Sociological implications of scientific publishing: Open access, science, society, democracy and the digital divide

Fi s Monday, Volume 15, Numbe 2 - 1 Feb ua y 2010 Claims o open access a e mos ly unde pinned wi h science– ela ed a gumen s (open access accele a es scien i ic communica ion);a. inancial a gumen s (open access elie es he se ials c isis);b. social a gumen s (open access educes he digi al di ide);c. democ acy– ela ed a gumen s (open access acili a es pa icipa ion); and,d. socio–poli ical a gumen s (open access le els dispa i ies).e. Using sociological concep s and no ions, his a icle ocuses s ongly on Pie e Bou dieu’s heo y o (scien i ic) capi al and i s implica ions o he accep ance o open access, Michel Foucaul ’s discou se analysis and he implica ions o open access o he concep o he digi al di ide. Bou dieu’s heo y o capi al implies ha he accep ance o open access depends on he logic o powe and he accumula ion o scien i ic capi al. I does no depend on slogans de i ed om hagiog aphic sel –pe cep ions o science (e.g., he accele a ion o scien i ic communica ion) and scien is s (e.g., hei will o sha e hei in o ma ion eely). Acco ding o Bou dieu’s heo y, i is c ucial o open access (and associa ed concep s like al e na i e impac me ics) o unde s and how scien is s pe cei e i s po en ial in luence on exis ing p ocesses o capi al accumula ion and how open access will a ec hei demand o s a us. Foucaul ’s discou se analysis sugges s ha open access may in ensi y dispa i ies, scien ocen ism and e hnocen ism. Addi ionally, se e al concep s om he philosophy o sciences (Poppe , Kuhn, Feye abend) and hei implici connec ion o he concep o open access a e desc ibed in his pape . Con en s Jus i ica ions o open access Recapi ula ion Scien i ic publishing: A sociological analysis Jus i ica ions o open access Science– ela ed jus i ica ions The disc epancy be ween echnical oppo uni ies o ins an and global access o digi al scien i ic in o ma ion and de ac o es ic ed access o scien i ic in o ma ion suppo s claims o open access. The only ba ie o scien i ic in o ma ion ha is accep ed by open access p o agonis s is he need o use he In e ne as a echnical in as uc u e. By de ini ion, open access documen s eside elec onically on he In e ne and may by used by anyone wi hou paying any ees. In his way, immedia e access o scien i ic in o ma ion, ee o cha ge, is made possible. Following hese a gumen s, i can be said ha open access ensu es accele a ed scien i ic communica ion and os e s new scien i ic disco e ies. Financial jus i ica ions Paying ees in o de o access scien i ic documen s annoys scien is s as long as hey a e no ewa ded o hei con ibu ions, e.g., as au ho s o as pee s e iewing pape s o colleagues. Acco dingly, he Budapes Open Access Ini ia i e (BOAI) s a ed in 2002: “The li e a u e ha should be eely accessible online is ha which schola s gi e o he wo ld wi hou expec a ion o paymen .“ (BOAI, 2002) Subsc ip ion and licensing ees o scien i ic jou nals a e conside ed access ba ie s, as uni e si ies and hei lib a ies ind i di icul o a o d hese ees in imes o declining budge s and ising cos s (U.K. House o Commons, 2004; Elec onic Publishing Se ices (EPS), 2006). Thus, he case in a ou o open access is He b h p:// i s monday.o g/h bin/cgiw ap/bin/ojs/index.php/ m/ /p in e F ie... 1 on 9 20.12.2010 16:10 bols e ed by inancial a gumen s. A social jus i ica ion: The digi al di ide Closely ied o inancial a gumen s a e assump ions p omising ha open access will educe he digi al di ide. De ini ions o he digi al di ide indica e ha oppo uni ies o access ele an in o ma ion a e alloca ed unequally; u he mo e, he deg ee o which indi iduals secu e hese oppo uni ies depend on social ac o s; and, his unequal dis ibu ion has signi ican social impac s: Whoe e has access o ele an in o ma ion secu es be e p ospec s ela i e o social, economic o heal h issues. I in o ma ion is a ailable eely (wi h he addi ional condi ion ha In e ne access is a gi en), indi iduals usually sepa a ed om ee–based in o ma ion ake ad an age o open access, in u n highligh ing connec ions o heo ies o democ acy. Democ acy Concep s o pa icipa i e democ acy assume ha he e is in ense pa icipa ion in poli ical and socie al p ocesses by as many ci izens as possible. The b oad expe ise o ci izens is he basis o a uly unc ioning democ acy. This equi es open discou se abou as many ele an opics as possible, in o de o se e democ a ic p inciples and o each a ional and easonable decisions and go e nance based on b