Open Scholarship Press Collections: Connection/Maintaining Connections and Fostering Care in Digital Knowledge Commons

Commercialization, Commodification, and the Common Good

Φ ▲ Adema, Janneke. 2016. “Don’t Give Your Labour to Academia.edu, Use It to Strengthen the Academic Commons.” Liquid Books. http://liquidbooks.pbworks.com/w/page/106882533/Don%E2%80%99t%20Give%20Your%20Labour%20To%20Academia_edu%20Use%20It%20To%20Strengthen%20The%20Academic%20Commons (Φ Knowledge Commons as Sites of Connection > (Academic) Social Networking Sites as Knowledge Commons)

Φ ▲ Adema, Janneke, Gary Hall, Fitzpatrick Kathleen, Aventurier Pascal, and Parry David. 2015. Really, We’re Helping To Build This . . . Business: The Academia.edu Files. Liquid Books. http://liquidbooks.pbworks.com/w/page/106236504/The%20Academia_edu%20Files (Φ Knowledge Commons as Sites of Connection > (Academic) Social Networking Sites as Knowledge Commons)

Φ Bollier, David. 2002. “The Enclosure of the Academic Commons.” Academe 88 (5): 18–22. https://doi.org/10.2307/40252215 (Φ Knowledge Commons as Sites of Connection > Historical and Theoretical Approaches to Knowledge Commons)

Φ Bollier, David. 2006. “The Growth of the Commons Paradigm.” In Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice, edited by Charlotte Hess and Elinor Ostrom, 27–40. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uvic/detail.action?docID=3338502 (Φ Knowledge Commons as Sites of Connection > Historical and Theoretical Approaches to Knowledge Commons)

Φ ▲ Boyle, James. 2008. The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. (Φ Knowledge Commons as Sites of Connection > Historical and Theoretical Approaches to Knowledge Commons)

Φ ▲ Burke, Peter. 2000. A Social History of Knowledge: From Gutenberg to Diderot, Based on the First Series of Vonhoff Lectures given at the University of Groningen (Netherlands). Cambridge, UK; Malden, Mass: Polity Press ; Blackwell Publishers. (Φ Knowledge Commons as Sites of Connection > Historical and Theoretical Approaches to Knowledge Commons)

Φ ▲ Burke, Peter. 2012. A Social History of Knowledge. II: From the Encyclopédie to Wikipedia. Cambridge, UK; Malden, MA: Polity Press. (Φ Knowledge Commons as Sites of Connection > Historical and Theoretical Approaches to Knowledge Commons)

Chan, Leslie. 2019. “Open Infrastructure: From Monocultures to Bibliodiversity.” Introduction to Connecting the Knowledge Commons—From Projects to Sustainable Infrastructure: The 22nd International Conference on Electronic Publishing—Revised Selected Papers, edited by Leslie Chan and Pierre Mounier. Marseille: OpenEdition Press. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.oep.9050

Chan’s introduction to Connecting the Knowledge Commons: From Projects to Sustainable Infrastructures draws together papers from the 2018 Electronic Publishing (ELPUB) conference, which has increasingly brought questions about open access to bear on the work of its diverse and internationally distributed members. Chan notes that recent efforts to theorize and implement open access publishing practices have foregrounded instances of epistemic injustice and inequity, as well as the extent to which open access remains both a disputed term and an internally conflicted area of scholarly activity. What is more, open access poses many still-unresolved questions about the future of academic publishers and their negotiation of public and private interests. In response, Chan embraces bibliodiversity as a productive, necessary entry point into broader discussions of publishing, information studies, and scholarly communication. This lens allows us to account for issues of structural and infrastructural imbalance that the author argues are central, not peripheral, to increasingly common discussions about openness in knowledge economies in a variety of global and institutional contexts.

Φ De Angelis, Massimo, and David Harvie. 2013. “The Commons.” In The Routledge Companion to Alternative Organization, edited by Martin Parker, George Cheney, Valérie Fournier, and Chris Land, 280–94. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203725351-30 (Φ Knowledge Commons as Sites of Connection > Historical and Theoretical Approaches to Knowledge Commons)

Φ ▲ Duffy, Brooke Erin, and Jefferson D. Pooley. 2017. “‘Facebook for Academics’: The Convergence of Self-Branding and Social Media Logic on Academia.edu.” Social Media + Society 3 (1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305117696523 (Φ Knowledge Commons as Sites of Connection > (Academic) Social Networking Sites as Knowledge Commons)

