The author argues for the need to focus on "alternative book-historical genealogies" i.e academic publishing itself, in order to draw attention to the technological, economical, and institutional factors that "both a product and a value-laden object of knowledge exchange within academia".
In her discussion on these alternatives, Janneke argues that they are primarily focused on two aspects of reimagining the future of academic publications:
1. Focusing on the institutional and material aspects of publication as a practice
2. Focusing on the writer and their work and publishing practices.
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.
In this chapter, Janneke explores recently developed alternatives to academic publishing as it is presently structured. Some of these alternatives are focused on increasing equitable access and raising questions about the “material nature of books, authorship, copyright, originality, responsibility, and fixity” (159). Janneke approaches these alternatives as part of their strategy of experimenting with and re-imagining the future of the scholarly book. They offer two strategies for intervening in current cultures of knowledge production and re-imagining the book: one focused on the institutions and modes of material production relevant to the book, and the other focused on scholars’ own research, communication, and publishing practices. In offering these strategies, Janneke draws distinctions between neoliberal visions of open access (attached to the notion of innovation) and radical open access (attached to the idea of experimentation).
“Experimenting is very much an affirmative speculative practice, a means to reperform our existing scholarly institutions and practices in potentially more ethical and responsible ways; opening up spaces for otherness and differentiation beyond our hegemonic conceptual knowledge frameworks; and exploring more inclusive forms of knowledge, open to ambivalence and failure" (Janneke, 2021:159).
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.”
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.