oad pa icipa ion. Ci il igh s, such as he eedom o assembly and he eedom o he p ess, a e de i ed om his concep . Mo e de ailed hough s abou democ acy and pa icipa ion we e o mula ed by Jü gen Habe mas (1984). Bo h he science– ela ed jus i ica ion o open access and he pa icipa i e model o democ acy sha e he same me a–assump ion: ee access o in o ma ion and ee exchange o in o ma ion acili a e op imised discussion — ega dless o whe he i is ocused on scien i ic o poli ical ques ions. Sociopoli ical jus i ica ions In addi ion, open access is conside ed as a means o educe social inequi ies, dispa i ies and disad an ages. Assuming ha Wes e n socie ies a e – as widely alleged – in o ma ion socie ies, in o ma ion is he mos i al esou ce o good o indi iduals in hese socie ies. The oppo uni ies and chances o pa icipa e, sha e and use hese esou ces and goods shape hese socie ies. In o ma ion c ea es ela ionships be ween ac o s which can ake he o m o exchange, ade, powe , dominion o dispa i ies. E en i he no ion o in o ma ion socie ies is supe icial (a e all, egula ion and dis ibu ion o in o ma ion has always gi en s uc u e o g oups o socie ies), a i s glance open access may claim o educe dispa i ies since e e yone — wi h In e ne access — may bene i om access o in o ma ion. Recapi ula ion A i s glance, he mo al ib ancy o open access is o e whelming, he no ion i sel seems imbued wi h cha isma ic au a. Seen h ough he p ism o he a gumen s no ed ea lie , open access has a mo al ele ance and scope which goes a beyond he issues o scien i ic communica ion. This conno a ion exis s a p io i and is hedged by an asse ed uni e sali y o he ollowing a gumen s: open access appea s as a mo al necessi y ha can ha dly be ques ioned o examined (Haide , 2007). Fu he mo e, he p ope ies o open access a e linked o concep s o openness, in e ela edness and globaliza ion (F öhlich, 1996). In examining he implici and explici assump ions o he a o emen ioned a gumen s he ollowing ques ions a e posed: Is a ee and disin e es ed exchange o in o ma ion eally he p e ailing in e es o scien is s? O should s a emen s o ha e ec a he be seen as some kind o “lip se ice”? Migh i no be a mo e accu a e assump ion ha scien is s in eali y a e ac ing sel ishly, s i ing o an accumula ion o scien i ic capi al ha has o be gained and de ended in dis ibu ion s uggles (Bou dieu, 1998; Bou dieu, 2002)? Does accessibili y o in o ma ion ia elec onic ne wo ks eally le el social dispa i ies? O do claims o his na u e jus p e igu e ha a echnical u opia is u ning in o a social u opia? (F öhlich, 1995) Can he ee in e change o in o ma ion wi h g oups o coun ies be conside ed as uly al uis ic? O does i ansmi e hnocen ism? (Haide , 2006) Scien i ic publishing: A sociological analysis He b h p:// i s monday.o g/h bin/cgiw ap/bin/ojs/index.php/ m/ /p in e F ie... 2 on 9 20.12.2010 16:10 Jou nals, impac ac o s, ca ee s Scien is s seem nei he o be e y well in o med abou he po en ial o open access (Hess, e al., 2007), no do hey use open access publica ion se ices in ele an numbe s and ways (Deu sche Fo schungsgesellscha (DFG), 2005; Swan and B own, 2005). Kiley and Te y o he Wellcome T us explain his e icence on he pa o scien is s h ough scien is s’ posi ion wi hin he ci cle o p oduc ion, dis ibu ion and consump ion o scien i ic in o ma ion as illus a ed in Figu e 1. Figu e 1: Open access o esea ch li e a u e: A unde ’s pe spec i e. Sou ce: Robe Kiley and Robe Te y (2006). Founda ions and go e nmen agencies a e he majo unding sou ces o esea ch. Resea che s in u n publish hei esul s as pape s in a a ie y o jou nals – mos ly ee–based jou nals – and usually wi hou inancial compensa ion. Lib a ies pay licensing and subsc ip ion ees o o e scien is s and hei ins i u ions access o ele an in o ma ion. This access also means access o he esul s o hei colleagues. Lib a ies hemsel es a e inanced la gely by ounda ions and go e nmen agencies. F om he pe spec i es o unde s, his p ocess mus su ely appea s as ine icien . Funds a e spen o he p oduce s and consume s o scien i ic in o ma ion. Scien is s as consume s a e la gely no in e es ed in changing his si ua ion. Fi s , hey ha e o pay nei he o he consump ion no access o in o ma ion. Second, hei ela ionships o o he ac o s ha e a neu al o posi i e alence. In mos scien i ic disciplines, he e is no ci cula ion o unds be ween au ho s and publishing houses. The e a e no ees assessed o he use o jou nals subsc ibed by lib a ies. Finally, unde s e en pay he sala ies o esea che s. The e o e, scien