
to the different levels of rail development in the North,
South, and West. With conditions of literary distribution
differing in each of the three regions, the very idea of a
truly national reading public in antebellum America may
itself be an oversimplification.4

University 2.0 229

Information Friction
The Zboray article is a nuanced discussion of what I would call
“information friction” in the 19th century—the factors impeding the
movement of information in various forms from one place to another, and
the lubricating effect of a new technology on the coefficient of friction for
different materials interacting in a system.5
Now I would like to focus on information friction in the present,
and in a system that, like the one Zboray discussed, includes publishing
but also has other important components. And while for Zboray the larger
frame in which publishing existed was the American reading public, for
my purposes that larger frame is something more concrete, though perhaps
no more homogeneous, namely, the 21st century university. My argument
will be that universities, out of which the Internet (and its low-friction
protocols) originally emerged, seem in their own information practices to
gravitate to monolithic information systems that promise to be seamless
but in practice prove to be less flexible and ultimately less innovative and
interesting than the granular and remixable information services now
often called Web 2.0. And while these monolithic systems may offer more
control to administrators, they prevent innovation by faculty, staff, and
students, and they ultimately make the university comparatively inefficient
as an information organization.6
I will admit that, as an administrator, I have sometimes thought that
universities, like religious orthodoxies, may be designed to inhibit change
in order to ensure the perpetuation of the values they represent, in which
case what I’m discussing here would be a feature, not a bug. But be that as
it may, it is demonstrably true that universities exhibit relatively high infor-
mation friction, and it seems worth asking what would be different if that
friction were reduced.
Most faculty, I think, have had the experience of going to a conference
in some faraway place, only to discover that they share a research interest
with someone else at their own university—but at the same time, are any
two disciplines’ conference abstracts prepared in the same way, and could
we actually cross-reference them? That’s anecdotal evidence that we need
better information exchange within and across universities. So is the fact
that as interdisciplinary educational programs become more important, it
is surprisingly difficult to inventory courses and collocate syllabi in a given
topic area across colleges, schools, and departments. For that matter, could
our students import their class schedules into their personal calendars?
And how many of us work on campuses where there are multiple incom-
patible calendaring systems in use? And how often can we actually follow
citations in online journals to articles in other online journals as reliably


as we could, with print, by trudging through the stacks? What methods do
we have of understanding the intellectual heritage of those around us (who
was my colleague’s dissertation adviser?) and how can we know who else
is connected to them in that heritage? Where is the RSS (Really Simple
Syndication) for CVs? What tools do we have for assessing the nature,
extent, and value of informal collaborations and coauthorship? What tools
do we have for actually managing the threads and throes of our e-mail
lives, now so totally out of control?
I have been a part of a community-based standards development process,
in the Text Encoding Initiative (TEI), and I am familiar with both the value
and the shortcomings of that approach to solving the kinds of problems
I have just enumerated. Certainly there is a very real value in having the
discussions that inform such standards, and in embodying the outcomes of
those discussions in guidelines, at least when the subject matter is of central
disciplinary and intellectual interest to scholars (so, in the case of TEI, the
ontology of literary and linguistic texts), but there are well-known problems
with approaching information integration as a matter of uniformity in
metadata or markup—beginning with the problem that in the real world,
even when you aim for uniformity, you do not achieve it, so tools and
techniques that depend on it will break. Beyond that problem, there is the
fact that there will not always be intrinsic intellectual interest in ontological
debates around all of the data types that are important to universities as
information organizations (calendars? CVs? syllabi?).
Sometimes, in these cases, there are other imperatives that drive, or try
to drive, integration—usually administrative ones. In the two universities
where I have worked in the last 15 years, hundreds of millions of dollars,
quite literally, have been spent to license, customize, and deploy enterprise
resource systems that aim to integrate all of the administrative functions
of the university under one schema, one ontology, one monolithic infor-
mation infrastructure.
Searching for “information friction” on Google, I actually found one
such system, though not one aimed at universities: “ComFrame removes
the friction that inhibits smooth operations, seamless communications, and
optimal productivity. We create solutions that break down enterprise infor-
mation processing barriers, helping you move forward” (see http://www.
comframe.com/why/why_ops_01.htm). Even in this brief description,
“seamless” is a red flag: the promise of “seamlessness” is premised on
uniformity, on total control over the generation and use of information
resources. The notion is that you run an empire, and your problem is
unruly principalities—if you could only subjugate them all to one infor-
mation regime, then the emperor’s new clothes would be...seamless.

University 2.0 231

However, the reality of our information ecosystems today is that
they are not closed systems but open ones: no university, for example,
generates and controls all of the information that is important to its faculty,
its students, or its staff. That is a simple and undeniable fact, and from
that follows the observation that a seamless information management
environment can only be some kind of terrarium, artificially closed off
from the world around it.

Needed: “Seamy” Systems
What we need instead, I would argue, are “seamy” information
systems, designed for cobbling together new information services, showing
(even foregrounding) their discontinuities, but doing so in ways that
encourage people to think about new ways to draw this or that bit of
information into this or that information context and provide this or that
information service.

BibApp
An excellent example of this kind of flexible and innovative infor-
mation service in a university context is something from the University
of Wisconsin–Madison’s library, now also being adopted at my university,
called BibApp. Strictly speaking, BibApp involves more prefetched and
preprocessed data than mashups usually do, but it is certainly in the spirit
of mashups in that it cobbles together a number of information sources to
do something interesting and new. Here’s a brief sketch of what it does and
what you can do with the result.
BibApp starts by using the Rails framework to build a generic biblio-
graphic database for storing information about publications. Next, you pull
in faculty information from the campus LDAP (Lightweight Directory
Access Protocol) server, and you sort those individuals into generic groups
(representing things like departments) using information that also comes
from LDAP. Next, using the names of faculty and what a human being
knows about the standard online publications or disciplinary databases
for the departments in which those faculty work, you get their published
papers and the subject headings under which those papers are listed in
the disciplinary database. Using the published papers, you parse citation
records, look for coauthors, go to Sherpa, and get archival data for authors.
Having assembled and stored this information, here are some
of the things you can do. With subject headings, you can generate
tag clouds showing you what are prominent topics for individuals,


research groups, or departments; since you have publication dates as
well, you can actually show an evolving timeline of topics of interest
for an individual, research group, or department, and you can show
what journals commonly publish research from a given individual
or group. With publisher-supplied DOIs (Digital Object Identifiers)
you can generate URLs, get the file, or link to the citation. You can
search for a subject and find faculty members who work in that area;
zeroing in on one faculty member, you can follow a link to his or her
home page (listed in LDAP) and see his or her types of publications
(80 percent journal articles, 20 percent conference presentations, what
subjects are of interest lately). You can expand out from one faculty
member to the department, the college, or the campus, to see who
that person is publishing with at the university, and you can then see
what groups those people are in and what those groups are doing. If
you wanted to, you could use that information to generate network
graphs of publishing patterns. Presumably, you could also have RSS
newsfeeds for people or for groups (if those were listed in LDAP),
or the BibApp host could serve them up (or, for that matter, provide
RSS feeds for subjects of interest).
In their YouTube-style presentation on code4lib.org (at http://
code4lib.org/2007/larson), the developers of BibApp, Eric Larson and
Nate Vack, admit that this is still experimental code, but part of the point
here is that it will always be that, and it should always be that. BibApp is
not a “seamless, enterprise-wide solution,” it is a seamy, stitched-together
mashup. On the other hand, it didn’t take three to five years to put in
place, nor did it cost a hundred million dollars: BibApp represents work
done in less than a year with a $10,000 grant and a few people “willing
to work weekends.”
One of the challenges for a project like BibApp, as its developers
freely admit, is that apparently simple things like names of persons are
not simple in practice, especially when you want an automated process to
use them as identifiers or disambiguators.You may have a lot of Michael
Smiths on your campus, and when these Michaels publish, their names
may look exactly alike or—at least as often—the problem may be that the
same Michael Smith sometimes publishes as Michael Smith, sometimes as
Michael J. Smith, sometimes as M. J. Smith, and so forth. Likewise, citations
are not always marked off from other text in a way that would make them
easy to pull out, nor are they formatted consistently across books, journals,
or disciplines. Real data are messy, in other words.
These are problems that people doing bibliometrics have been
dealing with for a long time, and there are contextual strategies for

University 2.0 233

mitigating some of the mess, but you could also allow authors or other
users to suggest corrections, and you could use visualization techniques
to spot outliers (the one article by Michael Smith about veterinary
medicine among a host of others on mechanical engineering) and
examine them. In the monolithic systems approach, or the top-down
classification and encoding approach, the usefulness of the system
depends on the accuracy of the data or the data representation, but
in a mashup, people are willing to trade some of that accuracy for
increased functionality and the flexibility to extend that functionality
when interesting new opportunities present themselves. Perhaps most
important is that the application itself be fault tolerant and not require
highly structured data.

BRAIN
I have another example, conceptually related in some ways to BibApp,
and possibly even a service that could be tacked onto it. This example is
a project of my own, currently in mothballs, called BRAIN, which stands
for Better Repositories Are Information Networks (see http://brain.lis.
uiuc.edu). BRAIN is a peer finder for institutional repositories, and it was
designed to provide an incentive for faculty to deposit their materials in
those repositories.
Here’s how that incentive scheme works. When a scholar deposits a
document in an institutional repository that participates in BRAIN, he
or she gets back a list of documents from any open-access repository or
journal that best match the material deposited, based on several relevance
measures (coincidence of citations, overlapping vocabulary, plus a variety
of full-text clustering techniques). Because data mining can be time
consuming, we serve up the relevance information to participants by
e-mail, rather than as a real-time web service, but we can format that
e-mail to provide links directly to full-text content of relevant open-access
materials. BRAIN itself would not republish any of the material it aggre-
gates, beyond the metadata.
We have built a prototype system for BRAIN, mostly from open-
source software, with some key pieces contributed by other academic
software developers, and plenty of glue code written by students at UIUC,
again in under a year, with a small grant.You can try it online, though
you’ll find that relevance is problematic, depending on how well the
subject area of your submission matches what is in the repository, and
particularly so in the measures that depend on citation extraction, which
needs more work.


