I will preface this by saying that I struggled with this article because I found it to be abstract - dealing with broad ideas such as accessibility, neoliberalism, critical spaces, intellectual freedom, the intellectual public, trust, vulnerability, governance, and empowerment. It takes me repetition and being in conversation with others about the components in order for me to fully grasp the ideas. With that caveat: the author references their prior discussion of books (or the book-object), the development of the book as a commodity and as “a value-laden object of knowledge exchange within academia.” The article challenges the book as the traditional form of publishing within academia and provides discussion of the potential impact of new mediums. The author proclaims that without increasing openness and alternative methods of publishing, researchers are subject to and play a role in the capitalization of research. Alternatives to the traditional book were initiated through calls for open scholarship and open access, although meanings of “open access” are highly debated. While some connect open access to neoliberalism, the author proposes that radical open access facilitates critiques of those systems while acknowledging that in order for the model to gain more traction negative attitudes and perceptions about the new modality must be addressed. The author also addresses the “communicative power” of open politics using digital technologies and open access and the nuanced differences between “innovation” and “experimentation.”
I use the same preface in both of these annotations - please correct me if my understanding and internalization of the article is not representative of the author’s intentions. How I apply this article to the theory and practice of archive ethnography is once again through intentionality of the researcher. It makes practical sense to consider a contemporary digital platform to publish findings and archive data. However, the individual researcher must make a decision for themselves, using their personal orientation to their work and the community they study to publish in an open access space. As an archive ethnographer, one must resolve for themselves if their purpose is to contribute to academic discourse solely or if they would want to engage the broader community. Because data management is central to archive ethnography, the question of radical open access, open politics (the communicative power of the information), and the process of experimentation will be essential to each project. While I recognize that there are significant considerations regarding radical open access, the author demonstrates that there are researchers who are dedicated to shaping the platform and function to be secure, reflexive, and “intellectually reinvigorating”. If the community-subject is comfortable with the open access, it seems to make the most sense that the community should be able to access the work. The push against commercialization surfaces throughout the article and this feels especially related to archive ethnography as the researcher has the ability to position their work to be accessible to the communities that they study (which, in many cases, are not academics).