Title: Exploring Value and Values through Openness: Third Sector Partnerships

approach to free open online Education as a Public Good

Authors:

Ronald Macintyre, Open Educational Practices Scotland, the Open University in

Scotland; Open University Business School

Claire Hewitt, Parkinson’s UK

Abstract

This paper explores a partnership between a Scottish Government programme to raise

awareness and develop capacity in the creation and use of free open online education

materials (OER), Open Educational Practices Scotland (OEPS), and Parkinson’s UK

a Third Sector organisation which works to improve the lives of people with

Parkinson’s. The partnership has designed and produced a series of badged open

online courses aimed at Health and Social Care (HSC) staff. The paper focuses on

one created for front line staff, sharing what we learnt about what design based

approaches can contribute as explorers of “Public Value” (e.g. Moore 1995).

Those accessing OER tend to be the educational haves, in addressing this OEPS has

applied “what works” in Widening Participation (WP), seeking partnership with

organisations who are “trusted sources of support” with “shared values” to explore the

OER role in creating learning journeys for those distanced from education (Macintyre

and Cannell 2017). Parkinson’s UK have online and face to face programmes.

However, as demand outstripped capacity, they wanted to use OER as a way to

explore whether and how people would engage with open online learning. We suggest

the creation of OER to outside formal curriculum suggests an absence, structural holes

which are being filled by a values led organisation.

Influenced by work on participatory design, and design thinking approaches which

focus on value (Dorst 2011; Cross 2006) the partners treated these questions as a

complex adaptive problem. Through workshops we looked at the value we wanted to

create for the learners, for the people the learners cared for, and how this created

values of each partner. In the paper we look at what this meant on a practical level,

exploring the role of design based approaches in shaping our exploration of Public

Value. In particular, we reflect on the use of a Public Value models as heuristics

devices to frame messy real world problems. Suggesting this would provide a useful

avenue for future research.

Keywords: Third Sector, Open Education, Design Thinking, Public Value

1. Introduction

This paper explores a partnership between a Scottish Government programme to raise

awareness and develop capacity in the creation and use of free open online education

materials (OER), Open Educational Practices Scotland (OEPS) hosted by the OU in

Scotland, and Parkinson’s UK a Third Sector organisations which looks to improve the

lives of people with Parkinson’s. The partnership has designed and produced a series

of badged open online courses aimed at people with caring roles. The paper focuses

on one created for front line care staff. It reflects on the role of the Third Sector as

education provider filling “structural holes”, and on OER as a public good. Sharing

what we learnt about what design based approaches can contribute to an

understanding of “Public Value” (e.g. Moore 1995) by values based organisations.

Which we understand as how one crafts a position between what the public values

and what is valuable to the public (Bennington 2009), with all the ambiguity this implies.

These questions of Public Value and leadership are approached indirectly, through a

practice based approach to surfacing and addressing an issue, how to draw in those

distanced from education. It approaches them through acting in the world, treating it

as a design problem. Thus the paper begins with these issues, drawing out Public

Value and leadership based on the process and the outcomes of the process. It starts

with an overview of OER, exploring the challenges associated with developing free

open online materials and questions around to what degree they are a public good. It

then looks at design based approaches, and reflects on their use and usefulness in

structuring the search for Public Value for values based organisations. The paper then

looks specifically at our shared work created an OER on Parkinson’s care for front line

health and social care staff, looking at what this design approach meant in and for

practice. This paper attempts to capture the design process as it emerges through and

is developed in relation to practice.