Making Seamy Systems a Reality
Even this small experiment exposed some interesting problems,
though, in the real world of institutional repositories. Two in particular
come to mind.
The first problem BRAIN had with the real world was that institu-
tional repositories are a largely undifferentiated mix of primary materials
from library holdings and scholarship or research findings from current
faculty. There is no attempt made to separate or distinguish the two, which
means that if you go out to hoover up everything you can find in open-
access institutional repositories, which we did, you get a lot of stuff, but
only a relatively small amount of it is scholarly or scientific literature of
recent vintage.
The second problem BRAIN had with the real world was that a
lot of people apparently put image-only pdf files in their repositories. To
do vocabulary comparisons, citation extraction, and full-text clustering,
BRAIN wants to use PDFBox to extract the text from PDF files, but that
doesn’t work if the PDF is a picture of a text rather than a text.
These are the sorts of problems that will probably decrease over time,
but the first one might only decrease if there were information services
for which it was important to distinguish recent scholarship from older
library holdings, and the second might only decrease if the percentage of
recent scholarship in institutional repositories increased. Both depend to
a significant extent on the end user—as a source of demand in the first
case and as a supplier of content in the second. The kind of information
services that are going to get that end user involved, and that are going to
make demand felt and encourage contributions, are likely to look more
like mashups than like traditional library catalog systems, or enterprise
resource programs of any kind.
Increasing the motivation to deposit materials in institutional reposi-
tories may be especially important in the humanities: recent surveys
indicate that “the number of humanities documents in institutional reposi-
tories is currently far lower than that in STM disciplines” (see http://
eprints.rclis.org/archive/00005180/). That may be because scholars in
those disciplines are still considerably less wired than their colleagues in
science and engineering, on almost any campus I know.
To return for a moment to Zboray and to the differential effect of the
railroad on publishing in more and less “railed” communities in antebellum
America, the fact that there is still significantly higher information
friction in humanities and, to some extent, social science departments
than in science and engineering departments on the very same campuses
is, I would argue, producing a digital divide within those campuses. The

University 2.0 235

humanities are the equivalent of the underindustrialized South with its
devalued currency and its genteel poverty, steadily losing ground to other
parts of the campus, where the trade is in gigabits and petabytes. At the
University of Illinois, Green Street is the Mason–Dixon line: north of it are
the many mansions of the engineering campus, south of it are the hamlets
of the humanities and social sciences.
Happily, though, the cost of deploying University 2.0 does not need
to be great, and even the poor can participate. What we need more than
big science or big servers are good ideas about interesting things that
faculty, staff, and students could do with the information produced in,
by, and about universities: WhoShouldIHaveLunchWith.app, perhaps,
or SixDegreesOfMyAdviser.app, or ShowEmergingFields.app, or
WhatConferenceShouldIAttend.app, or WhatJournalsPublishOnMyTopic.
app, and so on, and on.
If the university makes its information accessible in the right way,
people will build these things—sometimes people in the library, but also
people elsewhere on campus, or simply elsewhere. There are issues of
privacy, copyright, and all the usual sources of information friction, but
even partial information could be useful, even metadata could serve many
of these purposes. It would help, of course, if universities promoted some
basic kinds of interoperability, not overfitted, but very simple: a standard
calendar event expressed as an RSS feed; a recommended rdf tag or two
for CV or syllabi. These would not have to be monolithic systems or
all-encompassing standards, but they could be functional requirements for
vendors who want to sell things like calendar systems to campuses, and
they could be recommended to faculty and departments on the basis of the
effort-to-utility ratio that can be demonstrated even with imperfect data.

Conclusion
I want to close by repeating something I said a couple of years ago, in
a lecture on vernacular computing that I gave as the Vodaphone Fellow at
Kings College, London. When I wrote this, I wasn’t thinking of Web 2.0,
which hadn’t become a buzzword at that point, but now that it is here, this
passage seems more true than when I wrote it. I said,
Fifteen years ago, the challenge before us was to imagine
how new technology might provide a new platform for
the practice of scholarship in the humanities, but today
our challenge is the reverse. It is no longer about opening
the university and inviting the public in: it’s about getting
out where they already live, and meeting the public in the


information commons, on the same terms that everyone
else does. In fact, it’s almost too late for us. We will find
that hard to believe, ensconced (as we all are) in solid-
seeming residential universities, with long histories and
the expectation of a long future—but older institutions
on more solid foundations have been swept away or
radically transformed in cultural upheavals of the past.
In spite of the inertia of these institutions, which we all
know so well, the forces of change outside the institution
have much greater inertia, and all of the practical
furniture of our daily academic lives could easily be gone,
or changed beyond recognition, in a generation.7
So, while I recognize and give full weight to the inertia of universities,
inertia doesn’t necessarily mean that you remain in place, especially when
the friction between you and the world around you suddenly decreases.
We are at such a moment today, and it should be possible, with just a small
push, to move the university forward into University 2.0.

Endnotes
1. Ronald J. Zboray, “The Transportation Revolution and Antebellum Book
Distribution Reconsidered,” American Quarterly 38 (1986). Today, you can find
this article on JSTOR, and its first page is also on Google.

2. Ibid., 53.

3. Ibid., 53.

4. Ibid., 54.

5. “Information friction” is also discussed by David Glazer in an entry in his
blog, at http://dglazer.blogspot.com/2005/11/coefficient-of-information-
friction.html. When writing this, Glazer was the unemployed former CTO at
Open Text; he is now director of engineering for Google.

6. By “comparatively” here I mean compared to other kinds of information
organizations—for example, Amazon, eBay, Facebook, FedEx, Flickr, Garmin,
Google, the Internet Archive, NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, PayPal, Random House, Second Life, UPS, the U.S. Postal
Service, the Weather Channel,Yahoo,YouTube, and so forth. At http://
programmableweb.com, you can track a “mashup” timeline: the number they
knew about increased from 1,800 to 2,400 in a recent six-month period,
and the “mashup matrix” is 125 APIs long on each axis as of October 2007.
Google alone has 27 APIs for mashups;Yahoo has 24; how many does your
university have?

University 2.0 237

7. John Unsworth, “Public Networks,Vernacular Computing,” presented as the
Second Biennial Wisbey Lecture at King’s College London, March 23, 2005.
http://www3.isrl.uiuc.edu/~unsworth/Wisbey.html.

Bibliography
little d big G. The David Glazer Blog. http://dglazer.blogspot.com/.

Unsworth, John. “Public Networks,Vernacular Computing.” A paper presented
as the Second Biennial Wisbey Lecture at King’s College London, March 23,
2005. http://www3.isrl.uiuc.edu/~unsworth/Wisbey.html.

Zboray, Ronald J. “The Transportation Revolution and Antebellum Book
Distribution Reconsidered.” American Quarterly 38 (1986): 53–71.


The Tower, the Cloud, and the
IT Leader and Workforce 1

Philip Goldstein

H igher education technology leadership is in the midst of a
changing of the guard. Many of the community’s pioneers have
either retired or will retire shortly. These individuals were often
their institutions’ first or second senior information technology (IT) leader.
They presided over the development of both the technological and organi-
zational foundations on which higher education IT rests. Findings of the
IT leadership and workforce study conducted by the EDUCAUSE Center
for Applied Research (ECAR) in 2007–2008 indicate that the role will be
in equally good hands as it passes to the next generation.
The survey on which the ECAR study was based found many of the
ingredients for success among respondents. Leaders and aspirants alike hold
advanced degrees, exhibit positive leadership styles, and share with their
predecessors a commitment to higher education. No doubt as individuals
and as a community they will bring new perspectives and ideas born from
their unique experiences and the changing world in which they work.
But how will the CIO role that the next generation occupies
be different? More specifically, will it be diminished in its authority
and importance? IT Leadership in Higher Education:The Condition of the
Community, a 2004 ECAR study,2 looked back on the most recent gener-
ation of IT leaders as having led higher education through an amazing set
of transitions. In a relatively short period of time, leaders helped to create
the modern Internet and initiated an explosion of communication, collab-
oration, and access to information that today’s students take for granted.
That study discussed how these leaders ushered in a new era of computing
that has touched all aspects of higher education.
Will we look back on that time as the golden era for IT leaders?
Despite the many positive signs that respondents reported in 2004, the
study raised a cautionary question as to whether we were headed for
a period of decline. In 2003, an article in CIO Magazine spoke of the
“incredible shrinking CIO” whose resources were being cut, influence
being diminished, and organization being eroded by outsourcing.3 In 2004,

The Tower, the Cloud, and the IT Leader and Workforce 239

these issues were seen as warning signs on the horizon, but it was not clear
whether they were by-products of a cyclical downturn in the economy, a
knee-jerk reaction to the “irrational exuberance” for technology created by
the dot-com boom, or something more permanent.

From Prophets to Plumbers
Today, questions about the future of the IT leader’s role are being
drawn with even sharper distinction than in 2003. The discussion has
moved beyond whether declining finances or the unrealized promises
of the past will diminish the role of the CIO, focusing instead on how
technology change itself will alter what it means to be a CIO. The rise
of “cloud computing” in the minds of some will completely alter how
organizations deliver IT services. In theory, organizations will be able to
reach into the Internet cloud to access all of their computing services, from
basic storage to more advanced functions such as computational computing
and advanced business applications. Evidence of the cloud can be seen on
campuses today. Institutions are turning to Google or Microsoft to provide
e-mail. Others are using software as service models from vendors such
as Salesforce.com as part of their administrative applications. Some are
even looking at the possibility of buying computing cycles or storage on
demand from external providers such as Amazon.

Rise of the Cloud
In the view of some and taken to the extreme, the potential of the
cloud is to completely supplant the need for an IT organization or at the
very least radically alter its role. Perhaps the most outspoken proponent of
this vision of the future is Nicholas Carr. In 2003 Carr grabbed attention
with his article “IT Doesn’t Matter.”4 In it, Carr argued that technology
was becoming so commoditized that it no longer served as a source of
competitive differentiation. By extension, Carr argued that a CIO was
therefore the manager of commodity technologies and less important to
his or her organization’s future success. Technology was a necessary evil,
not a source of distinction. More recently, Carr has further evolved his
argument to suggest that not even this commodity role will last for much
longer. In his latest book, The Big Switch: Rewiring the World from Edison to
Google, Carr equates the rising computing cloud to mass electrification.
He foresees a world in which mass data centers and high-speed networks
render obsolete the technical infrastructures of individual organizations. He
says, “In the long run, the IT department is unlikely to survive, at least not


in its familiar form. It will have little left to do once the bulk of business
computing shifts out of private data centers and into the cloud.”5
Where will the CIO be left in Carr’s vision of the future? Not in a
very exciting place. Those who share his view of the future seem to suggest
that the Internet cloud will shift services outside the institution and shift
power from central IT groups to individuals and departments. No longer
will institutions need to create organizations to broker technology services
on their behalf. Rather, each department or individual will be able to turn
to the cloud to assemble the services they need.

