Open Access, Plan S and ‘Radically Liberatory’ Forms of Academic Freedom

Moore, Samuel

doi:10.1111/dech.12640

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Samuel Moore (2021) posited that academic freedom arguments against OA were biased toward a minority of researchers in the developed world and considered OA in terms of social justice. He concluded that OA "works towards a more socially just global university system that is emancipatory from the inequalities of neoliberal capitalism and helps foster collectivity, experimentation and care" (p. 11).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Challenging State of University Campus and Library Open Access Policies

Johnson

Dubinsky

2022

Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUCTION This research explores institutional and library open access policies at Carnegie Classification Doctoral Universities:Very High Research (R1) and High Research (R2) in the United States. METHODS This mixed methods study surveyed R1 and R2 universities and colleges to gather information about whether they have a formal Open Access (OA) Policy or Statement applying to the entire campus, and/or one that specifically applies to the institution's Library. An anonymous survey was followed up by interviews with a set of volunteer participants. RESULTS & DISCUSSION Variation in campus culture and governance structure meant the path from creation to adoption to implementation of a campus and/or library OA policy was similarly varied. The research reveals librarians’ motivations for and contributions to advancement of OA on their campuses, and sometimes also within their libraries.CONCLUSION: Many of the rationales driving adoption of campus OA policies similarly drive adoption of library-specific OA policies. Those surveyed whose institutions did have library-based OA policies referenced both alignment with institutional mission and values and the importance of leading by example.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Challenging State of University Campus and Library Open Access Policies

Johnson

Dubinsky

2022

Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…But such dialectics is a delicate model and it seems to be rather absent in the heated debate on academic freedom. Whether or not it is coercion or freedom: Plan S does not achieve to address issues of Global equality so that even progressive OA advocates show sympathies with the objections to Plan S (Moore, 2021). It is guided by a non-inclusive perspective, on a both disciplinary and Global level (Istratii and Demeter, 2020).…”

Section: Large-scale Transformations As Narrow Accessibility: Plan Smentioning

confidence: 99%

The Democratisation Myth

Knöchelmann

2021

S&TS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Open access (OA) in the Global North is considered to solve an accessibility problem in scholarly communication. But this accessibility is restricted to the consumption of knowledge. Epistemic injustices inhering in the scholarly communication of a global production of knowledge remain unchanged. This underscores that the commercial or big deal OA dominating Europe and North America have little revolutionary potential to democratise knowledge. Academia in the Global North, driven by politics of progressive neoliberalism, can even reinforce its hegemonic power by solidifying and legitimating contemporary hierarchies of scholarly communication through OA. In a critique of the notion of a democratisation of knowledge, I showcase manifestations of OA as either allowing consumption of existing discourse or as active participation of discourse in the making. The latter comes closer to being the basis for a democratisation of knowledge. I discuss this as I issue a threefold conceptualisation of epistemic injustices comprising of testimonial injustice, hermeneutical injustice, and epistemic objectification. As these injustices prevail, the notion of a democratisation of knowledge through OA is but another form of technological determinism that neglects the intricacies of culture and hegemony.

show abstract

“…We contend that scholars around the world should be free to choose communicative means for their/our work without concern for the pressures of academic evaluation regimes and/or the hegemonic ideologies of English. This position is grounded in the principles of academic freedom and linguistic human rights that do or should underpin scholarly work (Moore, 2021; Skutnabb-Kangas, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multilingualism in academic writing for publication: Putting English in its place

Curry

Lillis

2022

Lang. Teach.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We are living in an era characterized by multilingualism, global mobility, superdiversity (Blommaert, 2010), and digital communications. Mobility and multilingualism, however, have long characterized most geolinguistic contexts, including those where monolingual ideologies have influenced the formation of contemporary nation states (Cenoz, 2013). As language is a pillar of both curriculum and instruction, in many academic spaces around the world efforts are on the rise to acknowledge the colonial origins of English, decenter the dominance of Standard English(es), and decolonize knowledge production (e.g., Bhambra et al., 2018; de Sousa Santos, 2017). Additionally, many ‘inner circle’ (Kachru, 2001) Anglophone contexts have long witnessed the centrifugal forces of multilingualism. Yet what prevails in institutional academic contexts is a centripetal pull toward what has been captured in phrases such as ‘linguistic mononormativity’ (Blommaert & Horner, 2017) or ‘Anglonormativity’ (McKinney, 2017). Nowhere is this pull more evident than in the sphere of writing for publication, relentlessly construed as an ‘English Only’ space, as exemplified in Elnathan's (2021) claim in the journal Nature: ‘English is the international language of science, for better or for worse.’

show abstract

Open Access, Plan S and ‘Radically Liberatory’ Forms of Academic Freedom

Cited by 8 publications

References 7 publications

The Challenging State of University Campus and Library Open Access Policies

The Challenging State of University Campus and Library Open Access Policies

The Democratisation Myth

Multilingualism in academic writing for publication: Putting English in its place

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About