I’m currently organizing a series of events at my university
for Open Access Week (Oct 22-28), so my head is full of open access right now.
It is my sense that there isn’t a very high level of awareness about open
access or the many related issues in scholarly publishing at my institution, so
I’m creating a workshop for faculty that will be, I hope, both informative and
persuasive.
Luckily, fellow Bookaneer Althea, alerted me to a
piece by Marisa Ramírez in the most recent issue of the Journal of
Librarianship and Scholarly Communication. Ramírez relates a true story about a
doctor who wanted to distribute to other doctors an emergency room checklist
developed by researchers at another institution, but because the original authors
had signed away their copyrights when publishing the checklist it took months
and many emails and phone calls to receive permission to distribute it. The
doctor, when he finally received permission, was glad, but wondered how many
lives could’ve been saved if he had been able to distribute the checklist sooner.
It is a great and obviously compelling story about the real-life
impact of “locked” content, and the potential value of open access. How can you
argue with this? Open access saves lives!
However, these stories always leave me feeling bad for the other disciplines.
The impact of open access is not always (actually, rarely) about life and
death. In most cases, the effects of access to scholarship are less immediate,
but I believe still essential and life-changing (if not always life-saving).
The promise of open access is the same as the promise of
education. Research and scholarship are transformative because they expose us to
new ideas and change the way we think about the world. I still remember certain
transformative readings when I was in college: reading Tocqueville and Rousseau
changed the way I thought about citizenship and democracy; Amartya Sen haunted
my study of Political Science; and two radical feminists bookended my
undergraduate career, first an essay by Andrea Dworkin and finally a
commencement address by Angela Davis. These are just a few scholars, critics,
and theorists that have transformed or impacted the way I see the world, how I
interact with it, and really, who I am today. Now I have no idea how I accessed
these readers, through books or articles, in print or online. But, does it
matter? The point is, access to scholarship is transformative. Knowledge shared
and circulated is powerful. Knowledge kept under lock and key isn’t knowledge,
it is a secret. This is what open access is about, it is about sharing ideas
freely and the belief that more thought, more information, more knowledge make
the world better.
I bring this up, because while open access is much more
prevalent and less controversial in the sciences, there are still many
misunderstandings and reservations in other disciplines. Earlier this week, the
American Historical Association issued
a statement acknowledging the inequities of the current scholarly
publishing system, but also expressing concern over their perceptions of the
open access model. Others have addressed the AHA’s statement (here,
and here),
but it points to a real need for open access advocates to address the value of
OA in the social sciences and the humanities as well in the sciences.
As I write this I am very aware of the many elements of and
obstacles to changing the systems of scholarly publishing. The AHA is concerned
chiefly about the mechanics of open access publishing, and less about the
potential value. I have further thoughts about the diffusion of publishing in the
open access model, and the return of publishing to the purview of universities
and scholarly societies, but these are for a different blog post. For now, I
would like to reiterate that sharing scholarship freely and widely can have a profound
and lasting impact on our society, be it in the sciences or other fields. I
second Ramírez’s call:
As the 6th annual Open Access Week approaches, think about how you can tell your story so others understand “why OA?”.
I personally am thinking of stories in library science, in
women’s studies, in history, in political science, and in the many fields where
knowledge and scholarship have transformed my life.
Not much of an original contribution on my part, I admit, but as we continue to talk about the benefits and value of open access, I wonder how the different aspects of open-ness will be discussed and utilized--cf this new "How Open Is It?" guide: http://www.arl.org/sparc/bm~doc/howopenisit_open-review.pdf
ReplyDelete