Φ ▲ Eve, Martin Paul. 2015. “Academia.edu’s Peer Review Experiments.” In Really, We're Helping To Build This . . . Business: The Academia.edu Files. Liquid Books. http://liquidbooks.pbworks.com/w/page/106646922/Academia_edu%E2%80%99s%20peer%20review%20experiments (Φ Knowledge Commons as Sites of Connection > (Academic) Social Networking Sites as Knowledge Commons)

Φ ▲ Fitzpatrick, Kathleen. 2015. “Academia, not Edu,” Really, We're Helping To Build This . . . Business: The Academia.edu Files. Liquid Books. http://liquidbooks.pbworks.com/w/page/106424037/Academia%2C%20Not%20Edu (Φ Knowledge Commons as Sites of Connection > (Academic) Social Networking Sites as Knowledge Commons)

Φ ▲ Geltner, G. 2015. “Upon Leaving Academia.edu.” Billet. Mittelalter. Interdisziplinäre Forschung und Rezeptionsgeschichte (blog). https://mittelalter.hypotheses.org/7123 (Φ Knowledge Commons as Sites of Connection > (Academic) Social Networking Sites as Knowledge Commons)

Φ ▲ Hall, Gary. 2015. “What Does Academia.edu’s Success Mean for Open Access?” In Really, We're Helping To Build This . . . Business: The Academia.edu Files. Liquid Books. http://liquidbooks.pbworks.com/w/page/106236504/The%20Academia_edu%20Files (Φ Knowledge Commons as Sites of Connection > (Academic) Social Networking Sites as Knowledge Commons)

Φ Hensher, Martin, Katie Kish, Joshua Farley, Stephen Quilley, and Katharine Zywert. 2020. “Open Knowledge Commons versus Privatized Gain in a Fractured Information Ecology: Lessons from COVID-19 for the Future of Sustainability.” Global Sustainability 3. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.21 (Φ Forms of Connection and Collaboration in Digital Knowledge Commons > Commons-based Approaches to Teaching and Research)

Θ Kranich, Nancy. 2006. “Countering Enclosure: Reclaiming the Knowledge Commons.” In Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice, edited by Charlotte Hess and Elinor Ostrom, 85–122. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Nancy Kranich argues that digital knowledge commons offer an alternative to existing scholarly publishing models that is necessary for economic reasons and for ensuring democratic participation in society. Although sharing information widely is easier than ever before, digital technologies have tended to centralize information sources, for example in commercial publishers or in government. These technologies provide the ability to restrict access as well as increase it, such as, in the United States context, making information classified or otherwise restricted or unavailable. Digital knowledge commons provide an opportunity for the scholarly community to redefine how the knowledge it produces is shared and circulated, taking on the role of active participants in the knowledge ecosystem, a role now primarily held by scholarly publishers. This paradigm shift requires collaboration—not just cooperation—between individuals and among groups of diverse stakeholders in the scholarly community, as well as sustainable infrastructure for supporting it in the long term.

Φ Levine, Peter. 2002. “Building the Electronic Commons.” The Good Society 11 (3): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1353/gso.2003.0008 (Φ Knowledge Commons as Sites of Connection > Historical and Theoretical Approaches to Knowledge Commons)

Ossewaarde, Marinus, and Wessel Reijers. 2017. “The Illusion of the Digital Commons: ‘False Consciousness’ in Online Alternative Economies.” Organization 24 (5): 609–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508417713217

Ossewaarde and Reijers examine digital commons—and specifically the hospitality exchange platforms Airbnb, Couchsurfing, and BeWelcome—to challenge the widespread assumption that digital commons premised on sharing function as truly emancipatory spaces set apart from capitalist culture. They claim that, as technologically mediated platforms, digital commons are in fact very susceptible to market pressures, and that there is a disconnect between the seemingly non- or even anti-capitalist practice of “commoning” (open, digital sharing) and the economic pressures that inevitably act on and constrain digital commons themselves. This tension, they argue, can ultimately engender profound cynicism. Invoking sociologist Georg Simmel on the topic of economic exchange and Peter Sloterdijk on cynicism, their discussion focuses on hospitality exchange platforms while gesturing, via media and technology studies criticism, to the relevance of these ideas in discussions of digital commons and practices of digital commons more generally. By way of conclusion, they briefly sketch out two possible solutions to the problems they introduce: vigilant, democratic governance of digital commons, and further self-reflexive examination of the ways technology mediates our lives.

