Power Dynamics in a Complex OER Environment: Who Is Leading the Way?

Abstract:Many stakeholders make up the open educational resources (OER) landscape and include faculty, students, administrators, librarians, bookstore managers, traditional publishers, OER authors/publishers/aggregators, and advocacy and support organizations. Each group operates from a unique perspective, and interest in OER is motivated by different factors. Moving forward, can all stakeholder groups be successful and work together? This article examines conditions facing each group while also noting barriers preventing movement toward OER. To further analyze interrelationships and interdependencies among groups, we present five specific types of power to describe how each group can exert power over and influence the other stakeholder groups, as well as be subjected to the power of others. A more complete understanding of the power dynamics at play in the OER movement will benefit those seeking to further their own interests, whether in favor of OER, opposed to OER, or undecided.


Introduction
The open educational resources (OER) movement, largely seen as a backlash to big publishing houses, provides free and open access to information in response to the ever-increasing price of traditional textbooks.According to the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation (2019), Instructors can incorporate OER into their courses by adopting already existing materials, such as openly available textbooks; adapting, or customizing, existing materials; or creating new and original OER content for local use and then sharing online, free for others to use and customize.OER initiatives are typically motivated not by profit, but by efficiency, flexibility, access, and low cost or no cost to students.However, traditional forprofit publishers and many others still play an important role in delivering course content to students.The complex OER environment continues to evolve and is made up of numerous stakeholders, each holding different perspectives and interests.These groups frequently interact, and at times depend on each other, leading to a number of questions: What currently motivates each group to pursue or support OER? What barriers stand in the way to prevent each group from further supporting OER?What power or influence does each stakeholder group hold when it comes to the advancement or limitation of OER?As commercial publishers and booksellers enter the OER market, can nonprofit and for-profit stakeholders coexist to produce and distribute quality content?To answer these questions, we use the existing literature, along with our experiences and observations, to carefully consider each of the players involved and explore the unique positions held.

OER Stakeholders
Before entering into a more in-depth analysis, we outline here key stakeholder groups making up the current OER landscape (table 1).Faculty choose, implement, and author course materials.Students are the end users and consumers of course materials.University administrators may set policies around course material selection, provide funding support, or otherwise influence the actions of faculty.They may also enable services such as instructional design expertise, funding to encourage new and innovative practices, or other assistance to faculty.Librarians facilitate discovery, access, and preservation for many forms of information (print and digital), usually at no cost to students, including course materials.Librarians are strong advocates for OER, offering support around copyright, licensing, and fair use.At the request of faculty, bookstore managers ensure course materials (print and digital) are locally available for students to rent or purchase.The potential for sales and a significant return on investment motivates traditional publishers to create and distribute course content such as textbooks and online materials.OER authors, publishers, and aggregators create and disseminate content, similar in some ways to traditional publishers, but not motivated by profit and often supported by grants or other sources of funding that do not rely on sales to students.Finally, various advocacy, policy, and other support organizations influence policy and drive change.Each stakeholder group identified has their own motivations and influences other stakeholders in unique ways.Most even depend on each other to be successful.

Attitudes, Awareness, Actions, and Barriers
We more closely examine the current conditions for each stakeholder group in a manner similar to that of Xia (2010), who considered attitudes, awareness, and actions when assessing scholars' interest in open access journal publishing.Reinsfelder (2012) adapted this approach, adding an analysis of the barriers as well as using French and Raven's (1959) five "bases of power" to describe the scholarly publishing environment.In our analysis, we use a similar approach, identifying the attitudes, awareness, actions, and barriers for each stakeholder group with respect to the implementation of OER in the university setting.

Bases of Power
French and Raven (1959) defined five bases of power, or ways a person or group can exert influence or power over another individual or group.Coercive power comes from the ability to exert punishment or negative consequences.Reward power comes from the ability to provide positive reinforcement or favorable conditions in response to a certain action.Legitimate power is a result of authority derived from a formal role or position.Referent power occurs when another person or group cooperates willingly due to a feeling of respect or admiration.Expert power exists where one party holds knowledge, information, or expertise that is recognized, valued, and needed by another.Each stakeholder group in the OER landscape exerts one or more forms of power, or influence, and at the same time is subjected to the power or influence of other groups.

Analysis
In this section, we explore the attitudes, awareness, actions, and barriers regarding OER adoption for each stakeholder group, followed by an analysis of the power relationships that stakeholder group possesses with respect to other stakeholder groups.After examining each stakeholder group individually, we examine the trends and relationships over the whole network to better understand the emerging landscape of players in the OER environment.