Whither CIO Influence?
From Carr’s point of view, the CIO is either headed to the backroom
to manage commodity infrastructure or will be responsible for overseeing
the transition of that infrastructure to the Internet cloud. What would be left
is a hollowed organization and a role that concerns itself with information
security, local technical support (which also could be outsourced), and a small
number of new innovation services that have not been adopted by the cloud.
Carr certainly offers a provocative view of the future. And his expec-
tations about the ability of the Internet to enable the aggregation of
commodity IT services may be dead-on. But does it have to necessitate the
demise in importance of the CIO and the IT organization? Being freed
of the need to continuously invest and operate commodity services may
be incredibly liberating for CIOs and offer a completely different way to
conceive of their roles.
Could the rise of the cloud in fact enhance the influence of the
CIO? Might a new breed of CIOs be able to shift the conversation from
the provisioning of technology services back to how their institution can
take advantage of technology? In fact, a 2007 survey of corporate CIOs
by the IBM Center for CIO Leadership suggested that CIOs believe their
influence in the corporate sector is on the upswing.6 The survey revealed
several promising results, including these:
K 80 percent of CIOs believe they are valued members of the
senior leadership team;
K 69 percent reported significant involvement in strategic
decision making; and
K 86 percent of respondents believe their industry leaders are using
IT to a large or great extent to create competitive advantage.
According to the survey report, respondents reported greater confi-
dence in their influence and strategic importance in 2007 than they had in
the prior year.7


Among respondents to ECAR’s IT leadership and workforce survey,
the majority of senior-most IT leaders also reported relatively positive
assessments of their influence. The findings showed that:
K 74.1 percent were engaged often in discussing the IT impli-
cations of institutional decisions;
K 62.6 percent participated often in decisions related to the
administrative directions of the institution; and
K 69.2 percent participated at least sometimes in decisions
pertaining to the academic direction of the institution,
including 36.2 percent who participated often.8
Organizationally, many respondents were in positions that provided
them access and authority to influence broad decision making. In this
ECAR survey, 47.8 percent of the senior-most IT leaders were members
of the president’s or chancellor’s cabinet at their institution. In the 2004
ECAR study, 50.6 percent of respondents were members of the president’s
cabinet; thus, it appears that the organizational authority of the senior IT
leader in higher education has neither diminished nor expanded in the
past four years. It is possible, however, that the number of senior-most
IT leaders with cabinet membership has reached the high-water mark in
higher education.
Carr’s view envisions that the cloud will have a dramatic and
uniform impact on IT organizations, but inevitably there will be varia-
tions in adoption of the cloud among higher education institutions.
Institutions will likely move services to the cloud at varying paces
depending on their resources, their strategy, and the uniformity of their
requirements. It seems likely that institutions with smaller IT organiza-
tions will gravitate toward the cloud to take advantage of the economies
of scale and increased capabilities that vendors can offer in service
areas that the IT organizations themselves cannot match. On the other
hand, institutions with diverse user requirements and larger resource
bases will likely embrace cloud services in more opportunistic and
targeted manners. They may move services to the cloud for a portion
of the population they serve, but continue to operate the same service
themselves for another constituent group. Or, they may only embrace the
cloud in areas that free up resources that can move quickly into offering
a new, more strategic service. Still other, likely large IT groups may try
to become the cloud themselves. They may choose to leverage the same
technologies and economics to offer services to other campuses.
The overall point here is that institutions are likely to fall along a
broad continuum of adoption practices. It seems unlikely that there will
be rapid, dramatic movements of services outside of the IT organization.


Rather than preside over the inevitable transition of their organizations to
the cloud, it seems that CIOs will have much to say and do to determine
where and how best to capitalize on its potential.
Perhaps the closest analogy is the library. The library in the higher
education community has long provisioned library services in a variety of
ways. Nearly all libraries, for example, have forsworn cataloging services
in favor of centralized services that provide scale and scope economies.
Nearly all libraries acquire digital serials and other periodical publications
under license from commercial suppliers. Nearly all libraries participate in
the shared service of interlibrary loan and in a variety of open source and
open content initiatives. Still others have partnered with Google or others
to render their collections digital. Under the range of options that present
themselves in this richly interconnected environment, academic libraries
are simultaneously seeking scale and differentiation, serving their commu-
nities by becoming either large repositories of print holdings, hybrids, or
deft consumers of materials licensed from others.

Some Alternative Conceptualizations of the
Role
To ignore Carr’s predictions would be unwise. The long-term
potential to completely transform the set of services that IT organizations
provide is very real. Financial pressures alone are likely to lead many IT
organizations to turn services over to the cloud out of necessity. Shortages
in the labor market may be another driver. However, this need not signal
the demise of the CIO role in importance or influence. As described
earlier, IT organizations will likely make a range of choices regarding their
pace of adoption of the outsourcing of IT services. Most organizations
are likely to end up with a mosaic of sources for their services including
internally provided, externally provided, and collaboratively provided (for
example, open source) models.
On the other hand, the movement of services to the cloud is a force
for change. Many of the services that are the likely candidates for this form
of outsourcing (e-mail, storage, data centers, application software) are the
“meat and potatoes” of what IT organizations do today. Many IT leaders
derive their power, authority, and seat at the table from their responsibility
for the budgets and staffing that deliver these services. While the outsourcing
of these services does not have to mean the diminishment of importance of
the CIO, it will introduce significant change. If CIOs are not proactive in
defining new roles, sources of influence, and authority, it could lead to the
eventual hollowing of the job that Carr and others have predicted.


The CIO who performs the role well is much more than manager of
the central IT organization. He or she wears several other hats including
strategic adviser to institutional leadership, technology consultant to
academic and administrative departments, advocate for technology and
technology adoption, risk manager, and steward of the institution’s infor-
mation assets. The potential is there for CIOs to stake out new roles and
sources of influence. However, these changes will challenge CIOs to think
and prepare differently to define these new roles and will challenge insti-
tutions to be open to accepting them. The possible added or enhanced
dimensions of the role are described next.

Services Architect
The rise of the cloud may diminish the set of traditional services that
an institution’s IT organization must provide on its own. However, it also
presents that institution with a more complex set of options to weigh.
Increasingly, choices for provisioning technology services are not limited
to a binary decision of make or buy. In fact, there is a more complex set
of sourcing options that includes make, buy, collaborate, consolidate, or
eliminate the service altogether.
We see this complexity playing out in the area of e-mail. After
many years of facing rather simple choices of first building their own
e-mail or implementing a commercially vended package, institutions
now have broader options to sort through. The historical make-or-buy
choice is still there. In addition, institutions can also choose to outsource
to a provider such as Google, but continue to act as the intermediary
arranging for the provision of the service. Or, they can choose to step
aside completely and enable each individual student or faculty member
to choose their own e-mail provider. Some still face the challenge of
weighing whether there should be one uniform approach to the service
(consolidate) or if parts of the institution should be able to elect their
own service solution. Each option brings with it a complex set of pros
and cons that must be weighed from multiple perspectives. The CIO and
by extension the IT leadership team should be both the conveners of and
major contributors to these discussions.
Complex services-sourcing options are increasingly available for
each discrete technology service. The fluid nature of the environment
also suggests that the decisions may not have terribly long shelf lives.
Increasingly, the role of the CIO will be to proactively identify the
sourcing options for various services and to be the convener of the appro-
priate stakeholders to weigh the options. The CIO of the future will also


need to be the convener and orchestrator of a more complex set of gover-
nance practices and relationships. Historically, IT governance has been
mainly focused internally. With increasing numbers of services provided by
the cloud, governance will have to extend to include the providers of these
outside services, whether they are corporations, consortia, or multi-institu-
tional collaborations. CIOs may find themselves at the nexus of interwoven
governance structures. In fact, the ability to convene, facilitate, and manage
these internal and external relationships may replace control over dollars as
the source of CIO power in the future.

Data Evangelist
Most institutions are only scratching the surface when it comes
to leveraging their data to improve decision making. 9 Technology is
rarely the limiting force. Rather, the challenge is to create a culture
that demands analysis and requires evidence to support decision
making. It requires leaders who ask for data and staff who are skilled
at analysis. As institutions face increasing external pressure to measure
outcomes and increasingly competitive markets for resources, their
appetite for analysis will likely increase. CIOs are well positioned
to be the bridge between the technology, the data, and the decision
makers within the institution.
The CIO and his or her staff can work in the cabinet room to
demonstrate to the leadership the potential to use data. They can also work
across the organization to forge alliances with administrative units that are
already inclined toward analysis such as institutional research, admissions, or
the registrar. CIOs can jointly sponsor proof-of-concept projects that raise
the visibility of analytical decision making. They can develop capabilities
within their own organization to design metrics and measurement systems
at the process, unit, and organizational levels. In fact, analytical design or
strategic measurement consulting could become a new service line within
some IT organizations.
CIOs must also be leaders at their institutions in conversations about
the preservation and protection of data. Information security is just one
important part of this role. The CIO is also uniquely positioned to educate
the campus about the need for effective data governance including policies
to define access rights, processes to preserve common definitions of data,
and mechanisms to improve the accuracy of data at the point of capture.
The CIO is also the natural leader of initiatives to design and implement
technologies and processes that enable the ongoing integration of data
across multiple applications and application providers.


The CIO and the IT organization will not be the only potential
source of leadership in this area. The library, institutional research, and
planning offices are all important stakeholders as well, and rivalry and
competition for leadership among these officers and the CIO are inevi-
table. The topic is broad enough to accommodate multiple leaders, each of
whom brings the unique expertise of his or her own organization to the
conversation. Many CIOs are already accustomed to leading by influence
in areas in which they have little or shared direct authority (for example,
shared governance of administrative systems). The data evangelist role is
another opportunity for CIOs to gain stature and authority by serving as
conveners and facilitators who work effectively across the organization.

Innovation Incubator
The development of the web has no doubt placed more technology
and information directly in the hands of individuals. The barriers to
technological innovation keep lowering, and individuals need to turn less
often to professional IT groups to help them develop solutions. Research
labs, individual faculty, and staff have access to comparatively powerful
technology tools that enable them to innovate.
As innovation capacity spreads throughout the institution, it presents
the central IT organization and the CIO with difficult choices. Does the
CIO try to hold back the innovators in order to control risk and the costs
and complexity of technology support? Does the CIO take a hands-off
approach and hope that a thousand flowers will bloom and the institution
will see a return on the multitude of investments made by individual
innovators? Or, is there a way that the CIO can influence and support
innovation to the benefit of both institution and individual?
These are challenging questions and each CIO will need to find the
right balance for his or her institution. However, the solution is not likely
to be found at either of the extremes. Clamping down on innovation is
unrealistic and counterproductive. Allowing anyone to do anything is too
risky and costly an approach for any responsible CIO to take.
One conceptual model that may be useful to adopt is that of the
business incubators. Although most incubators of the 1990s failed to
live up to the unrealistic expectations placed on them as sources of new
business and economic development, they succeeded as physical and
virtual places where ideas, money, and expertise were brought together
to further an innovation. Rather than build physical business incubators,
however, CIOs can embrace the incubator concept of convener of the
ingredients of innovation.


For example, a CIO and the IT organization can position themselves
as resources that enable individuals to experiment with technology. The
IT group can work with academic leadership to provide seed grants,
equipment, and technical expertise to support individuals experimenting
with new ways to use technologies in areas that are important to the
institution. Much like a small business incubator advises and coaches
entrepreneurs, they can support and influence individual technology
innovators. The CIO role could evolve to be like that of a venture
capitalist who makes connections among innovators, helps to secure
resources, and works on behalf of the institution to find and promulgate
the most successful experiments.

