archive-org.com » ORG » A » AAUP.ORG

Total: 1208

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • Faculty Rights and Responsibilities in Distance Learning (2000) | AAUP
    supplied videotaped lectures for Concord University School of Law an on line institution without Harvard s permission See Who Owns On Line Courses Colleges and Professors Start to Sort It Out The Chronicle of Higher Education December 17 1999 at A45 discussing a future in which faculty members might become free agents who would own their course materials and sell access to various on line institutions Professor Miller argued that he did not violate Harvard s policies because he did not teach at the virtual law school or interact with its students either in person or on line What about professors who publish books and articles or give lectures off campus on topics within their professional expertise The Arthur Miller controversy raises these possible analogies for university policies and practices Some universities have negotiated contracts with other institutions so that their faculty members may offer on line courses at these other institutions Still other universities have reached agreements with for profit corporations to market on line courses See e g For Profit Venture to Market Distance Education Courses Stirs Concern at Temple The Chronicle of Higher Education Dec 17 1999 at A46 In all of these situations contracts can be used to sort out rights of ownership and control In the rush to expand markets or earn profits however colleges and universities should take care not to lose sight of notions of academic freedom shared governance and educational quality III Educational Quality and Integrity Issues Distance education raises a host of educational quality and integrity issues that have yet to be answered in this rapidly changing environment AAUP recommends that faculty members should be involved in the oversight of distance education courses to the same extent as in other courses with regard to factors such as course development and approval selection of qualified faculty to teach pedagogical determinations about appropriate class size and oversight of final course offerings by the appropriate faculty committee to ensure conformity with previously established traditions of course quality and relevance to programs See AAUP Statement on Distance Education 85 Academe 3 41 at 42 May June 1999 For a helpful list of practical considerations for faculty see Teaching at an Internet Distance The Pedagogy of Online Teaching and Learning The Report of a 1998 1999 University of Illinois Faculty Seminar http www vpaa uillinois edu tid report tid report html See also Distance Education Quality Checklist National Education Association 1999 A Academic Freedom in Course Content and Delivery Distance education creates special concerns with academic freedom and educational quality to the extent that the creation use and revision of course materials may not necessarily be handled by the same faculty member s or even by faculty members at all In some for profit institutions for example the individuals who create original course materials are not involved at all in the use of those materials and do not interact with students Thus their ideas are left in the hands of others to interpret and revise The individuals who are responsible for the delivery of the course content may not have the same expertise or training as the creators The institution might also ask for courses to be structured and packaged in very specific ways to meet its own needs thus placing other constraints on traditional academic freedom in teaching AAUP s Committee on Accrediting of Colleges and Universities which has been active in seeking to ensure that accrediting agencies maintain standards of academic quality and integrity in the face of increasing requests involving on line courses has noted that distance education can alter the very nature of higher education because of the change in the nature of faculty involvement The fundamental difficulty with institutions that rely heavily or exclusively on distance education is that they are characterized by a practice called unbundling In that practice course materials are prepared by a content expert and delivered by a faculty facilitator in a uniform manner producing predictable and measurable outcomes that fit uniform assessment tools Such a process of turning education into modular units represents a basic change in an essential characteristic of higher education Perley James Tanguay Denise Marie Accrediting On Line Institutions Diminishes Higher Education The Chronicle of Higher Education Colloquy Oct 29 1999 expressing concerns with regional accreditation of totally on line institutions using traditional methods AAUP recommends the following The faculty member or an appropriate faculty body who teaches the course or adopts a pre existing course for use in distance education shall exercise control over the future use modification and distribution of recorded instructional material and shall determine whether the material should be revised or withdrawn from use Moreover additional compensation may be negotiated for faculty members involved in extensive revision and modifications of courses they develop The AAUP Rider University collective bargaining agreement provides The faculty member will have the same responsibility for the selection and presentation of materials and points of view in a Distance Learning course as he she would have in a traditional course Art XXXVI 3 d Furthermore a ll such courses must be approved by the department program and by the appropriate APC This review will occur even then the proposed Distance Learning course is a section of an already existing and approved course Art XXVI 3 b The policy from the University of North Texas provides an example of how to address some of these concerns D Revision Rights Faculty members should normally retain the right to update edit or otherwise revise electronically developed course materials that become out of date or in certain circumstances should place a time limit upon the use of electronically developed course materials that are particularly time sensitive regardless of who owns copyright in the electronically developed course materials These rights and limitations may be negotiated in advance of the creation of the electronically developed course materials and may be reduced to writing Absent a written agreement each faculty member will have the right and moral obligation to revise work on

