5.2.1 Informational Resources
One subtle but powerful form of resource that may play a very key role during
courseware conceptualization is the availability of "information" or content.
It appears to be the faculty member who conceptualizes the courseware that
determines where this resource will come from, and the subtle aspect of this
resource is of course intellectual property rights. This may be one reason
why faculty are usually initiators of projects. They are generally the people
in their own discipline who can determine which content they can carry a substantial
legal claim, if not entirely free rights. Even when faculty do produce courseware
for their own use and that of their colleagues, they may be somewhat hesitant about
marketing their materials, if they are in any way unsure of the exact issues
surrounding its copyright. Even in cases where the copyright would be clearly
possible to obtain, there may be the subtle "hassle" of worrying about needing
to secure it in some way, such as writing letters.
The reason that the copyright issue is deliberately referred to in this context
as "subtle" is because it was among the most frequently cited issues over the
course of this research in both spoken and printed form (noted as frequently
as funding), but in no case was it ever clearly cited in reference to a particular
example. It appeared to be overcome in that particular example, while remaining
a problem that was generally recognized and mentioned. One possible explanation
for this is that faculty are aware of what materials are copyrighted and which
are not, and they screen their ideas based on this reality during the conceptualization,
and don't ever consider dealing with materials for which they don't know they can
obtain clear copyrights. The limitation is upon what is considered, rather than
what happens after courseware is a product to be copyrighted. If this is the case,
then it is a general problem because of a preemptive sense that faculty have for
what not to consider. If this interpretation is correct, then copyright may
be a silent barrier to producing generalizable courseware. There are very few
examples to demonstrate how it acts as a direct hindrance because faculty are
so well attuned to making sure that they avoid this problem in any direct way,
such as copyright disputes. This would also explain why so much academic
software is characterized by a "local bent."