Process Architect
It is quite possible that developments such as software as a service
(SaaS) will increasingly remove the IT organization from the day-to-day
operations of administrative systems. To the extent this does occur, IT
organizations should respond like any other business that sees a portion
of its operation become commoditized. CIOs must respond by shifting
resources to other activities that deliver higher levels of value to the
institution. For example, SaaS may make applying updates to software a
commodity service best done outside of the institution. However, config-
uring business processes to leverage the capabilities of technology to best
support the needs of the institution is a unique and valued service that
IT groups can move into. Few institutions have expertise in this area and
even fewer have designated a senior leadership position to worry about the
effective design and deployment of processes.
CIOs can position themselves and their organization to fill this void.
This is not to suggest that the IT organization would dictate to financial
or student services groups how to conduct their business. Rather, the
opportunity would be to create a collaborative service that specializes
in the analysis of processes to find opportunities to make the best use of
technology. These services can be delivered in the context of technology
implementation projects or as part of ongoing improvements to leverage
already acquired technology. The CIO can become the primary spokes-
person to the campus on how to build the capacity to measure and
improve processes across the institution.
Some CIOs may be understandably reluctant to take on this role.
As a community, IT leaders have appropriately pointed out the need
for functional managers to take more ownership for their systems and
processes. Perhaps the time has come to alter that approach. Is it sufficient


to call on functional owners of processes to improve? Or, might more
progress be made if IT organizations refocus a portion of their capabilities
to facilitate these improvements? At the end of the day, the lack of process
change or the inability to maximize benefits from technology inevitably
becomes the CIO’s issue. Process shortcomings erode confidence in the
value of technology and make it that much harder to build support for the
next investment.

Orchestrator
Closely related to the role of process architect is the role of services
orchestrator. More than ever, tomorrow’s higher education IT leader will
need to translate an architecture into a legal, technical, and service web that
appears to all as an integrated whole. And the creation of a holistic presence
must, of course, convey—in a virtual context—the sense of place and self-
conception the institution wishes to manifest. This will be extraordinarily
difficult. The core skills of tomorrow’s IT leaders in this guise will be:
A sourcer of services. This role will include the crafting of a sourcing
strategy; the identification, integration, and testing of services to be
acquired; the negotiation of license terms; and the establishment of service
level agreements and performance standards and liabilities.
An integrator of systems. While the promise of standards-based archi-
tectures suggests that some day software will “snap” together, the reality
of this promise remains far in the distance. Today’s CIO struggles with the
rising complexity of large heterogeneous hardware and software that need
to interoperate seamlessly while producing transaction logs and other trails
that are both transparent and repeatable. This complexity is only likely to
increase in the near term as CIOs of the future strive to integrate vended
solutions with homegrown solutions and with open source solutions, and
so forth. Integration and coordination tasks will for some get even more
complex as some IT leaders attempt to achieve advantage by sourcing labor
in other locations, including abroad. In such cases, orchestration of time
zones, intellectual property laws, national laws governing privacy, access,
and e-discovery, and other issues will add to the challenge.
A brand manager. While formal responsibility for managing the college
or university’s image rests typically with a public affairs organization, the
CIO today and increasingly in the future will have a great deal of influence
over how the institution is positioned in the cloud. While the institution’s
cyber presence will likely embody software, services, and processes that
have been sourced, distinguished, and integrated “at home,” that presence
must appear to the user to have a consistency and feel that says: “Oh, I am


now at UC Berkeley.” In addition, the evolution of the cloud means that
the college and university will need to extend its presence into the cloud.
Increasingly, for example, higher education institutions are establishing
beachheads in Facebook, MySpace,YouTube, and other places where
students and prospective students are found. The task of managing that
presence in ways that complement the myriad strategies for managing an
institution’s presence in bricks and mortar will be daunting.

Information Policy Manager
The promise of the Internet cloud hinges on the proposition that
technology is becoming a utility that—like many commodities—can be
produced more effectively when aggregated at scale. Moving services
outside of the institution enables a shift from managing technology to
managing information. Discussion about the data evangelist role already
advanced some of these arguments and suggested an opportunity for CIOs
to become a leading voice for the use and stewardship of data at their insti-
tutions. The information management role extends that argument into the
realm of information policy and strategy.
The increased presence of the institution and its individual faculty
and staff on the web introduces a broad spectrum of policy issues. The
definition and protection of intellectual property rights, the conduct of
members of the campus community in cyberspace, and management of the
institution’s brand and image on the web are just a few examples. As the
institution’s intellectual property goes digital, it also creates a new realm of
policies and procedures that must be developed around access rights and
privacy. The CIO must be prepared to lead and participate in the policy
discussions that will govern this new world of interconnectedness.
From a strategic perspective, the institution must make decisions about
its presence on the web. Colleges and universities are very protective of
their reputation (with good reason) in the physical world. The world of
the web offers much less ability to control image and brand. When any
individual can create a video of an event (positive or negative) on campus
and put it on the web for all to see, it changes the extent to which any
institution can manage its message and control the flow of information.
Institutions must be prepared to think about how they can use the tools of
Web 2.0 to defend and enhance their images even while these very same
tools could be used by individuals to the detriment of the institution.
Institutions must also make decisions about how to invest in their own
web presence. What is the value of an institutional island in Second Life?
Do alumni want to subscribe to a portal provided by their alma mater?


These are obviously issues that are much broader than technology adoption
decisions. But because the CIO will have deep knowledge of how the
technology is being used, she or he will have the opportunity to become a
part of these strategic discussions.

Proactive Strategist
IT leaders and researchers have long spoken of the need to align
technology projects and priorities with institutional strategies and
priorities. Alignment is clearly important, but is it enough? University of
Wisconsin–Milwaukee Chief Information Officer Bruce Maas argues
that “the alignment concept is long outdated as it implies passivity. CIOs
need to be proactive and help identify how to help the university respond
with technology to reach its markets and provide more effective business
processes. The CIO has the opportunity to work with the president and
provost to really dig in and find solutions.” The payback, according to Maas,
is a change in perception of how IT contributes: “IT has been charac-
terized as a utility, but it is not a utility only. It is better to think of IT and
treat it as an investment opportunity that creates innovation.”10
Contributing more proactively to strategy will be more easily accom-
plished in some institutions than in others. Institutions differ in their
degree of openness to thinking about technology as a strategic asset or
the access they provide the senior IT leader to strategic decision making.
However, it is likely that everyone can make more progress toward the
repositioning of IT as an investment opportunity. Maas’s challenge is also
not an invitation to overpromise the benefits of technology as a trans-
formative force. The path from being viewed as a cost center to an area
that yields benefit in return for investment is likely through the accom-
plishment of numerous small demonstration projects rather than overly
ambitious claims.
In some institutions the opportunity to contribute to strategy will
be a top-down one for the CIO. He or she will have entree to the upper
echelon of the institution and will be able to contribute to strategic discus-
sions alongside other institutional academic and administrative leaders. In
fact, CIOs may experience the locus of the discussion shifting toward their
involvement as institutions try to make meaning of Web 2.0 phenomena
and changing student expectations.
For others, the opportunity will lie in developing richer partnerships
with individual units. Presenting to an organization ideas to further fund-
raising success through data mining or partnering with a dean to improve
retention by embedding technology in the advising process are equally


valid ways to demonstrate the strategic value of technology. Becoming an
indispensable partner to more and more members of the administration
will transform IT and the CIO into strategic assets to the institution.

Getting from Here to There
Many of the potential areas of new responsibility described envision
the CIO more in the position of influencer than chief. While it would
be naïve to think that there is not some level of risk of loss of stature in
this transition, the findings of the ECAR IT leadership and workforce
study suggest that for many, trying to hold onto direct control over many
aspects of technology and its application is a losing proposition. In the
future, it is likely that CIOs will increasingly gather power, authority,
and stature from their ability to be agile, knowledgeable conveners
of stakeholders around a host of issues related to the application and
management of technology. It is growing less and less likely that CIOs
will be granted seats at the leadership table merely by virtue of running
a large organization. This will challenge CIOs to develop different
and better relationship-management skills and broader knowledge of
the academy. It will challenge the institution to acknowledge, reward,
and empower leaders who contribute as much through their ability to
influence as through direct command and control.
Interestingly, corporate CIOs appear to be moving in the direction of
creating value through influence. In the IBM Center for CIO Leadership’s
2007 CIO survey, 53 percent of respondents considered “promoting
collaboration between IT and lines of business” to be their highest priority.
Further, only 15 percent of the respondents thought their organiza-
tions were good at it today.11 Perhaps higher education can emulate what
corporations are doing and move the relationship between central IT
organizations and colleges and administrative divisions to a higher plane.
Rather than seeing their capital consumed in wrestling for control over
commodity IT services, CIOs can instead go over the local IT organization
to find ways to directly contribute to the strategic agenda of the dean. The
political capital and trust gained through such relationships will no doubt
make it much easier to rationalize service delivery models and achieve
greater influence over decentralized IT spending.
Achieving these somewhat idealized conceptualizations of the CIO
role will not be easy. There are many hurdles to be overcome. Time is one
obvious problem. The time and energy of most CIOs are easily consumed
with concerns of execution: managing projects, fighting service crises, and
sustaining the reliability of the infrastructure—all the more reason to look


carefully at opportunities to shed some commodity services as the cloud
matures. Similarly, CIOs need to find leverage in their own organization.
The only way to have the time to focus on the more strategic agenda is
to develop trusted lieutenants who can contribute to both the day-to-day
operations and the strategic agenda.
Skills themselves are another potential hurdle. While many respon-
dents professed proficiency in critical skill areas such as influence, negoti-
ation, and communication, that is largely in relation to what today’s CIO
job requires. The roles described above require CIOs to exert consid-
erable influence through their powers of persuasion and the strengths of
their relationships. CIOs will likely need to take their communication
skills and their ability to manage internal relationships to even higher
levels of proficiency. Likewise, skill areas that were evaluated by respon-
dents as areas of relatively less proficiency, such as managing external
relationships, will become even more important in the future. If the CIO
is to become the services architect of the future, she or he will need to
become skilled in evaluating and managing collaborations with corpora-
tions and other institutions.
The CIO will also need to take steps to build new capabilities within
the IT organization. To fully realize the roles of data evangelist or process
architect, the IT leader will need to be backed up by organizational
capabilities. As IT organizations find opportunities to transfer commodity
services to the cloud, they will need deliberate people strategies to
transform the skills of existing staff or add new staff in these emerging
service areas.
Relationships will be critical to the ongoing transformation of the
CIO’s role. As described in the preceding section, CIOs will rarely obtain
mandates to play these roles. Just as their predecessors were pioneers who
had to establish the initial contours of the CIO role, the next generation
of leaders will have to lead the refinement and extension of the role. IT
leaders will need to nurture relationships at all levels and with all parts
of the institution. They will need to be conversant in the strategic issues
confronting a diverse set of organizational areas. They will need to build
trust that encourages other units to invite them into their inner planning
discussions. In particular, because of the evolving role of the IT leader, the
proximity and importance of some relationships are likely to shift. As the
skills and demands of IT leadership shift toward contract administration,
services orchestration, architecting, and so forth, the new best friends of
the CIO may be found in unlikely spots. Such future friends include the
general counsel, risk manager, institutional auditor, librarian, and chief
research officer.