2. Open Educational Resources and Public Good

Open Educational Resources (OER) are free open online materials, typically they are

licensed under creative commons, and afford learners and educators a series of

freedoms, OEPS working definition of OER is:

“… is grounded in established notions of openly licensed content. We have a specific

focus on freedoms afforded by openly licensing content (allowing “The 5 Rs”: retain,

reuse, revise, remix, redistribute) and the degree to which design development and

distribution accounts for equity and openness.”1

The sense that OER has the potential to democratise access to Higher Education (HE)

level learning is in a constant state of becoming. For example reports like “the

Avalanche” is coming (Barber et.al 2013) suggesting that low cost MOOC models are

acting as a disruptive innovation within English HE has been just about to happen for

some time. Focussing on the technology obscures other more fundamental

challenges to HE in high fee jurisdictions. In particular for teaching led providers with

a background in drawing in those distanced from education. For example, the Open

1 From https://oepscotland.org/about/definitions/ last accessed 15th of March 2017

University who look to maintain their focus on those most distanced from education as

the political and economic support for those activities is withdrawn, and education is

becoming increasingly seen as a positional good.

It is easy to point at the failure of MOOCs to disrupt established models. However,

advocates of OER also need to look carefully at the promises this movement has

made, it is in danger of becoming and revolution that is always in a state of being, just

about to happen. While the promise of OER has been about broadening the socio-

economic base of those accessing HE level learning, the reality has been somewhat

different. Most of those accessing and using OER are the educational haves, people

with experience of HE (Cannell 2016), leading some prominent people in the field to

ask, if this is the answer, was the problem how can well educated middle class people

access free CPD (Laurillard 2014)? Thus, rather than disrupting and democratising

education OER often embed inequities, with MOOCs themselves as positional good

in CPD, and the dominant names in OER established education providers.

For many in the OER community this has become a hidden presence, and dissonance

between the promises and reality challenges individual and shared values. More

recently some within the OER community have come to question the focus on OER

as a technical question of how to enable things to be more open, and instead posed it

as a complex adaptive problem; what does openness enable? This “practice turn” has

seen a shift from the affordances of the digital objects to an emphasis on the

educational practices that inform design, production and use. OEPS has both emerged

from and driven this agenda.

The project was asked specifically by the Scottish Government to explore the skewed

socio-economic base of those using OER. It did this through applying approaches from

Widening Participation (WP) more generally, to the problem of access and

participation through open online courses. WP practitioners commonly draw a

distinction between access and participation. For example you can make education

more accessible by putting courses online or by creating more funded places, but in

practice this rarely does anything to broaden the participation from underrepresented

groups in society. WP practices are concerned with recognising the socio-economic

and structural inequalities that constrain the freedom to access and participate in

education, and developing practices to support people on their journeys (Cannell and

Macintyre 2017). Partnership is a key component in WP practice (Fuller et.al 2011),

working with those organisations within whom those distanced from learning have

existing relationships, and through this developing routes into learning. For OEPS

these partnerships, often with Third Sector organisations, became a key component

of how the project approached the question of WP and OER.

3. Third Sector Partners and Parkinson’s UK

In the UK the role of Third Sector organisations has changed significantly over the last

three decades, many have gone from being issue based advocacy organisations, to

delivering services. From campaigning on behalf of neglected groups, to delivering

services to them often on behalf of government. Much has been written about the

effect that this “contract culture” had on these organisations (Lyon and Fernandez

2012), from questions around the application of private sector business models, to

questions of leadership, founder effects and emerging scholarship on the role of them

in delivering Social or Public Value on behalf of the state (Lyon and Blundel 2012;

Lyon and Fernandez 2012; Gawell 2013). Many of these organisations have

highlighted and then become part of Governments approach to filling structural holes

in public service provision. These phenomena are particularly relevant in Health and

Social Care (HSC), where state and Third Sector actors and organisations often work

closely together to support each other and their clients. Parkinson’s UK’s vision is to

find a cure and improve life for everyone affected by Parkinson’s. In order to improve

life for everyone affected by Parkinson’s we need to influence and enable best practice

in health and social care. This is best achieved by providing tools, information and

education, most importantly open education.

Through their development of a Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) to support

Parkinson’s UK Excellence Network role in meeting the needs of practitioners

Parkinson’s UK had already been exploring online. They had shifted from a

“traditional” model of direct face to face training to a cascade model of training the

trainers and providing high quality materials to support individuals and groups.

However, this model can’t reach all frontline health and social care staff due to its own

capacity limits and barriers constraints within organisations where learners work.