is s see no eason o change a si ua ion which o e s hem so many luxu ies. Figu e 1 misses he mos salien ela ion. Be ween publishing houses and scien is s he e exis s a connec ion o g ea es impo ance o scien is s, a connec ion which has an eminen posi i e alence and which a he same ime cons i u es a dependency. Scien is s ad ance hei ca ee s by publishing in jou nals ha enjoy high impac ac o s (IF). I hey do no publish in high–impac jou nals, hei ca ee s will al e . The e is a need o publish only in hose jou nals ha will awa d scien i ic capi al. Economic, cul u al and social capi al F ench sociologis Pie e Bou dieu di e en ia es be ween h ee ypes o capi al — economic, cul u al, and social capi al [1]. Cul u al capi al exis s mainly in he o m o educa ion o cul i a ion and as knowledge which is agg ega ed by a ending ins i u ions o lea ning. Cul u al capi al has h ee speci ica ions: inco po a ed (in e nalized), objec i ied ( ep esen ed h ough objec s, books, pain ings) and ins i u ionalized ( o mally codi ied by academic He b h p:// i s monday.o g/h bin/cgiw ap/bin/ojs/index.php/ m/ /p in e F ie... 3 on 9 20.12.2010 16:10 i les). Social capi al – gene ally speaking – encompasses esou ces which a e based on a ilia ion o a g oup o a ne wo k o mo e o less ins i u ionalized ela ionships. A pe son’s speci ic posi ion is de e mined by accumula ed economic, cul u al and social capi al. As a ule, economic capi al domina es o he ypes o capi al – bu , depending on he social ield, o he ield–speci ic ypes o capi al may occu which may e en b eak he dominance o economic capi al wi hin a gi en ield. Bou dieu desc ibes a ield as “a uni e se encompassing all ac o s and ins i u ions ha c ea e and dissemina e a , li e a u e o science. This uni e se is like any o he social uni e se, bu ollows mo e o less speci ic social ules. This ela i ely au onomous mic ocosm, equipped wi h i s own ules and laws, is subsumed in he ield concep . Like he mac ocosm, he ield is subjec o social ules, bu hey a e di e en ules. Al hough he ield as mic ocosm is ne e en i ely independen o he cons ain s o he mac ocosm, i does enjoy a measu e o au onomy which can be g ea e o smalle .” [2] A he same ime, hese ields a e ields o o ce, powe and s uggle: “E e y ield, also he scien i ic ield, is a o ce– ield and a ealm o cons an s uggle abou he p ese a ion o he change o he o ces uling he ield. I is possible o desc ibe a scien i ic ealm like a physical uni e se wi h inhe en ela ions o powe and o sup emacy.” [3] Bou dieu de o es himsel explici ly o he ield o science in Homo academicus (Bou dieu, 2002) and in “Les usages sociaux de la science” (Bou dieu, 1998). In his speci ic ield, scien i ic capi al complemen s and domina es he o he h ee ypes o capi al. Scien i ic capi al and scien i ic communica ion Bou dieu (1998) di e en ia es wo ypes o scien i ic capi al and he ypes o powe connec ed o hem: Secula , poli ical, ins i u ional, and ins i u ionalised powe , which can be ound mos ly wi hin he bu eauc acy o science and which is accumula ed h ough he use o poli ical s a egies. I s ans e and he edi y – as wi h all so s o bu eauc a ic capi al – is easily achie ed. a. Speci ic o indi idual powe , pe sonal p es ige, pu e scien i ic capi al, based on ecogni ion and o a la ge ex en independen o he secula powe , bu much mo e a ec ed by challenges han (a). I s accumula ion is based on publica ion. This ype o scien i ic capi al is ola ile, which also means i is di icul o ans e . To Bou dieu, his is he pu es ype o scien i ic capi al. b. Bou dieu iden i ies a ci a ion index as an indica o o scien i ic capi al [4]: This capi al is mainly de eloped and accumula ed h ough publica ion in jou nals wi h a high impac ac o . The epu a ion is de i ed om a gi en scien is ’s publica ion eco d. The impac ac o dis illed om ha beha iou is o symbolic na u e: I is based solely on he alue a ached o published wo k by ele an people and hei ins i u ions wi hin a gi en ield o science. I his alue diminishes, he en i e alue o he in es men is los . This epu a ional alue ans o ms in o access o ele an esou ces. Scien i ic capi al is “based on he ecogni ion (o he c edi ) which is g an ed by all he pee s and compe i o s in he scien i ic ield.” [5] socially cons uc ed: I is a egula o y mechanism ela i e o g an ing o obs uc ing chances. In gene al, hese chances e lec he p obabili y o enjoy speci ic p i ilege, in he o m o luc a i e appoin men s, p ojec undings o ac i i ies as e e ees o expe s. These p i ileges in u n os e endencies owa ds