The idea that computer networks are inherently democratic and democratising has roots in the counterculture that emerged in the San Francisco Bay Area in the 1960s. The Californian Ideology combined personal liberty with market deregulation. Industry leaders espoused values that anyone could embrace: The values that these companies touted as intrinsic goods – openness, connectivity, deregulation – were also the operating principles that made their owners rich.
... which leads me (along with some other reasons) to question #openacess, #openped, #openedu, #open -ness in general. It seems we focus almost exclusively on the access angle, and less on the creation side. Sure, in most cases more access is A Good Thing™. But there are also times when it leads to self-censorship and mistrust. And then there are the costs to the creators and the expectations that unprivileged people can just give away their labour. Such expectations are elitist and exploitive.
@thelibrarian Other people writing about this: Fred Turner, Brooke Duffy, and... yours truly
@thelibrarian the anthropologist Marilyn Strathern talks about this in the Tyranny of Transparency
@thelibrarian Those are really good worries.
I think we can separate the question of open access and getting paid though. You can have a job writing FLOSS software, or producing CC teaching material.
My concern is mostly with social or course obligations in #highed . So the expectation that adjunct faculty, graduate students, or underprivileged students contribute their uncompensated time or give up their moral/legal ownership rights is what I worry about. If you're paid (fairly) or choose to donate your time, than great, thanks for contributing!
@thelibrarian Yes, that's a legitimate problem.
@thelibrarian Have you read any Neil Selwyn, particularly Distrusting Educational Technology? He wrote quote a bit about the two-tiered system that can arise for folks with less money and access who want to get educated due to unequal standards applied to open ed vs traditional education. (This is a dreadfully shallow synopsis of his writing, I hope it makes sense.)
NOTICE: Registration on scholar.social is open to anyone who is willing to abide by our Community Standards. Email scholar dot social at protonmail dot com if you want an invite!
Scholar Social is a microblogging platform for researchers, grad students, librarians, archivists, undergrads, academically inclined high schoolers, educators of all levels, journal editors, research assistants, professors, administrators—anyone involved in academia who is willing to engage with others respectfully.
We strive to be a safe space for queer people and other minorities in academia, recognizing that there can only be academic freedom where the existence and validity of interlocutors' identities is taken as axiomatic.
"An academic microblog that you can be proud to put on the last slide of a presentation at a conference"
(Participation is, of course, optional)
Scholar Social features a monthly "official" journal club, in which we try to read and comment on a paper of interest.
Any user of Scholar Social can suggest an article by sending the DOI by direct message to @email@example.com and one will be chosen by random lottery on the last day of the month. We ask that you only submit articles that are from *outside* your own field of study to try to ensure that the papers we read are accessible and interesting to non-experts.