Having created a VLE Parkinson’s UK wanted to do more, they saw OER as a way

expand their reach beyond the formal VLE, and to learn from OEPS about the design

of online learning materials to inform practice on their own VLE. The initial pilot with

OEPS looked at how to develop a resource for front line staff, staff who are often poorly

paid, part time may be in insecure employment. OEPS experience of working with

those distanced from learning, suggested shared values, and shaped the partnership

and the approach, which we explore in more detail below.

4. Designing for Openness

Authors like Roger Martin and designers like Tim Brown from IDEO have done much

to popularise design approaches and “Design Thinking” within the business

community (see Brown and Martin 2015 in the HBR) and in public services (IDEO is

particularly focussed on this area). Their conception of design is as a balance between

what is feasible, acceptable and desirable, with the designers working to fulfil the

desires within what is politically, economically, socially, technically feasible and

acceptable. In some ways the pull of these aspects produces creative tension, and in

early iterations of our own approach (Macintyre 2015a; 2015b) we made the explicit

link to Grants (2010) work on Key Success Factors in the Resource Based View (RBV,

resources and capabilities, stakeholders, what it takes to succeed in the market) this

was seen as useful, in particular exploring how capabilities arise and how they change.

However, the approach described in this paper here draws on a slightly different

conception, drawn from the origins of Design Thinking in Scandinavian Participatory

Design movements.

Participatory movements in design are concerned with allowing people ownership of

process. The original work in Scandinavian was with Trade Unions, and looked at

involving workers in the design of processes, flows on the shop floor and products

(Gregory 2003). Later this spilled over into customer involvement in designing

products. It also shifted focus to communities and participation, how to design

participatory process (Bjongvinsson et.al 2012), and into work that reflected on

designerly ways of knowing (Cross 2006).Those ways of knowing are concerned with

process, issues are surfaced through iterations. The issues raised by focusing on the

needs of a target audience who are typically non-traditional learners meant adapting

process’s considerably through the partnership. Indeed the commonality between

questions of value in design and discourses on Public and Social value arose as it

became apparent the clumsy solutions and language we had arrived at to frame our

approach mirrored more formal discourses in the management literature. As in the

debates around social and public values, when something is made (in this instance a

course) it is tempting to simply evaluate or judge the outcome. However, design work

and research suggests outcomes are inscribed with the process, and dependent on

the care and attention taken to those outcomes during the process. In this sense it has

more in common with work on value and how we understand the value of things

explored in the craft literature (e.g. Gell 1992), where design is a not about following

prescribed steps to a known outcome, but about holding both the end and the means

together, and carefully examining then as you turn them over in your hand.

The focus on process has much in common with action research where the focus is

on practical problems solved through doing (Kemmis 2010). However, what design

emphasises is the unsteady nature of what is done, the need to frame and reframe in

relation to established and developing heuristics. It is concerned with making these

heuristics visible and reflecting on the application and types of reasoning used in

practice. For example, this focus on being a reflective practitioner, reflection in and

on practice (see Dewey 2012; Schon 1983), was common ground for partners. HSC

as a discipline is concerned with reflective practice, it is one of the stories it tells about

itself. The importance of these shared stories as ways of expressing identity and

values of organisations are concerned with “what we do around here”. This means

when design based approaches, with their necessary focus on process, are applied to

practical issues in organisations there is a need to attend to these narratives, as part

of your own role as a professional (Ramsey 2005a; 2005b), and as part of what it

means to research organisations (see Tsoukas and Hatch 2001). In addition,

designerly ways of approaching this provides an answer to questions around how to

structure to action research, and acknowledge the collaborative nature of inquiries

(Burns 2014), and the challenge of speaking about the everyday while surfacing the

taken for granted (Cuncliffe and Bell 2016).

Based on descriptive accounts of what designers do, and often informed by the need

to support design in formal and informal environments, Cross and Dorst (2001; also

Dorst 2011) have begun to create normative accounts of what designers should do.