Faculty
Faculty responsible for designing and delivering instruction in a for-credit course are often the primary decision makers for selecting course content, making them a central element in increasing OER adoption rates.Though not all faculty members get to choose the required course materials (particularly for large multisection courses), a faculty member or committee of faculty members almost always determines the required course materials.Other stakeholder groups may attempt to appeal to faculty members in the decision-making process to influence which materials are selected and used.
Of the faculty surveyed in a large nationwide study on OER, Seaman and Seaman (2018) found that 69 percent of faculty reported requiring a textbook for a course, 47 percent required some other reading materials, 37 percent required an online homework system, 28 percent required video or film, and 19 percent required software.Because a great deal of variety exists in terms of OER content and OER format, OER options could be selected by faculty to serve in all of these categories.
Attitudes.Faculty generally support low cost or free content, with Seaman and Seaman (2017) finding that 89 percent of faculty reported "cost to the student" as important or very important as a factor in selecting required course materials.This priority tied with "comprehensive content" as the most important factor in choosing course materials.Additionally, younger faculty place more importance on the cost of materials than do older faculty, suggesting that the perceived importance of materials cost will likely increase over time.
Despite the importance of cost to faculty members, only 48 percent of faculty reported being "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with the cost of the materials currently used in the classroom, while 61 percent of faculty "agreed" or "strongly agreed" the cost of course content was a serious problem for their students (Seaman and Seaman 2018).
Moving beyond "free" resources to "open" resources licensed to allow modification or reuse, the picture becomes a little more complicated.Most of this derives from a lack of faculty awareness regarding this difference, as discussed below, but significant evidence shows that faculty members may wish to take advantage of the "revise" element of open content in that 45 percent of faculty reported replacing textbook content with their own content, 41 percent reported replacing textbook content with content from other sources, and 21 percent reported correcting inaccuracies in the assigned textbook (Seaman and Seaman 2018).
Awareness.Of faculty, 46 percent reported being at least somewhat aware of the OER concept (Seaman and Seaman 2018).This was higher than the 34 percent observed in 2015, indicating that awareness is rising; however, this percentage represents still less than half of faculty and remains a significant barrier to OER adoption.(Seaman and Seaman 2017, 15).In addition, some of this lack of awareness likely stems from the relatively new status of Creative Commons licenses, frequently used to facilitate and share OER (creativecommons.org).These contemporary licenses, which offer creators flexibility and several options to choose from, may be less familiar than the more traditional, but still very complex, concepts of copyright and fair use (Seaman and Seaman 2018;Weeramuni 2019).Despite the challenges of low awareness, complexity, and uncertainty, the use of creative commons licenses continues to grow significantly (Creative Commons 2017).
Actions.Nearly a quarter of all faculty reported using OER in some fashion during the 2017-18 academic year, with 18 percent reporting they used OER as supplemental material and 13 percent reporting they used OER as required materials.Though 13 percent represents a minority of the faculty members surveyed, it indicates a notable increase over the 5 percent of faculty reportedly using OER as required materials just two years ago (Seaman and Seaman 2018).
When examining large introductory courses, with the largest potential cost savings to students, adoption rates are even higher.Of faculty surveyed in these courses, 24 percent reported adopting OER as supplemental resources, while 22 percent reported adopting OER as required course materials (Seaman and Seaman 2018).OpenStax textbooks are particularly popular and represent a large portion of open textbook adoptions in core or large-enrollment courses (OpenStax 2019a).
Other ways faculty attempt to control textbook costs to students include supporting older versions of textbooks (58 percent), putting textbooks on course reserve at the library (47 percent), and making fewer books required (38 percent) (Seaman and Seaman 2018).
Barriers.Barriers to OER adoption by faculty include a lack of open content in many subject areas, especially at higher levels, a lack of supplemental materials that many faculty have come to expect through traditional publishers, a perception that finding and evaluating OER will take more time than with traditionally published materials, and a perceived lack of quality in OER (Annand and Jensen 2017;Bell 2018).
In general, many faculty view textbooks and tools from commercial publishers as the easiest option (Senack and Donoghue 2016).Deviations from this status quo go above and beyond standard expectations for faculty and are perceived to take more time, while the rewards for authoring and adopting OER are often unclear.

Students
Students represent the end user and primary consumer of course materials chosen by faculty.This disconnect between the consumer and the selector is part of the reason textbook costs have crept so high.This disconnect represents a break from the traditional setup where the consumer is the one making the choice.The principal-agent problem (where individuals delegate authority to another entity to complete a task) or the concept of moral hazard (where interests and incentives are incongruent and one party is dependent on, and at some risk, due to actions taken by another) may be useful in thinking further about the roles of faculty and students in the textbook selection and purchasing process (James 2008;Kara et al. 2006).
Attitudes.Student attitudes toward OER are generally positive.In a review of available research, Hilton (2016) found that, across a number of resources and settings, the strong majority of students had favorable views of OER when used in place of traditional textbooks, and that the strong majority of students also perceived the quality of adopted OER materials as equal or superior when compared to traditional resources.Additionally, an experimental setup asked students to rate theoretical faculty on several character scales based on written narratives.Students were significantly more likely to rate the professors as more kind, encouraging, and creative in instances where the narrative included that the pro-fessor used OER, rather than narratives where the faculty member was listed as using a traditional textbook (Vojtech and Grissett 2017).
Awareness.It is difficult to draw any firm conclusions about student awareness of OER due to a general lack of research.Most research on awareness focuses on faculty awareness, as they typically hold the decision-making power.It should be noted, however, that OER adoption is most common in large introductory courses (Seaman and Seaman 2018), indicating a significant chance that students experience OER early in their time at college.Students are also keenly aware of the rising costs of textbooks and other course materials, as they are the ones paying the bills.
Beyond the individual student, student government associations have shown awareness of the rising textbook cost problem and the possibilities of OER as a solution (Student Government Resource Center 2019; University of North Texas 2019; North Dakota State University, Student Government 2019; Texas A&M University Libraries 2019).
Actions.Though students are usually not involved in the selection of course materials, they do take actions relevant to the course.Students report taking fewer courses or not registering for a particular course due to textbook costs (Florida Virtual Campus 2018).When surveyed, 65 percent of students reported not buying a textbook, even though 94 percent of those same students felt it would hurt their grades (Senack 2015).Supporting this perception, in an instance where OER was widely adopted at a large university, DFW rates (the percentage of students withdrawing or receiving grades of D or F) went down significantly, with the drop in DFW rates being most significant for low-income students, as indicated by Pell Grant eligibility (Colvard, Watson, and Park 2018).
Students also use open content to supplement assigned course materials.A study at a large Chinese university found that 78 percent of students reported using OER, though only 37 percent reported that faculty assigned these resources (Hu et al. 2015).Though students may not be intentionally seeking open content, open digital materials that are not behind pay walls or login screens will more likely be examined by students searching for additional materials beyond the assigned text.
Though rare, some student government organizations are taking actions to support and provide funds for initiatives designed to encourage faculty authoring and adoption of OER (Kansas State University 2020; Reed and Jahre 2019).These incentives for faculty are discussed in more detail in the administrators' section, as they are more commonly funded through university administration.
Barriers.In general, barriers for student advancement of OER stem from a lack of power and a lack of voice in the selection of course materials.
Student governments may be able to exert some collective student power, but individual students cannot do much on their own.Legitimate power in choosing course materials belongs to the instructors, and students are expected to cover the costs for these materials, with approximately 30 percent relying on financial aid (Senack and Donoghue 2016, 5).

Bases of Power
• Coercive: Students have limited coercive power in the form of teaching evaluations, where particularly egregious choices in course materials selections may motivate a critical mass of student complaints to gain the attention of administrators examining the teaching reviews.Students have coercive power over faculty only through administrators.When acting collectively, students have the potential to exert extreme influence on other stakeholder groups (purchasing power, decisions to enroll, etc.).Faculty exert coercive power over students in ensuring they purchase required materials in the form of grades that will require access to the required course materials.
• Reward: Students have limited power to reward faculty through teaching evaluations.This may be passed on to faculty through administration, or faculty may see happy students as a direct reward if they are receptive to student opinions.• Legitimate: Students have little or no legitimate power over any of the other actors in the system.Faculty hold legitimate power over students and what students are required to purchase or use in their course.• Referent: Many faculty wish to serve the best interests of the students.
Students have no power in material selection up front, though significant student frustration with a chosen course tool or significant appreciation of a course tool may be seen as valuable input into course material selection in future years.• Expert: Other stakeholders do not view students as experts in OER.

University Administrators
University administrators hold a unique position of power as the only stakeholder group possessing legitimate power over faculty members.University administrators also control major financial aspects in a university setting, giving them additional power to reward or punish various efforts.Because top university administrators must attend to many different priorities and at times competing interests, some of the higher-level administrative power to support OER adoption and development may be delegated to librarians or to other support staff.
Attitudes.University administrators are under a near universal push to make higher education as a whole more affordable to students.When department chairs were asked what could be done by publishers to improve course materials, 69 percent asked for lower costs to the student, dwarfing all other suggestions for improvement (Seaman and Seaman 2018).
OER is one possible route toward the goal of lowering costs to students, so long as administrators see rising textbook costs as part of the problem.
Awareness.As the cost of higher education is under increasing scrutiny nationwide, administrators keenly monitor the price tag for their institution.While OER awareness is not as thoroughly studied in administrators as it is with faculty members, many university administrators were at one point faculty members themselves.Over time, an increasing faculty awareness of OER, as discussed in the faculty section, will likely lead to an increasing awareness of administrative awareness of OER.
The increasing number of administratively led actions, as discussed in the next section, also points to an increasing awareness of OER on the part of administrators.
Actions.Administrators demonstrate their interest by putting into place specific initiatives to support OER authoring and adoption (Walz, Jensen, and Salem 2016).The majority of these initiatives have taken the form of rewards for faculty members who pursue OER authoring and adoption (Reed and Jahre 2019).Though administrators generally provide the funds for such reward structures, the work of doling out this funding and supporting the faculty is often delegated to librarians (Pirkle 2019) or other instructional support staff (Penn State University 2019).These programs most commonly provide financial assistance, provide instructional design support, and will less commonly provide course releases (Walz, Jensen, and Salem 2016, 21).
Going beyond rewarding faculty with grants, course releases, and recognition, administrators can also exert legitimate power building entire degree programs that utilize OER, such as the no-course-materials-cost Z-degree offered at Tidewater Community College since 2013 (Sheridan 2017) and a spreading network of community colleges across thirteen states that will prioritize OER (McNeal 2016).As of now, these zero-cost course materials initiatives are relatively rare outside of community colleges and online programs, but it seems likely that conscious efforts to create zero-cost bachelor's degrees at resident institutions will spread.
Barriers.Barriers to OER adoption on the part of administrators derive mostly from the split attention needed to run colleges and universities as a whole.From the perspective of administration, there is simply more to worry about than OER.At larger universities, a possible solution is delegation of OER efforts to dedicated staff, though lower level staff may not have the same influence over faculty.Strong budget support for dedicated staff at smaller colleges and universities is also less likely.Another barrier to exerting legitimate power in generating fully OER based programs is a lack of suitable quality OER content for certain subject areas (Annand and Jensen 2017;Bell 2018).Finally, while administrators are responsible for overseeing academic programs, they may seek to avoid any perception of overreach or encroachment on academic freedom, especially when it comes to involvement with certain faculty issues, such as course materials selection.