a u he accumula ion o scien i ic capi al and powe . This powe b ings ma e ial p o i s such as highe incomes as well as he de elopmen o aluable ela ionships. The e a e also symbolic p o i s such as p o essional epu a ion, access o in e nal (and he e o e aluable) in o ma ion o membe ship in exclusi e g oups o associa ions. Hence he impac ac o is no only is a measu e o he quali y o scien i ic in o ma ion bu is abo e all a egula o y mechanism in he alloca ion o p i ileges. Wi hin in he ield o science, adhe ence o o hodox p ac ices and alloca ion mechanisms can be explained in he same way as in o he ields. Scien i ic capi al and ca ee s a e “ he esul o an in es men which mus pay o . And he holde s o he subsc ip ion ouche s will de end hei ‘capi al’ and hei ‘p o i s’ by de ending he ins i u ions ha a e he gua an o s o his capi al.” [6] Publica ion in open access jou nals a e mos ly igno ed in e iciency a ings, e alua ions o appoin men s (Bjö k, 2004). The dispa a e alloca ion o capi al is i al and essen ial o e e y ield and is he e o e He b h p:// i s monday.o g/h bin/cgiw ap/bin/ojs/index.php/ m/ /p in e F ie... 4 on 9 20.12.2010 16:10 sac osanc . Ac o s which ha e bene i ed om dis ibu i e mechanisms o capi al ha e li le o no in e es in changing hese mechanisms o e ening ou hese dispa i ies – because he dispa a e alloca ion o powe shapes and s uc u es disciplines. Whoe e owns scien i ic capi al has he “chance o se no only he ules o he game bu also egula i ies, o examples he laws go e ning he alloca ion o p o i s and p izes o he decisions ega ding which esea ch subjec s a e impo an and wo hwhile and wha is o be conside ed as ex ao dina y o as ou da ed.” [7] Fo Bou dieu, he ield o science is “a place and an objec o ba le, in pe cep ion as well as in eali y.” [8] Consequen ly, he calls he assump ion ha he e a e no dis ibu i e mechanisms o dis ibu i e s uggles in his ield illusio [9]. I s illusiona y essence is e ealed in he claim ha scien i ic in e es s – compa ed o con en ional in e es s (especially economic ones) – a e unsel ish: “a a subliminal le el, he ‘pu e’ and unsel ish in e es is an in e es in sel lessness, a kind o in e es ha is cha ac e is ic o he economy o all symbolic goods; in his economy, i is he unsel ishness which ca ies he ewa d. Thus, in a ce ain way, he s a egies o he ac o s a e always wo– aced, ambiguous, d i en by in e es s as well as disin e es ed, inspi ed by a kind o unsel ish sel –in e es which allows o comple ely an agonis ic bu equally e oneous (on accoun o hei one–sidedness) desc ip ion o mo i es – one hagiog aphic and idealizing, he o he cynical and educ ionis in i s denuncia ion o a scien i ic capi alis as a capi alis like any o he .” [10] This is consis en wi h he indings o Ge ha d F öhlich (1998). Acco ding o F öhlich, he e is a s a egic e en ion o in o ma ion wi hin o be ween eams and labo a o ies, in scien i ic publica ions and a scien i ic cong esses — eplacing he o icially p oclaimed ee and open compe i ion o ideas. One could e en assume his e en ion o in o ma ion is no he excep ion bu a he he ule, o a leas he p e alen p ac ice. In F öhlich’s iew, he unsel ishness o scien is s is e y limi ed. He desc ibes he p inciples o scien i ic communica ion as ollows [11]: Communica e in o mally jus as much as absolu ely necessa y o keep co po a ions ali e. Publish only as much as indispensable o p ese e one’s claim o p io i y on indings and hei o iginali y. Ci cula e in o mally o publish as li le in o ma ion o p ac ical use as possible o p e en compe i o s om aking compe i i e ad an age o his in o ma ion. F öhlich desc ibes aluable in o ma ion as objec s o sec ecy, objec s o ba e , gi s – gene ally as objec s o alue ha will no be andomly sca e ed amids he scien i ic public – le alone on he In e ne . The e en ion o in o ma ion pe ains, o example, o de ails abou expe imen s (so–called local knowledge), undocumen ed in o ma ion o p ac ical use, in o ma ion ela i e o he con ex o scien i ic disco e y, and o cou se speci ics de ined in a e y codi ied ja gon [12]. Thus, i seems eache ous o assume he p e ailing conce n o scien is s o be open communica ion as well as he open exchange o in o ma ion: “We a e a om he ideal o a ee ma ke , which is cu en ly being commended so highly; he e ec s o such a ma ke can only be wished upon science.” [13] Open in o ma ion ne wo ks = Excluding in o ma ion ne wo ks? F öhlich [14] assen s o Bou dieu’s poin o iew and c i icizes a he same ime he p esump ion ha In e ne –based communica ion, pe