They suggest seeing design as an equation, an adapted version is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Value Design Equation (based on Dorst and Cross 2001 and Dorst 2011)

Designers should focus on what is to be transformed, how is it being transformed, and

the value they want to create. They employ this simple approach because they are

interested in the types of reasoning employed. Examples of the different forms of

reasoning based on what is known and unknown are shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Reasoning and Problem Solving in Design (based on Dorst and Cross 2001 and Dorst 2011)

For those developing open learning materials the question of what is known about the

learner is an important one. Learning is not a service or product in any conventional

sense, it is itself a transformation process, one that requires work from the learner,

and requires the learner to have the appropriate skills to perform the work (Macintyre

2016a). Thus how it is transformed is not simply a matter for the organisation and the

alignment of its resources and capabilities but also a question of the learner. In addition

Value(s)

[personal, professional,

organisational]

What is Transformed

[Learners]

How it is to be tranformed

[the learning journey]

the value of the learning experience only comes into being when enacted by the

learner. When it used in practice, for example to get or in the case of the course in

this paper to better at your role. The value for the learner is uncertain and dependent

on a series of unknowns.

The value for the organisation looking to deliver Public Value through learning journeys

inscribed with their values is unstable. There is the need to “know the learner”, but

there is also the complex landscape of other actors, these contextual factors and their

variations also create uncertainty. The uncertainty around how value is created in

ways that align with organisational values and promote social or public values means

there is a need to question assumptions. For example, the form of OERs tends to be

shaped by the individuals producing them and the organisational culture from which

they arise, work on Higher Education has found they tend to make openness in their

own image (Macintyre 2013). As a result embedded assumptions about what it means

to develop learning in the formal sector are imprinted in the informal sector. These

heuristics can act as hidden barriers for those distanced from education (Macintyre

2016a). These are simply questions about “how we do things around here”, what a

design approach provides is a structured approach to those inquiries. Cross and Dorst

(2001; also Dorst 2011) talk about the importance of framing, how our frame moves

across the series of known and unknowns, seeking to clarify elements, then working

from a known point framing it in different ways. In this section we have suggested

developing learning is not a simple matter of reasoning from a set of knowns, but

instead involves a complex set of process where the problem is framed in different

ways across a series of knowns and unknowns. In that sense how learning creates

value is a “Wicked Problem”, our solutions clumsy, and often involving the kind of

abductive reasoning found in complex adaptive problems (see Table 1, also

Buchannan 1992; Heifetz et.al 2009), the implications for leadership and considered

in the conclusion.

5. Reflections on our Practice

Parkinson’s UK aim to support people with Parkinson’s and they have a set of values

that underpin their mission, their contribution to Public Value is based on those values.

In order for them to align organisational values with the outcomes for people with

Parkinson’s the educational materials they create need to support learners to develop

them and put them into practice. The partnership focussed on creating a course for

from line HSC staff on “Parkinson’s Awareness”, a course that would explore the issue

they might encounter in their role and through exploring those issues improve the car

and support offered to people with Parkinson’s and their families2. For the materials

to inspire those values in learners the partners felt there was a need to go beyond

telling, beyond simply communicating what the organisation knew about Parkinson’s

care, to a focus on doing. This practical focus was part of the face to face programme,

the question was how to support this approach online and in the open.

2 The materials are hosted on the OU platform OpenLearnCreate, see here http://www.open.edu/openlearncreate/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=77560

Having framed the problem as one of practice with the value assessed in relation to

how well the open online journey supported and developed good practice. We had a

known point, a value, and the emergence of how to approach the journey. It needed

to be constructed in such a way that it supported practice. Front line staff in HSC are

familiar with the idea of keeping log books or records of patients, so this familiar

elements of work practice became a component of the course, developing a series of

structured inquiries and reflective practice exercises which asked them to reflect on

their practice in relation to the materials and record them in a reflective journal. As a

solution, how did it come to be selected, in part it became one of the ways we framed

how because it was also familiar to the partners. It is a common approach in HSC

(and indeed education) and part of these disciplines sense of who they are and the

values they support.