Primary Bases of Power
• Coercive: University administrators are some of the only people to have coercive power over the faculty members (e.g.performance reviews, funding).For universities dependent on enrollment, students and prospective students hold some collective coercive power via recruitment and retention.• Reward: University administrators possess power to reward faculty members for authoring or adopting OER in the form of money and in the form of course releases.Some administrators at larger universities have given this power to librarians or other staff.For universities dependent on enrollment, students and prospective students hold some collective reward power via recruitment and retention.• Legitimate: University administrators have legitimate power over faculty members.State governments, through budgets and regulations, may exert limited power over state supported universities and colleges.• Referent: Referent power for administrators depends upon the level of respect for the administrator and their ability to inspire action.• Expert: Administrators will typically have some expert power if they are seen as competent and knowledgeable in the higher education landscape and may have some expert power over faculty members in a subject area where they were a senior faculty member.

Librarians
Academic librarians often partner with students and faculty from all disciplines and help form connections around locating and using information.Librarians are well positioned in the OER movement, and many are already "leading, supporting, and collaborating in OER initiatives with OER adopters and authors" (Smith and Lee 2017, 108).
Attitudes.Librarians generally support and advocate for OER and affordable course content whenever possible and participate in a variety of initiatives (Walz, Jensen, and Salem 2016;Bell and Salem 2017).When dealing with some publishers of textbooks and course content, librarians may be cautious, especially around newer "inclusive access" models that may lead to less flexibility for students, instructors, and librarians (Reed and Jahre 2019).To further complicate matters, many textbooks are not available for libraries to purchase as e-books, limiting access for students and leading to some frustration.Librarians may also be hesitant to pursue OER out of a concern for harming the campus bookstore (Bell 2017).However, Bell's survey results and events such as the Textbook Affordability Conference, organized by the National Association of College Stores, suggest that librarians and bookstore managers are more open to working together on the textbook affordability problem than might be expected (Nemec 2019).
Awareness.Because of their unique position on campus and in the information landscape, many librarians are more familiar with OER than other campus populations-at least around larger trends and issues.Faculty may be more aware of specific OER developments or resources in their disciplines, but librarians are often seen as a valuable source of OER information and expertise.Librarians have many opportunities to stay current with OER news.Articles frequently appear in widely read library publications, many library conference and workshop sessions address OER, and active email lists, such as the SPARC Libraries & OER Forum (LibOER), are dedicated to discussing all aspects of OER.
Actions.Librarians have taken a great deal of action to advance OER efforts.
In the 2016 survey of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), at over half of the institutions, libraries were the unit driving OER initiatives (Walz, Jensen, and Salem 2016).Many libraries have staff involved in implementing OER activities.Some even have a dedicated position such as an open education librarian or similar role.Key activities include assistance with identifying openly licensed (OER) or other affordable content, such as library-licensed content (e.g., e-books/journals) that can be used in the classroom.For faculty creating and sharing original content, librarians may provide guidance around copyright or technical aspects.
Librarians also provide support in the organization and preservation of open content.Smith and Lee (2017) note that librarians promote OER, help find and evaluate OER, offer ways to provide long-term and stable access to OER, offer expertise with metadata, and provide assistance with copyright and licensing.Librarians have even been the driving force behind a number of statewide OER initiatives (Bell and Salem 2017;Mc-Bride 2019).
Barriers.It can be difficult for librarians to add OER responsibilities when already short staffed and with limited funds (Smith and Lee 2017).Librarians also have limited power or influence over faculty who are selecting course materials and can offer only information and advice.

