On this page you can download the discussion paper that was submitted for publication in the Journal for Media Linguistics. The blogstract summarises the submission in a comprehensible manner. You can comment on the discussion paper and the blogstract below this post. Please use your real name for this purpose. For detailed comments on the discussion paper please refer to the line numbering of the PDF.
Blogstract of
Open Access as Social Practice: The Political of, and Experiences with Applied Linguistics Publishing
by Dorothea Horst, Emily Farrell & Britta Schneider
In the realm of modern academia, Open Access (OA) publishing presents a compelling yet complex topic as it shapes not only the accessibility of research but also influences the social structures within academia itself. Our paper delves into these intricacies, investigating how linguists perceive and navigate the landscape of OA.
It is grounded in a research study that explored the attitudes and experiences of scholars regarding OA publishing in the field of applied linguistics. We conducted a questionnaire-based survey, yielding responses from a diverse group of 88 participants, predominantly scholars located in the Global North. There was a noticeable underrepresentation among younger scholars and researchers from the Global South, particularly highlighted by the absence of respondents from African nations.
Our findings underscore a prevailing recognition among participating researchers of the social hierarchies that OA can reinforce, particularly disadvantaging those lacking the necessary funding or familiarity with OA pathways. Despite the honourable intent of enhancing access to research, we argue that OA practices could inadvertently exacerbate existing inequalities, putting those from less privileged backgrounds at a disadvantage. This raises pivotal questions about equity in scholarly publishing and the continued evolution of OA models to foster inclusivity.
Here, we draw significantly on Jacques Rancière’s work on how a shared power space of societal norms and public knowledge is created and upheld by rendering alternative perspectives imperceptible. This distribution is questioned in moments of dissensus, i.e. when the hitherto unheard, unseen and unperceived claims radical equality. We argue that OA publishing exemplifies this dynamic by challenging traditional hierarchies in academic discourse. By making research freely accessible, OA has the potential to disrupt existing power structures within academia that determine who has the authority to produce and disseminate knowledge. However, this intention is complicated by the socioeconomic barriers that still persist, as Rancière reminds us that true equity in access must also address the conditions under which knowledge is shared and produced. Accessibility is only one aspect of a broader challenge regarding the democratization of knowledge. In positioning our study within this theoretical framework, we illuminate the complexities surrounding OA as both a practice and a discourse, emphasizing the need for a broader conversation about equity and representation in scholarly publishing.
Our paper therefore sheds light on the need for linguists to not only reflect on their own practices but also to engage with and challenge the broader political implications of OA. As we navigate this evolving terrain, it becomes imperative for scholars in applied linguistics to advocate for reformative actions that promote equitable access and representation in research publication.
The present discussion paper aims to explore some of the major problems of OA as it is practised today. Based on a small-scale empirical questionnaire study with a sample of 88 respondents, the authors present findings both on the OA practice of academics in Applied Linguistics (broadly defined) and on their attitudes towards OA and its practice. Although the authors readily admit that their sample does not allow serious statistics, they give percentages for individual items now and then. As for the coverage of relevant problems, I found it surprising that they did not discuss problems of Open Peer Review, which are interesting in their own right. Concerning their philosophical background, I am somewhat in doubt that their recourse to Rancière’s theories really provides additional elucidation of problems of OA. These are minor objections, however. Generally speaking, their findings are not altogether surprising, but they are useful to have available. Therefore, the paper is certainly worth printing. There is one misprint that should be corrected: The authors wrote “classicist” where they probably meant “classist”.