IS2K2 - Results

As a growing proportion of the collections of the Harvard libraries and art museums are made available to the world via the Internet—and as the libraries and museums of other universities evolve along similar lines—should the institutions abandon their aspirations to acquire comprehensive (or at least well balanced) collections of materials and instead specialize in certain areas, relying on online collaboration for materials not housed within Harvard?

There was almost universal belief in the group that abandoning any of the original missions of the libraries and art museums would be foolish and shortsighted. All recognized that the immediacy of an original piece of artwork or a manuscript could not be reproduced with digital technologies, and that the collection and maintenance of these collections is still extremely important. Some went so far as to say that decisions about the collections should not be influenced by the Internet at all.

This being said, most recognized the opportunities that the Internet and digital technologies provide the libraries and art museums. Everyone noted the importance of providing access to the materials to those who could not otherwise reach them, and that such collaboration benefits everyone, scholars and the public. Some discussed the importance of using these technologies to enhance the cataloging of materials, and making databases more complete, useful, and available.

What is Harvard’s duty or obligation, if any, to empower “other” communities by sharing its material and intellectual wealth via information technology?

Discussion Leader: Nolan Bowie, Senior Fellow and Adj. Lecturer in Public Policy, Kennedy School of Government

There was a general consensus that Harvard needs to do more to share its intellectual knowledge with the world, and that right now it errs toward an excessively “profit-maximizing” approach to the world. The reasons cited for Harvard came down to: its moral obligation; its chance to stake a leadership position; its public-relations and community-building value; and Harvard’s role as a “public good,” of sorts.

The moral obligation is simply stated as the world being a better place if Harvard were to be freer with its knowledge and information. The leadership position argument was outlined in contrast to MIT, which has taken the first steps towards sharing its course materials with the public. Harvard has a chance to out-do MIT, and improve its brand in the process.

The public-relations value comes from the chance to offset many of the world’s negative impressions of Harvard (intellectual superiority, wealth, elitism, etc.). From a defensive standpoint, this could go even further—toward literal defense from harm, in the worst case. In an offensive mode, Harvard can create a model whereby these values are more recognized and encouraged—through awards and the like.

Despite it being a private institution, Harvard exists also as a public good, if only due to the large amount of public funding it receives. Moreover, much of its knowledge is derived from information that began in the public sphere. Harvard thus has an obligation to return the favor.

What opportunities—and responsibilities—does Harvard have as a member of the global community, and how do we translate this to action?

Discussion Leader: Terry Fisher, Faculty Director, Berkman Center for Internet & Society; Professor of Law, Harvard Law School

This group addressed several different angles of this main question. First, they asked, to what extent does Harvard have a responsibility to the rest of the world? Some participants argued for the traditional model of a research university, in which scholarship and academics beget positive change. Others argued for a more proactive use of communications technologies to reach people outside the University. A third group argued that the University must go even further, actively working with foreign governments to solve large problems—though there was concern that this could distract from the University’s main goal of teaching and learning.

Second, they asked, should Harvard open its intellectual products to the world? The MIT open courseware model attracted some, but others liked Harvard’s eclecticism and variety of approaches, professor-by-professor. This could enable different pricing models for products, based on ability to pay.

Third, to what extent should we expect or encourage Harvard’s separate schools to adopt common technological platforms? There was general agreement that there were efficiencies in using common platforms, but differing opinions of the likelihood of this, and what those platforms should be—proprietary, open-source, etc.

Finally, should countries, when developing digital storage systems for their documents, adopt proprietary or open-source formats? There was general agreement that this was a crucial challenge, but no agreement concerning the solution, in view of the apparent instability of all formats.

What opportunities—and responsibilities—does Harvard have as a member of the global community, and how do we translate this to action?

Discussion Leader: Richard Freeman, Herbert S. Ascherman Professor of Economics, Faculty of Arts and Sciences

This group drilled down on particular opportunities, and their corresponding actions. First, there is an opportunity to use Harvard’s international reputation, faculty, students, and alumni as a tool for international research and problem solving. Harvard’s action here must be to respond to requests for help in research and problem solving, especially for smaller and less well-financed parties.

There is an opportunity to help the public, not just the narrow Harvard community, especially through easily accessible, low-bandwidth, online tools. Harvard is already taking action in this space, such as with the Harvard Law School Labor and Workplace Project, but needs to do more.

There is an opportunity to disseminate Harvard’s research and scholarship much more quickly via the Internet, and to promote a broader discussion.

There is an opportunity to promote better access to education in the global community. This is not so much different from its traditional mission, though transformed by the Internet and other technologies.

How are we responding to the explosive controversies surrounding the ownership of digital content in the university setting, and what do our policy choices say about our values?

Discussion Leader: Blythe Holden, Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society

The members of the group all remarked on the policy choices and tension inherent in ownership of content, particularly digital content, which may inhibit or even replace traditional publication of such materials and thereby reduce the revenues for such works. Many felt that the mission of the University required spread of knowledge and thus materials should be published online to make the information available to the widest number of people. Does “ownership” then become meaningless if the work is given away? Who should make these decisions? These issues were raised but not resolved. Others suggested that Harvard establish an overarching (school-wide, if not University-wide) policy, which preserves motivation to create while keeping value within the University—but again, whether licensing or some other mechanism would preserve these values is unclear.

Do we envision a future where courses may be attended, materials read, and degrees obtained all through distance learning via the Internet?

Discussion Leader: Jeffrey Huang, Associate Professor of Architecture, Graduate School of Design

There was consensus among group members that such a future is viable. They surmised that education on the professional and graduate level would be impacted in several ways. For one, graduate students will no longer be at Harvard but directly learn from the professional communities. They may attend courses, read materials, and obtain degrees via the Internet. The graduate student of the future will get his or her learning directly from a specific field of practice. Research and the development of knowledge will also happen in the professional communities. The role of the University will then be to foster those distributed communities, aggregate the experiences and new knowledge created there via the Internet, and assemble the pieces into new theories, new knowledge and best practice case studies (multimedia, interactive), that in turn can be disseminated back to the students in the field. Under this model, the value of degrees will decrease. More important than earning a degree will be to enter into a learning community.

The impact on college education was also discussed. All agreed that physical residency would still be necessary so that students could learn such things as truth, beauty, goodness and morality, and become a good citizen. According to the group, the value-added of Harvard College is not in the content, but in the campus. It is in the way the content is communicated and discussed. It is in the socialization process, the face-to-face context, which provides the opportunities for self-discovery and exploration. It is in the casual dialogues made possible by the physical congregation of brilliant minds from multiple perspectives, often when least expected. Accessing online content and information only will not help fundamental character development or the development of judgment. Yet not all physical campuses contribute to that end. When mentors are not available (or discouraged by the promotion system), classes are huge and impersonal, the opposite can happen. Instead of good citizenship, arrogance may come out from the campus experience.

Based on what this group envisions for the future, there are several design challenges. First, the physical campus must be designed to leverage the collocation of like-minded yet diverse population by enabling spontaneous interdisciplinary exchange, unexpected discoveries, and chance encounters. Online links between the campus and the profession will be important; they allow students to tap into the large network of alumni/ae. A design challenge will be to design a Harvard virtual campus, a campus larger than the physical ones in Cambridge and Allston and Longwood combined; a campus that includes all alumni/ae from all disciplines.

Which do you consider a greater risk to Harvard’s digital future—invasions of privacy, or a lack of openness?

Discussion Leader: Rick Huijbregts, Doctor of Design, Harvard Design School

The group quickly came to agreement that the two are inherently connected—believing that our fear of invasions to our privacy is merely one of the reasons why we intentionally lack certain openness. Through the advanced technologies that make our digital age possible, we have become a prisoner in our own little worlds—worlds that are almost driven and sustained by “fear.” That being said, the true threat to our digital identity—according to the group—seemed to revolve around Harvard’s lack of openness. A lack of openness that mostly seems to be driven by a commercial incentive, as we thrive in “selling” our products (content) and services (education), prevents the Harvard community to fully open up to the digital world and make ourselves truly and virtually available to everybody everywhere.

Harvard has well established its reputation and its brand, and achieved its global status through developing an exclusive community. Would “opening up” mean loosing this exclusivity? Loosing the privilege? Additionally, sharing our wealth of knowledge would potentially jeopardize Harvard’s ownership of our intellectual properties—an asset that determines the true value of the Harvard community, and not an asset we want to give up on quickly through making it “just” available to the world.