Primary Bases of Power
• Coercive: Librarians generally exert little coercive influence around OER. Librarians may choose to identify and call attention to courses power dynamics/reinsfelder and moore 381 using high cost or non-OER textbooks in an attempt to raise faculty awareness.• Reward: Librarians can offer recognition or awards and encourage OER users and OER initiatives.Librarians may also be able to offer some grants, incentives, or other financial support, though these funding streams may depend upon university administrators.• Legitimate: Librarians hold little or no legitimate power or formal authority over others outside of the library.• Referent: Faculty and others on campus often respect librarians.Librarians may be able to exert some influence due to this.• Expert: Faculty, administrators, and others recognize that librarians often have specialized knowledge about information and publishing trends, including OER.

Bookstore Managers
Similar to other actors in the system, bookstores, and by extension bookstore managers, are also in the midst of change and uncertainty.While bookstore managers work on campus with faculty, students, and administration, university bookstores are increasingly being outsourced to virtual stores or run by an outside commercial entity in an effort to cut costs for the university.The traditional bookstore is under immense pressure to adapt their business model and become more sustainable, representing an opportunity to implement change with regard to how OER works within the bookstore.
Attitudes.A fundamental shift in operations faces many bookstores.University bookstores are being shifted to corporate management, though bookstore managers are still local employees working on campus or close to the campus.A combination of online retailers cutting into sales prompted this shift (Fernandez 2019), along with universities looking to cut potential losses associated with running the bookstore.
A decline in course materials sales is an end result of this competitive pressure, with 68 percent of bookstore operators reporting a decline in course materials sales in the past five years, as opposed to only 21 percent reporting an increase (Yanosky and Katz 2015).With such pressure in place, universities and bookstore managers are scrambling to adapt, with some bookstores having even gone so far as to shift textbook sales entirely to outside online systems (McCray 2016).
Despite the turmoil, most bookstore managers want to be part of the conversation around course materials selection, with 70 percent of managers believing that bookstores should be leading efforts around course materials selection (Yanosky and Katz 2015).
Awareness.Bookstore managers are quite aware of publishing trends, as they are central to their job.As OER is part of that landscape, bookstore managers are almost certainly aware of OER as a concept, though the familiarity or expertise of individuals may vary.
Actions.As noted earlier, universities are shifting from internally managed bookstores to corporate management of bookstores.Seen as a cost-cutting measure to help make education more affordable, this pushes the control of these stores out along with the financial risk.As of 2019, Follett Higher Education group operates more than twelve hundred bookstores (Follett 2019), while Barnes & Noble operates more than seven hundred (Barnes & Noble College 2019).These two corporations alone operate approximately 50 percent of the estimated four thousand college bookstores in the United States (National Association of College Stores 2018).
Some bookstore managers may support open resources in theory; however, they may become disconnected from the process in action, particularly when faculty are using freely available open resources in place of print textbooks, or access-restricted electronic materials that do not pass through the bookstore on the way to the students.
On a corporate level, Follett and Barnes & Noble have both embarked on efforts to engage with OER, with Follett partnering with Lumen Learning (Follett 2017) and Barnes & Noble developing their own in-house systems in the form of LoudCloud (Barnes & Noble Education LoudCloud 2019).These systems aim to repackage and enhance OER content so it is more easily accessible and convenient for faculty.While these systems may bring open resources into the bookstores, they are not selfless acts in that they also ensure the bookstore remains a part of the flow of materials to students.Additional skepticism may also creep in due to the fact that these companies, Lumen Learning LLC and Barnes & Noble, are for-profit enterprises and motivated by achieving maximum revenues, just like traditional publishers.
Barriers.As discussed in previous sections, bookstore managers face an uncertain future with declining textbook sales and a shift to corporate management.These factors are likely to continue to strain bookstore managers but may also serve to motivate change and inspire innovative services.Open electronic resources, along with large online retailers, are cutting into what was once the core sales for bookstores.In addition, publishers are taking online content directly to consumers/students.Digital resources, including many OER, even have the potential to cut the bookstore out of the purchasing process.Bookstores, particularly corporately owned bookstores, are likely to only support OER so long as they are not cut out of the loop.

Bases of Power
• Coercive: Bookstores managers have little coercive power over any of the other stakeholders, though in some cases contracts with a university may protect some interests or require certain campus actions or conditions.When acting collectively, students have the potential to exert extreme influence through purchasing decisions.• Reward: Bookstores managers have little to no reward power over any of the other stakeholders.• Legitimate: Bookstore managers have no legitimate power over any of the other stakeholders.Either university administrators or corporate leadership will have legitimate power over the bookstore managers.• Referent: Bookstore managers may have some sway in helping faculty discover resources.Systems like LoudCloud and companies like Lumen Learning may seek to highlight resources to faculty through the bookstore.• Expert: Bookstore managers are usually not considered content matter experts, but some faculty may perceive their knowledge of the textbook and publishing industry as a form of expert power.

