rderly communication is effi-cient because it is cleansed not only of material interference but also of af-fect. Or, rather, it exercises its affective power to present itself as affectless, asthe measured civic exchange of the public sphere, which operates over andagainst the minor to reproduce an inside-outside division.
That's very much the positivist output-focused scholarship that is cherished in academia
Rather, it is a key element in the battle to save thehumanities from potential obsolescence.
This also was the core argument of early digital humanities... and yet, we're still here
or instance, we might imagine the scholar’s role as providing an “analytical slice”—a kind ofguided tour—of a selection from an archive that allows a more seamless integration of researchmaterials and scholarly analysis
Reminds me a bit of the "Essay" function on PECE: https://colab.ws/articles/10.1007%2F978-3-030-77431-8_3
particular, weaim to draw out more general lessons about the relationship of scholarly analysis to emergingdigital typologies or genres; about how best to organize the digital archive to facilitate scholarlyanalysis; and about efficient and meaningful work flows between primary evidence, research, andpublication.
Database books :)
Thus, scholars mightshare “in progress” research electronically in a variety of forms (and build reputation), while alsocontinuing to produce print work (gaining promotion)
The idea of a double research agenda, the tensions between what researchers want to do and what the university expects them to do....
We also need methods of feeding the lessons derived fromedge test cases back into the mainstream, as well as ways of understanding where specificdisciplines require unique platforms and models and what might scale across multiple disciplines.
Where's experimentation located in relation to the university/mainstream discourse?
When webegan, we imagined that the fellowships would gradually prove less and less necessary as authoringplatforms improved, as “mainstream” academic presses moved toward inventive forms ofelectronic publishing, and as distinctions between the “digital” and the “traditional” humanitiesbegan to wane. We seriously underestimated the pace of change within academe
In a way, this reminds me a bit of the work we're (still) doing as part of COPIM/OBF WP6...
The jo
This is quite dated now, but simply being OA (with any further specification of what kind of OA) seemed to have been enough to not be "your typical journal" in 2005...
somnolence
what a lovely new (at least for me) word!
There is an assumption that once these virtual infrastructures are in place,researchers and other collaborators will be able to participate in the creation of scientificknowledge in more equitable and efficient ways
I think this is one of the fundamental misconceptions underlaying a large part of the historical and contemporary OA and open science discourse
While the vertical integration of Elsevier’s products in the academic production cyclebrings the potential for greater convenience, the products themselves build a cleardependency through its integration into the institutional workflow.
Claudio Aspesi makes a nice argument around content-business and data-offerings here https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1100&context=scholcom "Elsevier, Pearson and Cengage in particular are transforming themselves into data analytics companies built atop their content, effectively adding ways to monetize it. None of these companies shows any inclination to abandon its traditional content business, and for sound reasons. These businesses are very large relative to the overall size of either company, and failure to sustain their profitability would have severe consequences for their respective valuations. In addition, without content these companies would have a much harder task building credible data offerings."
The vertical integration of scholarly infrastructure has often been justified under thepromise that integration allows for efficiency, interoperability and a better-functioningsystem of services and products (Schonfeld)
Which of course appeals to neoliberal universities
e consolidation of academic knowledge in the form of an academic paper which can beowned and distributed for the extraction of profits is an example of the aforementionedprocess
I like the catchyness of this statement, even though I think it's pretty simplifying considering the entangled history of print technology, the institutionalisation of Western science, the formation of academic disciplines etc..
It might be interesting to make a similar paper-related argument in relation to the 16th/17th century transition from feudalism to market capitalism (which I think is where Ricardo locates the "origin of capitalism as we know it") that overlapped with the emergence of the first academic "journals" - even though, if i remember correctly, those mostly were for free / gifts.
make different aspects of the politics of open accessand scholarly communication visible and actionable.
