‘Not something we really do.’ ‘Doesn’t really happen here.’ ‘Can’t make money from that.’ ‘Hard to share what we do.’

Comments such as the above were common threads in the conversations I’d been having with my team about my PG Cert in HE studies in openness in Higher Education. Trying to relate what I was learning about Open Educational Resources (OER) to my day job as an Instructional Design Support Officer in the Executive Education dept of Alliance Manchester Business School (AMBS) was initially problematic in a situation where it seemed to be more of an oddity than a given.

Discussions with my closest colleagues rarely touched on openness in the way Catherine Cronin’s conference participants described it as part of her post-OER24 keynote presentation. She had asked the keynote participants two questions:

1. ‘What do you think of when you hear “open education”?

2. ‘What could we, as this community — this conference group — do right now?”.,

Cronin’s word cloud, created in answer to question 1, bloomed with positive terms such as ‘community’, ‘love’, ‘accessibility’ and ‘sharing.’ Fig 1. I was curious to see if there would be any overlap if I asked all AMBS Executive Education staff to generate a word cloud in response to the question ‘What do you think of when you hear “AMBS Executive Education?’. There was none. Fig 2. Words like ‘corporate’, ‘leadership’ and ‘clients’ dominated instead. Granted, it was a different question within a more limited and specific context. Also, Cronin was arguably preaching to the converted, so to speak, but the contrast was still stark. In the interests of fairness I followed up my word cloud with the same two questions Cronin asked her participants. More on that later.

So, what might it be about the Executive Education industry that makes openness feel like an uneasy fit — or even worse, a threat? I’ve tried to examine those questions, using the AMBS Executive Education centre as a case study of sorts, and explore not only perceptions of openness but also what we do and don’t share, why this is the case and whether change might be possible. Do we mirror Executive Education providers within the wider higher education sector, where similar tensions between openness and commercialisation undoubtedly exist?

The Problem with ‘Open’ in Executive Education

Openness in higher education is commonly understood as providing broad access, encouraging collaboration, and freely sharing educational resources and ideas, although this isn’t a one-size-fits-all concept. For some, open licensing and freely available materials are the key components; for others, teaching practices based in co-creation, inclusivity, and social justice are of the most importance. As Cronin and Habib discuss, openness is relational (based on who is defining it and within which context), based on values held, and is constantly changing and evolving.

Thus, the commercially focused UK Executive Education industry, understandably, often seems at odds with openness. A quick google search I did for ‘openness in UK Executive Education’ produced predominantly sales pages, as opposed to open-access resources or articles. Programmes are called ‘open’ only in the sense of open enrolment, not open sharing.

A universal truth across the sector is that sales are key. Executive Education schools and businesses offer premium fee products to clients in a fiercely competitive market. Whether it’s open programmes, apprenticeships, or custom-designed programmes which have been won via multiple-institution bids, Executive Education offerings are high-end, premium fee products. Costs vary widely, but a five-day on-site custom programme can cost as much as a postgraduate certificate offered in another part of a university. Premium products mean premium prices, and profits have to be made in order for departments to succeed. Resultantly, openness in the OER sense is viewed as a commercial risk.

There is continuous and fierce competition for clients, both domestically and internationally, between premium university-affiliated business schools and private providers offering both face-to-face and online programmes. AMBS’s selling point is we’re part of a world-renowned university and bring proven academic and research expertise to the table, but we’re far from being the only provider to do so.

Peter and Deimann state that the concept of openness in education has long been connected to political, cultural and economic systems. In a commercialised context like executive education, those systems are heavily influenced by market logic. And that isn’t always compatible with open ideals.

This tension between commercial viability and openness also mirrors concerns in the wider business school landscape. Irwin points out that business schools have traditionally concentrated on rigour and relevance — that is, maintaining academic excellence and market ‘fit’ — while often neglecting broader purpose and social responsibility. Executive education, as part of this environment, inherits those pressures. The focus on delivering high-end, bespoke content to paying clients means openness can feel like a luxury or indeed a liability. If everything is open, where is the exclusivity and premium expertise that clients expect? If they can access it for free, then why would they pay?