Publishers
By working with creators and authors, traditional for-profit publishers seek to produce works, such as textbooks, that interest instructors, their potential customers, as well as students, the end users.Many publishers provide significant services and support around the creation, distribution, and marketing of content.High-quality publishers play an important role in serving the needs of faculty and students, especially when those needs cannot be easily addressed by OER.While traditional nonprofit publishers exist, such as university presses, they are not the focus of the discussion here, which centers on the largest commercial players in the textbook market.
Attitudes.Corporate or for-profit publishers are motivated to produce revenue at a maximum level to reward owners, shareholders, and investors.Like other stakeholders, commercial textbook publishers operate in a complex and rapidly changing environment.Some of the many challenges faced with print books include a growing secondary or used book market, the availability of less expensive editions from other countries, and strong competition and mergers within the industry (Carbaugh 2016).
The growth of OER also presents further competition.Many publishers realize that success, even survival, will require the ability to adapt and "adjust their pricing model and their approach to content" (McGinley 2019).
Awareness.Commercial publishers closely monitor OER developments and are attempting to adapt by experimenting with new models of publishing.
Actions.In recent years the publishing industry is attempting to blend the traditional print production and distribution process with more digital content and even incorporating OER in some new offerings.A great deal of experimentation exists around sales and pricing models such as rental options, digital content, and inclusive access packages.Barnes & Noble (2019) is enhancing OER content with learning and usage analytics and other features faculty may find beneficial.Cengage ( 2019) is working to make OER more attractive to faculty by offering several options that include "curated content, instructor resources, assessment, and proven technology."McGraw-Hill (2019) offers Open Learning Solutions, which works with faculty to customize and package an instructor's unique content, OER content, and/or McGraw-Hill content in a convenient and attractive way that also integrates with most learning management systems (LMS).Lumen Learning and panOpen are two newer companies striving to combine OER with additional features to enhance teaching and learning (McKenzie 2019).
Barriers.In addition to many challenging and complex market forces, publishers face considerable skepticism from an academic community that often assumes a profit motive above all else (Jenkins 2019).The proposed merger between Cengage and McGraw-Hill, announced in 2019, received strong opposition from groups like the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC), the Association of Public and Land Grant Universities, and others (SPARC 2019a).To maintain future success, the industry must establish and maintain positive relationships with other important stakeholders.

Bases of Power
• Coercive: Publishers set prices and restrict access to content or control how content is used.Their customers, students, often must purchase the product and may have few or no other options available to them.When acting collectively, faculty have the potential to exert negative pressure through their selection decisions.• Reward: Publishers can encourage certain behaviors by offering incentives to students and faculty in the way of increased access to content or reduced prices.Faculty, students, and librarians can reward publishers that provide high-quality content in an easy to use format at a reasonable price.• Legitimate: In the current environment, publishers hold little or no legitimate power.• Referent: In the current environment, publishers do not enjoy much referent power, though some faculty may hold a positive image of certain publishers.• Expert: Publishers possess a long track record of experience and success in providing academic course materials.Many faculty use and depend on the services provided by these publishers, and it is often assumed that these major publishers will provide content from proven experts.

OER Authors, Publishers, and Aggregators
Individual faculty or small groups of educators seemingly represent the largest segment of OER authors.OER publishers like OpenStax or Open SUNY Textbooks provide the support and infrastructure to coordinate the larger-scale production of a series of OER products and make them available online.OER aggregators aim to provide options for individuals to search for OER from a large range of sources.Notable examples of aggregators include the Open Textbook Library, OER Commons, California State University's MERLOT, Open Course Library, OASIS, and the Mason OER Metafinder.
Attitudes.An intrinsic desire to improve learning conditions for students often motivates OER authors (McKerlich, Ives, and McGreal 2013).Financial or other extrinsic incentives may also entice some faculty to create OER.Benefits of OER creation include flexibility, the ability to customize content, a lower cost for students, and the opportunity to share information with others beyond the local classroom.Both publishers and aggregators aim to support and encourage OER creation and use in a variety of ways, such as providing a hosting platform or offering tools to assist authors and users of OER.Most publishers and aggregators exist to enhance the effectiveness of various educational experiences.OpenStax states they believe a "well educated society profits us all" (OpenStax 2019a).These operations must be willing to experiment and take risks when exploring OER options.
Awareness.OER authors, publishers, and aggregators possess high levels of OER awareness.In order to effectively create new OER content or support services, authors must evaluate what already exists.In some cases, an OER author, publisher, or aggregator may be keenly aware of their specific product or service, but less knowledgeable about other OER initiatives, because there are so many and change is constant.
Actions.OER authors, publishers, and aggregators significantly impact educational experiences and opportunities, often breaking new ground or setting trends as new content is developed to fill gaps and address the needs of educators and students.Charitable foundations, grants, universities, and other nonprofit organizations invest time, money, and effort to support these publishers and aggregators, helping students save money and increasing the impact of educational content.
Barriers.OER authors, publishers, and aggregators must find sustainable sources of funding.Many rely on foundations, universities, or nonprofit organizations for financial backing and knowledgeable staff to assist with technical implementation details.As authors and organizations produce more OER content and services, they will compete for attention and limited funding.The long-term outlook is unclear for much of the work and many of the actors in this group.