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/faculty-rights-and-responsibilities-distance-learning-2000 (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Sample Distance Education Policy & Contract Language | AAUP
    pedagogical considerations Large sections should be compensated by additional credit in load assignment in the same manner as traditional classes Preparation Faculty who teach in distance education programs should be additionally compensated for the extra time required to prepare for their courses This compensation should be in the form of credit toward load assignment in order to promote quality or can be financial Compensation Courses taught via distance education may be included as part of the faculty member s regular load or may constitute an overload or a combination of both The teaching responsibilities as they relate to assignments scheduling syllabi papers and tests shall be no different from those of the corresponding traditional course sections Grades will be issued using the normal University procedures Faculty members teaching a course utilizing distance education technology for the first time shall be provided course load reductions to properly prepare the course This reduction should be provided prior to the offering of the course and may be supplemented with an additional reduction during the first term the course is taught Acceptance of these reductions constitutes agreement to teach two additional sections of the course over the next three terms However if after the course has been taught for the first time the administration or the department deems for academic financial or other reasons that it is not viable practicable to teach it again using the distance education format the faculty member shall be relieved of this obligation Faculty members shall not be required to travel to distance education offcampus sites If the faculty member deems it appropriate to visit an offcampus site the faculty member will receive reimbursement for travel at the normal University rates In the event that the institution makes any modifications to the distance education course s and or delivery systems which increase or substantially alter the faculty member s workload the university shall be required to notify the union at least fortyfive 45 days prior to the effective date of the modifications in order to negotiate with the union over increased compensation and workload Online Office Hours Discussions should occur and agreement should be reached on how the faculty member teaching a distance education course will hold office hours for the distance education students Regular office hours may not be helpful for the students A faculty member teaching a distance education course shall conduct the normally expected total number of office hours In order to accommodate distance education student needs if it is deemed appropriate by the faculty member some of the normally expected office hours may be held online to conduct business and consult with students utilizing technology Teaching Appointments From the AAUP Statement on Distance Education The precise terms and conditions of every appointment should be stated in writing and be in the possession of the faculty member and the institution before the faculty member is assigned to utilize distanceeducation technologies in the delivery of instructional material in a course for academic credit No member of the

