Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Knowledge and Equity: analysis of three models

[Samuel Moore]

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 
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) *
>
> *Program Director**Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
> *
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org  *On
> Behalf Of *David Wojick
> *Sent:* Friday, June 26, 2020 10:30 AM
> *To:* Kathleen Shearer 
> *Cc:* Glenn Hampson ; Rob Johnson <
> rob.john...@research-consulting.com>; Heather Morrison <
> heather.morri...@uottawa.ca>; scholc...@lists.ala.org; Global Open Access
> List (Successor of AmSci) ; <
> radicalopenacc...@jiscmail.ac.uk> ; The
> Open Scholarship Initiative ; Anis Rahman <
> abu_rah...@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.shea...@gmail.co

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[Samuel Moore]

Hi Glenn,

Thanks for sharing this report with the list. I may need to read this again
in more detail, but one thing I don’t quite understand is the focus on
‘high-level experts’. You write:

‘There has never been an inclusive, global effort to bring everyone
together first—broadly, at scale and at a high, policy-making level—to
identify common ground needs and interests, then collectively brainstorm
options, and only then design specific policies and solutions that work
within this globally operational and sustainable framework’

I’ve always felt that one of the more exciting things about open access has
been the influence of grassroots and activist strands of advocacy, or those
that specifically foreground local and diverse contexts instead of
broad-scale, top-down and policy-based approaches. Are you able to say a
bit more about what ‘high-level’ means here and how your approach would
preserve these contexts without imposing your common-ground solutions onto
them?

The reason I’m asking this is because your report mentions my work on
openness as a ‘boundary object’, which is a term developed by Star and
Griesemer to describe concepts that have both a shared flexible meaning and
a nuanced local meaning that allow the possibility of cooperation between
local groups. I argued that open access is one such boundary object because
it means many things to different people but is broadly recognisable across
contexts. However, the problem with introducing boundary objects into the
policy sphere is that they become regulated and homogenised, simply because
it is difficult to preserve local contexts in a global setting. This kind
of homogenisation tends to benefit those with more power (in this case
large commercial publishers operating at scale) at the expense of the
bibliodiversity that Kathleen is arguing in favour of nurturing.

I’d be interested to hear more on the 'high-level' focus of your group and
whether you see it as antagonistic to non-high-level approaches. Put
another way, are you not simply looking for common ground between the
groups who are already in charge of scholarly communication (policymakers,
commercial publishers, senior figures, etc.) to the exclusion of those
operating at the margins?

Thanks!

Sam


-- 
Dr. Samuel A. Moore
Research Fellow
Centre for Postdigital Cultures
Coventry University
https://www.samuelmoore.org/
Twitter: @samoore_


On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 10:27 PM Glenn Hampson 
wrote:

> Hi David,
>
>
>
> In reply to your statement, “that people with fundamental disagreements
> can agree on general principles does nothing to resolve those
> disagreements,” I deeply disagree. To my knowledge and experience---which,
> granted, appears to differ from yours---agreeing on general principles is,
> in fact, a prerequisite to actually resolving disagreements as opposed to
> just papering over them. I would be happy to debate this with you off-list.
> I don’t want to exhaust the good will of our audience here (if we haven’t
> already).
>
>
>
> But to elaborate, from page 18 of the paper (the long version): “….common
> ground is a unique, "expanded pie" state. It isn't a grand compromise where
> we manage to divide a static pie into smaller, less satisfying slices, but
> creating a larger pie where new value is available throughout the system.
> In this case, then, common ground doesn't mean seeking a compromise between
> embargoes and immediate release; or between APCs and subscriptions; or
> between publish or perish culture in academia and something a little kinder
> and gentler. It means thinking beyond, focusing not on picking specific
> solutions but on understanding how our interests overlap lest we get
> weighted down by too many solutions or too many solutions we don’t like. By
> identifying the broad contours of common ground that exist in this
> conversation we can build the guardrails and mileposts for our
> collaborative efforts and then allow the finer-grained details of
> community-developed plans more flexibility and guidance to evolve over
> time.”
>
>
>
> Please note that examples of common ground perspectives from OSI’s five
> years of work are included on report pages 19-26, and also in Annex 1
> (pages 39-53).
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Glenn
>
>
>
>
>
> *Glenn Hampson*
> *Executive Director*
> *Science Communication Institute (SCI) *
>
> *Program Director**Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
> *
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org  *On
> Behalf Of *David Wojick
> *Sent:* Monday, April 20, 2020 1:49 PM
> *To:* Glenn Hampson 
> *Cc:* Thatcher, Sanford Gray ; Kathleen Shearer <
> m.kathleen.shea...@gmail.com>;  <
> richard.poyn...@btinternet.com>;  <
> scholc...@lists.ala.org>; Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <
> goal@eprints.org>; The Open Scholarship Initiative <
> osi2016...@googlegroups.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly
> Communi

[GOAL] Radical Open Access Collective

[Samuel Moore]

Dear all,

We’d like to share with you the new Radical Open Access Collective website,
which has just launched:
<http://radicaloa.co.uk>
<http://radicaloa.co.uk>
<http://radicaloa.co.uk> <http://radicaloa.disruptivemedia.org.uk/>
http://radicaloa.co.uk

Formed in 2015, the Radical OA Collective is a community of scholar-led,
not-for-profit presses, journals and other open access projects in the
humanities and social sciences. We represent an alternative open access
ecosystem and seek to create a different future for open access, one based
on experimenting with not-for-profit and scholar-led approaches to
publishing. You can read more about the philosophy behind the collective
here: http://radicaloa.disruptivemedia.org.uk/philosophy/

As a collective, we offer mutual reliance and support for each other’s
projects by sharing the knowledge and resources we have acquired. Through
our projects <http://radicaloa.disruptivemedia.org.uk/current-projects/> we
also aim to provide advice, support and encouragement to academics and
other not-for-profit entities interested in setting up their own publishing
initiatives. The current website contains a Directory
<http://radicaloa.disruptivemedia.org.uk/directory/> of academic-led
presses, which showcases the breadth and rich diversity in scholar-led
presses currently operating in an international context and across numerous
fields, and an Information Portal
<http://radicaloa.disruptivemedia.org.uk/resources/> with links to
resources on funding opportunities for open access books, open source
publishing tools, guidelines on editing standards, ethical publishing and
diversity in publishing, and OA literature useful to not-for-profit
publishing endeavours. We will be further developing this into a toolkit
for open access publishing in order to encourage and support others to
start their own publishing projects.

If you run a scholar-led OA publishing initiative or are interested in
starting your own, we encourage you to join the Radical OA mailing list
<https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=RADICALOPENACCESS> and get
involved with the discussion!

Please do get in touch if you would like further information on the project
or would like your scholar-led publishing project to be involved.

Sam

(On behalf of The Radical Open Access Collective)

Samuel Moore
PhD Candidate, Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London
@samoore_ <https://twitter.com/samoore_>
http://scholarlyskywritings.wordpress.com/
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal