Yana Gepshtein Annotations

Main argument, narrative, or effect

The author explores the concept of the book as a product of academic knowledge and the main mode of scholarly communication. The author explains that academic books are “developed into both a product and value-laden object of knowledge exchange within academia” (p. 2). The author emphasizes the need for alternative models which will increase equitable access to books and will challenge the nature of books as finite material “products of scholarly communications” (p. 3). 

Instead of viewing the book as a material object completed at a certain point in time, the author envisions it as an open platform that allows for the ongoing possibility for adding to the content of the book and for continuous openness to criticism. The author makes a distinction between 1) the book as a commodity, a fixed outcome that has contributed to “innovation,” and 2) the book as a platform for “experimentation” and the ongoing creation for knowledge.

What narratives and examples support the main narrative

The author conceptualizes openness as “being open to change and experimentation,” which is a process that allows “continuous critique” (p. 6). The author contrasts this  conceptualization of openness with the openness from the perspective of neoliberal discourse, which is based on the view of academic institutions as businesses in which  research outcomes are measured in terms of productivity and “impact agenda” that jointly determine funding opportunities. Within such a framework, openness of research will allow efficient and cost-effective access to knowledge, and will support institutional control of the process of research.

The author demonstrates how neoliberal discourse was upheld in the Report of the Working Group on Expanding Access to Published Research Findings (or “Finch Report,” 2012). The author describes how, in the context of the Finch Report, openness and transparency ultimately worked to preserve the status of research articles as a “commodified unit of exchange” (p. 10) that protected the interests of the publishing market. 

In contrast to the Finch Report, the author introduces an idea of radical open access to knowledge that aims to challenge “business ethics underlying innovations in the knowledge economy” (p. 12). The author emphasizes that this approach is dynamic and contextual. The idea is illustrated by presenting three scholarly works: Open Humanities Press (OHP, an open access publishing collective that consists of multiple scholarly communities), Differences & Repetitions wiki (a site for open source writing set up by Ted Stripha), and an open book “Planned Obsolescence” by Kethleen Fitzpatrick (published on a digital platform MediaCommonsPress and made available for open review and comments). One common feature of these projects is that they provide an alternative for market-driven publishing systems and offer a platform for “specialized, advanced, difficult or avant-garde” products (p. 17). In the example of Kathleen Fitzpatrick’s work, the openness to  “community-oriented” criticism of her work is an alternative to the conventional peer-review process.

The author emphasizes that inclusiveness of diverse forms of knowledge is essential in cultural studies. To illustrate this point, the author explains the difference between the concept of “experience” (as a source of subjective knowledge) and “experiment” (as objective knowledge generated by means of the scientific method). The distinction between knowledge through experience and experimental knowledge is the conceptual basis of the split between the objective and the subjective, the quantitative and the qualitative. A published book or paper can be viewed as a closed object with a beginning and an end, not unlike the knowledge generated under rigorous experimental conditions. An open-access book, as envisioned by the author, is a dynamic and ever-changing form of knowledge production with infinite possibilities and opportunities for growth. 

What questions and types of analysis does this text suggest for your own work?

The idea of inclusiveness of different kinds of knowledge is central to nursing science and midwifery. Clinical practice involves different kinds of knowledge: that based on the scientific method as well as that generated through experience of working with patients in different socio-cultural circumstances, in addition to intuitive knowledge, and other informal or implicit kinds of knowledge. Knowledge other than that based on scientific models is often referred to as “the art of nursing.” The latter is difficult to define, study and share. The reviewed paper has motivated me to think about open access as a way to bring inclusiveness into study of health practices.