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/issues/copyright-distance-education-intellectual-property/sample-policy-language (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Sample Intellectual Property Policy & Contract Language | AAUP
    in a tangible medium of expression i e put on paper There is no need to place a notice on distributed copies or applying to the Copyright Office for registration There are some benefits in doing so but they are irrelevant to the duration of copyright Who Owns the Intellectual Property AAUP has adopted a policy Statement on Copyright approved by the Council June 1999 but it has not formally addressed the questions of patents The copyright statement takes as its guiding assumption that the faculty member or members who create the intellectual property own the intellectual property It has been the prevailing academic practice to treat the faculty member as the copyright owner of works that are created independently and at the faculty member s own initiative for traditional academic purposes AAUP Statement on Copyright Although that assumption applies to the patent area as well there is in the academic context a practice of arranging for agreements between college and university administrations and faculty inventors that provide in some detail a means of sharing income from commercial application of patented inventions Intellectual property created made or originated by a faculty member shall be the sole and exclusive property of the faculty author or inventor except as he or she may voluntarily choose to transfer such property in full or in part The AAUP Statement on Copyright describes three limited and expressly defined sets of circumstances where the college or university can claim ownership of the copyright Special works created in circumstances that may properly be regarded as made for hire See the AAUP Statement on Copyright for an extended discussion of work for hire A work should NOT be treated as made for hire merely because it is created with the use of university resources facilities or materials of the sort traditionally and commonly made available to faculty members Negotiated contractual transfers and Joint works as described in the Copyright Act where the institution can be considered a co author The university shall own copyright only in the following 3 circumstances I The college or university expressly directs a faculty member to create a specified work or the work is created as a specific requirement of employment or as an assigned institutional duty that may for example be included in a written job description or an employment agreement II The faculty author has voluntarily transferred the copyright in whole or in part to the institution Such transfer shall be in the form of a written document signed by the faculty author III The college or university has contributed to a joint work under the Copyright Act The institution can exercise joint ownership under this clause when it has contributed specialized services and facilities to the production of the work that goes beyond what is traditionally provided to faculty members generally in the preparation of their course materials Such arrangement is to be agreed to in writing in advance and in full conformance with other provisions of this agreement Who

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/issues/copyright-distance-education-intellectual-property/sample-ip-policy-language (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Faculty Ownership of Research Affirmed | AAUP
    The Academe Blog is an extension of the magazine exploring a wide range of topics including academic freedom governance of colleges and universities working conditions and more Faculty Ownership of Research Affirmed By Kathi Westcott The US Supreme Court in June handed down a victory for faculty members by ruling that federal patent law favors the rights of individual researchers over those of their employers The case was Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University v Roche Molecular Systems Inc At issue in the complex case was the interpretation of the 1980 Bayh Dole Act which was intended in part to help inventions make it from the drafting board to the marketplace by limiting the government s control of the inventions and enhancing the right of universities and other federal grantees to develop commercially inventions funded with federal grants Historically academic researchers have owned their inventions and have assigned some or all of their rights to their colleges and universities either through individual contracts or through institutional policies In this case a Stanford University researcher signed competing agreements with the university and with a collaborating private company muddying the ownership rights to an important medical test that the researcher developed and that was then produced for use by the public Stanford sought to claim sole ownership of the medical test by asking the Supreme Court to interpret the Bayh Dole Act as giving academic institutions and other federal grantees exclusive rights to their employees inventions Stanford and many other research universities that filed briefs in its support also argued that faculty members are employees hired to invent and are therefore not entitled to ownership of their inventive research The AAUP in its amicus brief argued that Bayh Dole does not alter the basic ownership rights granted to inventors by

