What concepts, ideas and examples from this text contribute to the theory and practice of archive ethnography?
Adema describes “radical open access” as a “process of continual critique” (p. 6) that is not confined to one definition or object, but is rather an “ongoing collective and critical project” made up of various “groups, peoples, institutions, and projects” (p. 13) striving to use open access as an alternative to the current neoblieral model promoted by the academic publishing industry. However, in analyzing present alternative models of open access, the author finds some commonalities between the projects: 1) They offer practical and affirmative engagement with open access: providing open access to their research is central to their publishing practices. 2) Their openness allows for collaboration and community building and engagement. 3) They serve to question the (commericial) academic system of publishing (pp. 16-17). Overall, this multi-faceted and "open" concept of "radical open access," can help archival ethnographic scholars explore the various ways they can construct alternative spaces via digital archives, which both challenge neoliberal norms and facilitate community-based collaboration and knowledge sharing, making knowledge production less of a commodity and, instead, more of a community building project.
What evidence or examples support the main argument, narrative or e/affect?
The author provides examples of how different scholars are using open source/access platforms to develop and/or share their work with other scholars and the public such as the Open Humanities Press (OHP), Ted Stripha’s Differences and Reptitions wiki, and Kathleen Fitzpatrick’s experiment with open peer review for her book through her site MediaCommons.
Exemplary quotes or images?
I really liked the way the author uses Balibar’s conceptualization of democracy as an ongoing process to describe radical open access as “not as a homogenous project striving to become a dominant model or force, not as a thing, an object, or a model with prescribed meaning or ideology, but as a project with an unknown outcome, as an ongoing series of critical struggles” (p. 20).
What questions or types of analysis does this text suggest for your own work?
The chapter made me think about how I could use some of these open access platforms to both develop and receive feedback on my writing or projects. It also made me reconsider how “openess” in terms of collaboration and data sharing can help structure my research process in a way that can serve to challenge the dominant neoliberal norms within academia.
The author reevaluates the concept of “openness” and the ways scholars can arrive at different different definitions and uses of it in terms of sharing their work and the alternative means it can produce to challenge the neoliberal norms dominating universities, the publishing industry, and academia in general.