In the three linked interviews with six participants we found the open online element

was grounded in the everyday by the familiarity of the reflective logs. The approach

seemed to speak directly to their personal and professional identities, The use of

“people like them” to show, rather than tell, about Parkinson’s care drew in question

of affect, with participants making a connection between the case studies and their

own personal and professional experiences. While this is of interest to designers of

online learning, for Parkinson’s UK “the test” is improving the care of people with

Parkinson's. In the evaluation of the small pilot participants did talk about “seeing” in

a different way, of feeling a sense of confidence, of being better advocates for the

people they support within broader care networks. It was these affective issues and

the fact that people were taking the materials to work with them that led us to change

the way we framed the activities, changing the course to emphasise the learning

community as one which reached out from the online into the physical spaces they

occupy. It was our sense the learners would cascade the learning through the

workplace through good practice, as this was what Parkinson’s UK evaluation of face

to face programmes suggested. In some ways this occurred. For example, one of the

interviewees did hold a senior post, the material led them to realise the local lacked

the differentiated professional roles and experts available to others. Their reflections

were pragmatic, given these constraints what can be done to build capacity in locale

and promote resilience. However, most other participants spoke about what their own

inability to enact change. Most were front line staff operating in and through a complex

assembly of public third and private operators, they felt their own ability to act was

constrained by their place within these networks. At the same time they recognised

they could be agents of change through their own practice, and being advocates of

change asking awkward questions, a model of change that seems more akin to

complex adaptive ones (see Heifetz et.al 2009).

It has been difficult to benchmark the course against other materials. We make no

claims for specific insights into design. However, when compared to courses of similar

length platforms offered by the OU, while the raw number are in the 100s rather than

1000’s, a greater proportion of learners work through the whole course and the

proportion completing assessments is far higher. Instead, there seems to a series of

factors, the applied discipline, the relevance of the knowledge to practice, the specific

nature of the learning materials, they are meeting a known need, and developed by

with organisations with reputations in the area, Parkinson’s UK (the subject) and the

OU (online learning) all come together. However, there is another less tidy narrative,

which we explore in more detail below.

6. Openness Technology and Change

This paper has teased out a series of thread, in some senses it represents our

reflections in action, surfacing connections and bodies of literature but not quite

integrating them into practice. In that sense the paper following Dewey (2012) tries to

be open about our movements to and from practice, and the uncertainty associated

with each shift. It attempts to represent the messy and overlapping process’s involved

in making something. The temptation could be to take this description and construct a

narrative around change, suggesting that the development of these practices and the

testing of these technologies in a pilot follows Christensen (et.al 2015) recent

suggestions around how to address his own identification of the sources of disruptive

innovation, simply disrupt yourself. However, to suggest this would be to imply

something deliberate. If this is strategy, it is emergent, like the design process itself,

framing and reframing, until we started to grasp that this approach to working in

partnership might be something other than a discrete set of activities involved in the

making of a single thing. For example, Parkinson’s UK began to see openness in

partnership with an academic partner as a way to colonise the online space, to become

a go to place for Parkinson’s. More than this they saw how openness and creating

relevant content in neglected areas could allow them to influence teaching practice in

formal learning. We are now working together to develop further resources in this area.

For the OU the lessons are less clear, while low cost content production and transfer

enabled by digital technology is a challenge for OU Fordist production models based

on assumptions about cost and speed of delivery that no longer hold (Macintyre

2016b). Digitisation is by no means the key thing disrupting its business model, it is

shifts in the political support for its mission. Public Values (as articulated through

government policy in England) no longer align with the OU mission to “promote social

justice”. While the OU looks to streamline operations and align its mission with political

discourses in England, there is a question here for the OU, and other values based

organisation who find themselves out of step with policy. The partnerships described

here is based on shared values, it has produced practice relevant content that could

appeal to formal learners. Should the values based organisations look to sway with

changes in Public Value as policies change, or should they hold to their values? For

HE providers, this raises a deeper question about the role of the academy as the

source and custodian of knowledge. While there is a great deal of rhetoric about

disaggregation or unbundling within HE, smaller amounts of credit, content separated

from credentials and so on3, and the role of private provider, the models tend to be

drawn from the private sector, and it is not clear how well they apply to social goods.

