Page:The battle for open.pdf/141

 Some of the rebranding around MOOCs is an inevitable and beneficial side effect of the increased interest in elearning that they generated. Labelling an online course a SPOC may seem strange, but it is not harmful. There is, however, a more devious element in some of the amnesia, which relates to the Silicon Valley narrative. It inflates the value of the innovation if it can lay claim to inventing a wholly new approach, and it also undermines the status of incumbents in an industry if their contribution is dismissed or forgotten, rendering the role of external agents more viable.

This is not to suggest some ­higher-​­level conspiracy generating from Silicon Valley, but the essential ingredients of the Silicon Valley narrative constitute what might be viewed as a conspiracy of sentiment. It appeals to a worldview that entrepreneurs, investors, journalists and technologists implicitly hold and reinforce. As Watters puts it, 'The version of history they offer is quite telling, as it reflects how they perceive the past, how they want the rest of us to perceive the past, as well as how they hope we’ll move into the future.'

Conclusions
All of this might not matter; most disciplines will complain that their coverage in the general media is overly simplistic or ­biased – ­one has only to think of the coverage of health issues, for instance. Indeed, it could be seen as a blessing. Any media coverage helps to make future funding more likely and makes internal projects more viable. Having been involved in the early forms of MOOCs, I know from personal experience that there has been a change in receptiveness from research funders to conducting research into open courses since the MOOC bubble began.