se, would ha e a le elling and democ acy–boos ing e ec . In e ms o Bou dieu’s heo ies o ields and dis inc ion, F öhlich desc ibes compu e ne wo ks as social ields, especially in hei capaci y as e ically s a i ied and s uc u ed ields o compe i ion. As in o he ields, indi iduals pu sue hei s a egies, ha e agendas and a e ying o each hei goals when hey u ilize compu e ne wo ks. They hope o gain and aise hei epu a ions, build exclusi e g oups and exclude o he s. No ma e how open a ne wo k o in as uc u e migh be, hey a e de ised, shaped and used by indi iduals. Consequen ly, hei u iliza ion is subjec o human in e es s and necessi ies like ne wo ks cons uc ed o dis inc i eness and powe . To F öhlich (1998), powe is a s uc u al ea u e o all social ela ions. To him, powe means con ol o e ope a ional esou ces which a e equi ed by o he s. Thus, he e en ion, blockade, and de e al o in o ma ion is an e ec i e s a egy in di e en compe i i e ields. In o ma ion ul ima ely is a ubiqui ously aluable good which is in en ionally made a e. The s a egic, ope a ional, and dis inc i e alue o in o ma ion dec eases as in o ma ion becomes mo e accessible. The e o e, F öhlich a gues ha p o essions and o he powe ul g oups o co po a ions depend on he e en ion and monopoliza ion o in o ma ion. He b h p:// i s monday.o g/h bin/cgiw ap/bin/ojs/index.php/ m/ /p in e F ie... 5 on 9 20.12.2010 16:10 The assump ion ha he me e a ailabili y o in o ma ion would lead o democ acy is a my h. I is also a my h o hink ha a decen alisa ion o echnical in as uc u es — especially he In e ne — would lead o a le elling o asymme ic alloca ions o powe (F öhlich, 1995; 1996). I would be mo e ealis ic o expec a cen alisa ion and accumula ion o powe suppo ed and sus ained by he In e ne . Be o e he Web e a s a ed, he e su ely was no equi alen o global wa ehouses such as Amazon.com. Acco ding o F öhlich, a u he concen a ion o powe and capi al in ci ies can be assumed, made possible by he s uc u e o he In e ne [15]. Hence, s a emen s abou he libe alizing o democ a ising e ec s o open access ha e o be pu in o pe spec i e. Despi e an accele a ed exchange and he ee accessibili y o in o ma ion, i s a ailabili y and usabili y s ill is subjec o a mul i ude o es ic ions. Digi al di ide and in o ma ion po e y, e hnocen ism and a heo y o science Re lec ions on open access la gely igno e no only he ield–speci ic ac o s bu also ex e nal implica ions o his concep . This is especially ue o open access ela i e o no ions o he digi al di ide. In hese so s o discussions, de eloping coun ies a e usually concep ualised as homogenous en i ies and as objec s – no ac o s – which can pa ake in he ue p omise o scien i ic in o ma ion c ea ed in wes e n Eu ope and he U.S. ee o cha ge by consuming open access publica ions. The ad an ages o de eloping coun ies may be eadily appa en in e ms o public heal h in o ma ion o p ima y da a. This in o ma ion may be o immedia e p ac ical use, sa ing esea che s in hose coun ies immense expenses and ime wi h hei own expe imen s. Ne e heless, is his esea ch app op ia e o ques ions in de eloping coun ies? Wi h Bou dieu and F öhlich in mind, does his esea ch ha e alue wi hou leng hy, ime–consuming and labo ious inco po a ion o scien i ic and cul u al capi al? Ju a Haide (2006) analyzed he connec ions be ween open access and in o ma ion po e y. Open access is commonly desc ibed as an ins umen which educes in o ma ion po e y. Coun ies su e ing om in o ma ion po e y a e mos ly iden i ied by economic (poo coun ies) o echnical (coun ies wi h a weak in as uc u e) pa ame e s. This no ion hides a gla ing e hnocen ism. The ans o ma ion o all socie ies based on Wes e n socie ies is almos conside ed an e olu iona y uni e salism. Fu he mo e, aluable in o ma ion is equa ed wi h Wes e n science, which some conside o p oduce co ec knowledge wi hou deba e. Haide (2006) analysed a no ion o in o ma ion po e y by means o Foucaul ian discou se analysis. Foucaul (1972) desc ibes discou se as a special concep o eali y which ep esen s and pe pe ua es i sel in he language i is amed in. A discou se o mula es speci ic ules which de e mine a iew o eali y ia language. These ules de ine a speci ic con ex , a ield o knowledge, a scien i ic ield o e en an abs ac no ion o idea (e.g., globaliza ion). Discou se is igh ly linked o powe . I p e ends o desc ibe eali y, bu in ac , i p esc ibes eali y. Haide examined he use o he no ion in o ma ion po e y in de elopmen al discou se and in lib a y and in o ma ion science (LIS) discou