IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/techno/v112y2022ics0166497221001760.html

Why are some Massive Open Online Courses more open than others?

Author

Listed:
  • Jacqmin, Julien

Abstract

This paper studies the determinants of the intellectual property license of the Massive Open Online Courses provided on a French platform. While they can opt for a traditional license, the majority of courses chooses among Creative Commons licenses. Considering the ordering in terms of degree of openness of the licenses, we study the course-, teacher- and institution-related factors driving the intellectual property decision of this pedagogical innovation. We observe that the field of study and the characteristics of the institution providing the course play a role. We explain these results by the heterogeneity in preferences and peer recognition with regard to open practices. We also find support for the idea that course providers willing to raise indirectly revenues by selling goods complementary to the MOOC (like a certificate of completion) are less likely to choose an open license.

Suggested Citation

  • Jacqmin, Julien, 2022. "Why are some Massive Open Online Courses more open than others?," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:techno:v:112:y:2022:i:c:s0166497221001760
    DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102395
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166497221001760
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102395?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Josh Lerner & Jean Tirole, 2002. "Some Simple Economics of Open Source," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(2), pages 197-234, June.
    2. Paul Belleflamme & Julien Jacqmin, 2016. "An Economic Appraisal of MOOC Platforms: Business Models and Impacts on Higher Education," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 62(1), pages 148-169.
    3. José A. Ruipérez-Valiente & Sergio Martin & Justin Reich & Manuel Castro, 2020. "The UnMOOCing Process: Extending the Impact of MOOC Educational Resources as OERs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-17, September.
    4. Antonio Della Malva & Francesco Lissoni & Patrick Llerena, 2013. "Institutional change and academic patenting: French universities and the Innovation Act of 1999," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 211-239, January.
    5. Thomas Eger & Marc Scheufen & Daniel Meierrieks, 2015. "The determinants of open access publishing: survey evidence from Germany," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 475-503, June.
    6. Thursby, Jerry & Fuller, Anne W. & Thursby, Marie, 2009. "US faculty patenting: Inside and outside the university," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 14-25, February.
    7. Yimei Zhu, 2017. "Who support open access publishing? Gender, discipline, seniority and other factors associated with academics’ OA practice," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(2), pages 557-579, May.
    8. Bazen, Stephen & Bouvard, Laurence & Zimmermann, Jean-Benoît, 2015. "Musicians and the Creative Commons: A survey of artists on Jamendo," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 65-76.
    9. Partha, Dasgupta & David, Paul A., 1994. "Toward a new economics of science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 487-521, September.
    10. Guerrero, Maribel & Heaton, Sohvi & Urbano, David, 2021. "Building universities’ intrapreneurial capabilities in the digital era: The role and impacts of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs)," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    11. Josh Lerner, 2005. "The Scope of Open Source Licensing," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(1), pages 20-56, April.
    12. Jan Hylén & Dirk Van Damme & Fred Mulder & Susan D’Antoni, 2012. "Open Educational Resources: Analysis of Responses to the OECD Country Questionnaire," OECD Education Working Papers 76, OECD Publishing.
    13. Bengt Holmström, 1999. "Managerial Incentive Problems: A Dynamic Perspective," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 66(1), pages 169-182.
    14. Joshua Goodman & Julia Melkers & Amanda Pallais, 2019. "Can Online Delivery Increase Access to Education?," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 37(1), pages 1-34.
    15. Jacqmin, Julien, 2019. "Providing MOOCs: A FUN way to enroll students?," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 32-39.
    16. Roach, Michael & Sauermann, Henry, 2010. "A taste for science? PhD scientists' academic orientation and self-selection into research careers in industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 422-434, April.