So who makes these politics for him?
a site
I struggle how he uses the word site... I'd say that these infrastructures are a result or can give a reason to discuss and experiment with all the things he suggests but they're not and do not facilitate any experimental engagement?
alternative metrics,
Hmmmmm, I don't agree that altmetrics are a critical response to the issue of research assessment/quantification... Aren't they just another side of the same attention-, impact-, and individual-productivity-economy?
uch infrastructures are not simply neutral vehicles for the dissemi-nation and communication of research. They are both substantive objects ofsocial and cultural research and can serve as sites of public experimentation.
I think he also defines infrastructures in a quite technical way and especially as something related primarily to research output. But he seems to understand them as less deterministic as Leigh Star - not only as sites of exclusion or inclusion but also as sites of experimentation with who and what is included why, maybe.
The nonprofit ORCID project that pro-vides “persistent digital identifiers” for researchers may also be considereda site of “ontological experimentation,” insofar as its forums and discus-sion channels do not only resolve but also open up discussions about thearticulation, definition, and conventionalization of entities and relationsinvolved in research, including around the recording and disambigua-tion of names (and different cultural naming practices), what counts asan affiliation (e.g., professional associations as well as universities?), whatcounts as a country (e.g., Kosovo?) and what should be included as “workcategories” (e.g., blog posts, field work, oceanographic cruises, policy reports,media interviews, podcasts, software, maps, sheet music, performances,infographics, teaching materials).
Hmmm... not very sure about this... who experiments with whom? which discussions does he talk about, how are they facilitated, and where do they happen? I haven't read Angela's and Leslie's article on the DOI yet but I guess it might be interesting here: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003290650-26/digital-object-identifier-angela-okune-leslie-chan
which open access is mobilized, advocated, and practiced in the service of arange of different kinds of social, cultural, political, and economic values andvisions of the future
I like that he here alludes to the social, practical, and situated dimensions of open access and its many versions which is, as i a bit neglected in research on OA, infrastructural or not.
The ecological effect of studying boring things (infrastructure, in this case) isin some ways similar.
I think a lot has changed in "infrastructure studies" since then... I guess also through Leigh Star's own work, Berlant etc...
All of us doing this work have begun to wrestle with questions of scalabilitythat inherently touch on questions of infrastructure
Questions of scalability also inherently touch on questions of practice and relationality rather than just the physical infrastrucutres such as computer terminals?
As Star andRuhleder (1996) put it, infrastructure is a fundamentally relational concept,becoming real infrastructure in relation to organized practices (see also Jewett &Kling, 1991). So, within a given cultural context, the cook considers the watersystem as working infrastructure integral to making dinner. For the city planneror the plumber, it is a variable in a complex planning process or a target forrepair: “Analytically, infrastructure appears only as a relational property, not as athing stripped of use” (Star & Ruhleder, 1996, p. 113)
I'm not completely sure about the connection between infrastructures and relations and practices? Are these part of or, as she seems to suggest here, still somehow external to infrastructures?
Walking, we ask questions, not from the perspective of the theoristremoved and separate from organizing, but rather from within and as part ofthe multiple and overlapping cycles and circuits of struggle. For the removedtheorist, movements themselves are mere abstractions, pieces of data to becategorized, analyzed, and fixed
This is very much in line with Zapatista frameworks and similar struggles for buen vivir etc.. I find it a bit odd that these are not referenced here
One question makes itself evident: is it possible to engage in such research without at the same time setting inmotion a process of falling in love? How would a tie between two experiences be possible without a strongfeeling of love or friendship?
love and friendship in lieu of competition? seems almost a bit "dated"....