Φ ▲ Pooley, Jefferson. 2018. “Metrics Mania: The Case Against Academia.edu.” Chronicle of Higher Education (January). https://hcommons.org/deposits/item/hc:17533/ (Φ Knowledge Commons as Sites of Connection > (Academic) Social Networking Sites as Knowledge Commons)

Φ ▲ Rushforth, Alex. 2015. “The Facebook-ization of Academic Reputation? ResearchGate, Academia.edu and Everyday Neoliberalism.” In Really, We're Helping To Build This . . . Business: The Academia.edu Files. Liquid Books. http://liquidbooks.pbworks.com/w/page/106236504/The%20Academia_edu%20Files (Φ Knowledge Commons as Sites of Connection > (Academic) Social Networking Sites as Knowledge Commons)

Φ ▲ Tennant, Jon. 2017. “Who Isn’t Profiting Off the Backs of Researchers?” Discover Magazine. https://www.discovermagazine.com/technology/who-isnt-profiting-off-the-backs-of-researchers (Φ Knowledge Commons as Sites of Connection > (Academic) Social Networking Sites as Knowledge Commons)

Governance and Conduct in Digital Knowledge Commons

Digital Citizens Alliance. 2017. “Trouble in Our Digital Midst: How Digital Platforms Are Being Overrun by Bad Actors and How the Internet Community Can Beat Them at Their Own Game” (June). https://www.digitalcitizensalliance.org/clientuploads/directory/Reports/Trouble-in-Our%20Digital-Midst%20Report-June-2017.pdf

In April 2017, the Digital Citizens Alliance—a non-profit, consumer-oriented coalition based in Washington, DC—conducted a poll of American consumers to determine their level of trust regarding online services and platforms. Their poll, whose results are summarized in this report, found that the public’s trust in these services and platforms has decreased significantly, despite recent steps taken by Facebook, Google, Twitter, and other major players to combat bad actors, fake news, and other issues that continue to plague digital communities. The authors assert that digital platforms must adopt a holistic approach, working together with cybersecurity experts, law enforcement agencies, and civil rights and consumer protection groups in order to proactively restore trust and make the Internet—including their own websites—a safer place. Although the poll and accompanying report focus on American consumers, their call for solutions to issues of digital security, safety, and trust are relevant in other national contexts as well.

Dyer, Harry T. 2017. “Interactivity, Social Media, and Superman: How Comic Books Can Help Us Understand and Conceptualize Interactivity Online.” In Digital Sociologies, edited by Jessie Daniels, Karen Gregory, and Tressie McMillan Cottom, 77–101. Bristol: Policy Press.

Dyer examines the concept of digital interactivity from a sociological perspective, summarizing and synthesizing the three most common theoretical approaches to interactivity. Exploring each of these approaches in turn, he ultimately argues that comic book studies can serve as a lens through which critics better understand individuals’ unique narrative traversals—and corresponding experiences—of media forms in relation to the larger sociological assumptions and expectations that govern them. Responding to live discussions in the fields of digital sociology, media studies, and science and technology studies, he also extends comic book studies’ concept of “closure” with reference to critics such as Bruno Latour and Michel Foucault. While Dyer acknowledges that design and other technological factors can positively or negatively influence conduct, he stresses that human actions and interpretations must be given greater consideration in future conversations about digital interactivity.

Geek Feminism Wiki. n.d. “Mitigating Internet Trollstorms.” Geek Feminism Wiki. Accessed February 4, 2021. https://geekfeminism.wikia.org/wiki/Mitigating_internet_trollstorms

Published by Geek Feminism Wiki, this evolving community-driven resource offers concrete advice and support for anyone who has experienced, or fears they may be subjected to, personal online attacks and trolling. It includes a detailed security checklist, security best practices regarding topics such as passwords and identity theft, advice for working with law enforcement, mental health and self-care information, resources to be shared with friends and family, and other recommended readings. Throughout, it also emphasizes the intersection of attacks and abusive behaviour in shared digital spaces with issues of sexism and racism.

Φ Madison, Michael J., Brett M. Frischmann, and Katherine J. Strandburg. 2019. “Knowledge Commons.” In Routledge Handbook of the Study of the Commons, edited by Blake Hudson, Jonathan Rosenbloom, and Dan Cole, 76–90. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315162782-7 (Φ Knowledge Commons as Sites of Connection > Historical and Theoretical Approaches to Knowledge Commons)

Φ ¤ McMillan Cottom, Tressie. 2015. “‘Who Do You Think You Are?’: When Marginality Meets Academic Microcelebrity.” Ada: A Journal of Gender, New Media, and Technology 7. https://doi.org/10.7264/N3319T5T (Φ Forms of Connection and Collaboration in Digital Knowledge Commons > Open Social Scholarship and Social Knowledge Creation)

Φ ¤ Morrison, Aimée. 2018. “Of, By, and For the Internet: New Media Studies and Public Scholarship.” In The Routledge Companion to Media Studies and Digital Humanities, edited by Jentery Sayers, 56–66. New York: Routledge. (Φ Forms of Connection and Collaboration in Digital Knowledge Commons > Community Engagement)