In addition, little attention has been paid to the types of knowledge and understanding

being privileged, or the potential for partnerships between HE and Third Sector

providers. We would suggest this is a fruitful area of research and practice.

3 For example, the Economic and Social Research Council has provided some funding to support research in this area, see here http://unbundleduni.com/

7. Reflections on Value(s)

As practitioners we appear to be less concerned with the theoretical debates around

the tryptic style models cited in this work, (Moore’s Strategic Triangle, Grant and the

RBV, Martin and Browns approach to design thinking) these heuristics have shaped

our understanding of practice. Thus we have not allocated space to reflections on

whether these Moore’s work is descriptive, normative or both (Alford and O’Flynn

2009), but instead used discussions on the creation of Public Value practically and

symbolically as a way to frame issues as they arise. However, through these use of

these models and the shifting frames we have arrived at some sense of how they work

as heuristic devices to shape practice. For example, we found rather than the carefully

formed case studies used to teach Public Value which has been effective in

transmitting the idea to practitioners (Alford et.al 2016), as others have noted (e.g.

Hartley et.al 2016 on teaching cases), real world examples are less neatly defined.

Through this we have developed some insights into the operation of these models that

might be relevant to their development.

The focus has of this paper has been Third Sector actors, these actors are increasingly

important in delivering Public Value, as the state uses them to deliver services.

However, these groups are more than service providers on behalf of the state, they

have their own sets of values, and they look to articulate those values through

advocacy, lobbying of government and practice. This is the part of the creation of

publicness, real and imagined, and the role these organisations play what Bennington

called the Public Sphere (2009) is important. It is outside the scope of the paper to

explore the role in detail. However, are interested in the debate around publicness and

which organisations are relevant and legitimate actors in the public realm and who are

not. If one reads Parkinson’s UK and OEPS as legitimate actors in this space

delivering Public Value through the creation of learning materials to support public,

private and third sector organisations, then they must be filling a structural hole. Our

presence in this space indicates an absence, or perhaps to frame it in the language of

Bozeman’s (2002; see also the recent expansion of the criteria in Bozeman and

Johnson 2015) articulation of Public Value, it suggest a failure by state actors to deliver

Public Value. In this sense, Bozeman’s Public Value Failure (PVF) approach to

defining a thing by what it is not, is a useful empirical tool, as it allows us to identify

spaces of interest, not just through the absence of Public Value, but through the

engagement in non-state actors in a space. The question of whether and who is

allowed to deliver value on behalf of “the public” is outside the scope of this, but our

sense is that Bozeman’s deductive approach to identifying failings might be applied as

a heuristic device to explore more complex assemblages of organisations, rather than

deducing failure, reading Public Value through formal and informal assemblies of

individuals and organisations working on those inbetween spaces.

The limits of our approach are also apparent when considered in relation to these

inbetween spaces. One of the issues with the participatory approach is that pushing

towards meeting the needs of the people you wish to support can pull the organisation

into developing unfamiliar or even uncomfortable places. For example, OEPS early

work in this area found organisations might lack the resources and capabilities to

operate in the world envisaged by this focus on client needs, and the space between

seemed too far. In opening up the discussion and creating a pressure to change we

had neither moderating the pain (Heifetz et.al 2009), neither did we provide

appropriate support to bridge between the present structures and some future

alignment. While the RBV and work on dynamic capabilities suggests a way forward

we have observed an added consideration for values based organisation. For these

providers, the configuration of resources and capabilities is often seen as a

manifestation of their values. Surfacing issues around how these might be

reconfigured can be seen as a direct challenge to the organisations sense of self. In

particular, when those values are often seen as a bulwark, a way to protect the most

vulnerable in society. Therefore, while RBV is a useful heuristic, asking organisations

to reflect on the alignment of resources and capabilities to their values, and asking

them to reflect on the values they want to create in society. Pushing this too far,

towards Key Success Factors (KSF) and approaches developed to create shareholder

value, are not always appropriate for values based organisations.

