[GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Knowledge and Equity: analysis of three models
Gary Hall
mail at garyhall.info
Sat Jun 27 10:33:13 BST 2020
To build on Sam’s comments ...
If, for the OSI, ‘open scholarship and open science are tremendously
diverse and interconnected spaces’
(http://osiglobal.org/2020/06/01/open-science-policy-recommendations-to-unesco/),then
so are the ‘commons’, I would argue.
Sure, there is the liberal tradition of writing on the commons of Elinor
Ostrom, Garrett Hardin and Yochai Benkler. This approach focuses on the
normative frameworks and principles of governance and self-organisation
that best allow a shared pool of spaces and resources to be managed and
maintained as a specific property regime.
But if we are going to think of open access in terms of the commons then
we also need to engage with the more radical theoretical tradition of
writing on the subject associated with the likes of Michael Hardt and
Antonio Negri, Silvia Federici, Isabelle Stengers, Paolo Virno, Maurice
Blanchot, Giorgio Agamben, Denise Ferreira da Silva, Fred Moten and
Stefano Harney, Pierre Dardot and Christian Laval, Massimo De Angelis...
In contrast to the liberal tradition, these theorists are less concerned
with associating the commons with things – land,sea, water, air, music
files, digital books and articles, software, code – and more with the
social relations of commoning; with constructing the commons on the
basis of shared political activities, practices and principles.
I’m mentioning all this not to make the very obvious point that the
commons, like OA, means different things to different people. Rather
it’s to build on Sam’s contribution, as I say: for the commons, like
open access, requires specific articulations if it is to reflect a
progressive political agenda.
Marek Korczysnki and Andreas Wittel have recently provided an
interesting account of the differences between liberal philosophy and
radical theory when it comes to the commons in their ‘The Workplace
Commons: Towards Understanding Commoning Within Work Relations’,
/Sociology/ 1-6, 2020.
I single this article out in particular because it covers some of the
issues involved in trying to create a commons in the context of working
in an institution such as a university.
Spoiler alert: formally, you probably can’t!
Best, Gary
--
Gary Hall
Professor of Media
Director of the Centre for Postdigital Cultures, Faculty of Arts &
Humanities, Coventry University:
http://www.coventry.ac.uk/research/areas-of-research/postdigital-cultures
Director of Open Humanities Press: http://www.openhumanitiespress.org
Website http://www.garyhall.info
Latest:
‘We’re Not Going Back To Arguing From Evidence Anytime Soon, Deal With
It: Postdigital Politics in a Time of Pandemics V’:
http://garyhall.squarespace.com/journal/?SSScrollPosition=0
On 26/06/2020 19:56, Samuel Moore wrote:
> 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
> <ghampson at nationalscience.org <mailto:ghampson at nationalscience.org>>
> 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:* scholcomm-request at lists.ala.org
> <mailto:scholcomm-request at lists.ala.org>
> <scholcomm-request at lists.ala.org
> <mailto:scholcomm-request at lists.ala.org>> *On Behalf Of *David Wojick
> *Sent:* Friday, June 26, 2020 10:30 AM
> *To:* Kathleen Shearer <m.kathleen.shearer at gmail.com
> <mailto:m.kathleen.shearer at gmail.com>>
> *Cc:* Glenn Hampson <ghampson at nationalscience.org
> <mailto:ghampson at nationalscience.org>>; Rob Johnson
> <rob.johnson at research-consulting.com
> <mailto:rob.johnson at research-consulting.com>>; Heather Morrison
> <Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca
> <mailto:Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca>>; scholcomm at lists.ala.org
> <mailto:scholcomm at lists.ala.org>; Global Open Access List
> (Successor of AmSci) <goal at eprints.org <mailto:goal at eprints.org>>;
> <RADICALOPENACCESS at jiscmail.ac.uk
> <mailto:RADICALOPENACCESS at jiscmail.ac.uk>>
> <RADICALOPENACCESS at jiscmail.ac.uk
> <mailto:RADICALOPENACCESS at jiscmail.ac.uk>>; The Open Scholarship
> Initiative <osi2016-25 at googlegroups.com
> <mailto:osi2016-25 at googlegroups.com>>; Anis Rahman
> <abu_rahman at sfu.ca <mailto:abu_rahman at sfu.ca>>
> *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
> <m.kathleen.shearer at gmail.com
> <mailto:m.kathleen.shearer at gmail.com>> 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
> <ghampson at nationalscience.org
> <mailto:ghampson at nationalscience.org>> 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:*scholcomm-request at lists.ala.org
> <mailto:scholcomm-request at lists.ala.org><scholcomm-request at lists.ala.org
> <mailto:scholcomm-request at lists.ala.org>>*On Behalf Of*Rob Johnson
> *Sent:*Thursday, June 25, 2020 11:42 PM
> *To:*Heather Morrison <Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca
> <mailto:Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca>>;scholcomm at lists.ala.org
> <mailto:scholcomm at lists.ala.org>; Global Open Access List
> (Successor of AmSci) <goal at eprints.org
> <mailto:goal at eprints.org>>;RADICALOPENACCESS at JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> <mailto:RADICALOPENACCESS at JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
> *Cc:*Anis Rahman <abu_rahman at sfu.ca <mailto:abu_rahman at sfu.ca>>
> *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 at 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:rob.johnson at research-consulting.com
> <mailto:rob.johnson at research-consulting.com>
>
> 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:*scholcomm-request at lists.ala.org
> <mailto:scholcomm-request at lists.ala.org><scholcomm-request at lists.ala.org
> <mailto:scholcomm-request at lists.ala.org>>*On Behalf Of*Heather
> Morrison
> *Sent:*26 June 2020 01:16
> *To:*scholcomm at lists.ala.org <mailto:scholcomm at lists.ala.org>;
> Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal at eprints.org
> <mailto:goal at eprints.org>>;RADICALOPENACCESS at JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> <mailto:RADICALOPENACCESS at JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
> *Cc:*Anis Rahman <abu_rahman at sfu.ca <mailto:abu_rahman at sfu.ca>>
> *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/>
>
> Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca <mailto:Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca>
>
> 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 osi2016-25+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com
> <mailto:osi2016-25+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com>.
> 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
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20200627/ef381726/attachment-0001.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3017 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20200627/ef381726/attachment-0001.jpg
More information about the GOAL
mailing list