It requires a radical critique of current values
I like how here the question of what the rearch militant / militant research is and can be gets tied in with the problem of value/evaluation/validation
Hence idealization conceals an inadvertently conservative operation: hidden behind the purity and vocation forjustice that seem to give it origin is, once again, the root of dominant values. Hence the righteous appearanceof idealists: they want to do justice, that is to say, they desire to materialize, effectuate, those values they holdas good. Idealists merely project those values on the idealized (at the moment when that which was multipleand complex turns into object, of an ideal) without coming to interrogate themselves about their own values;that is to say, without having a subjective experience that transforms them. This mechanism comes to revealitself as the most serious obstacle for the researcher-militant: originating in subtle and almost imperceptibleforms, idealization gradually produces an unbridgeable distance. This is so to the extent thatresearcher-militants only see what they have projected into what is already a plenitude.
I really like this bit - I think it is a good reminder (and mirror) for everybody engaged in "critical" research
In this way, science, and particularly that science which is called “social”, operatesmore as separator, and reified, of the situations in which it participates than as an internal element in thecreation of possible experiences (both practical and theoretical)
I am not so sure about this... there has been a lot of engagement in social science in revaluating what the subjects/objects of their research practices are - also against the background of dissolving the binary between activist and academic work (for example, Casa-Cortés or Savransky)
From the perspective of its materiality, militant research develops in the forms of workshops and collectivereading, of the production of the conditions for thinking and disseminating productive texts, in the generationof circuits founded on concrete experiences of struggle and in nuclei of researcher-militants.
What does this imply regarding academic formats and practices? Can they be places for militant research? And if yes:how?
In this regard, interconnections between different theaters are necessary to rein-force insurgent political practices, looking for universal alternative referents in or-der to transcend particularisms.
I am wondering about how these "interconnections between different theaters" work in practice? In the following, the article seems to talk about academic and activist practices/actors as two separate spheres again....
Yet, the pessimistic observation that initiated my change of perspectiveon the role of digital media in accessing text can be reconsidered in thelight of this small journey through various assessments. Not all is goodin digital technologies, and their being embedded in the socio-economicfabric of highly resourced capitalism does not facilitate unselfish practices.But there is little doubt that sharing and steering towards sustainableinfrastructures — solutions that have proved e˙ective in modern contexts— can contribute to alleviating the environmental cost of producing,distributing, enjoying, and preserving access to text.
I like this end....
wish that my students and children will know better thanme how to read XML, how to use a Raspberry Pi, how to work withminimal computing features, and how to manage a simple database. Atthe time of writing, this type of training is reserved to a handful of ICTstudents
Also, many of the younger people I know are super experienced with this stuff.... even though they haven't been trained specifically
t would also train in code and programming literacy, empoweringstudents to be able not only to read and unpack, but also to assess therelevance of computer language choices in the di˙erent settings theymight encounter. Guidance in heritage selection mechanisms would alsobe part of it
It's a bit the Matthew Kirschenbaum argument.... and the ongoing discussion whether one needs to be / can be expert in everything or can share/pool responsibility and expertises
nfrastructures providing long-term hosting of textual heritage should beable to serve as the backbone for initiatives that have little to no means:for instance, a low-cost Raspberry Pi computer and some manpower, withvery parsimonious resources, such as those powered by solar panels thatare only accessible when the sun is shining.
What I struggle a bit with is that, in the first part of the chapter, does not acknowledge that there are a lot of people experimenting with more environmentally sustainable models for (post-)digital sharing, preservation etc.. And in the second part of the chapter, she lists all these efforts making it seem as they were her own ideas, suggestions, and inputs....
Will we beable to read an e-pub produced today in 10 years’ time? A look at yourbookshelves will tell you that you do not even have to ask yourself thatquestion when it comes to a good old book
could a similar climate/energy/etc argument not also be made in relation to the "good old book"?
Defining quality digital text,
I'm not sure what "quality digital text" is?
This question has been haunting me since the moment I realised thepotential contradiction entailed in Open Access
it's a bit weird to conflate open access with "high tech" digital publications
The type of access that can be fostered along the lines of what I havebeen sketching throughout this book is access for the rich
I find this argument a bit simplistic considering the efforts of the many initiatives concerned with the problematics with the "digital divide"..... https://varia.zone/en/the-network-we-de-served.html
ake your pick of Shakespeare’s sonnets below, along with a modern English interpretation of each one aid understanding.