    17. Andreia Inamorato dos Santos & Yves Punie & Jonatan Castaño Muñoz, 2016. "Opening up Education: A Support Framework for Higher Education Institutions," JRC Research Reports JRC101436, Joint Research Centre.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bachmann, Nina & Rose, Robert & Maul, Valeska & Hölzle, Katharina, 2024. "What makes for future entrepreneurs? The role of digital competencies for entrepreneurial intention," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jacqmin, Julien, 2018. "Why are some online courses more open than others?," MPRA Paper 89929, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Dahlander, Linus & Magnusson, Mats G., 2005. "Relationships between open source software companies and communities: Observations from Nordic firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 481-493, May.
    3. Alfonso Gambardella & Bronwyn H. Hall, 2010. "Proprietary versus Public Domain Licensing of Software and Research Products," Chapters, in: Riccardo Viale & Henry Etzkowitz (ed.), The Capitalization of Knowledge, chapter 6, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Gächter, Simon & von Krogh, Georg & Haefliger, Stefan, 2010. "Initiating private-collective innovation: The fragility of knowledge sharing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 893-906, September.
    5. Josh Lerner & Jean Tirole, 2005. "The Economics of Technology Sharing: Open Source and Beyond," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(2), pages 99-120, Spring.
    6. Engelhardt, Sebastian v. & Freytag, Andreas, 2013. "Institutions, culture, and open source," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 90-110.
    7. Josh Lerner & Parag A. Pathak & Jean Tirole, 2006. "The Dynamics of Open-Source Contributors," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(2), pages 114-118, May.
    8. David, Paul A. & Shapiro, Joseph S., 2008. "Community-based production of open-source software: What do we know about the developers who participate?," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 364-398, December.
    9. Paola Giuri & Federico Munari & Martina Pasquini, 2013. "What Determines University Patent Commercialization? Empirical Evidence on the Role of IPR Ownership," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(5), pages 488-502, July.
    10. Massimiliano Gambardella, 2011. "The Scope of Open Licenses in Cultural Contents Production and Distribution," Working Papers hal-04140977, HAL.
    11. Douglas Kiarelly Godoy de Araujo, 2025. "Open-sourced central bank macroeconomic models," IFC Bulletins chapters, in: Bank for International Settlements (ed.), Data science in central banking: enhancing the access to and sharing of data, volume 64, Bank for International Settlements.
    12. Amit Mehra & Rajiv Dewan & Marshall Freimer, 2011. "Firms as Incubators of Open-Source Software," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 22-38, March.
    13. Francesco Lissoni & Michele Pezzoni & Bianca Potì & Sandra Romagnosi, 2012. "University autonomy, IP legislation and academic patenting: Italy, 1996-2007," Post-Print hal-00779750, HAL.
    14. Andreoli-Versbach, Patrick & Mueller-Langer, Frank, 2014. "Open access to data: An ideal professed but not practised," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(9), pages 1621-1633.
    15. Walsh, John P. & Huang, Hsini, 2014. "Local context, academic entrepreneurship and open science: Publication secrecy and commercial activity among Japanese and US scientists," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 245-260.
    16. Gans, Joshua S. & Murray, Fiona E. & Stern, Scott, 2017. "Contracting over the disclosure of scientific knowledge: Intellectual property and academic publication," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 820-835.
    17. Alexander Cuntz & Frank Mueller-Langer & Alessio Muscarnera & Prince C. Oguguo & Marc Scheufen, 2024. "Access to science and innovation in the developing world," WIPO Economic Research Working Papers 78, World Intellectual Property Organization - Economics and Statistics Division.
    18. Francesco Rullani, 2006. "Dragging developers towards the core. How the Free/Libre/Open Source Software community enhances developers' contribution," LEM Papers Series 2006/22, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    19. Francesco Lissoni, 2013. "Intellectual property and university–industry technology transfer," Chapters, in: Faïz Gallouj & Luis Rubalcaba & Paul Windrum (ed.), Public–Private Innovation Networks in Services, chapter 7, pages 164-194, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    20. Bitzer, Jurgen & Schrettl, Wolfram & Schroder, Philipp J.H., 2007. "Intrinsic motivation in open source software development," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 160-169, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital
    • I29 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Other
    • L17 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Open Source Products and Markets

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:techno:v:112:y:2022:i:c:s0166497221001760. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01664972 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.