There is also the question of possible caution on the side of academics with regards to openly licencing their work. As Gamble-Flowers highlights, sharing requires institutional support and trust. Where intellectual property, reputation, and teaching identities come into play, many professionals are understandably hesitant. After all, who knows their research better than them?

So, is it possible for the wider landscape of Executive Education providers to promote open practices without undermining sustainability and commercial success?

Beyond Content

As a colleague stated, “It’s hard to share what we do”. As Wildgust states, we get paid to provide our delegates and clients with expertly curated content in the form of ‘experiential learning’, developed by subject matter experts and tailored to specific client needs and emerging market trends in the business world.

Executive Education is rarely a simple exchange of knowledge from expert to student. Our learners are seen as being ‘post experience’ as opposed to under or postgraduate and are often bringing 10+ yrs of professional experience to the table. We aim to challenge, enable reflection and offer new perspectives. Via simulations, challenges, individual and group work and presentations, roleplays, field trips, case studies, social events, expert guest and alumni speakers we aim to co-create meaning and relevance from the learning experience. Executive Education is less about transferring knowledge than it is about facilitating transformation.

That ‘learning experience’ is, in essence, the ‘product’ and will therefore always be different and unique, due to the different cohorts and clients, with their own experiences, values and needs. Such experiential learning cannot be easily shared without risk as, either directly or indirectly, the ethos and strategic goals of the company are embedded in the materials and sessions provided and in custom programmes and such co-production can make the question of openness even more problematic.

“complexities around intellectual property influence the degree to which OEP work is taken up by centres and by faculty” — Tannis Morgan (p374)

Questions arise across the sector: who owns co-produced materials? The university, the academic, the client, or the learner? Intensely negotiated contracts, confidentiality and Intellectual Property agreements limit what can be shared or reproduced, with good reason. If a client can take an unlicenced custom-designed programme and is able to deliver it internally without a business school’s involvement, they have essentially been handed a replicable product on a plate without having to pay for future cohorts of learners. Again, as Gamble-Flowers points out, navigating the terrain between openness and ownership requires ongoing negotiation and trust — it can’t be assumed.

Ultimately, the foreground IP, slide decks or articles, are merely conduits to the learning, and what is innovative today may well be outdated in the very near future. What delegates do with the materials — the conversations they spark, the solutions they test and implement in their workplaces and lives — is where the true value lies.

But is openness impossible? Could Executive Education providers look to Habib, who reframes it not as a licence but as more of a commitment to care, criticality and co-creation? Can the sector prioritise reflection, shared inquiry and learner voice further without opening the content itself, in tandem with growing moves towards open pedagogy in the wider HE sector?

What has been shared?

Although there are many challenges when examining the possibility of ‘openness’ within the field of Executive Education, examples of open practice do exist.

For example, UNICON is a global consortium of business schools engaged in executive education. Membership facilitates the exchange of best practice, benchmarking, research and staff development whilst also providing invaluable networking opportunities. This deliberate and trusting exchange of methods, as opposed to materials, is part of a carefully managed and structured openness within a professional ecosystem.

Another example is AMBS’s Prometheus, a leadership programme previously offered to third-sector organisations at no cost and referenced in Wildgust’s blog. The programme prioritised dialogue, inclusion, and social responsibility. While materials weren’t openly licensed, the approach reflected open values and was a meaningful instance of ‘open knowledge’ practice adapted to Executive Education. Delegates from over 170 charities and social enterprises participated, gaining access to the latest in leadership thinking without the significant financial investment that would usually entail. Participant feedback consistently lauded the programme’s impact, with many charities emphasising that this was their only viable route to engage with a business school. However, as Wildgust argued, it could have gone further — by sharing materials, publishing insights from the sessions, or recording keynote contributions which could have become open resources.

