143 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
    1. As a result, in these ‘sneaky moments’ tech activist communities and social justice activist communities, ideally a natural match, come to oppose each other.

      I don't think they have proven this point, it seems like they have been trying to extend their argument further than it goes.

    2. sneaky momen

      This concept has gotten a bit lost in this article, I don't understand its relevance really

    3. This is a significant step away from the culture of secure communications. Practitioners participating in what can be called security design collectives will agree that ‘it takes a village to keep a tool secure’ and that security is a continuous ‘cat and mouse game.’ But this culture is lost on the campaign sites.

      Co-design is especially important in the context of security design

    4. co-designing alternative infrastructures

      So basically this is what they are arguing for: tools for secure communication should be co-designed with the communities for which they are intended. Seems quite obvious?

    5. fibreculturejournal.org FCJ-196 217 Miriyam Aouragh, Seda Gürses, Jara Rocha and Femke SneltingWhen our cultural-political ecosystems intensify or enter moments of agitation, then our relation to tools tends to fall into the paradigm of affordances. It does not matter how radical the political struggle is, people may succumb easily to work with the available. Dependency on the available plot of technological design is precisely what produces the conditions for a sneaky moment, at the risk of discarding very basic political, ethical, and aesthetic sensibilities. To make these residues of our sneaky moment more tangible, we turn to exploring the secure communication campaign sites.Designing the Divide Between Providers and UsersThe three campaign sites we have chosen are intended to mediate between the worlds of tech activists and social justice activists. We are interested in how they use language, design and tool-selection to bridge distances in knowledge, trust, and geography. If these projects are explicitly developed to communicate between agents that are not physically in the same space, how is a relationship of trust established? What do tech activists do to convince activists for social justice that they are on their side, and that the information and technologies provided are worth their trouble? And in the course of these relevant bridging and translation attempts, how do activists for social change find out if the provided tools are appropriate and safe for their situation? The three projects show similarities and also differences in their approach of how ‘us’ and ‘you’ are imagined.

      So basically it is just a study on tool developers and their users and how they can gauge each others needs better?

    6. To make these residues of our sneaky moment more tangible, we turn to exploring the secure communication campaign sites.

      Finally!

    7. The three campaign websites we survey are cultural artefacts, but they are also convivial spaces where various agencies co-habit with tools, discourses, and languages

      I like this phrasing

    8. When it comes to gender, race, age, class and geography diversity among individual tech activists is less noticeable. This lack of diversity has been criticised from within and outside of the community.

      Weird combination of sentences...

    9. These overlapping identities and positions often shift or are part of parallel lives; in other words, some respondents in our respective research cases consciously divide between their techno-engagements for which they get paid and their other political work that they do for activist or ideological reasons and requires technological expertise.

      Here they seem to acknolwedge the overlapping positions more but their point is that socio-technical practices create new divides in sneaky moments? It seems like we are already quite far into the article and I still don't really understand the issue, there is a lot of setting the scene and introduction happening here...

    10. It is at this juncture that the necessity and desire for a convergence between those ‘groups that wish to use the media instrumentally to draw attention to their political efforts versus those who wish to change the media system itself’ (Carroll and Hackett, 2006) became a matter of urgency. In response, a number of secure and private communication campaigns were launched or revamped, which also served to re-shape the delegation relationship between activists and this select group of technologists.

      Why a 'convergence'? It all sounds so heavy?

    11. We propose that the divide between those engaged in politics of technology and those participating in struggles of social justice are being reshaped during those ‘sneaky moments’ and we argue that this reconfiguration requires reflection.

      I am not quite sure I understand the 'divide' at this point, and how you can 'reshape a divide'.

  2. Mar 2021
    1. It builds relation and community, that is: possibility

      Building communities around books as fixed and static print entities will always remain problematic though, as the format/materiality of the book is already inscribed with this individualistic competitive 'writing-without'. So any writing with will also have to include the materiality of the book (as a specific agency).

    2. what is masked in the ‘ “convention” of publishing wherebyacademics put their own names to works’ is the extent to which it is ‘theproduct of a wider collectivity’

      Yes! This is why an acknowledgment of the multiple agencies in knowledge production is so important, but it is still only a gesture, an afterthought really.

    3. Engaging with inherited worlds by adding layersrather than by analytical disarticulation translates in an effort to ‘redescribesomething so that it becomes thicker than it first seems’

      I really like the idea of adding layers, but it still seems a bit disconnected? Annotating in hypothes.is could be perceived quite literally as an act of adding layers but it still takes place literally on another level.

  3. Feb 2021
    1. with a view to exploring the wider range ofOA models and infrastructures.

      I thought all these different OA models were just confusing ;)

    2. of a model so heavily influ-enced by the corporate interests OA sought to circumvent.

      The author needs to make their mind up on what it is OA activists are supposed to be arguing for. Previously their focus was solely on access, here to serve their argument their focus seems to have been on the profit imperative in schol com.

    3. and by others as rein-forcing the Northern-dominated publishing ecosystem of clicks and impactfactors by illicitly widening its market.

      Widening its market? That is an incredibly cynical view on piracy. So is not having access to in some cases life-saving research preferred then?

    4. Diamond OA may represent a wayfor societies to mark out a unique path to success in a way that a commercialenterprise that needs to satisfy shareholder value would be unable to match.Perhaps this is part of the future for society publishers’. Greater attentionto the ecosystems of scholarly associations and society journals, with theirnon-profit, cooperative commitment to the service of the scholarly commu-nity, may reveal natural allies for the OA movement within the ranks ofsubscription journals.

      These allyships are of course already being explored. Also with university presses for example.