The Workforce
The preceding section, which described a reconceptualization of the
role of the CIO, could have just as easily been describing new roles for the
entire IT leadership team. The impact of cloud computing on the skill sets
required of IT leaders will not be limited to just the CIO. The potential
new roles for the CIO in many cases represent new or extended lines of
service for the IT organization as well. The transition to this new model
of IT and IT leadership may evolve incrementally, but it will transform the
skill mix required in the entire organization.

New IT Worker Skill Sets Needed
To move IT organizations into some of the areas described above will
require not only strong technical staff, but also staff with excellent commu-
nication and political skills. More staff will be required who are skilled
at process analysis, group facilitation, data analysis, and data management.
New professional positions that focus on these skill sets may need to be
created in IT organizations. Such positions, in fact, likely exist already in
some organizations in their project management offices or in business
analyst groups.
As these new skill sets are emphasized, there will be a congruent dimin-
ishment in importance within the IT organization for other skill sets. As the
cloud realizes its full potential, IT organizations will have a diminished need
for staff to manage servers, databases, and perhaps some applications.
As the role of the CIO changes, so will the role of managers and
directors. Whether they aspire to be CIOs or would prefer to remain as
leaders of specialty areas within IT, they too will need to evolve their
skills. It seems likely the future will place a premium on leaders who
demonstrate understanding of the broader institution, are skilled at
managing internal and external relationships, and are skilled at articu-
lating as well as demonstrating how technology can be applied to address
higher education’s most strategic needs. What those needs are will evolve
over time, but if staff are looking for some places to bet their careers,
there are several promising candidates. It seems inevitable that institu-
tions will continue to need specialists who can work with faculty to
integrate technology and learning. Likewise, the management of data for
research or institutional decision making seems promising. For leaders
with more technical interests, integration and architecture seem likely to
be high-demand areas as well. The cloud may remove the need for the IT
organization to provide some services, but the institution will still expect


someone (the IT group) to be able to blend these disparate systems and
services into a cohesive user experience. Gazing deeply into a crystal
ball, one might foresee the rise of specialists in cyber marketing. These
might be individuals with expertise in plotting how institutions position
themselves in virtual worlds.

Will There Be a Shortage of IT Workers?
While we manage this transition in the composition of the IT organi-
zation, will we also be experiencing a shortage of skilled IT workers? The
data examined as part of the ECAR leadership and workforce research
were inconclusive. Demographic projections suggest that the size of the
population leaving the workforce due to retirement will be larger than the
number of workers coming in to replace them. Further, there has been a
reported decline in the numbers of individuals who have pursued degrees
in areas such as computer science that often have provided the supply of
skilled IT workers. However, other factors play into determining whether
we will indeed face an absolute shortage in numbers of skilled workers.
A prolonged slowdown in economic growth could mute some of the
demand for labor. A decision by baby boomers to defer retirement out
of necessity or preference could also mute the impact of the projected
shortage of workers.
Among the senior-most IT leaders surveyed in the ECAR study,
the majority were concerned that higher education would see a shortage
of skilled IT workers and that their institutions would face significant
challenges recruiting adequate numbers of skilled IT staff. In light of this
concern, it seems prudent that CIOs take steps to prepare for a possible
shortage of skilled workers or at the very least a more competitive
labor market. To do so requires a much more focused and deliberate
commitment to a series of people-management strategies targeted at
recruiting, retention, and productivity.
First, institutions need to decide what they are selling to
prospective recruits. It is likely no longer realistic or practical to
compete against the compensation advantages held by the corporate
sector by promising that higher education offers less pressure, reduced
work hours, and an idyllic campus setting. Too many of our staffs now
work long hours, feel the pressure of major projects and growing
workloads, and have been moved to office space off the main campus
to make this claim. Higher education needs to identify and capitalize
on other areas of potential competitive advantages. The opportunity
to stay within the employee’s preferred geographic location could be


one important factor. Certainly, at most institutions you can build your
career without fear of being transferred from the New York to the
Hong Kong office (although some institutions’ globalization strategies
may change this, too). The relatively smaller nature of some higher
education IT organizations may provide them with an opportunity to
offer staff environments in which they can take on broader responsi-
bilities and accelerate their career growth.
Sharpening the recruiting message needs to be coupled with
a strengthened infrastructure to source talent. More competitive
labor markets will require more thoughtful strategies to find the best
candidates, in some cases before they are needed. Using the alumni
network as a source of candidate referrals and more formally culti-
vating students as future employees are two strategies that are within
reach of most IT organizations. Hiring dedicated IT recruiters to
maintain a list of potential job applicants and to help manage the
recruiting process is another.
To aid both recruitment and retention, higher education IT
organizations must pay more attention to developing career paths for
their staffs that tie together growth in skills and growth in compen-
sation. The lack of sufficient career-path and skill-building opportu-
nities seemed to be an area of concern for some of the respondents to
the ECAR IT leadership and workforce survey. Those who were less
satisfied with career-path and skill-building opportunities reported that
they were more likely to leave their current institutions in the near
future (less than five years). The study suggests that business continuity
planning seems to be spurring a focus on developing succession plans
and career paths that focus on building skills several layers down into
the organization. This is a positive development that would benefit all
institutions. Perhaps the dual pressures of business continuity planning
and the possibility of a labor shortage can become twin forces that
enable CIOs and human resources leaders to work collaboratively on
programs that define multiple career paths for IT professionals and
encourage experimentation with compensation programs that reward
skill building as well as promotion.
Higher education IT can also become a leader at adopting strategies
such as job sharing or flex time to make it easier for staff to balance work
and life. A willingness to experiment with these strategies could help
mitigate the disadvantage of lower compensation. There also seems to be
a potential intersection between “green” initiatives such as telecommuting
and strategies to provide flexible work arrangements that may promote
improved retention.12


It would also behoove IT leaders to focus more on raising the quality
of management and supervision in their organizations. Results of the
ECAR IT leadership and workforce survey document the detrimental
effects on motivation and retention that poor supervisory interactions
can create. The higher education literature has long acknowledged that
technical staff are not necessarily taught how to lead and manage people
as they rise in their careers and are not always prepared for this aspect of
their positions. Acknowledging the problem will not be good enough as
we move forward. If we do face a labor shortage, staff are not likely to
remain working for a boss who is not a good manager. IT organizations
also need the gains in productivity that presumably come from a workforce
that is motivated because it is well led and managed. Whether through
community-wide initiatives, the efforts of regional consortia of institutions,
or intra-institutional partnerships with the human resources department
or the business school, the IT community needs to invest more in building
the management skills of IT professionals before, during, and after they rise
into the ranks of management.

Advice to Leaders
Achieving the transition to a new conceptualization of the CIO role
will take time. ECAR research does not suggest either an imminent or
a revolutionary change. Rather, change is likely to take hold through a
series of smaller evolutionary steps that alter the perceptions and expecta-
tions of the role. What is important is that the IT leadership community
articulates a point of view on the future of the CIO leader. Leaders need
to be secure enough to let go of the past. While IT organizations must
make responsible decisions about how and when to turn services over
to the cloud, they cannot deny its existence. They should not fear that
moving services out of the IT organization will make them less relevant
or less secure in their institutions.
Paradoxically, the very fact that IT leaders demonstrate willingness
to experiment and leverage alternative service delivery models can hasten
their transition to a new and more strategic role. It can free up resources
within IT that can be repositioned. It demonstrates an openness to change,
which can serve as a model for others. It enables CIOs to more forcefully
insert themselves in conversations about leveraging technology, rather than
arguments about who provides it.
What else should leaders do to prepare for the future? On the top of
the leaders’ to-do list should be taking steps to broaden and deepen their
understanding of the institution. As seen among the survey respondents,


experience outside the IT organization bears a relationship to the IT
leaders’ sense of their influence, especially on academic issues. IT leaders
cannot go back and redo their career paths to gain these experiences, but
they can take steps to develop deeper familiarity with the various parts of
their institution. Actions leaders can take include the following:
K Allocate more time to meet with deans or department chairs
to better understand their priorities (as opposed to their
superficial technology needs).
K Seek roles on institutional planning committees.
K Offer to periodically attend staff meetings in other divisions
to learn more about the issues they face.
K Seek professional development opportunities in areas outside
of technology, or offer to go with other campus leaders to
their professional conferences.
It is important for IT leaders to take these actions for themselves and
to encourage (or require) their managers and directors to do the same. The
relationship-building job is too large for one person to do alone. It must
become the responsibility of the whole IT leadership team.
There are also institutional actions that leaders can take that will
secure their future roles. For example, many aspects of the strategic role
of a CIO will be greatly facilitated by IT governance. CIOs need to
create effective mechanisms to learn about the needs and interests of
stakeholders and to establish mechanisms to weigh competing priorities
across the institution. These aspects of governance will help cement the
CIO’s responsibility to maximize the leverage the institution creates from
its technology investments.
IT leaders must also begin to educate their institutions about
the coming opportunities and challenges. Initiating a dialogue of the
potential challenges and opportunities presented by the cloud or the
impending workforce shortage also provides the leader with an oppor-
tunity to start a conversation about the changing role of central IT and
his or her own role. It is always better to define your future than to have
someone else do it for you.
Lastly, all of the secondary and primary study data urge all IT
leaders to focus more on the workforce. As evidenced by the respon-
dents to the ECAR survey, there is significant opportunity to improve
staff-management practices. Leaders should require their managers and
directors to join with them to provide more frequent communications
to staff about the goals and priorities of the organization, become more
skilled at providing effective feedback, and demonstrate tangible interest in
the career goals and skill development of all staff.


Of course, leaders need to lead by example. They must take the time
to understand the career goals and skill-development needs of their own
direct reports. Leaders can’t wait for a staff member to self-identify as a
future leader. They need to reach out to rising managers and directors and
provide them with opportunities to build the knowledge and experiences
that will prepare them to lead in the future. Not everyone will want to be
a CIO. Some will aspire to lead smaller teams or departments. Others will
want to be better individual contributors. Regardless of ultimate career
goal, it appears that all staff will benefit from opportunities to broaden their
skills and perspectives.
More institutions must become proactive in putting in place
strategies to meet the challenges of a shrinking pool of skilled
workers. As we learned from the ECAR study’s qualitative interviews,
a multifaceted strategy is required. Change takes time and institu-
tions need to begin now to take steps to make themselves more
attractive employers and less people dependent. IT leaders need to
build complementary service strategies and human resource strategies
that seek opportunities to leverage skill sets of other organizations in
areas of common need and to create new skills and positions in areas
of uniqueness.
As a community, IT leaders need to look for strategies to build
diversity in their organizations. It is in institutions’ collective and individual
interests to ensure that they have deep pools of qualified candidates for
every position in their organizations. With so much to accomplish, organi-
zations must know that every member of their team feels they are in an
environment that is taking maximum advantage of their talents. We cannot
afford for any of our organizations to become inhospitable to staff based on
race, gender, ethnicity, or any other factor.