Harvard could consider a more organized manner of sharing its vast body of knowledge, through a layered approach focusing on public, private, and confidential information—protecting our value, but sharing our values with the global community. Managing the way we open up to the world—expanding our community—will ultimately allow us to open up in a controlled fashion and shape our digital identity.

What does it mean to be a member of the Harvard community when digital technology makes it possible to transcend traditional barriers?

Discussion Leader: Catalina Laserna, Lecturer on Education, Harvard Graduate School of Education; Coordinator of Certificate in Technologies Education, Harvard Extension School

There was a near universal belief among this group that communications across Harvard’s departments and schools would benefit greatly from better use of the Internet and related technologies. Ideas included: better access to information about professors’ research interests and ongoing research; online collaboration tools; common areas to share papers, career paths, and interests; and common technical protocols for these types of communication.

A number of challenges were identified, however. How do you create the right incentives? How do you make such a valuable tool safe from “rogue actors?” What would be the appropriate “digital etiquette,” and how do you ensure a respectful system? How do you preserve elements of Harvard’s culture that exist primarily through small, closed groups (e.g., departments)? And, finally, how do you better identify what we mean by “community” and “barriers to community?”

What should Harvard’s strategy be in relation to making digital video of course and related teaching materials available to the general public?

Discussion Leader: Henry Leitner, Assistant Dean for Information Technology, Division of Continuing Education; and Senior Lecturer on Computer Science, Harvard University

If Harvard makes audio or digital video courses available to the general public, adequately protected by copyrights, the world can become a better place. The group believes that some people who want to improve their quality of life utilize the Internet to learn new things and learn new skills. Such people will benefit from efforts made by Harvard to teach them with Internet-based courses. There was some belief, however, that there is a spectrum of differences in access to these materials. By and large, the group felt that most Extension School courses needed to charge a fair tuition for online courses, and that video materials of other Harvard courses should have some limited access, with copyrights always protected. Teaching materials, in particular, should not be made available if they are the exclusive property of Harvard.

The group was open to some experimentation, putting a limited number of classes fully and freely online, so as to examine the response. There was some belief that the practical result will be simply the repackaging of these courses to be taught in the classrooms of other universities, which is something that would need to be monitored.

In combination, the widespread use of digital technology and the intellectual-property policies of the university have made it easier and more profitable for faculty members to engage in entrepreneurial or consulting activities unrelated to their core Harvard responsibilities. Should Harvard professors pursue for-profit ventures while teaching?

Discussion Leader: John Palfrey, Executive Director, Berkman Center for Internet & Society, Harvard Law School

The group's consensus was that that Harvard faculty and staff should be encouraged to do outside work while teaching, but that such outside work should be restricted in terms of amount of time spent, in terms of how “competitive” such work is to their teaching, and/or governed by a “code of ethics.” The presumption of the group was that faculty tended to spend up to a limit of 20% of their time on such activities. Such an allocation of time struck the group as about right, though one graduate student thought more outside work would be beneficial (but not so high as, say, 75%).

The group seemed fascinated by comparisons to MIT and the effect of spun-off companies on MIT's overall identity, teaching, etc. Also, questions regarding intellectual property rights—who owns what of a faculty member's work—came up repeatedly.

Positive aspects of faculty doing outside work included the tie-in to what practitioners are doing; keeping research fresh and interesting and relevant; and the effects of successful spin-off ventures as cross-fertilizers, job placement sources and general buzz generation for the school. Possible problem areas included the potential to compete directly by offering the same course taught at Harvard at a for-profit educational institution online and the use of data developed in teaching to make money without returning the benefit of the use of data developed in consulting, due to contractual/confidentiality restrictions. Overall, the group seemed to think that things were managed about right on this front.

What does it mean to be a member of the Harvard community when digital technology makes it possible to transcend barriers?

Discussion Leader: Scott Talan, Communications Officer, Kennedy School of Government

The current technology—class discussion lists, email access to professors, submitting academic papers online and getting typed comments back promptly—make Harvard “feel” like an active, vibrant intellectual community. The challenge is to keep the best of the face-to-face classroom experience and the best of the digital access to information as we move forward in time. To maintain its leadership role in the education world, Harvard needs to be committed to both quality teaching and quality technology.



