FWIW the article of mine that Glenn mentions about open access as a
boundary object is intended to emphasise that OA is not /necessarily/
politically progressive (following Tkacz and others) but that it can
be in certain circumstances. The argument tries to remind readers that
OA means a lot of different things to different groups and so it
requires specific articulations (closures) for it to reflect a
progressive agenda (which is ultimately what I’m arguing for). The
article is absolutely not an argument in favour of a ‘diversity’ of
politics, which feels to me just an excuse for conservatism, but
rather an acceptance that OA is inescapably political in a variety of
ways (for better or worse). So you cannot discuss OA in a vacuum -- it
is always political and will never be founded entirely in consensus.
This is perhaps why ‘the commons’ is most helpful as a politicisation
of OA. The commons itself refers to the ability of labour to
self-organise its own production, in distinction to both market and
state modes. Commons do not necessarily escape capitalism (and have
been encouraged by neoliberal policymakers such as the World Bank) but
they are largely antagonistic towards it. Focusing on the commons is
one way of foregrounding production over outputs, which is to say that
we can argue all day long about definitions of OA but that ultimately
the mode of production is more important than the mode of access
itself. I've long thought that the commons is a better frame for the
futures of publishing as it moves beyond conversations of access and
towards collaborative knowledge production more generally (of which
open access to resources can be important, alongside issues relating
to bibliodiversity, governance, capitalism, etc.).
Best,
Sam
--
Dr. Samuel A. Moore
Research Fellow
Centre for Postdigital Cultures
Coventry University
https://www.samuelmoore.org/
Twitter: @samoore_
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 7:09 PM Glenn Hampson
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
In part David, yes---thank you. But I’m also referring to:
* Knoth and Pontika’s Open Science Taxonomy
(https://figshare.com/articles/Open_Science_Taxonomy/1508606/3
* Fecher and Friesike’s categories of concern regarding open
(http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2272036)
* Moore’s boundary object observations
(http://doi.org/10.4000/rfsic.3220)
* Willen’s intersecting movements critique
(https://rmwblogg.wordpress.com/2020/02/29/justice-oriented-science-open-science-and-replicable-science-are-overlapping-but-they-are-not-the-same/)
* Bosman & Kramer’s diversity of definitions assessment
(https://im2punt0.wordpress.com/2017/03/27/defining-open-science-definitions/)
* OSI’s DARTS open spectrum
(https://journals.gmu.edu/index.php/osi/article/view/1375/1178)
* Tkacz’s 2012 essay on the connections between the modern open
science movement and Karl Popper’s open society theories
(http://www.ephemerajournal.org/sites/default/files/12-4tkacz_0.pdf)
* And more.
Best,
Glenn
*Glenn Hampson*
*Executive Director*
*Science Communication Institute (SCI) <http://sci.institute>*
*Program Director
**Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) <http://osiglobal.org>*
<http://osiglobal.org>
*From:* [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> *On Behalf Of *David Wojick
*Sent:* Friday, June 26, 2020 10:30 AM
*To:* Kathleen Shearer <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
*Cc:* Glenn Hampson <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>; Rob Johnson
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>; Heather Morrison
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>; Global Open Access List
(Successor of AmSci) <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>;
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>; The Open Scholarship
Initiative <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>; Anis Rahman
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
*Subject:* Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Knowledge and Equity: analysis of three
models
Glenn is drawing upon lengthy discussions of the problem of
multiple definitions that we have had at OSI. Looking back I find
that I first wrote about this issue seven years ago:
https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/11/11/open-access-on-the-sea-of-confusion/
It might be better to call them concepts or models than
definitions, but it remains that different people are calling for
or allowing very different things as being open access. At one
extreme we have, for example, the US Public Access Program, which
is basically read only with a 12 month embargo for subscription
articles. At another extreme we find born open with no
restrictions on use. In between there are at least a dozen
variations, many more if one counts small differences, like the CC
BY variants.
This wide ranging multiplicity of incompatible definitions is a
very real obstacle to public policy.
On a more distant topic, profit is a public good if it provides a
public service. Food, for example.