se. In o ma ion po e y is ied o LIS (in o ma ion) and de elopmen al (po e y) discou se (Haide and Bawden, 2006). Bo h discou ses also con e ge in any discussion abou he digi al di ide. Wi hin LIS discou se, coun ies su e ing om in o ma ion po e y appea o be objec s, consignees o ue und co ec in o ma ion. Whoe e is labelled as in o ma ion poo emains passi e und is subjec o in e en ion by expe s. In his case o in o ma ion po e y, i is in o ma ion p o essionals, in o ma ion scien is s and lib a ians ha a e pu po ing o be bene ac o s. This cons uc ion pe pe ua es he subo dina ion o de eloping coun ies unde he expe ise o he Wes e n coun ies. This hie a chical s a i ica ion u he s powe and con ol o e he de eloping coun ies. I open access is concep ualised as a ehicle o educe he digi al di ide, i also ein o ces exis ing dependencies and asymme ic alloca ions o discu si e, poli ical and ma e ialis ic powe . This implici ly aises he ques ion whe he open access, in ou discussion abou he digi al di ide, suppo s Wes e n impe ialism. The basic ques ion ega ding open access is whe he he e is a widely co ec , well–p o en (bu s ill app oxima i e) knowledge which is accumula ing h ough e olu ion and which is ep esen ed in science. This posi ion is held, o ins ance, by Poppe (1992). a. O whe he he e a e se e al en i ely di e en pa adigms o knowledge which a e no e olu iona y in cha ac e , bu which a e ch onologically ollowing one ano he . This is he posi ion o Kuhn (1970). b. O whe he he e a e se e al en i ely di e en pa adigms o knowledge which a e no e olu iona y and which exis simul aneously. This iew was o mula ed by Feye abend (1975). c. Hence, does open access con ibu e o global s anda diza ion o o a homogeniza ion o He b h p:// i s monday.o g/h bin/cgiw ap/bin/ojs/index.php/ m/ /p in e F ie... 6 on 9 20.12.2010 16:10 cul u al pa e ns? Libe alising elemen s Ne e heless, open access gi es scien is s om de eloping coun ies oppo uni ies o make hei own scien i ic in o ma ion a ailable ee o cha ge and o dis ibu e i globally. In his way, open access p o ides oppo uni ies o scien is s anywhe e o become ac i e pa ne s in scien i ic discussions. Haide (2005) examined how he p oduc ion o open access jou nals is dis ibu ed globally. She ound ha signi ican ly mo e open access jou nals a e published in de eloping coun ies han in de eloped coun ies. Al hough cons ain s such as a icle ees and occasionally insu icien o absen echnical in as uc u es a e obs uc ing open access publishing in hese coun ies (Papin–Ramcha an and Dawe, 2006), open access none heless gi es he scien is s om hese coun ies oppo uni ies o swi ch mo e easily om oles o in o ma ion consume s o oles o in o ma ion p oduce s. Admi edly, he impo ance o hese jou nals has o be de e mined by hei impac ac o s. Open access and non–English jou nals a e unde ep esen ed in impac ac o sampling (Dong, e al., 2005). Indeed, Packe and Meneghini (2007) ound ha jou nals om he de eloped wo ld ha e signi ican ly highe impac ac o s han hose om he de eloping wo ld. These indings co ela e wi h he esul s by B aun and Dióspa onyi (2005). They ound ha esea che s om he de eloping wo ld a e a ely ound on he edi o ial boa ds o high–impac jou nals. All hese s udies indica e a s ong unde ep esen a ion o scien is s and scien i ic in o ma ion om de eloping coun ies and hei exclusion om scien i ic discou se. I could be assumed ha open access will a ec only he quan i y o scien i ic in o ma ion om de eloping coun ies. I seems e y doub ul i open access will eally libe a e scien i ic communica ion. Ne e heless, he e is a p o ound and comp ehensi e in e ela edness be ween open access and o he pa adigms o openness, such as open sou ce. All o hese no ions o openness a e iable al e na i es o exis ing in ellec ual p ope y egimes (Haide , 2007). F ee (in he e ms o open) access o in o ma ion is no su icien o ensu e in o med discussion. A uly open concep o open access and democ acy c ea es no only oppo uni ies o ecei e and consume in o ma ion; i also o e s oppo uni ies o publica ion and epu a ion building. Abou he au ho Ul ich He b is he Reposi o y Manage and Specialis Elec onic Publishing a Saa land Uni e si y and S a e Lib a y (Ge many), he s udied sociology a Saa land Uni e si y and cu en ly he is wo king on his Ph.D. in in o ma ion science. He is membe o se e al wo king g oups ocusing on open access and elec onic publishing. Addi ionally he publishes a icles on science jou nalism as a eelance o se e al newspape s. E–mail: u [do ] he b [a ] sulb [do ] uni-saa land [do ] de No es 1. Bou dieu, 1997, pp. 47–79. 