    5. OA activists also tend to lumpsubscription journals together with profiteering publishers, collectively re-garded as enemies of OA.

      Again, such a generalisation!

    6. Many hard-line OA activists have put their shoul-der behind the gold OA initiatives driven by liberalizing governments, re-search funders and corporate publishers

      You really need to put some references here to who does OA activists are, and highlight that many OA activists actively critique this!

    7. The result has been apolicy paradox in which efforts to liberate scholarly publishing from the gripof corporate publishers has put corporate publishers at the centre of policydecisions about the design of OA

      I don't think this was ever the aim of most of the policy makers to be honest!

    8. The detachment of OA initiatives such as Plan S from Africanresearch realities is reflected in the willingness of research funders to financeAPCs for African researchers, but not the computer hardware, membershipfees or wifi connections that would allow them to participate in the digitalresearch fora their articles would feed into (Bezuidenhout et al., 2017: 45).

      This is a strong point.

    9. This special collection draws attention to the exis-tence of these alternative scholarly OA infrastructures, which often emanatefrom the global South and are geared to meet the varied needs and inter-ests of scholars in diverse and often low-resource environments.

      I do think this is creating unneccesary binaires here, many nfp open source solutions (such as probably the most well-know and most-used, OJS) emanate from the global north.

    10. Digital ecosystems for managing OA publishing tend to restrict partici-pation to those who can meet stringent technical conditions, ignoring localconstraints with regard to resources, capacity, infrastructure, or familiaritywith technical requirements.

      I do think this is an important point to make. Within COPIM we are therefore for example looking at minimal technical requirements as much as possible.

    11. for-profit and non-profit

      and open source vs proprietary?

    12. (Sagonowsky,2020; Sherkow et al., 2020; Wolitz, 2019; Wu, 2020)

      I am still not following this argument here, and are these references supposed to represent OA advocates? And what does this have to do with publishing?

    13. As Mirowski (2018: 178) notes,OA advocates insist that publicly funded academic research should be madeavailable for free, yet they raise no issue when publicly funded research isprivatized by corporations, and sold back to the public for substantial profits.

      This makes no sense, that is exactly what OA advocates insist on...

    14. Thisallows ‘better resourced researchers in the [global] North who have superiorcomputing facilities to mine and analyse data’ of Southern scholars, and topublish the results themselves, as well as to translate or republish an articlefor sale in any context without the author’s permission or oversight

      So we shouldn't have any data-mining then at all? What about global scholars data-mining global scholars works? There is also the argument that this is partly scare-mongering, rather than backed up by data. I do think there is a good argument to be made for CC BY-NC but I am not buying the no-derivatives stuff...

    15. and in scholarly and editorial infrastructure,drive developing-country scholars disproportionately into the arms of blackOA, as indicated in the contributions by Berger and by Sagemüller et al. inthis collection.

      I will have to read this article because this makes no sense at all...

    16. others argue that black OAexploits the epistemic exclusion of Southern scholars.

      ?!?

    17. Black OA refers to the OA un-derworld of predatory journals and pirate OA platforms like SciHub

      Ehm no, these are not the same! Black OA refers to piracy indeed, not to predatory journals. Please don't conflate the two...

    18. he unsavoury model

      OMG, what happened to not falling foul to ideological red herrings?

    19. Con-versely, gold OA relies on APCs, effectively shifting journals from a pay-to-read to a pay-to-publish model

      Noooo! Gold OA is not a business model!

    20. Yet, this distinctform of OA existed long before gold OA, and remains the model used by themajority of OA journals (Morrison and Rahman, 2020: 10). In 2013, only32 per cent of OA journals listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals(DOAJ) charged APCs (Fuchs and Sandoval, 2013). Despite widespreadpressures to adopt gold OA, to date over two-thirds of OA journals listedin DOAJ still do not charge APCs (Morrison, 2018).

      Aaargh I am going to stop now, too much wrongness here...

    21. refer todiamond OA as a new model (Normand, 2018; Raju, 2017).

      It is not a new model but a more recent (than gold OA) term.

    22. where as the Gold Route is seen as open only at theaccess end. (Wilson, 2007a; see also Tottossy and Antonielli, 2012; Wilson, 2010)

      Ugh, no, you are only making it worse here by adopting what it is usually promoted as being and which you at the same time critique!

    23. The shift in the name of the diamond/platinummodel only increases the confusion.

      It is not a shift in the name, Diamond and APC-based models are both forms of Gold OA.

    24. This obscures through definitional vagueness the vital issue ofwhether gold OA entails Article Processing Charges (APCs), which makearticles free to read, but not free to publish. It also effectively suppressesclear consideration of a pre-existing distinction between gold OA and

      No, this completely obscures the debate. Gold simply means published in OA by a press/publisher. Diamond was introduced to resolve the issue of people conflating Gold OA with APCs/BPCs. It was not a pre-existing distinction.

    25. wing to itsimmediate openness and removal of copyright barriers to sharing or re-use

      Green OA can allow all of these things too? Weird framing...

    26. with little attention

      I am really not buying all the 'little attention' narrative here, scholars have been writing about this for decades...

    27. urther muddled

      Why classify this as muddled instead of highlighting it as a healthy and diverse and ongoing debate on what OA is?

    28. but more questions need to be raised about whether they sharethe same interests

      I think it is quite clear that they don't, but I do like the focus here on all the forms of open-washing corporate publishers are doing.

    29. Profit margins of thetop corporate publishers have continued to rise even after the shift to OA,

      I don't think we have shifted to OA yet!

    30. Three historicalissues have been central to framing the OA debate: the history of scholarlyjournals, the digitization of scholarly publishing, and the journal pricingcrisis.