In this sense our observation is sympathetic to critics of Public Value, who question

whether it is always appropriate to apply models developed to deliver value to

customers and shareholders at a practical and theoretical level to questions of how to

create Public Value. For Third Sector organisations, the question is not just one of the

creation of shareholder value, or the allocation of public resources, they operate in a

different economic space. They are values based organisations, for these

organisations the values are not always a reflection the public values, and considers

what is valuable to the public is highly contested. They often exist to resist dominant

ideas, and are based on their own sense of what is of value to the public. At this point

Moore’s neatly defined consensus model appears to break down, one can see its

potential to, at best homogenise, and at worst silence dissenting voices, depoliticising

how Public Value is created, obscuring question of by whom and for whom. Dahl and

Soss (2014) have suggested the focus on enabling Public Value through partnership’s

has obscured the role governments play in countering the power of private capital. It

is our sense there is a need to recognise publicness as contested, and the key role

Third Sector organisations play in contesting notions of public value that embed

inequalities.

In conclusion, we have found the practice of creating Public Value much messier than

academic debates on Public Value might suggest. Though we make no claims for any

special insight we have found design based approaches a useful way to explore these

messes and recognise the centrality of practice in Public Value research (Bryson et.al

2016). In our work on value and values we have found it useful to turn look at what is

being transformed and how it is being transformed and the creation of value from the

perspective of the organisation, the individual and in relation to broader questions of

Public Value. Shifting these framing devices over the different components of value

creation and use value from these different perspectives. It is our sense that while

these designerly ways of knowing arose out of a specific social context, and are in no

way a formulae, as a process or craft they might be usefully applied to broader

questions around Public Value.

8. References

Alford, J., & O’Flynn, J. (2009). Making Sense of Public Value: Concepts, Critiques

and Emergent Meanings. International Journal of Public Administration, 32(3–4), 171–

191.

Alford, J., Douglas, S., Geuijen, K., & ‘t Hart, P. (2016). Ventures in public value management: introduction to the symposium. Public Management Review, 0(0), 1–16.

Barber, M.; Donnelly, K.; Rizvi, S. (2013) An Avalanche is Coming, Institute for Public

Policy Research: London.

Benington, J. (2009). Creating the Public In Order To Create Public Value?

International Journal of Public Administration, 32(3–4), 232–249.

Bjongvinsson E. Ehn P. Hilgren P. (2012). Design Things and Design Thinking:

Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges, Design Issues, 29(3), pp101-116

Bozeman, B. (2002). Public-Value Failure: When Efficient Markets May Not Do. Public

Administration Review, 62(2), pp. 145–161.

Bozeman, B., & Johnson, J. (2015). The Political Economy of Public Values: A Case

for the Public Sphere and Progressive Opportunity. The American Review of Public

Administration, 45(1), pp. 61–85.

Brown T. Martin R. (2015). Design for Action: How to use design thinking to make

great things actually happen. Harvard Business Review, September 2015, pp56-64

Bryson, J., Sancino, A., Benington, J., & Sørensen, E. (2016). Towards a multi-actor

theory of public value co-creation. Public Management Review, 0(0), 1–15.

Buchanan, R. (1992) Wicked Problems in Design Thinking, Design Issues, 8, (2), pp.

5-21

Burns, D. (2013). Systemic action research: Changing system dynamics to support

sustainable change. Action Research, 12(1), pp3–18.

Cannell, P. (2016). Lifelong learning and partnerships: rethinking the boundaries of

the university in the digital age. Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning, 18(1)

pp. 61–73.