Bases of Power
• Coercive: OER authors, publishers, and aggregators may be able to exert pressure on commercial publishers to provide more favorable conditions for faculty and students.If publishers are not meeting needs, alternative options exist to enhance competition by creating and distributing content, independent of commercial textbook publishers.University administrators and advocacy, policy, and support organizations can apply some coercive power through the allocation of funding and other resources.Barriers.OER advocacy and support organizations need funding to continue operations, and this need will always be a concern.The future of OER is also uncertain and changing rapidly.The success of OER projects is no guarantee.Investments of time and money may not always lead to desired results.When it comes to influencing policy at the governmental level, elected officials often have other priorities demanding their attention and may not be receptive to OER discussions.

Bases of Power
• Coercive: Advocacy and policy groups generally hold little coercive power.However, organizations providing financial support can exert a great deal of power and influence actions by imposing conditions on any money provided.• Reward: Philanthropic organizations may be able to reward, influence, and encourage specific actions by providing financial support.• Legitimate: Little legitimate power is exerted here.
• Referent: Referent power may be present when individuals want to assist or support the work of advocacy, policy, and funding organizations because they agree with and respect what is being done.• Expert: The expertise within advocacy and support organizations may entice others to become members or otherwise partner with them.

Discussion
Who Holds Which Power?Several stakeholder groups hold each type of power (table 2).Faculty, by the nature of their position, hold "legitimate" power over selecting or creating course content and can either directly or indirectly impact all other stakeholder groups.Faculty also hold "expert" power and expertise needed by publishers.Faculty can "reward" OER authors, publishers, and aggregators by choosing to use their products or even contributing their own content.Students can demonstrate limited "coercive" or "reward" power over faculty through teaching evaluations or other feedback to administrators.On an aggregated scale, students and potential students can exert a great deal of "coercive" and "reward" power over university administrators through attending or not attending a university dependent upon tuition.University administrators hold "coercive," "reward," and "legitimate" power over faculty members and may either penalize or incentivize specific actions.Librarians may offer recognition or "rewards" to acknowledge and encourage OER efforts and may be able to offer financial incentives or other "expert" support around OER and access to information.Librarians also enjoy some "referent" power due to a long-standing tradition of service to faculty and a growing trend toward direct collaboration with faculty.Bookstore managers may exercise some "referent" or "expert" power when interacting with faculty choosing content for courses.Publishers can encourage ("reward") or discourage ("coercive") certain consumer behaviors through pricing and product distribution models.Some faculty depend on the unique content and services offered so publishers also hold "expert" power through their authors.OER authors, publishers, and aggregators' greatest power is their "expertise"-the ability to produce and share content needed and valued by other faculty and students.This group may also have "coercive" power over publishers by increasing competition where consumer needs are not being met.Individuals in this group can "reward" others in the same group by using or supporting their OER products.Advocacy, policy, and other support organizations can enjoy a great deal of both "reward" and "coercive" power by imposing conditions and expectations when providing funding to support OER.In addition, these groups are successful largely due to "referent" and "expert" power that leads others to value and support their work.Many interactions exist in the OER landscape and in most cases each stakeholder group depends on the work of others.It is interesting and important to note that no group other than faculty holds all five bases of power (figure 1).The next two groups holding the most bases of power are OER authors, publishers, and aggregators as well as advocacy, policy, and other support organizations, with four each.Faculty have great influence in determining how rapidly OER advances by deciding what students will use or buy.At the same time, all other stakeholder groups can influence faculty.OER authors, publishers, and aggregators also have great potential for transforming the future of OER available to faculty and students, and advocacy, policy, and other support organizations have the potential to guide the emerging resources and policies through reward and coercion.Students hold the fewest bases of power (two) but are still a very important stakeholder in the OER ecosystem.All OER stakeholder groups revolve around and depend on students.As a result, one could argue that students may even hold some degree of referent power.While it may seem students have little power, in fact the other groups would not exist without students to serve.Students can pressure faculty and universities to advance OER and can put negative pressure on textbook publishers by refusing to buy their products.Bookstore managers also hold only two bases of power and face perhaps some of the greatest challenges in determining future roles in the OER environment, as they may be left out of the mix entirely.All other stakeholder groups (university administrators, librarians, and publishers) possess three bases of power and appear to be playing important, but different, roles in supporting the needs of faculty and students around OER.