David Wojick
Inside Public Access
On Jun 26, 2020, at 1:55 PM, Kathleen Shearer
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Glenn, all,
I don’t think there really is a large variation in current
definitions of open; but there are some stakeholders who want to
slow progress, and use this as an excuse :-(
The issue of diversity is an important one, although not in the
way that it is expressed by Glenn, (which is diversity in
stakeholders goals - profit vs public good), but diversity of
needs, capacities, priorities, languages, formats in different
fields and countries. And these diverse requirements _cannot be
supported effectively by any one large centralized
infrastructure_, which will tend to cater to the most well
resourced users (or the majority).
While there are some international infrastructures that are
appropriate, the “global commons” should also be composed of many
localized infrastructures and services that are governed by, and
can respond to, the needs of those local communities; and then we
must figure out how these infrastructures can be interoperable
through adoption of common standards that will allow us to share
and communicate at the global level.
This requires finding a delicate balance, a balance that possibly
the UNESCO discussions can help to progress.
As a UNESCO Open Science Partner, COAR brings this perspective to
the table (as I’m sure some others will too).
All the best, Kathleen
Kathleen Shearer
Executive Director
Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR)
www.coar-repositories.org <http://www.coar-repositories.org>
On Jun 26, 2020, at 11:47 AM, Glenn Hampson
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi Heather, Anis, Rob,
It’s also important to note the emerging UNESCO model, which
will be presented to the UN General Assembly for consideration
in late 2021. I suspect (and hope) this model will be more
“polycentric” and “adaptive” than any of the current plans.
As you know, many organizations have had an opportunity to
submit comments on UNESCO’s plan; indeed, global consultations
are still ongoing. OSI’s recommendations are listed
here:https://bit.ly/2CL4Nm7. The executive summary is this:
“Open” is a very diverse space. Not only do our definitions of
open differ greatly, so too do our perceptions of the
etymology of open (whether we use BOAI as the starting point
or just one point among many). Also, critically, our open
goals and motives differ greatly in this community; open
progress and approaches vary by field of study; and different
approaches have different focus points, principles,
incentives, and financial considerations. In short, our
challenge of creating a more open future for research defies
one-size-fits all description, and it certainly defies
one-size fits-all solution.
Recognizing and respecting this diversity, OSI’s
recommendations, which are based on five years of global
consultations in collaboration with UNESCO, are that a just
and workable global plan for the future of open must do the
following:
* DISCOVER critical missing pieces of the open scholarship
puzzle so we can design our open reforms more effectively;
* DESIGN, build and deploy an array of much needed open
infrastructure tools to help accelerate the spread and
adoption of open scholarship practices;
* WORK TOGETHER on finding common ground perspective
solutions that address key issues and concerns (see OSI’s
Common Ground policy paper for more detail); and
* REDOUBLE OUR COLLECTIVE EFFORTS to educate and listen to
the research community about open solutions, and in doing
so design solutions that better meet the needs of research.
In pursuing these actions, the international community should:
* Work and contribute together (everyone, including publishers);
* Work on all pieces of the puzzle so we can clear a path
for open to succeed;
* Discover missing pieces of information to ensure our
efforts are evidence-based;
* Embrace diversity. No one group has a perfect
understanding of the needs and challenges in this space,
and different groups have different needs and challenges.
* Develop big picture agreement on the goals ahead and
common ground approaches to meet these goals; and
* Help build UNESCO’s global open roadmap.
Best regards,
Glenn
*Glenn Hampson*
*Executive Director*
*Science Communication Institute (SCI)*
*Program Director
**Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)*
<image004.jpg>
*From:*[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]><[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>*On Behalf Of*Rob Johnson
*Sent:*Thursday, June 25, 2020 11:42 PM
*To:*Heather Morrison <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>;[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>; Global Open Access List
(Successor of AmSci) <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>;[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Cc:*Anis Rahman <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
*Subject:*RE: [SCHOLCOMM] Knowledge and Equity: analysis of
three models
Dear Heather (and Anis),
Thanks for sharing this. I’ve also found Ostrom’s work on the
commons helpful in assessing some of the emerging issues in
this area, and you might be interested to read an article I
wrote on Plan S and the commons, which also references
Ostrom’s principles. I reached very similar conclusions to
you, arguing that there would be a need for ‘polycentricity’
and ‘adaptative governance’ for the Plan to succeed – echoing
your observations on the value of collective choice,
adaptation to local conditions and ‘nested enterprises’.