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/article/faculty-ownership-research-affirmed (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Copyright for Academics in the Digital Age | AAUP
    not limited to course materials Imagine a situation such as this A creative writing professor reads from an original poem and an audience member records the reading That person then posts the recording to YouTube The professor owns the copyright to the poem but the rights to the video have been transferred to YouTube by virtue of YouTube s terms of service This act of posting could also be infringement even if the professor gave permission to someone to record the reading that permission would not automatically include a right to publish the recording by posting it on YouTube Just as faculty members cannot post to the public web student papers or other forms of students intellectual property such as photographs and videos without their permission doing so is a violation of their copyright students the public at large or universities cannot post the intellectual property of faculty members Again sharing one s work on the web can also be desirable Tech savvy faculty members often create websites or blogs to advertise their latest books for example others use web based social networking like Twitter to microblog in real time about academic conferences or use Facebook to stay in touch with alumni Some even use social media because the technology enables them to form as one professor we know put it a virtual department of self selected colleagues I actually like What Is Mine Is Not Automatically Yours We emphasize here however that none of the above uses of the web entail automatic transfers of faculty copyright for their academic work In fact some common uses of the web are predicated on faculty ownership of those rights For example we often send teaching materials to syllabi exchanges hosted online by scholarly societies To do this legally we must possess the copyright to such materials to begin with that is faculty members must be owners of the copyright to the syllabi they create in order to have the right to disseminate them through syllabi exchanges The same is true for the publication of research In order for faculty members to enter into contracts with publishers of academic journals and books in either print or digital form they must be the original owners of the copyright for that work While faculty members tend to understand intuitively their ownership of the copyright to their research and scholarly products they are often less clear about syllabi and teaching materials Moreover institutional policies legally defensible or otherwise differ significantly from place to place The AAUP s 1999 Statement on Copyright bears emphasizing in this regard The statement supports faculty ownership of traditional academic works as both a historical practice and as a practice compatible with the general mission of higher education as a public good It notes that it has been the prevailing academic practice to treat the faculty member as the copyright owner of works that are created independently and at the faculty member s own initiative for traditional academic purposes Examples include class notes and syllabi books and articles works of fiction and nonfiction poems and dramatic works musical and choreographic works pictorial graphic and sculptural works and educational software commonly known as courseware The courseware includes work that is published on the web and in other digital forms this practice has been followed for the most part regardless of the physical medium in which these traditional academic works appear that is whether on paper or in audiovisual or electronic form However despite historical practices the Statement on Copyright also makes clear that faculty ownership has sometimes been challenged Some colleges and universities have promulgated policies typically unenforced that proclaim traditional academic works to be the property of the institution As the AAUP s statement notes federal law makes such broad claims suspect The Copyright Act however explicitly requires that a transfer of copyright or of any exclusive right such as the exclusive right to publish must be evidenced in writing signed by the author transferee If the faculty member is indeed the initial owner of copyright then a unilateral institutional declaration cannot effect a transfer nor is it likely that a valid transfer can be effected by the issuance of appointment letters to new faculty members requiring as a condition of employment that faculty abide by a faculty handbook which purports to vest in the institution ownership of all works created by the faculty member We note especially that the copyright for course materials and syllabi is among the first intellectual products that the Statement on Copyright refers to as typically belonging to their faculty creators Yet this tradition of faculty ownership is increasingly problematic in the digital age For example when course materials are developed in the context of distance education they are often explicitly considered works for hire and faculty members who develop such courses are offered contracts that spell out the terms of the transfer of copyright to their institutions Nevertheless course materials not covered under such specific work for hire agreements should and often do remain the property of the faculty member Since faculty work is produced in the context of educational institutions the broad protections of fair use might seem to prevent any claim of infringement when our colleges or universities copy our work However consider our first example of publishing syllabi on public websites even if institutions claim that web posting of faculty owned syllabi falls under the fair use protections of the copyright act that it is for educational purposes only it remains unclear whether such posting would be protected Fair use requires consideration of three additional factors beyond the nature of the use of the copy the amount of material copied the nature of the copyrighted work itself and the effect of the use on the potential market for the copyrighted work These three factors are not so easily dismissed in such cases and thus faculty members who object to the public posting of their academic materials on websites or to their potential sale