Hello everybody
thedocuments, the ledgers and the logs of the slave trade.
This reminds me of https://www.nourbese.com/poetry/zong-3/ which transports a gesture quite different from Goldsmith's
By claiming the end, energy is freed up to create newbeginnings
yawn enoji ;)
So how can we ‘disrupt the disrupters’? First, we needto make sure our concepts and blueprints can bescaled up and adopted.
i find this solutionism paired with all these generalisations very annoying.
eturn to the naïve stage of globalizatio
there was never a naive stage of globalisation
diversity
what kind of diversity he's talking about? and where does it come from all of the sudden?
aulVirilio and Jean Baudrillard
ah yes, i missed these two in the mix so far.... but here they are! :)
blaming established academic disciplines
blaming them for what?!!!
related organizeddepressio
that's very bifo berardi.... i don't believe in it
autonomoustime-space configuration
what is this?
another internet is no longer possible
was another internet ever possible? or is the possibility of another internet not an incredibly elitist idea?
here is something liberating about losingone’s profile as an act of forgetting. What mightoccupy the void in our defragmented brains oncethe internet has vacated the scene? What mightlife consist of after our fragile minds are no longerassaulted by the numbing and depressing effectsof doom scrolling?
now i'm not sure anymore that i understood "deautomatization* correctly. I interpreted it much more technical (as in: making surfing or interacting online less seemless, more fragmented, more "hands-on").....
eautomatizationin the internet context
i like that
Italians
:))))
compelling dialectical reversa
inversing Marxism by using Marxism? ;)...
Can the ‘online self’ liberate itself from capture by thevanity marketing trap? Can we experiment with freecooperation and collaboration to escape the cage ofthe self?
nooooooooooo.... (at this point of the reading i'm getting increasingly annoyed by phrases like these)
We’ve passedthe point of do-good ‘digital competencies’ andare surrounded by the real-world politics of digitalurgencies
this is also not exactly a new idea....
We must practice “ridingthe dynamic of disaster,” which he calls an accuratedescription of “our mental condition during the currentearthquake, which is also a heart-quake and a mind-quake.
i find these exceptionalist and self-centred statements pretty difficult
n a world that is no longer focusedon growth and (schizo)productivity but on extinction,anxiety and degrowth
this aren't exaclty opposites or "either-or-s"
Whyare people increasingly susceptible to conspirac
Are they?
nderit in volu
Reading groups could be hosted around different topics from the publications, tags: #ReadingGroup1 #topic; #ReadingGroup2, #topic;....
Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum."
There can be diverse reading groups hosted around the publication / through hypothesis. #ReadingGroup1 #topic, #ReadingGroup2 #topic etc.....
d, pumpup the volume.
I can't help thinking that certain people rather than pumping it up, should change down the volume... otherwise it might be to loud for hearing some of the more feeble voices emerging through the "maximisation of thought"....
on
maximization of thought.... weird word choice....
Published in USSbriefs · FollowBen Williamson · FollowAug 16, 2018 · 14 min readNumber crunching: transforming highereducation into ‘p
I haven't had time to read the entire text but it seems to be a very good explanation to why metrics are definitely NOT about research quality but first and foremost money.....
The way out is demonstrated to be to:
I'm not sure if this does not only lead to an "inversion of the problem" while not solving the question about the sense of metrics....
The rationale underpinning the reform is the rights perspective(right to science, education, and information) and the reaffirmation of thediscourse on knowledge and science as common goods (CLACSO-CONACTY,2019).
