Page:The battle for open.pdf/184

 of resilience, which will form the basis of the approach used in this chapter:


 * 1) Latitude: the maximum amount a system can be changed before losing its ability to recover.
 * 2) Resistance: the ease or difficulty of changing the system; how ‘resistant’ it is to being changed.
 * 3) Precariousness: how close the current state of the system is to a limit or ‘threshold’.
 * 4) Panarchy: the influences of external forces at scales above and below. For example, external oppressive politics, invasions, market shifts or global climate change can trigger local surprises and regime shifts.

Using these factors, resilience provides a useful means of considering the response of scholars and institutions to the potential impact of open education. The emphasis in this consideration is on retaining function, not just ‘resisting’ change. Taleb (2012) has argued that the perspective should move beyond resilience and consider ‘­anti-​­fragility’, stating, ‘The antifragile is beyond the resilient or robust. The resilient resists shocks and stays the same; the antifragile gets better and better.’ This is to equate resilience with resistance. Indeed, a high resistance is not necessarily a benefit to an ecosystem, as Holling observed; for example, some insect populations fluctuate wildly depending on environmental factors but prove to be resilient over time. Resilience requires adaptation and evolution to new environmental conditions but retains core identity. In ecosystems this means the species persists, although it may be adapted, and in organisational terms it means the core functions remain, although they may be realised in newer (and in Taleb’s view, better) ways.

In terms of open education practice, resilience is about utilising the open approach where this is desirable but retaining the