I found this post interesting because it underscores the idea that open access is not an end in itself, but rather, it is a means to an end. But to what end? As the authors write, this discussion constitutes "a dense and active cloud of values, motivations, and incentives knit so closely to the nucleus as to be indistinguishable from open access itself." The danger here is in thinking that if you're not working for open access for the right reasons, you're not doing open access the right way. So the 'unified approach' in this article came doing to something like the following: " (1) the concept of community in building an open future and (2) ensuring that equity is foundational to the open access shift." David Wiley talks about the role of open in terms of quality education, and for me it's about personal learning, expression and networking. If you're not working toward community and equity specifically, can you still be working toward open access? That's a pretty core question.
Today: 0 Total: 1380 [Direct link] [Share]