Advice to Aspirants
There is much that should encourage an aspiring leader to keep
working toward the CIO role. Demographics alone suggest that there
should be ample opportunities for aspiring leaders to fill. Aspirants can also
take heart in the fact that there will be no shortage of challenges for them
to address once they arrive in a leadership position. The CIO role is still
maturing and as this essay suggests there is room for the next generation to
put its own stamp on it. The first generations of IT leaders had to profes-
sionalize the role and fight to establish their seat at the table. The next
generation will have the opportunity to demonstrate how CIOs should use
the seat that they have earned.


On many fronts, aspirants appear to be taking the right steps. The
ECAR survey respondents who aspired to the CIO position were
much like the current crop of leaders in terms of their skills, educational
attainment, and leadership styles. Given our assertions about the future of
the CIO role, it would be in the best interests of aspirants to gain as much
exposure as they can outside of the IT organization. Gaining experience
managing institutional IT governance groups, serving in leadership roles
in multi-institutional collaborations, and building experience managing
external partnerships all seem like must-have experiences. These experi-
ences will help equip them to step into a role that is becoming more about
the application of technology across the diverse aspects of an institution. If
aspirants are fortunate enough to become IT leaders at their present insti-
tutions, the relationships they build outside of IT will be invaluable as they
step into a role that is as much about influence as it is authority.
Maintaining technical knowledge is important. An IT leader must have
enough technical skills to be able to earn the respect of his or her organi-
zation and be a facile translator of technology’s capabilities and constraints
to academic and administrative leaders. However, aspirants should not build
their technical résumé to the exclusion of all else. Leaders are increasingly
valued for their ability to communicate, plan, and manage and develop
staff. In addition to focusing on the skills and areas of specialization already
discussed, aspirants should also give serious consideration to obtaining a
doctorate. As the leadership job becomes one increasingly of influence rather
than authority, the need for the PhD credential will likely grow.
In the ECAR study, aspirants to top college and university IT jobs
and nonaspirants alike recognized the demands of the job. The question for
many came down to whether they thought they could make a difference.
If a CIO role is incrementally more time consuming and requires more
sacrifice of work–life balance, then respondents wanted to feel that they
would be able to make an incrementally larger contribution. In this regard
there is cause for optimism. It is unlikely that the CIO role will shrink
in responsibility or influence. Neither the talents of the individuals in the
CIO roles or the needs of our institutions will likely allow that to happen.
Rising CIOs have every reason to believe that they can make a difference.

Summary
ECAR’s 2004 study concluded that the condition of the IT leadership
community was strong and its prospects for the future were good. The
2008 ECAR study found nothing that would refute that conclusion.
Institutions are served by an IT workforce that is dedicated to both


technology and higher education. It is a community in transition that will
no doubt see waves of retirement that will alter its makeup. Fortunately,
there appears to be another generation of leaders and workers willing to
step into their places.
There is reason to be optimistic for the future. Our institutions are
still discovering the many ways in which technology and information
can enable them to achieve new things. The cliché that higher education
IT’s best days may still be ahead need not be a hollow promise. However,
higher education’s IT practitioners cannot afford to be passive about the
future. IT leaders will need to take action to define it for themselves and
their institutions.
Higher education must also heed the warning signs about our organi-
zations and workforce. Individual and collective action is required to
improve the quality of management, mentorship, and skill-development
available to our staffs. As labor markets contract, advantages will accrue
to organizations that can create environments in which staff want to
work through compensation, communication, and opportunities to build
a long-term career. The CIO job will not be the right destination for
everyone. Our human resources programs need to respect alternative career
aspirations and create mechanisms for individuals to be recognized for their
contributions in ways other than just promotion to management.
In 2002, Gary Augustson, former vice provost for information
technology at Penn State, wrote about the challenges faced by IT leaders.
His article acknowledged the many reasons why leading IT is hard but also
described why it is so vitally important. Whether you are an IT leader, an
aspiring leader, or a member of an IT workforce, the article offers much to
validate the efforts you put forth. There is no better way to close this essay
than to quote the conclusion of that article:
The information technology efforts within higher
education form a key part of the underlying national
infrastructure that supports the ability of the United
States to be a global leader—whether in driving global
economic success or making the world safe for our
children and grandchildren. The effective leadership
of these efforts is immensely important. The job is
not already done. In fact, the job has just begun. IT
leadership in the twenty-first century will be the
ultimate challenge.13


Endnotes
1. This essay is derived from Philip Goldstein, Leading the IT Workforce in Higher
Education (Research Study,Vol. 6) (Boulder, CO: ECAR, 2008, in press).
Throughout this essay, reference is made to the 2008 ECAR IT leadership and
workforce study and the survey on which the study was based. Leading the IT
Workforce in Higher Education: Survey Instrument may be found online at http://
connect.educause.edu/Library/ECAR/LeadingtheITWorkforceinHi/45192.

2. Richard N. Katz, Robert B. Kvavik, James I. Penrod, Judith A. Pirani, Mark
R. Nelson, and Gail Salaway, IT Leadership in Higher Education:The Condition of
the Community (Research Study,Vol. 1) (Boulder, CO: ECAR, 2004), available
from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ers0401/rs/ers0401w.pdf.

3. Stephanie Overby, “The Incredible Shrinking CIO,” CIO Magazine
(October 15, 2003).

4. Nicholas Carr, “IT Doesn’t Matter,” Harvard Business Review (May 2003).

5. Quoted in Edward Cone, “Nicholas Carr: Why IT Will Change,” CIO
Insight, January 9, 2008, http://www.cioinsight.com/c/a/Expert-Voices/
Nicholas-Carr-Why-IT-Will-Change.

6. The survey was conducted jointly by the IBM Center for CIO Leadership
in collaboration with the MIT Sloan Center for Information System Research
and Harvard Business School.

7. The CIO Profession: Driving Innovation and Competitive Advantage (IBM
Center for CIO Leadership, October 2007), http://whitepapers.zdnet.com/
abstract.aspx?docid=352948.

8. Goldstein, Leading the IT Workforce in Higher Education, op. cit.

9. Philip Goldstein with Richard N. Katz, Academic Analytics: The Uses
of Management Information and Technology in Higher Education (Research
Study, Vol. 8) (Boulder, CO: ECAR, 2005), available from http://www
.educause.edu/ecar.

10. From an interview conducted by the author with Bruce Maas of the
University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee as part of the 2008 ECAR IT leadership
and workforce study.

11. The CIO Profession: Driving Innovation and Competitive Advantage, op cit., 12.

12. Ted Dodds and Richard N. Katz, Developing the IT Workforce at
the University of South Australia (Case Study 2) (Boulder, CO: ECAR,
2008), available at http://connect.educause.edu/Library/ECAR/
DevelopingtheITWorkforcea/46813.


13. J. Gary Augustson, “Leading the IT Team: Ultimate Oxymoron
or Ultimate Challenge?” EDUCAUSE Review (March/April 2002):
18, http://connect.educause.edu/Library/EDUCAUSE+Review/
LeadingtheITTeamTheUltima/40319.

Bibliography
Augustson, J. Gary. “Leading the IT Team: Ultimate Oxymoron or
Ultimate Challenge?” EDUCAUSE Review (March/April 2002):
12–18, http://connect.educause.edu/Library/EDUCAUSE+Review/
LeadingtheITTeamTheUltima/40319.

Carr, Nicholas. “IT Doesn’t Matter.” Harvard Business Review (May 2003).

The CIO Profession: Driving Innovation and Competitive Advantage. IBM Center
for CIO Leadership, October 2007.

Cone, Edward. “Nicholas Carr: Why IT Will Change.” CIO Insight, January 9,
2008. http://www.cioinsight.com/c/a/Expert-Voices/Nicholas-Carr-Why-
IT-Will-Change.

Dodds, Ted, and Richard N. Katz. Developing the IT Workforce at the University of
South Australia (Case Study 2). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied
Research, 2008, available from http://www.educause.edu/ecar.

Goldstein, Philip. Leading the IT Workforce in Higher Education (Research Study,
Vol. 6). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, 2008, in
press, available from http://www.educause.edu/ecar.

Goldstein, Philip, with Richard N. Katz. Academic Analytics:The Uses of
Management Information and Technology in Higher Education (Research Study,Vol.
8). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, 2005, available
from http://www.educause.edu/ecar.

Katz, Richard N., Robert B. Kvavik, James I. Penrod, Judith A. Pirani, Mark
R. Nelson, and Gail Salaway. IT Leadership in Higher Education: The Condition
of the Community (Research Study, Vol. 1). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE
Center for Applied Research, 2004, 107–108, available from http://www
.educause.edu/ecar.

Overby, Stephanie. “The Incredible Shrinking CIO.” CIO Magazine (October
15, 2003): 66–76.

Afterword 263

Afterword
Charles Darwin observed that it’s not the strongest of the species that
survive, nor the most intelligent, but those most adaptive to change. For
humankind, the pace of change has been accelerating, and never as rapidly
as in the past century. One hundred years ago, our body of knowledge
doubled only once every century. Today, our body of knowledge doubles
every few years. In our digitized, microchipped world there is virtually no
subject that cannot be Googled, downloaded, and consumed. In higher
education the challenge is clear. How can we analyze and apply that infor-
mation in ways that will help our learning institutions thrive? How do we
turn that ubiquitous cloud of information into real knowledge?
In his remarks elsewhere in this book, Richard N. Katz talks about the
10 threads that have influenced the tapestry of higher education since the
inception of the academy. In this new millennium, technology is the bright
new strand that weaves through our institutions and binds them to one
another, enabling an unprecedented degree of collaboration and learning.
That digital thread connects us to something more than information. It
connects us to the world of ideas.
And those ideas are changing the practice of education. Classroom
instruction has been augmented and sometimes replaced with online
learning. Traditional office hours are increasingly supplemented with
e-mail and online conversations. What lies ahead? What will the class-
rooms of tomorrow be like? Will there even be classrooms? How will
the relationship between teacher and learner change? And how will
technology affect that change?
We are pleased to serve as a sponsor of The Tower and the Cloud, a
collection of essays that asks us all to imagine that future together. At
SunGard Higher Education, we imagine a future where the lines blur
between institutions and organizations, between consumers of technology
and solution providers, between learners and teachers. In this future, new
ways of knowing, more creative platforms for learning, and better forums
for understanding will create new opportunities for those of us who share
a passion for education.
We hope to see you there.