Φ Ossewaarde, Marinus, and Wessel Reijers. 2017. “The Illusion of the Digital Commons: ‘False Consciousness’ in Online Alternative Economies.” Organization 24 (5): 609–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508417713217 (Φ Maintaining Connections and Fostering Care in Digital Knowledge Commons > Commercialization, Commodification, and the Common Good)

Φ ¤ Veletsianos, George. 2016. Social Media in Academia: Networked Scholars. New York: Routledge, 2016. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315742298 (Φ Knowledge Commons as Sites of Connection > (Academic) Social Networking Sites as Knowledge Commons)

Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Digital Spaces

¤ Albornoz, Denisse, Angela Okune, and Leslie Chan. 2020. “Can Open Scholarly Practices Redress Epistemic Injustice?” In Reassembling Scholarly Communications: Histories, Infrastructures, and Global Politics of Open Access, edited by Martin Paul Eve and Jonathan Gray, 65–79. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Albornoz, Okune, and Chan challenge the idea that open access has made all knowledge more available. Rather, the authors suggest, open access has made research undertaken by scholars in the Global North more available, to the detriment and increased obscuration of research by scholars in the Global South. Albornoz, Okune, and Chan reinforce this point when they argue that “open systems may potentially replicate the very values and power imbalances that the movement initially sought to change” (65), in particular regarding the replication of epistemic injustice. The authors also outline institutional forces that have invalidated certain types of knowledge, including academic publishing, the primacy of the English language, and professional advancement criteria. Albornoz, Okune, and Chan conclude by making four recommendations for open research: 1) for scholars in the Global North to recognize their privilege; 2) to challenge the current standards and norms that promote epistemic injustice; 3) to learn from ongoing projects that are already seeking to address injustice; and 4) to recontextualize open access as a more radical movement with direct responsibility for undoing structural oppression.

Φ Chan, Leslie. 2019. “Open Infrastructure: From Monocultures to Bibliodiversity.” Introduction to Connecting the Knowledge Commons—From Projects to Sustainable Infrastructure : The 22nd International Conference on Electronic Publishing—Revised Selected Papers, edited by Leslie Chan and Pierre Mounier. Marseille: OpenEdition Press. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.oep.9050 (Φ Maintaining Connections and Fostering Care in Digital Knowledge Commons > Commercialization, Commodification, and the Common Good)

Φ Joranson, Kate. 2008. “Indigenous Knowledge and the Knowledge Commons.” International Information & Library Review 40 (1): 64–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572317.2008.10762763 (Φ Knowledge Commons as Sites of Connection > Historical and Theoretical Approaches to Knowledge Commons)

† Liu, Alan. 2012. “Where Is Cultural Criticism in the Digital Humanities?” In Debates in the Digital Humanities, edited by Matthew K. Gold, 490–509. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. https://dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/read/untitled-88c11800-9446-469b-a3be-3fdb36bfbd1e/section/896742e7-5218-42c5-89b0-0c3c75682a2f

Liu surveys the state of the digital humanities in relation to the humanities at large. He argues that, thus far, digital humanities projects have often lacked the self-reflexivity and cultural criticism necessary for the ethical development of humanistic projects—thereby denying the digital humanities a real or full position in the humanities. Because the digital humanities avoid cultural criticism, they frequently become subservient or merely instrumental to the humanities as a whole, functioning as either a moneymaker or tech support. Liu claims that the digital humanities could deconstruct the hierarchy by becoming both self-reflexive and invaluable, thereby leading the humanities into the academic future.

Φ ¤ McMillan Cottom, Tressie. 2015. “‘Who Do You Think You Are?’: When Marginality Meets Academic Microcelebrity.” Ada: A Journal of Gender, New Media, and Technology 7. https://doi.org/10.7264/N3319T5T (Φ Forms of Connection and Collaboration in Digital Knowledge Commons > Open Social Scholarship and Social Knowledge Creation)

† McPherson, Tara. 2012. “Why Are the Digital Humanities So White? Or Thinking the Histories of Race and Computation.” In Debates in the Digital Humanities, edited by Matthew K. Gold. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. https://dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/read/untitled-88c11800-9446-469b-a3be-3fdb36bfbd1e/section/20df8acd-9ab9-4f35-8a5d-e91aa5f4a0ea#ch09

McPherson explores how to knit together distinct issues in the humanities and the digital humanities. She argues that the ethnically homogenous computational culture that came out of World War II caused the current, fraught intersection of race and technology. McPherson narrates two fragments from history in the 1960s to illustrate her argument: computer scientists working to develop UNIX/MULTICS, and the assassination of Malcolm X. She argues that while these two events are parallel in time and are deeply related, they appear siloed because they attract separate audiences. McPherson urges that race and even post-structuralism be put in conversation with technology as fundamental factors in the shaping of the discipline. She does not argue that technological innovations consciously encode racism, but rather that information responds to racial justice in many registers. McPherson encourages scholars to educate themselves on the machines and networks that shape our lives, and to acknowledge the role of computers as coders of culture.