Both the rights perspective and the idea of knowledge as common good have a long tradition in Latin American discourses on open science and OA. I think this reform might include different perspectives than DORA etc.
condition for authors to publish in the Grenier des savoirs is that they accepta commitment that includes the following values of knowledge democracy:
I find that a very interesting condition - even though it migh appear as deterministic and exclusive. It seems like a bottom-up, community organised / negotiated / owned definition / control of qualitiy that I find quite interesting
, which in their material,visual, and interactive forms engage and include or exclude actors
Just posting some quotes from the Zaveri text we read last time here.... The authors seem to neglect all the potential pitfals to inclusivity Zaveri discussed....
1.
What I really miss in this entire text is the component of situatedness - both in their idea of "indicating" and in their own (non-existent) positioning.
Understanding indicators as designed entities suggests that both thecontext of application and the community of evaluation need to be actively curated—or even scripted, and in turn, that indicators can be deployed to actively assembleactors that do not already form a social group into an interpretative community.The interpretation of indicators—in evaluative situations—may be treated dramaturgically,as a situation in which different participants are assigned a role and brought into re-lation according to a basic script.
I find that very abstract... They seem to argue within a framework, in which resarchers (apart from using different (qualitative/quantitative) methods) in principle appear as one big community with an universal notion of research/knowledge at its centre that - through indicating - can be split in smaller social entities.
In his paper “Indicators in the Wild,” Ràfols (2019) proposed that indicators can be purpose-fully deployed as participatory device
Does that mean that indicators, rather than tools of governance, become a "pretext" for discussing scientometrics and evaluation in general? (this is somehow related to Janneke's annotation just above=
Recent work in each ofthese areas has proposed that such measures can be deployed to enable generative, inclusive,and interactive ways of exploring and evaluating research
There is a similar claim e.g. within Participatory Action Research (PAR) frameworks that includes the "objects" of a study into the research and evaluation design. https://organizingengagement.org/models/participatory-action-research-and-evaluation/ I find it a bit strange that these are not mentioned at all. But maybe it's because of the transdisciplnarity focus....
Di
FOOTNOTES:
Disappropriation: A poetics of communalit
Hello, welcome everybody to The Re-Reading Room!
The Re-ReadingRoom.
Hello! Welcome to The Re-Reading Room. If you'd like to add to, adapt, or question the open terms of engagement for our collaborative undertaking, please do so by adding your annotation or note.
(
I love that she puts a (Re)Introduction at the end
-
i think there's a very thin line between letting others speak / look better and appropriation
D
footnote 15: what's meant here?
I would like to have a bit more "formal" references here. I would like to know in which text e.g. Appadurai wrote on the intersubjective.... I understand that formal referencing does put a weird distance between the author referenced and the writer. but it also can be a way of paying tribute of staying/makin accountable
i don't have a clue on what's meant here. and how this connects to urban (and written) space...
:
I am not sure what's meant there... what's the difference between storytelling and writing? and isn't every text performative (that's e.g. what johanna drucker says) in the sense that a text is understood differently by every reader and thus never fixed, unequivocal but open-ended, context-specific etc.
it's only here, in footnote 9, that i really get what the author wants,,, or at least i think i get it ;)
<
the reading process is quite interesting. that switching back and forth between the footnoes and the text, in a way defying the linearity of the text
I very much wonder about the author's writing process. did they write the more poetic text first and then added the footnotes? did they write them in parallel? was the more poetic/embodied writing a way to get a grip on the theoretical framings?
This footnote 8 seems quite important. here the author explains somatic inquiry / embodied writing (as a threshold experience)
?
distant, analytical writing vs. embodied writing (see also the adrienne rich text)
9
somatic encounters around/with texts? with/in space?
1
I am wondering a bit about the author's need to explain in a "scientific way". Can't / shouldn't somatic inquiry/embodied writing claim to be a valid method of "sense making" / world making without always having to lean on explanation to justify itself?
Also: why have these two distinct layers: the "poetic text body" and the "explaining footnotes"? Why not try to mix these layers?
a method: somatic inquiry as being in between - in between here and there, now and then, my text and your text, you and I, us and them, academia and outside of academia,
undecidedness, suspension, ambiguity
j
interesting thought when we think about reading and writing as relational activities.