      I am really missing an 'as I will argue here'. Not that I necessarily disagree with this framing, but it is presented as a fact here when of course many different framings are possible.

    31. As high-lighted by Kamerlin et al. (this collection), academic journals date back over300 years, and evolved to structure knowledge sharing within non-profit,disciplinary frameworks of scholarly societies and academic bodies. Theirengagement with corporate publishers only emerged from the mid-20th cen-tury, amid academic funding cuts and corporate takeovers of smaller pub-lishers, particularly affecting the social sciences (Larivière et al., 2015).

      I do think this is common knowledge though. Also commercial interests have always played a role in journal publishing (see the struggle in the UK between the Stationers and the Royal Society (or the Crown) over the right to copy. I guess I need to have a closer look at the Kamerlin article!

    32. and internal norms of free scholarly content, andacademic labour for reviewing and editing provided to the journal free ofcharge.

      How is this not completely incorporated into the corporate publishing system too though? Scholarly Ecosystems as presented here don't stand outside of these systems

    33. that have informed thetrajectory of OA in scholarly publishing and development research.

      Here the approach seems to be a bit wider again...

    34. and ideological red herrings

      What is that supposed to mean? Is this article trying to be objective? it is good that the article is now being situated more clearly in the context of development research though, as the above more generalised observations didn't really hit the spot for me.

    35. Onthe other hand, in July 2020, public interest goals led the European ResearchCouncil (ERC) to withdraw from Plan S owing to its lack of attention to eq-uity concerns among less advantaged scholars and research communities(ERC, 2020).

      Interesting, I didn't know this was the reason for the ERC pulling out...

    36. for a few years across a range of scholarly communications blogsites

      For a few years? People have been blogging about this for decades now...

    1. Thisrequiressignificantintentionalityandcoordinationinordertoavoidafragmentedsystemoragrowthincentralization

      In other words: clear governance to say it in a less complicated way.

    2. (2)toadoptresearchassessmentmeasuresthatincentivizeresearcherstopublishinthesevenues.

      Huh? Above they are against bibliometrics of any kind it seems?

    3. 1)todevelopnew,sustainablefundingmodelsforadiverserangeofservicesandpublications

      I am not following this either: didn't they emphasise that the funding model used in LA (i.e. HE institutions supporting their academics in editorial roles as part of their job descriptions plus providing open source publishing infrastructure, is the way forward?

    4. developedcountries.

      Has this been written by someone else? Why are they changing from Global South and North terminology to developing and developed countries here? Very odd...

    5. Thepublishingsectorindevelopingcountrieshastheopportunitytooptimizeitsprocessestomakescientificcommunicationssustainableandcompetitive

      I don't understand this focus on competition here at this point?

    6. whiletheyappeartobetreatedasacommoditypronetocommercializationintheglobalNorth,inLatinAmerica,publishingisconceivedofasthecommunitysharingofpublicgoods (Debat and Babini, 2019).

      Yes, I love this approach and would add to it that publishing is seen as part of research, as something the academic community sees as their responsibility.

    7. paytopublish’models

      When outsourced to commercial publishers! This argument wouldn't count for let's say nfp presses using apcs and bpcs to support their publishing endeavours. (not a fan of APCs/Bpcs but just pointing out the generalisation here).

    8. Ofparticularconcernisthepotentialforalarge-scaleshiftfrom‘paytoaccess’to‘paytopublish’,throughwhatarecalledtransformationalagreements,whichcouldmeanthatresearchersindevelopingcountriesandless-resourceddomainsandinstitutionswillfinditevenmoredifficulttopublishtheirresearch

      Would have been interesting to draw this out much more, especially the national and regional nature of these transformational agreements, meaning that nationality is becoming defining perhaps more than ever towards what can be published in what way.

    9. sincetheBudapestOpenAccessInitiativeDeclarationin2002

      Why have the BBB events as the starting point here for the OA movement, also given the much earlier OA genealogy within LA. Bit weird....

    10. Thisdemonstratestheneedforresearchassessmentsystemstomovebeyondpublication-basedmetrics,inwhichpublishingfromtheNorth—andparticularlyinfor-profitpublishingvenues—hasanadvantage,towardsamorecomprehensive assessment of the quality of research output

      We do have to recognise that the LA region (see Scielo) has adapted its own metrics and citation indexes too in response to the unequal scholcom system. Metrics have played a part there too.

    11. Morerecently,acoordinatedeffortemergedintheLatinAmericanregion,calledAmeliCA—acooperativeinfrastructureforscholarlypublishingandopensciencewithanon-profitpublishingmodelaimingtopreservetheopennature of scientific communications in Latin America.​

      Hmmm, interesting they formulate it like this here (following the binaries already introduced in this article). Elsewhere they argue AmeliCA offers services for the Global South and more recently they said also beyond that (and at some point I thought they were more of a partnering network, where they were partnering with OpenEdition etc. I think).

    12. InLatinAmerica,scholarlypublishingisbasedontheconceptof‘scienceasacommons’,thatis,inherentlyacademy-owned,non-profitandopenaccess

      Is this the case in the whole of LA though?

    13. Thus,scholarlycommunicationstodayfunctionsinacolonizedmanne

      I wouldn't say only today though, it has been set up like that from the start. It might be interesting to argue whether the rise in bibliometrics have increased this development, but up to now although I agree with the general ideas being posited here and I know evidence for them exists too, (and maybe this is controversial) but I feel that this article isn't showcasing a lot of evidence, which might have strengthened an argument which up to now seems to draw mainly on rhetoric.