Φ ¤ Morrison, Aimée. 2018. “Of, By, and For the Internet: New Media Studies and Public Scholarship.” In The Routledge Companion to Media Studies and Digital Humanities, edited by Jentery Sayers, 56–66. New York: Routledge. (Φ Forms of Connection and Collaboration in Digital Knowledge Commons > Community Engagement)

Φ Okune, Angela, Rebecca Hillyer, Leslie Chan, Denisse Albornoz, and Alejandro Posada. 2019. “Whose Infrastructure? Towards Inclusive and Collaborative Knowledge Infrastructures in Open Science.” In Connecting the Knowledge Commons—From Projects to Sustainable Infrastructure: The 22nd International Conference on Electronic Publishing—Revised Selected Papers, edited by Leslie Chan and Pierre Mounier. Marseille: OpenEdition Press. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.oep.9050 (Φ Forms of Connection and Collaboration in Digital Knowledge Commons > Open Social Scholarship and Social Knowledge Creation)

Ethical and Responsible Data Management

+ Akers, Katherine G., and Jennifer Doty. 2013. “Disciplinary Differences in Faculty Research Data Management Practices and Perspectives.” International Journal of Digital Curation 8 (2): 5–26.

Akers and Doty conduct a survey on disciplinary differences in faculty research data management practices and perspectives. The authors divide faculty members into four broad research domains: arts and humanities, social sciences, medical sciences, and basic sciences. The percentages of faculty per area are considered, as well as attitudes toward open access data and familiarity with basic terms of data management. The survey also seeks to understand faculty attitudes toward digital documentation and preservation. Both authors worked to create Shibboleth authentication access for Emory University researchers to the DMPTool that walks researchers through the creation of data management plans for grant proposals. The authors also point out that OpenEmory, the current institutional repository, does not warrant further research data development and that more effort could be focused on facilitating the deposit of data in disciplinary repositories or setting up instances of the Dataverse Network. Serious consideration of both similarities and dissimilarities among disciplines can guide academic librarians in the development of a range of data management-related services.

+ Fear, Kathleen. 2011. “‘You Made It, You Take Care of It’: Data Management as Personal Information Management.” International Journal of Digital Curation 6 (2): 53–77.

Fear’s article explores data management at the University of Michigan, investigates the factors that have shaped the practices of researchers, and seeks to understand the motives for extending or inhibiting changes in data management practices. She argues that institutions should have an interest in protecting the data of their researchers. For Fear, improving infrastructure for data sharing and accessibility is one way of improving data management standards. She conducts a survey with questions such as whether the researcher believes data to be personal information, how researchers manage their data over the short term, what kind of data management plans are provided when researchers apply for funding, what are the methods for preserving data over the long term, and the extent of their general familiarity with the basics of data management. The study concludes with the observation that data management is part of a continuum of processes that tend to blur together as researchers move from document to document. According to Fear, researchers regard separating data management from other research activities as confusing and counterproductive.

Φ ▲ Fortney, Katie, and Justin Gonder. 2015. “A Social Networking Site Is Not an Open Access Repository.” In Really, We're Helping To Build This . . . Business: The Academia.edu Files. Liquid Books. http://liquidbooks.pbworks.com/w/page/106236504/The%20Academia_edu%20Files (Φ Knowledge Commons as Sites of Connection > (Academic) Social Networking Sites as Knowledge Commons)

Φ Gold, Matthew. 2021. “Beyond Friending: BuddyPress and the Social, Networked, Open-Source Classroom.” In CUNY Academic Works. Publications and Research, CUNY Graduate Center. https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_pubs/291 (Φ Forms of Connection and Collaboration in Digital Knowledge Commons > Community Engagement)

Φ ▲ Hall, Gary. 2015. “What Does Academia.edu’s Success Mean for Open Access?” In Really, We're Helping To Build This . . . Business: The Academia.edu Files. Liquid Books. http://liquidbooks.pbworks.com/w/page/106236504/The%20Academia_edu%20Files (Φ Knowledge Commons as Sites of Connection > (Academic) Social Networking Sites as Knowledge Commons)

