a reply to “Academics: Ask not what Open Access can do for you, but what it can do for your disciplines” in LSE Impact of Social Science blog, by Samuel Moore (PhD candidate at Kings College London studying Open Access in the humanities, and managing editor at Ubiquity Press).
There seem to be problematic assumptions here, as suggested by the rhetorical construction of this article. Consider the premise:
many humanities researchers have reacted angrily to RCUK’s approach of mandating Open Access….As Open Access advocates we therefore need to be using this time to stimulate discussion among the detractors and non-engagers
so apparently a thing called ‘Open Access’ has arrived, via the UK government’s mandate, and some of the thereby angered humanities scholars are now “detractors and non-engagers.”
But “Open Access” isn’t something that came down from heaven, like the speed of light or scripture. It’s an at-least 20-year old body of arguments and practices, without a single or settled definition or consensus, which humanists have helped to shape, and debated, all along. RCUK interpreted this to create a particular policy, and did so in a way which observably reflects primary influences of positions from the natural and biomedical sciences, and the incumbent publishing industry.
To present those who raise objections as “detractors and non-engagers”, or as others often do, “anti-OA,” implies that those raising objections are not Open Access advocates, and their views are merely resistant or uninformed; not that they could be articulating or pointing to legitimate, alternate approaches. While you talk about “engaging” academics on this issue, actually you frame the discussion in a way that tends to marginalize and invalidate their differing views, thus disengaging.
Lastly, you say this approach will “allow us to challenge the dogmatic…assertion that ‘one size does not fit all.’” I’m not sure why a discussion of Open Access needs to or could take on the (impossible) task of generally disproving a common saying, any saying; but in any case, wouldn’t the result be to assert “one size does fit all”? Wouldn’t that be exactly the sort of maxim that would incline people to dogmatism, and failing to consider alternate views?
If I have to pick between one size fitting all, and one size not fitting all, I’m going to pick the latter; as should, I’d suggest, anyone who thinks our understanding is provisional and evolving — all scientists and scholars, for example.
—
Tim McCormick
@tmccormick tjm.org Palo Alto, CA, USA
The way I read Sam’s article, you both reach the same conclusion –
that one size *doesn’t* fit all. His point, as I saw it, was that this
isn’t a reason to resist change in general.
Instead, he suggests,
we must accept that disciplines differ and encourage academics to
‘assess which … publishing practices are beneficial and which merely
persist out of tradition’ within their own communities.
That was my take anyway!
Tom (declaration: this interpretation is entirely my own, but I also work at Ubiquity Press). Sorry for the repeated anonymous posts…not sure what happened there.
thanks Tom.
yes, you could say Sam’s conclusion is kind of similar to what my post/comment points to. I think my point was more to do a frame analysis, and observe what assertions or implications are being made implicitly. For example, Open Access is presented as a well-defined thing that originated outside the humanities, when actually it’s a significantly contested and evolving thing that began largely among humanists and social scientists in the 1990s.
The frame opposes “advocates”, including the author, to people raising objections, mostly from the humanities, who are “detractors and non-engagers.” My point is that, consciously or not, this implies that the advocates define the idea, and any opposing arguments are resistance or reaction. I’ve been observing this framing pattern regularly in the last year or two of OA debate in the UK, and would suggest that it embodies an evangelizing rather than deliberative/consultative viewpoint, and it is counter-productive because it antagonizes who don’t feeled aligned with the advocacy.
I’m interested not only in the particular topic of Open Access, but in it as a laboratory of deliberation/comment practices, explicit and implicit.
One other thing, it looks you posted twice as Guest, then with this profile. Is something not working correctly, or difficult to figure out, with the comment setup? I keep tinkering and trying to figure out what works best, any bug report or feedback is welcome.
thanks, Tim.
Pingback: Is Access to the Research Paper the Same Thing as Access to the Research “Results”? | The Scholarly Kitchen