Motivations to deposit:two approaches to Open Educational Resources (OER) within Languages and Social Sciences (LSS) at Aston University

In Spring 2009, the School of Languages and Social Sciences (LSS) at Aston University responded to a JISC (Joint Information Systems Committee) and Higher Education Academy (HEA) call for partners in Open Educational Resources (OER) projects. This led to participation in not one, but two different OER projects from within one small School of the University. This paper will share, from this unusual position, the experience of our English tutors, who participated in the HumBox Project, led by Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies (LLAS) and will compare the approach taken with the Sociology partnership in the C-SAP OER Project , led by the Centre for Sociology, Anthropology and Politics (C-SAP). These two HEA Subject Centre-led projects have taken different approaches to the challenges of encouraging tutors to deposit teaching resources, as on ongoing process, for others to openly access, download and re-purpose. As the projects draw to a close, findings will be discussed, in relation to the JISC OER call, with an emphasis on examining the language and discourses from the two collaborations to see where there are shared issues and outcomes, or different subject specific concerns to consider.

New business histories! Plurality in business history research methods

We agree with de Jong et al.'s argument that business historians should make their methods more explicit and welcome a more general debate about the most appropriate methods for business historical research. But rather than advocating one ‘new business history’, we argue that contemporary debates about methodology in business history need greater appreciation for the diversity of approaches that have developed in the last decade. And while the hypothesis-testing framework prevalent in the mainstream social sciences favoured by de Jong et al. should have its place among these methodologies, we identify a number of additional streams of research that can legitimately claim to have contributed novel methodological insights by broadening the range of interpretative and qualitative approaches to business history. Thus, we reject privileging a single method, whatever it may be, and argue instead in favour of recognising the plurality of methods being developed and used by business historians – both within their own field and as a basis for interactions with others.