	Food For Thought Dinner Summaries As a growing proportion of the collections of the Harvard libraries and art museums are made available to the world via the Internet—and as the libraries and museums of other universities evolve along similar lines—should the institutions abandon their aspirations to acquire comprehensive (or at least well balanced) collections of materials and instead specialize in certain areas, relying on online collaboration for materials not housed within Harvard? Discussion Leader: Richard Benefield, Deputy Director, Harvard Art Museums There was almost universal belief in the group that abandoning any of the original missions of the libraries and art museums would be foolish and shortsighted. All recognized that the immediacy of an original piece of artwork or a manuscript could not be reproduced with digital technologies, and that the collection and maintenance of these collections is still extremely important. Some went so far as to say that decisions about the collections should not be influenced by the Internet at all. This being said, most recognized the opportunities that the Internet and digital technologies provide the libraries and art museums. Everyone noted the importance of providing access to the materials to those who could not otherwise reach them, and that such collaboration benefits everyone, scholars and the public. Some discussed the importance of using these technologies to enhance the cataloging of materials, and making databases more complete, useful, and available. What is Harvard’s duty or obligation, if any, to empower “other” communities by sharing its material and intellectual wealth via information technology? Discussion Leader: Nolan Bowie, Senior Fellow and Adj. Lecturer in Public Policy, Kennedy School of Government There was a general consensus that Harvard needs to do more to share its intellectual knowledge with the world, and that right now it errs toward an excessively “profit-maximizing” approach to the world. The reasons cited for Harvard came down to: its moral obligation; its chance to stake a leadership position; its public-relations and community-building value; and Harvard’s role as a “public good,” of sorts. The moral obligation is simply stated as the world being a better place if Harvard were to be freer with its knowledge and information. The leadership position argument was outlined in contrast to MIT, which has taken the first steps towards sharing its course materials with the public. Harvard has a chance to out-do MIT, and improve its brand in the process. The public-relations value comes from the chance to offset many of the world’s negative impressions of Harvard (intellectual superiority, wealth, elitism, etc.). From a defensive standpoint, this could go even further—toward literal defense from harm, in the worst case. In an offensive mode, Harvard can create a model whereby these values are more recognized and encouraged—through awards and the like. Despite it being a private institution, Harvard exists also as a public good, if only due to the large amount of public funding it receives. Moreover, much of its knowledge is derived from information that began in the public sphere. Harvard thus has an obligation to return the favor. What opportunities—and responsibilities—does Harvard have as a member of the global community, and how do we translate this to action? Discussion Leader: Terry Fisher, Faculty Director, Berkman Center for Internet & Society; Professor of Law, Harvard Law School This group addressed several different angles of this main question. First, they asked, to what extent does Harvard have a responsibility to the rest of the world? Some participants argued for the traditional model of a research university, in which scholarship and academics beget positive change. Others argued for a more proactive use of communications technologies to reach people outside the University. A third group argued that the University must go even further, actively working with foreign governments to solve large problems—though there was concern that this could distract from the University’s main goal of teaching and learning. Second, they asked, should Harvard open its intellectual products to the world? The MIT open courseware model attracted some, but others liked Harvard’s eclecticism and variety of approaches, professor-by-professor. This could enable different pricing models for products, based on ability to pay. Third, to what extent should we expect or encourage Harvard’s separate schools to adopt common technological platforms? There was general agreement that there were efficiencies in using common platforms, but differing opinions of the likelihood of this, and what those platforms should be—proprietary, open-source, etc. Finally, should countries, when developing digital storage systems for their documents, adopt proprietary or open-source formats? There was general agreement that this was a crucial challenge, but no agreement concerning the solution, in view of the apparent instability of all formats. What opportunities—and responsibilities—does Harvard have as a member of the global community, and how do we translate this to action? Discussion Leader: Richard Freeman, Herbert S. Ascherman Professor of Economics, Faculty of Arts and Sciences This group drilled down on particular opportunities, and their corresponding actions. First, there is an opportunity to use Harvard’s international reputation, faculty, students, and alumni as a tool for international research and problem solving. Harvard’s action here must be to respond to requests for help in research and problem solving, especially for smaller and less well-financed parties. There is an opportunity to help the public, not just the narrow Harvard community, especially through easily accessible, low-bandwidth, online tools. Harvard is already taking action in this space, such as with the Harvard