    14. SpecialOpenAccessEditioninthejournal,DevelopmentandChange,however,waswithdrawnbytheauthorsduetounacceptablelicensingconditionsproposedbythepublisher

      Interesting that even for this one-off apparently OA special issue the publisher wasn't able to allow more liberal license conditions...

  4. Jan 2021
    1. a turn in the relation betweenthinking the political and acting politically.

      This is a quite interesting (though very specific) perspective on the idea of a turn

    2. In such positivity there is no possible exteriority to, andno substantive transfiguration of, a political power/knowledge relation that is always already established byhegemony.

      It is a self-perpetuating binary

    3. until there is a decolonization of the law of the Subject (that is,of identity thinking) there can be no decolonization at all.

      Decolonial posthuman anti-liberal critique? Are liberal humanism and identity thinking here unfairly conflated though?

    4. Given thecontinuity of its essentially criollista ground, there can be no actual “turn”, detour or deviance—no turning ourbacks on post-Independence regimes of representation—from within the decolonial variant of the subalternistturn.

      Yes, but in that sense can there ever be a real turn? I think similar critique has been coined to any perceived turn. Is a turn necessarily a departure or can it be a re-emphasising too? Granted, it is problematic if the previous traditions are not being recognised as influential.

    5. the People’

      very liberal humanist indeed

    6. Given itsclearly Christian and creole identitarian underpinnings, it appears at first glance that decolonial thought mightbe little more than an ontotheological response to the contemporary crisis of ontotheology

      Just saying it does not make this a clearly argued statement... It seems deliberately abstruse

    7. produced three discursive, methodological, and conceptual variants, which Iwill examine in more detail in the pages that follow. I will state from the outset, however, that it is myestimation that of the three variants, only one can be considered to be a “turn” in anything even approximatinga true sense

      This sounds a lot like the set-up of the Politics of the Commons article by Papadimitropoulos...

    8. acquire the potential forbroader practical and theoretical engagements.

      Such as?

    9. “FoundingStatement” (1993)

      Which is about what?

    10. result of a subalternist turn that first began in the early 1990s,when the Latin American Subaltern Studies Group was formed by a small group of Latin Americanists thatwas striving to grapple with the realities of an emergent post-Soviet order, and with the difficulty ofunderstanding the consequences for intellectual work on Latin America of an emerging transformation of theplanetary nomos.

      Here it is. Shame on whoever edited this...

    11. f the subalternist tur

      I know what the subaltern is, but what is the subalternist turn? Very confusing first paragraph...

  5. Dec 2020
    1. Instead of seeking to develop agreement and consensus around universal standards and technol-ogies of “openness,” time and space is necessary for policy makers, scholar activists, and concerned community members to develop collaborative imaginaries for more just and equitable knowledge infrastructures.

      Yes, this is something I argue for again and again too, but the 'standards' community is so powerful within the dominant and more technologist inclined OA discourses that it is hard to get this argument through...

    2. This is what de Sousa Santos calls practic-ing the sociology of absences: “whatever does not exist in our society is often actively produced as non- existent and we have to look into that reality.”

      This is what we struggle with within COPIM for example, as a very Global North situated project, which due to the localities of its researchers and the requirements of its funders has a specific Global North bias.

    3. The project therefore began to take openness not as a set of practices or technologies to follow, but rather, as a “state of mind or attitude” to be adopted primarily by individuals, and as a “methodology” to collaborate and work between diverse communities.

      I get the gist but not sure I understand the fundamental difference between 'set of practices' and 'methodology'.

    4. attempted to reclaim the concept of openness as an opportunity to redress aspects of the historic epistemic injustice they have faced.

      Would this not be a more interesting strategy than positing situated openness against openness, as I perceive the article doing here in the first section (or am I misreading this?). This is the strategy the ROAC also follows to some extend: to reclaim openness from its neoliberal usurpation.

    5. “research [needs to] begin and end with community problems, rather than with scientific problems.”

      Love this!

    6. Rather, these examples show how a careful negotiation of the degrees and conditions around openness can allow for the ideation of community-based mechanisms to address different forms of epistemic injustice

      I really like this as an alternative to the hardline 'definitions and minimum requirement' style of implementation of openness top-down funder and commercial publishers driven openness implies: see Plan S and its compliance regime for example.

    7. situated openness,7 which posits that “openness” needs to be contextualized in its particular history and envi-ronment to determine who benefits or who is at risk in an “open” system.

      This is such a strong concept, I am interested in how they put it in opposition to "openness" though instead of positing that that is how they perceive "openness". There is an interesting distancing happening here from "openness" which provides them the opportunity to dismiss much of "openness" (its discourse and practices) they don't like. Is that the best strategy though I wonder?

    8. What might epistemic injustice look like in an open system, and can openness promote epistemic justice?

      I think the first question is much more interesting to explore, the answer to the second question is clearly yes, so it is begging the question a bit.

    9. However, there is growing evidence that open research practices or “openness”— when decontextualized from their historical, political, and socioeconomic roots— rather than narrowing gaps, can amplify the over-representation of knowledge produced by Northern actors and institutions and further the exclusion of knowledge produced by marginalized groups. In other words, open systems may potentially replicate the very values and power imbalances that the movement initially sought to challenge.

      I don't think it is necessarily correct to argue that "openness" was ever an a-political concept, instrumentalised as a way to achieve greater access to knowledge. I feel that many within the OA movement have been aware from the start that "openness" is a highly politicised concept that indeed has the potential to achieve the goals listed here in the paragraph above, but also always has had the potential to do the opposite. You cannot simply take politics out of it and let the concept itself do all the heavy work.

