Page:The battle for open.pdf/95

 Library (OCL) project in Washington State (Biemiller 2014). Their findings were discouraging for OER advocates, reporting that ‘Of the 98,130 students enrolled in these 42 courses on the 25  ­campuses, only 2,386 were in sections that used the recommended OCL materials.’ The report was somewhat strange, for a number of reasons. Firstly, the research was conducted by college stores, and many users of open, online textbooks would not go via the college stores to acquire these. One might also wonder if ­college stores are entirely in favour of free, online resources. But even if we ignore methodological concerns and accept the uptake is low, this is revealing about the context within which OERs ­operate. One might suppose that given the choice between a textbook that costs, say, US$100 and one that is free (or the physical copy is available for US$25), then the latter would prove to be more popular. The reasons the ­take-​­up may be lower than expected indicate the areas for the next phase of the OER movement. First amongst these is simply awareness of the resources. Commercial publishers have sophisticated and expensive marketing tools and expertise, and competing with this to simply make lecturers and students aware of the open alternative will be problematic for ­non-​­profit organisations. The second issue is less a financial one, and more cultural. Books are recommended by lecturers, many of whom have used the same book for several years and constructed a ­curriculum around it. To change to an alternative, no matter how good it might be, requires additional effort. While lecturers may care about the cost to students, the cost of textbooks is not borne by them, so there is no direct incentive to switch to free alternatives. This is not to say they don’t care, but rather that it is not always a priority for often ­over-​­worked faculty. In addition, many universities make a percentage of sales from the campus bookstores, so again there is no strong incentive to reduce costs.