Law School Labor and Workplace Project, but needs to do more. There is an opportunity to disseminate Harvard’s research and scholarship much more quickly via the Internet, and to promote a broader discussion. There is an opportunity to promote better access to education in the global community. This is not so much different from its traditional mission, though transformed by the Internet and other technologies. How are we responding to the explosive controversies surrounding the ownership of digital content in the university setting, and what do our policy choices say about our values? Discussion Leader: Blythe Holden, Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society The members of the group all remarked on the policy choices and tension inherent in ownership of content, particularly digital content, which may inhibit or even replace traditional publication of such materials and thereby reduce the revenues for such works. Many felt that the mission of the University required spread of knowledge and thus materials should be published online to make the information available to the widest number of people. Does “ownership” then become meaningless if the work is given away? Who should make these decisions? These issues were raised but not resolved. Others suggested that Harvard establish an overarching (school-wide, if not University-wide) policy, which preserves motivation to create while keeping value within the University—but again, whether licensing or some other mechanism would preserve these values is unclear. Do we envision a future where courses may be attended, materials read, and degrees obtained all through distance learning via the Internet? Discussion Leader: Jeffrey Huang, Associate Professor of Architecture, Graduate School of Design There was consensus among group members that such a future is viable. They surmised that education on the professional and graduate level would be impacted in several ways. For one, graduate students will no longer be at Harvard but directly learn from the professional communities. They may attend courses, read materials, and obtain degrees via the Internet. The graduate student of the future will get his or her learning directly from a specific field of practice. Research and the development of knowledge will also happen in the professional communities. The role of the University will then be to foster those distributed communities, aggregate the experiences and new knowledge created there via the Internet, and assemble the pieces into new theories, new knowledge and best practice case studies (multimedia, interactive), that in turn can be disseminated back to the students in the field. Under this model, the value of degrees will decrease. More important than earning a degree will be to enter into a learning community. The impact on college education was also discussed. All agreed that physical residency would still be necessary so that students could learn such things as truth, beauty, goodness and morality, and become a good citizen. According to the group, the value-added of Harvard College is not in the content, but in the campus. It is in the way the content is communicated and discussed. It is in the socialization process, the face-to-face context, which provides the opportunities for self-discovery and exploration. It is in the casual dialogues made possible by the physical congregation of brilliant minds from multiple perspectives, often when least expected. Accessing online content and information only will not help fundamental character development or the development of judgment. Yet not all physical campuses contribute to that end. When mentors are not available (or discouraged by the promotion system), classes are huge and impersonal, the opposite can happen. Instead of good citizenship, arrogance may come out from the campus experience. Based on what this group envisions for the future, there are several design challenges. First, the physical campus must be designed to leverage the collocation of like-minded yet diverse population by enabling spontaneous interdisciplinary exchange, unexpected discoveries, and chance encounters. Online links between the campus and the profession will be important; they allow students to tap into the large network of alumni/ae. A design challenge will be to design a Harvard virtual campus, a campus larger than the physical ones in Cambridge and Allston and Longwood combined; a campus that includes all alumni/ae from all disciplines. Which do you consider a greater risk to Harvard’s digital future—invasions of privacy, or a lack of openness? Discussion Leader: Rick Huijbregts, Doctor of Design, Harvard Design School The group quickly came to agreement that the two are inherently connected—believing that our fear of invasions to our privacy is merely one of the reasons why we intentionally lack certain openness. Through the advanced technologies that make our digital age possible, we have become a prisoner in our own little worlds—worlds that are almost driven and sustained by “fear.” That being said, the true threat to our digital identity—according to the group—seemed to revolve around Harvard’s lack of openness. A lack of openness that mostly seems to be driven by a commercial incentive, as we thrive in “selling” our products (content) and services (education), prevents the Harvard community to fully open up to the digital world and make ourselves truly and virtually available to everybody everywhere. Harvard has well established its reputation and its brand, and achieved its global status through developing an exclusive community. Would “opening up” mean loosing this exclusivity? Loosing the privilege? Additionally, sharing our wealth of knowledge would potentially jeopardize Harvard’s ownership of our intellectual properties—an asset that determines the true value of the Harvard community, and not an asset we want to give up on