  6. Nov 2020
    1. seem to be rather libertarian than Commons-based.

      This is quite interesting: where does the one become the other... Governance again seems key here.

    2. In this context, the role of the PPL or any democratic form of financialisation of the Commons like the ones described by Bollier is essential, since it could bring about a transvestment from capitalism to the Commons

      So hence it seems the author is siding with the reformist commons, the version he also spend most time engaging with...

    3. What the anti-capitalist version misses in comparison to the reformist is a ‘realistic’ plan of a transition from capitalism to the commons

      I am finding most of this incredibly dense and I am not sure I am following the argument, but it seems that this article only spend very little time on the anti-capitalist commons, and has categorised them as inconsquential with respect to transition plans without given the actual texts/theories a lot of attention, which he does do in the other two sections. The balance seems off here and hence I am not sure I trust his analysis here...

    4. decentralised

      Is decentralised here offered as an alternative to 'local'?

    5. They break the limits of time and space

      Here the focus seems to return to a space-based definition again...

    6. local Commons, which are governed by a stable community of individuals interacting often and knowing each other

      If this is the definition of a 'local commons', i.e. not defined by space but by relationality, I wonder how the digital commons does actually depend for a large part on the care and maintenance of local Commons/communities.

    7. grounded on a political theory

      Now it is a political theory...

    8. It is argued that the Commons favour decentralisation over central control, self-governance over hierarchical management, access over property, transparency over privacy, distribution of value over profit maximisation, sustainability over growth at all costs

      That's a lot of binaries....

    9. economic paradigm

      Is the Commons an economic paradigm?

  7. Jul 2020
    1. Commoners think first not of title deeds, but of human deeds: how will this land be tilled? Does it require manuring? What grows there? They begin to explore. You might call it a natural attitude

      Elements of care related to commoning.

    2. Wooded commons: owned by one person, but used by others, the commoners. Usually the soil belonged to the lord while grazing belonged to the commoners, and the trees to either—timber to the lord, and wood to commoners.

      (re)use rights vs. ownership rights. What about public ownership?

    3. oakmen.” This is a personification of the massive trunks and small crowns of the ancient oaks of Staverton

      Interesting: what is the relationship between oakmen and freemen? Exploitation vs. rights?

    4. “the forest had greater riches to offer

      The forest as resource

    5. It refers to the common rights of the forest.

      Would be interesting to explore how the notion of 'commoner' can be expanded here. Of course it refers to 'freemen' here, but can this be stretched to non-human elements: the forest as ecosystem of human and non-human life forms? What indeed about the rights of the forest.

    6. See also Terisa E. Turner and Leigh S. Brownhill, eds., “Gender, Feminism and the Civil Commons,” Canadian Journal of Development Studies 22 (2001), a significant collection of articles

      Might be interesting to read at some point too?

    7. Christian Europe

      Would be interesting to explore other global commons/commoning traditions

  8. Mar 2017
    1. If there were continualstability, there would be no need for politics, and it is to the extent thatstability is not natural, essential or substantial, that politics exists andethics is possible.
  9. Dec 2016
    1. shifts the emphasis from acknowledgement of and attention to material conditions and structures towards analysis of the production of a text, program, or other interpretative event
    2. Performative materiality suggests that what something is has to be understood in terms of what it does, how it works within machinic, systemic, and cultural domains.
    3. Performative materiality is based on the conviction that a system should be understood by what it does, not only how it is structured
    1. technotext

      As a term, performative publications have a lot in common with Katherine Hayles’s concept ‘technotexts’. In her book Writing Machines (itself a technotext, beautifully designed by Anne Burdick in a hybrid print and ‘webtake’ version) Hayles introduces the term technotext as an relative and alternative to concepts such as hypertext and cybertext. She defines a technotext as something that comes about ‘when a literary work interrogates the inscription technology that produces it’ (Hayles 2002, 25) and elsewhere as ‘a book that embodies its own critical concepts (Hayles 2002, 140)’. In Writing Machines Hayles then goes on to analyse 3 technotexts, Talan Memmott’s work of electronic literature Lexia to Perplexia (2000), Tom Phillips artist’s book A Humument (1970), and Mark Z. Danielewski’s novel House of Leaves (2000).

    2. In this respect this project wants to emphasise that we should have more in depth discussions about the way we do research.

      Scholarly poethics is what connects the 'doing' of scholarship with the ethical components of research. Here, ethics and poetics are entangled and an ethical engagement is already from the start involved in the production of scholarship, it informs our scholarship. Whilst formulating a narrative around the idea of a scholarly poetics—what it would look like, what it could mean, imply and do and, perhaps most importantly, what it could potentially achieve—in relation to our publishing practices, I want to argue that we should pay more attention to how we craft our own poetics as scholars.

      Just as we have internal discussions about the contents of our scholarship, about the methodologies, theories and politics we use to give meaning and structure to our research, we should similarly have these kinds of discussions about the way we do research. Thus we should also be focusing on the medial forms, the formats and the graphic space in and through which we communicate and perform scholarship (and the discourses that surround these), as well as the structures and institutions that shape and determine our scholarly practices. This ‘contextual’ discussion, focusing on the materiality of our (textual) scholarship and its material modes of production, is and should not in any way be separate from a discussion on the contents of our work. The way we do scholarship informs its ‘outcomes’, what scholarship looks like. It informs the kinds of methodologies, theories and politics we can choose from, and of course, vice versa, these again shape the way we perform our scholarship. A focus on scholarly poethics might therefore be useful in bridging the context/content divide.