+ Henty, Margaret, Belinda Weaver, Simon Bradbury, and Simon Porter. 2008. “Investigating Data Management Practices in Australian Universities.” APSR. http://eprints.qut.edu.au/14549/1/14549.pdf

Henty, Weaver, Bradbury, and Porter conduct a survey on changing expectations for the provision of data management infrastructure in Australian universities. Most of the respondents are academic staff, with significant postgraduate student participation and a low response rate from emeritus or adjunct professors. The questions asked of respondents are oriented toward researcher awareness of digital data, the types of digital data collected, the sizes of the data selections, the software used for analysis and manipulation of digital assets, and research data management plans. The questions also concern institutional responsibility and structure for data management, such as whether researchers outside the team are allowed to access shared research data, and how the data is accessed and used. Henty et al. compile data from the Queensland University of Technology, the University of Melbourne, and the University of Queensland.

Φ Joranson, Kate. 2008. “Indigenous Knowledge and the Knowledge Commons.” International Information & Library Review 40 (1): 64–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572317.2008.10762763 (Φ Knowledge Commons as Sites of Connection > Historical and Theoretical Approaches to Knowledge Commons)

+ Krier, Laura, and Carly A. Strasser. 2013. Data Management for Libraries: A Lita Guide. Chicago: ALA TechSource.

Krier and Strasser’s guide to data management for libraries is intended for libraries that are in the early stages of initializing data management programs at their institutions. The opening chapters provide definitions of data management, different types of research data, curation, and lifecycle. The guide contains advice on how to start a new service and point-form questions to help the reader decide what kind of plan works best for their institution. The authors suggest identifying researchers who are receptive to working with the library and request assistance with data management plans or curation services. An overview of descriptive, administrative, and structural metadata is provided, along with an explanation of its role in data management. The differences between storage, preservation, and archiving are discussed, along with definitions of domains and institutional repositories. The authors then briefly describe the preservation process. The final chapters loosely cover access and data governance issues that have caused problems with data management in the past.

Local Contexts. n.d. “TK Labels.” Local Contexts. Accessed July 25, 2021. https://localcontexts.org/labels/traditional-knowledge-labels/

An initiative of the Local Contexts project, TK Labels are intended to provide Indigenous communities control over how traditional Indigenous knowledge is used and shared with others. The TK labels, which account for a wide range of factors relevant to the responsible transmission of culturally sensitive materials (such as provenance, cultural protocols, and permissions), were developed in partnership with Indigenous communities; they can be used for knowledge or data shared through digital repositories, digital exhibits, websites, and more.

Research Data Alliance International Indigenous Data Sovereignty Interest Group. 2019. “CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance.” The Global Indigenous Data Alliance. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5d3799de845604000199cd24/t/5da9f4479ecab221ce848fb2/1571419335217/CARE+Principles_One+Pagers+FINAL_Oct_17_2019.pdf

The Research Data Alliance International Indigenous Data Sovereignty Interest Group outlines four principles—Collective Benefit, Authority to Control, Responsibility, and Ethics (CARE)—intended to promote and foster Indigenous data sovereignty. This document was developed in part because, as it observes, other data guidelines and initiatives may have improved data sharing in recent years, but they have not adequately taken into account the rights and particular data needs of Indigenous Peoples; the CARE Principles, by contrast, emphasize the key roles data and ethical data stewardship play in empowering, protecting, and contributing to the well-being of Indigenous communities. The document’s sub-sections provide detailed descriptions of the four principles as well as specific, actionable recommendations for anyone working with Indigenous data.

+ Research Data Canada. 2013. “Research Data Canada Response to Capitalizing on Big Data: Towards a Policy Framework for Advancing Digital Scholarship in Canada.” https://web.archive.org/web/20170625134112/http://www.rdc-drc.ca/wp-content/uploads/Research-Data-Canada-Response-to-the-Tri-Council-Consultation-on-Digital-Scholarship.pdf

Research Data Canada looks at foundational elements for scholarship in Canada: stewardship, coordination of stakeholder engagement, and development of capacity and future funding parameters. The document emphasizes the importance of coordination and the need for it to have clear guidelines and policies in order to achieve exemplary digital scholarship in Canada. The authors suggest that addressing the four following areas would strengthen the paper: long-term data curation, development of data professionals, data generated by government-based research and private research data, and engagement with the international data community. The authors conclude by committing to full engagement in the ongoing discussion on behalf of Research Data Canada.