quickly through making it “just” available to the world. Harvard could consider a more organized manner of sharing its vast body of knowledge, through a layered approach focusing on public, private, and confidential information—protecting our value, but sharing our values with the global community. Managing the way we open up to the world—expanding our community—will ultimately allow us to open up in a controlled fashion and shape our digital identity. What does it mean to be a member of the Harvard community when digital technology makes it possible to transcend traditional barriers? Discussion Leader: Catalina Laserna, Lecturer on Education, Harvard Graduate School of Education; Coordinator of Certificate in Technologies Education, Harvard Extension School There was a near universal belief among this group that communications across Harvard’s departments and schools would benefit greatly from better use of the Internet and related technologies. Ideas included: better access to information about professors’ research interests and ongoing research; online collaboration tools; common areas to share papers, career paths, and interests; and common technical protocols for these types of communication. A number of challenges were identified, however. How do you create the right incentives? How do you make such a valuable tool safe from “rogue actors?” What would be the appropriate “digital etiquette,” and how do you ensure a respectful system? How do you preserve elements of Harvard’s culture that exist primarily through small, closed groups (e.g., departments)? And, finally, how do you better identify what we mean by “community” and “barriers to community?” What should Harvard’s strategy be in relation to making digital video of course and related teaching materials available to the general public? Discussion Leader: Henry Leitner, Assistant Dean for Information Technology, Division of Continuing Education; and Senior Lecturer on Computer Science, Harvard University If Harvard makes audio or digital video courses available to the general public, adequately protected by copyrights, the world can become a better place. The group believes that some people who want to improve their quality of life utilize the Internet to learn new things and learn new skills. Such people will benefit from efforts made by Harvard to teach them with Internet-based courses. There was some belief, however, that there is a spectrum of differences in access to these materials. By and large, the group felt that most Extension School courses needed to charge a fair tuition for online courses, and that video materials of other Harvard courses should have some limited access, with copyrights always protected. Teaching materials, in particular, should not be made available if they are the exclusive property of Harvard. The group was open to some experimentation, putting a limited number of classes fully and freely online, so as to examine the response. There was some belief that the practical result will be simply the repackaging of these courses to be taught in the classrooms of other universities, which is something that would need to be monitored. In combination, the widespread use of digital technology and the intellectual-property policies of the university have made it easier and more profitable for faculty members to engage in entrepreneurial or consulting activities unrelated to their core Harvard responsibilities. Should Harvard professors pursue for-profit ventures while teaching? Discussion Leader: John Palfrey, Executive Director, Berkman Center for Internet & Society, Harvard Law School The group's consensus was that that Harvard faculty and staff should be encouraged to do outside work while teaching, but that such outside work should be restricted in terms of amount of time spent, in terms of how “competitive” such work is to their teaching, and/or governed by a “code of ethics.” The presumption of the group was that faculty tended to spend up to a limit of 20% of their time on such activities. Such an allocation of time struck the group as about right, though one graduate student thought more outside work would be beneficial (but not so high as, say, 75%). The group seemed fascinated by comparisons to MIT and the effect of spun-off companies on MIT's overall identity, teaching, etc. Also, questions regarding intellectual property rights—who owns what of a faculty member's work—came up repeatedly. Positive aspects of faculty doing outside work included the tie-in to what practitioners are doing; keeping research fresh and interesting and relevant; and the effects of successful spin-off ventures as cross-fertilizers, job placement sources and general buzz generation for the school. Possible problem areas included the potential to compete directly by offering the same course taught at Harvard at a for-profit educational institution online and the use of data developed in teaching to make money without returning the benefit of the use of data developed in consulting, due to contractual/confidentiality restrictions. Overall, the group seemed to think that things were managed about right on this front. What does it mean to be a member of the Harvard community when digital technology makes it possible to transcend barriers? Discussion Leader: Scott Talan, Communications Officer, Kennedy School of Government The current technology—class discussion lists, email access to professors, submitting academic papers online and getting typed comments back promptly—make Harvard “feel” like an active, vibrant intellectual community. The challenge is to keep the best of the face-to-face classroom experience and the best of the digital access to information as we move forward in time. To maintain its leadership role in the education world, Harvard needs to be committed to both quality teaching and quality technology.
	Organized by: The Berkman Center for Internet & Society