%
hello
enabling—
i am wondering a bit where/how Sedwick's work really is enabling. I read "Paranoid and Reparative Reading" with my art school students and they were frightened by the "academic-ness" of the text...
Because there can be terrible surprises, however,there can also be good ones. Hope, often a fracturing, even a traumaticthing to experience, is among the energies by which the reparativelypositioned reader tries to organize the fragments and part-objects she en-counters or creates.23 Because she has room to realize that the future maybe different from the present, it is also possible for her to entertain such24 Eve Kosofsky SedgwickDownloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/books/book/chapter-pdf/604965/9780822382478-001.pdfby gueston 25 August 2021
I wonder about how this relates to scholarly (reading, writing, research) practice as/and politics: How, in practical terms, can one – through reading (together, alone) – work reparatively against and beyond the paranoid reflexes of contemporary academia (without being able to entirely overcome them)? Or: how can a reading practice resist its instrumentalisation as a tool or a vehicle for pre-established meanings or identities and instead operate as a (performative) facilitator of “hope” or “work of love”? (the possibility for different futures, new social meanings etc.).
While openness implies a normative principle of inclusion, if we do not explic-itly populate it with inclusion principles, it will only reflect the dominant paradigms existing in society.
I'm all in for explicitly stating principles but they themselves are likely to become normative. A processual, relational, negotiated, and situated framing of openness (what Sarah Kember calls "opening out from...") might make more sense here?
Safe Space
I have a problem with the notion of safe space. I basically don't believe in them. I find the quite interesting what Arao & Clemens say in these regards: Certain discourses are risky, difficult and challenging. Therefore, they are likely to produce controversy and contradiction. Ruling out conflict in these situations can easily become a violent gesture in itself. As Arao & Clemens remark, the pervasive nature of systemic and institutionalised oppression – e.g. through sexism, homophobia, heterosex-ism, ableism, religio-spiritual oppression, ageism – ultimately “precludes the creation of safety in a dialogue situated, as it must be, within said system” (2013; 139). Consequently, they suggest to replace the notion of “safe space” with the idea of “brave space”. The latter is emphasizing the need for courage rather than the illusion of safety.
ngendering open concepts.
This i find quite useful... as some sort of checklist applied to "open" formats and processes
we are truly inclusive,
so who is this "we" then? and is "truly inclusive" a thing at all?
gender” appears as neutralised of political intent.
i guess it's the same as in these normative, universalist, and de-contextualised framings of openness, euqity, justice employed in a neoliberal "politically correct" rhetoric....
This chapter takes a closer look at inclusiveness and nondiscrimination in the open processes where, collaboratively, knowledge is produced, shared, and consumed
I would find it interesting (yet potentially confliictuous and hurtful ;)) to look at the initiatives we've been involved in against this background... It's also, among other, the reason i suggested this text as some sort of meta-reading for the online reading group... i find that, mainly because of the examples, it works quite effectively against that kind of "sleepy self-content" with regard the own work/criticallity that, i guess, no one is immune of....
men and women
also her framing of gender seems a bit binary...
sameness
This seems a bit simplicistic....
addressed adequately,
as in "open" platforms, collaborative formats etc.?
techno-legal vs. relational-behavioural, respectively the imarative of thinking these together when talking about openness (as a process)?
Gender Equi
even though she most explicitely refers to gender equity i guess the text/the examples can be applied to diverse/ntersectional contexts of discrimination
A focus on divisions of labour that defines roles based on their relationship to the software artefact leaves out the fact that the production, maintenance and use of the technology can only exist with the necessary sustenance of life, such as the production of food and shelter, for the reproduction of labour power.