+ Romary, Laurent. 2012. “Data Management in the Humanities.” ERCIM News (April). https://ercim-news.ercim.eu/images/stories/EN89/EN89-web.pdf

Romary describes several data management tools in the humanities. The first tool described is HAL, a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposition and circulation of scientific research documents, regardless of publication status. The author then shifts focus to the Digital Research Infrastructure for the Arts and Humanities (DARIAH) project, which aims to create a solid infrastructure to ensure the long-term stability of digital assets and the development of wide range services for the original tools. This project depends on the notion of digital surrogates, which can be metadata records, scanned images, digital photographs, or any kind of extract or transformation of existing data. A unified data landscape for humanities research would stabilize the experience of researchers in circulating their data. Laurent suggests that an adequate licensing policy must be defined to assert the legal conditions under which data assets can be disseminated and researchers involved with initiatives such as the Digital Research Infrastructure for the Arts and Humanities project need to converse with data providers on how to create a seamless data landscape.

+ Wilson, James A. J., Luis Martinez-Uribe, Michael A. Frazer, and Paul Jeffreys. 2011. “An Institutional Approach to Developing Research Data Management Infrastructure.” International Journal of Digital Curation 6 (2): 274–87. http://ijdc.net/index.php/ijdc/article/view/198

Wilson, Martinez-Uribe, Frazer, and Jeffreys suggest that the University of Oxford needs to develop a centralized institutional platform for managing data through all stages of their life cycle that mirrors the framework of the institution in its highly federated structure. The Bodleian Libraries are currently developing a data repository system (Databank) that promises metadata management and resource discovery services. Researchers are given the role of guiding and validating each strand of data development as projects progress. Institutional data management is favoured over the establishment of national repositories. The authors conclude with the suggestion that data management might be better placed in, or integrated with, cloud-based services that are implemented in institutions but do not belong to them.

Relevant Licenses, Policies, and Guidelines

+ African Copyright & Access to Knowledge Project. 2016. “African Copyright & Access to Knowledge Project.” https://www.idrc.ca/en/project/african-copyright-and-access-knowledge-network-aca2k. Archived at https://perma.cc/V5FX-SHXY

The African Copyright & Access to Knowledge Project, active from 2007 to 2011, was committed to investigating the relationship between African national copyright environments and access to learning materials. The African Copyright & Access to Knowledge Project probed this relationship within the context of A2K: a framework that protects user access to knowledge. The project conducted five environmental scans of copyright contexts across African nations and used the collected data to draft country reports, a comparative review, and executive policy briefs.

Φ ¤ Ahmed, Allam. 2007. “Open Access Towards Bridging the Digital Divide—Policies and Strategies for Developing Countries.” Information Technology for Development 13 (4): 337–61. (Φ Forms of Connection and Collaboration in Digital Knowledge Commons > Open Social Scholarship and Social Knowledge Creation)

+ Asmah, Josephine. 2014. “International Policy and Practice on Open Access for Monographs.” Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences. http://www.ideas-idees.ca/sites/default/files/aspp-oa-appendix.pdf

Asmah presents an overview of international open access policies and practices. The objective of this report is to inform the Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences to what extent international government policies address open access, especially in terms of open access monographs. Asmah begins with a history of the Open Access movement and a summary of the importance of open access ideologies. She conducts a survey of open access policies across global markets and gives a brief but detailed summary on how various countries handle open access issues (including Austria, the United Kingdom, Australia, Belgium, France, the United States, Japan, and South Africa). These countries were chosen specifically to represent the organizations that Asmah considers to be the major global open access players. She concludes by suggesting a position for Canada in the Open Access movement.

Φ + Ayris, Paul, Erica McLaren, Martin Moyle, Catherine Sharp, and Lara Speicher. 2014. “Open Access in UCL: A New Paradigm for London’s Global University in Research Support.” Australian Academic & Research Libraries 45 (4): 282–95. (Φ Forms of Connection and Collaboration in Digital Knowledge Commons > Open Social Scholarship and Social Knowledge Creation)

Φ + Canadian Association of Research Libraries. n.d. “Open Access.” Canadian Association of Research Libraries (blog). Accessed February 22, 2017. http://www.carl-abrc.ca/advancing-research/scholarly-communication/open-access/ (Φ Forms of Connection and Collaboration in Digital Knowledge Commons > Open Social Scholarship and Social Knowledge Creation)

Φ Creative Commons. n.d. “When We Share, Everyone Wins.” Creative Commons. Accessed July 25, 2021. https://creativecommons.org/ (Φ Knowledge Commons as Sites of Connection > Noteworthy Examples of Digital Knowledge Commons)

+ Government of Canada, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. 2015. “Tri-Agency Open Access Policy on Publications.” Science and Technology for Canadians. http://www.science.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=F6765465-1

The Tri-Agency Open Access Policy on Publications provides a preamble in which the authors discuss the importance of agencies, such as the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), in advancing research. It highlights the role played by barrier-free access to research and knowledge, as well as how the Internet has contributed to open access, multi-disciplinary, and collaborative scholarship. The webpage contains the policy objective and statement, which addresses peer-reviewed journal publications (online repositories and journals) and publication-related research data. The authors also provide information about the implementation date and compliance with the policy, and a policy review. They conclude with links to additional information resources.