2. “ein Uni e sum, das all jene Ak eu e und Ins i u ionen um ass , die [z.B.] Kuns , Li e a u ode Wissenscha e zeugen und e b ei en. Dieses Uni e sum is eine soziale Wel wie jede ande e auch, geho ch abe meh ode wenige spezi ischen sozialen Gese zen. De Beg i des Feldes is nun dazu da, diesen ela i au onomen Raum, diesen mi eigenen Gese zen ausges a e en Mik okosmos zu besch eiben. E is zwa , wie de Mak okosmos, sozialen Gese zen un e wo en, abe es sind nich dieselben. Obwohl e sich nie ganz den Zwängen des Mak okosmos en ziehen kann, e üg e doch übe eine meh ode minde ausgep äg e Au onomie.” (Bou dieu, 1998, p. 18, ansla ed by he au ho ) 3. “Jedes Feld, auch das wissenscha liche, is ein K ä e eld und ein Feld de Kämp e um die Bewah ung ode Ve ände ung dieses K ä e eldes. Man kann (…) einen wissenscha lichen (…) Raum wie eine physikalische Wel besch eiben, die K ä ebeziehungen, He scha sbeziehungen en häl .” (Bou dieu, 1998, p. 20, ansla ed by he au ho ) 4. Bou dieu, 1998, p. 23. 5. “au de Ane kennung (ode dem K edi ) (…), den die Gesam hei de gleichgesinn en We bewe be inne halb des wissenscha lichen Feldes gewäh .” (Bou dieu, 1998, ansla ed by he au ho ) 6. “E gebnis eine In es i ion (…) , die sich auszahlen muß. Und diejenigen, die diese Be ech igungsscheine in de Hand hal en, e eidigen ih ‘Kapi al’ und ih e ‘P o i e’, indem sie diejenigen Ins i u ionen e eidigen, die ihnen dieses ‘Kapi al’ ga an ie en.” (Bou dieu, 1997, p. 23, ansla ed by he au ho ) He b h p:// i s monday.o g/h bin/cgiw ap/bin/ojs/index.php/ m/ /p in e F ie... 7 on 9 20.12.2010 16:10 7. “die Regeln des Spiels es zulegen, sonde n auch die Regelmäßigkei en des Spiels, die Gese ze e wa, nach denen Spielgewinne e eil we den, Gese ze, die bes immen, welche Fo schungsgegens ände on Bedeu ung sind, die da übe en scheiden, ob e was als auße gewöhnlich ode übe hol gil .” (Bou dieu, 1998, pp. 23 ., ansla ed by he au ho ) 8. “Kamp gegens and, in de Wah nehmung ebenso wie in de Wi klichkei .” (Bou dieu, 1998, p. 25, ansla ed by he au ho ) 9. Bou dieu, 1998, p. 27. 10. “un e schwellig is das ‘ eine’, das uneigennü zige In e esse ein In e esse an de Uneigennü zigkei , eine A des In e esses, die zu allen Ökonomien symbolische Gü e gehö , wo es in gewissem Sinne die Uneigennü zigkei is , die sich ‘auszahl ’ (…). So sind die S a egien de Ak eu e in gewisse Weise imme doppelgesich ig, doppelsinnig, in e essengelei e und in e essenlos, beseel on eine A Eigennu z de Uneigennü zigkei , de öllig gegensä zliche abe gleiche maßen alsche, weil einsei ige Besch eibungen zuläß , die eine hagiog aphisch und idealisie end, die ande e zynisch und eduk ionis isch, wenn sie aus dem ‘Wissenscha skapi alis en’ einen Kapi alis en wie jeden ande en mach .” (Bou dieu 1998, p. 27, ansla ed by he au ho ) 11. F öhlich, 1998, p. 541. 12. F öhlich, 1998, pp. 540 . 13. “Vom Ideal des eien Ma k es, den man ge ade so anp eis , is man wei en e n , die Wi kungen eines solchen Ma k es sind de Wissenscha nu zu wünschen.” (Pie e Bou dieu in e iewed by F ank Nouchi in 1993 in Bou dieu, 1998, p. 80, ansla ed by he au ho ) 14. F öhlich, 1998, p. 546. 15. F öhlich, 1996, p. 296. Re e ences Bo–Ch is e Bjö k, 2004. “Open access o scien i ic publica ions — an analysis o he ba ie s o change?“ In o ma ion Resea ch, olume 9, numbe 2, a h p://in o ma ion .ne /i /9-2 /pape 170.h ml, accessed 12 July 2009. Budapes Open Access Ini ia i e (BOAI), 2002. “Budapes Open Access Ini ia i e,“ a h p://www.so os.o g/openaccess/g/ ead.sh ml, accessed 12 July 2009. Pie e Bou dieu, 2002. Homo academicus. F ank u am Main: Suh kamp. Pie e Bou dieu, 1998. Vom Geb auch de Wissenscha : Fü eine klinische Soziologie des Wissenscha lichen Feldes. Kons anz: UVK Uni e si ä s e lag Kons anz. Pie e Bou dieu, 1997. Die e bo genen Mechanismen de Mach . Hambu g: VSA–Ve lag. Tibo B aun and Ildikó Dióspa onyi, 2005. “Coun ing he ga ekeepe s o in e na ional science jou nals a wo hwhile science indica o ,“ Cu en Science, olume 89, numbe 9, pp. 1548–1551, and a h p://www.ias.ac.in/cu sci/no 102005/1548.pd , accessed 12 July 2009. Deu sche Fo schungsgesellscha (DFG; Ge man Resea ch Founda ion), 2005. “Publica ion s a egies in ans o ma ion? Resul s o a s udy on publishing habi s and in o ma ion acquisi ion wi h ega d o open access,” a h p://www.d g.de/en/d g_p o ile /s a is ics_e alua ion/p og amme_e alua ion/s udies/s udy_publika ionss a egien /index.h ml, accessed 7 Feb ua y 2010. Peng Dong, Ma