Andy Cooley
Senior Vice President, Marketing
SunGard Higher Education


43 Things, 221 Biomedical Informatics Research Network
802.11 standard, 10 (BIRN), 191
BitTorrent, 53
A Blackboard, 57
abundance, 175–177, 219, 222, 223 Boo.com, 108
academic governance, 4 Boston Public Library, 47
academic mission, 5 boundaries, permeable, 55, 56–57
academic practice and scarcity, 3 Broers, Lord, 69–70
access, ubiquitous, 10–11, 18–19, 24, 28–29, 32, bundling, 4, 32
202–203 Bush, George H. W., 82
accountability, 98–103, 134, 183 business incubators, 245–246
shared, 119–124 business intelligence, 103
sponsoring, 95
admissions, restricted, 93 C
Adobe, 214 Cambridge University, 77
AIRport (Academic Interactive Resources campus, 3–4, 55, 57
Portal), 73 Canada, 9
Amazon, 108, 197, 200, 239 career building, 73–74, 254
Simple Storage System, 26 Carlson, Chester, 176
American Competitiveness Initiative, 82 Carnegie Mellon University, Adelaide branch,
American Council of Learned Societies, 110 66
analytics, 29–30, 102–103, 155 Carr, Nicholas, 239–240, 241
Anderson, Chris, 17 cataloging, 148, 204–205, 242
anthropology, 60 ccLearn, 223
Apache, 52 Center for CIO Leadership, 240, 250
Apple, 8, 46, 199, 212 Center for Open and Sustainable Learning
Multimedia Lab, 213 (COSL), 56–57
MobileMe, 26–27 Center for the Public Domain, 56
archival appraisal, 176, 179, 183 centralization, 57–59
Archives Office of Tasmania, 72 ChaCha, 224
archiving change, 12, 103
Archivy 1.0, 173–174, 177 China, 81, 84
Archivy 2.0, 174–175, 177, 179, 184 CIO.com, 199
Archivy 3.0, 175–176, 178–179, 183 CIOs
Archivy 4.0, 178–182 and accountability, 102
ARPAnet, 9 as data evangelist, 244–245, 248, 251
Atkinson, Bill, 212 as information policy manager, 248–249
Augustson, Gary, 259 as innovation incubator, 245–246
Australia, penal colony records, 72 and IT governance, 135
authority to act, 53–54, 55, 59 as proactive strategist, 249–250
automation, 85–86 as process architect, 246–247, 251
role of, 108–109, 115, 128, 129, 238–259
B as services orchestrator, 243–244, 247–248,
Barlow, John Perry, 20 251
Barrett, Craig, 75 citizen journalism, 16, 200
BBC, 200 cloud computing, 12, 14, 26, 239
Beethoven, 213 certification-based, 133–134
Bell, George, 181–182, 183 developing strategy for, 22–23
Benkler,Yochai, 24, 28–29 impact of, 129–131, 252–253
Better Repositories Are Information Networks locked-down, 132–133
(BRAIN), 223–224 and shared memory, 172–186
BibApp, 231–232 Club Penguin, 197
bibliophylakes, 174, 184, 186 CMDA, 10

Index 267

code4lib.org, 232 diffusing, 154–155
collaboration, 28, 51, 53, 67, 180, 214, 217, 223 institutional, 111–115
colleges, see higher education scholarly (figure), 111
Columbia University, 19 services-oriented architecture, 152–154
ComFrame, 230
Common Collaboration and Learning D
Environment (CCLE), 122 Dartmouth College, 8
common good, vs. self-interest, 96–97 data spills, 26
commons, governance of, 60 de Tocqueville, Alexis, 183
communication, 6–7, 9, 60, 67, 84, 85, 176, decentralization, 51–54, 227–228
228, 252 Dede, Chris, 16, 68, 172–173, 183, 186
as CIO skill, 238, 251 del.icio.us, 198
key shifts in, 12 (table), 68–69 demand–pull, 16–18
scholarly, 45, 47, 48, 49, 55, 109, 195 Denmark, 9
community-source software (CSS), 150–152, Department of Defense, 9
155–157 digital divide, 68, 144, 234–235
compact, social, with higher education, 90–97 Digital Equipment Corp., 8
competitiveness, 81–86 digital media, ephemeral nature of, 180, 185
compute cycles, 16, 111 Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs), 232
computer science degrees, 81, 85 digitization, effects on record keeping,
computers 178–182
desktop, 68, 75 distributed computing, 52–53
laptops, 68 doctorate degrees, 81, 258
mainframe, 7–8, 126 Dron, Jon, 222–223
personal, 8–9, 68, 127 Duke University, 56
computing
distributed, 52–53 E
key shifts in (table), 12 eBay, 108
see also cloud computing e-business, 108
computing clusters, 112 e-commerce, 108
Conant, James Bryant, 30, 31, 109, 110, 115 economic growth, U.S. model for, 81–82
connectedness, 13, 120, 121 economics, experimental, 59
connectivity, 128, 131, 214 education, platonic, 2
embedded, 10–12 educational resource, 160
logical, 10 EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research
physical, 9 (ECAR), 68, 75, 135, 238, 241,
Connexions, 56–57, 164, 223 250–251, 253–260
Cook, Terry, 183, 184 “Grand Challenges” initiatives, 103
cooperation, building platforms for, 55, 59–61 EDUCORE/OOSS study, 152, 154
coordinated autonomy, 121 EDVAC, 7
copyrights, 19–21, 45, 54, 145–146, 158, 200, eHow, 224
205, 208–209 e-mail, 243
Cornell University, 9 Encyclopedia Britannica, 197
Council on Competitiveness, 82 end-to-end principle, 57–58
Courant, Paul, 186 engineering degrees, 81
course management systems, 198 English as second language, 73
Creative Commons, 195, 222, 223 ENIAC, 7, 11
philosophy of, 159 enterprise authority, 126–136
creative problem solving, 84, 85 enterprise resource planning (ERP), 128,
credentialing, 224–225 150–151
curriculum, reforming, 69–71 epistemology, 16, 33, 173, 183, 186
Curriki, 223 e-portfolios, 74
cyberinfrastructure, 190 EquiSearch.com, 224


e-science, 190 and community-source software, 150–152
Esposito, Joseph, 203–204 and competitiveness, 81–86
Ethernet, 9 as consumer good, 29
eToys, 108 cost of, 13, 29–30, 99, 101
European Union, 81 customization of, 13–14, 17
evidence-based medicine, 103 and dissemination of scholarship, 45–47
evolutionary biology, 60 and engineering degrees, 81–86
excess capacity, 52–53 funding models for, 24–25, 51–52, 66–67,
expertise, access to, 224 82, 91, 92, 95–96
Extension.com, 224 and the GI Bill, 91
globalization of, 21–22, 65–66
F guild model of, 3, 54
Facebook, 181, 197, 214, 248 and human memory sharing, 172–186
fair use, 31 increasing openness of, 13
federated search, 207 industry collaboration with, 85
FERPA, 25, 27 and IT, 21–22, 43–49, 202, 206–208,
Flickr, 197 238–259
France, 9 key trends in (table), 7
Friedlander, Larry, 213 limiting costs of, 96
Friedman, Thomas, 6, 81 mission of, 94, 202
From Page to Stage, 213 North American model of, 66
open educational content issues for,
FTP, 198
144–145
and organizational mission, 44–49
G
and peer networks, 83
Gates, Bill, 108
performance management analytics for,
Geertz, Clifford, 13
29–30
General Motors, 51
as place, 3–4
Georgia Institute of Technology, 85
range of, 6
GI Bill, 91
rapid changes in, 65–67
global knowledge economy, 64–77
as reservoir of knowledge, 45
Google, 18, 46, 178, 179, 184, 239, 242, 243
restoring trust in, 94–95
Book Search Library Project, 19, 205 and science degrees, 81–86
graduates, changing expectations of, 65 and services-oriented architecture,
graduation rates, 99, 101 152–154
“Grand Challenges” initiatives, 103 social compact with public, 90–97
graphical user interface (GUI), 8 social networking in, 96, 197–201
Green, Casey, 101–102 state funding of, 92, 93, 95
grid technologies, 121, 191 and stewardship of scholarship, 47–49
Growing Esteem, 64–77 as supply–push institution, 17
Gutenberg, 175, 177, 213 unbundling of, 22
Western, history of, 2–11
H women in, 5
H1-B visas, 84 Higher Education Policy Institute (Australia),
Harvard University, 7 70
higher education Hilton, James, 14, 15, 18, 19
access to, 5 HIPAA, 27
and accountability, 95, 98–103 Holmes, Oliver W., 174
agenda for action (figure), 22 horizontal service layering, 119–124
American, history of, 91 HTML, 198
as artisan community, 3 human cooperation, 59
in Australia, 64–77 Human Genome Project, 57, 109
Bologna model of, 66 humanities, 30, 54, 110

Index 269

and cyberinfrastructure, 154–155 and security, 112
and institutional repositories, 234–235 shared-services project in, 76
HyperCard, 212–213, 214 socialization of, 12–13
Hypertalk, 213 and standardization, 69, 75–76, 133–134
as strategic activity, 33
I and student services, 75
ibiblio, 56 and teaching and learning, 68–69, 75, 212
IBM, 8, 52–53, 240, 250 and undergraduates, 74–75
Iceland, 9 and user support, 130–132
IDC, 178 system administration of, 112, 127,
identity 129–130
establishing, 25, 181, 185 virtualized infrastructure for, 16
institutional, managing, 22–23, 27–29, 34, workforce for, 252–255
247–248 innovation, 58, 82–83
India, 81 insight initiatives, 102–103
Indiana University, 110, 112 Institute for Digital Research and Education
information (IDRE), 121–122
abundance of, 176, 177, 178, 186, 219, 222 Intel, 75
democratization of, 177 intellectual property rights, 19–21, 31, 194,
economic value of, 20 195, 248
social life of, 180–181 see also copyrights
information friction, 229–231 International Haplotype Mapping (HapMap),
“information literacy,” 203, 207 56
information railroad, 227–228 international rankings, 65–66
information systems, 24–25 Internet, 18, 22, 67, 68, 75, 109, 110, 127, 129,
information technology (IT) 140, 181, 229
and accountability, 101–103, 119–124, 134 Internet Protocol (IP), 9
advice to leaders, 255–257 Ithaka, 43
advice to leadership aspirants, 257–258 ITIL, 76
central, 119–122, 126–136, 240, 245, 250 iTunes, 46, 197
centralized vs. decentralized, 118 iTunes U, 199
compliance and controls for, 25–27 My iTunes, 197
degrees in, 81 IVR (interactive voice response), 86
deployment of, 118–124
“federal” model of, 127–129 J
funding of, 112–113 Japan, 84
and the global knowledge economy, 67 Jefferson, Thomas, 4, 5, 20
governance of, 23, 25–27, 34, 113–114,
122–123, 129, 135, 152, 244, 256 K
and higher education, 21–22, 43–49, 202, Kaltura, 223
206–208, 238–259 Kempner, Randall, 83
history of, 14, 126–129 Kennedy study, the, 74–75
and institutional planning, 123 Kerr, Clark, 91
integration with information services, 71 King’s College, London, 235
investment prioritization, 114 Kinko’s, 214
layered model for, 119–124 knowledge, 160, 163, 186, 199, 223
leadership of, 238–259 advances in, 109
networked information economy, 18–19, commercializing, 83
27, 32, 33, 34, 35, 51–52, 55, 61 global knowledge economy, 64–77
and open standards, 141–142 production of, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 91, 202,
principles of, 113, 114 204, 206, 227
and research,113–114 rhetoric of, 44
and risk management, 135 transfer of, 71–73, 144, 173–176


