Standing upon the shoulders of giants.
Newton’s comment in a letter to his contemporary and rival Hooke in 1676 is arguably the most familiar expression of this metaphor. He was not the first nor the last scholar make the shrewd observation that intellectual progress only proceeds through building on previous discoveries. Arguably, therefore the concept of open knowledge is intrinsic to and open practise implicit within all academic endeavour, indeed essential to its success. This short piece will examine why Open Knowledge in research appears to be a divisive notion, what is it about Open Practise in Higher Education in particular which is so provocative?
Too many stars and not enough sky
In my professional life I work with researchers and help them to define and realise their research needs. Many of the researchers I encounter would instinctively consider themselves to be liberal and open in their academic practise. They would argue that they discuss and debate their ideas freely in conferences and symposiums; they collaborate, create online databases and Githubs and they take part in peer-reviewing papers. What they fail to appreciate is that this openness only extends to well-defined micro communities. Where entry requires an “ac.uk” email address, and an introduction or referral from someone who is already “in”. It is my observation that within Higher Education blocks to openness in research are not currently based in technology or understanding but lie in the behaviours and perceptions within and between groups of individuals. Within research social networks exist and these assist openness but also they define sets or tribes as groups compete over funding and esteem. Traditional conferences are an excellent example of this, within the boundaries of the conference setting it is very open but only for those who are able to attend.
This relates to the notion of academic prestige where researchers have to prove their merit in an increasingly competitive environment, within research there are truly too many stars and not enough sky. Those who have “made it” defend their ground like a mother bear protecting her cubs, in the guise of career advancement. This is exacerbated by some university libraries who are perpetuating the monopoly of publishing houses, by citing concerns for early career academics and the need to maintain quality and integrity. For the last decade paywalls of publishing houses have been seen as a necessary evil to ensure quality of the editing process and the maintenance of the online platform from which to access the ever increasing database of articles. It turns out that they all use the same database. This leads onto an interesting conundrum; scientific papers are authored and reviewed for free and 85% of all papers published in subscription journals use the same free online repository, Sci-Hub. If one were to go direct to source the same content produced for free can be accessible for free but then is this technically piracy? Who can tell?
Nature versus nurture
Higher Education is a complex ecosystem containing many dualities. Most of these are subtle and exist in an uneasy alliance but arguably in the current political climate in the UK of tuition fees the most prominent is the tension between teaching and research. When considering Open Practise researchers are caught between the metaphorical rock and hard place. If at tertiary education research is to inform teaching and teaching is to reflect on research, this will require constant revision and refreshment of content. Then in order to make content open it will require curation after production. With many researchers having neither the time nor inclination to take responsibility for this perpetually time consuming task, claiming it is for no apparent benefit. Yet their academic productivity is measured against a variety of metrics, with impact factors being only one. With research councils are stipulating that all funded research be made open access, this leads on to one of the most pervasive and restrictive dualities within Higher Education: the current REF system. Whether intentional or not, one of the net effects of REF is that it hinders Open Practise; for the purposes of REF returns universities “own” the research where it was conducted, even if the individuals have moved to another institution.
It is also quite remarkable, that there is little institutional oversight on the origin of funding sources but they should be more cautious. One study found that among 127 academic institutions in the United States, 35% of did not think it was necessary for the institution to review agreements with industrial sponsors. When consulting agreements were reviewed only 19% looked for inappropriate confidentiality provisions, such as prohibiting communication about any aspect of the funded work and most identified institutional risks from consulting relationships but few had power to prevent them. Regardless of Open Practise in research, the right to publish is a mainstay of academic freedom, making it remarkable how widespread this dissidence has become in order to secure research funding. The impact of this practise is insidious and far reaching; early career researchers are particularly vulnerable to publication restrictions when companies fund their research and prohibit publication.
Transparency and mobility
If innovation can be understood as both a response to change and our ability to integrate information from different sources, then within the context of Higher Education, the definition of openness becomes clear. It requires both an awareness of the availability of knowledge and flexibility in individual behaviour. Within Higher Education, however, researchers are given a lot of freedom but no real flexibility. Researchers current perceptions revolve around prestige, where most either through inclination or encouragement by their peers pigeon-hole themselves with a very specific focus. Their version of open practise tends to be restricted by others within their own research area, which in turn is very closely linked the current behaviours where researchers will only engage with others within Higher Education. We need to break this cycle, encourage behaviours which allows speeds of transactions to increase and facilitates the flow of information. Jerome Engle believes this is key to increased collaboration, coining the term “cluster of innovation”, to create a feedback loop where acceleration of communication is increased, the exchange of ideas occurs more easily which increases interaction and therefore innovation. In turn this may help universities with their ongoing identify crisis.
There are no quick fixes but universities need to do more to protect both academic freedom and their main asset, those who choose to work in HE. They in turn will require a level of institutional autonomy, and perhaps if they were able to stop competing against each other, institutions could dedicate more time to protecting their own researchers. Universities will need to be cognisant of and have confidence in the value they bring these interactions; especially when research is supported by industry. Communities are useful for setting boundaries, particularly when working on a particular project or problem, but for real scientific innovation there is a trade-off between efficiency and open chaos. I believe that the Higher Education sector needs to get better at not only walking this line but doing it with confidence and flair. A first step towards a solution in my opinion lies with researchers being able to engage with others outside of Higher Education, but to be able to do so with a support network to help them navigate these unfamiliar waters. There are some trailblazers who have already taken this path, but this approach should be normalised.