Φ Δ Green, Cable. 2017. “Open Licensing and Open Education Licensing Policy.” In Open: The Philosophy and Practices That Are Revolutionizing Education and Science, edited by Rajiv S. Jhangiani and Robert Biswas-Diener, 29–41. London: Ubiquity Press. (Φ Forms of Connection and Collaboration in Digital Knowledge Commons > Commons-based Approaches to Teaching and Research)

Φ + International Council for Science. 2015. “Open Data for a Big Data World.” https://council.science/publications/open-data-in-a-big-data-world/ (Φ Forms of Connection and Collaboration in Digital Knowledge Commons > Open Social Scholarship and Social Knowledge Creation)

Φ Local Contexts. n.d. “TK Labels.” Local Contexts. Accessed July 25, 2021. https://localcontexts.org/labels/traditional-knowledge-labels/ (Φ Maintaining Connections and Fostering Care in Digital Knowledge Commons > Ethical and Responsible Data Management)

¤ Morrison, Heather, Leslie Chan, Michael Geist, Stevan Harnad, Christian Vandendorpe, Olivier Charbonneau, Andrew Feenberg, et al. 2010. “Require Open Access to Results of Research Funded by Canadian Taxpayer.” http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/028.nsf/eng/00352.html

Morrison, Chan, Charbonneau, Feenberg, Geist, Harnad, Mitchell, Ouellette, Smith, Taylor, Trosow, Vandendorpe, and Waller recommend that the Canadian government adopt a policy that requires open access to research output in Canada. They argue that a coordinated approach to open access would lead to widespread knowledge transfer across sectors. The primary goal of this report is to suggest that all funded research should be required to be deposited in institutional repositories—a common recommendation from open access advocates due to the opportunities that a network of repositories might offer, including global interconnectivity and freedom from corporate control. Morrison et al. outline five key points in their recommendation: fairness (taxpayers have a right to read the research they fund); international ranking (other countries’ open access positions are more developed than Canada’s); ease of implementation (many open access repositories are available already); scholarly interest (Canadian open access initiatives already exist); and global citizenship (the state of academic publishing in Canada requires evolution in order to compete and contribute internationally). Overall, the authors emphasize the necessity of mandating open access instead of merely encouraging or requesting it.

Φ Research Data Alliance International Indigenous Data Sovereignty Interest Group. 2019. “CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance.” The Global Indigenous Data Alliance. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5d3799de845604000199cd24/t/5da9f4479ecab221ce848fb2/1571419335217/CARE+Principles_One+Pagers+FINAL_Oct_17_2019.pdf (Φ Maintaining Connections and Fostering Care in Digital Knowledge Commons > Ethical and Responsible Data Management)

¤ Shearer, Kathleen. 2011. “Comprehensive Brief on Open Access to Publications and Research Data for the Federal Granting Agencies.” Ottawa: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. https://policycommons.net/artifacts/1229984/comprehensive-brief-on-open-access-to-publications-and-research-data-for-the-federal-granting-agencies/1783057/

Shearer reviews what other nations with similar economic conditions to Canada are doing to support open access. In particular, she looks at Australia, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States (although she also considers pan-European activities at times). According to Shearer, the United Kingdom has dedicated the most resources to this area and is well on its way to building a robust open access infrastructure. By contrast, Canada has expressed goodwill in this area but lacks tangible, coordinated, national policy, legislation, or infrastructure. Overall, Shearer cites the economic possibilities of open access, as well as the progressive policies and supportive activities of other countries and the importance of informed consumers alongside informed citizens.

Δ Wilkinson, Mark D., Michel Dumontier, IJsbrand Jan Aalbersberg, Gabrielle Appleton, Myles Axton, Arie Baak, Niklas Blomberg, et al. 2016. “The FAIR Guiding Principles for Scientific Data Management and Stewardship.” Scientific Data 3 (1): 160018. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18

Wilkinson et al. provide context and history for the development of the Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable (FAIR) principles for data management. According to Wilkinson et al., the now well-known principles were originally developed at a 2014 workshop in the Netherlands called “Jointly Designing a Data Fairport.” Building on this workshop members of the Future of Research Communications and e-Scholarship (FORCE 11) community established a dedicated FAIR working group that nuanced and improved the principles. The authors argue that these principles will improve the quality and usability of research, especially research that includes large data sets.