I am not entirely sure how they imagine to approach this dilemma.... how does what appears as a mainly aesthetical/rhetoric shift translate into a politics (as practice)?
hese kinds of projections
which kinds of projections do they refer to?
onopsonies
academics and practitioners
Doesn't this imply the same logic as the distinction between thinking and doing the authors considered problematic previously? Also: who are these activists they're refering to? Are they practitioners (as opposed to academics)?
I cannot discuss here the complex genealogies anddebates about the meanings and possibilities of this vision,
I was a bit irritated about this statement especially because she discussed earlier with regards to Haraway's work how important it is to name and think with others and later in this section she writes about the dangers of appropriation.... Nonetheless, she here - through her referencing - mainly positions "standpoint theory" as a white feminist idea, while ignoring several earlier/similar positions within e.g. black feminisms, "third world" feminisms, decolonial and post-hegemonial discourses....
from the open science movement
This phrase implies that OA "needed" input from an (external) open science discourse in order to "come to reason". In reality open science and development discourses have been inherently interwoven with OA since the 1990s and similar topics and claims have been formulated within a humanities discourse on OA relatively early on too.
Decolonizing
I struggle a bit with all that recent scholarship that essentialises Latin American OA as "good OA", and posits initiatives such Redalyc and AmeliCA as role models for (bad) “Western” OA. Fernanda Beigel and Hebe Vessuri have a much more differentiated approach on the emergence and diversification of OA in Latin America: They historically Latin American OA within an academic autonomy expansion process taking place from the 1950s-70s that got reinvigorated within academic (in-)dependency and globalisation discourses of the 1990s/2000s that were very diverse and often conflictuous. Beigel identifies four main OA trajectories that emerged from there (the following is a bit from my thesis): a) dependent integration, which ranges from publication in English only in mainstream journals, through paid publication, to the institutional or state strategy of converting journals to English and/or indexing a growing number of local journals in these systems [this is e.g. Scielo that – driven by anxieties of “falling behind” in science and technology, and losing the ability to contribute to the global knowledge base (Albornoz et al., 2018, 6) – surrendered to this pressure by employing Clarivate Analytics to create a journal citation index inside Web of Science]; b) transnational networks and circuits in open access [Initiatives such as Redalyc and Scielo, who vindicate the relevance of local, or national and regional issues within the sciences – respecting the different idiosyncrasies by area, disciplinarily specific format preferences and dynamics – instead of perceiving OA as a chance to contribute to and compete on a global knowledge market (Albornoz et al., 2018; Babini 2019; Becerril-García 2019; Becerril-García & Aguado-López 2018; Packer et al. 2014).] c) regional circulation sustained by public networks and institutions [e.g. AmeliCA, a byproduct of Redalyc’s experience in establishing and maintaining transnational networks that aims to construct a communication system for Latin America’s and the Global South’s journals. AmeliCA, as part of the Radical Open Access Collective, also participates in infrastructures that reach beyond Latin American / Global South contexts] d) resistance including boycotts, non-indexed university journals, transfer and dialogue with the social demands of the community, to strongly inbred local circuits (Beigel 2018, no pag.)
wealsomustgobeyondthediscussionofsimplyopenvsclosed
This is so old news.... I find that there's a strong tendency throughout this article to "sell" generalising and indifferent platitudes/commonplaces as novelties.
non-commercialessenceofscience
there's no such thing....
infrapolitical
infrapolitics & infraphilosophy https://infraphilosophy.com/2021/01/18/the-war-for-the-earth/
openness as a rad-ical practice
openness as infrapolitics?
For Lugones the infrapolitical is not a politics that “has an easy inhabitation of public contestation. Infra-politics marks the turn inward, in a politics of resistance, toward liberation. It shows the power of communities of the oppressed in constituting resistant meaning and each other against the constitution of meaning and social organization by power. In our colonized, racially gendered, oppressed existences we are also other than what the hegemon makes us be. That is an infra-political achievement” (Lugones 2010, 746).