Conclusion
Each stakeholder group included in this analysis is motivated by different interests and faces different barriers in the OER movement.At the same time, each contributes to the advancement of OER in a unique way.As we attempt to determine who is leading the way, it seems like the bulk of the power and the most significant opportunities for influence lie with faculty; OER authors, publishers, and aggregators; and advocacy, policy, and other support organizations, with the other groups playing important supporting roles.Faculty are the ultimate decision makers around course content and are ultimately the group that all others seek to influence.OER authors, publishers, and aggregators produce OER materials and ultimately have the power to pressure traditional publishers to change.Advocacy, policy, and other support organizations have multiple and varied avenues of influence over the policies that influence course materials authoring and adoption and will likely serve as a high-level guiding hand.In reality, these group may not always recognize the level of influence they hold and the importance of exerting that power to advance OER.Looking toward the future, it is reasonable to wonder if commercial publishers and booksellers can be successful as they increase their participation in the OER market.Can nonprofit and for-profit entities coexist to produce and distribute quality content?We believe the answer is yes, if the publishers follow through with efforts to adapt to the increasing prevalence of OER.There are limitless opportunities for different types of content and many possible ways to distribute or package that content for different audiences.However, faculty and students have grown frustrated with the high cost of traditionally published materials, pressuring publishers to reconsider pricing models.We feel some faculty and students will be ready and willing to pay for information and/or services offered if a specific need is fulfilled at a reasonable price and that is not addressed by existing OER.OER authors, publishers and aggregators also face financial pressure to find funding to sustain their efforts.As a result, high-quality open resources may not be sustainable across all subject areas, though this option will increasingly become a relief valve and a threat in areas where traditional publishers are not providing a reasonable value for their products.
As the course materials landscape continues to evolve, some solutions and innovations will come from nonprofit organizations.At the same time, for-profit publishers and content providers will develop some valuable services.Along the way, some groups, especially campus bookstore managers, will likely face challenges and growing pains as all stakeholder groups continue to adapt and redefine their roles.
Overall, is OER sustainable?It is probable, even likely, but the funding needed to sustain OER development and maintenance will depend upon universities, philanthropic organizations, and government, each of which will be limited.Interest in OER from faculty and students will likely continue to grow into the future.Traditional publishing models have reduced student access to content, and the benefits of using OER are clear.OER is unlikely to replace all traditionally published commercial content, but OER can serve to counteract the power and influence of traditional publishing houses that has long gone uncontested.

Future Work
This work represents a high-level view of the stakeholders at play in the OER landscape but raises questions for future work.The first and most obvious area for future work is a sustained effort to monitor OER authoring and adoption trends and the power dynamics as they evolve.The system is in the midst of rapid change, and we are still far from equilibrium.OER authors, publishers, and aggregators are all still finding their way, and it is unclear what mature players' role in this area will look like.It is unclear what the future landscape will look like, but it will depend a great deal on which stakeholders can exert their power the most effectively.
Additionally, some stakeholders were found to be studied more thoroughly than others.Understandably, faculty trends around OER are well monitored and documented due to their central role, and librarians have thoroughly examined their own role with respect to OER.However, there are big holes in our understanding of all other stakeholder groups that deserve more attention.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Bases of power held in the OER landscape.
• Reward: OER authors, publishers, and aggregators can encourage highquality content by providing positive feedback and reviews, adding credibility to OER content and services.These groups can also commit time and expertise to worthwhile projects.University administrators and advocacy, policy, and support organizations can apply reward power through recognition or other incentives, such as supplemental payments, awards, career advancement, or promotion.•Legitimate:Thisgrouprarely holds any legitimate power over others.•Referent:Referentpower may exist, especially for well-established projects with strong reputations.•Expert:Expert power is the greatest power held by this group.The knowledge contributed is significant and highly valued by other stakeholder groups.Attitudes.Entities in this category exist largely because they believe in the potential of OER and are willing to invest time, money, and energy to improve conditions and increase opportunities for students and educators.Awareness.Closely following OER developments and raising awareness among key groups is one of the primary interests of advocacy and support organizations.For example, one of the most influential and wellknown organizations working to advance open education is SPARC, with a membership of over two hundred academic and research libraries in North America and affiliate organizations in Europe, Japan, and Africa.SPARC facilitates discussions, coordinates action, and tracks legislation on the state and federal levels, providing timely updates to educators and librarians.The Open Textbook Network (OTN), which hosts the Open Textbook Library and is based at the University of Minnesota, serves as another forum for communication, training, and coordinated action related to OER.Actions.These groups are involved with and are sometimes responsible for the existence, and even success, of many OER initiatives mentioned throughout this article.The work of advocacy and support organizations has contributed to over twenty-five states taking some legislative action to encourage OER (SPARC 2019b).The majority of actions either provide funding to further the implementation of OER or set expectations that educational institutions will explore new course content options for students.On the federal level, Congress first allocated five million dollars in 2018 to be administered through the Department of Education for OER support.The Affordable College Textbook Act introduced in the 116th Congress on April 4, 2019, provided another five million and established a grant program to support the use of open textbooks (SPARC 2019c).Philanthropic organizations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Hewlett Foundation, and others also support OER by providing significant funding for projects like OpenStax publishing (OpenStax 2019b).

Table 2 .
Significant bases of power.