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/article/copyright-academics-digital-age (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Information Technology Wants to Be Free | AAUP
    may be written in any number of languages such as Java Perl or C but the program s users need never see that programming language Compiler A program that can read source code in one particular language and translate it into machine instructions all in 1s and 0s for particular computer hardware Executable The compiler s output when given a particular program to process This is a data file that looks like complete gibberish but is the only version of the program that the hardware can actually run Operating System The large program that stands between software and the bare hardware of the machine and knows how to get input from particular devices produce output on others talk to the network share hardware resources for example the processor and memory between several programs that want to use them and so on Windows OS X GNU Linux Android and iOS are examples of operating systems What Is Copyleft Richard Stallman an early theorist of open source computing quit his job as a programmer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology s Artificial Intelligence Lab in the 1970s to write a manifesto along with a lot of GNU software He did it without a corporate master overseeing his work Planning ahead for the running battle that programmers were going to fight in order to keep a portion of their creative output freely available in the IT intellectual commons he created the idea of copyleft a kind of anti copyright Copyleft is a general method for making a program or other work free and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free as well Stallman writes in What Is Copyleft He continues In the GNU project our aim is to give all users the freedom to redistribute and change GNU software If middlemen could strip off the freedom we might have many users but those users would not have freedom The freedom here is in Stallman s memorable phrase Free as in speech not as in beer While most people use the term open source software Stallman prefers free software and emphasizes the self perpetuating nature of the freedoms in copylefted software In an attempt to give it negative associations Stallman s critics called this feature the viral nature of copyleft The epithet viral is not worrisome to academics we always hope that the ideas in our scholarship go viral And though it is unnecessary for me to say for example that anyone who uses a theorem of mine must not publish corollaries in his or her own work without publishing the proofs as well in the IT world it is necessary to formalize some kind of viral open source requirement To this end Stallman created a series of licenses that open source software authors can use The most important of these is the GNU general public license currently in version three GPLv3 Software authors now have the option of creating truly free software protected by the general public license The open intellectual commons they have thereby created is filled with tools that are perfectly suited for use in the academy In fact academics who use nonfree closed source software run the risk that their scholarship and pedagogy will come under the control of some corporate owner whose interests are far removed from the goals of academia And a Thousand Flowers Bloomed The free software engineers went forth and multiplied Let us first describe the ecosystem of free tools and technologies Most but not all free software exists for the GNU Linux OS That OS itself exists in different versions called distributions or distros The kernel and core GNU utilities are largely the same but the other software included in a distro varies quite a bit Further as the worldwide community of freesoftware developers adds new software and finds bugs in or adds new features to existing software GNU Linux users like to get these updates Different distros therefore manage repositories of executables with sources for people who want them and users can chose which repositories to trust and when or how frequently to visit them At this time the two most popular distros are Linux Mint and Ubuntu both of which are very easy to use in a quite sophisticated manner by typing commands and editing configuration files but also allow simple point and click usage Beyond the distros themselves there are by now thousands of free software projects many of them crucial to academics in their everyday teaching and research lives including some of the most widely used software on the Internet Here are a few examples The majority of web servers on the Internet run the Apache HTTP Server On top of Apache sits MediaWiki the software that runs Wikipedia Many web surfers access the web with the Mozilla Firefox browser Many graphics designers use the sophisticated image manipulation program GIMP Educators in both K 12 and higher education use the learning management system Moodle For academic scientists and mathematicians typesetting beautiful copy that looks like it was ripped directly from the pages of a scholarly journal is fairly easy with the TeX program many if not most academic publishers in math and science now expect articles to be submitted in TeX There are several office productivity suites with word processor spreadsheet and presentation programs such as LibreOffice WeBWorK is an online homework system for math and science supported in part by the National Science Foundation Kuali is a suite of administrative tools for higher education that includes applications for library management student enrollment scheduling and financial aid and research administration The list goes on and on applications for most things users want to do can be found in multiple free versions in the repositories Campus as Free Software Utopia If universities are going to live up to their ideals we must use free software and open standards whenever possible Of course we should not be coercive so if individual faculty members want to use a closed

