{"id":96,"date":"2026-01-06T17:07:50","date_gmt":"2026-01-06T22:07:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/openscholarship\/chapter\/open-for-whom\/"},"modified":"2026-02-12T14:54:39","modified_gmt":"2026-02-12T19:54:39","slug":"open-for-whom","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/openscholarship\/chapter\/open-for-whom\/","title":{"raw":"Open for Whom?","rendered":"Open for Whom?"},"content":{"raw":"
\u201cSomething has gone wrong along the road to achieving complete open access in scholarly publishing, and the stakes have changed. Thirty years ago, there was a problem with access to information. Today, we have a problem with who controls publishing and moreover, with the control and governance of the whole range of scientific process and output. Former inequalities remain. New inequalities are emerging. Is open access the beginning of a new and more egalitarian episode of scientific communication? Or is it just another Trojan horse, allowing private companies to extend their control of the Big Data now generated by science?\u201d[footnote]Herb, U., & Sch\u00f6pfel, J. (2018). Open divide emerges as open access unfolds<\/em>. In U. Sch\u00f6pfel & U. Herb (Eds.), Open Divide? Critical Studies on Open Access<\/em> (pp.\u202f7\u201313). Litwin Books. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.5281\/zenodo.1206390<\/a>[\/footnote]<\/blockquote>\r\nIt would be misguided to end of the Open Access chapters without addressing some of the limitations of open access (OA). In recent years, critical responses to OA have increased and many supporters have grown disillusioned with the co-opting of OA by commercial publishers and the movement\u2019s inability to address and correct larger inequities that exist within the academic publishing ecosystem.\r\n

Decolonizing Open<\/h2>\r\n[embed]https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/VrBN8_IGuuw[\/embed]\r\n

Open Dialogues: Daniel Heath Justice<\/a>, Centre for Teaching, Learning and Technology, University of British Columbia.<\/sup><\/p>\r\nWith the rise of gold pay to play OA models, [pb_glossary id=\"303\"]Global North[\/pb_glossary] countries with robust funding models have a greater ability to contribute to the open dissemination of literature. On the flip side, researchers from the [pb_glossary id=\"302\"]Global South[\/pb_glossary] are not be able to participate in OA to the same degree, resulting in the inability of their research to have the same global impact.\r\n\r\nThere has also been growing awareness around the complexities of imposing OA on the knowledge of indigenous peoples and marginalized groups. [pb_glossary id=\"301\"]Colonizer [\/pb_glossary]cultures have a well established history of appropriating the cultural artifacts, practices and information of colonized peoples and it is imperative that OA principles recognize this practice of extraction and avoid recreating it within the discourse of open.\r\n\r\nIn a recent\u00a0report on open science<\/a> prepared for the Canadian Commission for UNESCO, the authors highlight the imperative to decolonize OA, not only as a moral imperative, but for the betterment of science:\r\n

\u201cDebates and policy recommendations from Global North institutions on Open Science and open access usually deal with access to and dissemination of research outputs (still largely in journals and books). Promotion of these policies has tended to focus on the benefits, such as increased visibility and citations, paying little attention to the burden and the risks\u2014particularly for knowledge-holding communities on the margins or scholars from the Global South\u2026In this context, open access tends to reinforce the hegemony of science done and published in the Global North at the expense of local knowledge, seldom in open access. This reduces intellectual diversity and contributes to the homogenization of science and creativity.\u201d[footnote]Chan, L., Hall, B., Piron, F., Tandon, R., & Williams, W.\u202fL. (2020). Open science beyond open access: For and with communities \u2014 A step towards the decolonization of knowledge (Report prepared for the Canadian Commission for UNESCO). Ottawa, Canada. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.5281\/zenodo.3946773[\/footnote]\r\n

<\/p>\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n

\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
\r\n
Case Study \u2013 Digitizing African Cultural Heritage<\/h5>\r\nA\u00a02018 study<\/a> commissioned by the French Government outlined a possible path towards restitution of African cultural heritage obtained by the French state during its colonial expansion. One recommendation put forward by the study was to digitize and make available as OA resources all cultural works that would be returning to their respective African home nations. Critics of the report challenged this recommendation, arguing that digitizing the artifacts would:\r\n
    \r\n \t
  • Risk placing the French government in a position of returning Africa\u2019s material cultural heritage while retaining control over the generation, presentation, and stewardship of Africa\u2019s digital cultural heritage for decades to come.<\/li>\r\n \t
  • Create a double standard by requiring African cultural heritage to be digitized and made available when the same demands are not made of its own national institutions.<\/li>\r\n \t
  • Prevent African communities from enjoying full autonomy in devising any access strategies for restituted material and digital cultural heritage.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\nIn your opinion, what obligations should holders of appropriated cultural heritage have to the cultures and peoples that the works belong to? Is the responsibility to make culture and history widely available greater than that of restitution?<\/td>\r\n
\"\"<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<\/tbody>\r\n<\/table>\r\n<\/div>\r\n

Learn more<\/h2>\r\nBecause the chapters in this book are meant to serve as brief introductions to the topics presented, there isn\u2019t space to discuss critiques of open access in sufficient depth. Although not required,\u00a0 you are encouraged read the resources in the Dig Deeper<\/em> section before moving on.\r\n
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
\r\n
Dig Deeper<\/h5>\r\nTo learn more about critical responses to OA, review:\r\n\r\nChan, Leslie. (2017).\u00a0Confessions of an Open Access Advocate<\/a>. Licensed under\u00a0CC BY-SA<\/a>.\r\n\r\nUlrich, Herb. (2018).\u00a0Open Access and Symbolic Gift Giving<\/a>. Licensed under\u00a0CC BY-NC<\/a>.\r\n\r\nTurin, Mark. (2019).\u00a0Ownership, Control, Access & Possession in Open Access Humanities Publishing<\/a>. Licensed under\u00a0CC BY<\/a>.\r\n\r\nPavis, Mathilde and Andrea Wallace. (2019).\u00a0Response to the 2018 Sarr-Savoy Report: Statement on Intellectual Property Rights and Open Access Relevant to the Digitization and Restitution of African Cultural Heritage and Associated Materials<\/a>\u00a0Licensed under\u00a0CC BY<\/a>.<\/td>\r\n
\"\"<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<\/tbody>\r\n<\/table>\r\n<\/div>\r\n ","rendered":"

\u201cSomething has gone wrong along the road to achieving complete open access in scholarly publishing, and the stakes have changed. Thirty years ago, there was a problem with access to information. Today, we have a problem with who controls publishing and moreover, with the control and governance of the whole range of scientific process and output. Former inequalities remain. New inequalities are emerging. Is open access the beginning of a new and more egalitarian episode of scientific communication? Or is it just another Trojan horse, allowing private companies to extend their control of the Big Data now generated by science?\u201d[1]<\/sup><\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It would be misguided to end of the Open Access chapters without addressing some of the limitations of open access (OA). In recent years, critical responses to OA have increased and many supporters have grown disillusioned with the co-opting of OA by commercial publishers and the movement\u2019s inability to address and correct larger inequities that exist within the academic publishing ecosystem.<\/p>\n

Decolonizing Open<\/h2>\n