William's writes: “infrapolitical excess or difference from the political—in a kind of a-principial, non-subjectivist politicity that traverses both necessity and care, and that remains both prior and posterior to ‘real politics’—offers the basis for a posthegemonic practice of democracy capable of challenging the inherited determinations of the biopolitical, and of doing so in the name of existence, or… of love in spite of everything” (2017)
three OCSDNet case studies from South Africa, Colombia, Costa Rica, and countries in Francophone Africa
I find these three case studies and the practices around openness / openness as a practice quite interesting. I wonder what we can draw from them with regards to our own projects (COPIM, Pirate Care etc.) but also with regards to our everyday academic practices (reading, writing etc.)
creating strong divides between those who are considered “experts” and those who are considered “ignoran
Maybe what Fernanda Beigel says is interesting to consider here: she notes that so-called ‘peripheral’ scientific communities are often regarded as lacking in autonomy, as permanently under siege by the state, by political instability, or by intellectual dependence on foreign models. Beigel disagrees with such an image of peripheral science, because it is based on a myth, which is the myth of the sovereignty of mainstream science. This is also the myth of “pure”, “universal”, “disinterested” knowledge. Clearly, mainstream science is not autonomous or sovereign in this sense, since it is subjected to commercial and geopolitical interests. The problem for Beigel, however, is that even peripheral scientific communities have contributed to the reproduction of that myth, by accepting and obssessively pursuing an uncritical sense of knowledge and knowledge sovereignty. This is the myth of “excellent science” by means of inclusion in global commercial databases, often in the name of national progress and prestige.Moreover, even decolonial perspectives within peripheral science, she says, reproduce the myth of mainstream sovereignty by assuming a simple dichotomy between complete autonomy on the side of empire, and complete heteronomy on the side of the non-West.
Beigel, M. F., Gallardo, J. O., & Bekerman, F. A. (2018). Institutional Expansion and Scientific Development in the Periphery: The Structural Heterogeneity of Argentina’s Academic Field. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-017-9340-2
Beigel, F. (2013). Centros y periferias en la circulación internacional del conocimiento. Nueva Sociedad 245, Mayo - Junio 2013
Misunderstanding thus has the potential to yank us out of our lit-erally self-centered ways of thinking and encourage new connec-tions with the others with whom we seek to communicate.
Can you think of a situation where this has happened to you?
Perhaps
I think that the following pages - how she unravels terms like optimism, hope and emapthy - are an excellent example of affirmative critique through academic writing.
What are the elements, perspectives, considerations etc. that Fitzpatrick's affirmative critique consists of here?
belonging
Where do you belong to with regards to your practice?
building that vocabulary is a project in and of itself, one that requires con-tinual attention and negotiation. I
With regards to the writing excercise in this Seminar session: What does this imply? Who is part of processes of building shared vocabularies? Is the aim of these processes to create ONE language or engage in a negotiation / translations between different languages?
Conversation imposes an obligation that cannot be easily concluded, that asks me to open myself again and again to what is taking place between us. Conversation thus demands not that we become more giving, but instead that we become more receptive. It requires us to participate, to be part of an exchange that is multidirectional. It disallows any tendency to declare our work concluded, or to disclaim further responsibility toward the other participants in our exchange. It asks us to inhabit a role that is not just about speaking but also about listening, taking in and considering what our conversational partners have to say, reflect-ing on the merits of their ideas and working toward a shared un-derstanding that is something more than what each of us bears alone
Can "conversation" here be replaced with any other practice? E.g. writing, reading, researching, creating,….
while we may understand generosity of mind to be a key value within the profession, its actual enactment is not al-lowed to become habitual, not encouraged to become part of our general mode of being.
Where do you see possibilities to "insert" generosity? In your work, in your study environment?
They are
Dear SIS students, welcome to this collaborative annotation experiment. Let's hope that it works.
Freedom
I am always quite suspicious about the notion of freedom. What kind of freedom (if any at all) does commoning entail/engender?