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/article/information-technology-wants-be-free (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Sue U. | AAUP
    patent in a subsequent infringement lawsuit brought with Eolas against prominent technology companies Google Apple Amazon com Yahoo and Sun Microsystems among eighteen other household names including Playboy Many in the technology community lauded the outcome as a comeuppance for what they saw as UC s overreaching and involvement with a patent troll World Wide Web inventor Tim Berners Lee who testified at trial in favor of the many defendants tweeted that the verdict was a good thing While the university did not officially comment on the lawsuit s outcome presumably some within the UC system felt disappointment over the loss of an opportunity to reap handsome financial returns on research investments and a patent the university deemed legitimate In a similar more staggering loss in February 2011 a federal appeals court invalidated a patent co owned by New York University and Centocor Ortho Biotech NYU and the biotech firm had alleged that the blockbuster arthritis drug Humira manufactured by Abbott Laboratories infringed their patent While the jury agreed with them the appeals court reversed the finding by invalidating the patent The jury had awarded 1 67 billion to the plaintiffs to date the most damages ever awarded by a jury in a patent infringement case Courtroom wins and losses such as these raise important public interest questions for higher education scholars administrators and governing boards From the university s perspective litigating patents may advance the university s research interests and result in substantial revenues But what about from the taxpayer s perspective Or that of students and faculty whose scholarly work is not patentable All other factors being equal does a university that sues companies for having allegedly eroded its proprietary rights jeopardize its graduates job prospects at those companies What about the ability of its faculty to receive sponsored research funding from the aggrieved companies or for the institution successfully to solicit donations from their employees and executives What effect does such activity have on lawmakers already inclined to second guess a university s request for increased appropriations in the face of state budget deficits More fundamentally what message does such activity send to the public about the business universities are in Apple Management Since the 1980s as Derek Bok Sheila Slaughter Larry Leslie and others have noted universities have increasingly pursued revenue generating activities particularly when these involve their faculty s intellectual output This focus is perhaps inevitable in the light of growing resource constraints Universities after all are the wellspring of many groundbreaking and patentable ideas and policy makers have long since set in motion the necessary internal levers and policies to capitalize on them Lawsuits over the ownership and authorized dissemination of these ideas are therefore in one sense unsurprising But comfort with the increasing prevalence of assertive university litigation over patents should not blind us to the activity s consequences Pursuing litigation typically requires appreciable out of pocket costs a patent infringement lawsuit with less than 25 million at stake on average costs a

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/article/sue-u (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Open Textbook Publishing | AAUP
    met faculty members who have trusted Smart Thinking so much that they don t bother to read their students papers It would almost be ironic if it weren t terribly sad that universities need to pay traditional academic publishers like Elsevier millions of dollars each year to purchase access to publications written by faculty members To avoid being repositioned as technicians working on the clock for global publishing companies faculty members may want to give more thought to their potential as authors and publishers Faculty and universities alike can benefit from assuming roles as publishers of textbooks and developers of e learning environments Faculty Members as Content Creators In 2008 when I received copyright back from Pearson for College Writing Online a textbook I d published online in 2003 I decided to self publish the work Rather than pursuing a for profit model I opted to give the book away for free first at http collegewriting org and later at http writingcommons org With hopes of developing a community around my project I established a distinguished editorial board and review board and I invited my colleagues to submit web texts that is texts designed for web based publication for the project Since then rather than helping merely a handful of students the work has been viewed by over half a million people and we ve been able to publish original peer reviewed web texts Letting go of the authorial dream abandoning the idea that I could be the sole author of a popular composition textbook giving away ownership of a textbook on which I d worked for over a decade and embracing a communal model of authorship and publication these steps have never felt especially intuitive or inevitable In 2001 when I started working on College Writing Online I was energized by my desire to reimagine the genre of the textbook to move away from print texts or simple PDF documents toward a more interactive multimodal format that included videos writing spaces and quizzes Beyond the academic goal of developing an original project I was hopeful the work would be widely adopted I was at a unique moment in history and I believed that the juncture between print and electronic media would provide opportunities for authors to create more interactive learning models When College Writing Online was hidden behind a publisher paywall and not widely adopted I became dissatisfied with the traditional publication model By signing away my copyright to Pearson in exchange for an advance I d lost control of my work When Pearson returned copyright to me in 2008 however I had a second chance I could resell the project to a higher education publisher and hope for better luck Or I could publish the work online under a subscription model perhaps providing the first few paragraphs of every article for free and then charging a fee to read complete articles Alternatively I could publish the book with an entrepreneurial online startup such as Flatworld Knowledge or Rice

    Original URL path: http://www.aaup.org/article/open-textbook-publishing (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive



  •