      So what then is the altered status of a (digital) scholarly poethics today? Which theoretical streams, disciplinary fields, and schools of thought (inside and outside of academia, connecting the arts and the humanities) have specifically incorporated attention to the practices and performances of scholarship and this internal/external divide? Here it would be useful to look to fields such as design, poetry, science and technology studies (STS), feminist theory, the (radical) open access movement, and—in some instances the digital humanities and in cultural and literary studies—where the way we conduct scholarship can be seen to have been at the forefront of academic inquiries. What can we learn from these discussions and how can we add to and expand them to enrich our understanding of what a scholarly poethics could be(come)? As I envision it a scholarly poethics is not one thing, not a specific prescriptive methodology or way of doing scholarship, it is a plural and evolving process in which content and context co-develop. Scholarly poethics thus focuses on the abundant, and continuously changing material-discursive attitudes towards scholarly practices, research, communication media (text/film/audio) and institutions.

    3. the materiality of our (textual) scholarship and its material modes of production, is and should not in any way be separate from a discussion on the content of our work.

      If performative publications are the material expressions or incarnations of specific research projects and processes, entangled with them are various other agencies of production and constraint (i.e. technological, authorial, cultural and discursive agencies, to name just a few). What I want to argue is that performative publications as a specific subset of publications actively interrogate how to align more closely the material form of a publication with its content (in other words, where all publications are performative—i.e. they are knowledge shaping, active agents involved in knowledge production—not all publications are 'performative publications', in the sense that they actively interrogate or experiment with this relation between content and materiality —similar to artist books). Yet in addition to this there is also an openness towards the ongoing interaction between materiality and content which includes entanglements with other agencies, and material forms of constraint and possibility.

      This concern for the materiality and form of our publications (and directly related to that the material production and political economy that surrounds a publication) is not a response to what elsewhere as part of a critique of certain tendencies within the field of new materialism is seen as a reaction to ‘the linguistic turn’ (Bruining 2013). On the contrary, I see this as a more direct reaction against perspectives on the digital which perceive digital text as disembodied and as a freeing of data from its material constraints as part of a conversion to a digital environment. However, content cannot be separated that easily from its material manifestations, as many theorist within the digital humanities have already argued (i.e. Hayles, Drucker). Alan Liu classifies this 'database' rhetoric of dematerialization as a religion that is characterised by 'an ideology of strict division between content and presentation' where content is separated from material instantiation or formal presentation as part of an aesthetics of network production and consumption (Liu 2004, 62).

    4. A performative publication wants to explore how we can bring together and align more closely the material form of a publication with its content.

      Liberature is a term, concept and genre coined in 1999 by the Polish avant-garde poet Zenon Fajfer, and further developed by his collaborator: literary scholar and theorist Katarzyna Bazarnik. Liberature is literature in the form of the book. Bazarnik and Fajfer define liberature as ‘a literary genre that integrates text and its material foundation into a meaningful whole' (Bazarnik and Fajfer 2010, 1). In the introduction to Fajfer’s collected essays, Bazarnik describes liberature as literary works in which the artistic message is transmitted not only through the verbal medium, but also through the author ‘speaking’ via the book as a whole (Bazarnik 2010, 7). Liberature is therefore a total approach that reaches beyond the linguistic medium, where the material form of the work is essential to its understanding and forms an organic element of the (inseparable) whole. Both Fajfer and Bazarnik emphasise that in liberature, the material book is no longer a neutral container for a text, but becomes an integral component of the literary work.

      Katarzyna Bazarnik, Zenon Fajfer, Oka-leczenie [Eyes-ore] (2000), Liberatura vol. 8, Kraków: Korporacja Ha!art, 2009.

    5. A performative publication wants to explore how we can bring together and align more closely the material form of a publication with its content.

      Fajfer and Bazarnik make some interesting observations on how in liberature the book does not contain the work, it is the work. In this sense they don’t see the material book as a representation of the work but as something that actively shapes and determines the work.

      Their focus on liberatic works is both a reaction to a previous literary context and a plea to authors to take responsibility for the future becoming of literature. First of all, as a specific response in a Polish context (but more wider too), it rallies against literary traditions that see the materiality of the book as non-significant, that classify literature as ‘disembodied’. As Bazarnik and Fajfer state:

      If I emphasise this bodily, material aspect so much, it is because Polish literary studies seem still dominated by scholars indebted to Roman Ingarden, a Polish philosopher who ventured into literary studies to produce a highly influential theory of the literary work of art in which he denied its “material foundation” (as he called it) any significance. It was to be passed over and not interfere with reading (Fajfer and Bazarnik 2010).

      Secondly, they present liberature as a way out of the ‘crisis of contemporary literature’, which they say has its roots in the continued focus on the text and its meaning, while neglecting the physical shape and structure of the book. This is delimiting the creative possibilities for the author, they claim. As Fajfer writes:

      I believe that it is his responsibility to consider the physical shape of the book and all the matters entailed, just as he considers the text (if not to the same extent, he should at least bear them in mind). The shape of the book should not be determined by generally accepted conventions but result from the author’s autonomous decision just as actions of his characters and the choice of words originate from him (Fajfer 2010, 25).

    6. This website and the accompanying posters have been designed by Nabaa Baqir, Mila Spasova and Serhan Curti, 2nd year design students at Coventry University, as part of a project on performative publications run by Janneke Adema. They offer a different take on the article 'The political nature of the book. On artists' books and radical open access', written by Janneke Adema and Gary Hall and originally published in the journal New Formations.

      I would like to further extend this practice-based project, both theoretically and practically, by discussing the genealogy and correlations of ‘performative publishing’ with ideas such as ‘technotext’ (Hayles), ‘performative materiality’ (Drucker) and ‘liberature’ (Fajfer), and the ethical and political challenges towards academic publishing these kind of concepts and practices pose.