Korea, 84 Macromedia, 214
Kuali Enterprise Workflow, 155 Manchester’s Baby, 7, 11
Kuali Financial System (KFS), 151 Manjoo, Farhad, 16, 181
Kuali Foundation, 157 Marginson, Simon, 67
Kuali Rice, 155 Mark I, 7
Kuali Student, 155 Marx, Karl, 199
mashups, 15, 29
L McCracken, Grant, 13
Lamar, Mirabeau B., 96 McPhee, Peter, 70
land grant movement, 91 media, new, and learning, 215–218
language tutorials, online, 73 medical records, 185
Large Hadron Collider, 109, 182 medical sciences, 110
Larson, Eric, 232 Melbourne model, 64–77
Last.fm, 197 Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, 150–151, 152,
LearnHub, 224 154, 155, 156, 205
Learning 2.0, 198, 199–200 MESA, 156
learning metadata, 142, 193, 204, 205, 235
case study, 219–222 Michigan State University, 221
feedback in, 160–161 Microsoft, 8, 52, 108, 179, 182, 239
interactions in, 160, 162–164 Microsoft Exchange Services, 122
new, obstacles to, 216–218 middleware, 25
style of, 216 Milliron, Mark, 102–103
see also teaching and learning MIT, 7, 56, 144, 158, 161, 222
learning management systems, 102, 150–151, MONK, 156
185 Moodle, 141, 198
libraries, 242 Moore’s law, 178
birth of, 3, 174–175 Morrill Act, 91
challenges for, 192–193 Muybridge, Edward, 175–176, 181
in the digital age, 202–209 My Horse University, 221
and Google Book Search Library Project, My iTunes, 197
19 MyLifeBits, 182
mission of, 190 MySpace, 197, 198, 248
public, 47, 140
role of, 47–48, 193–195 N
science, 190–195 NASDAQ, 10
see also repositories National Center for Atmospheric Research,
Library of Congress, 47, 178 194
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol National Innovation Initiative, 82
(LDAP), 231 National Libraries of Medicine and
Linked Environments for Atmospheric Agriculture, 47
Discovery (LEAD), 191 National Science Foundation, 110
Linkup, The, 27 National Virtual Observatory, 109
Linux, 141 natural language processing, 11
literacy, 200, 202–206 Neal, James, 19
Livemocha, 224 NEESGrid, 109
local-area networks (LANs), 127 NEMA, 156
local autonomy, 119–120 Neopets, 197
long-tail phenomenon, 17, 199, 209 network permeability, 24
networked information economy, 18–19, 27,
M 32, 33, 34, 35, 51–52, 55, 61
Maas, Bruce, 249 New Media Centers (NMC), 214
MacIntyre, Alasdair, 184 New Media Consortium (NMC), 214
MacPaint, 212 New York Public Library, 47

Index 271

New Zealand, 66 podcasts, 199
Newman, John Henry, 22 political science, 60
No Significant Difference, 223 Postgraduate Essentials, 73
Norway, 9 Pownce, 201
NSFnet, 9 Prince2, 76
Nye, Joseph, 123–124 Princeton University, 9
printing, 175, 178, 179, 213
O privacy, 185, 200
O’Reilly, Tim, 110, 191 Professional Science Master’s degree, 85
OhmyNews, 200 provenance, 29, 34, 174, 176, 177, 180, 181,
One Laptop per Child Foundation, 219 183, 205
open access, 46–47, 142–145, 192 publishing, 228, 229, 234–235
open educational resources (OER), 143–144, digital, 198, 218
158, 180 scholarly, 43–44, 47–48, 81, 142, 205, 214
benefits of, 147–148 Purewire, 132
costs of, 148 Puzzle Pirates, 197
defining, 140–141, 158
effectiveness of, 165–166 Q
ensuring quality of, 164–165 quality, 13, 29, 93, 96, 110, 143, 146, 147,
issues for higher education, 144–145 164–165, 224
issues for policy makers, 146–147 of student experience, 70, 75–77
issues for teachers, 145–146
learner interaction with, 162–163 R
OER 1.0, 161 railroad, 228, 234–235
OER 2.0, 162 Rails framework, 231
source of, 159 rational actor model, 59
teacher interaction with, 160–162 record keeping, 178–182
and teaching and learning, 219–225 recruiting IT workers, 253–254
OER Commons, 222 repositories, 45–46, 109, 145, 146, 179, 182
Open Learning Exchange, 219 BRAIN, 233–234
open science, 143 Research Channel, 46
open source software, 20, 24–25, 52–53, 56, Research in Information Technology (RIT),
141, 150–152, 180, 233 150–151, 155, 156
open standards, 141–142 research, 6
Open University, 5 and accountability, 98
OpenCourseWare, 56, 144, 158, 161–162, 219, basic, 81–84
222 as catalyst of change, 6
OpenLearn, 144, 161, 222 collaborative, 28, 57, 58, 67, 109–110,
openness, in academic inquiry, 3, 5–6, 13 190–191
OpenOffice, 223 data-driven, 108, 193
oral tradition, 173 economics of, 93
organizational sociology, 60 and education, 68, 118–120
Owen, David, 176 funding of, 54, 92, 108, 111
Oxford University, 77 integrated, 71–73
and IT, 113–114, 179
P and open access, 5–6, 142, 143
patents, 19–21, 54 and World War II, 91
PDA, 68 see also scholarship
performance management analytics, 29–30 RFID chips, 10
Pew Internet and American Life research, 219 Rhodes, Frank, 98
photography, 175–176, 180 Rice University, 56, 223
Picasa, 197 Robertson, David C., 69
Plato’s academy, 2 Rogue River Ford plant, 13


Ross, Jeanne W., 69, 113, 123 Software Environment for the Advancement
Rowe, Richard, 219 of Scholarly Research (SEASR), 155,
156
S software stack, 111
Sakai Foundation, 156–157 South Korea, 200
Salesforce.com, 239 Space Science Institute, 28
Samuelson, Paul, 204 Spellings, Margaret, 99
San Diego Supercomputing Center, 194 Spellings Commission on the Future of Higher
Sarbanes-Oxley, compliance with, 27 Education, 86, 99–101
SAS 70 Audit Report, 27 standardization, trend toward, 69
scarcity, 3, 20, 126, 175–177, 184, 186 standardized testing, 86
scholarship, 16, 28–29 Stanford Research Institute, 9
dissemination of, 45–49 Stanford University, 213
in digital age, 109–110, 202–209 Stanford, Leland, 175
nature of, 19 student services, reshaping of, 69–71
rhetoric of, 44 students, low-income, 95–96
Scholarship 2.0, 108–110 supply–push, 17
serious practice of, 207 Swarthmore College, 199
stewardship of, 47–49 Sweden, 9
see also research
“seamy” systems, 231–236 T
search engines, 9, 16, 18, 184, 205 talent war, 30–31
Second Life, 4, 28, 33 teachers, and open educational content,
service layering, 119–124 145–146
services-oriented architecture (SOA), 152–154, Teachers’ Domain, 223
155–156 teaching and learning, 68–69
Shakespeare, 213 and accountability, 98
Shanghai Jiao Tong index, 66 and new media, 212–218
shared services, 112–113 and OER, 219–225
shareware, 141 and open content, 143–148
Sherpa, 231 integrated, 71–73
Singapore, 84 new directions in, 69–72
skills, 65, 85, 148, 195 Terragrid, 190
for CIOs, 247–248, 250, 251 testing, 86, 163
communication, 70 Texas, Republic of, 96
management, building, 255 Text Encoding Initiative (TEI), 230
for IT workforce, 126, 252–253, 254 “threads,” 85
Skype, 53 “time to degree,” 100–101
SMS messaging, 10 Times Higher Education index, 66
social compact with higher education, 90–97 TMDA, 10
social networking, 197–201 town–gown relations, 54–55, 57
social norms, 53 Transmission Control Protocol (TCP), 9
social production, 56–58 transparency, vs. accountability, 99–100
Socrates, 2 transportation revolution, 227–228
software TripAdvisor, 25–26
community-source (CSS), 150–152, trust, 54, 57, 90, 174–175, 176, 186, 250
155–157 loss of, 93, 94–95
open source open source software, 20, truthiness, 184
24–25, 52–53, 56, 141, 150–152, 180, Tutor.com, 224
233 Twitter, 198, 201
social, 60, 198–199
software as a service (SaaS), 246

Index 273

U WikiEducator, 223
ubiquitous access, 10–11, 18–19, 24, 28–29, 32, Wikipedia, 29, 53, 54, 56, 140, 180, 197, 199,
202–203 200
UK Open University, 144, 161y, 222 Wikiversity, 164, 223
unbundling, 14–16, 18, 22, 28, 32 Wiley, David, 158
UNESCO, 158 Wilkinson, James, 65
unit record system, 99–100 Winter, Robert, 213
United Kingdom, 66 wireless, 10
universities, see higher education women, in higher education, 5
University 2.0, 227–236 work, nature of, 12–13
University College London, 9 workforce, future, developing, 30–31
University of California, Los Angeles, 9, 121, World War II, 91
124, 213 World Wide Web, 9, 18
University of California, Santa Barbara, 9 written word, 2, 174
University of Illinois, Urbana–Champaign, 9,
233, 235 X
University of Manchester, 7 xerography, 175, 176, 184
University of Melbourne, 64–77
University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill, 56 Y
University of Pennsylvania, 7 Yahoo, 108
University of Phoenix, 5 YouTube, 46, 53, 181, 197, 200, 248
University of Utah, 9
University of Wisconsin–Madison, 231 Z
university presses, 43–44, 47 Zboray, Ronald J., 227–229, 234–235
U.S. Department of Education, 99–100 ZScaler, 132
user group culture, 127–128
user interface, 154–155
Utah State University, 56

V
Vack, Nate, 232
van der Wende, Marijk, 67
venture capital, 83, 108
Vest, Charles, 33, 110
video games, 215, 217
Virtual Magic Kingdom, 197
virtualization, 11–12, 15, 33

W
Walsh, Diana Chapman, 21
War News Radio, 199
Web 2.0, 110, 144, 146–147, 172–173,
180–181, 198, 219–225, 227, 229
Webkinz, 197
WebVan, 108
Weill, Peter, 69, 113, 123
Wellesley College, 21
Wells, H. G., 2
Western Governors, 224
Wheeler, Brad, 76–77
wide-area network (WAN), 128
Wi-Fi, 10

computacion en la Nube

More Related Content

Similar to computacion en la Nube (20)

More from u libre (14)

computacion en la Nube