What does the term ‘open scholar’ actually mean? It seems that the traditionally scholar has undergone a transformation with the rise of digital and networked technologies. These technologies have brought about opportunities for researching, collecting, categorizing and managing information as well as publishing, disseminating and reviewing papers – digital and networked technologies have led to the evolution of a digital scholarship.
The term digital scholarship is often used synonymously with the term ‘open scholarship’. In their paper Assumptions and Challenges of Open Scholarship, Veletsianos and Kimmons name open access and open publishing, open education, and networked participation as key components of open scholarship. They further inquire some implicit assumptions that often underlie open scholarship.
What are these assumptions and in how far do I agree with them?
1) “open scholarship has a strong ideological basis rooted in an ethical pursuit for democratization, fundamental human rights, equality, and justice.”
In discussions regarding copyright issues, I often rely on this argument myself. When colleagues refrain from publishing their work under Creative Commons licenses because they are concerned it could be used to their disadvantage, it is always tempting to mention fundamental values like democratisation, participation, equality. These basic values are core elements of scholarship, as I understand it.
I personally still believe that technology can be used to strengthen equality and participation. However, we need to be aware of its inherent potentials of abuse. OER for example can help overcome certain barriers to education, but they might also introduce an additional ‘digital divide’. They require specific skills and knowhow and might therefore strengthen already established elites with its exclusive power to create, accredit, certify and transfer knowledge (Lane (2009). Which relates to George Veletsianos and Royce Kimmons second assumption:
2) “open scholarship emphasizes the importance of digital participation for enhanced scholarly outcomes.”
If this is primarily understood in terms of quantity and efficiency – digital participation allows for more interaction and collaboration with more other scholars, which automatically leads to better outcomes – I am very sceptical. However, a fruitful exchange requires a common understanding of its social, cultural, technical, etc. environment and there can be no doubt that digital environments are increasingly important. Again, these digital environments provide many opportunities if one understands its workings and has the necessary digital literacies and skills. This means one has to put enough time and energy into constantly developing them in order to keep up with technological innovation. I personally find this interesting but also challenging, especially because there is no other choice, it seems to me. Which leads to the third assumption regarding
3) the co-evolutionary relationship between technology and culture
If I wish to participate, I need to remain active not only in my field of expertise but also and increasingly so in the technology-driven media interaction and collaboration is taking place. I not only need the necessary skills and cultural knowledge, I also need to reflect the algorithms and embedded values of social media, search engines, and other tools I use. This again I can do to a certain degree only, which means technology influences my access to information and my interaction with other people in ways I am not fully aware. Therefore I believe that current predominant techno-enthusiasm has put technology in the lead of the co-evolutionary relationship with culture.
4) “open scholarship is seen as a practical and effective means for achieving scholarly aims that are socially valuable”
I find this last assumption especially interesting. It is linked to the first assumption regarding aims of scholarship – which I agree with – but focuses on the means to achieve them. I am much more sceptical regarding this latter assumption. Without doubt, open access, open publishing, open education, networked participation – core elements of open scholarship – can be achieved more effectively, or are even only possible, relying on respective technology. However, as Veletsianos and Kimmons describe, they open the door to new dilemmas. I just had a look at the new discussion platform Kialo, which claims to enable anyone to participate in a debate on any topic. At a first glance I got the impression that this tool fosters a simplistic pro and contra structure, binary thinking and decision-making by sheer quantity of argument – certainly no aims that are scholarly socially valuable.
American Council of Learned Societies Commission on Cyberinfrastructure for the Humanities & Social Sciences (2006) What is digital scholarship? Connexions [online]. Available at http://cnx.org/ contents/ 3e6519f7-9f9a-4060-a5af-567a8e959f2c@1 (Last accessed 16 May 2018).
Lane, A. (2009). The Impact of Openness on Bridging Educational Digital Divides. The International Review Of Research In Open And Distributed Learning, 10(5). doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i5.637