ie Loh and Ad ian Mond y, 2005. “The ‘impac ac o ’ e isi ed,“ Biomedical Digi al Lib a ies, olume 2, numbe 7, a h p://www.bio-diglib.com/con en /2/1/7, accessed 12 July 2009. Elec onic Publishing Se ices (EPS), L d., 2006. Scien i ic, Technical and Medical (STM) Ma ke Moni o . London: Elec onic Publishing Se ices L d. Paul Feye abend, 1975. Agains me hod: Ou line o an ana chis ic heo y o knowledge. London: NLB. Michel Foucaul , 1972. The a chaeology o knowledge; and, he discou se on language. New Yo k: Pan heon. Ge ha d F öhlich, 1998. “Op imale In o ma ions o en hal ung als S a egem wissenscha liche Kommunika ion,” In: Ha ald H. Zimme mann and Volke Sch amm (edi o s). Knowledge Managemen und Kommunika ionssys eme [Wo k low Managemen , Mul imedia, Knowledge T ans e ]. Sch i en zu In o ma ionswissenscha , olume 34. Kons anz: Uni e si ä s e lag Kons anz, pp. 535–549. He b h p:// i s monday.o g/h bin/cgiw ap/bin/ojs/index.php/ m/ /p in e F ie... 8 on 9 20.12.2010 16:10 Ge ha d F öhlich, 1996. “Ne z Eupho ien: Zu K i ik digi ale und soziale Ne z(we k)me aphe n,” In: Al ed Sch amm (edi o ). Philosophie in Ös e eich 1996. Vienna: Hölde –Pichle –Tempsky, pp. 292–306. Ge ha d F öhlich, 1995. “Demok a isie ung du ch Da enbanken und Compu e ne ze?” In: Be na d Knoblach and Edga Fixl (edi o s). In o ma ionsspezialis en zwischen Technik und gesellscha liche Ve an wo ung. S u ga : HBI, pp. 55–60. Jü gen Habe mas, 1984.Theo y o communica i e ac ion. London: Heinemann. Ju a Haide , 2007. “O he ich and he poo and o he cu ious minds: On open access and ‘de elopmen ’,” ASLIB P oceedings, olume 59, numbe s 4/5, pp. 449–461. Ju a Haide , 2006. “Concep ions o ‘in o ma ion po e y’ in LIS: An analysis o discou ses,” In: Jane Kje mann Jensen, Ki s ine Hagen Thomasen; Ma ie–Louise Wes ing Sø ensen, Thomas Bjø n Sa p Hansen and Lau i s Thomas Rasmussen (edi o s). In o ma ion, inno a ion, esponsibili y: In o ma ion p o essional in he ne wo k socie y: P oceedings o he 14 h BOBCATSSS Symposium. Copenhagen: Royal School o Lib a y and In o ma ion Science, pp. 79–89. Ju a Haide , 2005. “The geog aphic dis ibu ion o open access jou nals,” a h p://dlis .si .a izona.edu/939/, accessed 12 July 2009. Ju a Haide and Da id Bawden, 2006. “Pai ing in o ma ion wi h po e y: T aces o de elopmen discou ses in LIS,” New Lib a y Wo ld, olume 107, numbe s 9/10, pp. 371–385. Thomas Hess, Rol T. Wigand, Flo ian Mann and Benedik on Wal e , 2007. Open access & science publishing: Resul s o a s udy on esea che s’ accep ance and use o open access publishing. Munich: Ludwig–Maximilians–Uni e si ä , Ins i u e o In o ma ion Sys ems and New Media, and a h p://openaccess-s udy.com /Hess_Wigand_Mann_Wal e _2007_Open_Access_Managemen _Repo .pd , accessed 7 Feb ua y 2010. U.K. House o Commons, Science and Technology Commi ee, 2004. Science and Technology: Ten h Repo . London: U.K. House o Commons, Science and Technology Commi ee, a h p://www.publica ions.pa liamen .uk/pa/cm200304/cmselec /cmsc ech /399/39902.h m, accessed 12 July 2009. Robe Kiley and Robe Te y, 2006. “Open access o he esea ch li e a u e: A unde ’s pe spec i e,” In: Neil Jacobs (edi o ). Open access: Key s a egic, echnical and economic aspec s. Ox o d: Chandos, pp. 101–109. Thomas S. Kuhn, 1970. The s uc u e o scien i ic e olu ions. Second edi ion, enla ged. Chicago: Uni e si y o Chicago P ess. Abel L. Packe and Roge io Meneghini, 2007. “Lea ning o communica e science in de eloping coun ies,” In e ciencia, olume 32, numbe 9, pp. 643–647, and a h p://www.in e ciencia.o g/ 32_09/643.pd , accessed 12 July 2009. Jenni e I. Papin–Ramcha an and Richa d A. Dawe, 2006. “Open access publishing: A de eloping coun y iew,” Fi s Monday, olume 11, numbe 6, a h p:// i s monday.o g /h bin/cgiw ap/bin/ojs/index.php/ m/a icle/ iew/1332/1252, accessed 12 July 2009. Ka l R. Poppe , 1992. The logic o scien i ic disco e y. New Yo k: Rou ledge. Alma Swan and She idan B own, 2005. Open access sel –a chi ing: An au ho s udy. T u o: Key Pe spec i es. Edi o ial his o y Pape ecei ed 13 July 2009; accep ed 19 No embe 2009. This wo k is licensed unde a C ea i e Commons A ibu ion 3.0 Ge many License. Sociological implica ions o scien i ic publishing: Open access, science, socie y, democ acy, and he digi al di ide by Ul ich He b. Fi s Monday, Volume 15, Numbe 2 - 1 Feb ua y 2010 h p:// i s monday.o g/h bin/cgiw ap/bin/ojs/index.php/ m/ /p in e F iendly/2599/2404 He b h p:// i s monday.o g/h bin/cgiw ap/bin/ojs/index.php/ m/ /p in e F ie... 9 on 9 20.12.2010 16:10