从“补丁背书”到有意倡导:解构开放获取语言中的偏见

Lauren B. Collister, Melissa H. Cantrell
{"title":"从“补丁背书”到有意倡导:解构开放获取语言中的偏见","authors":"Lauren B. Collister, Melissa H. Cantrell","doi":"10.7710/2162-3309.2395","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper argues that linguistic features common in discourse around Open Access Publishing are socially constructed in ways that lend themselves to implicit bias against the Open Access (OA) movement. These biases materialize through common linguistic practices such as de-centering OA and highlighting the uncertainty of OA Publishing, resulting in “patchy endorsements” of the status quo of Subscription Publishing. Following previous research that demonstrates how educational content on OA can lead to cognitive load and biases that reinforce the status quo in scholarly publishing, we analyze publicly available, online content from our own institutions with an eye towards how these biases manifest specifically in the practice of librarianship. Using examples from this analysis, we suggest strategies and intentional language that can be used by librarians and other OA advocates to counteract bias and shift towards a construction of OA Publishing as the status quo. While many strategies and difficult negotiations are needed to functionally establish OA as the default in scholarly publishing, language choice is a device through which advocates at any level can advance towards an open-centered culture.","PeriodicalId":91322,"journal":{"name":"Journal of librarianship and scholarly communication","volume":"9 1","pages":"2395"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"From “Patchy Endorsements” to Intentional Advocacy: Deconstructing Bias in the Language of Open Access\",\"authors\":\"Lauren B. Collister, Melissa H. Cantrell\",\"doi\":\"10.7710/2162-3309.2395\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper argues that linguistic features common in discourse around Open Access Publishing are socially constructed in ways that lend themselves to implicit bias against the Open Access (OA) movement. These biases materialize through common linguistic practices such as de-centering OA and highlighting the uncertainty of OA Publishing, resulting in “patchy endorsements” of the status quo of Subscription Publishing. Following previous research that demonstrates how educational content on OA can lead to cognitive load and biases that reinforce the status quo in scholarly publishing, we analyze publicly available, online content from our own institutions with an eye towards how these biases manifest specifically in the practice of librarianship. Using examples from this analysis, we suggest strategies and intentional language that can be used by librarians and other OA advocates to counteract bias and shift towards a construction of OA Publishing as the status quo. While many strategies and difficult negotiations are needed to functionally establish OA as the default in scholarly publishing, language choice is a device through which advocates at any level can advance towards an open-centered culture.\",\"PeriodicalId\":91322,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of librarianship and scholarly communication\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"2395\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-02-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of librarianship and scholarly communication\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2395\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of librarianship and scholarly communication","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2395","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文认为,围绕开放获取出版的话语中常见的语言特征是社会建构的,其方式有助于对开放获取运动产生隐性偏见。这些偏见是通过常见的语言实践实现的,例如去中心化OA和突出OA出版的不确定性,导致对订阅出版现状的“零星认可”。之前的研究表明,OA上的教育内容会导致认知负荷和偏见,从而强化学术出版的现状。在此之后,我们分析了我们自己机构的公开在线内容,着眼于这些偏见如何在图书馆工作实践中具体表现出来。利用这一分析的例子,我们提出了图书馆员和其他OA倡导者可以使用的策略和有意的语言,以抵消偏见,并将OA出版的建设转变为现状。虽然需要许多策略和艰难的谈判才能在功能上将OA确立为学术出版的默认模式,但语言选择是任何级别的倡导者都可以向以开放为中心的文化迈进的一种手段。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
From “Patchy Endorsements” to Intentional Advocacy: Deconstructing Bias in the Language of Open Access
This paper argues that linguistic features common in discourse around Open Access Publishing are socially constructed in ways that lend themselves to implicit bias against the Open Access (OA) movement. These biases materialize through common linguistic practices such as de-centering OA and highlighting the uncertainty of OA Publishing, resulting in “patchy endorsements” of the status quo of Subscription Publishing. Following previous research that demonstrates how educational content on OA can lead to cognitive load and biases that reinforce the status quo in scholarly publishing, we analyze publicly available, online content from our own institutions with an eye towards how these biases manifest specifically in the practice of librarianship. Using examples from this analysis, we suggest strategies and intentional language that can be used by librarians and other OA advocates to counteract bias and shift towards a construction of OA Publishing as the status quo. While many strategies and difficult negotiations are needed to functionally establish OA as the default in scholarly publishing, language choice is a device through which advocates at any level can advance towards an open-centered culture.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊最新文献
Book review: Open access in theory and practice: The theory-practice relationship and openness. Open Access with Chinese Characteristics: Understanding Recent History and Current Practice via Qualitative Interviews at a Large Chinese Research University Research Productivity among Scholarly Communication Librarians Increasing Access to Graduate Student Publishing Support: A Case Study of Reformatting the Publishing Academy Free and Open Source Automated Open Access Preprint Harvesting
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1