    7. ABOUT

      This article for The disrupted Journal of Media Practice focuses on performative publications and is itself at the same time a performative publication. Written in Hypothes.is this article will hinge upon specific aspects, fragments, and concepts of the original performative project that it engages, entangling the community’s engagements along the way.

    1. I would like to further extend this practice-based project both theoretically and practically, by discussing the genealogy and correlations of ‘performative publishing’ with ideas such as ‘technotext’ (Hayles), ‘performative materiality’ (Drucker) and ‘liberature’ (Fajfer), alongside other projects and practices. As part of this I would like to explore the ethical and political challenges towards academic publishing these kind of concepts and practices pose. By using hypothes.is—an open source software/browser extension that enables an annotation layer on top of websites and online files and objects—which for this special disrupted issue of the Journal of Media Practice functions as a way to enable conversations around its processual papers, I would like to draw in these conversations around performative publications by directly setting up a dialogue with various theorists and the works, concepts, practices and values that connect to both this project and to performative publications as I envision them more in general.

  10. Oct 2016
    1. My incli-nation is to respond by identifying a certain poetics of responsibilitywith the courage of the swerve, the project of the wager—what I call apoethical attitude.
    1. Can this text become the margin of a margin?Where has the body of the text gone when themargin is no longer a secondary virginity but aninexhaustible reserve, the stereographic activity ofan entirely other ear?
    1. What Poster is sug-gesting, by contrast, is that, in order to understand the politics of the Internet we need to remain open to the possibility of a form of politics that is “something other than democracy” as we can currently
    2. Instead of developing new, singular, or at least specifi c theories of the politics of new media, critics have for the most part tended to understand digital politics in terms of already decided and legitimated theories and ideas.
    1. Christopher P. Long.

      For Long performative publications are directly connected to the idea of practice, where following the concept of performativity, he argues that ideas should be put to practice, where practice can further inform and enrich ones ideas again. Long applies these values directly to several of his own performative projects. In his book The Socratic and Platonic Politics: Practicing a Politics of Reading, he shows how Socratic philosophy and Platonic writing was designed to cultivate dialogue and community. By digitally enhancing his publication, Long explores how writing and reading can promote community in a digital context, in specific a community of collaborative readers. As Long argues:

      If, however, the book is not to be a mere abstract academic exercise, it will need to be published in a way that performs and enables the politics of collaborative reading for which it argues. (Long 2012)

      https://youtu.be/-f9N1n-4cI8

      A further extension of this project is a podcast series titled Digital Dialogue which aims to cultivate dialogue in a digital age by engaging other scholars in open conversation online. Long is also involved in the Public Philosophy Journal project, which is specifically set up to crawl the web to find diverse positions on various philosophical subjects and to bring these together in a collaborative writing setting. As Long explains:

      The PPJ is designed to crawl the web, listening for conversations in which philosophical ideas and approaches are brought to bear on a wide variety of issues of public concern. Once these conversations are curated and a select number chosen for further development, we will invite participants into a space of collaborative writing so they can work their ideas up into a more fully formulated scholarly article or digital artifact. (Chris Long 2013)

    1. The PPJ is designed to crawl the web, listening for conversations in which philosophical ideas and approaches are brought to bear on a wide variety of issues of public concern. Once these conversations are curated and a select number chosen for further development, we will invite participants into a space of collaborative writing so they can work their ideas up into a more fully formulated scholarly article or digital artifact.
    1. If, however, the book is not to be a mere abstract academic exercise, it will need to be published in a way that performs and enables the politics of collaborative reading for which it argues
    1. book, which they have ignored so far. This is, I believe, the only way of saving hardcopy books from obliteration by electronic media.
    2. The book (from Latin “liber”) is a part of the work; its physical shape and structure constitute its integral part. So it is not easy to take out the text and place it in the virtual space since in the liberatic work the space in which words are con-tained is not neutral.
    3. However, there is no reason for constraining oneself to the traditional form of the codex.The work can assume any shape at all and be made of any material
    4. Otherwise, one would have to agree with Raymond Federman and admit that one shares the au‑thorship of one’s masterpieces with the editor, typesetter, and man‑uscript reviser; and what writer would like to do that?
    5. I believe that it is his responsibility to consider the physical shape of the book and all the matters entailed, just as he considers the text (if not to the same extent, he should at least bear them in mind). The shape of the book should not be determined by generally accepted conventions but result from the author’s autonomous decision just as actions of his characters and the choice of words originate from him.
    6. There are literary works in which the artistic message is transmitted not only through the verbal medium, but also through the author “speaking” via book as a whole.
    1. So the concept of “liberature” grew out of Oka-leczenie, the book we labelled assuch, partly in order to avoid the term “the artists' book”. We had to come up with anappropriate term to describe it, or to give critics an appropriate tool to handle it if wewanted them to take it seriously. Otherwise, it would have been labelled “the artists'book” or a typographic happening, as someone called it, and relegated to the margins ofliterature. Instead of getting to libraries and bookshops, it would have ended up ingalleries and exhibitions. But we wanted it to be read. Our priority in writing anddesigning it was not to make it visually appealing, but to find an appropriate form thatwould suit its subject:
    2. In preparing each publication we pay special attention to the author's intentions,trying to establish or restore the original layout usually ruined by editors who, strange asit may seem, usually disregard the author's design.
    3. it is the writer who intentionally shapes the form of the book to suit the text.
    4. If I emphasise this bodily, material aspect so much, it is because Polish literarystudies seem still dominated by scholars indebted to Roman Ingarden, a Polishphilosopher who ventured into literary studies to produce a highly influential theory ofthe literary work of art6 in which he denied its “material foundation” (as he called it)any significance. It was to be passed over and not interfere with reading.
    5. The talk traces the development of liberature (Polish liberatura, fromLatin liber, i.e. 'book'), a literary genre that integrates text and its material foundation into a meaningfulwhole
    1. In spite of the networked condition of textual produc-tion, the design of digital platforms for daily use has hardly begun to accommodate the imaginative possibilities of con -stellationary composition, graphic interpretation, and dia-grammatic writing. We may use mind mapping or other schematic approaches to outline a plan, sketch an argument, organize information flows, or do other tasks that abstract process into graphic forms. We may read through our links and click trails, follow our associations of thought in tracking one thing after another through browsers and faceted search-ing. But very few acts of composition are diagrammatic, con -stellationary, or associative. Fewer are visual or spatial. The predominant modes of composition in digital displays have remained quite linear, even when they have combinatoric or modular underpinnings.
    1. What is certain is that poetics in general, and narratology in particular, must not limit itself to accounting for existing forms or themes. It must also explore the field of what is possible or even impossible without pausing too long at that frontier the mapping out of which is not its job. Until now, critics have done no more than interpret literature. Transforming is now the task at hand. That is certainly not the business of theoreticians alone; their role is no doubt negligible. Still, what would theory be worth if it were not also good for inventing practice?