Wildgust reflected that Prometheus shows we can be more open and shift from gatekeepers to gate-openers — when we choose to, when funding permits it, and when the results marry with our organisational and institutional missions. This particular event has not been resurrected post-Covid, although we do host a yearly Festival of Business which has content aimed at the sector. This Festival was free but, in a step away from openness, experimented with a scale of ticket fees this year in an effort to increase attendance. Interestingly it was found that attendance levels did not differ, and I hope it will return to being a free event in future.

Then there is the work published by Executive Education academics, which, regardless of the painstaking negotiation that has to take place if that work is based custom programmes, offers an opening into pedagogical processes and innovations that ultimately doesn’t compromise any confidentiality agreements.

Business schools are also using a form of openness to promote educational equality. Apprenticeship programmes funded through government levies create access pathways for experiential learners from non-traditional backgrounds. Apprenticeships offer structured learning while students remain employed, challenging more elitist models of study. It opens a door, especially for those who entered the workforce straight from secondary education, allowing them to upskill while working.

Partnerships with public sector bodies like the NHS demonstrate another form of socially minded Executive Education across the industry. While not free, these programmes are offered at a reduced rate in recognition of their public benefit and further the industry’s attempts to be socially responsible without giving up commercial viability or gains.

This balancing act between commercial and public good again reflects Irwin’s call for business schools to broaden their definition of quality. It ought not to just be about financial or academic metrics but also about purpose and responsibility.

What could be shared?

“Purpose, responsibility and quality will not arrive neatly-packaged on the doorstep of the business school. Instead, interrogating, testing out and debating their meaning represents a serious, but also necessary, challenge.” — Alan Irwin

1. ‘What do you think of when you hear “open education”?

2. ‘What could we, as Executive Education — do to make to make our work and resources more ‘open’ within the context of ‘open education?’.

I was interested in how my immediate Instruction Design team would respond to the 2 questions above, based on the previously mentioned questions taken from C Cronin’s 2024 post-OER24 keynote presentation. (Appendix 1.) Their knowledge of OER was, as expected, correct and they produced a wide range of avenues for possible exploration which aligned with emerging sector ideas, as summarized below.

1. Share learning resources: Open up course materials using open licenses; use and contribute to OERs; offer short, affordable courses like MOOCs.

2. Flexible, accessible learning: Allow modular, self-paced learning and ensure content is accessible to all (e.g., captions, screen readers).

3. Collaborative learning: Share insights and case studies; foster learning communities; partner with others to co-create content.

4. Transparency: Show how courses are built and improved; share anonymised impact data.

5. Inclusive tech: Use open-source platforms; make materials easy to access and reuse; enable others via APIs.

6. Openness culture: Train staff in open practices; recognise open contributors; share your own journey to inspire others.

7. Widen access: Lower entry requirements where possible; offer discounts for low-income learners or small businesses; create free, non-accredited versions of courses to broaden reach and build trust.

Some ideas are clearly more feasible than others within current industry models. But others — like building reflective spaces, involving learners in post-programme outputs (blogs, zines, videos), or sharing anonymised impact data — are not outside the realms of possibility. At the University of Manchester, we are developing ‘Manchester Online’, as per point 2 above, although it will definitely be a costed venture.

There’s also interesting potential in curated spaces like The Knowledge Exchange at Leeds Beckett University where they collaborate with external partners to make research and learning more porous. This could also lead to participants purchasing further study paths, merging openness with future commercial gain. Could other centres host curated knowledge-sharing events as an experimental event? Could participants be invited to co-create outputs that feed back into future programmes or public discourse?

Wildgust speaks to point 6 when she reflected on a pivotal moment following the Cambridge Analytica / Facebook revelations and highlighted how most Executive Education practitioners (herself included) hadn’t deeply engaged with “openness.”

Conclusion

Using AMBS as a lens, I’ve tried to think about questions facing Executive Education across the sector. The struggle between being open and being commercial isn’t unique to us; it’s a common challenge. But inside these limits are also opportunities. Openness doesn’t have to mean flinging doors open indiscriminately. As Habib and others have discussed, it means designing for connection, care, and dialogue, a design challenge is one the sector can work towards rising to.