Johnson, Rob. 2019. “From Coalition to Commons: Plan S and the
Future of Scholarly Communication”. /Insights/ 32 (1): 5. DOI:
http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.453
Best wishes,
Rob
Rob Johnson
/Director/
<image001.png>
Follow us on Twitter@rschconsulting
<https://twitter.com/intent/follow?original_referer=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fabout%2Fresources%2Fbuttons®ion=follow_link&screen_name=rschconsulting&tw_p=followbutton&variant=2.0>
T:+44(0)115 896 7567
M:+44(0)779 511 7737
E:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
W:www.research-consulting.com
<http://www.research-consulting.com/>
Registered office: The Ingenuity Centre, University of
Nottingham Innovation Park, Nottingham, NG7 2TU, United Kingdom
Research Consulting Limited is a Company Registered in England
and Wales, Reg No. 8376797
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This communication and the information contained in it are
confidential and may be legally privileged. The content is
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to
whom it is addressed and others authorised to receive it. If
you are not the intended recipient, it is hereby brought to
your notice that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or
dissemination, or alternatively the taking of any action in
reliance on it, is strictly prohibited and may constitute
grounds for action, either civil or criminal.
*From:*[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]><[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>*On Behalf Of*Heather
Morrison
*Sent:*26 June 2020 01:16
*To:*[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>;
Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>;[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Cc:*Anis Rahman <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
*Subject:*[SCHOLCOMM] Knowledge and Equity: analysis of three
models
Abstract:
The context of this paper is an analysis of three emerging
models for developing a global knowledge commons. The concept
of a ‘global knowledge commons’ builds on the vision of the
original Budapest Open Access Initiative (2002) for the
potential of combining academic tradition and the internet to
remove various access barriers to the scholarly literature,
thus laying the foundation for an unprecedented public good,
uniting humanity in a common quest for knowledge. The global
knowledge commons is a universal sharing of the knowledge of
humankind, free for all to access (recognizing reasons for
limiting sharing in some circumstances such as to protect
individual privacy), and free for everyone qualified to
contribute to. The three models are Plan S / cOAlition S, an
EU-led initiative to transition all of scholarly publishing to
an open access model on a short timeline; the Global
Sustainability Coalition for Open Science Services (SCOSS), a
recent initiative that builds on Ostrom’s study of the
commons; and PubMedCentral (PMC) International, building on
the preservation and access to the medical research literature
provided by the U.S. National Institutes of Health to support
other national repositories of funded research and exchange of
materials between regions. The research will involve analysis
of official policy and background briefing documents on the
three initiatives and relevant historical projects, such as
the Research Council U.K.’s block grants for article
processing charges, the EU-led OA2020 initiative, Europe PMC
and the short-lived PMC-Canada. Theoretical analysis will draw
on Ostrom’s work on the commons, theories of development,
under-development, epistemic / knowledge inequity and the
concepts of Chan and colleagues (2011) on the importance of
moving beyond north-to-south access to knowledge (charity
model) to include south-to-south and south-to-north (equity
model). This model analysis contributes to build a comparative
view of transcontinental efforts for a global knowledge
commons building with shared values of open access, sharing
and collaboration, in contrast to the growing trend of
commodification of scholarly knowledge evident in both
traditional subscriptions / purchase-based scholarly
publishing and in commercial open access publishing. We
anticipate that our findings will indicate that a digital
world of inclusiveness and reciprocity is possible, but cannot
be taken for granted, and policy support is crucial. Global
communication and information policy have much to contribute
towards the development of a sustainable global knowledge commons.
Full text: https://ruor.uottawa.ca/handle/10393/40664
Cite as: Morrison, H. & Rahman, R. (2020). Knowledge and
equity: analysis of three models. /International Association
of Communication and Media Researchers (IAMCR) annual
conference/, July 2020.
Comments are welcome, either on list or on the blog:
https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2020/06/26/knowledge-and-equity-analysis-of-three-models/
best,
Dr. Heather Morrison
Associate Professor, School of Information Studies, University
of Ottawa
Cross-appointed, Department of Communication
Professeur Agrégé, École des Sciences de l'Information,
Université d'Ottawa
Principal Investigator, Sustaining the Knowledge Commons, a
SSHRC Insight Project
sustainingknowledgecommons.org
<http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/>
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706
[On research sabbatical July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2020]
--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this
list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this
group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse
information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/7A571C59-F365-4C9A-BF73-BC9533D6F4FD%40gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/7A571C59-F365-4C9A-BF73-BC9533D6F4FD%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