Cannell P. Macintyre R. (2017) Free open online resources in workplace and

community settings – a case study in overcoming barriers, Widening Participation and

Lifelong Learning, 19(1), pp.111-122

Christensen C. M., Raynor M. McDonald R. (2015) What is Disruptive Innovation,

Harvard Business Review, December 2014, pp44-53

Cross, N. (2006). Designerly Ways of Knowing. Springer-Verlag: London

Cuncliffe A. Bell E. (2016) Management Learning: Legacies and Future Possibilities,

Management Learning, 47(2), 113-116

Dahl, A., & Soss, J. (2014). Neoliberalism for the common good? Public value governance and the downsizing of democracy. Public Administration Review, 74(4), pp. 496–504.

Dorst, K. (2011). The core of “design thinking” and its application. Design Studies, 32(6), pp.521–532.

Dorst, K. and Cross, N., (2001). Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution. Design Studies, 22(5), pp.425–437.

Dewey J. (2012) How We Think, Martino Publishing Mansfield Centre, USA

Lyon F. and Fernandez. H. (2012). Strategies for scaling up social enterprise: lessons from early years. Social Enterprise Journal, 8(1), 63–77. http://doi.org/10.1108/17508611211226593

Fuller A. Heath S. Johnston B. (2011). Rethinking Widening Participation in Higher Education: The Role of Social Networks, Routledge: London

Gawell, M. (2013). Social entrepreneurship – innovative challengers or adjustable followers? Social Enterprise Journal, 9(2), 203–220.

Gergory J. (2003) Scandanvian Approaches to Participatory Design, International Journal of Engineeering Education, 19, (1), 62-74

Hartley, J., Alford, J., Knies, E., & Douglas, S. (2016). Towards an empirical research agenda for public value theory. Public Management Review, (September), 1–16.

Laurillard D (2014) Which problems could MOOCs solve, and how? In MOOCs -Which

way Now? ALT MOOC SIG, University College London, 27th of June 2014

Lyon, F., & Blundel, R. (2012). The long view: applying historically informed approaches to study the growth of social ventures. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/40765/

Gell, A. (1992).The technology of enchantment and the enchantment of technology. In Anthropology, art and aesthetics. Jeremy Coote and Anthony Shelton (Ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp40-63.

Grant, R. M. (2010) Contemporary Strategy Analysis, 7th edn, Oxford, Blackwell

Publishing.

Heifetz R., Grashow A., Linsky M. (2009) The Practice of Adaptive Leadership,

Harvard Business Press, Boston Massachusetts

Kemmis, S. (2010). Research for praxis: Knowing doing. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 18(1), pp. 9-27.

Macintyre, R., (2013). Open Educational Partnerships and Collective Learning.

Journal of Interactive Media in Education. 2013(3), DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/2013-

20

- (2015a) Designing Open Learning Journeys http://www.oeps.ac.uk/create-your-own/designing-open-learning-journeys Date accessed: 9 November 2015.

- (2015b) The Open Learning Design Workshop Structure,

http://www.oeps.ac.uk/create-your-own/open-learning-design-workshops-structure

Date Accessed: 17th of January 2016.

-(2016a). Open Education and the Hidden Tariff. In: OEGlobal 2016: Convergence

through Collaboration, 12th-14th of April, Krakow, Poland.

http://oro.open.ac.uk/46044/ Date accessed: 22nd of June 2016

-(2016b). Open Education as Disruption: Lessons for Open and Distance Learning

from Open Educational Practice. In: EDEN 25: Re-imagining Learning Environments,

14th-17th of June, Budapest. http://oro.open.ac.uk/46658/ Date accessed: 22nd of

June 2016

Moore M. H. (1995) Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government,

Harvard University Press: London

Ramsey, C. (2005a). Narrating development: Professional practice emerging within stories. Action Research, 3(3), pp. 279–295.

Ramsey, C. (2005b). Narrative: From Learning in Reflection to Learning in Performance. Management Learning, 36(2), pp. 219–235.

Schon D. A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action,

Basic Books, US

Tsoukas, H., Hatch, M.J. (2001) Complex thinking, complex practice: The case for a narrative approach to organizational complexity, Human Relations, 54(8), pp. 979