Since Executive Education focuses on experience and transformation, it’s well-placed to examine what openness could look like across the sector. We can continue shifting the narrative from What can’t we give away? to How can we build relationships that make sharing mutually beneficial? Our default position may be protective, but that doesn’t mean it’s fixed or unchallengeable.

References

Cronin, C. (2024, April 3). OER24 keynote resources — The future isn’t what it used to be: Open education at a crossroads. Retrieved from Catherinecronin.net: https://catherinecronin.net/conferences/post-oer24-keynote/

Festival of Business 2025. (2025). Retrieved from www.alliancembs.manchester.ac.uk: https://www.alliancembs.manchester.ac.uk/events/festival-of-business-2025/

Gamble-Flowers, K. (2024, August 22). How Open are we? The trials and tribulations of internal stakeholders and how things could be so much easier if we practiced what we preached. Retrieved from Medium.com: https://medium.com/@karen.gamble-flowers/how-open-are-we-6d7e0b37c644

Habib, S. (2024, August 16). Open practice, critical pedagogy and zine-making. Retrieved from Medium.com: https://medium.com/@educ_research/open-practice-critical-pedagogy-and-zine-making-7de755c2a70d

Irwin, A. (2022, October 14). Open up the business school! From rigour and relevance to purpose, responsibility and quality. Retrieved from Global Focus: https://globalfocusmagazine.com/open-up-the-business-school-from-rigour-and-relevance-to-purpose-responsibility-and-quality/

Morgan, T. (October to December 2019). Instructional Designers and Open Education Practices: Negotiating the Gap Between Intentional and Operational Agency. Open Praxis, vol. 11 issue 4, pp. 369–380.

Peter, S. D. (2013). On the role of openness in education: A historical reconstruction. Open Praxis, pp. 7–14.

The Knowledge Exchange. (n.d.). Retrieved from Leeds Beckett University Business Services: https://www.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/business-services/the-knowledge-exchange/

UNICON Home. (n.d.). Retrieved from UNICON. Consortium for University Executive Education: https://uniconexed.org/

Wildgust, S. (2018, May 9). Openness: The Digital Landscape, Executive Education and reflections on Prometheus. Retrieved from Medium.com: https://medium.com/open-knowledge-in-he/openness-the-digital-landscape-executive-education-and-reflections-on-prometheus-8133e036d026

Appendix. 1

‘What do you think of when you hear “open education”?

I think of educational courses that are either free, or easily accessible online, such as those on Futurelearn, MOOC or EdX. I’d assume any courses offered would have no entry requirements to be truly ‘open.’

‘What could we, as Executive Education — do to make to make our work and resources more ‘open’ within the context of ‘open education?’

Share your learning materials

• Put your course content online with open licenses so others can use it.
• Use Open Educational Resources (OERs) — and contribute your own.
• Offer short, free or low-cost learning options like MOOCs or mini courses.

Make learning flexible and accessible

• Let learners choose and combine modules that work for them.
• Offer self-paced options for busy professionals.
• Ensure content is accessible (e.g., with captions and screen reader support).

Promote learning together

• Share case studies and insights from your programs.
• Build communities for learners to connect and collaborate.
• Work with other institutions to co-create and share resources.

Be open about how things work

• Show how your courses are made and how feedback is used.
• Share data (safely and anonymously) about your impact.

Use inclusive tech

• Use open-source platforms that support learning, like Moodle or Canvas.
• Make your materials easy to find and use.
• Let others use your tools and data through APIs.

Build a culture of openness

• Train your staff in open education practices.
• Celebrate people who contribute to open initiatives.
• Share your own openness journey to inspire others.

Lower any entry requirements (I’m not sure if our courses have any, but I assume most would have a minimum professional experience requirement?). Reduce the price or offered a discounted rate for low-income learners or small businesses, as most of our delegates are paid for by major companies, so the price doesn’t really allow for small businesses to send employees, or for employees to pay for themselves if their company’s budget won’t cover it. We could also create condensed, non-accredited, free courses to put online (on MOOC/Futurelearn like many other universities do) to make our courses more open, while also benefitting us by generating interest and building consumer trust in our courses.