Beyond imposter syndrome: supporting academics through Open Access publishing
Want to hear a really important idea for the 21st century? Published research that is ‘Open Access’ can be accessed by anyone at all. Goodbye ivory tower! Open Access to research could mean, for example, that best practice solutions to problems can be shared in detail, without cost, with those who can then put this new knowledge into practice, anywhere in the world.
As you’d expect, Open Access articles are read in greater numbers, and receive higher ‘Altmetric’ (online mentions) scores. They’re also cited more often too.
Higher citation numbers aren’t just useful in terms of sharing new knowledge that is (hopefully) for the good of humanity, though. More citations can also be good personally for the individual researcher whose work is being cited. Being highly cited is one dimension that can lead to an academic being hired or promoted. So, more easily accessible research equals more readers of that research, which equals more citations, which equals career benefits for the researcher. Good for knowledge, good for academics, yes?
It’s a little more complicated though…
In a previous blog in this series, Padma highlighted how Open Access teaching can make people with ‘imposter syndrome’ feel especially vulnerable. Relatedly, Dr Sarah Kneen discussed how publishing Open Access research can influence staff wellbeing negatively, through the extra time demands involved in publishing Open Access, the potential unpredictability around whether a piece will actually be published, and again the influence of imposter syndrome.
If imposter syndrome is the feeling that you don’t quite belong, then the logical solution is to alleviate senses of inadequacy. As Dr Andy Molinsky helpfully suggests, “the next time you feel inadequate in a particular domain, remember that as an outsider to the role in question, you might have the most critical perspective of all.”
But what if reluctance to engage in Open Access due to a sense of not belonging is more than a confidence issue? What if certain people are more likely to be challenged, or even attacked, if they seek to share their views openly? We can’t assume that ‘the most critical perspective of all’ will be welcomed by every listener.
It’s here that I’d like to bring in structural inequality, i.e. how unjust societal patterns stymy certain groups of people, such as People of Colour, women, LGBTQ individuals, disabled scholars and/or those with lower incomes. For example, regarding the final inequality in that list, access to funding can be necessary to publish Open Access, thus “establishing and entrenching a two-tier system of scholarly publishing based on access to funds.” So, if it costs money to publish Open Access in many journals, economic inequality is a clear obstacle for those who have decided to publishing Openly. How about the impacts of structural inequality on simply deciding whether or not to do so in the first place?
Take for example, the experiences of being a ‘public intellectual’ for Professor Mary Beard, based at the University of Cambridge. Professor Beard has suggested that the torrents of online abuse she has experienced would “put many women off appearing in public.”
Or, as another example, Professor Priyamvada Gopal, also of the University of Cambridge, has “got a lot of hate mail both online and in hard copy” after speaking publicly about racist profiling.
These examples didn’t arise as a reaction to the academics publishing Open Access. But they do reflect why many colleagues may feel reluctant to make their research more Open, beyond a potentially misplaced sense of not belonging.
In short, a sense of vulnerability towards Open Access publishing may arise from more than imposter syndrome. Instead, this insecurity may be underpinned by a realistic fear that those who do not possess privileged social characteristics, such as being straight, white or male — all of which I hold — will be subject to greater scrutiny, or even attack, in the event that a piece of research garners traction. After all, many academics’ email addresses are publicly available.
Let’s add an extra dimension to our discussion of structural inequality. Not all subjects can be expected to be treated equally in the public domain, either. In the US in 2021, over a dozen states banned the teaching of ‘critical race theory’ in schools, while in 2018, the Hungarian government withdrew accreditation for gender studies programmes. If a scholar is researching a topic that is in the public eye and critiques existing power structures — and particularly if they personally lack privileged signifiers around their race, sex or ethnicity — they may expect a very different public reaction to their research than someone with social privilege on their side, who is sharing findings on an issue that lacks controversy.
Supporting academics through Open Access publishing
So we have a challenge on our hands. Open Access knowledge can be a powerful force for good regarding urgent challenges facing humanity, and it can be rewarding for the recipient of the new knowledge, and for the creator of that knowledge. But Open Access can also elevate a perception — or even reality — of vulnerability, especially for those from ‘non-traditional’ university backgrounds, and/or those working on sensitive issues. If such scholars are less inclined to share their research in the public arena, then it won’t just be society that misses important new insights, but the scholars themselves could miss the personal benefits of publishing Open Access research, worsening already-existing levels of inequality in Higher Education.
With this context in mind, the solutions and advice offered to academics who wish to share their important research as widely as possible through Open Access need to do more than build a sense of adequacy in the face of imposter syndrome. We also need to support academics against the unequally distributed downsides of engaging in Open Access research, and talking about the structural, and subject-specific differences, that mean not everyone will receive the same reaction.