      (Genette 1988, 157)

  11. Sep 2016
    1. Within the digital world, the cost of publishing and distribution drops dramatically (not to zero, but much closer than ever before)

      Is this true within an academic publishing context? First copy costs remain substantially high: editing, review, typesetting, server and band with costs, marketing etc. are still part of a digital only model. One thing that is important to explore though is what these first copy costs consist off in a digital context, to explore from there what the profit margin is that publishers put on top (plus cost for printing etc.). This could lead to the development of perhaps a more fair and transparent system based on actual costs. For books the OAPEN-NL project tried to do exactly this: https://openreflections.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/oapen-nl-final-report.pdf

    2. There is a fruitful argument for the cost of these more “traditional” publishing houses, as they spend a good amount of time with editing, formatting, and distribution (often in paper form)

      One of the complaints I hear more and more often from academics is that traditional publishing houses are actually no longer doing this work. Editing and formatting are increasingly outsourced to academics themselves (as are indexing etc.) and even marketing is something publishers ask authors to so themselves using their social media profiles and academic brands. This is one of the issues many scholar-led publishing initiatives are trying to address, by highlighting for example the various processes that go into creating a scholarly publication and giving these due recognition. Mattering Press is at the forefront of this:https://www.matteringpress.org/

      http://www.csisponline.net/2014/06/18/from-openness-to-openings-reflections-on-the-experiments-in-knowledge-production-workshop/

    3. Unpaid Labor

      If this special issue of Ephemera ever comes out (I have been keeping an eye out for it but nothing as yet) it might be highly relevant for this discussion: http://www.ephemerajournal.org/content/labour-academia-0 Back issues of Ephemera do cover topics related to this discussion too though, so might be a relevant resource anyway (and OA!)

  12. Jul 2016
    1. disruptive if it remains behind a paywall?

      I would be interested to hear more about issues of academic labor in relationship to OA in specific. One of the issues that we continue to encounter in forms of what we have called more 'radical' open access practices, in specific academic-led projects and experimental publishing endeavours, is that the amount of free labour increases significantly (and this is of course what publishers traditionally offer to researchers, they facilitate many of the publishing processes). So, where there has been a call to only give one's free academic labour to NFP or open access initiatives (and not to Elsevier or Academia.edu for example), although this might be a more ethical use of academic labour, this does not solve the underlying issue of 'un(der)paid labor' in academia as such. So does this mean we need to work towards more recognition for the types of free labor academics do (from reviewing to editing, to board memberships, to what have you?) and to have this included more directly in impact statements etc. Or does this just lead to a further instrumentalisation of academic job specifications? Is there a tension here too between narratives that see this kind of work as part of an academic 'gift economy' versus those that stress 'free and un(der)paid labour'?

    1. possibilities

      One possibility of the blog as a research method might perhaps be that it aids in the creation of what I have called elsewhere 'differential publications'. In my own thesis, which made use of a research blog as part of its practical methodology, I used a blog to specifically highlight the processual and collaborative nature of research. A blog allowed me to do this better than traditional print-based (or email-based) forms of communication could in that respect. Yet, it also remains rather limited in what it can do as a medium, and blogs still tend to have a strong authorial voice, and remain limited in their collaborative and multimodal possibilities. Also see: http://www.openreflections.org/?page_id=45

    2. Can a researcher blog be considered a reliable and legitimate (triangulating) method of working?

      The research blog or blogging as a research method is an intriguing question indeed. But what makes a blog, or better said, the specific usage of a blog into a suitable scholarly 'method' -- for you and/or for others? A blog in itself is a medium/a publishing platform. A method then is a certain approach to a blog, how you implement it into research strategies. If you make the case for (a specific use of) a blog, what makes it a potentially more useful research method (for you and others) than, for example, methods based on the usage of other (print-based) media?

  13. Nov 2015
    1. A similar project that explores the potential and limits of POD is AND's Variable Format: 'a sample book, a model, a serial system that explores the technological margins of print on demand and how reading is informed by the materiality of the book object'.

      This project has been conceived by Lynn Harris, published by AND and designed by Åbäke with Pierre Pautler:

      http://www.andpublishing.org/variable-format/and-variable-format/